36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 172
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 2, 1999
1005
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Property Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Family
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health Care
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1010
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divorce Act
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Child Pornography
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1025
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1040
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1055
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1100
1105
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1110
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1125
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1140
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1155
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1210
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1215
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1220
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1225
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1240
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1255
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1300
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1305
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1320
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1335
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1340
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1345
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1350
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1355
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE FRANK LOW-BEER
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1400
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NORDICITY
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JOB CREATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE WIARTON WILLIE
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JOHN DAVIDSON
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1405
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEART MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Serré |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANNIE PERRAULT
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA JOBS FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
1410
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE ALAN JOHN SIMPSON
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE WIARTON WILLIE
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SONG FOR THE MILLENNIUM
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLAND
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1415
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1420
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1435
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1440
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BELL CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1445
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1450
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Y2K PROBLEM
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1455
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1500
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1505
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker: I refer the hon. member to 409 |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice Robert Flahiff
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Child Pornography
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1510
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1515
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1530
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1545
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1600
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1615
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1630
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Child Pornography
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1645
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1650
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1655
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1700
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1705
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1710
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1715
1745
(Division 309)
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
1750
1755
(Division 310)
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERS' BILL OF RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-302. Second reading
|
1800
1810
(Division 311)
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EQUAL TREATMENT FOR PERSONS COHABITING IN A
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-309. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1815
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1830
1835
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1840
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1845
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1850
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1855
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FINANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1900
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1905
1910
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1915
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1920
1925
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1930
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1935
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
1940
1945
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1950
1955
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
2000
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
2005
2010
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
2015
2020
2025
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
2030
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
2035
2040
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
2045
2050
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
2055
2100
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin |
2105
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
2110
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
2115
2120
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
2125
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
2130
2135
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
2140
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
2145
2150
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
2155
2200
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
2205
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
2210
2215
2220
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
2225
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
2230
2235
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
2240
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
2245
2250
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
2255
2300
2305
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
2310
2315
2320
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
2325
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
2330
2335
2340
2345
2350
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
2355
![V](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 172
![](/web/20061116180059im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 2, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon
the table the report of the parliamentary librarian for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 1998.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
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 20 petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I have the pleasure of
presenting this morning.
The first is 41 pages of petitions with the signatures of 923
concerned Canadians from Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, B.C. and my
home province of Saskatchewan. For those who are keeping track,
that is a total of 12,841 signatures of people who are demanding
better protection of property rights in federal law.
These concerned Canadians say that there are no provisions in
the charter of rights and freedoms that prevent the government
from taking their lawfully acquired and legally owned property
without compensation. The petitioners are most concerned that
there is nothing in the charter which restricts the government in
any way from passing laws which prohibit the ownership, use and
enjoyment of their private property or reduces the value of their
property.
The petitioners request parliament to support my private
member's bill which would strengthen the protection of property
rights in federal law by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights.
FAMILY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition I am pleased to present
contains the signatures of 289 concerned Canadians who are
calling on parliament to retain section 43 of the Criminal Code
which affirms the duty of parents to responsibly raise their
children according to their own conscience and beliefs.
The petitioners express concern that parliament continues to
fund research by people who advocate its removal. The
petitioners also feel that removing section 43 would give more
power to bureaucrats and weaken the role of parents. The
petitioners want parents to retain the primary right of raising
and disciplining their children.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am also pleased to present an important petition on
behalf of 216 residents of Kamsack, Saskatchewan who are
concerned that freedom of choice in health care is becoming
increasingly curtailed and threatened by government legislation.
The petitioners are calling for access to safe, natural health
care products free of government restriction and censure. The
petitioners want the definition of food to include dietary
supplements in foods used for special health uses and that
dietary supplements include tablets, capsules, powders and
liquids that contain any of these vitamins, minerals, amino
acids, herbs or other botanicals, concentrates or extracts. Only
foods that are proven to be unsafe or fraudulently promoted be
restricted and the burden of proof be on the government.
The petitioners want their concerns expressed that health
choices will be limited.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last two petitions are on behalf of 1,458 Canadians
from coast to coast who are concerned about the rights of the
unborn.
They request that parliament support a binding national
referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask
Canadians whether they are in favour of federal government
funding for abortions on demand.
1010
I have the privilege of presenting these names to be added to
the many thousands who have expressed their concerns not only for
the unborn but for the women who undergo medically unnecessary
abortions and expose themselves to the health risks inherent in
this procedure.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition from constituents concerned about
nuclear weapons in the world. They are no doubt pleased at the
modest progress this House has made in this regard.
The petitioners point out that the continued existence of over
30,000 nuclear weapons poses a threat to the very existence of
civilization and all humanities combined, hopes for ourselves and
our children. Canada although with the capacity to build nuclear
weapons has rejected that option and in so doing recognizes the
futility of nuclear weapons. They pray and petition that
parliament support the goal of abolition of nuclear weapons on
our earth by Canada advocating the immediate dealerting of all
nuclear devices and that Canada join the nations of the new
agenda coalition and advocate within NATO that nuclear weapons
have no militarily useful role and that additional financial
support be allocated to Russia to ensure the safe and secure
disarmament of its nuclear arsenal.
TAXATION
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition signed by a number of my
constituents. They basically say their taxes are too high and
pray that parliament reduce taxation, specially abolishing the
GST, no more taxes on taxes, and reduce all taxes by 20%.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
present a petition signed by many grandparents across the country
asking parliament to ask the government to amend the Divorce Act
to include the provision as supported in Bill C-340 regarding the
right of grandparent access to or custody of their grandchildren.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.) moved:
That the government should take
legislative measures to reinstate the law that was struck down by
a recent decision of the Court of British Columbia regarding the
possession of child pornography, even if that entails invoking
Section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (the Notwithstanding
Clause); and
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices
of this House, and with the consent of the House Leaders, when a
Minister of the Crown in proposing a motion for first reading of
a Bill, states that the Bill is in response to this resolution,
the second reading stage and subsequent stages of the Bill may be
considered in the same sitting, including Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House
that members of the Reform Party will be dividing their time
throughout today's debate.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this motion today strikes I believe at the very moral fibre of
this nation. I think we are trying to correct and at least get
politicians in the House of Commons to acknowledge their
responsibilities to uphold that moral fibre. That is what we
will be talking about all day.
Some of my colleagues will be talking about the legalistic terms
involved in this issue. Some of us will be bringing the issue
closer to home.
1015
I would ask that the government listen to the speeches that are
made on this issue today and act. That is what we are looking.
This motion is asking for immediate legislative measures; not
next year, not in six months, not action in courts, but immediate
legislative measures. We ask that we reinstate a law which
already existed that made it illegal to possess child
pornography. We are not recreating a law, we are really
establishing that moral fibre which already exists, even if that
entails invoking the notwithstanding aspect of our charter of
rights and freedoms and our whole Constitution.
One might ask why it is necessary that the Reform Party take a
day in the House of Commons to try to get a government which has
a full majority mandate in the country to do what is right in the
first place, what was already illegal in the country and to
correct what has been made wrong by the eyes of one court
session, one judge in the country. Why is it that the judiciary
and the legal industry are rewriting and seem to be even creating
the laws of our country within the courtrooms, and it is not done
here in the House of Commons?
I do not believe that parents or anybody in this country
understand what is going on. Have we completely in the House of
Commons vacated our responsibility as those who make laws? Have
we passed it over to the courtrooms? Is that what this all
about?
Most people in this country today feel that the laws are not
made in the House, but that they are made by people out there.
They are made by those who are getting paid to take sides on
issues, and that is incorrect. We have to re-establish tonight
at a vote in the House of Commons at 5:30 p.m. the authority of
the House of Commons. It is time for all of us to stand in the
House tonight to say that the possession of child pornography is
illegal.
One might think that this is the first time this has come up in
the country, but it is not. I have been speaking on this issue
for several years.
In February 1996 a Port Hardy, B.C. provincial court judge,
Brian Sanderson, gave 57 year old Vernon Logan an absolute
discharge. I spoke about that in the House some time ago. Even
though Logan pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, the
judge said “The law banning child pornography violates the
charter of rights because it is an infringement of one's freedom
of thought, belief or opinion as unfettered access to reading
materials necessary to exercise those freedoms”.
I do not understand how we have gone from this court case to yet
another court case and now, subsequent to the latest issue in a
courtroom in British Columbia, we have other courts saying that
the possession of child pornography looks like it is okay. “It
is legal today, so we will let that go”.
We have established an unprecedented criteria for the possession
and production of child pornography. A person cannot possess
child pornography unless it is produced. We must understand the
consequences of those decisions.
This is not a time for politicians to walk away from their
responsibility and once again ask the lawyers and judges of our
country to do the job that we do not have the courage to do. It
is time tonight to make that decision.
I think and I know that parents think this because our phones
have been ringing off the hook: People are concerned that we
condone something that is immoral.
It is against all family values of all types, all sorts. It is
something that cannot occur in this country.
1020
If people can believe this, after that decision was made several
pedophiles in the United States were communicating back and forth
on the Internet. One of the comments on the Internet was “I
would rather live in Canada than the United States and love
children”. That comment was between two pedophiles who were
talking to each other on the Internet. Is that what we want
Canada to be known as, a place where pedophiles can come and love
children and read pornography because it is legal? Is that what
the Liberal government wants for our country? I do not think so.
If it were only the Reform Party the government might say
“There they go again. We should liberalize our social fibre.
The Reform Party does not like it”. However, I happen to know
that the opposition parties are going to support the vote
tonight. I happen to have 63 names from the other side who have
asked the Prime Minister to petition to change the legislation
re-establishing that child pornography is illegal. One of those
members is the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam, who won a by-election and who also voted against his
constituency on the hepatitis C issue.
We will see tonight where individuals like that stand. Do they
stand for sending a letter quietly to the Prime Minister, saying
that he has to change the laws, but when they stand to be counted
on national television in front of everybody they will do what
they are told to do? This is not about whipping the machinery of
a political party into place, this is about standing up for the
moral fibre of our country.
Let me tell the House what some other people think. Here are
some quotes: “It is frustrating when you try to work in a
system that does not support what you are doing. It sends a
message to the kids that society thinks child pornography is
okay”. That came from Shana Chetner, youth counsellor at the
Greater Vancouver Mental Health Services. She is not a
politician, but somebody who works with people who have suffered
as a result activities that are supported by child pornography.
Detective Bob Matthews, head of the child porn unit of the
Ontario Provincial Police said “The law criminalizing possession
is crucial when it comes to finding child pornographers.
Removing that part of the law would be devastating to police.
That is what we use to get most search warrants, and the only way
we can search for evidence of selling and distributing”.
Matthews also said “I cannot get my mind around how someone can
say there is nothing wrong with the possession of child
pornography. It always looks different when it is somebody
else's child, but let a member of your family have that happen,
let it be your child who has been violated to the extreme,
knowing that some pedophile has been masturbating to a picture of
your son or daughter being violated to such an extent. Tell me
there is no harm in that”.
I speak as a son, a father and on behalf of all the citizens of
Langley—Abbotsford, British Columbia. I want to vote tonight on
this issue. Tomorrow I want legislation in the House expressly
forbidding the possession of child pornography. Why does this
government and all members not stand tonight to be accounted for?
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
know the member for Langley—Abbotsford has been an outspoken
critic of the judiciary when it seems to take leave of its senses
and bypasses what the expressed intent of parliament has been all
along, which was to pass a judgment on the rightness or wrongness
of the possession of child pornography.
In other words, parliament has stepped up to the batter's box and
said that it is wrong to possess child pornography. It is not
just the fact that a filthy magazine is in their hands, it is the
fact that children's lives have been ruined. People have been
devastated to the extreme in order to create the trash that the
pedophile is using. It is not just a matter of the magazine in
their hands, it is the people who have been abused in order to
get those sick photographs and information into those people's
hands.
1025
Parliament has wisely said that that will not be tolerated in
this country. Somebody has to step up to protect the kids. The
law of the land has to do it. That gives parents the backing
they need to say they are not going to take it and they are not
going to accept it because it is not in their frame of reference.
The member for Langley—Abbotsford has been critical in times
past about the judiciary. In a sense the judiciary uses its own
notwithstanding clause. It says that notwithstanding what
parliament has done it will interpret this as just an expression
of thought and will permit this stuff to be distributed. Once it
is distributed, once there is a market for it, and once it can be
disseminated to those sick people, then there is a market to
abuse children. It is an absolute licence to say “You get the
photos. I have the magazine to print them in and I can find
sickos, not just in Canada but around the world, who are eager to
snap this stuff up”.
I would like the member for Langley—Abbotsford to expand on the
role of the judiciary and, in a sense, the abuse that some of the
judiciary, not all, have taken up with this activist role.
This does not only apply to the judiciary, it also applies to
human rights commissioners, people who are unelected,
unaccountable, who are on a salary and who take a position
brought forward by an advocacy group and say “I will champion
this cause on your behalf”. It is not just the judges. The
commissioners and the tribunals in this country have said
“Parliament be damned. We will set the laws around here”.
I would like the member for Langley—Abbotsford to comment on
his experience in dealing with tribunals, commissions, judges and
other rulings that I think have mocked parliament and have
lowered the esteem of parliament. Increasingly Canadians are
asking “What is the point? That place is irrelevant because the
judges will do as they darn well please”. I would like the hon.
member to comment on his experience because I know he has done a
lot of work in that area.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, indeed I have spent a lot
of time in that area. I have spent a good deal of my political
time in courtrooms and in prisons attending parole board
hearings. Just last week I spent a whole day with a victim of
child sexual abuse. An individual got two years, if we can
believe it, for sexually abusing a young girl from the age of 10
through 18. I was in the room talking to her. This guy was
trying to get out early.
What I do not want to hear today or tonight is the justice
minister saying “Oh, we are going to look after it. We are
going to bring in a bunch of lawyers from the federal government
to intervene on an appeal court case which could last a year or
more”. Meanwhile, we still have the same problem out there and
we could still end up with the very same decision that was made
in British Columbia. That is the problem.
There should be no more legal industry involved in this. We in
this House have a responsibility and an obligation to the voters,
to everybody in Canada, to stand and say that child pornography
is illegal and that no other court case will overturn that
decision. That is the bottom line.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party today has presented parliament with
an opportunity. The motion we introduced today is a compelling
one.
It is a call for the reinstatement of the morals and values that
we hold dear. The motion is a clarion call for common sense, and
we emphasize the urgency of the situation.
1030
The B.C. supreme court decision that made possession of child
pornography no longer illegal was an affront to our sensitivities
and values. It was, as some characterized it, condoning child
abuse and manipulation of the innocent.
Even the Liberal Party talking points acknowledged that children
are the most vulnerable members of society. The notes go on to
say that the Liberal position is clear, and never more so than
against the exploitation inherent in the possession, production
and distribution of child pornography.
With this statement I know the Reform Party can count on our
Liberal colleagues to support our motion to reinstate the law
that was debased by Justice Shaw's decision, even if it entails
invoking section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which is
better known as the notwithstanding clause.
If the government truly believes what it put in its speaking
notes it will not wait for the B.C. court of appeal to rule, let
alone wait for the supreme court to rule. We all know that could
take a year. It is just too urgent to let this immoral decision
stand for even another day. The consequences are just too stark
and too frightening.
In fact one British Columbia judge has just thrown out one child
pornography possession case because of Judge Shaw's ill founded,
intemperate decision. Another 40 child pornography possession
cases are on the books of British Columbia. Across Canada there
could be hundreds which are in jeopardy, but even the fact this
one case was thrown out because of this case is the reason we in
parliament are debating the issue today.
Surely the government knowing this would not want to give
licence to individuals to deal in this very sick behaviour. The
government must know what this type of material incites. Does it
want to give licence to pedophiles? I do not think so.
Section 163(1), clause 4, of the Criminal Code is clear. Every
person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of an
indictable offence. Judge Shaw's ruling that freedom of
expression would be violated because of personal possession is an
expression of that person's essential self and subsequently his
invocation of the charter is offensive, negligent, deficient,
abusive of children and begs for overriding by the
notwithstanding clause.
Anyone in a sensible frame of mind with a scintilla of decency
and values knows child pornography is harmful. Clinical study by
medical experts conclude that child pornography is harmful. In
fact some pedophiles show it to children to make the conduct
appear normal. It is known to excite some child molesters to
commit offences, and the bottom line is that children are abused
in making this kind of material. It is an affront to our dignity
and to all our human rights. Surely this mockery of the charter
by this judge is enough to shake the government out of its
lethargy.
Justice Shaw based his judgment on two articles on the issue of
child pornography, one dated 1987 and the other 1988. In effect,
Justice Shaw assimilated this complex medical psychological issue
by reading two articles, listening to two witnesses, and he
became an expert. Come on. We all know he is certainly not an
expert on this issue.
Justice Shaw's distinction of highly erotic and mildly erotic
was based on one paragraph from data done in 1974 and 1977. It
is downright incomprehensible to think a judge could exhibit such
a lack of attention to detail and studies. It is even more
incomprehensible, in fact reprehensible, that this judge is not
accountable for such irresponsible behaviour. Has no one every
told him the community standards theory? Many judges over the
years have used the community standards theory to override the
charter.
Judge Shaw invokes the charter which ostensibly gave more rights
to a person who likes child porn than to the child it debases.
That is the crux of the motion today and the reason it is so
urgent. I will say that again. He gave more rights to the
person who likes child porn than he gave to the child who is
abused in making it. Everyone in the House has to agree that is
very sick and something we should not stand for in Canada.
What our motion does is give parliament a chance to tell this
judge that we do not like his decision, that we have community
standards and we do not like child porn.
Parliament has the power. Let us use it today. Using the
charter as the judge did is weak and inexcusable. Even in the
Zundel case the court acknowledged that not all expression is
equally worth protection. Did Judge Shaw that into account? Does
Judge Shaw really think child porn is worthy of protection?
Certainly he does in his decision.
1035
Judge Shaw, in his weighing process, decided that the
deleterious effects outweighed the salutary effects so the
limitation on freedom of expression was not saved. In sum, he
dismissed salutary effects like abuse of children and making
pornography, incitement of some pedophiles to commit offences,
and advocacy of the commission of sexual offences. Is that not
in and of itself to limit the freedom of expression?
Judge Shaw's decision has made it open season for pedophiles to
play on children and for the proliferation of child pornography.
It jeopardizes hundreds of child pornography cases before the
courts. As I mentioned earlier, one case has already been thrown
out. A person walked free because of this decision.
It behoves us to immediately invoke the notwithstanding clause
and thereby assure Canadians that possession of this type of
material is still a crime in Canada. We must send a message to
the type of people who use this material and to pedophiles that
we find them despicable parasites which we will not tolerate.
People like Mr. Sharpe are probably watching this debate today.
I saw him on TV after he was let go by Judge Shaw flouting it in
our faces saying it was his right to do this, that it is his
right to like young little boys. He is a despicable person and
anybody like him is despicable, and we should not have any laws
in the the country that allow him to get away with that.
I will talk about a petition I received signed by 70 Liberals on
the other side. There are a lot of names we know well on this
petition including my friend from Port Moody—Coquitlam. They
signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to immediately solve
the problem. Immediate does not mean next month or the month
after. Immediate means today or yesterday if we could have done
it.
We followed the rules of the House. Our party brought the
motion today at the first possible time we could. I would have
hoped the government would have done it sooner. I heard the
minister say that the questions yesterday were silly. It was
very offensive to me and I think offensive to most Canadians that
the Minister of Justice would talk about this as being something
silly. Mr. Sharpe is not somebody silly.
I had another case in British Columbia that was dismissed
because of this case. That is not silly. We have to solve this
problem today.
The government has the power to set our morale standards back on
track. I urge the government to support the motion. It is what
all Canadians want. I urge those Canadians who are watching the
debate today to go to the blue pages, phone their members of
parliament right now and tell their offices that they want them
to vote for the motion today.
This is an important decision we will make today. It is time
parliament took back control of the courts. Let us make the laws
so the judges do not have any decisions in these matters. It is
in the books that this is an offence. Let us make it an offence
and send them to jail for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. Let
us demand it for this ugly miserable offence. I move:
The Deputy Speaker: The debate is therefore on the
amendment.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast
on his speech and the points he brought forward. I want him to
comment on what I believe is a fundamental right. I would like
his views.
1040
Justice Shaw could have used section 1 of the charter to limit
the rights of freedom of expression. He could have ruled that
the rights of children not to be exploited sexually are far more
important than the rights of pedophiles to view disgusting,
disgraceful and obscene material. However he chose not to. That
was his tool. Our only tool is section 33, the notwithstanding
clause. I believe silence is consent. If we do not invoke
section 33 we will be reinforcing his decision. It is the only
tool we have to actively voice our objection to this ruling.
I would like the member's comments about the use of section 33.
If we do not, we will be abrogating our responsibility by not
acting or by silence. Silence is consent; we would be in fact
approving it. I would like the member's comments with respect to
that.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Judge Shaw's ruling that
freedom of expression would be violated because of personal
possession is unbelievable. As the member just stated, section 1
of the charter allows a judge in a case like I mentioned earlier
with the Zundel case to invoke that section and sentence the
individual, no matter what right the offender has. This is a
heinous crime against society and children.
Let me tell Canadians what the sentence for possession of child
pornography is under the Criminal Code. It states that every
person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of an
indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years or an offence punishable on summary
conviction. Sentences are much greater in areas such as the
making of child pornography.
Justice Shaw has chosen not to use section 1 of the charter. He
has chosen not to say that the crime is so heinous the other side
of it for possession is not good enough. He did not do that.
Yet he should have and other judges have done it in the past.
We are telling parliament to fix this law. Let us use the
notwithstanding clause, section 33, which was included in the
charter to give parliament that power. Section 33 gives every
member of the House the right to take on the charter and say it
is not good enough for Canada and it is not good enough for
Canadians. That is what every member of the House has to do.
I am not a lawyer. We are very lucky in the House to have
non-lawyers and lawyers. However we have read it and we have
talked to some of the top lawyers in Canada. They have told us
that we can insert the notwithstanding clause under this crime by
a simple vote in the House today. As I said yesterday—and I
will say it many times again—when the House wants to do
something it gets it done. When we wanted a pay raise it took 15
minutes, all stages of the bill; everything went through.
This is a terrible issue. My colleague from Port
Moody—Coquitlam signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to
get something done immediately on this issue as 69 other Liberals
did. Let us do it immediately. Let us pass the motion today.
Let us do it right now. If I were to move that we vote right now
to pass the motion we would save a lot of debate. Let us get it
done now. Canadians want it done. We want people like Mr. Shaw
to know that Canadians do not respect him, that parliament does
not respect him, nor should they.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on January 15 a ruling was released by a trial level judge of the
Supreme Court of British Columbia striking down the prohibition
in the Criminal Code against the possession of child pornography.
It sparked an intense national debate. Since that day, a day has
not gone by when most of us have not been confronted with
someone's deep felt emotion on the matter, be it in print, in the
media, in our offices here and at home, in the House, on the
streets or elsewhere.
The decision has provoked strong reactions. It is difficult to
understand why someone would decide that it should not be a crime
to possess materials which represent the sexual abuse and
exploitation of children. On the other hand, the type of
rhetoric from the Reform Party is the fearmongering that has
taken place in the House over and over again, saying that
pedophiles are running amok in the country, that they are running
loose so we should shut our children away. This is not the type
of debate that should take place in the House.
1045
When the minister made the comment about silly, it was on those
remarks alone and not on the issues that were being debated in
this House.
The type of mob mentality that is being fueled by the Reform
Party in B.C. is not the type of judicial system we want in this
country. Respect for the judiciary is one of the fundamental
frameworks of what our democracy is all about.
[Translation]
While that decision had a major impact in terms of the reaction
among Canadians, a large number of people do not realize that,
at this point in time, the legal repercussions are limited.
Except for British Columbia, where that decision is only binding
on provincial court judges, the act prohibiting the simple
possession of child pornography still remains in force. In all
other parts of Canada, and contrary to what hon. members have
said in this House, it is illegal to have this kind of material
in one's possession.
Most people find the idea that possession of child pornography
could be legal in any part of the country for even a short
period of time unacceptable. We share the distressing feeling
that this material not only represents child sexual abuse and
exploitation, but is also used in an attempt to convince the
most vulnerable that it is all right to engage in sexual
activities with adults.
Those who abuse and exploit children often make use of visual
material such as child pornography to desensitize young people
and to encourage them to perform certain acts by making them
believe that their peers have taken part in similar acts.
[English]
It was to dissuade and prevent such abuse and exploitation that
prohibitions specifically aimed at child pornography were
proclaimed into force a number of years ago. While the Criminal
Code definition of obscenity in section 163 was interpreted in
the 1992 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Butler
case to include pornography that involves the use of children,
determined action was nevertheless taken by parliament to target
the market for these materials.
In 1993, offences were introduced which were subject to greater
penalties than those existing at the time. The new offence of
simple possession was included in recognition of the underground
nature of the market and the need to attack the problem at its
base level: the individual who creates or trades in child
pornography for his personal use.
These amendments to the laws on child pornography were
unanimously supported by this House. The ruling which sparked
this debate is now the subject of an appeal by the Attorney
General of British Columbia to the court of appeal in that
province. He has requested that this matter be dealt with
expeditiously.
At the federal level, the Minister of Justice has announced that
in her role as Attorney General of Canada she is seeking leave to
intervene in the matter which is clearly an issue of national
importance. We did act immediately. The government has stressed
that it supports this legislation, that it believes it is
constitutionally sound, and that it will fight to ensure that it
is upheld.
[Translation]
Obviously, we want this matter to be solved as quickly as
possible. We must, however, acknowledge that the court appeal
process is the appropriate approach to take. The purpose of
this system is to allow decisions to be reviewed when questions
of law or of fact are in dispute.
I understand why other approaches have been suggested,
particularly the taking of immediate steps to reinstate the
legislation banning the possession of child pornography, which
was struck down by this decision, but only in British Columbia.
I do not, however, believe we should take that route.
If we believe our current legislation is valid, no steps ought
to be taken which could harm that position.
[English]
The necessary steps have been taken to see that it is remedied
as quickly as possible. Other than in British Columbia—and I
did say this at the beginning of my speech but I will repeat
it—where this decision is binding upon the provincial court
judges, the law prohibiting the simple possession of child
pornography remains in force. It is illegal everywhere in Canada
to possess these materials.
1050
None of the cases across Canada outside of B.C. is in jeopardy
at this time. The ruling is only binding on provincial court
judges in B.C. Elsewhere cases continue to be investigated and
will proceed before the courts.
Even in B.C. law enforcement continues to work on these cases.
In other jurisdictions the law prohibiting possession continues
to be in force as in the past. As I said, fearmongering is not
going to solve this problem.
In the interim, we in this House can declare our support for the
current laws against child pornography found in section 163.1 of
the Criminal Code as well as our support for those at the front
lines, at our borders, in our communities and in our courtrooms
who work unfailingly to see that these laws are enforced and
continue to remain in force.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the member stated that it is mere rhetoric coming from
the Reform Party and that we have no respect for our justice
system.
I want to tell the parliamentary secretary that I am an officer
of the court and I have the highest respect for our justice
system. My father was a judge in this country for 25 years and I
have learned to respect our justice system.
That does not mean it is infallible. That does not mean it is
perfect. We cannot abrogate our responsibility. There is nothing
stopping us today from acting. We have a duty to protect
citizens right across the country.
The parliamentary secretary has insulted every Canadian by
referring to this issue as mere rhetoric. It is a disgrace. We
are here speaking for every Canadian on this issue.
Why does the parliamentary secretary believe that she cannot do
anything in this House, she cannot stand up, that does not
preclude this process from going through the appeal? We in the
Reform Party absolutely believe that this decision has to be
appealed. Yes, there is a man who walked out of court free. We
believe that should be appealed. He should be brought back
before the courts. The courts should overturn that decision and
hold him accountable and send him to jail. His actions are not
acceptable.
That does not stop us from acting now. Canadians should not be
forced to wait six months, a year, or a year and a half for some
type of action while this issue sits, while we wait for
interveners. Will all the provinces come on board?
We do not have to wait. We have a tool that was made available
for us to use. Why is the Government of Canada afraid to use
that tool? It is so painfully simple. I am going to read section
33 of the Constitution:
Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly
declare in an act of parliament or the legislature as the case
may be, that the act of a provision thereof shall operate
notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or section 7 to
15 of this charter.
That is exactly what we are dealing with here. We have an
opportunity to put the rights of the innocent, the most
vulnerable in our society, the defenceless, our children, ahead
of those of the sick-minded pedophiles who use and want to
possess this child pornography.
How is that rhetoric? That is straight fact. It does not
preclude us from the appeal process. We support the appeal
process. We must do that. It does not hamper it in any way. We
reinforce it by putting our point on the record.
Why is the member not prepared to support the appeal process as
opposed to sitting back and being silent?
1055
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands proved my point about the rhetoric once
more.
As far as acting, I do not think there is any monopoly in this
House on the other side in what is morally right. There is no
monopoly whatsoever on who will protect the most defenceless in
our society.
There is a law. We have intervened in a decision that was made
in a B.C. provincial court. I will repeat what I said because I
want all Canadians to understand this. The law does stand. The
law will be respected everywhere in this country, once the
decision is rendered in terms of the appeal process in B.C., on
which we will continue to intervene. We did act. Elsewhere in
this country law enforcement officers will continue to arrest
anyone who possesses child pornography.
Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code will be respected in this
country despite the rhetoric on the other side.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like
the members who spoke before me, when I read the decision by Mr.
Justice Shaw of British Columbia regarding child pornography, I
was very surprised.
What surprised me was that a well-educated judge living in a
society that tolerates some things but not others, an adult
member of that society, could interpret a piece of legislation
as he did.
I was very surprised by the judge's interpretation of the
legislation and by his intellectual contortion of certain
provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
This is no small matter. It is a very serious one. I can
understand that parliamentarians would wish to sit down and look
at what is not working in this legislation.
I do not wish to go over all the ground again, because I think
the House has been well informed. I merely wish to recall, as
other members have done before me, the provisions of sections
163.1(3) and 163.1(4) which we are examining, specifically the
mere possession of child pornography, which is an offence under
these sections.
The individual was charged and the police officers conducted a
search. What they found in his apartment was serious: 14 boxes
of child pornography. There was enough to wonder if he was
intending to sell it, which was probably why he was charged
under section 163.1(3).
What did he rely on in his defence? He relied on section 2 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which talks about
the fundamental freedoms of conscience, religion, thought,
belief, opinion, expression and so on. He even relied on the
equality provisions in section 15 of the Charter.
That was his right. The Charter gives him that right. We live
in a free and democratic society, with rights and obligations,
and he had the right to use the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms as a defence. It was, in fact, the only defence open
to him, given the material found in his apartment.
I think that the crown did what it had to do. It tried to
demonstrate that, even if the freedom of expression as
guaranteed by the charter had been violated, such violation was
justified in a free and democratic society. That is what section
1 states; the section 1 test, for those who have some knowledge
of these inner workings, is what they tried to demonstrate
before the judge.
What is important to note in order to understand what happened
next is the case made by the crown in this matter. The crown
called in experts.
1100
One of the witnesses, a female detective with the Vancouver
police—which also explains why the section was adopted in 1993 or
1994—testified that the Internet led to a surge in the
availability of child pornography. She said that indictments for
simple possession enable the police to obtain search warrants,
which help identify pedophiles.
Why did the lawmaker provide for that? Simply because the
lawmaker knew about it. Evidence has been heard from various
people, including psychiatrists.
These professionals were invited by the crown to testify in this
matter. According to an expert in this field, every study done
on the behaviour of these deviant men and women—primarily men
in the case of pedophilia—shows that child pornography is a
danger to children. He gave very compelling evidence to that
effect.
The point was made that child pornography may encourage
pedophiles to commit sexual abuse. I think that this borders
dangerously on the test under section 1 of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms.
However, one of the judges who heard the evidence came to a
different conclusion. Justice Shaw ruled that it had not been
clearly demonstrated that child pornography caused
direct injury. I do not know on what planet this judge lives,
but this was his ruling.
However, I think his interpretation of the legislation in his
decision was fairly twisted. He did note the following
“Explicit pornography involving children entails a certain risk
to the children because of the use pedophiles might make of it”.
This is no mean observation. But it did not prevent him from
reaching a different conclusion.
He also said “Children are abused in the production of
pornographic films”. That is obvious. In a video of acts
adults commit with children, the child is being abused. The
proof is clear. In addition there are people behind the cameras
and in the room doing the filming and then there are maniacs who
buy these films and watch them. Clearly the child has been
abused.
The judge stated that there was no proof there would be less
production of pornographic films if simple possession of this
type of material were criminalized. I think the judge made a
mistake with the evidence I saw in the decision. I think this
finding was proven wrong.
The judge mentioned that “freedom of expression plays an
important role in this matter. An individual's personal effects
assume the person's particular character, their personality. A
ban on simple possession acts on a very intimate part and
interferes with an individual's right to privacy”. According to
his point of view, this is hugely important.
I think this is where the judge himself went awry. There is one
route he should not have taken—and that is when he weighed the
pros and cons of all this. I think the judge really erred in
law in his assessment.
The judge added that “—an important aspect of every person's
right to privacy is the ability to enjoy that freedom in one's
own home”. I fully agree with that view. In this case, the
police went to Mr. Sharpe's home to seize his collection of
material, which was presumed to be of a pornographic nature.
Indeed, 14 boxes of pornographic material were seized.
To violate a person's freedom of expression and right to privacy
is a serious matter. The prohibition of possession applies to
any person, including those who use pornographic material in a
dangerous manner, and they may be collectors of such material,
regardless of their interests. However, these people are not
necessarily dangerous. And, given the evidence heard by the
court, it is not obvious that he is right.
In balancing these views, the judge concluded that the first
test of the charter of rights was not met and that the
individual had to be acquitted.
I think that decision is totally wrong and that we in this House
must do something.
1105
The first step is to support the official opposition's motion,
as it is worded in the Order Paper. I agree with the wording
used by the Reform Party. However, I do not agree with the
amendment it moved and the inclusion of the word “immediately”.
I cannot agree with the inclusion of that word. Therefore, I
will vote against the amendment to the motion, but I will
support the main motion, since we are part of a process. I agree
with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
regarding the section of the act that was invalidated by the
judge. It is true that the act is currently not in effect in
British Columbia.
But this does not prevent the police from doing their job. This
does not prevent the crown prosecutors from continuing to
examine cases, prepare them and so forth. Let us wait and see
how the Court of Appeal judges rule. Let us wait for their
reaction to what they have just heard, for they are members of
society too. They are aware that the lawmakers in the House of
Commons find this trial level decision unacceptable.
I am convinced that right-thinking judges, judges with solid
legal training, Appeal Court judges who know how to listen to
what is going on, will overturn this trial level decision. We
will probably not have the opportunity or the need to go as far
as invoking the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the
Charter.
However, and I will close with this, should the Court of Appeal
uphold the trial level decision, that will be the time for
lawmakers, for members of Parliament, to unite and invoke the
notwithstanding clause. I think that it is premature to do so
today.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member on his excellent speech and
the background he gave us on the situation.
If I understand correctly, he is saying that we are having this
debate prematurely. What really ought to be occurring is that we
should wait until the appeal courts hear this case. As the
member suggests, in all probability they will throw it out and we
will not have to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
Perhaps what the Reform Party ought to do is reconsider the
motives for bringing this debate forward to the House at this
time and that it ought to have been postponed until we saw due
process in the courts. At this time I expect that every member
in the House would support invoking the notwithstanding clause if
by the rarest of chance the appeal court upheld this abominable
decision. However, I do not think it is going to happen. I
suggest the member is really supporting what the parliamentary
secretary said in her speech.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the member has understood
what I was driving at, except for one point. I believe the
Reform Party has acted properly in calling for this debate in
the House. It is not premature to consider the matter. This is
in fact the right time to do so in order to send a very clear
message to all those listening: that the House of Commons
shares the view of Canadians and Quebeckers that child
pornography is reprehensible.
This was the time to act in order to send this message. But I
am unable to agree to the immediate use of the notwithstanding
clause, because an appeal is under way. Furthermore, the
federal government has applied for intervenor status in this
case, a move I fully support. I am convinced that the Canadian
consensus will be heard, that the motion, as written, will be
adopted by the House of Commons. I believe that the message
will be clear enough. It will not be necessary to invoke the
notwithstanding clause. There is still time to take that route,
should it become necessary to do so.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too commend the member for his speech and the detailed
analysis of this decision. He said it was premature at this
time.
1110
Until the court of appeal rules on this decision there is no
protection in British Columbia. We have already seen a
provincial court decision where it has followed Justice Shaw who
said we are bound to. It is absolutely true that they are.
The provincial courts in British Columbia are bound to follow
this decision.
There is a five year limitation. Under the notwithstanding
section in the charter we could put our own limitation period on
it.
I would like to ask the member if he believes that as an interim
measure, until the court of appeal has ruled, we could offer
protection for British Columbians today by putting in a one year
or a two year limitation period or whatever we think will be
necessary until this has gone through the court of appeal. As we
have seen the past, the court of appeal can drag on for months
and into years depending on how many interveners and how many
delays there are.
Does the member not support using the notwithstanding clause now
as an interim measure to give British Columbia the protection it
needs until we see where the court of appeal is and then we can
readdress it at that time if we need to?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I
think children in B.C., like all children across Canada, are
still protected by this legislation. It has been declared
invalid by a court at the trial level, therefore it is
inoperative, but it still exists.
When I was a law student, I remember that certain provisions
were constitutional, in terms of the distributions of powers or
whatever, even if they had been declared inoperative by courts
at lower levels.
So long as the final court of appeal did not make the decision,
the law continued to be applied as if nothing had changed. It
concerned the distribution of powers that Quebec was calling
for. Therefore, an inoperative provision is still applicable.
I think that, in B.C., unless I am mistaken, and that can be
checked, crown prosecutors and politicians, especially, will
still be able to work to protect children, to build cases or
whatever. If the crown has everything it needs to take legal
proceedings, it can still do so, subject to the final decision
in appeal.
Here again, given the importance of this issue, I am sure the
appeal court judges will do everything in their power to
expedite the matter and hear the case quickly and especially to
reach a decision as soon as they can.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to the motion today and indicate the
support of the NDP caucus for the motion moved by our Reform
Party colleagues.
I think we should acknowledge that yesterday the House did speak
with one voice on a motion that was supported by all parties
which expressed the continuing confidence of the House in that
section of the Criminal Code which was found to be
unconstitutional in the case we are discussing. So it is not as
if the House of Commons has not already spoken on this.
However, what we have before us today, thanks to the Reform
Party, is an opportunity to actually speak to this issue and to
express our views. Yesterday there was only a vote with no
debate. Today we have a chance to express the collective outrage
of members of parliament and of Canadians in general at this
judgment. It is not just outrage, it is bewilderment. In this
case as in some others, I think Canadians are increasingly
bewildered by some of the judgments they see coming out of the
courts and this is certainly one of those cases.
What we all want to make clear here today, each in our own way,
the NDP by supporting the motion, is that in this country the
rights of children not to be sexually exploited or sexually
abused will always trump the rights of individuals to any form of
freedom of expression which involves the use of child pornography
which has been produced through the use of children.
In every case we want this right of children to trump whatever
rights may be seen to be enshrined in the charter or understood
by some to be enshrined in the charter.
I can tell the House as one who was here, and there are fewer and
fewer of us all the time who voted for the charter at that time,
that when we voted for the charter of rights and freedoms, we did
not vote for the right of people to possess child pornography.
That was not the intent of parliament at that time. It has never
been the intent of parliament, either when it voted for the
charter of rights and freedoms or particularly when it voted for
that section of the criminal code.
1115
I think it is important for parliament to reassert its intention
both with respect to the charter and with respect to that section
of the criminal code.
I want to say for the record that on January 27, my leader, the
member for Halifax, wrote to the Minister of Justice. I will
read part of the letter: “In ruling that the criminal code
prohibition on the possession of child pornography is
unconstitutional, the court has exposed children to appalling
dangers of sexual abuse and exploitation in the production of
child pornography. Canadians are rightly horrified that a court
could interpret the charter of rights in such a way as to deny
the rights of children to be protected from sexual
exploitation”. The letter goes on to give a commitment on
behalf of the NDP that we would support whatever legislative
action is necessary to ensure children are protected from sexual
exploitation by child pornography.
I have to be honest with my Reform colleagues and say we have
some misgivings about the amendment which could be interpreted as
calling for the immediate implementation of section 33 or the
notwithstanding clause. We liked in the original motion the
timing of whatever it is, because again the motion is unclear.
It just talks about legislative measures and then says even if it
requires section 33, so it does not require the use of section.
Given that the motion itself is unclear, what is to happen
immediately? Is it some other legislative measure or is it the
invocation of section 33? We felt that there was wisdom in the
original motion which would have permitted a united front at
least here in the opposition, even if the government did not see
the wisdom of voting for the motion.
But we now see that at least one opposition party has expressed
concerns about the amendment. We have some ourselves and we will
have to decide how we are actually going to treat the amendment
when it comes to a vote. I just want to be perfectly honest
about this and say we have some concerns about the amendment
because it may well be that with the expedited appeal, et cetera,
we might have an early judgment in this case. I am sure members
would agree with me that it would be better if it could happen
quickly for the law to be found constitutional.
The problem with invoking section 33 immediately, if that is
what this motion came to be interpreted as, because as I say the
motion is not clear about that, is in some respects it
gives far too much respect to the judgment of Justice Shaw in
finding that section of the criminal code to be unconstitutional.
Why would we want to, or at least we should ask ourselves this
question, act in such a way as to say that yes, the finding of
that section of the criminal code as unconstitutional
is in some ways definitive and therefore we have to use the
notwithstanding clause, because the notwithstanding clause is
there for when things are found in the final analysis to be
unconstitutional and parliament says that in spite of that,
notwithstanding that, we want this to happen in any event. So
there are some concerns there about the motion or at least about
the amendment.
What needs to happen here today, and I think the government has
failed so far to make this clear, is not when specifically
parliament is going to act and in what way it is going to act,
whether it is through the invocation of section 33 or by some
other legislative measure undefined in the motion, but what needs
to be made clear today is that parliament will act. The
government has yet to make a statement. One of the backbenchers
seemed to allude to it. The parliamentary secretary did not say,
unless I missed it, that the government is committed to bringing
in the notwithstanding clause or acting in some other decisive
legislative way should this decision of Justice Shaw be upheld in
the courts.
If the government were willing to say that, it seems to me it
could save itself a lot of time instead of appearing to want to
hang on to the legal process to the exclusion of the political
process. If the government were willing to say “We have this
respect for the legal process and we feel that it should unfold
in the following way, but we want to make clear that should the
legal process not produce an outcome which protects children and
which upholds that section of the Criminal Code which has been
struck down by Judge Shaw that parliament will act and it will
act under the leadership of the government”.
1120
The government has not made it clear that it intends to provide
that leadership. Until it does it stands open to criticism. I
invite the government to speak to that. That is really what I
think Canadians want to know. They want to know from their
politicians that we are not just willing to sit back and say this
is a matter for the courts and that it will always be a matter
for the courts and that we do not really want to get involved.
Canadians want us to be involved and they want to know that
their politicians and their parliamentarians are in a position to
and willing to assert their values over the values of the courts
when those values being asserted by the courts are found to be so
out of whack with ordinary everyday common moral sense, which
holds that child pornography is wrong, that the possession of it
is wrong and that people who are in possession of it should be
open to prosecution on the basis of this particular section of
the Criminal Code which has been found wrongly to be
unconstitutional by this judge.
There is really no need to say a lot more about where we stand
on this. We stand with the entire Canadian population it seems
to me in wanting parliament to say something and to commit to
doing something should this judgment not be eliminated in the
course of the days to come. Canadians also want a commitment I
think from the government that if the legal process turns out to
be a long drawn out one that the government would have the
freedom to act and not have to wait until the final legal act.
That is where the whole question of timing comes in.
I do not think it would be good to bind us that we would have to
wait until the end or bind us that we have to act tomorrow, but
give ourselves some flexibility.
I could go on and say something more generally about the
emerging problem of judicial activism versus parliamentary intent
and parliamentary supremacy but my time has run out.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure that all hon. members of the House would not disagree
with the sentiments expressed by the member with regard to the
so-called trump or the right of children, and the rights of
children will always be placed ahead of the rights of others to
possess child pornography or indeed to have a freedom of
expression.
My question for the member has to do with the proposition he
raised about the government declaring at this moment that it is
committed to using the notwithstanding clause at any moment. The
member has been here some time. I wonder if he might want to
reconsider the sentiment in terms of the optics to the courts
with regard to a virtual threat to undermine the court process if
it does not follow a particular course. It does smack a bit of
coercion on behalf of the government if that were the case.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would not say it smacks
of coercion. I would say it smacks of parliamentary supremacy
which is what the notwithstanding clause is all about and one of
the reasons why I voted for the charter at that time.
1125
Others were very concerned about the notwithstanding clause.
There was division between political parties and within political
parties about the value or the rightfulness of the
notwithstanding clause. Certainly at the time I thought the
notwithstanding clause was a good thing.
I would not want to see it be used frivolously or often. It
should not be regarded as the legal or political equivalent of
the nuclear deterrent, never used. It should be used and
certainly it seems to me that the government should make clear in
this case that this is something it is prepared to use should it
feel necessary.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the primary purpose of government is to maintain law and
order, to protect those people who cannot protect themselves, to
protect the citizens of Canada and to provide for our peace and
safety.
We have people walking free who are committing criminal,
despicable acts offensive to most Canadians. We need to punish
criminal behaviour. Our children cannot protect themselves. Our
citizens, men and women and children, are at risk because of this
judge's decision.
We have given more rights to those who want to use child
pornography than to children who will be—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
has a question, would he put it right now, please.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, my primary concern is
that pornography is having a very negative effect. We are the
highest court in the land and as that highest court in the land,
do we not have an obligation to send a signal to the lower courts
that something needs—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Winnipeg Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already
made my sentiments clear on what the hon. member is raising.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his remarks. The
analogy of nuclear deterrent is a very good one.
Would there be support in his party, and I do not want to
characterize this as a halfway measure, for the initiative by
this government to send this question directly to the Supreme
Court of Canada where it is not taken immediately out of the
hands of the court system? We should encourage faith in our
system and give Supreme Court of Canada judges an opportunity to
rule again on this issue. I say again because there already has
been direction from the supreme court on this issue. Would the
hon. member and his party support that initiative which was asked
of the Minister of Justice yesterday?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we have not taken a
position on whether the suggestion made by the hon. member
yesterday in the House would be the preferable course of action.
I take his point that this is another way in which the
government, if it wanted to, could show it was committed to
having this dealt with as fast as possible so that there was not
the possibility of apparently already manifesting itself.
Enforcement and police action carries on. There is the
possibility we might for a period of some months or perhaps even
longer be in a situation where people are getting off in some
places because of this judgment, particularly in B.C.
This would be another way the government could expedite matters,
not just by asking for an expedited appeal but by coming to the
conclusion that this thing will probably end up in the supreme
court anyway. I do not know if that is the right conclusion. I
do not know enough about the system to know whether this is
destined for the supreme court or not. I do not claim to have
that kind of expertise.
If the government feels this is something that will end up in
the supreme court in any event, and it is in a better position to
know that than I am, then it certainly should consider what the
hon. member is suggesting.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part today in the debate on the motion by the Reform
Party's leader in the House concerning the recent Supreme Court
of British Columbia decision which struck down the section of
the Criminal Code forbidding the simple possession of child
pornography.
I must express my thanks to the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford for this opportunity to voice our opinion on
this matter of great national concern. In my opinion, our
children, the most vulnerable members of our society, represent
this country's finest resource. They are the incarnation of our
hopes, our values and our collective future.
I therefore believe we must do everything in our collective
power to allow them to grow and develop within a safe
environment, free of any form of exploitation with the potential
of jeopardizing their healthy development.
Now, if there is one form of exploitation which is known to
irrevocably scar a child's soul and spirit, it is sexual
exploitation.
1130
We are all aware that the recent decision which unites us today
has totally ignored that fact, which I would remind the House is
based on the findings of the huge majority of specialists who
have seriously addressed the question of child pornography and
report the incalculable damage caused to children in producing
such material.
The great outcry triggered by this astonishing decision shows
the general disapproval of such a reductive interpretation of
the law. I would even go so far as to say that the currently
prevailing social consensus in Canada reaffirms, if such
reaffirmation is necessary, the appropriateness of this recently
contested legislative provision.
People from all sectors, particularly advocates of children's
rights and of the victims of crime, even numerous civil
libertarians, have expressed outrage that a member of our
judiciary could place a citizen's right to possess child
pornography ahead of society's right to protect its children by
restricting the use of this pernicious and highly objectionable
material.
Incidentally, let us recall that there are urgent reasons to
criminalize simple possession of child pornography. By making
possession of this material an offence, the legislator is in
fact attacking the producers and distributors, by punishing
their accomplices, or in other words the consumers of child
pornography.
The government was asked to introduce such a measure by many
people, including members of law enforcement agencies, who
believe that by not making the simple possession of child
pornography illegal, the government is indirectly promoting the
sale of such products.
This prompted the Progressive Conservative government of the day
to introduce Bill C-128, an act to amend the Criminal Code and
the Customs Tariff, in the House of Commons on May 13, 1993.
Approved by all parties, the bill was quickly passed both in the
Commons and the Senate.
While recognizing the need to fight child pornography, various
groups in the arts and culture community as well as civil
libertarians raised serious concerns about the wording of the
bill, which nevertheless received royal assent on June 23, 1993,
and came into force on August 1, 1993.
Still today, there are people who contend that the causal
connection between pornography and any real physical violence
has yet to be demonstrated and that other potential effects of
pornography are too minor and inconsequential to justify
adversely affecting the freedom of expression guaranteed under
the Constitution.
Obviously, I do not share this opinion. By its very nature,
child pornography makes victims out of the children who
unwillingly participate in this activity. A special committee
established in 1991 by the health and justice ministers
concluded, as the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children
and Youths, better known as the Badgley Committee, did in 1984,
that the production of child pornography almost inevitably
resulted in sexual assault on the children involved.
Furthermore, even back then, the report predicted that new
communications technologies such as the Internet would lead to a
rapid and inevitable growth in child pornography. It is now
therefore reasonable to conclude that the growth in child
pornography resulting from the explosion of the Internet has led
to a considerable increase in the number of victims in recent
years. In fact, the proliferation in pornographic material,
particularly that involving children, on the Internet is now a
major source of concern for lawmakers in all industrialized
countries.
According to one expert, the Internet has approximately 250,000
adult sites. This raises serious questions of access and
responsibility for regulating such material, particularly when
it crosses national borders.
Police forces are now directing a large part of their efforts at
the Internet.
Although there have been convictions, the very nature of
computer technology often impedes investigations. Various
avenues are now being explored in order to put a stop to this
worldwide phenomenon.
In July 1996, iStar, one of the largest Internet providers,
blocked its clients' access to child pornography. While few
people approve of this material being circulated, some have
still expressed reservations about the method used by the
company and the precedent thus set.
1135
Alternatives have been suggested, such as software that deletes
the offensive material. The nature and quantity of pornographic
material circulating on the Internet continues to give rise to
animated debates, which are quite likely to drag on for some
time before a way is found to regulate circulation.
The more this material spreads, the more it contravenes
traditional public legislation. The challenges are complex and
are not limited to access to ordinary pornography and its
circulation. Furthermore, various governments have already
tackled this problem, which will undoubtedly become more
widespread in the years to come.
So I ask: Is it not ironic that, in this country, we are once
again discussing the precedence of personal rights over
collective ones, while trading in child pornography is thriving
all over the world and while international organizations such as
UNESCO and the International Labour Office are joining forces to
combat this deplorable world phenomenon?
It is not ironic, it is pathetic. We must make a contribution to
help the children of the world, who are the first victims of
this ideological and legal battle.
Moreover, since I firmly believe that, ultimately, it is
Canadian society as a whole that will suffer from this lack of
coherence and collective vision, I want to stress again that the
use of criminal law to reduce the demand for child pornography
is a very appropriate measure, to the extent that it puts a
reasonable restriction on an individual's freedom of expression.
This is why I am asking the government to immediately begin
considering appropriate legislation to ensure our children's
protection and well-being.
Let me conclude by saying that it is both as a mother and a
lawmaker that I intend to pursue this issue, which is of
particular interest to me. I will not rest until the rights of
children take precedence over those of individuals who have no
qualms about violating a child's most fundamental rights to
satisfy their despicable sexual urges.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague the member for Shefford not
only for her remarks but also for her earlier intervention.
Yesterday she put before the House of Commons a motion which
received unanimous consent and which basically affirmed and
reassured Canadians that section 163 of the Criminal Code is
something this House of Commons respects.
She put very bluntly before the House the question that needs to
be asked and that is, when is the government going to take a
proactive approach to this? This is not something we should be
waiting for. We should not be sitting on our heels waiting for
the B.C. Court of Appeal to rule again, perhaps incorrectly. That
matter will be decided.
This is something where the Minister of Justice and the
government must intervene quickly. Pornography, particularly
child pornography, has to been seen as a rot or a rust on the
morals of this country.
Does the hon. member not feel that the quickness and the need
for intervention for the protection of our most vulnerable
citizens, children, is not something that would warrant the
government to move on quickly, either through a supreme court
reference or through the motion that is presently before the
House?
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his comments.
I agree with him that we cannot delay an appeal, because delays
are involved and criminals are obtaining pornographic material
in the meantime, and it is the children that are paying the
price. Therefore, I agree we should go right to the Supreme
Court and do everything in our power to help these children.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to commend the speaker from the
Progressive Conservative Party for a fine job.
I have heard in this debate, and certainly not from this member,
what I consider to be a very dangerous phrase, which is that
simple possession is not dangerous. I would like to hear the
member's viewpoint on this. Some 41 years ago I was involved in
cases where they ignored a very serious situation and I can show
the House the results today. Nobody can persuade me that simple
possession is not dangerous.
I would like to hear the member's comment on that.
1140
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to
reassure my colleague. Although I said that, I did not
necessarily want to, because I think simple possession is
dangerous.
If there are child porn consumers, there will always be people
to produce it. We must charge consumers so as to discourage
people from producing child pornography. If there were no
consumers, there would be no producers.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like
the member's opinion on the fact that the government has in
effect taken very extraordinary measures to make intervention to
the B.C. court. That is extraordinary in terms of legal steps.
What I would like to see is something extraordinary along the
lines of political action because that is what our job is here in
this House.
If it were any other issue rather than the vulnerability of our
children being exposed to pornography, I would be satisfied with
the steps the government has taken, but we are talking about the
most vulnerable in our society. As a social worker, I have dealt
with many children who have been abused. The abuse is bad enough
but photographing it, dispensing it and selling it is truly
horrifying. Many pedophiles use these pictures to get themselves
all worked up; they use them as a warm up for the real event.
The government absolutely must take extraordinary action in the
political realm so that there is never a question that we support
in any sense photographs that are taken of children who are
abused.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite get my
colleague's intervention. I missed the beginning, but I agree
with the end of it. Indeed, political measures must be taken to
prevent people from producing child pornography and arrest
producers.
As I said earlier, if there were no consumers of pornographic
material, it would mean the end of those producing it.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the issue of child
pornography.
A recent case decision in my home province of British Columbia
has attracted considerable attention. It has also produced
predictable outrage from Canadians from every part of the
country.
For the record, I wrote to the Minister of Justice on January
21, mere days after the ruling, suggesting that she not wait for
the appellate court but to get amending legislation before
parliament as quickly as possible.
Some speakers to today's official opposition supply day motion
may not have had time to review the specific case which has
caused such a concern. I will take a couple of moments to
briefly outline the situation.
The case is still before the courts. The accused was facing
four charges relating to child pornography: two charges of being
in possession for the purpose of distribution or sale and two
charges for being in simple possession.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia only dismissed the two
charges of simple possession. As such that is essentially the
only issue under appeal. The accused still faces his remaining
charges and they are scheduled for this month. On the issue of
the two charges of simple possession, I will briefly highlight
the essential elements of this debate.
As has often been stated, tough cases make tough law. Others
might state that bad cases make bad law. In the case at issue
the crown conceded that section 163.1(4), possession of child
pornography, violated the guarantee of freedom of expression set
out in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
The only real argument before the Supreme Court of British
Columbia was whether the violation of section 2(b) was saved by
section 1 of the charter, that is, that the infringement is a
reasonable limit prescribed by law which is demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society.
Of course the reason for all the hullabaloo over this case and
the cause of why today we are debating this issue is that the
justice of the B.C. supreme court decided that the possession of
child pornography law was not a reasonable violation of the right
to freedom of expression in that instance.
With the greatest of respect to the particular justice of the
B.C. supreme court, I would have to disagree with his position,
but that is beside the point. The problem has been presented and
we have to address it.
The Minister of Justice has taken the position that she will
just join the province in the appeal. That is not good enough.
The Minister of Justice has a second title. She is the Minister
of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. She has already
made public statements indicating her preparedness to act within
her role as Attorney General of Canada. She plans to join the
attempt to uphold the constitutionality of section 163.1(4) and
this is as it should be.
As the attorney general she is responsible for safeguarding the
interests of the crown within existing laws. Part of that duty is
the protection of our laws. In all fairness the minister is
doing that.
1145
Her other role is to consider and address the legality of
government legislation, and I would suggest that in that area she
is abdicating her responsibility.
I have great difficulty with the decision of the Supreme Court
of British Columbia justice, but it really does not matter how
anyone interprets or views that case. The issue is that now we
are confronted with a serious problem. What can be done to
ensure that the laws against the possession of child pornography
are able to withstand a charter challenge based on the rights to
privacy and freedom of expression?
With respect, I belief the basic definition of child pornography
within the Criminal Code is too broad. A number of comments from
the legal profession have also raised this interpretation.
An example of this is the definition which appears at section
163.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, which states:
Any written material or visual representation that advocates or
counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years
that would be an offence under this act...
There are a number of questions concerning that part of the
definition. Why does it say any written material? What
advocates or counsels? Why a person under the age of 18? Does
the inclusion of 17 year olds detract from our attempts to
protect children? How does the written material have to
correlate with the sexual activity of a child?
By allowing a child to read Lady Chatterley's Lover by
D. H. Lawrence, does that meet this definition if that child is
encouraged by the writing to end up having sexual activity with
an adult who provided the writing?
These are all difficulties to be reviewed and analyzed in
interpreting our present law.
With respect, even if we are able to overturn the B.C. supreme
court case at some court of appeal level, these problems can
still resurface to once again shake the system.
That is why on January 21 I wrote to the minister to encourage
her to immediately bring amending legislation for the sake of the
safety of our children. We must protect our next generation from
these predators; from the degradation, the pain and suffering
they endure from being objectified and used to provide adult
sexual gratification or fantasy.
I understand that on January 26 approximately 70 members of the
Liberal backbench also urged her to introduce strong child
pornography legislation and I appreciate the Liberal support for
my proposal. I understand that the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam was among them. I am sure the
folks back home will be watching at 5.30 this evening.
Obviously, so far the minister appears to only pay attention to
the cabinet or the Prime Minister. When this case first gained
attention the minister stated that she would wait until the case
was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada before she would
become involved. It was only when the public outrage spread to
her ministerial colleagues that she was forced to change her mind
and join in the appeal before the B.C. court of appeal.
Perhaps after today she can be persuaded to change her mind
again and decide to introduce the necessary legislation. I would
hope so.
Another reason for the minister to show leadership in this
matter is the state of flux within our justice system until the
matter is resolved in months or, more realistically, in years by
our courts. The minister is well aware that there are
approximately 40 possession cases before the courts of British
Columbia that are in limbo. She is also aware that the courts
are already dismissing charges as a result of the present ruling.
I cited one such case from my own constituency in my letter to
her. She is likely aware that other provinces will have a number
of similar situations.
Pedophile websites on the Internet are alive with suggestions
that their clientele target British Columbia.
I also note the comments from various police agencies and
customs offices. They have admitted to confusion. They are
looking for help, but there has been no guidance from the
minister. I can just imagine the hesitation of our enforcement
personnel to investigate or proceed with charges due to the
almost certain likelihood that they will eventually be thrown out
of court. I can also imagine our crown prosecutors being most
hesitant to proceed with possession charges.
I just read this morning that the crown is seeking to postpone
one case in Delta, B.C. I am sure that as we speak many defence
lawyers are boning up on their Askov arguments, should these
cases ever eventually proceed through our courts. For those
unfamiliar with Askov, it is the supreme court ruling that deals
with the length of time to trial. We already have a child
molester who walked free in British Columbia because it took 17
months to get him to court.
Unfortunately we do not see a lot of leadership here. The
government merely chooses to react. The Liberal mantra of
“Don't worry; be happy” resonates through this Chamber again.
To summarize, we have a court case stating that an individual's
right to personal privacy and enjoyment of freedom to personally
express private interest in the possession of child pornography
must be protected. The judge stated at paragraph 50 of his
decision:
In my opinion, the detrimental effects substantially outweigh the
salutary effects. The intrusion into freedom of expression and
the right to privacy is so profound that it is not outweighed by
the limited beneficial effects of the prohibition.
1150
Privacy is one thing, but reasonable intrusions or exceptions to
absolute privacy is another.
I will refer to some comments made by law professor Kathleen
Mahoney who is an expert in child pornography cases. She refers
to the psychological and physical trauma to the victims as being
profound. She states:
The nature of a good portion of child pornography requires the
rape of a child, ranging from six months of age to 15 or 16 years
of age. These children are shown drugged, in pain often, and
there have been babies submitted to sexual acts with adults. The
damage does not end when the filming stops. Every time (the
pornography) is shown, that child is injured in its dignity, its
reputation, its identity. The harm is multiplied several times.
The child is offended against time and time again.
It is our duty as parliamentarians to help and protect these
victims, the most vulnerable members of our society. As parents,
grandparents, aunts and uncles, this is not a time for politics.
It is a time for doing what is right for Canada's children.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his excellent speech.
This topic was discussed last Sunday afternoon on CBC Radio's
Cross Canada Check-Up. Two callers suggested that we
should lower the age of consent in the relevant clause. They
said that there was nothing wrong with the possession of such
material and that exploiting or involving children was actually
good for them. There are people like that out there.
What would my hon. colleague say in response to a comment like
that if he were on the other end of the telephone line?
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, if I were at the other end
of that telephone line my response would be very unparliamentary.
There is really no argument here. These children are put
through such degradation in order to provide this kind of
material to people who have such a fetish. For them to argue
that we should reduce the age of consent is a whole other issue.
Many people, especially those in my part of the country, have
been arguing that we should raise the age of consent to deal with
child prostitution.
Again, the only comment I could make would probably be
unparliamentary, so I will not make it in response to that
question.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his intervention. This issue is
clearly not a partisan issue. It unites not only members of this
House, but all Canadians against something that is clearly
offensive. It is offensive to the sense of values of Canadians.
If a society cannot protect the innocence of childhood, it is not
a very sound society. We have to be very careful and vigilant in
this House to uphold the law.
Section 163.1(4) was introduced in 1993 by the Progressive
Conservative justice minister Pierre Blais. I believe that every
member of this House remains committed to the principles of that
law. This is clearly an area in which we need to put aside
partisanship and do what is right to protect the children of our
country.
The member is an expert on victims' rights and the challenges
they face. Could he give me his perspective on how difficult it
is for children who come forward after having been sexually
abused, sometimes decades before? How difficult is it within the
current system for them to have their rights recognized and
supported?
Pedophelia or sexual child abuse is closely related to child
pornography. I would completely differ with anyone who would
argue otherwise. I would like to hear his feedback because he
has a significant understanding of victims' rights, which is a
very important issue as well.
1155
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, from the perspective of
victims' rights, we are dealing here primarily with young
children. They need to have somebody to speak for them because
normally they cannot speak for themselves. As the member
mentioned, it takes years for some of these children to talk
about it. Some never do. Certainly the healing has to start as
soon as possible with young children. For some, unfortunately,
the trauma lasts a lifetime.
As I said in my speech, this transcends politics. We have to
approach this issue from the perspective of all of us being
parents, all of us being grandparents and all of us having
children in our lives. These young people who are involved and
who are victimized by this require and need our protection. They
are not able to speak for themselves. It is up to us to do it
for them.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we have to answer one very simple question: Why are we here
today? We have to decide if possession of child pornography—
materials that sexually exploit children, the weakest, the most
vulnerable and defenceless in our society—is a crime in Canada.
That is the only question that we have to answer today.
I have no doubt in my mind that every member of this House was
as appalled by Justice Shaw's ruling as I was. They were
appalled that he did not invoke section 1 of the charter. When
one reads section 163 of the Criminal Code it is painfully
simple. I do not think it could be written any clearer.
Justice Shaw had a choice. He did not have to rule that it was
not illegal to possess child pornographic material in Canada,
pictures of naked, sexually exploited children; he could have
invoked section 1 of the charter. What does that do?
Section 1 is an option that the courts can use in charter
arguments where there is an infringement on one's rights, where
the protection or the rights of the children are paramount to
that of the individual. The rights of innocent children,
society's rights, are more important than those of the pedophile
who chooses to look at kiddie porn, that disgusting and
despicable material. Everybody here would agree with that.
Justice Shaw chose not to use section 1. We as parliamentarians
cannot use section 1. We do not have that option. Section 1 is
only an option for the courts. There is a parallel option that
we have use for, which is section 33, the notwithstanding clause.
If one looks at both sections they virtually do the same thing,
except the courts cannot use section 33. Only the legislatures
and the parliaments can. That is our only tool to voice our
objection. If we feel that the infringement on the rights of the
individual is so great, we can limit the rights under the charter
of the individual or the criminal.
In this case all we are asking parliament to do is to act today
in a non-partisan way. I am not trying to fill this up with
rhetoric. The notwithstanding clause is very clear. I know the
parliamentary secretary is as proud as I am at this decision. She
loves children as much as I do and defends them just as everybody
else does in this parliament. I do not have a doubt in my mind
that we have a duty, an obligation to act right now.
That does not preclude the courts from acting or stopping the
appeal process. It does not show any disrespect to the courts.
It demonstrates the tools that we have, that we will use them and
that we will take a stand. We find this to be so appalling that
we are going to act immediately.
The notwithstanding clause has a limitation period.
When we invoke this section we could even put in it for a year
until the courts decide and we could revisit it if we need to.
This does not preclude the B.C. court of appeal or the Supreme
Court of Canada.
1200
I would like to comment at this time on the Progressive
Conservative suggestion to move it right to the Supreme Court of
Canada. I agree. We should expedite it in every way we can, but
we must invoke the notwithstanding clause today, immediately, to
protect the children of British Columbia.
It will be said that they are protected as the law stands.
However in case No. 2 a man walked out the back door of the
courtroom. It was not out the door with the sheriff to the cells
but out the back door as a free man who uses kiddie porn. The
people of British Columbia deserve to be protected right now.
We know that this could go on for six, twelve or eighteen
months. I know they have requested immediate action, for it to
be expedited, but as we have seen in recent decisions interveners
come in, other provinces come in, advocacy groups come in, there
are delays, and it goes on and on. Every Canadian has heard or
knows of personal stories of delays in our justice system.
We absolutely have to put partisan politics aside. This is not
about the Reform Party. This is not about the Liberal Party or
the Progressive Conservative Party. It is about the protection
of children. That is what our interests are.
I beg all members of the House to support the motion. I stand
here to state on record that it shows no disrespect for our
justice system. I am the biggest defender of it as an officer of
the court. My father was a judge in British Columbia for 25
years. He has just recently retired. I will stand to say that I
have the utmost and the highest respect for the justice system in
the country. That does not mean there is not a hole in it, that
there is something in there on which we have to intervene. This
is our only tool.
I will not complicate the matter with all the issues of the
decision because we all know it is a problem, a disgrace, et
cetera. However I will leave hon. members with one thought which
I would like them to seriously consider.
Members have all said in private discussions that it is an
absolute disgrace, appalling, shameful and everything else that
Justice Shaw did not use section 1 in his decision to rule that
it is a crime in Canada to possess child pornography. We will be
cast in that same light because the only tool we have is section
33. If we do not act, we are put in the same light that we did
not have the guts to stand in the House and use that clause to
protect children.
The notwithstanding clause has been used before. It has been
used in Saskatchewan. It is in the appeal process. At the end
of the day the Supreme Court of Canada in fact ruled the law was
valid. In that case it was back to work legislation, but the law
was saved by the notwithstanding clause. We can do the same
thing. We absolutely have to do it.
I ask every member of the House tonight to leave partisan
politics aside, to elevate above Justice Shaw's decision and to
use the only tool that we can. The only tool we have is section
33. Some will argue other legislation or to enact a new law. If
we read section 163 it is painfully clear. Other members have
read it. We could not make it any clearer.
The Minister of Justice says to wait and see what the courts
decide. That appeal could run its course. We all agree it
should be appealed. We all agree that this man should be brought
back before the courts. He should be convicted. He should be
sent to jail, but that does not preclude us from doing something
today, right now.
I will leave hon. members with one thought. Section 33 is the
tool we have. Section 1 is the tool Justice Shaw had and he
chose not to use it. If we choose not to use section 33 we are
no different from what he is. Our consent will be reinforcing
that possession of child pornography is not a crime in Canada.
We must act.
1205
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to read the motion because I am having some
difficulty reconciling the motion that is before the House and
the petition signed by about 75 members of the Liberal caucus.
The motion reads:
That the government should take legislative measures to reinstate
the law that was struck down by a recent decision of the Court of
British Columbia regarding the possession of child pornography,
even if that entails invoking section 33 of the Constitution Act,
1982 (the notwithstanding clause).
This was signed by 75 members of the Liberal caucus. We ask
that the government not wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision
to be heard but immediately act in the defence of Canada's
children. The undersigned Liberal members of parliament
recommend that strong new child pornography legislation be
introduced as soon as the House resumes. We ask also that we
consider the use of the notwithstanding clause or other
equivalent effective measures to send a clear message that the
charter of rights will never again be used to defend the sexual
abuse of Canada's children.
It would appear that the resolution today and the letter signed
by 75 members of the Liberal caucus are asking for the same
thing.
The Minister of Justice is about to speak; I understand she is
the next speaker. She will speak against the motion. In effect
she will speak against the wishes of 75 members of her own
caucus.
How does the previous speaker view this? Does he view it as
hypocrisy? Does he view this as members of parliament—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Let us not be
throwing around hypocrisy even if it used obliquely.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I believe in my heart this is
the right thing to do. We have to act and it does not show any
disrespect for the courts.
There are 80 members who signed this petition because in their
hearts and their guts they feel it is the right thing to do. They
also know they have to act. There are probably many more who
never saw the petition.
I pray that in the House we can leave the partisanship outside
the doors, that we can come in and do what we feel is the
absolute right thing. If the Minister of Justice believes that
and I do not, that is up to her, but she should not preclude
every member of the House or hold a club over their heads so that
they cannot do the right thing.
We have to leave partisanship behind. I will not try to pit one
person against another or one party against another. I do not
believe the hon. member was doing that in his question. We just
have to look after the interests of the children of Canada first.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and the minister have
said publicly to let this thing go along, that everything is
fine, that the law is still in place, et cetera.
My colleague who just spoke is a lawyer. If the minister is
saying that, could he explain why there was a case in Surrey
right after the case with Justice Shaw which was dismissed based
on Justice Shaw's decision? How can it be the same? How can
every child be safe? How can children be safe from pornography
if there has been one case already? There is one person out on
the street because of that ruling and there are 40 more waiting
just in British Columbia. Would my colleague explain to the
parliamentary secretary so we could perhaps change her mind a
little on this issue?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. When
there is a decision of a higher court—and this is the B.C.
supreme court—all lower courts in that province are compelled to
follow it. The provincial court judge in the second case had
absolutely no choice. He had to follow the higher court's
decision unless it could be distinguished some other way. In
this case it could not be. It was a very recent decision.
In the rest of Canada this case can be used as persuasive. I
agree it is not compelled but lawyers use them as persuasive
evidence. Under section 163 a person can be prosecuted either in
provincial court on a summary conviction or on an indictable
offence and can go to the supreme court.
Even indictable offences are prosecuted in provincial court. The
person who is charged has an election when he is charged. Under
this criminal offence he can decide that he wants to elect a
provincial court judge, a supreme court judge or a supreme court
judge and jury. The accused can make that election.
1210
Every one who is accused will elect a provincial court judge.
Why? It is because they are compelled to follow the B.C. supreme
court decision. It can be used persuasively in the rest of the
courts and it can still run its process. We are not arguing
that. It should be appealed but that is why she is wrong.
British Columbian children are not protected at all until this
decision is looked after.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with
one of my colleagues.
My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has acted quickly to
support the decision of the attorney general of the province of
British Columbia to appeal this ruling as quickly as possible in
order to protect children. I applaud the quick action of my
colleague and that of the Government of British Columbia.
This government will not rest until this issue has been properly
addressed and has received the benefit of legal opinion of the
appeal courts. Children in our society are vulnerable and must
be protected from exploitation. With an appeal court ruling on
this important issue we will all be better placed to craft better
laws to protect our children.
There are some issues of sheer common sense at stake here. For
example, can there be any question that the possession of child
pornography is exploitation? I do not think that there can be. I
do not think that there can be in the minds of the vast majority
of Canadians who in my experience care deeply about children as
do members of the House.
We as legislators have a duty to be as smart and as skilful as
we can in crafting laws to protect our children. We must use
every resource available to us to protect the human rights of
children. One of those resources, a very valuable resource, is
the appeal court. We have come a long way in the country to
ensure that our children have every opportunity to have a good
start in life. We work hard to create an environment that
ensures their security and their happiness.
Nevertheless, child pornography risks the security and happiness
of Canada's children and youth. That is why the Government of
Canada has in statute very clear laws defining both child
pornography and stating in a concise manner how the possession of
child pornography will be dealt with.
The Reform Party is clearly not respectful of these laws or
respectful of the Canadian jurisprudence. However I have faith
and respect in the Canadian court system. For that reason I
cannot support the motion before the House.
This does not mean that I do not stand in solidarity with my
colleagues opposite as well as every other member in the House on
the issue of the negative and very dehumanizing and demoralizing
impact of child pornography. I believe in the court process and
I believe in the wisdom and ability of the House to enact laws in
this area that can withstand legal challenges.
I believe that our laws are clear. The arguments of my hon.
colleagues that the notwithstanding clause in our Constitution
should be used in this situation are not persuasive. They think
that using it is good politics but it is not the most effective
means of protecting our children. The notwithstanding clause was
only intended to be applied when all legal avenues were exhausted
in sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the charter of rights and freedoms.
I do not believe that the charter as negotiated by our Prime
Minister when he was minister of justice would allow in any way
child pornography. If we took the advice of the Reform Party the
issue would come back to haunt Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
What members of the Reform Party may not understand about the
notwithstanding clause is that it may only be applied for five
years at a time. While they may think they are sweeping the
whole situation underneath the carpet by imposing section 33 of
the charter, this issue would rear its ugly head again and again
with periodic reviews required for the use of section 33.
1215
I appeal to my colleagues to understand that this is not a
resolution. This is a reaction. I believe the attorneys general
for B.C. and Canada have chosen a more permanent solution by
having faith in our laws enacted by the House, by having faith in
the charter of rights and freedoms, by having faith in the
international convention on the rights of children and by having
faith in our appeal courts.
The debate that this issue would stimulate every five years if the
opposition would get its way is unnecessary when the courts can
decide to put an end to it once and for all. The Reform
Party would try to spin our refusal to support its motion and say
that the Liberal government is not willing to stand up to child
pornography. The opposite is true. The Reform tactic of trying
to score political points by debating verbose and confusing
motions can only do more harm than good for children in Canada.
No member on this side of the House or probably on any side of
House believes that anyone who possesses, distributes or promotes
child pornography has the constitution right to do so. On this
side of the House we believe in respecting Canada's judicial
process and making it work to our advantage. That is why the
Minister of Justice is supporting her counterpart in B.C. That is
why the Government of Canada is taking an active interest in
protecting Canada's children. That is why I am addressing in the
House of Commons this very important issue. As controversial and
as sensitive as it might be, I was compelled to do so. We share
a common concern. All members do as well as the general public.
This past summer I was fortunate to attend the first world
ministers meeting of ministers responsible for youth. This
meeting had particular relevance to this issue as one of the
resolutions specifically dealt with the sexual exploitation of
young women and men. This resolution which has now gone to the
United Nations calls on member states to take active measures
to prevent this exploitation.
This section of the Lisbon declaration is consistent with what
has been previously negotiated on the world stage. The United
Nations has specifically dealt with child pornography in its
convention of the rights of the child. The convention reads:
State Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of
sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes State
Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national
bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
c) the exploitive use of children in pornographic performances
and materials.
As a member state of the United Nations, Canada is part of this
convention and fully supports this initiative in preventing child
pornography. Pornography in all its forms is unacceptable in any
society. All efforts must be taken to stop exploitation of the
vulnerable. Members in the House should respect the courts. All
of us should respect the processes that have served our country
so well.
I leave the House with a quote from one of the world's greatest
leaders, Nelson Mandela, who said about children:
It is my deepest conviction that children should be seen and
heard as our most treasured assets. They are not ours to be
used and abused, but to be loved and nurtured and encouraged to
engage life to the full extent of their being, free from fear.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to support the motion tabled by the Reform Party. This
motion is addressing an issue that is not about partisanship. It
is about doing the right thing.
The hon. minister spoke about respecting the courts. I respect
the courts. I respect the judicial process. What we are looking
at is doing the right thing. Here is a clear example where
Canadians want us to ensure that we respect the rights of the
community versus the right of the individual in this case.
1220
We have to point out that for child pornography to exist, it
means a child has been exploited. What I want to emphasize is
that we need to send a very clear signal to all Canadians, to all
parents that parliament will defend the rights of children.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, clearly as I
stated in my speech we believe that supporting the appeal court
system is the way of doing the right thing. We share concern as
does every other member of parliament.
Without prejudice to any other members, I am sure vigilantism
was based on the feeling that people were doing the right thing.
We all know the results of that.
We have to be very careful and measured. As legislators we have
an obligation to conduct ourselves in a manner that respects the
rule of law. This is the highest court in the land and the laws
that we make here are not done in a cavalier manner or in a
manner that would suggest that when we feel like it, those laws
are applied.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the issue today is the social gap between
the workings of the superior courts and the societal norms of
what communities expect.
What happens here is not only the technical merits of what is
being decided but who is doing the deciding especially when it
relates to the Supreme Court of Canada. It applies to the
superior courts across the country that are a federal
appointment.
When we get to the fine points of splitting a hair, it comes to
the social values of who that judge is. The country has nearly
no say about who gets there. There is very little accountability
for removing someone who is not representative of Canada.
It has to go through a very long process and then come back to
this Chamber to remove a judge. We have some problems in this
country about the judiciary and appointment.
What will the government do not only to look at this decision
but, as this is an example of the problem of the appointment of
judges, what will the government do to improve the accountability
of who is on the bench and doing the deciding as well as what is
being decided?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, it may not be
known to the member opposite but there is a process by which our
justices are appointed across this country. There is the process
by which we engage in applying the rule of law.
That is something that has been subject to review time and time
again. I am sure the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada has taken his remarks under consideration. I am sure he
will be able to get better information from the Department of
Justice on this. We share common concerns on this issue.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief. The hon. secretary of state just
referred to the process of appointing judges.
I suggest to her that the Canadian people view the process as
failing them. The process is not working. During her remarks
the hon. secretary of state, and I do not know who wrote that
speech for her but it was appalling, mentioned believing in the
court system: “I believe in respecting Canada's judicial system
and invoking the notwithstanding clause is not the most effective
means”. It is a means whereby we can deal with this today, not
in weeks or months or whenever the appeal court gets around to
it.
She said this is not a resolution. In other words, invoking the
notwithstanding clause today would not be a resolution. It is a
reaction. It is. I would say courts are not the solution, courts
are the problem.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, there have been
many decisions rendered by the supreme court at the federal
level. I am assuming from what my hon. colleague is saying that
he is condemning all those good decisions that were made, some of
the decisions that advanced the rights of children, of women,
advanced the rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our
society.
Is he saying that the whole system has failed because of this
one isolated incident in which we are dealing with a very
unfortunate set of circumstances? I do not agree with that.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all members of this House
share with Canadians a common position in this debate, an
abhorrence of child pornography.
1225
These materials represent evidence of the sexual abuse and
sexual exploitation of children, the most vulnerable members of
our society.
It was this common position that led all parties in 1993 to vote
unanimously in favour of the legislation that today we are now
unanimously compelled to defend. The reasons are simple. Our
children are the most vulnerable members of society and we must
do all we can to protect children from the harm that flows from
the creation and possession of child pornography.
Not only does child pornography serve as a permanent record of
the sexual abuse of children, it perpetuates the message that
children are appropriate objects of sexual interest. They are
not.
That is why this government and I as Minister of Justice believe
that the court ruling that limits the state's ability to fight
child pornography must be appealed vigorously.
Let me be clear. This government will defend the
constitutionality of the legislation with every ounce of energy
we possess. That is why we have taken the unusual step to
intervene in the appeal launched by the British Columbia attorney
general. We are acting immediately. We will not wait for this
case to reach the Supreme Court of Canada.
We are mindful of the importance of protecting the rights that
have been guaranteed to us under the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. We respect the need to balance the powers of the
state with the rights and liberties of individuals. We also know
there are circumstances that demand that some of these freedoms
be limited where such limits are reasonably justified in a free
and democratic society. Clearly this issue before us is one such
circumstance.
Limitations are justified in curtailing the availability of
child pornography. This ruling must be challenged. Our
government will provide all the necessary assistance we can to
the Government of British Columbia in defence of this law. But
our common abhorrence for the evil of child pornography must not
allow us to either exaggerate the reach of the recent supreme
court ruling or lead us to take rash measures whose impact would
ultimately not serve the interests of Canadians.
There is no question that the impact of the British Columbia
supreme court's decision has been far reaching in the terms of
response it has elicited from Canadians. But what many fail to
realize is that its legal impact at this point is limited. There
is no open season for pedophiles in Canadian society as a result
of this decision.
We must all remember that while provincial trial court judges in
British Columbia are bound by this recent ruling, it is not
legally binding on courts of the same or higher levels in British
Columbia or across the country.
Possession of child pornography remains an offence in Canada.
Officials in other jurisdictions have indicated that they will
continue to vigorously enforce the prohibition against the
possession of child pornography in their own jurisdictions as in
the past. We applaud and support this decision.
In British Columbia law enforcement personnel are continuing to
investigate child pornography cases and crown counsel are seeking
adjournments in matters scheduled to proceed before provincial
court judges.
There are also many other legal avenues available to police and
crown prosecutors across the country to crack down on those who
would exploit our children. As parliamentarians we take
seriously the responsibility to respond to the concerns of our
constituents and to protect those who are often unable to protect
themselves.
We have heard the outcry of Canadians. While it is
understandable that members of this House might experience a
certain degree of frustration in not being able to address the
public outcry in response to this case more directly, we must
recognize that precipitous action on our part would not only be
inappropriate, it would be wrong.
The right to appeal a decision of the trial courts in our
country is a fundamental and effective element of our legal
system. It is available and we will use it. The judicial
process may take time but we will get an answer to this crucial
issue from a higher court.
The decisions of trial courts on charter and other issues are
appealed every day to the higher courts and then sometimes to the
Supreme Court of Canada. The decisions of the lower courts, the
trial courts, are frequently overturned by the higher appellate
courts and by the Supreme Court of Canada.
1230
Higher courts have not been at all shy to reject charter claims
that have previously been upheld by lower courts. They do not
shrink from, indeed they feel duty bound to examine the decisions
of the lower courts to ensure that they are correct and
consistent with the law. That is their job, to ensure that the
laws of the land, the charter included, are properly applied by
the lower courts. That is the nature of our legal system and as
attorney general, I have, and must have, full faith in it.
In the unlikely event that the supreme court were to make a
finding with which the government did not agree, we would then
explore the possibility of legislative reform. However, we are
confident that the strong arguments in defence of the existing
legislation can be presented to convince the appellate courts of
the constitutionality of these provisions.
Some across the way have suggested we resort to the use of
section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause. While I
appreciate the sincere and deeply held motivations of some that
underlie this request, as Minister of Justice I believe such a
move would be wrong and contrary to the long term interests of
Canadians.
The use of the notwithstanding clause is a serious matter
without precedent at the federal level. I do not believe that it
was intended for use except as a measure of last resort, meaning
after a decision of the country's highest court. That is why it
has been used so rarely.
We should all ask ourselves why this is so. Contrary to what
some in the Reform Party might suggest, Canadians and their
governments benefit from the guidance and expertise of their
courts. By allowing this case to make its way through normal
channels, Canadians will receive the full benefit of their
counsel. I would infinitely prefer a situation where the courts
of this land ultimately upheld the legislation in question than a
situation where we precipitously invoked the notwithstanding
clause without due benefit of the court's counsel.
It is in this way that we live in a system where the rule of law
is respected. It is in this way that we live in a free and
democratic society where its constitution and charter of rights
have meaning. It is in this way that we enjoy a justice system
that is the envy of the world.
Before we take such a serious step as invoking section 33 of the
charter, we have a duty to ensure that other mechanisms for
addressing the situation have been tried and have failed. This
principle applies even in the most difficult circumstances, even
when we are faced such as we are today with a decision that has
so very clearly elicited the concern of Canadians from coast to
coast to coast.
The Reform Party in the name of judicial activism claims to
represent the people's will. It believes that by attacking
judges and the justice system that it serves the interests of
Canadians. Well, once again the Reform Party is wrong. It is
also without courage for it is in circumstances like the present
one that the tough thing to do is to show respect for and have
faith in our legal system.
The Reform Party's actions are about politics. While its
members appear to be concerned about child pornography, the very
actions they propose are ultimately contrary to the public
interest.
Canadians will be better served by a process in which ultimately
our legislation, the legislation we all care so much about, is
upheld by our courts as constitutional. Canadians are better
served in all circumstances when they live with the knowledge
that the laws that govern them are constitutional. And were at
some point the highest court to rule against this legislation,
Canadians through parliament would still have recourse, but we
would have it in possession of greater knowledge and greater
wisdom.
This government has every confidence that our legislation is
constitutional. We will do everything we can to defend it.
Let the system work. By it, we serve Canadians. By respecting
our legal system and our laws, we serve Canadians.
1235
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I know we all agree on how despicable all of this is. I
have the highest respect for the Minister of Justice but I am
offended when she suggests that I do not. I want it put on the
record that I am deeply offended.
I want to get back to using section 33. I have the highest
respect for the courts. My respect is as high as anybody's
including the minister herself but it does not preclude following
the appeal process. It is fundamental for that to happen and
that it be expedited as quickly as possible.
Section 1 is the courts' tool to limit the rights and freedoms
of individuals. Our tool is section 33. She says it is only a
last resort. I appreciate that it is unprecedented in the
Parliament of Canada but we have to look at the gravity and
importance of the situation. The suggestion is that it can only
be used after going to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I know I do not need to preach to her about the charter. She
knows it as well as I do. The invocation of section 33(2) can be
limited. It does not have to go for five years. I know they are
laughing at this but my heart is in the right place and I am
serious. We can invoke the notwithstanding clause for any length
of time we wish in order to provide for the interim protection of
children. We do not have to wait. Canadians do not have to wait.
The courts do not have to adjourn cases. It is no disrespect to
our justice system.
Section 33 was included as a tool for parliament to limit rights
and freedoms where we feel it is necessary. Section 1 is
included in order for the courts to do that. We have a duty to
do that.
I appeal to the justice minister to leave the partisan politics
aside. I mean this in all sincerity. We should look after the
interests of our children. Look at the gravity of this
situation. We are talking about child pornography. We have the
tools right now to invoke section 33 to protect Canadians.
The Minister of Justice knows as well as I do that there can be
delays. There are all kinds of reasons people can get off
charges. We can offer that protection right now with no maybes,
with no disrespect. I put on record that I have no disrespect
for the courts. Why does the Minister of Justice feel so
passionately that we are showing disrespect by invoking section
33? I have the highest respect for our justice system.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
raised a number of important points. I must put on record that
he asks that I eschew the use of politics. It was not we who
played politics with this very important issue of substance on
behalf of Canadians. We are debating this today because the
Reform Party decided to play politics with an issue of such
fundamental importance to Canadians.
We have acted quickly. We have acted in an extraordinary way.
My colleague, the Attorney General of British Columbia is asking
for this appeal to be expedited. Therefore I have no doubt this
matter will be dealt with in a timely fashion, in due course
before the courts of the land.
I reiterate a fundamental point. The notwithstanding clause was
intended to be used in extraordinary circumstances. It is this
government's opinion, shared by the vast majority of former
parliamentarians, that section 33 should only be invoked after we
receive the advice and guidance of the highest court of the land,
the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is interesting that the minister spent her time chastising us on
this side of the House but she should have included all parties
on this side of the House. It is not just the Reform Party. All
parties on this side of the House will support this motion.
1240
It is interesting. When it comes to freedom of speech, not one
of the members over there who signed the petition asking her to
move on this has been allowed to speak. I bet we will not see
one of them speaking today.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
You will note there are a number of members who would like to ask
the Minister of Justice questions. I would ask that you seek
unanimous consent to extend the question period by 10 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the question period for 10 minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Justice may make a very
brief, 20 second reply to the comment if she wishes. Otherwise
the time for questions and comments is over and we will proceed
with debate.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I
should put on the record to clarify it. There are those who wish
to misrepresent the situation that presently exists in relation
to one Mr. Robin Sharpe who was the subject of the case that has
led to the—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for York
South—Weston on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the
minister.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, her time has expired.
She cannot have it both ways. She cannot refuse to—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for York
South—Weston as usual is seeming to misrepresent the position of
the Chair in this matter. I gave the hon. the whip for the
official opposition time to ask a question. I deliberately cut
him off to allow the minister to reply. He had used up the
time, but I was prepared to allow the minister a brief reply. I
indicated that. I did not cut him off sooner in order to allow
him to complete some reasonable part of his statement, and I am
allowing the minister to reply. That is it. That will be the
end of the time for questions and comments when the minister has
completed, but she will have a very few seconds left to complete.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to
clarify for the House that in relation to one Mr. Robin Sharpe,
there are two other charges pending against this individual, one
in relation to production and one in relation to distribution. I
therefore would ask that the Reform Party stop spreading
misrepresentations in this situation.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am amazed to be here participating in a
debate on the illegality of child pornography. I am offended by
the attitude of the Liberal government and the minister who feels
that Canadians have no right to be participating or observing a
debate on this issue. I would like to know, who are they to say
that Canadians are overreacting because they are concerned that a
judge has said that it is legal to possess child pornography?
This law was originally passed unanimously in parliament in
1993, but the decision of one man, Mr. Justice Shaw, has undone
all the work by the people's representatives.
This case raises a number of issues that go beyond the impact
upon the Sharpe case specifically and the possession of child
pornography in general. In this case Robin Sharpe got off. At
least one other case was thrown out in the B.C. provincial court
because of Justice Shaw's decision. The possession of child
pornography is therefore currently legal in the province of
British Columbia.
Make no mistakes, child pornography is not about pictures of
naked infants on bearskin rugs. It is about children, sons,
daughters, grandchildren, being abused and exploited by adults.
The only people whose rights were being infringed by this law
are pedophiles. I believe that we as a society have a right to
deny this extreme minority the right to see young children being
abused. Make no mistake, we mean real children. Real children
are being abused to make child pornography. There is no acting.
There is no consent, because children can never give consent to
acts like this. Because it is now legal to possess child
pornography in B.C., I am sure that more children are going to be
used for the creation of pornography to satisfy the appetite of
pedophiles. That means that more children will become victims of
sexual abuse in order to satisfy the charter of rights and
freedoms of pedophiles. The results are not necessarily apparent
immediately in the now. But many of the negative recriminations
occur 10, 15 or 20 years later. How often do we hear convicted
adult sex offenders plead for reduced sentences because they
themselves were sexually abused as children? What type of circle
of violence are we creating by legitimizing the possession of
child pornography?
1245
I want to extend Justice Shaw's reasoning to other criminality
that perhaps possession of stolen property could be determined to
be an infringement of the possessor's freedom of expression. What
about the possession of illegal drugs? It could easily be argued
that their use relieves tension and there is no harmful intent.
Or what about the possession of unregistered firearms? Surely it
could be argued that Bill C-68 was an infringement on the freedom
of expression of gun owners, the vast majority who have no
harmful intent.
Perhaps this government should spend as much effort keeping
child pornography out of the hands of pedophiles as it does
restricting the rights of legitimate gun owners.
I would like to raise another spectre. That is of courts taking
over the role of parliamentarians. It does not matter if 301
individuals representing five different political parties and,
more important, 30 million Canadians unanimously agreed that
child pornography is wrong. One individual has changed the law
in British Columbia.
I know the case is under appeal, but that means that three other
judges in the B.C. court of appeal will get their say. After that
maybe nine other judges in the Supreme Court of Canada will have
their say. While I respect the roles courts have in
administering justice they should not have the right to overrule
the will of the members of this House who are elected by
Canadians to make laws on their behalf.
This is about far more. It is about respecting our
constitution. This is another example of the courts interpreting
the charter of rights in a manner in which it was not intended.
Every now and then the Prime Minister likes to claim
responsibility for introducing the charter of rights. I would
like to think that he did not bring in the charter of rights to
give pedophiles the right to possess child pornography.
It was almost 800 years ago that the British had the Magna Carta
which introduced such concepts of guarantees of rights and the
rule of law, as well as laying the foundation for parliamentary
democracy. The Americans have had their constitution and the
bill of rights for over 200 years. Despite the spectacles that
we see today in the American Senate it aided ennoble causes like
the freeing of slaves. Now if we compare these two historic
documents with our charter of rights that is still shy of its
20th birthday, it will be known as the document that gave
pedophiles the right to possess child pornography. We should be
ashamed that our charter is even being challenged in this way.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of this case to the value
of the charter and to the courts in general. I suspect very few
Canadians can list the benefits that the charter has brought in
their day to day lives. But if this decision is allowed to
stand, they will certainly remember it. Even before this decision
in my five years as a parliamentarian I have received countless
letters and phone calls of constituents telling me that Canada
would be much better off without the charter of rights. If this
decision were to stand, that is, if the courts decide that it is
more important to allow pedophiles the right to see children
being abused than it is to protect our children, I am afraid I
could not disagree with them.
1250
If the charter of rights and accompanying court decisions are to
have any value at all in the lives of Canadians then they must
have the support of Canadians. Decisions like this left to stand
will drive away any of the support that might still remain for
the charter of rights and our constitution.
A constitution or a charter of rights that does not have the
support of the people is an empty document. It is a document
that is devoid of any relevancy. That is our challenge today, to
make sure our charter of rights respects the feelings of
Canadians and has relevancy to all our lives in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the hon. member who has just spoken.
Is she aware of a principle generally recognized by the courts? I
believe two appeal courts in Canada have already issued a
similar opinion, the Quebec Court of Appeal for one.
The principle is that of presumption of the constitutionality of
a piece of legislation until a final court of appeal has reached
a decision. In other words, in this case, with respect to
subsections 163.1(3) and 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code, although
a court of the first instance in British Columbia has declared
these subsections of the Criminal Code unconstitutional, does
she not believe that the presumption of constitutionality of
this section can, or must, be applied until a higher court has
rendered a decision. In Canada, this means first the appeal
court and then the Supreme Court of Canada.
In other words, I am casting some doubt on the statement she or
her Reform Party colleagues have made, that the children of
British Columbia are not protected, because there is no longer
any applicable legislation on child pornography, since
subsections 163.1(3) and 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code have been
invalidated.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, if that section is held
constitutionally then why was one pedophile allowed to walk free
and why are there 40 cases in British Columbia being held back
from being tried until there is a decision made on this?
If that constitutionality is a given then why are the children
of British Columbia having to face the fact that pedophiles are
being let out of the court system on to the streets to continue
plying their trade? I do not believe the children of British
Columbia are being protected. Would the member feel the same way
if it were the children of Quebec who were at risk?
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I just heard the justice minister indicate that the
Reform Party was making this a political issue.
I ask my colleague, who happens to be a politician along with
the rest of the politicians who lack the spine to make decisions
on such issues, why she thinks this should not be a political
issue in this country. Why does she think politicians should not
stand up for the rights of the young in this country?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, our job is political and
it is to make sure that these debates and discussions take place
in an open forum for all Canadians to know that their leaders,
the 301 people who sit here, are concerned about the issues and
protecting their children.
If that is being political, that I feel it is important that we
be having this debate in the public eye, in the House of Commons,
then I am guilty of that.
I think for far too long Canadian politicians and governments
have removed the people from the governance of their country.
The day has come when that has to stop. The people in Canada
deserve the right to be part of this conversation.
1255
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after listening the my colleague's speech I would like
to ask her if she agrees that as elected representatives of
Canada our first or foremost responsibility is to the safety and
well-being of the law-abiding and innocent people of this
country.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I believe that when we
have a conflict between the rights of Canadians and they come
head to head that it is the Parliament of Canada that has to
establish very clearly whose rights take precedence.
In this case I suggest parliament has to make it very clear that
it is the rights of children, not the rights of pedophiles, that
take precedence.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it does not give me great pleasure to come to the House to debate
this as I believe that the courts have made a mistake.
I believe that the justice minister should have acted on this
issue in a far more decisive way. It does not give me pleasure
to be debating this because there should be no debate. The
children of Canada must be protected. Under this justice
minister, under this government, that is not happening.
The definition of civilization is that we protect those who
cannot protect themselves. We must look after the children of
Canada. The people of Canada are saying to us in the House
protect our children.
The justice in his ruling wrote: “There is no evidence that the
production of child pornography will be significantly reduced if
simple possession is made a crime”. The word significantly
blows this thing completely out of proportion. What does he mean
by significantly reduced?. It is the responsibility of the House
to protect the children of Canada. For this justice to say that
he is making this ruling because there is no evidence that they
will be more significantly protected, even if they are protected
one small amount, that is better than this judgment.
We are faced in Canada today with judicial activism that in no
way reflects the values of Canadian citizens and Canadian
society. The values that Canadians are concerned with is
protecting their children. They demand few things. They expect
safe streets. They are not getting safe streets. They expect to
be free from terrorism and unfortunately in some cases they are
not getting this. They expect to be free and to avoid the issue
of drugs for teens. They want the protection of their teens from
a drug culture. They expect protection from being ripped off.
Sadly this government is going very slow. They expect those
things but what do they demand? They demand the protection of
children.
The justice minister has said to the police to go ahead and do
your thing. As a solicitor general critic, as I go in and out of
RCMP detachments I run into file after file that is full to
overflowing, brimming with paper and documents just to protect
the police because of the charter action that has been taken in
so many instances. The judicial activism that is presently
underway not in any way reflecting the values of Canadians is
hampering the police in their ability to do their job.
There has been mischief by the charter of rights and it has been
mischief that has been brought forward by the law society in
Canada. We even have first degree murderers who walk away when
the courts decide they should have had a search warrant under
certain conditions. So all of a sudden things are overturned,
murderers are permitted to go free and in retrials there are
situations where there cannot even be proper evidence brought
forward.
1300
There is just one thing that I can say about murderers versus
this issue. At least the people who are murdered are dead. The
difference in this issue is that the children of Canada who are
subjected to this become the walking dead. We must protect
children and we must protect our children now.
The justice went on to say a few more things:
Another quote:
It is the means of ensuring individual self-fulfilment by
developing and articulating thoughts and ideas as they see fit.
Mr. Sharpe was quoted as saying:
How can a four year old make any kind of an informed judgment on
that? How can an eight year old make any kind of an informed
judgment? That is what Canadians are faced with today. How
absolutely pathetically stupid, ridiculous and reprehensible that
statement is.
If the people on that side of the House do not understand that
we are sitting with a hand grenade, with the pin pulled, let me
quote Eugene Meehan of Lang Mitchener on CFRA this morning. He
equated the situation to “a grenade with the pin pulled”. This
situation is urgent. The opportunity to expose child pornography
will increase rapidly as a result. It will happen. It is
happening.
A police officer testified that as a result of the possession
count against Sharpe, the police had been able to obtain warrants
and carry out searches that have assisted them in finding child
molesters. In British Columbia that is all set aside at this
point. The justice minister can say to the police go ahead but
the law has been struck down and needs to resurrected. We need
to have action and we need it now.
Let me address the issue of who we are in the Chamber. There
are 301 people in the Chamber elected by the people of Canada.
The people of Canada assume that the House of Commons is the
supreme power in the country. Under this justice minister and
her predecessor, under this solicitor general and his
predecessor, the government has allowed the courts to become the
lawmakers and the law restricters in Canada.
We must stand up. We must be counted. It is up to members of
parliament to reflect the values of the people of Canada. The
people of Canada are saying “Protect our children, protect our
children now”.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has expressed the sentiments that all members of
parliament have expressed throughout this debate, and that is our
abhorrence with the issue of child pornography.
The member is trying to suggest that this issue is all to do
with abhorrence of child pornography. He stated that because of
the Sharpe decision everything is free form now in B.C. That is
not the case. That is not advising the House of the real facts.
The fact is that in current cases before the courts adjournments
are being sought. The police are also continuing to pursue their
investigations and to lay charges. The B.C. attorney general has
asked that the appeal be expedited.
The member will know this is an issue of process and I want him
to comment on the process. The notwithstanding clause, which the
Reform Party is suggesting will be the solution to all the
problems, only deals, as he should know and I do not think he
does, with cases from today forward or from the point of
invocation forward.
It does not deal with the Sharpe case. That appeal must proceed
to deal with the Sharpe case. The federal government will be
party to that appeal and we will vigorously defend the rights of
children and the laws of Canada.
1305
The member must clarify he fully understands that this is about
process, about the integrity of our system of laws and courts and
the application of the notwithstanding clause, and not with
regard to simply abhorrence of child abuse.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, let me make very clear that
I understand the notwithstanding clause. I understand that it is
not an either/or. The appeal can proceed. We can do both, and
that is what Canadians want. Why? Because the member himself
said that adjournments were currently being sought. He also said
that it would be expedited. Expediting something in a court is
akin to watching molasses trying to drip out of a container in
the Arctic in January.
I do not care how much expediting is going on. This case will
drag on for one or two years at least. The member is not
prepared to acknowledge that.
Furthermore, at this time it is not enough that the police in
Canada have had the tools of their trade taken out of their hands
in so many other instances. In this case the member knows full
well that if the police were to go to a judge today and ask for a
search warrant on the basis of this law they would not receive
it. I read what was said, that the search warrant would have not
been granted for Sharpe if this law was not in place.
In British Columbia the law is not in place and search warrants
cannot happen. The police are being restricted in being able to
stop this most reprehensible of all crimes.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I respect the views of the hon. member for
Kootenay—Columbia and I will have something to say later on the
subject of judicial activism.
On the issue of simultaneity of action to appeal courts and by
this parliament in relation to invocation of section 33(1) of the
Constitution, would the member not accept that this would render
moot in legal terms proceeding with the appeal process before the
supreme court? I do not unfortunately think one can have both
courses at once.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, we have taken advice and our
advice is contrary to what the member just stated.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again, our friends across the way are debating whether our
criminal justice system is properly managed.
Once again, they are complaining in veiled terms about a
judicial decision, which, in their opinion, undermines the
credibility of this justice system. Once again, they are arguing
that the courts are exceeding their legitimate role. Once again,
they are calling for strong action by Parliament.
It is easy to understand why some of my fellow citizens would
have such a knee-jerk and emotionally driven reaction. It is
however much more difficult to accept this kind of reaction from
experienced parliamentarians.
Is it our role to jump every time a judicial decision is made?
Should we not be reviewing the facts much more dispassionately
and reasonably? Have we not learned that a judgement at first
instance can be appealed?
[English]
I believe it is important to participate in the debate proposed
to us, but the reaction must be measured and must be based on the
law and the basic values by which we are governed, not on the
rawest emotions. We must rise above primal reaction and consider
this issue in its context. However well intentioned the motives
may be, it is more damaging than the very decision it decries.
It is obviously not my intention to discuss the judgment
rendered in this case. Not only would this be inappropriate but
also it is under appeal. The Attorney General of Canada will
intervene in support of the validity of the provisions and thus
the legitimacy will be tested before the appellate court.
This is the procedure that is followed in a constitutional state
or a country based on the rule of law.
1310
The main purpose of my statement is to guard against the highly
emotional reaction to a decision rendered in the first instance.
I believe that matters should be placed in perspective and that
we should let Canadians know that their justice system is
operating based on sound principles. That is not our
parliamentary role.
If recourse was taken under the notwithstanding clause every
time a court trial division came to a conclusion which opposed
the government of the day either on moral, legal or political
grounds, unfortunately it would be almost a daily occurrence. It
would also be a politicization of our justice. It would be
denying justice, not contributing to it.
[Translation]
The charter of rights and freedoms is a legal instrument we have
given ourselves to guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms
of everyone. This is an instrument we are proud of, and rightly
so. It represents our core values. We have established
institutions to deal with and settle conflicts of
interpretation, for instance, when a conflict arises with
respect to a piece of legislation.
I do not know whether the Sharpe decision is well founded in
law. It will be up to the higher courts to decide.
I do know, however, that we have a legal system in this country
under which decisions can be reviewed. There is no call to push
the panic button when a trial division judge hands down a
ruling, whatever that ruling may be.
[English]
Our criminal justice system has its own checks and balances
which assure us, to the extent humanly possible, that the best
decisions will be rendered. A court decision that poses a
problem can be appealed. Appeals are heard every day in the
country. I believe it would be particularly inappropriate of me
to suggest that a legislative response is needed every time a
court decision is rendered. The system works.
I would also like to indicate that I am sharing my time. There
is no need to go on at any length about the despicable nature of
child pornography. I am certainly no defender of such material.
The immense majority of Canadians fully support our resolve to
prohibit objects or materials that can harm the community and
individuals. Child pornography is intolerable because it harms
what is dearest to us, our children.
However, we do not have the right for demagogic purposes to
leave the impression that pornographers now have free rein. For
one thing the decision is under appeal. Moreover, some have
already lost sight of the fact that possession of such materials
for the purpose of distribution is prohibited and that the
constitutional validity of this prohibition is not in doubt.
However that is not the issue.
[Translation]
Parliament has a vital role to play in determining what should
and should not be prohibited. Its role is paramount. No one is
saying otherwise. There are limitations in place, however, to
ensure the protection of certain fundamental rights and
freedoms. The courts can help us by determining how this goal
can be achieved with the least disruption to other fundamental
freedoms. There must be dialogue between Parliament and the
courts.
Some court decisions may sometimes strike us as wrong. The
first step is for the superior courts to review these decisions
and, if necessary, take corrective action.
An immediate and ill-considered reaction by Parliament along the
lines of the motion being proposed is nothing less than
counterproductive. Let us remember that invoking section 33 of
the charter implies that we think that the action taken is not
reasonable in a free and democratic society. Is this really
what we wish to do? Is this the message we want to send?
Should we not give the appeal courts a chance to do their job
and see if the decision will be overturned?
1315
I know that today's debate is the result of outrage in certain
sectors at what some see as an unjust decision. I do not
believe that we have the right to shamelessly exploit this
outrage.
I, for one, believe strongly that the justice system must be
allowed to review these rulings in the usual manner. I
understand people's outrage, but I do not share it.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am a little sad today. I thought we were in this
House to make laws for the people of Canada. I thought the job
of the courts was to enforce and apply those laws.
It is clear that there is a perceived conflict in two laws that
have been passed by this House, one making the possession of
child pornography illegal and one protecting freedom of
expression. The courts clearly are not sure which one we wish to
be paramount.
There is a motion today whereby this House can make it very
clear to the courts which law we wish to be paramount.
What is the problem with the lawmakers of this land,
representatives of the people of this country, parents and
children of this country making it clear that we do not wish to
tolerate the possession of child pornography in our society?
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
suggested that it is the role of parliament to make laws and the
role of the courts to interpret them. That is exactly what is
going on here.
Parliament has made laws prohibiting the use and possession of
certain pornographic materials and the courts are in the process
of interpreting them. The difficulty is that we are at the trial
division level.
From here there is an appeal to the British Columbia court of
appeal and then a further right of appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada. We only need go back to the last parliament to see an
example where a case was tried and appealed. I refer to the case
of the defence of drunkenness.
Parliament was not satisfied with the interpretation. It did
not accept that it was proper. Parliament exercised its
discretion and passed, under the previous justice minister, a new
law to prohibit the defence of drunkenness.
That is how the system should work. The system should be
allowed to carry its course through the courts where the courts
will interpret the laws. At the end of the day, if parliament is
not satisfied with the result of that interpretation, then it is
open to parliament to pass a new law.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, in her remarks the Minister of Justice referred to the
Reform motion as being wrong and a precipitous action, yet 75 of
her colleagues signed a letter to the Prime Minister asking for
the very same thing that this motion is asking for today.
I will quote from that letter. It reads “We ask that the
government not wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision to be
heard, but immediately act in the defence of Canada's children”.
The letter to the Prime Minister goes on to ask that the use of
the notwithstanding clause be considered.
The former solicitor general, who is in the House, today signed
this letter. A number of colleagues opposite, members of the
Liberal caucus, signed this letter. Yet the Minister of Justice
and the Prime Minister are now overriding the wishes not only of
the majority of Canadians and the unified opposition on this side
of the House, but the majority of the members of the Liberal
caucus who support this motion and who are being forced not to
support the motion before the House today.
The former solicitor general is nodding his head. How can these
members reconcile having asked for a specific course of action
just a few short days ago and putting their signature to this
request in a letter to the Prime Minister and then a few days
later parking their principles at the door and acting like
obedient sheep?
Whose interests are they serving? Are they serving the interests
of their constituents? Are they serving the public interest? Or
are they afraid to offend some unelected people in the Prime
Minister's office?
1320
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I had not seen the
letter, but someone just handed me a copy of the letter that the
hon. member refers to. I understand there are 69 signatures on
it.
I cannot speak for my colleagues who signed this letter, but I
can point out that the letter asks that the government consider
the invocation of the notwithstanding clause.
Not having any more background than that, when it says
“consider the use of the notwithstanding clause”, that is not
to me a full endorsement of its invocation. It is saying that
the government should consider it the way a due diligent
government should consider all alternatives.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the member for Simcoe North sharing his time with
me.
To begin, I would like to review the history of the charter of
rights. It was not part of the original constitutional
patriation package. It was introduced because very many scholars
around the country reminded the then prime minister that we were
one of only two major countries that did not have a charter of
rights, the rights and freedoms of citizens. The other was
Switzerland. We were both mid-19th century constitutional
systems. And it was introduced.
What about the notwithstanding clause? The problem was really a
conflict of different modes of legal thinking and, in particular,
the then NDP premier of Saskatchewan, Premier Blakeney, who had
been educated in the English system where there is no charter of
rights. There is now, by the way, with the European court of
human rights and the European charter and most of the decisions
seem to affect Great Britain. In any event, Mr. Blakeney opposed
the idea of a charter, but he agreed on the basis of the present
notwithstanding clause.
It is a very awkward clause in its drafting. It had to be.
In the United States unpopular decisions have been overturned by
constitutional amendments. One can cite here, for example, the
income tax amendment which reversed supreme court decisions.
Mr. Trudeau, when he was approached on this issue and asked why
he inserted the notwithstanding clause, said “It was the price
of getting the charter. Without it I would not have had the
charter”. He then said “I am very sad about it, but I do not
believe any federal government will dare to use it”. That has
been the fact of life. No federal government has used it.
The major use of this of course has been by one provincial
legislature. Four hundred and fifty measures of that legislature
were submitted to the notwithstanding clause. Who was it?
Premier Levesque, the premier of Quebec, between 1982 and 1985.
When he left office the new premier removed the notwithstanding
clause from any consideration for any further Quebec bills, so
that it remains what many scholars have called a constitutional
aberration.
What are the alternatives? One is very obviously the appeal
route. People can differ, and I should not as a lawyer express
an opinion on a decision by a judge. He deserves respect. But I
would simply suggest that honest men and women in the judiciary
are entitled to other points of view and might very readily come
to a different point of view.
The section of the charter that is involved is one of the most
clear sections of the charter. It calls out for a species of
judicial legislation. It really embodies, almost word for word,
the provisions of the American bill of rights. Our charter, by
the way, is much too long, much too pedantic. It is often hard
to understand, but on that it is crystal clear. I would suggest
that it is reasonable to expect that other people on appeal might
come to a different answer.
What we are doing is to ask the justice minister to expedite the
appeal process. We do not have the American system of certiorari
where the highest court can pick up immediately from a lower
court a decision involving constitutional principles and render
its own decision on the file.
I think that is a gap in our legal system and it should be,
frankly, filled at some future stage not too far in the distant
future.
1325
It is probably one of the problems of our charter that we do not
have a constitutional court or even a constitutional tribunal of
the sort that some of us recommended to Mr. Trudeau when he was
going about the adoption of the charter of rights. But we do
have the appeal system and it can work very quickly.
The major decision of our supreme court perhaps of recent years
is the decision on the constitutionality of a secession by
Quebec. Issues of this sort on reference have taken in the past
three years or four years. Why not? They did it in six months.
I think we are asking, and I will ask the Minister of Justice,
to make sure that the federal government presses for quick
action. I would think this is a matter on which the court will
respond.
I listened with interest to the comment by the member for
Kootenay—Columbia because he has made some thoughtful comments
on the issue of judicial power in the past. I would like to see
the legal authority on which he relies. I think he should
publish it, as the possibility of simultaneity of an appeal
action, an action under the notwithstanding clause. I would have
thought it was elementary that the issue becomes moot in the
courts once the legislative action is proceeding. It is, in any
case, for the court itself to decide on this issue. I do not
think that it is a sound, juridical principle as advanced, but I
would like to see the argument that he has brought forward.
Are there ways in which one can substitute for judges some other
form of action? One can define, if one wishes to amend the
charter of rights. One could define in much greater detail all
the sorts of things one wants to control or prescribe.
One of the weaknesses of our charter is that it defines too
much. But when we get into the clarion principles of the
American bill of rights, as we do in the section now under
contest in this particular case, it calls out for a creative
interpretation by the judiciary.
I think the debates in the House are part of the travaux
préparatoires, part of the sources the Supreme Court of Canada
may go to. I do not exclude a situation, after decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada, when we may wish to re-examine ways of
changing the court decision. One can consider the
notwithstanding clause then. But I would suggest to hon. members
the message that should go to the justice minister is to use all
speed to make sure that the appeal processes operate with the
celerity that they did with the reference on the separation of
Quebec.
If the notwithstanding provisions are invoked, by the way, do
not expect overnight miracles. It will require fresh legislation
by the House of Commons. It will require an approval by the
Senate. It will go through all those procedures. It will be, I
think, a long and drawn out process.
My message here is, I believe, the opposition's anger and the
concerns that it has expressed, which are shared very clearly by
very many on the government side, are reflected in the debate. It
is part of the record that the Supreme Court of Canada will have
available to it on appeal and may properly be referred to.
I do not believe that the notwithstanding procedure should be
proceeded with while this matter is pending. I do have
reservations about the notwithstanding procedures generally. I
think there should be simpler processes for reversing court
decisions on the line of the American system.
What I am really saying is that the inchoate debate that the
member for Kootenay—Columbia launched last year on judicial
activism failed because basically there was no comment on
institutional possibilities.
We have gotten over the notion that everything in constitutional
change is involved with the Quebec question. There are issues of
institutional reform and I think the constructive comments that
we heard on both sides of the House during the debate, and there
have been a number, are ones better addressed in that context.
So do not mess with the charter lightly.
It is an act to achieve a charter of rights. It should be
changed, not in the reaction to a single case, but only with a
regard to long range principles.
1330
On that basis I recommend following the procedure outlined by
the minister of justice for going ahead with the file. I and
others will communicate in our own rights but I believe that it
has come clearly from the debate in the House. With all Godspeed
go ahead with the appeal process. This is a decision that I
believe is eminently arguable with all respect by the judge of
the Supreme Court of British Columbia. He is only one judge. In
the American system it would go immediately to the top which is
the sort of reform in terms of the better functioning of our
charter of rights that we could seriously consider in the future.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member said that while this
is an aberration it is just one judge, but this is another
example of a series of problems perceived by the community which
leads to a basic distrust. A gap develops between what the
community expects and the results that are delivered through the
judicial system. This is only the latest example of the basic
lack of community confidence that judges are reflective of
mainstream Canadian values. Part of it is not so much what is
being decided but also who is on the bench and who gets to be
decidee.
I refer to a time when the chairman of the justice committee
agreed with Reform on that issue. I said on that day as a
backdrop in a general sense we detect that there is not a lot of
public confidence in the judiciary itself. One of the mysteries
is that the average public does not know how judges get to be
appointed.
The late Shaughnessy Cohen, God bless her, said: “We all know
it is the committees that want to keep the process secret. We
all know they do not want to face an applicant. They do not want
to have someone who is applying for a judicial appointment put
his face right in front of them because God forbid they should be
accountable for this decision”.
She went on to say: “If this committee wants to continue to
keep this secret, perhaps they should reconsider the process and
reconsider whether they want to be on the committee or not. Maybe
it is turning into a star chamber. There is a big difference.
There are politics at play here other than Liberal politics or
Tory politics. There is also the politics of the bar which is
unaccountable and really nasty. It gets down to who is
deciding”.
She also said: “In the final analysis who is on the hook if a
judge screws up? It is the Prime Minister and the justice
minister”. That opinion was very well considered based on
experience. The opinion and the evidence we got in this Chamber
today was unaccountability, that we should let the system work,
that it is all okay. Our point today is that it is not working
and changes have to be made.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his interesting and useful comments. I have done a good deal
of pre-parliamentary work on the special institution of the
constitutional court which most countries of the world now have.
The judges are elected under specific processes that vary by
country. The legislative bodies in many countries are using
proportional systems. To institute a change of that sort here
would require a constitutional amendment which would also require
all 10 provinces and the federal government. Forget it.
When I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs we introduced a system of having departmental
appointments to ambassadorial rank brought before the committee.
A number of very distinguished people appeared and answered
questions at considerable length, and not always with
considerable politeness on the part of the questioners as to
their qualifications. That can be done by simple parliamentary
custom. It may be the sort of thing that the justice committee
could usefully consider. Would it be the sort of thing that
might be advanced?
Some judges would object. When the charter of rights was being
adopted I mentioned a system of the parliamentary election of
judges for a constitutional court. One distinguished gentleman
said that he would never agree to serve on this basis. I told
him that he would be surprised by the thunder of feet of people
rushing by him, people who would be prepared to go before an
electoral system.
I offer this for the hon. member's consideration. It might be a
point worth raising. There are already precedents, for example
in the foreign affairs committee.
1335
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am proud to be speaking today on the Reform motion.
The debate has been somewhat diminished by some insulting
remarks made by government members. They have characterized
Reform as fearmongers. They have said we have wrong motives,
that we are acting precipitously and we are silly.
I indict them with the charge that if the members over there sat
on this side of the House and that motion had come from this side
of the House there is probably not one of them who would not
support the motion. That is an indictment I do not think many of
them could escape, particularly those 69 who signed the petition
to their own leadership asking for a move on this issue.
There are those tonight when the vote comes up who will wish
they were on this side of the House. They will wish that they
were not whipped into shape so that they could express not only
their own hearts' desire in this matter but the desire of their
constituents, as well. When the vote comes this side of the
House is on the side of the children. It is on the side of the
parents of the children. It is on the side of what is right and
we will vote as a block on this side to support the motion.
On that side we will be interested to see what the result is and
to see if members there will stand up for what they know is
right. On the other hand there have been some members who have
made good and legal points but I do not believe that it was as
quoted by the judge, that the possession of child pornography is
an important expression of a person's essential self. That self
needs to be reigned in. The law that was struck down needs to be
reinstated as soon as possible.
It is not good enough to say that from now until whenever the
government stands aside and watches while Canadian children are
put at risk, to watch the process take a step by step management
rather than leadership approach to dealing with the problem. It
will just not accomplish what needs to be done.
Judge Shaw invoked a provision of the charter to strike down the
law that protects children from child pornography. It is within
parliament's purview to strike down his decision through use of
the notwithstanding provisions of the charter of rights and
freedoms. We do not think that a careless interpretation by one
judge should bring the entire protection of children into danger.
The role of parliament in the debate and in acting has been
trivialized by those members who have said let the system work
and we will bring in the law in a timely fashion. The Minister
of Justice has said for all the time I have been in the House of
Commons, approaching two years, to wait and that something on the
Young Offenders Act will be brought forward in a timely fashion.
The official opposition is still waiting. We have quit looking
at our watches. We have almost quit looking at the calendar. We
are beginning to look at some millennium clock to find out if
anything will happen when the government says it will act in a
timely fashion.
We have a responsibility in the House of not merely to be
regulators of society enforcing contracts between different
groups within our society and setting up those kinds of
guidelines. We are to provide some leadership and governing.
We want to consult with our people but we will not find in this
situation any public approval for consultation, waiting or
anything else. Canadians expect us to act. They do not want to
see protection for pornographers, perverts and pedophiles. They
do not want to see children left at risk. They want protection.
We have heard time and again that there are people who are
planning court challenges to take away parents' rights to
discipline and raise their children in the best way they see fit.
1340
We understand there is a lot of support for that from the
Liberal side. For goodness sake, why would we even consider
stripping away the rights of parents to raise their children when
we would not even consider stripping away the rights of a
pedophile to look at the waterworks of children for his own
perverted purposes?
We need to act but there are two ways to act. One is to cut off
the supply which is what we are doing. There are laws so that it
cannot be produced. What we want to see is something to choke
off the demand. There are millions upon millions of dollars
spent on educating the public on the dangers of alcohol, smoking
and other related social problems but education has not stopped
it. Education has only made them aware of the dangers of what it
is they are doing. We do not want to see this go down that same
road.
We want a law in place that is upheld by parliament that will
cut off the demand. We do not treat drunks with alcohol. We do
not let it trickle through. If we want to get away from
alcoholism we cut it off.
A new generation is coming and it will judge the previous
generation on both its actions and its inactions. It will judge
this House on whether it acted or whether it just let so-called
justice take its course and possibly end up as being an injustice
because of our lack of action.
Our vote tonight is action. It can be an action for what is
going on or it can be an action against what is going on. I am
calling on government members to act. I have three daughters and
I will be voting on their behalf and on behalf of my constituency
and I will be voting for this amendment.
Parliament has the final responsibility in this country. We
have appeal courts and the supreme court to review previous
decisions but parliament has the final responsibility. With
responsibility should come authority and parliament must not be
afraid to act on that authority. It must not fail to use the
authority.
President Harry Truman, one of the most respected presidents of
the United States, had a sign on his desk which read “The buck
stops here”. Are we saying that in our country the buck stops
down the road on Wellington where the supreme court justices have
final say over the laws and intentions of this House which were
produced in accordance with what our constituents asked of us
when they said they want just laws, laws that provide equality,
democracy, righteousness, freedom? Or are we to say down the
road is where you will find those things and you will have to
fight your way through every court, right through the provincial
courts to the Supreme Court of Canada at great expense? Or can we
be expected to act here for the people who we purport to
represent?
I say we act here. The buck stops here. When I accepted this
job I said I would do all I could to ensure that righteousness
prevailed. I said I would not necessarily succeed in everything
but that I would do my best to be faithful to what I promised in
the election campaign. Part of that will be voting for this
legislation tonight. Each MP's responsibility is to ensure the
country they leave is in better shape than they found it in. If
they fail to do that they fail their people and their promise to
them in the election.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to share with the member some of the facts I have
received from a person in my riding of Peterborough.
He says: “This is to express my alarm at the present proposal
being debated in parliament to use the notwithstanding clause to
override the charter of rights with respect to the current
concern over a judicial decision in British Columbia concerning
the child pornography law”.
1345
His concern is threefold. One concern is that the
notwithstanding clause was not developed in order to have the
federal parliament override the charter. It was, as we know, a
compromise to accommodate some of the provinces. If the federal
parliament were to use it, it would set a precedent that could
undermine the charter by permitting political tampering whenever
there was a volatile issue such as the one raised at the current
moment.
Second, the person in my riding says, as jurors have pointed
out, that the child pornography law is flawed and it should be
left to the supreme court to comment on it and then for
parliament to amend it in the light of intelligent, informed,
judicial discussion.
This person says he is not a lawyer but he is quite familiar
with this area. This is grassroots comment which the Reform
Party is constantly referring to. He is not a lawyer. He is
familiar with this area. He says it should be left with the
supreme court.
Third, he said that using such extraordinary powers to satisfy a
momentary outcry of ethical panic would lead the Canadian
government to fall prey to what has infected the United States in
what one of its leading constitutional lawyers, Harvard professor
Allan Dershowitz has dubbed “sexual McCarthyism”. It might be
well to remember that in the McCarthy era of U.S. history we in
Canada had a similar tendency that manifested itself in such an
embarrassing moment of history as the Taschereau-Kellock
commission report which led to the demonization of such innocent
individuals who had made great contributions to Canada such as
John Grierson.
He points out “While many of your constituents may press for
the use of this notwithstanding clause, at the moment this is the
time for statesmanship to take precedence over the politics of
panic guided by the media and the Reform Party”.
I would be glad if the member would comment on the comments of
one of my constituents in Peterborough, a person who is following
this debate.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, as the shouting dies down
I will try to make a comment or two on what the member said.
He called it sexual McCarthyism. This is one person's
viewpoint. I respect that person's viewpoint, but I do not
believe that the majority of people in this country think that
way. I certainly do not believe that the bulk of the members on
that side think that way. I think members are looking for outs so
they can support what they have been told to support.
He said the child law is flawed. I do not believe that. The law
is not flawed simply because this man says it is flawed. He may
have an opinion, but that does not necessarily mean it is the
right opinion. That is not necessarily the opinion that will be
delivered by a supreme court justice.
It is not the opinion of the Reform Party or any other member on
this side of the House who is voting in accordance with their
conscience and what their constituents wish that the law is
flawed. We say it needs to be upheld. The quickest and best way
to uphold it is to bring in section 33, the notwithstanding
clause so that this law can continue in effect. It was brought
in by a previous parliament and was supported across the board.
We want to see it supported in the House.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I find it remarkable that the member for Peterborough is quoting
with some authority Allan Dershowitz, a radical leftist American
constitutional authority.
The American constitutional system is based on judicial review,
whereas the Canadian system is based on a principle known as
parliamentary supremacy, a principle which even this Prime
Minister guaranteed was enshrined in the charter through section
33. This place has not used it before. Whenever we have raised
the issue of judicial activism this government has said that we
were Chicken Littles. Today we see the ultimate consequences of
a completely unencumbered, unaccountable judiciary. That is why I
ask my colleague from Prince Albert what he thinks about using
American constitutional theory to apply to the Canadian charter.
Mr. Peter Adams: I rise on a point
of order and ask for permission to table the document I was
citing from.
1350
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Peterborough
have the unanimous consent of the House to table the document
from which he was quoting?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Earlier today I referred to a signed letter to the Prime
Minister of Canada. I inadvertently failed to table this
document. It is a document signed by 75 members of the Liberal
caucus asking for the same action that this resolution today is
asking for. I would like to table this document.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Prince Albert will
have a few seconds to respond to the question that was asked of
him.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in Canada
we have a system where we have parliamentary supremacy. That
means we have a responsibility. We cannot abdicate it and say
that every question has to go to the supreme court. We can act
here in the House. We have a notwithstanding clause that allows
us as parliamentarians to make a law stand once we have made it
in the way in which it was intended to be made.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to this motion.
It is a painful issue for many Canadians across the country as
we have seen expressed from coast to coast.
Interestingly the crux of this argument seems to be the defence
of some sort of freedom, yet at the same time we are talking
about a failure of our system to protect the most vulnerable. In
the cause of freedom and the championing of rights we have
crossed over the line of rational thought when we can no longer
protect the most vulnerable in our society. As we charge down
the highway of rights and freedoms, we have made a grave error
today if we let this stand the way it is.
I applaud the members of the House in my party and every party.
There are some on the other side who are determined to put a
quick end to this grave mistake.
We have had supreme court rulings in the past. They have had
more wisdom on this issue than the current one. I am sure it has
been referenced in the debates today. In the Butler case it was
ruled that the access to pornographic material is not in the
public interest. It is demonstrably harmful to society. For
that very reason section 1 of the charter was called into effect
and it was deemed to be illegal. There was no outcry there. In
fact, Canadians were pleased to see that ruling. That is not
the one we are faced with today. We are seeing just the
opposite.
What concerns me is must we have more victims before we can
determine if there is harm? We talked about the determination of
harm being the criteria before we will decide whether it is
reasonable to shut this kind of thing down. How much harm must
we endure before we can say there has been enough? How many more
children, victims, need to be involved in this kind of sick thing
before we can say there has been enough?
Maybe we should not go overboard in determining harm but ask if
there is any redeeming attribute of this material that would
legitimize it. I would suggest there is absolutely not. Put the
onus on the other side. Where is the redeeming attribute in this
kind of material? How does it add to the health and safety of
our children, our families and our community? It is not there.
In a charter world we seem to stop using our heads and we rely
on legal arguments and highly articulated legalese. Somewhere we
have lost sight that there is a victim at the end of all this and
it is a child. It is tragic.
1355
I have read material that talks about the impacts of
pornography. Oftentimes those that are caught up in this cannot
tell the difference between fantasy and reality after a while and
sooner or later they act out.
I know there are all kinds of studies and debates and people
that articulate the different sides of this. However, if we
asked 100 Canadians that very question whether they think that
looking at this is going to distort our perception of reality,
that we start to look at individual children as objects rather
than individuals, of those 100 Canadians far and away the
majority will say yes, it does distort reality. It is not an
accurate picture of a child.
Interestingly, a paroled sexual offender was released in my
riding not long ago. One of the conditions of the individual's
parole was that he not avail himself, look at or expose himself
to pornographic material. That was a condition of his parole.
Here we have the court system and a judge saying that this would
not work. This would not be good for this individual. This would
distort his sense of reality again.
One court is saying do not touch it and another court is saying
it is quite all right for people to avail themselves of this
material and legitimize this market. It is wrong and we have an
opportunity here today to fix it.
I know that many members in this House want to shut this down
now which is what the Canadian people want to have happen. We can
shut this down now and put an end to the continued victimization
of children, the victims depicted in these horrible things. It
is not a case of freedoms and rights. It is a case of children
who are victims. It is a case of the children not only who are
victims today in this material but the ones who will be impacted
tomorrow if we allow this to continue and we allow the
legitimization of this market to carry on.
I suggest that all Canadians are victims. If we allow a law
like this one to stand, every Canadian is tarnished. The pride
in our country and who we are as Canadians is diminished when we
say to people from other countries that in Canada we think it is
quite all right for people to look at and study this kind of
pornographic material that depicts children. It diminishes all
of us as Canadians. We are all victimized by this. It is just
not acceptable.
To defend freedoms that fail to protect the most innocent is
crossing over the line. Many of us here know it. We know it in
our hearts. Today we have an opportunity to show the Canadian
people that being a Canadian means something. We stand for
something but we are not going to stand for this. Let us do it
today.
The Speaker: My colleague, you still have three minutes.
I want to intervene here and you will have the floor when we
return to the debate, if you want it.
We will go to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE LATE FRANK LOW-BEER
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Frank Low-Beer, who died last month, was educated at Stanford
University and Oxford University and called to the bar of British
Columbia in 1957. He practised law in a wide range of fields,
including taxation, international transactions and resource law.
He also published extensively on such issues as the Canadian
Constitution and the role of judges in formulating policy in law
and legislation.
Frank maintained a keen interest in politics and was a candidate
in my riding of Vancouver Quadra in the 1974 federal general
election. He will be missed by associates and by scholars of law
and government.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the first responsibility of government is to protect the
safety and well-being of its law-abiding citizens. That
responsibility is especially strong when it comes to the safety
and well-being of Canada's children.
However, a judge in British Columbia has ruled that the rights
of children to be protected are less important than the so-called
rights of some adults who want to look at pictures of child
pornography.
1400
Such exploitation of children makes most Canadians sick but the
government is saying there is plenty of time to send this judge's
ruling through endless appeals in our backlogged courts. The
judgment only affects courts in B.C. and not in the rest of
Canada.
Can members imagine a parliamentary secretary making such a
statement if the ruling had come down in Ontario or Quebec?
Canadians are fed up with politicians letting the courts make
our laws instead of parliament making our laws. This House rams
through legislation when it suits them. Why should it take any
longer to act against child pornography?
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, International Development Week activities
are being held across Canada this week.
This year's theme is celebrate Canada's place in the world. It
was chosen to honour the many thousands of Canadians who have
made lasting contributions abroad.
Numerous groups active in international development include
non-governmental organizations, professional and educational
institutions, churches and the business sector.
This week's events are certain to create a healthy atmosphere
for Canada to develop closer friendship ties within the
international community.
I am pleased to join my colleagues in the House of Commons to
encourage Canadians across the country to join in these
celebrations in their neighbourhoods.
* * *
NORDICITY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
world summit on nordicity is being held in Quebec City this week.
Canada is a very appropriate host for an event that celebrates
things northern and polar.
Quebec City is a particularly appropriate venue for this event
because the term nordicité, in English nordicity, was coined
by the distinguished Quebec scholar Louis-Edmond Hamelin.
Mr. Hamelin developed a nordicity index which measures physical
and social aspects of the north. This is a way of assessing the
severity of life in different parts of the polar world. It gives,
for example, employers a way of assessing living and working
conditions for people posted to particular northern locations.
Mr. Hamelin's index has stimulated a great deal of creative
thought about life in high latitudes.
We wish those involved in the world summit on nordicity a
pleasant and productive visit to Quebec City and Canada, the home
of Louis-Edmond Hamelin.
* * *
JOB CREATION
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 18
full time jobs were created in my riding recently with the
announcement of a loan from the Government of Canada to two local
companies operated by former employees of the AECL plant in
Pinawa.
Acsion Industries is expected to create 14 full time jobs over
the next three years. The company has recently opened up
international markets for its electron beam technology which is
used in aerospace industry, parts repair, rayon fibre production
and converting hog waste into fertilizer.
Granite Internet Services Inc. is providing high level Internet
services to eastern Manitoba and is creating four full time jobs
over three years. The company provides dial-up Internet access,
business services and design services for local area networks and
websites.
I am particularly pleased to support these two young companies
because they are both owned and managed by former AECL employees.
These are the sorts of initiatives we have been aiming for
because they are creating jobs for an expanding economic base in
western Canada.
* * *
THE LATE WIARTON WILLIE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Wiarton Willie, Canada's most famous groundhog, passed
away on Sunday night. He left thousands of fans a little
lonelier this Groundhog Day and millions of Canadians wondering
whether or not spring will come early.
Oh sure, we have weather balloons and satellites. Yes, I have
heard scientists talk about El Nino and about the global freezing
your tush off theory, but the only meteorologist for many
Canadians was Wiarton's reliable rodent.
Willie lived a long and happy life. He was 22, which is three
times longer than most groundhogs live. That is like 154
dog years.
How he would have loved today: the crowds, the excitement and
the intense publicity. Would he see his shadow? Would it be six
weeks until spring?
Alas, the only shadow he saw this week was the shadow of death.
Rest in peace, my furry little friend. I hope you go to the
place in the sky where all good groundhogs go, where it is spring
all year round.
Thank you, Willie, for your life of public service and hope.
* * *
JOHN DAVIDSON
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure today to congratulate my constituent John
Davidson who, on January 20, completed his cross-country journey
to raise funds for genetic research.
John began “Jesse's Journey—A Father's Tribute” in St. John's,
Newfoundland in April of last year. He ended his inspirational
journey in Victoria, B.C. after walking nearly 8,300 kilometres
across Canada. He set out to raise $10 million to endow a fund
that would generate a million dollars a year for research into
genetic disease. So far he has been successful in raising over
$2 million. But knowing his tenacity I am convinced that with the
help of Canadians he will reach the goal.
1405
I offer my congratulations to the nuclear and extended Davidson
family, to volunteers and to contributors who worked so hard to
make this journey a success. I also offer my thanks to all
Canadians for welcoming John into their communities and into
their hearts.
With all members of this House I salute John Davidson for his
courageous and unending efforts. He has brought hope to future
generations.
* * *
[Translation]
HEART MONTH
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to remind the House, and all the people of Canada, that
February is Heart Month.
Health Canada has collaborated with the Heart and Stroke
Foundation and the provinces in the Canadian Heart Health
Initiative, in order to encourage Canadians to adopt a healthy
lifestyle and to create living and working conditions conducive
to healthy choices.
Canada has decided to adopt a public health-centred approach to
the prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Cardiovascular disease is the first-ranking cause of death, and
one of the top causes of disability in Canada.
Canada has won some important battles in the war against heart
disease and stroke, but there is still a great deal left to be
done if we are to continue to reduce the risk factors relating
to these diseases: high blood pressure, smoking, high
cholesterol levels, and diabetes.
By investing in heart health, we can make a considerable
reduction in the incidence of heart disease. And by encouraging
all of society to make this investment, we will be able to
improve the quality of life of countless numbers of Canadians.
* * *
ANNIE PERRAULT
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Annie Perreault,
a young woman from our Eastern Townships, won two medals at the
Nagano Olympics, one of them a gold in short-track speed skating.
Since that memorable performance, Annie has been honoured three
times in the last month. On January 5, she was awarded the 1998
leadership award as a model athlete by the weekly newspaper La
Nouvelle de Sherbrooke. Then, at the gala du Mérite sportif de
l'Estrie, Annie was named athlete of the year for the third
time. Finally,, last Friday, January 22, at the Sports-Québec
gala in Montreal, Annie was crowned top female international
athlete of the year.
On behalf of all the people of the riding of Sherbrooke, I offer
my heartiest congratulations to this athlete who is making our
region known throughout the world, and who has risen to the top
because of her passion for sport and her constant efforts.
Thank you so much, Annie, and good luck in future competitions.
* * *
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday when answering a question about
the child pornography case in British Columbia the minister of
justice stated that an effort to pre-empt that appellate process
is silly and wrong headed.
Outside the House she stated that opposition MPs were stirring
up unnecessary fear over the issue because the ruling is only
binding on lower court judges in B.C., which has had one case
thrown out and forty others put on hold.
As is so often the case with this government it forgets that
B.C. is still a part of Canada. I can assure the minister that
British Columbians do not appreciate being one of the few
jurisdictions in the world which legalizes child pornography.
Does the minister not realize that real children have to be
sexually abused to produce child pornography? Does she really
believe that efforts to protect these children today are silly
and wrong headed? Whose side is she on?
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA JOBS FUND
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
December 13, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the
Minister of Labour launched the Canada Jobs Fund to help
Canadians find employment.
In today's context of market globalization and openness in
various areas, our government believes it is important for all
Canadians to take full advantage of every opportunity to improve
their quality of live.
This initiative will benefit regions where the rate of
unemployment is 10% and over. In Quebec, the areas affected will
be Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke and Montreal.
1410
By making changes to this initiative to include more
communities, the Government of Canada recognizes the need to
stimulate employment and to reduce unemployment through a
strategy that fosters economic growth across Canada.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE ALAN JOHN SIMPSON
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 59 years
ago Alan John Simpson was born in Winnipeg and was an active,
athletic boy until he came down with polio at 14.
After three years in the hospital and at home, he told his
parents “I want to go back to school”. Alan was the first
student in a wheelchair at Gordon Bell High and then went on to
graduate from University of Manitoba.
Over his life Alan helped create 30 international and national
organizations, including the Council of Canadians with
Disabilities.
Alan did all this with humour, passion and common sense. One
neighbour remembers the day Alan wheeled up while he was
surveying his newly purchased property. “What are you going to
do right there?”, he said. The neighbour said “I am going to
put my front door”. Alan said “If you put in a ramp too, then
I will be able to come up and water your plants when you are
away”. He did put in a ramp.
Alan Simpson had an impact on people. In the late 1980s he
pressed for inclusion of disabilities in the charter of rights
and freedoms. Last October Alan received the Order of Canada.
In December Alan died due to complications from surgery. I
would like to join with all Canadians and members of the House of
Commons to remember Alan John Simpson, revered, loved and never
forgotten.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure today to remind members of the House and the
people of Quebec and Canada that this is International
Development Week.
On this occasion, I would like to acknowledge the terrific job
done by the NGOs involved in this area. Their generous
dedication brings relief to and helps improve the living
conditions of millions of human beings.
But can the same be said of the Government of Canada? No. Since
1993, this government has literally been draining the
development assistance budget, cutting it by $617 million.
I am calling on the common sense of the Minister of
International Co-operation and the Minister of Finance to take
immediate steps to make international co-operation a government
priority. If the government is still committed to devoting at
least 0.7% of the GDP to development assistance, as it promised
the UN, it should make this clear in the coming budget.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE WIARTON WILLIE
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada is a country with long winters and we all look forward to
an early spring.
Today is Groundhog Day. The home of Wiarton Willie, a
constituent of mine, is located in my riding of Bruce—Grey.
Unfortunately on Sunday night Wiarton Willie passed away in the
middle of the town's annual festival in his honour. I express my
sincere condolences to the people of the town of Wiarton.
I would like to issue a Canada-wide recovery call for Willie
Junior. Willie walked in the shadow of his father but it is time
for him to come home and take up those duties.
* * *
SONG FOR THE MILLENNIUM
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, while most of
the public attention and discussion on the year 2000 focuses on
what might go wrong, there is good news from my riding of
Markham.
Justin Hines, a grade 11 student at Unionville High School, has
co-written Song for the Millennium, an inspirational tune
that was recently selected as the town of Markham's official
anthem for the millennium celebration.
I had the privilege of attending the debut of Song for the
Millennium. The audience was so moved that we jumped to a
standing ovation before Justin could finish singing.
This is just the latest of Justin's songwriting achievements.
Last year he won the YTV youth achievement award for singing and
his award winning song Kid at Play was also nominated for a
Grammy award for vocal performance.
Moreover, this 16 year old who uses a wheelchair has also become
an example to other young Canadians with disabilities.
On behalf of all members I congratulate Justin Hines and urge
the Deputy Prime Minister as minister responsible for Canada's
millennium celebrations to designate the town of Markham's
Song for the Millennium as Canada's official anthem for the
year 2000 millennium celebrations.
* * *
POLAND
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House to congratulate the government on
the success of Team Canada's recent visit to Poland, the first
ever by a Canadian prime minister.
As a Canadian of Polish heritage I was honoured to accompany the
Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade as well as
some of Canada's most dynamic business people to this proud and
prosperous country.
Our hosts admired this government's balanced budgets and low
interest rates which are powering Canada's economy and fuelling
job creation.
1415
This may go unnoticed on the opposition benches but not in
Poland where the Prime Minister was awarded an honorary doctorate
in economics. Polish business people are determined to
strengthen the economic partnership between our two countries.
Stolat. May our two countries continue 100 years of good
health.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
child pornography is poison. The minister is justifying another
lengthy court battle about this whole case.
It may be a lawyer's dream to see this tragedy played out in the
court system, but it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to
protect the vulnerable and the innocent.
How could the minister justify one more day to make it legal in
any jurisdiction in the country for someone to own child
pornography? How could she justify it?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify some of the
inaccuracies. I would presume the hon. member knows the law in
question is constitutional and in full force and effect in nine
provinces and two territories.
I presume she also knows that we acted quickly. We have
indicated our intention to intervene before the B.C. court of
appeal. The B.C. attorney general has indicated his intention to
appeal. He is seeking that the case be expedited before the B.C.
court of appeal. Indeed we have acted quickly to protect the
children of the country.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the minister talks about expediting things her track record
is not great. She has been the Minister of Justice for 601 days
and she was going to look after the Young Offenders Act in a
timely fashion. That is not expedited service.
For one terrified child one day is too long. She has the power
to do something about this. When will she end this nightmare?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I return to the fact that the
government has acted quickly in conjunction with the Attorney
General of British Columbia. This matter will be dealt with by
the B.C. court of appeal in an expedited manner.
I resent the fact that, because we perhaps choose to adopt a
different process than that proffered by the Reform Party,
somehow we on this side of the House do not care as much about
children.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister knows that over 60 Liberal members have signed a
petition asking for exactly what will be happening tonight in the
vote in the House of Commons.
Could the minister actually believe that the whole child
pornography industry will just go on hold and sit tight for
awhile while she expedites things through the court case? How
can she take responsibility for inflicting such terrible and
intolerable obscenity on one child in the country? How could she
do it?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps by omission, to give
them the benefit of the doubt, they misrepresent the situation
for Canadians. For example—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We want to hear the answer from the minister
and I would ask her to be cautious about her words.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate for the
opposition that the government has acted quickly in defence of
this law.
I also remind the hon. opposition that in nine provinces and two
territories the entire section remains in full force and effect.
In British Columbia the laws in relation to the production and
distribution of child pornography are in full force and effect.
The government has acted responsibly to defend children in the
country.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast.
1420
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, this is about protecting
children. I will quote from a letter sent to the Prime Minister
by over 70 members of the House. It says “As soon as the House
resumes we ask that you consider use of the notwithstanding
clause”.
How can protecting children—and I quote the minister—be silly
and wrongheaded?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed the protection of
children is of paramount importance to everyone in the House.
What I believe is wrongheaded is the way the Reform Party
chooses to politicize this important issue which involves the
safety of our children. They choose to suggest, because we take
a different approach to the invocation of section 33 of the
charter, that we do not care about children. On behalf of
everybody in the House, I resent that.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how they do not like politics in
between elections.
Does the minister believe that the entire child pornography
industry has shut down while she is waiting for these courts to
appeal?
How can the minister rationalize just one more day to make it
legal in any way in any jurisdiction to own child pornography?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those who are the purveyors of
pornography in the country are investigated and charged every day
under the existing provisions of the Criminal Code.
The production and distribution of child pornography continue to
be offensive and possession is an offence in nine provinces and
two territories.
I come back to the point that I resent the fact the opposition
chooses to play politics with the children of the country.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
important negotiations are going on with the provinces on the
social union, we discover that the federal government is
negotiating with the Liberal opposition in Quebec.
Given that the Prime Minister has more than one nasty trick in
his bag when it comes to negotiating with Quebec, does he think
that this sort of thing will improve the climate of negotiations
with the legitimately elected Government of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
see no stigma attached to communicating with people. I would
have liked to talk to the opposition, but I did not do so. If I
have an opportunity, I will tell them that our proposal is
reasonable and means progress for all the provinces, that we
want to invest money in health and that we want Canada's social
union to work better.
I am sure that all reasonable people will consider our proposals
much better than the status quo, which the Bloc Quebecois wants
to maintain.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec confirmed less than an
hour ago that there had been contact and an exchange of
information between the Prime Minister's office and the Quebec
Liberal Party.
I would like to know whether the Prime Minister also had other
contacts, other exchanges of information, with other opposition
leaders in other provinces, and if so, with whom and when.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think he wants to quarrel over nothing. If someone from my
office or a minister spoke with the Quebec Liberal Party to pass
on information, I think that is fine.
I myself had the opportunity to discuss all sorts of problems
with the opposition leaders when the opposition was Liberal in
other parts of Canada. I intend to continue because I want
everyone to know what we are proposing, which is progress for
Quebec and not weekends spent trying to discuss things people do
not want to hear anymore, namely Quebec's separation.
1425
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
the Prime Minister to tell us whether he considers the members
of the Liberal Party across Canada to be the only ones that
count.
Does he hold discussions only with leaders of opposition
who are Liberals, or does that apply only to Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
speak with people of all parties. Mr. Romanow is not a Liberal,
although he is going to become one some day, I hope.
Some hon. members: No.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: No, you don't want that? Never mind.
Do you want Mr. Harris to become a Liberal?
Some hon. members: No.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: No, but I did speak to him.
Do you want Mr. Clark to become a Liberal?
Some hon. members: No.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: And then there is Mr. Klein.
I spoke twice to Mr. Bouchard. It is true, he was once a
Liberal.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister of Canada has a problem, if he cannot tell the
difference between someone with the status of premier and
someone who is a leader of the opposition.
To those of us on this side of the House, this is a bit
reminiscent of the Chateau Laurier kitchen plot of 1981. Not a
good sign for Quebec.
We are asking the Prime Minister what guarantee we have that
there will not be a repeat of the usual prime ministerial
strategy of negotiating with everybody except Quebec, in order
to isolate Quebec.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am convinced that the Quebec premier speaks to the Bloc
Quebecois from time to time.
We are told that it gets instructions every day from Mr.
Bouchard, even instructions to keep Mr. Parizeau occupied.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Thursday's first ministers meeting on the social union will only
succeed for Canadians if the Prime Minister brings sufficient
cash for health care to the table. Canadians do not want more
posturing. They do not want more wrangling. They want the Prime
Minister to put on the table the necessary resources to rebuild
our health care system, a minimum of $2.5 billion this year.
Can the Canadians count on the Prime Minister to come through
with the resources necessary to do that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, generally speaking the Prime Minister tries to come
through all the time.
That is why we managed to take the real mess which existed with
the $42 billion deficit and reduce it to zero. That is why there
was 11.5% unemployment in Canada when we started and now it is at
8%. We used to have 12% to 13% inflation; now it is 1%. We
generally come through.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what
will it take to get the Prime Minister to admit to the real mess
his government has left our health care system in?
Under the proposed social union the provinces may withdraw from
Canada-wide programs with compensation. Canadians fear that this
could lead to some provincial governments opting out of medicare
altogether. Ontario is already threatening to do that.
Will the Prime Minister promise today that the government will
enter into a social union agreement only if the important
principles of medicare are fully protected?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there were discussions on medicare before we started. If
I remember they were in Saskatchewan.
If the member had done her homework she would have read the
letter that was signed by all the premiers. They guaranteed in
the letter they sent me before I asked to see them that they
wanted to keep the five conditions of medicare. All the premiers
of all the governments of different colours signed the letter.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
recent ruling by the B.C. court regarding child pornography
should be dealt with immediately.
1430
The Prime Minister is a father. I am a mother and a
grandmother. I am begging this government to act now to protect
all of our Canadian children from those who make and use this
repulsive material.
I am asking the Prime Minister to intervene today and have the
justice minister fast track this matter to the Supreme Court of
Canada to be corrected immediately.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to hear that the member is concerned. In
1981 when I was the minister of justice, I introduced the first
legislation on child pornography. I think I know what this is
all about.
At that time I discussed the reality of child pornography in the
committee and I had to fight the opposition. Some NDP members
did not want me to proceed and some Conservative members did too.
They claimed that it was against freedom of speech.
I just wanted to let the member know that I started on this
problem in 1981 and I am not about to stop now. In the meantime,
I will respect the due process of law.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, as
everybody knows, including the Prime Minister, it was our party
that brought in the law that is there today.
I am saying once again that the people from coast to coast are
appalled by the B.C. ruling. This issue is critical to the very
essence of our country and the rights of our children. We cannot
sit idly by as they are being subjected to the sexual abuse and
terrors of sick individuals. It is time to protect our most
vulnerable, the little children.
I am asking the Prime Minister and the justice minister to act
as soon as possible, sooner rather than later, and to correct
this situation before it is too late.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that the Tories came to
power in 1984. I was the minister of justice in 1980.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister has the floor.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we will have to
call the American doctors soon.
We have acted very rapidly. As the minister said earlier, the
law is still being applied. We are going before the appeal court
in B.C. and we will go to the supreme court if needed. However,
we will maintain the system of law of this land. We have courts
and they make the decisions. After the Supreme Court of Canada
passes judgment, then we act in Canada.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
justice minister tells us that the child protection pornography
law is working for the rest of Canada.
What about the children of B.C.? Are they not Canadians too?
This judge's ruling was out of bounds and we can do something
about it in this House today. I do not want to hear more
legalise from legal experts. I want to know today from the Prime
Minister if he will call off his whips and allow his caucus a
free vote on this issue today in this House.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate yet again
that this government has acted and it acted expeditiously when
this particular section of the Criminal Code was struck down. We
are supporting the attorney general of British Columbia.
The attorney general of British Columbia is asking that this
appeal be expedited before the court of appeal. The attorney
general of British Columbia continues to enforce those provisions
of the law that deal with child pornography.
This government has acted.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are tired of legalise when children are suffering.
I am having a flashback to the hepatitis C vote. I am concerned
that the same thing is happening here again today. Many Liberals
want to vote in support of this shutdown of child pornography.
My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. When will
this Prime Minister allow his backbenchers and his party to vote
with a free conscience on this motion?
1435
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate yet again for
the official opposition and for others who have expressed, I
know, a legitimate concern here today. In fact we have acted in
defence of Canada's children. We have intervened to appeal the
decision of the B.C. Court of Queen's Bench. We support the
attorney general of British Columbia in his seeking an expedited
appeal.
I presume the hon. member when he refers to legalise is probably
suggesting that we should simply ignore the rule of law and the
due process of law.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Prime Minister said, and I quote “All we are asking is that the
provinces taking the money we want applied to health care
guarantee that that is where it will go”.
Since the provinces have already provided written assurance that
they will invest all the money they get from Ottawa in health
care, does the Prime Minister not think he already has his
guarantees and must therefore pay the provinces the money?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
said we also wanted the public to be clearly informed.
It is very important that the members of this House, who vote
for the appropriations, know that the money is spent on health
care and not used in other sectors.
I know that the provinces want to apply it, but we want a
guarantee that the public will be kept informed and satisfied.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what reason
could the government have for not paying the money for health to
a province if it has already agreed to honour the five
conditions in the Canada Health Act and has undertaken to direct
all the money it will receive to health care?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has just added another factor, that of ensuring
the five conditions.
We will be meeting on Thursday, and I hope that we will quickly
reach an agreement so we may take the steps we want, which are
not easy, because there are other government priorities. The
premiers were all pleased to meet Thursday, and I am sure the
meeting will be very productive.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we heard the attorney general say that she wants the rule of law.
We want the rule of law.
Right now what we have in British Columbia is rule by judge and
lawlessness when it comes to the possession of child pornography.
We want the rule of law. The constitution of this land says
that this parliament has the power and in fact the responsibility
to override irresponsible decisions by the courts.
Will this Minister of Justice give her members the right to vote
their conscience this evening on this motion, yes or no?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, this
government acted in relation to this matter and we acted quickly.
I do want to clarify something for the hon. member. If, for
example, he suggests that the section in question, in Mr. Justice
Shaw's judgment, is not in force in British Columbia or is
binding on all judges in British Columbia, let me clarify that.
In fact the judgment of Mr. Justice Shaw is not binding on—
An hon. member: Whip your people into line.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan: I simply want to clarify that Mr.
Justice Shaw's judgment is binding only on provincial court
judges in the province of British Columbia and is not binding
upon any other judge, including Mr. Justice Shaw's reference to
the B.C. Court of Queen's Bench.
I come back to the point. This government has acted and I would
ask the official opposition to respect the rule of law.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this Minister of Justice is not defending the rule of law. She
is undermining it today by refusing to assert the sovereignty of
this parliament to defend innocent children.
She says that this only matters to the lower court level in
British Columbia. So only 10% of Canadian children are subject
to this kind of obscenity through possession of child
pornography.
1440
My question is to the Prime Minister. Tonight will he or will
he not allow a free vote so that his members can vote their
conscience, yes or no? Will he allow a free vote, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a motion on which the opposition is trying to
play politics with an extremely difficult problem. The members
of my party do not want to use sensitive issues like this to play
politics and they will not fall into the trap of the Reform
Party.
* * *
[Translation]
BELL CANADA
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bell Canada
angered the public by deciding to sell off its telephone
operators to an American company.
These 2,400 women are far from being guaranteed employment, and
their working conditions are going to take a dramatic turn for
the worse. The Telecommunications Act requires that quality
services be provided and prohibits foreign ownership.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. Does the minister
intend to intervene in this matter?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
under the Telecommunications Act, the CRTC is the body
responsible for ensuring the quality of the telecommunications
services provided to Canadians, including the services of
telephone operators, in both official languages.
It is not necessary for me to intervene. The CRTC may intervene
if necessary.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
legislation gives the Minister of Industry the power to issue
directions, and he has already used that power against consumers
in a CRTC decision that went in their favour.
Does he intend to use this power to issue directions to ask the
CRTC to hold public hearings and this time serve consumers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is always possible that the CRTC's decision will be appealed.
If it is, I will have to make a recommendation to cabinet.
For now, I am not required to say anything before the CRTC has
considered arguments and reached conclusions.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 75 residents
of the Musqueam reserve in Vancouver are facing financial ruin.
Their life savings are going up in smoke. Many are retirees, in
poor health, living on fixed incomes. They have asked the
minister of Indian affairs to intervene on their behalf and to
help them, and she has refused all requests to meet with them,
saying that her obligation is to the band only.
If the minister of Indian affairs will not intervene to help
these people, who over on that side will? Who has responsibility
over on that side for the Musqueam residents?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question of the Musqueam
first nation is a very complex one indeed. There is a
contractual relationship between the first nation and the people
living in the Musqueam park. There was a contract that was
written in 1965 and the leases were to be reviewed 30 years
later. This lease is legitimate. The first nation has a
legitimate right to set the lease amounts. The federal court of
appeal has actually said it is fair market value. That will be
the process by which the lease will be signed.
In 30 years, indeed, the price of land has increased. It is
very difficult for those people who are living in the park. As
for my responsibility, I am glad to bring the parties—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Skeena.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what the
minister failed to tell the House was that those people signed
leases with the minister of Indian affairs.
By doing nothing for the residents of Musqueam, are the Liberals
saying that these people have no rights, that they have no future
on the reserve and that they may as well pack up and leave their
entire lives and their entire life savings behind them? Is that
what this minister is saying to these people?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I will point out is
that the first nation has a legitimate right, accepted by the
court of appeal, to set the leases in this particular
circumstance.
The role that I feel responsible to play is to do what I can to
bring the parties together to find a mutually acceptable way to
implement this legitimate right of the first nation.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, what the Bloc Quebecois found out in its
travels throughout all the regions of Quebec to meet with the
victims of the employment insurance cuts is most serious.
1445
Poverty is on the rise and the people feel abandoned by a
minister who sticks to his role of technocrat.
Over and above his meaningless statements on the subject, does
the minister not understand that the outcome of his employment
insurance cuts has been the systematic impoverishment of the
jobless and of the regions?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a government we have
embarked upon an extremely important reform of employment
insurance, and we have made a commitment to report once a year
on the impact of that reform, because we are aware that it
affects some regions and many individuals in this country.
I will have the privilege of tabling that report in this House
within the next few weeks, and we will then, of course, be able
to discuss the reality of this reform. It is not, however, as
negative as the opposition would like us to believe.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, between
February 4 and 6, parliamentarians from the world over will be
in the Netherlands to discuss the initiatives their governments
have taken since 1994 to support the action program of the
International Conference on Population and Development.
Could the Minister for International Cooperation explain to this
House the measures our government and CIDA have taken to follow
up on ICPD commitments?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, CIDA
has made women's health care one of its priorities. I must say
that education is the program with the greatest effect on
women's health, since educated women tend to have fewer children
and healthier ones.
We are at the forefront in educating young women in developing
countries.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today we have another example of obsolete equipment endangering
the lives of Canadian armed forces personnel.
Canada's T-33 and Tutor jets have faulty ejection seats. These
seats are so old and rickety that they are putting our pilots at
risk.
Can the minister tell Canadians what is more valuable: replacing
the ejection seats, or the lives of our pilots? Why not just buy
new seats?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course the lives of our personnel are
of utmost concern to the department and this government.
The seats are not the problem; it is the parachutes. We are
putting new parachutes in the seats so that we can ensure the
utmost safety of our pilots.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a chronic problem developing in the minister's
department.
We have a shortage of pilots in the Canadian armed forces.
Obsolete equipment has now forced the grounding of instructors
and pilots. This is reducing the Canadian armed forces
operational capability.
What is it going to take for the Minister of National Defence to
give the men and women of the Canadian armed forces the resources
they need to train and do their job properly?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following the Reform Party would
certainly not help deal with these issues that we are facing
today because in the last election campaign it was calling for
further reductions in spending on the Canadian forces.
We are doing all we can to ensure the safety of our pilots. In
this particular case we have said that some of them will not be
able to fly for a period of time until we correct this problem.
We want to make sure that when the planes fly that they are safe
to fly and that we have in fact minimized the risk for our
pilots.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, this government has been telling us that its UI reform
has been benefiting Canadians.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development explain to the
unemployed and to small and medium businesses how cutting $275
million annually from the New Brunswick economy and $524 million
annually from the Newfoundland economy has benefited them?
1450
At the same time, this government is bragging that it has a UI
surplus. Will the minister guarantee to Canadians that this year
the UI surplus will go toward improving benefits for the
unemployed and put a stop to the disgusting hardship caused to
the families and communities in this country?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the NDP would like to bring
us back to the 1970s but that is not where Canadians want to go.
We have moved from an income supplement system that brought too
many people to live in dependency on an EI system. It was high
time that we changed and there are many people out there who
appreciate that very much.
I know it is tough for some people but at the same time, EI is
one program which is accompanied by many others as well. There is
a Canada jobs fund which is helping to create employment in some
regions where unemployment is too high. We have the youth
employment strategy which helps the young integrate into the
labour market. These accompany the EI reform.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the upshot of the reform is that the minister is refusing to
visit New Brunswick. So much for his reform.
The minister's figures are incorrect. According to statistics
from his department, in southeastern New Brunswick alone, 12,000
claimants will be without income for weeks and months.
Will the minister again contradict his own department's
statistics, or will he help Canadians who are now destitute, who
have no job and are not receiving benefits because of the cuts
made by this government, which is completely heartless and
unfeeling and only looks after the rich?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear from what the member
says that she does not understand that EI is temporary
assistance. Her figure includes all those who have exhausted
their benefits.
It is clear from what she says that she is including everyone,
and does not understand that EI is there to provide temporary
relief.
But we have other programs for these people. We have active
measures to help them return to the labour market. We have a
Canada-wide job creation fund to help people return to the labour
market.
Those who have exhausted their EI benefits want to return to
work. That is the best way out of poverty.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, in a recent
article in Le Soleil, the President of the Treasury Board
is quoted as saying that he would support a city of Quebec
initiative to try to recoup the millions of dollars spent on its
failed Olympic bid for the 2002 games.
It appears that a member of this government was well aware of
the corruption that permeated within the IOC and should have
adequately advised the Quebec Olympic committee.
Would the President of the Treasury Board not agree that the
Government of Canada has some responsibility and therefore should
compensate the Quebec Olympic committee for its losses?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I said no such thing and therefore I do not have to comment on
the subject.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, with the recent
revelations of corruption within the IOC, many Canadians are
wondering how such a scandal could have gone on. The Minister
of National Defence says he did not learn of the existence of
irregularities until 1991, although the City of Toronto's
auditor suggests otherwise.
Can the Minister of National Defence tell Canadians when he
first became aware of the corruption?
The Speaker: The hon. member's question is out of order. The
hon. member for Carleton—Gloucester.
* * *
Y2K PROBLEM
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with the year 2000 rapidly approaching, Canadians are becoming
more and more concerned about the possibility of interruptions
to essential services.
[English]
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. What is
the government's state of preparedness on this subject?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on this subject we have a report dated December 1998 which
indicates that the government is now ready up to 82% for its
mission critical government-wide systems. This compares to about
43% last June. Considerable progress has been made in that
field.
[Translation]
From now on, there will be monthly reports, which will keep the
House up to date on what is being done in the government. Our
reports will be available on the Year 2000 web site.
* * *
1455
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, media
reports today indicate that illegal entry into Canada from China
is a very serious problem. According to the RCMP and immigration
officials, people smuggling is mushrooming. While legitimate
refugees wait in line, those willing to break the law continue to
stream into our country.
My question is for the minister of immigration. Do legitimate
refugees waiting in line not deserve better than this? Do they
not deserve to be put first in line?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to state to begin with
that we deplore the fact that there is illegal trafficking in
immigrants on an international scale. Women and children in
particular are victims of this practice, and we have just had an
example of this.
This is the reason why Canada has always played a lead role in
fighting this scourge, both within the country and
internationally.
Clearly, when someone turns up at an entry point to this country
asking for Canada's protection, requesting refugee status, we
have an obligation to examine that request and to provide a
response as promptly as possible, and we honour that obligation.
* * *
POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
With only a few weeks to go before his budget, the government
continues to claim its fight against poverty is effective.
However, since it has been in office, poverty has been
consistently on the rise in Canada.
Would the Minister of Finance make the commitment that his
upcoming budget will contain major changes to the employment
insurance system, one of the main causes of the impoverishment
of Canadian families?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the member must know, in the last budget we substantially
increased the national child benefit, for the very purpose of
helping poor families.
I can assure the member that it is this government's intention
to remain concerned about our society's most disadvantaged.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In most regions of Canada these days it is so rare for a
business to get a government grant or a loan that it is like
winning a lottery. However, in Shawinigan a businessman with a
criminal record and a bad credit rating calls his MP's office and
gets not one grant but five grants and two loans in one year
totalling $840,000. What special criteria did this guy meet?
Canadians believe these are either golf buddy grants or political
in nature. Why will the Prime Minister not do as he says, come
through, clear the air and appoint an independent investigator to
check this thing out?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. member is referring to
but with respect to the loans from the Business Development Bank
of Canada, I would like to direct the hon. member to a number of
points.
This loan was dealt with in the normal process. It was at a
level beyond the lending jurisdiction of the local branch and was
therefore dealt with by a vice-president in charge of credit at
the bank. It was never reviewed by for example the board of
directors of the bank as it was not that large of a loan. It was
at commercial rates which, in the case of the Business
Development Bank of Canada, are higher than the average
commercial rate. Furthermore, it was part of a financing package
which included private sector lenders.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, earlier
today on behalf of the member for Cumberland—Colchester, I
contacted the minister of fisheries concerning a proposal to
create a large agricultural mussel farm in the waters off
Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia. The project calls for 1,200 acres to
be set aside for mussel farming but many residents still have
unanswered questions about the plans and how this will affect
their community. Last year we wrote to the minister of fisheries
and urged him to complete an environmental impact assessment to
address the concerns of area residents. Will the minister
announce today that he intends to respond to the concerns of the
community and complete a full environmental assessment?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fundy—Royal
for his letters last month and in December.
No decision has been made with respect to establishing the
mussel farm. We are on a committee with the province and
interested parties. If it appears as a result of the committee
examination, discussion and ultimate decision that an
environmental assessment is necessary, I will look at the
Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act and will
proceed from there with the appropriate environmental assessment.
* * *
1500
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The civil war in Sierra Leone has escalated recently with
widespread killings, mutilations and hundreds of thousands of
refugees. In short, it is a humanitarian crisis.
Can the minister tell the House what the government is doing at
the UN Security Council to focus attention on this terrible human
tragedy?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this tragic
circumstance to the attention of the House.
Last week during a visit to West Africa I met with senior
government officials to talk about Sierra Leone. They requested
the president of the council to take the matter up. I can inform
the House that after consultations it will be dealt with this
week at the security council.
I can also say that as part of our commitment the Prime Minister
has authorize us to offer a $1 million contribution to the
peacekeeping activities in West Africa so that we can begin to
deliver humanitarian aid.
The Speaker: That will bring to a close our question
period today.
I have a question of privilege and three points of order that I
will deal with. I will deal with the question of privilege
first.
Yesterday the member for Sydney—Victoria raised a question of
privilege. Now I am faced with this dilemma. Although at the
time the question of privilege was raised the minister was not
here, I see now that the hon. member, for whatever reason, is not
in the House. I will hold the matter in abeyance until the hon.
minister can make the statement directly when the other member is
here.
I ask the hon. minister if we could do this tomorrow when the
hon. member is here. I did not want the hon. member to raise the
point unless the minister was here. In fairness, the minister
should not make a response until the hon. member is here.
I will hear the first point of order from the hon. Minister of
Human Resources Development.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House
during question period the member for Burin—St. George's told us
that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had received more money
from the EI account than they had paid into the account.
I call the attention of the House to the real numbers.
Newfoundlanders—
The Speaker: The hon. minister can probably incorporate
that in an answer one day in question period. This is now a
point of debate.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I seek your
guidance on this matter to some extent.
1505
Last evening in debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the member
for Provencher, made statements with respect to the Musqueam
leaseholders in Vancouver to the effect that they had not made
any lease payments since 1993.
The Musqueam residents contacted me this morning. They are
deeply offended. In fact they say that they are very current
with their lease and—
The Speaker: We are getting into debate. Perhaps it
could be incorporated in a statement tomorrow if the hon. member
would like to do that.
I will now hear the House leader of the Progressive Conservative
Party.
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am looking for clarification from the Chair on an
apparent ruling that took place during question period. It was
with respect to a question posed by the hon. member for West Nova
to the minister.
The Speaker: I refer the hon. member to 409(6).
[Translation]
JUSTICE ROBERT FLAHIFF
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure today you will have the unanimous consent of the House, now
that the government has had the privilege of reading the motion
I introduced yesterday for which I sought but did not get
unanimous consent.
I return today, seconded by the Reform member for Saanich—Gulf
Islands. The motion reads as follows, and I request the
unanimous consent of the House to move it:
That this House, barring a decision in appeal quashing the
decision at trial level, recommend the removal of Mr. Justice
Robert Flahiff, judge of the Quebec Superior Court, because of
his inability to properly perform his duties due to
(a) a lack of honour and dignity;
(b) failure to perform his duties as judge under the Judges Act;
and
(c) a lack of integrity as set forth in the Ethical Principles
for Judges of the Canadian Judicial Council;
And that this removal have as its immediate consequence the
revocation of the current salary and the right of the said judge
to the enjoyment of a pension under the Judges Act.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there have been
discussions among the House leaders and I would ask that you seek
consent to see if we could revert to the introduction of
government bills. It would be the wish of the government to
introduce a bill today in the name of the Minister of Finance to
provide for the transfer of funds to the provinces, thereby
allowing MPs to consult on proposed legislation for one
additional day.
In any case, the item in question is slated for the introduction
of bills. I would ask that you seek consent for its
introduction.
The Speaker: Does the hon. House leader have the consent
of the House to introduce the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to continue from where I left off, but I also think it is
appropriate to include some of the revelations we gained from the
question period.
I will start with the comments of the justice minister, who said
that we need to let the current process sort of work itself out.
However, it is important for us all to note, those watching and
listening today as well as members opposite, that section 33,
the notwithstanding clause, is part of the process. It was there
to be used for situations exactly like this where judicial
rulings are clearly outside the intent of the legislation. It is
part of the process and we have an opportunity in the House today
to use that part of the process to protect children.
1510
I thought the other interesting revelation from question period
was that the justice minister commented that the current
legislation is still working in other parts of Canada. Our
question is: What about B.C.? We have children in B.C. We have
concerned people in B.C. The pay the same high Canadian taxes
that we all do. They are entitled to the same protection that we
all are. They are also Canadians. Do we put them at risk and
not implement this part of the process? Does that make sense?
No, it does not make sense.
The whole issue of trusting the judicial process to address this
tragic situation is wrong.
I point to one of my own bills in the House which deals with the
pardons that are given to known sexual offenders of children. In
this country over 12,000 pardons have been given to sexual
offenders. Of that 12,000 over 700 of them have been caught—and
there are many others who have not been caught—a second time,
even after the pardon. About 400 of those were repeat offenders
of children. They were convicted once and they were pardoned.
Their records were hidden from the public. They were convicted
again, a second time. They were caught a second time.
These are the kinds of things that give a lot of Canadians
concern. Without implementing the notwithstanding clause and
allowing this type of grievous material to be in the hands of
Canadians is of grave concern to all of us.
I close with the argument that championing freedoms and putting
the most vulnerable at risk is a mistake. When we cross over the
line and put the vulnerable at risk in the cause of freedom we
have gone too far. The notwithstanding clause allows us to fix
it today. I appeal to every member of the House to vote in
support of the motion on the floor today. Let us send a strong
endorsement to all Canadians.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
first, I think the hon. member who just spoke will agree that all
members of this place who have spoken thus far and all those who
have spoken informally on this issue abhor the issue of child
pornography. That is unquestioned and that is not what this
debate is about. The debate is about process.
The member has raised the issue of the notwithstanding clause. I
think the member may know, possibly not, that invoking section
33(1) of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, would only
apply to cases from the date of invocation forward. It would not
have any effect whatsoever on the Sharpe decision. Therefore the
appeal must go forward and the federal government should
participate vigorously in that appeal to uphold the law.
The question, I believe—and the member could clarify this—is
whether the current laws of Canada, which were ruled against by
the B.C. trial division court, are adequate or whether they need
to be amended.
I would like the member to clarify whether he fully understands
that the notwithstanding clause does not end the Sharpe decision
and that the government must act to ensure that the Sharpe
decision is in fact dealt with.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Speaker, I think I clearly
understand the crux of the issue here. The member opposite said
that we are all concerned about the grievous effect of child
pornography. But then he said that is not the issue. He said
the issue has to do with process. I would submit to the
House that the issue is the grievous effect. The issue is the
victims, the children. The issue is the negative impact on our
communities. The issue is all the Canadians who are tarnished by
this kind of ruling in our supreme court. The issue is for the
House to do everything possible.
We have an opportunity today to send a message to all Canadians
and to the courts that the crux of this issue is victims and we
are not going to stand for it any more in this country.
1515
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam
Speaker, certainly I share the concern that has been voiced by
all members of the House with respect to the decision of Justice
Shaw and I strongly support the decision of the B.C. attorney
general to appeal and welcome the decision of the federal
government to seek an expedited hearing and intervene.
I want to ask the hon. member from Calgary to respond to two
concerns that have been raised. The first concern is with
respect to the issue of the distinction between the use of
materials in which children are being used to produce the
materials, in which the images of children are being used in
child pornography. Certainly there is no question whatsoever
that is repugnant and the possession of that material must be
dealt with.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association and others have suggested a
distinction between that on the one hand and materials which may
be written materials, materials which do not involve the use of
children in their production. I want to ask the hon. member how
he responds to the suggestion that there should be a distinction
between those two.
Second, I ask him to respond to the concern that many have
raised that by calling for immediate action, as the amendment of
the Reform Party does now, the only immediate action that will
pre-empt the courts is bringing in a law now with the
notwithstanding clause and in effect that would be conceding that
this law is unconstitutional and that rather we should support an
expedited appeal. Should that appeal be unsuccessful then
certainly we could give consideration to the avenue suggested by
the official opposition.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Speaker, I think the issue of
trying to determine which material is appropriate and which
material is not really is splitting hairs. What we are really
debating today is this case and the details of this case. We
know what material was involved in this case. The ruling on this
case is what has incensed Canadians, I am glad to see, right
across this country. It is the details and the material that was
so offensive to so many of us that necessitated us to take some
action, and I am glad to say members on all sides of the House to
take some action, to eliminate or to address this material in a
proactive manner.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank you
for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
I have worked with young children for the first two decades of
my working life. When I was a student in high school in Winnipeg
I used to volunteer downtown in what we called the community
development centres then. I went on to work as child care worker
with kids who were by all accounts victims to some of the
activities that we heard reference to today. During part of my
career as the director of child welfare in Manitoba I had the
privilege of being part of a group of people who wrote the 1985
child and family services act in Manitoba.
I had a chance then to work with some of the leaders in this
country in the area of child abuse, one of which was Dr. Charlie
Fergusson who is known throughout Canada as the exposer of it, a
person who, back when no one would talk about this horrible stain
in our communities, would talk about it. Charlie kept
confronting people with the fact that in our communities children
were being treated in these horribly abusive and very destructive
ways.
Much of my work was trying to help the victims of child abuse,
physical abuse and sexual abuse, recover and put their lives back
together, to think it through and come to terms with the very
terrible experiences they had.
The member from Burnaby asked a member from the Reform Party
whether there was a distinction between one kind of child
pornography and another.
1520
While I have some appreciation for the arguments that are made
by civil libertarians around the general issue of sexual freedom
and sexual exploration, I think a legitimate concern is raised
when we try to repress too forcefully certain information or
certain discussion.
We do as a community draw a line between acts that involve
adults and acts that involve children. I have no difficulty with
drawing that line. I have no difficulty standing against all
kinds of child pornography, all depictions of sexual acts with
children.
We as a country have said for a long time that children have and
deserve special status, and because of their extra vulnerability
we as a country will protect them. I do not think there is a
person in this House, despite the rhetoric that has gone down in
the last two hours, who truly believes otherwise.
I end up being somewhat saddened to find myself standing one
more time on the floor of the House debating a motion that has
been brought forward by the Reform Party, in the fullness of
virtue and goodness and to proclaim its righteousness, which is
simply a kind of cheap political ploy to try to put people on the
spot, to try to pick at people's differences and to try to make
people feel uncomfortable on what is an extremely important and
sensitive issue.
This is an issue that this country would not even have
recognized 25 or 30 years ago when I first started to work. One
could not even talk about the fact that young girls were being
sexually abused by their fathers or by men, who still have
difficulty getting laws that make it a criminal act for a man to
have sex with a child. Do we debate these things or hear about
these things?
What we see from the official opposition is this desire to run
in this House in front of the latest outrage in the community and
demand all sorts of actions.
The fundamental problem I have with that is that it is not
unlike any other lynch mob every time we are outraged by what
goes on in the community. If we are to do our job as
legislators, if we are to provide the kind of leadership the
country expects and deserves from this House and from the system
of laws and justice that we have built, then we owe everyone in
this country calm, quiet deliberation. We owe it to ourselves
and everyone else to let the process work.
The fact is a mistake was made. I believe this judge has ruled
in error and I believe that ruling should be overturned as
quickly as possible. I also believe there is a process in place
for that. There is an appeal process in place and the government
has agreed to expedite that appeal. We have reflected our
concern about the issues that lie at the heart of this debate.
Beyond that, this is little more than an attempt to grab a
headline. I am saddened that we would use an issue that is so
fundamentally important to the lives of young children for that
purpose.
There are a lot of things that happen in this country on a daily
and weekly basis that we do not like such as someone who drives
drunk through a stop sign and kills somebody. We are all
emotional about those issues and we all hate them. I have two
young daughters, four months old and six years old. The thought
of this repulses me. However, I also owe it to them to not do
what we did in days of old and run down the street with our
torches and hang the first person who comes into sight.
We have a system of law and justice that allows us as a country
to reflect on these issues and move in a judicious, careful and
responsible manner. All we are saying here is that process
exists.
Frankly I am also a little saddened by the image of the
judiciary that is constantly brought up in this House by members
of the Reform Party. I have worked with the judiciary and have
sat in these courts many times on these kinds of issues and have
watched the judges and the prosecutors struggle with this. I
think our court system in Canada serves us very well. When the
judiciary does things which calls its wisdom into question it
also has mechanisms to correct itself.
When it cannot, we should act. If we reach that point on this
case or any other, we will act. But we should do it with the
kind of judicious consideration, the kind of bringing to bear our
intelligence on those issues that produces a solution, not simply
to pander to the momentary emotion that we all feel when
confronted with an outrageous and despicable crime against anyone
in this community.
1525
I would, as I have often done in this House, urge the Reform
Party to be a little cautious, take a deep breath. When it comes
forward with debate, bring it forward having reflected on it,
having thought about the consequences, having thought about the
end point.
Does the Reform Party really want us to be using the
notwithstanding clause every time the federal government is
offended by something that happens somewhere in the provinces? Is
that its goal in this? Does the Reform Party want us to be
running around every time, immediately upon an action taken that
we do not like? Or does it want us to respect the law? We are
the law makers. Does the Reform Party want us to respect the
laws we create and hold ourselves accountable to?
I am splitting my time with another member.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the previous speech demonstrates the real problem we
have in this House. There is an attempt to appear reasonable but
the inaction is unconscionable.
I am not trying to grab headlines. What would really grab the
headlines right now is if these Liberals would reverse their
position and act responsibly with regard to this matter.
What is the primary question at stake here? Is pornography,
particularly child pornography, a concern? Does it have a
negative impact on society, especially in B.C., at this moment?
Yes, it does. Does it put people at risk at this moment if we do
not act? Yes, it does. Does pornography have a useful place in
society? No, I do not think it has.
What this member has to answer is should we maintain laws
against it. Yes, we should. If there is a gap in those laws
because of what court decision has come down, we must act
immediately.
To be accused to fearmongering and all the other accusations
that have come across here is completely counterproductive. If
we see a problem developing in society, we must accept
responsibility and we must act on that. That is what we are
trying to do right now. We appeal to those members opposite to
consider what we have to say. I cannot believe those members
opposite would downplay the seriousness of this issue or not take
it responsibly.
It is wrong to simply push this on to the courts. The courts
are wrong and we need to act immediately. Parliament sends
signals to society. Parliament sends signals as to what is right
and what is wrong. We need to send the correct signal right now.
We are the highest court in the land and it is about time we took
that responsibility.
Do lower courts make mistakes? Yes. That is why we have higher
courts. We need to act now in this place. Child pornography
needs to be kept a crime. What could ever motivate us not to
act? That would be my question for the member opposite. What
would motivate us not to act right now?
Pedophiles are walking free at this moment. Decisions have come
down. The police are no longer pursuing this because of the
court decision. This is serious because this lack of enforcement
is already having a very negative effect. Should we not be
acting as soon as possible, right now?
Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member
when he began his remarks said that he did not want to do
anything to inflame the debate, that he was not here to fan the
fires. The member then says that today in B.C. pedophiles are
walking free because of this law. That is absolute nonsense.
Take it on face. This is a law that made it illegal to possess
child pornography.
The person was accused of the possession of child pornography. It
is not a good thing. It is a bad thing. I said that many times.
Members on this side of the House have said that. Let me put it
very clearly for members opposite. Members on this side of the
House have risen over and over and over—
1530
An hon. member: Don't be patronizing.
Mr. Reg Alcock: I will be as patronizing as you are. You
should learn to come forward just once in the House with a
substantive argument and stop playing these silly kinds of games.
It is absolutely unbelievable that they come forward into the
House, puff themselves up, pretend they are the defenders of
righteousness and justice, and then make statements like that.
When the member rose he talked about inaction. What inaction?
The Attorney General of British Columbia appealed the case
immediately. Our justice department expedited the process.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not know whether the member is in order to be saying
you and speaking in the first person to members on this side of
the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I remind the member
to address his remarks through the Chair.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can recall the
remark I was making when I committed the error. Through you,
Madam Speaker, I believe the member opposite side is
irresponsible and attempting to simply irresponsibly inflame
debate.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the Reform Party calls upon parliament and the government to take
legislative initiatives to strike down and reach a decision on
the British Columbia lower court decision concerning child
pornography.
The motion invites the government to take all legislative
measures necessary to reinstate the law and to invoke section 33
of the Constitution commonly known as the notwithstanding clause.
I thought it might be useful for members on all sides of the
House to actually review the sections of the law that are
applicable to this case, particularly section 163.1 and the
definition of child pornography:
a photographic, film, video or other visual representation,
whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the
age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged
in explicit sexual activity—
The accused is charged under two sections. The first is
subsection (3):
Every person who imports, distributes, sells or possesses for the
purpose of distribution or sale any child pornography is guilty
of—
Also subsection (4) which says “every person who possesses”.
There are two offences here: possession for the purpose of and
simple possession. As indicated, Mr. Sharpe was charged with
subsections (3) and (4), namely possession for the purposes of
distribution and possession of child pornography.
I would like to note that the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals as
recently as last week quoted the Canadian legislation favourably
in upholding the constitutionality of that law.
Child pornography is a curse that all members of the House view
with distaste. It is something that has to be addressed and has
attempted to be addressed on both sides of the border.
Mr. Sharpe in turn claimed his fundamental freedoms,
particularly section 2(a) of the charter, freedom of conscience;
section 2(b), freedom of expression and opinion; section 2(d),
freedom of association; and section 15(1), equality rights under
the charter. He claimed all those sections with respect to the
possession charge. With respect to the possession for the
purposes of, he simply claimed section 2(b).
The crown acknowledged that there is a limitation on the
freedoms pursuant to section 1 of the charter and that the rights
and freedoms of the rights of citizens are subject to reasonable
limits as prescribed by law and as can demonstrably be justified
in a free and democratic society.
Then the judge went into an analysis of the evidence that was
before him.
1535
Subsection 3, possession for the purpose, was upheld as valid
constitutional law. I will not deal with that. The section that
has members opposite concerned is with respect to what is known
as simple possession. It was found to be void and
unconstitutional. I thought a review of the decision would be
appropriate and in order, given the level of rhetoric the House
enjoyed.
Page 7 of the decision indicates that sexually explicit
pornography involving children possesses a danger to children
because of its use by pedophiles in the seduction process.
Children are abused from the production of film or videotaped
pornography. Highly erotic pornography incites some pedophiles
to commit offences. Highly erotic pornography helps some
pedophiles relieve pent-up sexual tension.
It is not possible to say which of the two foregoing effects is
greater. Mildly erotic pornography appears to inhibit
aggression. Pornography involving children can be a factor in
augmenting or reinforcing the cognitive distortions of
pedophiles. There is no evidence which demonstrates an increase
in the harm to children as a result of pornography augmenting or
reinforcing the cognitive distortions of pedophiles. The
dissemination of written material which counsels or advocates
sexual offences against children poses some risk to the harm of
children.
The crown conceded that this is a violation of one's guaranteed
freedom of expression but argued that it was a reasonable limit
within the limits of the law. Only one case was cited, the
attorney general v Langer, in which the law was actually held to
be a valid law. Section 163.1 was explicitly held to be valid
and thereafter the paintings themselves were returned to the
accused.
In dealing with that case Judge Shaw says that Judge McCombs did
not do “a proportionality test”. A proportionality test is
nothing other than a fancy way of saying risk benefit analysis;
in other words weighing the legislative objective against the
effects of the legislation. The question becomes whether to use
a legislative hammer, i.e. the Criminal Code, to kill the
impugned behaviour in the context of our charter.
Several other tests are referred to in the course of the
decision but the judge concluded that in his view it was
appropriate to the present case to consider the proportionality
test between the desultory effects and the salutary effects on
the prohibition and possession of child pornography.
He then went through a weighing process and made the conclusion
that there was no evidence which demonstrated any significant
increase in danger to children related to the confirmation or
augmentation of cognitive distortions caused by pornography. That
is a conclusion with which many of us would have some serious
difficulty. I quote it:
There is no evidence which demonstrates any significant increase
of danger to children related to the confirmation or augmentation
of cognitive distortions caused by pornography. There is no
evidence that “mildly erotic” imagines are used in the
“grooming process”. Only assumption supports the proposition
that materials that advocate or counsel sexual crimes with
children have the effect of increasing the occurrence of such
crimes. Sexually explicit pornography is used by some pedophiles
to relieve pent-up sexual tension. A person who is prone to act
on his fantasies will likely do so irrespective of the
availability of pornography. There is no evidence that the
production of child pornography will be significantly reduced if
simple possession is made a crime.
With respect I believe the judge was wrong. I believe the House
believes the judge was wrong. When it comes down to it, we are
talking about a question of values. Surely it is the right of
parliament to expect that it can create an environment in which
it wants to see Canadian children raised.
Children should be free of the fantasies of adults and free of
the abuse that this is something of a false test, and it is a
false test. There will never be an empirical test that says if
a possesses child pornography it therefore follows that
b will be harmed. We cannot do it. We are human beings.
It does not work. The test appears to be objective but I submit
it is quite naive. It is nothing other than legal fiction.
1540
It is up to parliament to express its view that this test is
nonsense. Canadians believe that it is a Canadian value that
possession of this material leads to harm and is degrading to our
society.
I can do no better than to quote from a letter sent to my hon.
colleague from Greenwood—Broadview dated today's date by Mr.
Danson, the lawyer for the Mahaffy and French families, who
should know something about this issue. He said:
Both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of the
United States have concluded that the use of children to make
sexual pictures is child abuse. Simply put, child pornography is
a direct product of child sexual abuse and constitutes a
permanent record of a child's sexual exploitation.
Once Judge Shaw arrived at the conclusion he arrived at, it
follows that consideration of the detrimental effects will be pro
forma. Judge Shaw believed that the invasion of personal freedom
and privacy were profound and therefore by a circuitous bit of
reasoning used his earlier findings as the basis for his findings
that the detrimental effect of an invasion of privacy was a fact
that overwhelmed the issue concerning possession. In the
interest of time I will not quote it.
I believe Judge Shaw's findings are wrong. He used a false test
which has led to absurd conclusions. I suggest all members
support the attorney general in her intervention and await the
decision of the appeal court. The House could only do one thing
that is more absurd than Judge Shaw's reasoning, and that is
support the motion.
I quote from the final page of Mr. Danson's letter:
I know in bringing forward this motion in Parliament today they
are motivated by genuine, honest and good intentions, but I have
to say to you that on this one, the Minister of Justice is
absolutely correct and should be fully supported.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Scarborough East on his
logical premises and his reasoned debate. It is one of a few we
have heard from the government side today.
I do not agree with his conclusion based on the premises that he
cited, that the only conclusion could be to support the attorney
general's intervention in this case. The conclusion he drew
based on the premises he made is not the only conclusion that can
be reached. This was a ruling by Judge Shaw that was incorrect.
It was wrong and many people do not agree with it. The member
stated that he did not agree with Judge Shaw. Yet he also
clearly stated that the production of child pornography produced
a record of child abuse and the abuses involved in the creation
of child pornography.
Would the member not agree that by waiting even through an
expedited process by the attorney general and by not taking
action immediately the attorney general allows this kind of abuse
to continue in the jurisdiction of British Columbia? I know his
legal background. He knows that cases which set precedent in one
jurisdiction are often used in other jurisdictions in future
cases.
Does he not agree with the fact that this decision and failing
to intervene now would mean there would not be some further
abuses happening to children, particularly in the jurisdiction of
British Columbia?
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question.
First, the decision was issued on January 13. As I understand,
within the week the British Columbia attorney general appealed
the decision. Within the following week, one week before
parliament was recalled, the Attorney General of Canada joined
the appeal in an intervener status to uphold the
constitutionality of the case. I cannot think of any response
that could be quicker.
As to the issue of whether we should use, if you will, the
nuclear bomb of the Constitution in order to blow up this
possession, I think that is a gross overreaction. It is a
conclusion that is not warranted under the circumstances. In my
view it has no precedent value.
1545
This is a decision of the trial court of British Columbia. It
is a lower court decision. If it is upheld, their argument
becomes much stronger. But in my view this has no precedent
value. It has no precedent value in other provincial court
jurisdictions. It has no precedent value on his fellow judges.
It is simply a stand-alone decision. In my respectful submission
it was a timely response on the part of the Attorney General of
Canada and on the part of the Attorney General of British
Columbia.
To invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution in
order to quash this offence is a disproportionate response to the
offence that we all want to see corrected.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I take great exception to the member making an analogy
between a nuclear bomb and the notwithstanding clause. If we are
ever going to send a message to the judiciary that parliamentary
supremacy over legislation is meaningful, and if the public at
large is going to receive that message as well, there is no
better time to use this than at a time when something so offends
the common sensibilities of people.
I am trying to get at the basis of why so many members on the
other side, including the hon. member, feel so strongly that this
is an overreaction. Why is it an overreaction?
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, the first reaction should
not be an overreaction. The first reaction is to read the case
which is 21 pages and to review the reasoning of the judge. If
we review the reasoning of the judge we will see it is clearly
flawed. That is the first response we would have. We would also
be well advised to read Mr. Dosanjh's comments on that case which
attack the reasoning of the judge. That would be the first
appropriate and proportionate response. It is completely out of
line to use section 33 for this purpose.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I too commend the member for Scarborough East for his
thoughtful and reasoned remarks.
He did not compellingly answer the question just posed as to why
he feels it is an overreaction to invoke section 33. He merely
reiterated his assertion. However, the tone of his comments was
appropriate in that his comments did not follow the pattern of
his colleague from Winnipeg South who launched unfortunately on
an all too common partisan speech imputing motives to others who
feel very strongly about this as do I.
An hon. member: Coming from you those are really new
words. Like you are not partisan on what you speak.
Mr. Jason Kenney: As I was about to say to the very hon.
lady opposite, I have no doubt that the government members here
have nothing but the best of motives in the position they take.
They place greater emphasis on the importance of the authority of
judges as opposed to those of us who place greater emphasis on
the importance of the authority of parliament. It is a
legitimate debate to have in a democracy.
I do not choose to castigate my colleagues opposite for arriving
at a different conclusion than do I. I would invite them to
accept a similar position of equanimity when it comes to such a
critically important debate.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South castigated the official
opposition for calling for immediate action in its motion.
Let me make reference to that motion as it has not been read for
some time. What we simply seek is “that the government should
take immediate measures to reinstate the law that was struck down
by a recent decision of the court of British Columbia regarding
the possession of child pornography, even if that entails”—not
necessarily but even if that entails—“invoking section 33 of
the Constitution Act, the notwithstanding clause”.
1550
On this point, if the House were to pass this motion and
officials from the justice department were to conclude that other
reasonable measures could be taken immediately to counteract the
effects of this judgment apart from the invocation of section 33,
then I am sure we would support that. I agree section 33 is the
ultimate legal constitutional lever available at our disposal and
we should use it with great discretion.
I would call on members of the government, if this motion
passes, to provide us with reasoned opinions as to whether or not
there are other legal avenues available to act immediately,
rather than waiting for the indefinite appeal process.
The second element of the motion says essentially that
notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of this
House the bill would be considered in one sitting so as to
expedite it. I think it is a reasonable motion.
I also read a letter sent on January 20, 1999 to the right hon.
Prime Minister from some 70 members of the government, including
the hon. member for Winnipeg South who said that it was
unreasonable for the opposition to call for immediate action in
this. Yet I look at the letter to which he has affixed his name
where he, among others, wrote to the Prime Minister “We ask that
you send an unmistakable message to the nation that your
government will not tolerate any proliferation of child
pornography through the weakness of our laws. We ask that the
government not wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision to be
heard, but immediately act in defence of Canada's children”.
This is not me speaking; it is conscientious members opposite
who have signed this letter. I am not using this as a partisan
lever. I am just pointing out that the member for Winnipeg South
seems a bit schizophrenic today, because the letter went on to
say “The undersigned recommend that strong new child pornography
legislation be introduced as soon as the House resumes”. That
was yesterday. We, the official opposition, introduced this
motion as soon as we had the opportunity.
The member and his colleagues went on to say “We ask also that
you consider the use of the notwithstanding clause”. Let me
quote that again in case the member for Winnipeg South is not
listening. “We ask also that you consider the use of the
notwithstanding clause or other equivalent effective
measures”—which we are open to in our motion—“to send a clear
message that Canada's charter of rights will never again be used
to defend the sexual abuse of Canada's children”.
They call to immediately act at the first opportunity in the
House and to consider invoking the notwithstanding clause. I
would suggest their wording is even stronger than that proposed
in the motion before us. This is a letter that was signed by my
colleague from Winnipeg South who just stood up and for making
the same argument imputed my motives as being strictly partisan
and political. I resent that.
Yes, I am a politician. I am a partisan. But on matters like
this one I do believe that common sense and common values can
prevail.
I submit that if we were to consult our constituents broadly
there would not be a debate. There would be as close as we could
find the unanimity in a democratic society on the need for this
sovereign legislature to use all of its power to act and to act
immediately.
Some of the members opposite offer soothing words about
respecting the judicial process and allowing the appeals process
to work. I know as well as they do, and certainly as well as the
member for Scarborough, a lawyer, does, that the appeals process
can be tortuously long at times. It is a slow tortuous process
open to procedural delays and there is no guarantee that this
will come to a satisfactory conclusion.
In fact there seems to be among those opposing this motion a
presumption that the higher courts, the appeal courts, will
overturn the absurd, disgraceful, bizarre judgment, as I would
characterize it, rendered at the B.C. court. I do not share
their presumption. I might be able to share their presumption if
I had not seen over the past 15 years the courts grow bolder and
bolder and bolder in asserting essentially a legislative power
and legislating from the bench, notwithstanding the democratic
consensus of Canadians on critical issues.
1555
This is not a political issue. I suspect and hope there are
members of all parties who will support this motion this evening.
I have just received a copy of a letter from the Canadian Police
Association which is also speaking on behalf of victims of crime,
CAVEAT and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. It
is signed by Mr. Grant Obst, the president of the CPA. It is a
letter to my house leader with a copy to the Minister of Justice
in which he writes:
I have been made aware of the motion you made this morning in
the House of Commons calling upon the federal government to enact
legislation criminalizing the possession of child pornography. On
behalf of the Canadian Police Association, let me lend you the
support of our 35,000 members across the country.
We believe that the current law is constitutional—
—contra the judge—
Cases have been thrown out. Pedophiles have been let out on the
street as a consequence.
There is clearly an urgency to this issue and we therefore hope
that parliament can act swiftly to ensure that the laws against
possession of child pornography are upheld in B.C. and in the
rest of Canada. Given that urgency, we support any action which
will ensure the laws against possession of child pornography are
upheld.
We applaud your initiative on this matter.
It does not say anything about any party. It talks about the
principle of the issue before us.
I appeal to all members to put aside partisanship, not to impute
motives. One of the reasons I am a member of the Reform Party is
because I oppose judicial usurpation of democratic authority from
the parliament. It is one of the reasons I left the Liberal
Party and joined the Reform Party. But that does not mean
Canadians cannot agree in principle beyond partisanship that
there is a need from time to time to use the constitutional
levers put at our disposal to protect not just our children but
perhaps even more importantly the principle of parliamentary
supremacy. That is what this debate comes down to.
Some members seem to believe that invoking section 33, the
notwithstanding clause, characterizes an overreaction. The real
true overreaction, the real legal nuclear bomb if you will, is
the abuse of judicial authority exercised by judges, such as the
one in this case, where they use their own narrow, parochial,
social, political values to impose them on society contra the
virtual unanimity of Canadian democracy.
I call on my colleagues on all sides of the House to not impute
motives to one another here but let us assert the sovereignty of
this parliament. We can act. The Constitution gives us the
power to act and we must act. To do otherwise is to abdicate our
fundamental democratic responsibility.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have been listening to the debate throughout the day
with great interest and I must say with some puzzlement. Several
Reform members have suggested that members on this side of the
House give greater importance to freedom of expression than to
the protection of children. It is quite the opposite and I would
appreciate the member's comments on what I am about to say.
This parliament has very clearly passed legislation that says
the importance of protecting our children supersedes the
individual rights to freedom of expression. The Constitution of
this country allows us to do that.
The Reform Party in its motion today seems to be accepting the
judgment of the British Columbia court, that in fact we have gone
too far, that we do not have the right to impose that limit on
freedom. The Reform Party wants us to accept that judgment and
say we have to override the charter of rights and freedoms to
protect the legislation.
The legislation is a very legitimate and necessary limitation on
personal freedom because there is no greater obligation of this
parliament than the protection of our children, especially from
this kind of abuse.
That is why I want to go into court and I want to demonstrate
clearly that this parliament does have the right to limit
personal freedom for the greater good of protecting our children.
That is why I am not prepared to accept the judgment of that
judge and to say now I have to act in accordance with his
judgment and overrule the charter so that this law can prevail.
1600
I ask the member also to comment on what would happen if we now
say that we have to overrule the charter because we accept that
the judge was right, this exceeds the charter and the only way of
making it valid is to overrule the charter. Then every lawyer
whose client has been convicted of possession of pornography
would have the right to go back into court and say “Parliament
has overridden the charter, which did not exist when my client
was convicted, therefore my client should be freed because the
law was unconstitutional and parliament has admitted it”.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, I did not imply that the
members opposite value freedom of expression over the
responsibility of the protection of children from pornography. I
did suggest that some of the members opposite may value the
authority of the courts contra the balance versus the authority
of parliament. I think that is a legitimate debate.
She knows she is being disingenuous when she suggests the Reform
Party supports the judgment and believes that it is
constitutional. She knows that is absurd.
I do not think there is a member in the House who believes this
judgment is constitutional. But the point is this. The appeals
process can work on track. We can invoke the notwithstanding
clause in this place and protect these children immediately by
reinstating the law. We can do that and allow the attorney
general of British Columbia to pursue the appeal.
The hon. accountant opposite seems to disagree with the judgment
of the lawyers I have spoken with. Let me make it clear that we
can put this to the supreme court and let it have its say. It is
nice that members opposite seem to have an absolutely unmitigated
faith that the Supreme Court of Canada will undo this unjust,
unconstitutional, outrageous decision. I am not entirely sure
based on some of the precedents I have seen come out of that
court.
But we can allow the appeals process to work and allow that to
take the years and millions of tax dollars that it will to
satisfy this British Columbia pervert's desire to tie up our
court system. We can allow that to happen but at the same time
protect the children by invoking section 33. The are not
mutually exclusive. They are mutually compatible.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, after
that rousing speech and retort I will try to carry on.
Along with most Canadians I was shocked and outraged when we
heard that a B.C. supreme court judge had struck down the section
in the Criminal Code that prohibited possession of child
pornography. The judge in his decision stated that Robin Sharpe's
freedom of expression was violated by the Criminal Code which
prohibits possession of child pornography.
It is not at all surprising that such an offensive attack on the
values of society comes from the benches of the unelected and the
unaccountable. Judicial activism, a recently coined term, refers
to rulings by judges which go well beyond the intent of the law.
These decision substantively change the law to the point where
judges have taken on the role of legislators or law makers as
opposed to simply interpreting and applying the law.
The courts have turned free some of the worst criminals in
society, from drunk drivers to child pornographers. These judges
who are acting without an electoral mandate are singlehandedly
changing the laws in this country.
We as elected members of parliament make the laws that govern
this nation right here in the House of Commons. So why are we
allowing these laws to be arbitrarily changed on the strength of
a decision made by a few unelected, unaccountable officials? How
many more shocking decisions are Canadians going to have to
endure before this activism is stopped?
The first section of the charter guarantees the rights and
freedoms set out in it are subject only to reasonable limits
described by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society.
1605
What was so democratic about striking down a portion of section
163? In interpreting this section, a judge is to apply a test of
proportionality, balancing the interests of society with that of
the individual. I must say I cannot imagine that any legislative
assembly in this land would agree with this decision, a decision
that puts the rights of the pedophile before the rights of his
victims, the children of our society.
Much has been discussed today but I want to spend just a few
moments discussing pornography and the effects it can have on the
user in society.
Sex is everywhere. We read about it every morning in the
papers. We hear about it all day long on the radio and watch it
on the national news each night. No one in society can escape
it. This fascination has fuelled a huge increase in the growth
of pornography.
Here are a few stats. The adult industry is worth over $10
billion a year. In 1996 the amount of hardcore video rentals
numbered 665 million. Each week 150 new pornography videos are
produced in the United States. Hotel guests spent $175 million
in 1996 to get pornography in their rooms. Between 9 p.m. and 1
a.m. each night over 250,000 people dial phone sex numbers. In
the United States the number of stores distributing hardcore
pornography have even outnumbered McDonald's restaurants.
McDonald's was the former king of capitalism.
Although these figures are for the U.S., it does not lessen
their impact. Nowhere has this growth been so prevalent as on the
Internet. By some estimates, some 17 million web pages are
dedicated to pornography. Detective Noreen Waters of the
Vancouver police, an expert on child pornography, testified in
the B.C. case that with the advent of the Internet there has been
a veritable explosion of the availability of child pornography.
Dr. Michael Mehta, a professor from Queen's University, has
studied the Internet extensively and estimates that up to 20% of
the activity on the web has to do with child pornography. This
number is even great when one considers all the other obscene
material, material that is illegal under Canadian law but yet is
available on the net.
However, there are some that would say that an individual has
every right to view whatever he wants in the privacy of his home.
This may be true but there have to be limits.
Before I clarify that, I want to explain the harmful effects
that pornography can have on its users. First of all, it is
important to understand that pornography is addictive and, as
with all addictions, more and more exposure is needed to satisfy
the cravings. These sexual addictions do not happen overnight.
They take time to develop. There is a gradual progression from
the soft porn pages of Playboy to the hardcore images on
videos. However, just as not everyone who tries a cigarette
becomes addicted, not everyone who uses pornography will become
addicted.
However, once an individual develops an addiction, almost
nothing can come between them and their cravings. In this case
the judge heard from expert witnesses who testified that
pedophiles often go to great lengths to get their hands on
explicit pornography and use it in ways that put children at
risk.
Can this government not see that each day a pornography addict
is allowed to possess this disgusting and obscene material that
it is aiding and abetting his addiction? Each day their
addiction is strengthened, each day they need more to satisfy
their perversions and each day they are closer, if they are not
already, to abusing children.
When pornography users become pornography addicts everyone
around them suffers. Their family suffers, their colleagues
suffer, society suffers and everyone becomes a victim.
In spite of these effects, pornography is legal. In a decision
of the supreme court R. v Butler, Mr. Justice Sopinka
acknowledged that pornography was a legitimate freedom of
expression but it did allow reasonable limits to be imposed.
These reasonable limits do not try to legislate morality but
rather they try to protect society from the harmful effects of
pornography.
When parliament declared that child pornography was illegal it
realized that the rights of innocent children, the most
vulnerable members of society, were more important than the
rights of child molesters.
If this ruling is allowed to stand we may as well declare open
season on all our children; not even infants will be safe. The
sexual deviants who prey on young children have no limits.
According to investigators it is not uncommon to find images
depicting children in sexual acts. Police have even investigated
cases where babies were violated.
The Internet has spawned a huge underground network where
pedophiles exchange pictures and information on hunting down
children and making child pornography. This material is used by
pedophiles to groom their victims, to lure their victims into
thinking that abuse is normal and that they should enjoy it.
What happens to the children who are victimized in pornography?
As an example, consider that 85% of teen prostitutes were abused
as children.
We cannot waste any more time in correcting this wrong. One
child pornographer has already been set free. How many more
perverts are sitting in their houses surrounded by their dirty
pictures ready to abuse another child?
1610
Appealing this decision could take months, if not years, and
then we have no guarantee that the judge will respect the wishes
of the Canadian people.
When the charter was drafted a section was included that will
allow any legislative assembly, including parliament, to enact
the notwithstanding clause. This clause was not meant to be used
often. But if it cannot even be used to outlaw child
pornography, what can it be used for?
The family is being attacked on all sides in our society. The
government discriminates against it through its tax system.
Special interest groups mock it and now it is being violated by
the courts.
This is tragic because the family, without question, is our most
valuable institution and the heart of our social order. It is the
place where children are brought into the world and cared for. It
is where they learn trust, love and security as well as the
values and behaviour that will make them good citizens and in
turn good parents themselves.
Many of us in this House are parents and grandparents. We know
how precious our children are to us. We know that if our
children are being abused by these pornographers we would demand
action immediately. We would not waste any time in doing what we
could to protect our children. We would act now.
The Reform Party recognizes the importance of children and
families in our society which is why we have introduced this
motion today. However, our good intentions are not enough. We
need the support of the government benches to pass this motion.
I know there are many Liberals who have signed a petition asking
for exactly the same thing we are asking for, a petition to the
Prime Minister, a petition to take immediate action. I want these
members, these parents and these grandparents to stand together
with the members on this side and do the right thing.
This is not about partisan politics. This is about the
well-being of our children. Why can we not band together today,
put aside partisan politics and do the right thing? Let us do it
for our kids.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to state how preposterous it is that we are
in the House of Commons, the law making body of our country,
debating something so entirely stupid and ridiculous. This
should not be a question in anybody's mind. I submit to members
that the only people who have a question as to the appropriate
thing to do here are the Liberal MPs.
I spent the last couple of days talking to my constituents and
they say in no uncertain terms to exercise our authority and end
possession of child pornography, to take whatever steps we have
to.
The media unfortunately are reporting that Reform is bringing
this to a vote for partisan purposes. That is not the story. The
story is that 70 Liberal MPs signed their name demanding exactly
what we are asking for here today and now they are going to
reverse their decision. Why? For one reason. They were ordered
by a dictator, a dictator who does not allow free votes in the
House of Commons, a dictator who appoints all senators so there
is no body above the House of Commons to intervene when decisions
are not made with proper thought. Furthermore, he is a dictator
who appoints all the supreme court justices.
We have the three major institutions in this country that act in
passing and enforcing laws under the control of one man and
tonight he is going to force these MPs to vote against the wishes
of surely most every Canadian who is not a demented pervert.
I would like the hon. member for Lethbridge to let me know his
opinion of the authority that is vested in one individual who
does not allow free votes, appoints all senators and all supreme
court justices. What is the member's opinion of Jean Chrétien?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must remind the
hon. member never to mention people by name in the House.
Mr. Rick Casson: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question.
Earlier today we pursued the Prime Minister on the question of
whether he would allow his members to have free votes.
1615
We have in our hands a petition signed by 70-plus members of the
party who suggest that they do exactly the right thing. It is a
letter to the Prime Minister.
When the Prime Minister was asked if he would allow his members
to have a free vote, he stood and said “This is not about free
votes. This is about process”.
I suggest that it is not about either. This is about our
children being attacked by perverts. If members opposite do not
have the guts to stand and protect our children, then they should
not stand at all.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, unlike any member of the Reform Party, I was here in
1993. When this law was passed I was the official opposition
critic for the solicitor general.
Unlike any member of the Reform Party, I voted for this law when
it came into being. Every member of my party voted for this law
and every member of the House of Commons voted for this law.
This law was and is supported by the House of Commons.
The issue is the nature of the motion. Members opposite get
very edgy when they are accused of rhetoric, and yet we hear one
member referring to the leader of the country as a dictator. If
that is not rhetoric I do not know what is.
Let us stick with the issue. The hon. member's motion wants us
to take legislative measures to reinstate the law that was struck
down by a recent decision of the court of British Columbia. That
is plainly wrong.
The law is still the law of Canada. It does not need to be
reinstated. One judge of one superior court in one province has
rendered a decision—
An hon. member: The appeal is—
Mr. Tom Wappel: Obviously members opposite do not wish
to listen to reason.
The judge has rendered a decision based on rubbish thinking, but
that does not render this law inviolate.
I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on that.
Mr. Rick Casson: Madam Speaker, I think the issue we are
faced with is whether the law is in effect or not. The appeal
process has been started. The appeal process could go on for who
knows how long.
The result of that appeal process we do not know because we do
not know if the rest of the judges will support what Canadians
want.
The issue is that parliamentarians should act now and invoke
this notwithstanding clause to protect our kids.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to participate in this important debate. Abhorrence
of child pornography is not at issue in this parliament and in
Canada. All members of this place agree that it is not
acceptable and we will defend the laws of Canada to the fullest
extent to defend those principles.
The Parliament of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada and the
Supreme Court of the United States have concluded that the use of
children to make sex pictures is child abuse, and there are many
other precedents.
The fact is, in this place today and in this debate, whether or
not child pornography is abhorrent is not at issue. We are in
agreement. Let us move on.
I am not a lawyer, but as a member of parliament I have a
responsibility to participate as fully as I can in issues that
come before this place. To do that I have to seek information to
inform myself from other lawyers, from judges, from colleagues
and from external sources to determine what the facts are.
I would like to lay out the facts because when I lay out the
facts I think members will understand why I will not be
supporting the Reform motion before the House today.
On January 20 a letter was written to the Prime Minister on
behalf of a large number of members of my caucus.
1620
I point out that as of January 20 the matter had just come to
the fore. The government position at that time was, should the
issue come before the supreme court, it would defend the laws of
Canada. The colleagues who I joined in signing this letter to
the Prime Minister felt that it was important that our response
be swifter and stronger.
As a result, we made are argument to our caucus colleagues, to
the government and to the Prime Minister to ask for consideration
on a couple of matters. We asked that we not wait until this
matter was appealed to the supreme court. We asked for
consideration to be given to possible new legislation if the
situation was that the current laws of Canada were not strong
enough to defend the social and moral fabric and the values of
Canada. We also referenced, and members here have used it
constantly today, the use of the notwithstanding clause, section
33(1) of the charter.
It is important for us to have made that point. In the event
that no action was taken and there were exacerbating
circumstances, creating more cases going before the courts and
being frustrated, it would be essential for the government to
invoke the notwithstanding clause to stop the flow of bad
decisions.
Subsequent to this letter, and to the credit of the many members
of parliament who signed this letter and the many others who
spoke openly to caucus, to the government and to the Prime
Minister, the government acted. It acted in these ways.
First, the government took the extraordinary step of intervening
in the appeal of the decision to the B.C. court of appeal. It is
extraordinary for that to happen. The importance and the
significance of this issue has been demonstrated by the
government taking that extraordinary step.
The government has also supported the B.C. government in having
the appeal decision dealt with on an expedited basis to ensure
that it is dealt with as soon as possible.
We have also co-operated in seeking the co-operation of law
enforcement authorities to continue all investigations and to
continue laying charges under the laws of Canada. They are doing
that.
We also are satisfied that adjournments have been sought for the
cases currently before the courts so that no other decisions will
be taken until such time as the issue presently before the appeal
court has been dealt with.
It is very important to understand that the letter which has
been referred to so often by the Reform Party was dated January
20 when the position was to deal with the situation when it
reached the supreme court. The letter was not written today and
a position was not taken today after all of these other points
were in place. It is extremely important to understand that we
took the actions that were necessary to ensure that this matter
is dealt with as expeditiously as possible to ensure that the
rights of our children are protected as quickly as possible and
as forcefully as possible.
I have seen many legal opinions to date. I am advised basically
by the consultations I have made as a member of parliament that
the case before the appeal court has strong and very substantial
merit.
There are issues that are going to have to be dealt with. It
has been suggested that the judge may have been in error in the
judgment. It may have been a faulty judgment. It may also have
been the crown attorney who did not make substantive enough
arguments in defending the constitution of Canada.
1625
We do know that the arguments were made strongly with regard to
freedom of expression. But were the arguments made
substantively? I think that these are the points which have to
be raised at the appeal process.
If the members believe that the current laws of Canada regarding
child pornography under the Criminal Code are inadequate and
unconstitutional, then we should invoke the notwithstanding
clause if we believe they are not constitutional. But that is
not the case.
Members have said that they support the laws of Canada. We do.
And we are going to continue to support the laws of Canada. If
we believe they have to be strengthened, maybe we should have
additional measures to strengthen those laws.
However, right now it is plain to me, based on the consultations
I have had, that invoking section 33(1) of the charter, the
notwithstanding clause, is premature and may in fact constitute
either coercion or the undermining of the court system itself. I
say that because if we were to invoke the notwithstanding clause
today, that invocation would only apply to cases that arose from
today forward. It would not be applied retroactively to the
Sharpe case which has precipitated this matter. That means that
the appeal to the B.C. court of appeal has to proceed.
Let us consider this. If the appeal process takes place and the
federal government has already invoked the notwithstanding cause,
what is the purpose of the appeal? We have basically said that
we do not like the court system, we do not value the courts any
more, we do not believe that the laws are being treated properly
under our Constitution, we are going to ignore anything that has
been said and we have invoked the notwithstanding clause.
That is not the way to defend the laws of Canada. The way to
defend the laws of Canada is to deal in the courts with the
specific issues that come before the courts.
I believe that we have ample evidence that this was a wrong
decision. It was poorly argued, and the laws under the Criminal
Code regarding child pornography are in fact constitutional,
valid and supportive of the children of Canada.
Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. There is no
disagreement in this place. There is no disagreement in Canada
that we abhor child pornography because it is child abuse.
I will be voting against this motion because, if I am correct,
the motion suggests that we take legislative measures to
reinstate the law. One does not take legislative measures to
reinstate the law. If the notwithstanding clause is invoked,
that is not reinstating the law. The motion before us today is
in fact contradictory prima facie. It should be defeated. I
encourage all colleagues to look very carefully at a very poor
motion that undermines not only the laws of Canada but also the
rights of our children.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
am hesitant to interrupt the excellent speeches being made, but I
believe you would find unanimous consent for the following
motion. There have been consultations among the parties and I
would like to propose the following motion to the House:
1. That Bill C-306, now in the name of the hon. member for
Brome—Missisquoi, stand instead in the name of the member for
Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
2. That the Order for consideration of Bill C-415, in the name
of the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, be
discharged and that the bill be withdrawn.
3. That the bill on the Notice Paper in the name of the
Minister of Finance, entitled an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, be deemed now to have
been introduced, read a first time, ordered to be printed and
ordered for consideration for second reading at the next sitting
of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1630
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pose a question to
the member opposite.
I listened carefully to the comments of several members today
including the member opposite from Scarborough Southwest. He
commented specifically about the fact that he was present in the
House when this legislative change was first inserted in the
Criminal Code. That was done by a Conservative government.
The motion yesterday was brought forward by the Conservatives
and similarly received unanimous support of the House. I believe
there is room for some common ground and some compromise on this
issue. I am referring to a middle ground with respect to
positions that have been outlined throughout the day by various
members.
The Reform Party has proposed what I think is fair to
characterize as a fairly extreme response. Given the emotion
that is wrapped up in this issue, its seriousness and the
implications thereof, that is not outlandish. However, the
previous speaker indicated quite clearly that there is a need for
rational response. There is a need for due process, a word the
minister has used throughout the day.
In all sincerity, I ask the member, is there not a compromise in
a referral to the Supreme Court of Canada? That is a response
that would leave it in the hands of the judiciary, which is not
always embraced by the Reform Party. There is a cynicism that
exists in that regard, but it would expedite matters.
We all know the old maxim about delay being the deadliest form
of denial. We have seen denial by the government. We saw denial
in the late intervention with respect to the referendum. We saw
delay with respect to the introduction of changes to the Young
Offenders Act.
Would this not be an infinitely reasonable solution for the
Minister of Justice to act now with legislative authority from
the supreme court act and the Criminal Code to refer this matter
of extreme importance to the Supreme Court of Canada where nine
judges of the highest court in the land could pass judgment on
the issue and we would have a definitive answer?
Then we would also have the fallback position that is being
proposed by the Reform Party that if need be at that time this
measure, which could be described as perhaps too extreme' could
then be invoked.
Let us leave the word pedophelia and all the emotion out of it.
There is a need for timeliness here and that has not been the
government's trademark. Would the solution not be to go to the
Supreme Court of Canada?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I understand the member's
point. I agree with him that in the best interest of all
Canadians this matter has to be dealt with in as expeditiously a
manner as possible.
The member has given advice to the House with regard to what
kind of timeline a reference to the supreme court would take. It
is very clear that the supreme court has already dealt with the
issue and it is very clear that the supreme court has upheld the
same arguments already, so it would be an automatic process.
I ask rhetorically whether participating as an intervener and
defending the laws of Canada before the B.C. appeal court would
not have a shorter timeline than a reference to the supreme
court. I do not know the answer to that question. I believe,
though, that the justice minister is considering all those
options.
I agree with the member that to invoke the notwithstanding
clause is tantamount to admitting that the current laws of Canada
are not constitutional and that we are basically desirous of
overruling the charter. I believe that position is extreme. It
is certainly premature. I believe it is one of the reasons we
have to defeat the motion but continue to take the tightest line
in getting our laws reinstated in a manner which is acceptable to
all.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am honoured to say a few words on the motion brought
forward today.
I will try to be as careful as I can in my words and not impute
motive, as has been suggested by members of the official
opposition, but rather deal with the motion as put forward and my
views on it.
1635
It is useful to have a look at what the motion proposes:
That the government should take legislative measures to reinstate
the law that was struck down by a recent decision of the Court of
British Columbia—
That statement is simply wrong. The law in question, section
163 of the Criminal Code and some of its subsections, is still
the law of Canada. A particular judge of the British Columbia
superior court has ruled in what can only be described as a
boneheaded decision that there is some sort of constitutional
right to possess child pornography.
That ruling is not even binding on his fellow judges, never mind
judges in other provinces, never mind appeal courts, never mind
the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no doubt the judgment has
caused a huge outcry in Canada. There is no doubt from listening
to the debate today that everybody is completely in favour of
making it a crime and continuing to have it a crime to possess
child pornography. That is not the issue.
The issue is whether or not we vote in favour of the motion. If
we vote no, why are we voting no? I will tell the House why I am
voting no. We have a law and that law is still in force. It is
still being enforced by police forces across the country. The
Minister of Justice indicated that it is the will of the
Government of Canada that the law continue to be enforced. Police
forces across the country have indicated they will continue to do
it.
In British Columbia, the subject of this judgment, there are
lower courts which generally speaking have to follow the
precedent of a higher court but can adjourn cases pending
clarification of the law. They do not need to dismiss them. On
any cases that are dismissed the crown counsel can appeal those
decisions and make sure everything is in order waiting for the
court of appeal.
How can we take legislative measures to reinstate a law that
does not need reinstatement? It is still the law of Canada. To
vote for the motion is to be completely illogical. We cannot
vote to reinstate a law that does need reinstatement.
We are not talking about a circumstance down the road when the
highest court of the land might theoretically overturn the
section in question. If that were to occur, no matter how fast I
hurried I would probably still not be the first person to call
for the invocation of section 33 of the Constitution, and I
would. However that time has not yet arisen.
The first reason I am voting against the motion is that it asks
us to do something based on the false premise that the law is no
longer the law of Canada. It asks us to reinstate something that
is already in status. Second, it asks us to do so by invoking
section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the notwithstanding
clause.
I have not been here all day so I do not know if anybody has
referred to the actual wording of section 33(1) of the charter of
rights and freedoms. It might be useful to have a look at the
wording of that section if we are being asked to invoke it at
this point in time:
Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare
in an Act of Parliament or the legislature as the case may be,
that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding
a provision included in section 2 or section 7 to 15 of this
Charter.
That is a lot of gobbledegook to non-lawyers unless we analyse
it, so I will analyze it briefly for us.
Parliament may expressly declare under section 33 of the charter
that section 163.1(4) shall operate notwithstanding a provision
included in section 2 of the charter.
1640
If the courts were to find as a matter of law that section 2 of
the charter gives a charter right to the possession of child
pornography, notwithstanding that court decision the Parliament
of Canada using section 33 could declare section 163.1(4) still
to be the law of Canada.
In order to invoke section 33 we need a judicial decision
deciding that section 2 overrides section 163.1(4) and that
judicial decision must apply across Canada. It has to make it a
law of Canada that it is a charter right to possess child
pornography.
There is no such decision in Canada today. If there is no such
decision in Canada today, the notwithstanding clause of section
33(1) of the charter cannot be invoked because it requires
something in the Constitution to be overridden notwithstanding
that it is in the Constitution.
The judgment of Justice Shaw does not do that. The judgment of
Justice Shaw stands completely alone. It stands isolated in
Canada. None of the members of parliament who have spoken today
support the judgment of Justice Shaw. None of us support his
rationale, his legal rationale or any kind of rationale he
proposed in his decision. That decision has been roundly and
completely criticized in the House today. The House has sent a
very clear message on behalf of Canadians to the court of appeal
and to the Supreme Court of Canada.
How can we in good conscience as responsible legislators,
notwithstanding that we abhor the concept of child pornography,
that we do not agree it is a charter right to possess child
pornography, vote for a motion that is based on two legal
fallacies: one that the law protecting children is not in force
across Canada and the other that there is somehow across Canada a
declaration that it is a charter right to possess child
pornography which therefore we have to override using the
charter? Neither of those circumstances is in place.
That being the case, the motion if not technically and
procedurally out of order is logically out of order since it does
not make any legal sense whatsoever.
I want to make abundantly clear that if there is any kind of
inordinate delay in getting to the court of appeal or any kind of
dealing with the matter expeditiously, we still have the
opportunity to consider the proposal put forward by the member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and a quick reference to the
Supreme Court of Canada.
Should it be that the highest court in the land strikes this
down, I will try to be the first to call for the charter to be
invoked to override such a ridiculous decision. In the meantime,
in law and in logic we cannot support the motion no matter what
good intentions are behind it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, Canadians watching the debate must be going crazy. To
hear the nonsense being spouted from government benches is beyond
belief.
The member is just the latest example of it. He says the law is
in effect in Canada. Guess what? Letters have been read in the
House including one from the Canadian Police Association which
say that in the province of British Columbia possession of child
pornography cases are being thrown out of court. The law is not
in effect in the country.
It is not in effect in the province of B.C. People with children
and grandchildren and relatives and friends, people they care
about in British Columbia, are going to hold this member to
account when he dares to stand in his place and says what is to
worry about, the law is in effect, when he knows very well that
it is not in effect in the province of British Columbia. But of
course that does not matter to this member. Then he said and
gasped “We are being asked to invoke section 33 to override the
charter. How can we possibly do that? This would be terrible
for parliament to say it is supreme. How can we do such a
nonsensical thing?”
1645
I would like to read from a letter dated January 20 signed by
Liberal members: “We ask that the government not wait for the
appeal of the B.C. decision to be heard. We ask also that you
consider”, this is to the Prime Minister “the use of the
notwithstanding clause”. Guess who signed this letter on January
20? The member who just spoke.
I would like to ask the member who got to him between January
20, 1999 and February 2, 1999, or perhaps he just wanted to be
able to tell his supporters that he really fought this thing but
when it came time for him to put his money where his mouth was,
he was not willing to do it.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Madam Speaker, the comments of the last
10 minutes indicate why I am voting against the motion.
My hon. colleague can try to portray them any way she wants. She
can take whatever shot she wants. I have stood in the House of
Commons and spoken in front of Canadians as to my reasons. Let me
say, however, I do not in any way, shape or form say that we
should not in appropriate circumstances use the notwithstanding
clause and I indicated what those circumstances were.
I should indicate that when I signed that letter my purpose was
to indicate to the Prime Minister how very concerned we were as
ordinary backbenchers as to the ramifications of this decision.
When the hon. member for Mississauga South spoke he made a
number of very excellent points about why he signed the letter
and I agree with all those. I signed the letter. I stood in
this place and explained why I am not supporting this motion.
Absolutely no one got to me, as the member puts it. No one has
called me to tell me which way to vote. No one has twisted my
arm. No one has asked me to hide behind the curtains.
Everybody knows that on an issue like this I will vote the way I
think I should vote and I am going to vote against this motion
for the reasons I indicated. What got to me was the wording of
the motion.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, shortly following the news of the B.C. court decision I
heard from a constituent in Surrey Central who recounted to me
her sad story that exhibits the pain and suffering that can
result from the lax attitude and the laws we are facing today.
She was involved in child pornography when she was in her teens.
She was vulnerable and made a bad choice. Years later evidence
of her involvement became evident to her employers and employees
and she had to quit her job. So she continues to suffer
considerable embarrassment, regret and shame as we are talking.
The point is she did not consent but she had to suffer.
I would like to ask the member what he would suggest I tell my
constituent who is still suffering today.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Madam Speaker, I suggest that he tell his
constituent that every member of the House on behalf of all
Canadians expresses their sympathy for the tragedy of his
constituent.
None of us support child pornography. All of us are against it.
All of us are in favour of the law as it now stands. That is
what he should tell his constituent.
1650
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
wish to speak on behalf of my party to the Reform Party motion
so that our party's position is again made clear, as it was this
morning by the member for Berthier—Montcalm, our justice critic.
The Bloc Quebecois intends to vote against the amendment moved
by the Reform Party because it does not think it appropriate to
immediately invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although this clause can, on
occasion and in the proper circumstances, provide Parliament
with a means of giving the views of lawmakers precedence over
those of judges.
But, in the present circumstances, we do not think it
appropriate to invoke this clause right away, because the matter
is before the courts and it is up to them to pursue the process
set in motion by the complainant in this affair.
I have examined the decision handed down on January 13 by Mr.
Justice Shaw. It is clear from this decision that the judge
thinks the Criminal Code, specifically subsection 163.1(4) is
contrary to the Constitution of Canada and that it violates
certain of the Constitution's provisions and certain fundamental
freedoms. Having considered the arguments, the judge goes on to
say that this provision is justified in a free and democratic
society.
This is where the Bloc Quebecois parts company with the judge
and, through the voice of its members who will support the
motion after voting against the amendment, wishes to make known
to this judge and to other judges who will be asked to rule on
this matter, because this case will be appealed, probably to the
Supreme Court, that elected officials consider this provision
unreasonable and feel that, in a free and democratic society,
the government must oppose child pornography. It must adopt
measures to discourage this practice and to prohibit the
wholesale distribution of child pornography, which is harmful to
children and violates their most fundamental rights.
It is for this reason that the Bloc Quebecois will vote in
favour.
It wants to send a message to the public and to the judges who
will have to again decide this matter, so that they may consider
that, in a free and democratic society, a government and a
Parliament are justified in wishing to restrict basic freedoms
where pornography is concerned, particularly child pornography.
Other alternative measures have been presented, in particular
the one suggested by the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and his colleagues, that a reference
to the supreme court be made by the federal government under the
Supreme Court Act and the Criminal Code. Such a procedure would
make it possible to speed up the debate and would allow the
courts to reach a decision more quickly, and ought not,
moreover, to be excluded from the hypotheses considered by the
Minister of Justice.
For the moment, however, having spoken to certain people,
certain criminal law specialists who are of the opinion that the
integrity of the Canadian criminal justice system might be put
in jeopardy if there were immediate recourse to the
notwithstanding clause, and having considered these opinions, it
is certainly worthwhile for the judges and the public to
understand that, in the present circumstances, the Bloc
Quebecois considers it inappropriate to make use of the
notwithstanding clause, as the Reform members wish to do.
Instead, a certain degree of patience is required, allowing the
legal process to take its course.
1655
In conclusion, to repeat the position taken this morning by the
hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, our justice critic, the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting in favour of this motion, because it
represents a means of sending a clear message that this judgment
and the position taken by Mr. Justice Shaw do not appear to be
in line with our party's views of what is reasonable in a free
and democratic society. Also, as for the amendment, we will be
voting against it.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am honoured to speak on this issue on behalf of my
constituents. This is a very sensitive and delicate issue.
No one is pleased to debate in this House child pornography or
other things which are hurting our society. We have to address
these sensitive moral issues very seriously and we have to
effectively suggest and act in this Chamber so that we can
control these issues and take the right decisions.
My colleagues and I, as the official opposition, have chosen to
use our supply day today to force the House to debate and vote on
the recent decision by a British Columbian judge that in effect
allowed the possession of child pornography and made it legal in
this country.
It is a good thing for Canadians that we are here on this side
of the House as an alternative to the government. We are here to
hold the Liberal government accountable and suggest that it make
the right decision in this Chamber. The Liberals are apparently
prepared to do nothing about the effect the legal possession of
child pornography will have except sitting on their hands and
waiting for the courts to do something.
Courts cannot replace elected officials. The judges are
unelected. They are unaccountable. It is we in this House who
have to think, who have to act. We cannot tinker with the law. We
need a law that has strong teeth which can give
protection to society, which can give protection to the
children and the most vulnerable in society.
The constituents of Surrey Central and I are outraged that the
Liberal government is not prepared to take immediate action to
protect our children. During the break I received an
unprecedented number of phone calls on this issue. In fact, the
Liberal justice minister has been spewing forth legal mumbo-jumbo
ever since this decision in an attempt to do nothing about the
situation.
As parliamentarians Canadians expect us to work on their behalf
in this place to defend and uphold the levels of morality in our
society. Clearly the production and possession of child
pornography is unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians.
The other day on the Internet two pedophiles were talking to
each other. One said that he would rather choose Canada to live
in and love children. How pathetic this is. Do the Liberals
want to make Canada famous for red lights? Will it be a red
light country?
Our children need care and they need protection. They need
protection from drugs. They need protection from violence,
television, the Internet and sexual abuse.
1700
We do not want Canada to be a haven for pedophiles, drug
dealers, criminals and terrorists. It would be a shame if we in
this House did not act on this right away when it is needed. We
expect the government to act and to act fast. We believe it is
our duty as the elected representatives of the people to do
something about this decision and outlaw the possession of child
pornography.
My constituents and I were assured that immediately upon return
to Ottawa this week the House would take measures to ensure the
protection of our children from being induced or forced to commit
sexual acts.
On January 22 about 70 members of parliament from the government
side wrote a letter to the Prime Minister. It will be surprising
to see what kind of result we will get from the vote today. I
wonder how they will vote. If these members have the guts to
write to their Prime Minister, who was probably not listening to
them in caucus, we would encourage them to stand and represent
their constituents and a vast majority of Canadians and vote
accordingly.
We on this side of the House believe it is our moral
responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society, the
children. I am sure the members on the other side of the House
will think the same way.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I think a few points are being missed in this debate. I
would like to point out to members of the Reform Party that I
will be standing up and voting my conscience. It will not be in
support of the motion that the Reform Party has proposed. The
reason for this is fairly simple.
We live in one of the best countries in the world and we all
recognize this. One of the reasons this is the best country in
the world is that we have some very good institutions. One of
those good institutions, even though once in a while some judge
makes a wrong decision, is our court system.
I think the Reform Party is being somewhat disingenuous on the
one hand to try to pretend that it is for law and order and then
to continually try to undermine the courts of this country.
Members of the Reform Party cannot have it both ways. Reform
members would serve their constituents very well if they would
explain how the system works and then wait for the outcome. I do
believe the member would be doing a greater favour to his
constituents than to stand up in this House day after day and
exploit a difficult issue for pure political gain.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, our current justice
minister has been holding her portfolio for 601 days. She has
been dragging her feet on the Young Offenders Act. She has been
dragging her feet on important decisions she was supposed to
make. She has shown a lack of leadership on the important issues
that this parliament and this country is facing.
Just now the hon. member on the other side pointed out that a
wrong decision has been made. What is the member doing about it?
Is he going to close his eyes and ears and just let it go as it
is?
Why did 70 members on the government side write to the Prime
Minister on January 20? Because they know that something wrong
has been done. If something wrong has been done then we as the
elected representatives of Canadians must stand in this House and
work through our conscience and vote the way our constituents are
telling us to vote.
How many Canadians want child pornography to continue?
How many Canadians want their children in this situation? I have
two teenage boys. God forbid if they were forced into this
situation. How would I feel if the judge made a decision that
would allow the pedophile out, he thanked the judge and then said
“here are the pictures of your children”?
1705
This is a very emotional issue. I know that members on the
government side in their hearts know that they are wrong to
oppose this motion. Let us forget about politics on this ground.
We are not in an election mode. Let us look through the lens of
issues. Let us do something which will make history in this
country, which will make our children's future the best on the
planet.
I ask all members, particularly the member who asked the
question, if they agree that what is being done is wrong, then
have guts. Do not sit in the House like a bag of sand. Work on
your conscious and vote accordingly.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
point out that what distinguishes our society from non-democratic
societies is the rule of law.
There is no question that no one in the House today has
indicated anything but abhorrence for the decision of the chief
justice of the British Columbia supreme court. What seems to be
at issue here with some members of the opposition—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the hon. member but the time for questions and comments
has expired. The hon. member for Surrey Central has 10 seconds to
reply.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I do not know what
the question was but I am sure the member was talking about the
rule of law.
We cannot have different laws for different people. Yesterday
we debated Bill C-49. In this situation we cannot make a law in
the House which will not serve Canadians—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Oak Ridges.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I
was indicating, we have a rule of law in this country. Very
clearly the law is in effect even in British Columbia. It has
been pointed out by other members of the Supreme Court of British
Columbia that the ruling of Justice Shaw is not binding on them.
To use section 33 is a very drastic step. It is one that is
available. It has only been used twice. It has been used by two
provincial governments. In both cases it was after every legal
recourse had been exhausted. This is not the case in this
situation.
Members of the opposition referred to the fact that some members
signed a letter to the Prime Minister urging him to consider the
notwithstanding clause or other equivalent effective measures. I
would suggest that the Minister of Justice responded very
quickly. The government has taken the extraordinary step of
intervening in the appeal of the decision of the British Columbia
Court of Appeal in order to defend the law, a law which this
government believes will be upheld.
Let us make no mistake. The fact is that members of this party
urged the Prime Minister to take action. Action has been taken
and very swiftly.
This government, and I think everyone in the House, supports the
protection of our children. It is absolutely paramount to every
member here. There is no monopoly on that issue. It is for that
reason the government has decided to act and to act quickly, not
to wait if it ever goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, but to
take immediate action.
This government believes that the existing law on the possession
of child pornography is constitutional. I clearly oppose the
decision. It is an abhorrent decision. But I have faith in the
rule of law. I do not believe that anyone should be allowed to
possess, produce or distribute child pornography. Let us make no
mistake.
1710
The fact is there is a process. If governments start to react
to court decisions, two things are going to happen. I think the
judges are going to be very careful about what they do and we
will then question the independence of the judiciary. One judge
has made a decision, a decision which we clearly oppose, but
there is a process. The Minister of Justice has taken action.
There is no contradiction between the letter which is being
brandished about by the opposition and what the government has
done. Clearly members on the government benches have asked that
action be taken. Action has been taken very quickly. I see no
contradiction whatsoever.
We are clearly not giving nor will we give a blank cheque to
child pornographers in this country. Therefore the decision to
intervene is very important.
Children are our most valuable members of society and we will
not tolerate any exploitation. Therefore the legal course of
action is the appropriate one. We as parliamentarians write the
laws. When this law was passed in 1993, it was passed unanimously
by the House of Commons. I have faith that the law which was
passed in 1993 will be upheld and it will be upheld by the
British Columbia Court of Appeal.
I have no doubt that the action the minister has taken has
clearly indicated that this government is prepared to stand
behind the law which this parliament enacted. Canadians clearly
want to see the government take action. I know from the comments
I have heard that Canadians realize that action through the
process of the law has been taken.
The rule of law is critical. That is what distinguishes
ourselves from other forms of government. We do not have a
politicized judiciary in the fact that we cannot simply say this
is the decision we want. We have faith in the law of the land. I
believe that law will be upheld.
In conclusion, we know clearly that child pornography degrades
and victimizes young children. The Parliament of Canada and in
fact the Supreme Court of Canada have indicated very clearly that
the self-worth and the importance of children in our society is
paramount. Therefore the decision by the government is the right
one and I will be voting against this motion this evening.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I think the government is on the horns of dilemma here. The
dilemma is the ancient story of what came first, the chicken or
the egg? In this case it is what came first, the people or the
law?
It seems to me that in our democracy the people came first and
they made the law. That means the people whom we represent in
this House are the ones who decide whether or not the law is
being applied correctly and whether it is a law that is just.
That is where the real problem lies in this debate. The members
across the way have not settled that dilemma.
I ask the member which came first, the people or the law?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.15 p.m.,
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1715
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt to
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Davies
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guarnieri
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Iftody
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| McTeague
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| Steckle
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 84
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 186
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
1750
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1755
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| McTeague
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| Steckle
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 129
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
FISHERS' BILL OF RIGHTS
The House resumed from February 1 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-302, an act to establish the rights of fishers
including the right to be involved in the process of fisheries
stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas,
fishing licensing and the public right to fish and establish the
right of fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as
a livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other
rights are abrogated unfairly, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Monday, February
1, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill
C-302.
1800
The mover of this motion is sitting on my left. The division
will be taken row by row, starting with the sponsor of the bill
and then proceeding with those in favour of the motion beginning
with the back row of the side of the House on which the sponsor
sits.
After proceeding through the rows on that first side, the
members sitting on the other side of the House will vote, again
beginning with the back row. Those opposed to the motion will be
called in the same order.
1810
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 106
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harris
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 161
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Based on an earlier decision of a vote in the House, may I
recommend we close this place and let the judges and courts run
this country.
* * *
[Translation]
EQUAL TREATMENT FOR PERSONS COHABITING IN A
RELATIONSHIP SIMILAR TO A CONJUGAL RELATIONSHIP ACT
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved that Bill C-309,
an act providing for equal treatment for persons cohabiting in a
relationship similar to a conjugal relationship, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to
speak to this bill, since it is certainly a bill having to do
with human rights. That is what we must remember.
It is with this principle in mind that I hope to be able to
count on the support of members of the House, whose consent I
will seek to make my bill votable at the close of debate.
1815
This is the third time I have tabled this bill. No one in the
House can say I do not persevere. I sincerely hope that this
time we will get approval because much progress has been made
legally during the past five years. The paradox is that the
courts have recognized same-sex couples and I think the time has
now come for us, as parliamentarians, to take a stand.
There is a tradition in the House that partisanship is set aside
when it comes to human rights. I see the parliamentary
secretary nodding her head.
It is my fondest hope that, when the debate is over, she will
rise in her place and say, on behalf of her government, that she
will support the bill, that the government will move ahead and
that we will be able to engage in the necessary debate, as
parliamentarians.
I am rather proud of what we have accomplished today because, a
bit earlier, in the afternoon, there was a press conference
attended by all political parties, with the notable exception of
the Reform Party, but I have not given up. Knowing that it is
through convictions, through words, through persuasion and
debate, who knows but what the Reform Party may even come to the
inescapable conclusion that men can love other men, that women
can love other women and that it is possible for their relations
to be genuine, authentic and personally enriching. Perhaps it
will not be long before we hear of individuals within the Reform
Party caucus who have chosen this path.
That said, I wish to thank the four hon. members who supported
the bill at our press conference a little earlier this
afternoon. These were: the hon. member for
Toronto-Centre—Rosedale, well-known for his legal expertise and as
an enlightened spokesperson for the Toronto gay community; my
colleague, the hon. member for Shefford—let me make it very
clear, she is not homosexual, but being a democrat and a
believer in human rights, she clearly understood that this
debate was inevitable and that we had to take a position as
parliamentarians. Then there was my friend, the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas, a pioneer in his own time, a forerunner, one of
the first to make a commitment to the recognition of same-sex
partners.
What is in my bill? If passed, it proposes that, in each piece
of legislation in which there is a heterosexist definition of
spouse, there will also be a homosexist definition. In total,
there are some 70 laws which confer benefits or responsibilities
upon spouses, 70 laws in which there is a definition of spouse.
These include the Merchant Marine Act, the Income Tax Act, and
the Criminal Code. The entire list totals 70.
What I would like the hon. members to understand today is that
it would be terribly inconsistent, and a source of pride to no
member of this House, to not pass such a bill. What
inconsistency? The inconsistency of saying that we have passed
various bills as parliamentarians which do not allow
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
I refer to the debate we had in 1995 when we amended the
Canadian Human Rights Act and added an 11th prohibited grounds
for discrimination—sexual orientation. What message did we
send as parliamentarians to the people of Canada and Quebec?
The message was that we recognize that sexual orientation is no
grounds for discrimination, that there are, in our society,
people who are openly homosexual—men and women—and that this
does not prevent them from taking their place in society.
It does not prevent them from being committed in their
professional environment. It does not prevent them from being
involved in their community. It is another way, a very
fulfilling way, to experience one's sexuality.
1820
However, when we amended Bill C-33, we took another step that affected
individuals.
I digress a moment to remind you that, in 1995, the only
minister voting in favour of my bill was the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, the member for Hamilton East. I thank her
for being the only member of cabinet to step out and vote for my
bill. I will never forget that, despite our differences, she is
a woman of conviction.
I am sure that the entire community across Canada is grateful.
I say this, because she is here and I think it should be
mentioned.
That said, we recognized that we could not discriminate on an
individual basis. The next step for us in Parliament is to
recognize that we cannot discriminate on an emotional basis.
Men who love men and women who love women are in emotional
relationships. They are building a common heritage. They make
a commitment on the basis of feelings that are real, and this
action must be expressed in legislation.
I would like to give you examples of what that means in concrete
terms. This is no academic debate. This is no scholastic debate.
This is not a theoretical debate. It is a debate about equality
rights, about the full recognition of all citizens, as
taxpayers, as committed members of society. It is about all
dimensions of life, all dimensions of our existence.
I will, if I may, describe a number of situations that are
discriminatory. For instance, there is the Employment Insurance
Act. One becomes eligible for employment insurance because one
has paid premiums. This is not charity.
In passing, I must say how heartless this government has been
when it comes to the unemployed.
What became of the just society that the government of Pierre
Elliott Trudeau strove so hard for in 1968? If we put ten
unemployed workers in a room, only four of them would qualify
for benefits.
I know that the parliamentary secretary shares my indignation.
This unspoken indignation must become vocal. That is the
challenge.
That having been said, I return to the recognition of same-sex
couples. I will give a specific example. Take someone who is
on EI and who has been living with someone for three years, in
Abitibi say, whose spouse is transferred for professional
reasons to Montreal, the beautiful city in which my riding is
located as everyone knows. There is a penalty.
They cannot follow their partner. They are not eligible for
benefits, as they would be in a heterosexual relationship. That
is the first really concrete and pragmatic example.
Second example, the whole matter of pension funds. Pension
funds are contributory. Every MP, every person who contributes
to a pension fund, does so on the basis of a commitment. For
example, if I died tomorrow, even though I have been with my
partner for five years, he would still not be eligible for my
pension. This is true for all public servants. This is the
kind of situation that needs to be changed, because it is
unacceptable.
Then there is the Immigration Act. Canada is a land of
immigrants. We welcome 250,000 immigrants every year.
Along with New Zealand, Australia and the U.S., Canada is one of
the four countries in the world with a tradition of immigration.
As far as sponsorship goes, there is no formal mention of this
in the act.
I see that the solicitor general, the minister responsible for
prisons, is with us in the House.
1825
I would like her to take a look at the amount of discrimination
experienced by people who are imprisoned and are not
acknowledged as spouses, and what this means when it comes to
visiting rights for same-sex partners.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I am truly convinced that, if all goes
well, we shall both see the new century in, me because of my
youth and you because of your tenacity.
The fact is that we could not contemplate changing centuries
without resolving this problem of discrimination, because what
is happening, I repeat, is that in 70 federal statutes, there is
ongoing discrimination because this Parliament has not yet found
a way to pass an omnibus bill.
I wish to oppose the government's strategy and I want to put it
gently. I offer this government the opportunity to repair an
injustice, because we are not mistaken in saying that there are
two major categories of our fellow citizens who are still the
brunt of social discrimination in 1999: the gays and lesbians
and the poor. I will be introducing anti-poverty legislation in
the coming weeks, but that is another debate.
The fact is, we as parliamentarians can pass the bill I propose,
if we want, to permit full recognition. Who can say we are
wrong in saying that all members of Parliament, whether they
come from Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec or
elsewhere, have, within their borders and their ridings, fellow
citizens waiting for this?
What a regrettable thing it would be for this Parliament to
skirt this debate and allow the courts to decide in our place.
I have nothing but respect for jurists. The member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, who kindly supported my bill, is one. I
too am taking law courses—one a session.
Whether or not I become a lawyer, I know that it is not up to
the courts, the judiciary or judges to stand in for
parliamentarians. It is very important that parliamentarians—I
see the Solicitor General agrees with me, and I am delighted—very
important—
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: She is Minister of Labour.
Mr. Réal Ménard: She is Minister of Labour now?
Congratulations.
I see that the Minister of Labour agrees with me, and I am
convinced that we cannot forgo this debate.
I will give an example. A little under two years ago, the
Public Service Alliance of Canada actively supported two
individuals who filed suits before various common law courts.
The result was the Rosenberg decision. This is without a doubt
one of the most important decisions for equality rights, because
it ruled that various provisions of the Income Tax Act were
invalid and unconstitutional, but not all the provisions
concerning spouses. It could have gone further, but it ruled
that paragraph 4 of section 252 was unconstitutional because it
did not recognize the right to a survivor's pension for workers
in that union. This is a tremendous step forward legally, but
it was a step that parliamentarians should have taken.
My time is about to run out. I will save my conclusions for the
end of the debate. I will wrap up for now by calling all
parliamentarians to justice, to courage and to convictions, and
urge them to allow a real debate, a real vote for the right to
equality, the recognition of same-sex couples.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-309, introduced by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois—for the
fourth time, apparently—is, I am certain, a sincere attempt to
settle a matter of vital importance for gays and lesbians in
Canada, which is that there is currently no recognition of their
relationships.
[English]
The bill proposed by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois is, I
am sure, a sincere attempt to address an issue of significant
concern to gay and lesbian Canadians; that is, the lack of
recognition for relationships.
1830
One of the values that Canadians consistently identify as
important in our society is the protection of individuals,
including gays and lesbians, from discrimination.
We heard from Canadians that discrimination is not to be
tolerated. Furthermore, polling results clearly indicate the
majority of Canadians support providing the same economic
treatment for same sex couples as heterosexual couples.
Bill C-309 proposes to create that same treatment by redefining
spouse for all federal legislation and purposes. That is the
point unfortunately on which I disagree. We have also heard
from the ports across Canada that discrimination is not to be
tolerated.
In 1995 the Supreme Court of Canada said it was discriminatory
to refuse benefits to same sex couples that were available to
heterosexual common law couples.
The court felt that this limitation was justified but only for a
time. Since that time other courts have seized upon the more
recent supreme court case that suggests these justification
arguments may no longer be sound.
We have a problem that needs to be addressed, a problem that
relates to equality and the elimination of discrimination. We in
this government are committed to fairness. The question is how
to bring about change responsibly and effectively.
We live in a diverse society and the Government of Canada must
respond to the needs of all its citizens. For some time the
government has believed the responsible course of action is to
seriously examine its programs, policies and laws over which it
has jurisdiction and take the appropriate steps to further
equality.
The review of this matter has revealed that this issue does not
lend itself to simple solutions or necessarily a single solution
for all purposes.
We need to talk about more than providing similar benefits.
There is clearly more to recognizing same sex couples than merely
extending the same benefits available to heterosexual couples in
federal laws and policies.
Fairness and equality for all Canadians requires that this
matter be explored in relation to both benefits and obligations
imposed by laws and policies.
My concern with Bill C-309 is that I am not convinced that we
have fully explored the implications of a change to the
definition of spouse sufficiently to know what will happen when
each federal law has been modified.
Members may be aware of a recent charter challenge in the
Ontario courts by a group that alleges the 52 federal statutes
that refer to the word spouse or dependent are discriminatory
because they do not incorporate same sex couples.
There are likely more than these 52 statutes and many more
regulations and policies where the change to the definition of
spouse proposed by Bill C-309 will have an impact.
There are also likely many other laws where there will be
incidental or spillover effect. I must say also that it is not
only the Minister of Justice who has to act but a number of other
ministers within their jurisdiction.
Each of these statutes, regulations and policies must be
carefully examined to see what is the most effective way of
making changes. The one size fits all approach in this bill may
not be appropriate in all circumstances, we feel.
There may be a variety of legislative approaches available. Some
will make more sense than others in the context of each law and
each statute and still provide us with a means of ensuring that
same sex relationships are treated with fairness.
We must take the time to do this properly. This is not to say
that the government has not already acted on some of these
issues. For example, members will recall that the minister of
immigration recently spoke of her new direction for immigration
and refugee legislation.
She announced that in order to adjust to social realities and to
ensure fair treatment under the legislation, the new directions
are aimed to expand the class of individuals who may be sponsored
in the family class and who may accompany an immigration
applicant. This extended class will include common law and same
sex couples.
Everyone recognizes the difficulties of this complex issue, that
there are a number of ways of responding to questions being
raised by Canadians. Whatever approach is chosen to ensure the
relationships, we must carefully consider how to appropriately
maintain a balance between entitlements and obligations, and
between ensuring fairness in recognizing the realities of many
Canadians while preserving the importance of the institutions of
marriage to other Canadians.
1835
This is not an easy task. As I said, is not only one minister
who has to act but a series of ministers in the government.
I look forward to further debate on this issue after more
careful consideration on how to balance competing considerations.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Same sex benefits. These are a political hornet's nest bound to
vex MPs, the public, the family values lobby and gay and lesbian
groups alike. But honest debate is needed about what should be
done and why. It is not in the interests of our political system
to sneak this one through the back door, nor to duck it
indefinitely, or they could all just go home.
This editorial comment was printed in today's Ottawa
Citizen.
Indeed parliament must debate difficult questions, as we have
done in the House today with regard to another issue, child
pornography.
I cannot support Bill C-309 for a number of reasons which I will
now outline.
This act calls for equal treatment for persons cohabiting in a
relationship similar to a conjugal relationship. Later on in the
act the following assertion is made: “The lives of homosexual
and lesbian couples in Canada who cohabit in relationships
similar to conjugal relationships are in many respects identical
to the lives of heterosexual couples”.
This bill is built on a misunderstanding of the nature of
heterosexual relationships. Gay and lesbian relationships
preclude the act of procreation. Granted, some gay and lesbian
couples have children from previous relationships, but I am not
talking about that point. Let me clearly state once again that
heterosexual relationships by their very nature allow for
procreation.
Family is the essence of any society. There is a compelling,
universal public interest in the unique status of the family.
Supreme Court Justice La Forest wrote in the Egan case:
[The heterosexual relationship] is the social unit that
uniquely has the capacity to procreate children and generally
care for their upbringing, and as such warrants support by
Parliament to meet its needs. This is the only unit in society
that expends resources to care for children and sustained
basis.
Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our
legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing
philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison
d'etre transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the
biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have
the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the
product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared
for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this
sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.
Proponents of this bill might use the argument that childless
couples cannot procreate as is the case with gay couples. To use
this argument is to use an exception to the rule to generalize a
particular conclusion. To state that some same sex couples have
children, which is true, is also to use the exception rule to
generalize a particular conclusion.
It can be safely asserted that the majority of heterosexual
relationships such as married and common law individuals have the
ability to procreate while homosexual couples do not have the
ability to procreate within that relationship.
While this bill does not expressly state a change in the
definition in marriage, it does assert that homosexual
relationships are identical in many ways to heterosexual
relationships. It also attempts to redefine the term spouse to
include individuals who are of the same sex.
There is one glaring flaw in this piece of proposed legislation
and that is the phrase “similar to conjugal relationships”
which is never defined. It is referred to at least 10 times in
this bill. If we are to infer a definition without actually
hearing what was intended by the drafter of this bill, I think we
are proceeding along a very tenuous path. I encourage my
colleague to spell out exactly what is meant by that phrase as it
is the underpinning of the entire bill.
1840
It appears as though this bill is making the assertion that gay
and lesbians should receive the same benefits as heterosexual or
married or common law individuals by nature of their sexual
relationships. This in and of itself, using the reasoning of the
member presenting this bill, is discriminatory. Let me
illustrate this by way of a personal story.
My mother is a widow as is her sister, my aunt. My mother and
aunt have lived together for several months and could very well
end up spending their lives together. Will individuals such as
my mother and aunt be included in the definition same sex spouses
as outlined in this bill? No, they will not. Why not? Because
they are not engaged in a sexual relationship. The assertions
put forward in this bill are counterintuitive from any logical
standpoint.
What about the argument that same sex couples contribute
financially to a program from which they receive no benefit. On
the face of it this seems to be a compelling and reasoned
assertion. Let us examine such an assertion in closer detail.
Those individuals who do not qualify for a public benefit still
share in the public interest that it serves. Many dependant
relations fail to qualify for family programs, yet the people in
those relationships benefit from the children of others.
Childless seniors find their medicare, old age security and
Canada pension benefits paid by other people's grown children.
Other people's grown children maintain the economic
infrastructure as a whole. If family type benefits are
distributed to purely private social relations an enormously
intrusive administrative effort will be required to determine who
qualifies and who does not.
My colleague is committed to seeing change in this area and he
has devoted a great deal of time and effort in his cause. I do
not agree with his conclusions and cannot support his bill for
the reasons I have outlined in my presentation.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
support this bill. Bill C-309 is an attempt to attain equality,
equality for a group that has been left out of the circle.
If this bill passes it would not mean that we would alleviate
the fear gays and lesbians live under. It would not mean that we
alleviate the discrimination they live under. It would only be
an attempt to make sure they got some of the economic benefits
that are available to other families. We are talking about
people who could be our brothers or sisters or our children and
for some of us our friends.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality
and guarantees that groups will not be discriminated against. It
is about human rights. Even though the parliamentary secretary
said there is no simple solution, and there never is, it does not
mean we do not make an attempt to begin somewhere. When human
rights compete with other interests they have to be balanced.
Human rights should not compete with other interests. We should
make every attempt to make sure the rights of our citizens are
guaranteed not just in word but in law.
I also agree with my Reform colleague that this should not be
slipped in through any back door and that we should be debating
it openly. Being gay or lesbian is nothing to be ashamed of.
A lot of the discrimination is based on fear and it is unbased.
Heterosexual couples far outweigh homosexuals. They do not
reproduce themselves. They come from heterosexual families. I do
not know a single gay or lesbian person who is a threat to my
family structure. We need to recognize the benefit that they
provide to our community both economically and culturally. They
need to be recognized in law.
What we are after are more families that support each other.
Heterosexual families break down regularly. It does not mean
that the children will automatically be looked after. It leaves
a lot of children out in the cold. I know lots of aunts and
uncles who happen to be gay and lesbian who look after a lot of
young children. They do not shirk their responsibilities to our
society or their part in it.
As parliamentarians we do need the courts to tell us what is
right and what is wrong. How many times do these issues have to
go before the courts?
How many times do the courts have to say that this is their right
before parliamentarians act on it? Just because it is a more
difficult issue, something that perhaps some people do not want
to face, does not mean that we should not face it.
1845
We were elected to debate and make decisions on difficult
issues. I do not see this one as being difficult. I see it as
being an issue of fairness.
What we have faced in the past is making decisions based on
fear. But the fear of what? We are not the gay or the lesbian,
except for a very few in here. So we are not in fear of being
assaulted. We are not in fear of losing benefits. We are not in
fear of being stigmatized. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to
make a decision in favour of justice.
We should not be allowing fear to determine the lives of gay and
lesbian people. We should not be letting it determine Canadian
legislation.
I support this bill because I believe it is time to let fairness
be our guide.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, before I begin,
I would like to advise you that I am going to split my time with
my colleague from Kings—Hants.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to inform the hon. member that this
will require the unanimous consent of the House, because it is a
10 minute speech.
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to
divide her speaking time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to
take part in the debate on Bill C-309, which calls for equal
treatment of persons cohabiting in a relationship similar to a
conjugal relationship.
I must congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for
this bill, the purpose of which is to guarantee homosexual
couples in a common-law relationship the same rights as those
conferred by federal legislation on heterosexual couples in the
same type of relationship.
Before getting into this debate any further, may I point out
that I am speaking for myself on this matter today. I am not
claiming to be presenting the Progressive Conservative Party's
position on this bill.
That said, I would like it to be known that I welcome the debate
triggered by this private member's bill, because it provides us
with an opportunity to manifest our openness to the changes that
have taken place over the past 20 years in Canadian society.
Each of us can say that people's outlook has changed in this
same period, to everyone's advantage. I will say right off that
I see today's debate from the perspective of equity and human
rights, principles I hold particularly dear because they form
the very foundation of the society in which I grew up and
developed.
In my opinion, the relationship of mutual obligation based on
partnership is the most fundamental. We must therefore adapt
our laws to the conditions of modern society. The principle of
the equality of both parties and the right to the equal
distribution of assets, the right to equal benefits and the
right to share company and mutual respect have nothing to do
with the politics or specific issues of sexual orientation.
On the strength of this principle, allow me to approach the
subject before us today with a simple question: On what
principle should we deny equality to homosexual couples living
together?
After all, they pay income tax and contribute to the Canada
Pension Plan like everyone else. I defy anyone to answer this
question, because such a position is indefensible. It is a
simple matter of equity.
We are living in a country whose highest court, national
constitution and charter of rights have affirmed that
homosexuals and lesbians are to enjoy equal treatment, respect
and dignity. This court also stated that recognition of
relations between homosexuals and lesbians is essential to this
equality.
Several provinces have already taken steps to recognize the
right to a pension, rights and responsibilities in the case of
the breakdown of a relationship, and the right to adopt.
However, much still remains to be done in the area of
immigration and pensions, and in several other federally
regulated areas, to end discrimination and inequity.
There is discrimination when the legislator refuses to grant a
category of citizens rights that are available to another
category of citizens. This is exactly what we are talking about
when we refuse, as parliamentarians, to recognize same-sex
couples.
I will therefore conclude by reminding members that I abhor all
forms of discrimination, whether on grounds of sexual
orientation or any other grounds.
1850
I therefore urge my colleagues in the House to help advance
people's thinking by rectifying this discrimination towards
persons cohabiting in a relationship similar to a conjugal
relationship.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to commend the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his
courage in continuing to fight for the rights of all Canadians.
I believe in family values. I believe that every member of this
House and in fact all Canadians believe in family values. We do
not recognize necessarily that family values have to be a
euphemism for a discriminatory policy against any member of
society. In fact if we actually believe in family values we
should be defending and recognizing the importance of the family
for all members of society and we should be encouraging all
members of society to live in supportive relationships. I
believe that is the intention of the hon. member in bringing
forward this thought-provoking and important legislation, to
encourage all Canadians to live in supportive, long term
relationships. Society would benefit from that kind of change.
There are those who would argue that the extension of rights to
one group will somehow diminish the rights of another. There is
absolutely no historical precedent to that effect. In fact there
are historical precedents to the opposite effect, that when we
deny the rights to any group within society we threaten and
jeopardize the rights of all.
I would suggest that the populism brought forward by the Reform
Party is sometimes very dangerous. The civil rights movement in
the 1960s in the U.S. would never have moved forward if we were
relying on public opinion polls and populism.
Parliament and the Government of Canada should lead. The courts
have been fairly consistent in their interpretation of the
charter of rights. Governments need to lead. We should not be
dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Every member of this House should ask themselves the question
periodically: Are we merely politicians or are we political
leaders? Political leaders need to lead.
I would hope that the government sees fit to debate this issue.
It should bring the issue forward and debate it in the House of
Commons so that we can have a constructive debate about something
that is going to be very important as we enter the 21st century.
I would like to quote in closing the Liberal member for
Lac-Saint-Louis who said “rights are rights are rights”.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that, if the hon.
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve takes the floor now, he will
wind up the debate.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Am I to understand,
Mr. Speaker, that I have five minutes?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I will therefore share some
concluding remarks with my colleagues.
A breath of fresh air has come from this side, which I welcome,
as I know this is something that is being discussed within the
Progressive Conservative Party. All this seems to be a good
sign.
It must be remembered that, in 1990, when the first Egan
decision was brought down, invalidating the Canadian Human
Rights Act, the Conservative Minister of Justice, Kim Campbell,
was the one who decided that the decision would be enforceable
across Canada.
I am certainly not mentioning this for any partisan purposes,
but rather to point out that sensitivity to the promotion of
human rights may be found in all political families.
We have become accustomed to being considered the lowest of the
low by the Reform Party. I hate to say this, for I know there
are some sensitive people on the Reform side. But as far as
human rights are concerned, there is definitely much progress to
be made.
It is unbelievable that the comparisons that have been made
could be made. I come from a respectable family, whom I love.
I love children.
There is nothing to prevent me from forming a family, but when
we refer to sexual orientation, we are referring to the
preferred object of desire, which is what makes a person
homosexual, or in the terms of the gay militants, that one is
attracted to a partner of the same sex.
1855
That has nothing to do with parenting skills. It has nothing to
do with what sort of citizen one might be. It is the
fundamental reason why we cannot accept discrimination. But we
all know that the Reform Party is to this Parliament what silent
films were to the movies.
I will close in the hope that we will have a real debate in
future because, I repeat, it is the quality of citizen, it is
people's commitment that is at stake.
I will give you an example in closing. When I came out as an MP
in early 1993, I got a letter from a 16-year-old man, who was
himself discovering his homosexuality.
I would say that what gave me the greatest pleasure was the
knowledge that I could help someone, because this person felt he
was not alone, that people in public life are homosexuals and
can perform their duties perfectly honourably, as is the case in
many other sectors.
Let us hope we have a real debate and that we can put an end to
the one remaining form of discrimination. It is very important
for me. We still permit discrimination against two major
categories of individuals: the poor and the gays. We as
parliamentarians cannot accept this situation.
That everyone has not reached the same level, and that people
wonder why one man loves another or one woman another, I can
understand. We have a duty to educate people.
I know that the most militant among us know there is an
explanation and that we have to educate the heterosexual
community. But, our challenge as legislators is to have these
two great communities live together in respect, tolerance and
the promotion of the values of equity.
I close by saying that, if tomorrow someone told me I could take
a pill to become heterosexual, I would not take it, because I
belong to a community that is great, beautiful, generous and
committed. I know that in my life, it will always be a
beautiful thing.
I seek unanimous consent to make my bill a votable item and to
send it to the Standing Committee on Justice.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to inform the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve that yesterday the House passed a motion
preventing the chair from receiving any motion for unanimous
consent of the House after 6.30 p.m. today. It is now past 6.30
p.m. and I regret to inform the hon. member that I am unable to
receive such a request. Perhaps he could move his motion
tomorrow.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, do you think that, if I were to
seek unanimous consent tomorrow, I might obtain it, but that it
is because we are in Private Members' Business that I am unable
to obtain it now? I would just like to hear your interpretation
in this matter.
The Deputy Speaker: My interpretation is that the motion passed
by the House yesterday said very clearly that the Chair shall
not receive a request for unanimous consent for any purpose
after 6.30 p.m. The request can therefore not be received at
this time. If the member wishes to move the same motion
tomorrow during routine proceedings, the House will perhaps give
its consent at that time. I can do nothing. I hope this is
clear for everyone.
Mr. Réal Ménard: It is very clear.
The Deputy Speaker: Fine.
[English]
The time for the consideration of Private Members' Business has
expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FINANCE
The House resumed from February 1 consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the special order adopted
on Monday, February 1, 1999, the House will continue with the
consideration of Government Orders.
The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys will
have the floor for a 10 minute speech, followed by the usual
questions and comments.
1900
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this
evening to say a few words regarding the upcoming budget that we
expect on or about February 16.
We all saw in the media in the last few days accounts from some
speakers in Davos, Switzerland, where world leaders congregate
annually to speculate and comment on the future of the world and
the major issues of the day.
I noticed with interest that a number of the speakers referred
to the unequal distribution of wealth in the world and the
concern they had regarding the gap between the haves and the have
nots, the increasing disparities and the pace of disparities
occurring not only throughout the world between have countries
and have not countries but within nations as well.
In the last few weeks in Canada we have heard a number of people
comment on their concern regarding the gap between the rich and
the poor. As a matter of fact I even recall the Prime Minister
referring to the concerns that he had when evidence was presented
to him on this growing gap.
It seems to me that as the finance committee toured the country
and listened to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, one of
the themes that came through loud and clear was that they wanted
a level playing field not only for companies, not only for
provinces, but for people so that Canadians, no matter what their
backgrounds, no matter what their economic situation, no matter
what their health and so on, would have an equal opportunity to
develop into the citizens of Canada as they should.
Now that the government has surplus funds for the second time in
many years, it is mandatory to take steps that would go toward
equalizing and levelling the playing field for all Canadians.
Whether youngsters are growing up in British Columbia, on an
Indian reservation in Saskatchewan or in a small coastal
community in Newfoundland, they would have the same opportunities
in life to develop into the citizens they wish to be.
Another thing that became clear as we toured the country were
the number of people who cautioned us as a finance committee
about accepting a simple solution to the economic problems of the
country. We hear that today. We hear in the House day after day
what I think are simplistic grand or macro solutions to the
economic problems.
I remember when it was felt that if inflation came down to 1% or
2% the economy would pick up and get really hot. We all know
that did not take place. If we could just get the interest rates
down from those high levels of the teens and even beyond and into
4%, 5% and 6% levels it was said that would kickstart the economy
back into life. That happened and the economy continues along in
its sluggish fashion.
Then the deficit was the problem. The Tories had it up to $42
billion and said that getting the deficit down to zero was the
key point. We got the deficit down to zero and again the economy
did not take off as in the Rostowian thesis. Now we hear that if
we had mega tax cuts it would be the solution to kickstart the
economy back to life. That is the new mantra.
I see the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Finance is
here. He will remember how unsuccessful Ronald Reagan was when
he tried that in the United States. He made massive tax cuts,
but did the economy of the United States bounce back into high
gear economically? No way. The debt went up and the deficit
went up. It did not turn it around.
I know some colleagues have been guilty of saying that full
employment would be the solution. The solution is to have
everybody working. As Jesse Jackson from the United States
reminds us, when they had slavery in the south everybody was
working. Slavery was slavery but they had full employment. Is
that the kind of solution we want?
Let us be cautious about coming up with a macro solution to the
complex economic world we have inherited and are living in today.
1905
I want to make a quick comment on foreign investment. I know
foreign investment coming into a country is something that cannot
be spoken against, that it has to be good for the country.
Statistics Canada indicated the other day that the hundreds of
billions of dollars of foreign investment which came into Canada
and actually resulted in a new plant, a new factory or a new
venture, was only 1.5%. The rest came in and was used for
takeovers and that sort of thing, which I might add often costs
us jobs.
Whether it is foreign investment, tax cuts, deficit fighting,
inflation fighting, interest rate fighting or so on, they are
simplistic solutions. We must not be seduced into accepting them
as somehow the way to deal with this issue. The Tobin tax is
another one we hear about. We had a tax on international
currency speculation. Therein lies a major solution.
The reality is that we need all these things together in some
sophisticated matrix to create the kind of economic synergy that
will get the economy moving again in the right direction so that
people can have full employment with real, meaningful,
sustainable jobs.
To do that there is one thing missing. I do not think a single
person in the House of Commons today would say that as an
individual he or she could have a successful life without any
kind of plan, without any kind of goal, without any kind of
strategy, and just bumble along day by day. Nobody believes
that.
An hon. member: It is called rolling targets.
Mr. Nelson Riis: It is called rolling targets, as my
friend said. Small, medium or large businesses need business
plans before they can do anything. The first thing asked is
whether there is a business plan and whether the elements of
their old, new or renewed venture have been thought through.
Organizations such as a boy scout club or the Red Cross and
others need business plans. They need plans. They need goals
and a strategy to meet those goals.
What is our plan as a country? We do not have one. We are a
plan-free zone. We do not have plans in Canada. If we asked
Canadians from coast to coast what they think the federal
government's plan for the future of Canada was, we would get the
wildest mishmash of commentary imaginable because we do not have
a plan. Surely therein lies a portion of our success, a reason
for our success, if we could bring the major stakeholders of our
country together and develop a plan.
With all due respect to the Minister of Finance, who is setting
health care policy? Is it the health care business? Is it the
health care sector? No. It is the Minister of Finance seeking
advice from his financial advisers who are basically deciding
some of the fundamental health care policies of the country. We
are waiting for the budget to see what the health care policy of
Canada will be. This is wrong.
The same is true of education. Crucial to the knowledge based
economy of the 21st century is having a decent educational
training system from coast to coast to coast. Who is deciding
basically on the new thrust or if there is to be a new thrust in
education? It is the Minister of Finance and his political and
financial advisers.
With all due respect, he knows a lot of stuff but I do not think
he knows that much about health care or education. Therein lies
the reason we need to plan. By planning I do not mean the
Minister of Finance planning everything for us. The appropriate
people should be brought together to come up with a plan that
people can accept and move forward with.
Let us look at the successful economies around the world today,
those economies with growth rates of 7%, 8% or 9%. I guarantee
the one commonality in all those economies is that they have a
plan. They have come together in one form or another and have a
plan in terms of how they will grow their economy to create
employment.
Simply growing the economy does not necessarily help people. It
might help shareholders but it does not necessarily help people.
We have to grow the economy to help people.
From our point of view health care should be a priority. We
want to see at least $2.5 billion put back into health transfers.
Then we need a substantial down payment on repairing the damage
done to social programs.
I think all Canadians would agree with that. That is certainly
what we heard during the finance committee tour.
1910
The unemployment premiums must be spent on improving the
employment insurance program, to say nothing of the aid package
for the agricultural sector and the pay equity obligations that
we must keep.
In terms of tax relief we are suggesting a 1% reduction in the
GST as a way to provide tax relief for every citizen. Even
children will benefit from a GST reduction. When kids go to buy
their CDs or whatever they will benefit.
In closing, debt reduction is something we have to consider. We
must not be overly aggressive at this point, but obviously it is
something we have to pay attention to as well as a number of
things on which we will comment later in the process.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
nice things about this place of debate is that semi-occasionally
we settle down and start talking about things in a rational way
and putting forward our views.
I want to say publicly—and I know it is a little risky for me
to do this—that I have a lot of respect for the member who has
just spoken. He does a fine job in articulating his views. I do
not necessarily agree with those views, but he has a fine way of
explaining them and communicating them. I would like to commend
the member on that.
I have a question for him with respect to the grand scheme of
things. I grew up in Saskatchewan. That is the home of what is
now the NDP. I remember it when I was a youngster as the CCF,
the Canadian Commonwealth Federation. I remember well listening
to Tommy Douglas on the radio when I was a kid, as my dad did.
Dad has never told me this, but I would not be a bit surprised if
from time to time he voted NDP. I know there are a lot of people
in my riding who used to vote NDP and finally saw the light and
voted Reform.
This member seems to have a good perspective because of his
years as a legislator, as an MP and as a good thinking person.
Exactly what does he think about the nature of our debt?
If we look back 25 years we had no debt. Now one-third of our
government expenditures goes toward paying interest on the debt.
The member said that we should not be too radical in cutting the
debt. Yet the fact of the matter is that we could increase our
spending on programs and on things we value by 50% if we did not
have the interest payments.
Would the member expand a bit on the whole concept of debt and
interest payments and what that does to the country?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to
my friend's question in terms of the debt. I appreciate his
mentioning the progressive policies that in a sense led the
country in some ways over the years, coming from the province of
Saskatchewan, to things like medicare and others.
When Tommy Douglas was the premier of the province he said they
would not spend a whole lot on a number of programs until the
debt was eliminated. That was a long time ago. Ever since Tommy
Douglas said that there has been a pattern in Saskatchewan
politics, and I think my friend would have to agree with me.
The NDP would come in, or the CCF before it, and would eliminate
the debt. Then it would get on with delivering the kinds of
programs to which he referred. As long as we are paying out
those big premiums or debt payments to bankers or foreign bankers
and others, we are not using taxpayers money to invest in social
programs and the quality of life that Canadians want, or in this
case Saskatchewan residents wanted.
His theory was to pay down the debt. For years and years there
was an interesting historical sequence. As a Canadian historian
I used to love telling my students about it in class. The
NDP-CCF would be elected and would work hard over a period of
time to pay off the debt, to get rid of the indebtedness. Then
they would be kicked out of office and the Liberals would come in
and bring the province under extreme indebtedness. The Liberals
would be kicked out and the NDP-CCF would come in, wipe out the
debt again, get all the books balanced, and then Tories and
Liberals would be elected and whip up the debt again.
Today in the province of Saskatchewan we are debt free after we
inherited a massive debt load as well as a number of other things
from the previous Conservatives.
1915
My friend is right. We have to pay down the debt. The question
is how rapidly and this is where we may have a debate. I think
my friend would say that we should put a fairly massive amount on
debt reduction. With all due respect to my friend, because I
know he is serious when he says that, when in our country, the
richest country in the world, the number one country by the
United Nations standard in terms of the quality of life, 1.4
million children have to live in poverty, that is something we
cannot ignore.
It requires action and action requires some form of financial
outlay. I say yes to debt repayment. But let us not be so overly
zealous in our debt repayment that we forget the children who are
living in poverty today.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Markham.
I rise tonight to raise concerns that we in the PC Party share
in relation to the upcoming budget. As many of my learned
colleagues know, we in the PC Party share a common vision of how
the country should proceed. We know the foundation to a solid
future for our families and our children is entrenched in a
nation that is economically strong. But to have a strong
economy, we have to have an economy that is business friendly, an
economy that makes it easier in which to do business than it is
not to do business.
When I talk to business people from coast to coast they ask me
about our stand on taxes. They want to know why the government
will not reduce the level of EI premiums to $2.00. They know the
government is collecting approximately $7 billion more than it
requires. Why will it not lower it and put more money back into
the pockets of that little man and little woman and back into the
pockets of business people?
Every time businesses get a tax break they try to expand and
create more jobs. We feel very strongly, and so do the people
across Canada, that they should have had a bigger tax break than
just bringing down the EI premiums to $2.70. I have heard of
saving for a rainy day but this is rather ridiculous when
Canadian businesses are looking for a true sign from the
government on tax relief.
As my colleague from the NDP has just stated, there is a growing
trend in Canada which is very disturbing. That trend is poverty.
The gap between the rich and the poor is widening more and more
each day. I suppose many people wonder why. The real question
Canadians should be asking is what is the government doing about
it? What is its plan to combat the poverty gap in this country?
Many of us do not know and even more of us are concerned about
the true facts. We live in a nation where children are going to
school hungry. We have put so many programs together in my
riding of Saint John, New Brunswick for these little children.
Many volunteers are trying to feed the children. They cannot
learn when they go to school hungry.
I remember when I was on the board of the Rotary Club. One day
we were having a breakfast meeting at 7.30 in the morning. I
heard a noise and went outside. A little boy was going through
the garbage barrel looking for something to eat. I asked him
“When did you last eat, dear?” He said “I did not eat this
weekend”. We brought him in and we started a breakfast program
right there at the Rotary Boys and Girls Club. It is still
ongoing and it is growing. To think that we have to do this in
Canada, that a child is going through a garbage barrel.
Youth unemployment is at an unacceptable level of 14.7%.
Canadians are taking home $400 less than they did in the previous
two years. The personal debt level of Canadians has grown faster
in the past 10 years than it has in any of the other G-7 nations.
Consumer bankruptcies have reached a crisis level in Canada with
over 85,000 last year alone. This is an all-time high for
bankruptcies in Canada.
It is one thing for this government to have things which look
good on paper but when people are hurting, ask them what they
want and people will say that they want action.
They do not want lip service. And they do not want to hear how
wonderful everything is and how great everything is. They want
action.
1920
Let us look at the shipbuilding policy and the shipbuilding
industry. In my city it was the Liberals who first put money
into our shipyard for the first frigate contract that we had.
Then the Conservatives put the rest of the money in. We have the
most modern shipyard there is in the world and it sits idle. We
had 4,000 men working in that shipyard. Now those men have left
our city. We have had 10,000 people move out of Saint John, New
Brunswick since I came up here on the Hill in 1993. They have
gone to the United States to find work.
I am in absolute shock at what is happening. I asked the
Minister of Industry to please bring in a national shipbuilding
policy whereby our people back home could bid and could compete
around the world for contracts. They bid on over 50 contracts,
but they cannot compete because we are the only country in the
world that has still adhered to that old, ancient OECD
shipbuilding policy that was entered into many years ago. All
the other countries have laughed at it. They have gone away from
it.
No, they are not looking for subsidies. What they are looking
for is a longer return payment program. But the government will
always get its money. There are other things that they are
saying, but no, they are not looking for subsidies.
The Liberal Party at its policy convention in 1993 adopted a
motion to implement a national shipbuilding policy because the
Liberals stated that Canada urgently needed one. Here it is 1999
and we have not received any national shipbuilding policy from
the government, nothing. No meetings were held. There were no
consultations with the industry officials. The industry
officials have come to the minister's office. They have asked
for consultation and they have not received it.
We have to invest in our people. The government needs to put
the people of this country first. It is done by cutting taxes
and allowing this great nation to prosper. We need to increase
the basic personal amount of indexed income to $10,000 and give
our low income earners a little break. It is no secret that if
people have more disposable income they will spend it. Just
think about it. If all a person has is $10,000 a year, that
person is not living in luxury, that is for sure.
The more we spend, the more money is put back into the economy
and the more the economy grows, the more jobs will be created.
The more the economy grows, more people are hired and more taxes
are being paid in the system. The more the economy grows it is
straightforward supply and demand economics. It is the way to
go.
We in Canada are known for our kindness and compassion toward
our people. I know it is difficult to govern, but when governing
we must never forget about the little man and his family who
works hard for an honest day's pay, and we never forget about the
people who need the services that are paid for by all of us to
use. We should never cut things unless the cuts are fair and
equally distributed across the country.
Since the government took over in 1993 the Atlantic provinces
have seen their transfer payments cut by 40% and we have only 8%
of the country's population.
The government balanced its books on the backs of those who need
the services the most. Perhaps that is why the Liberals were
sent a clear message by the voters of the Atlantic region.
When it comes to health care those transfer payments that were
cut have hit our hospitals extremely hard. We have heard about
the horrors in the health care system in Quebec. Those same
horrors apply to our people in New Brunswick and across the
nation.
There is a need to bring back to those transfer payments those
billions of dollars that have been taken away so we can educate
our children, so we can keep our people here in Canada, not
educate them and have them go into the United States, the
doctors, the lawyers, the nurses, our people.
There is a great need here. We have to be responsible. I
believe in good honest responsible government. I have always ran
on that and I believe in it. I believe in people. I believe
that when we are making cuts we have to look at the negative
impact it can have on the lives of our people. I pray that that
is what will happen when the budget comes down.
1925
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak today in the prebudget debate. It gives me a chance to
outline on behalf of my constituents and as a member of the
Progressive Conservative Party a series of realistic achievable
solutions to improve Canada's economy.
Despite the rhetoric of the finance minister and Liberals such
as the member for Vaughan—King—Aurora who chairs the finance
committee, the present economic situation is far from ideal.
Canada's unemployment rate stands at 8%, nearly double the rate
of the U.S., our number one trading partner. Meanwhile Canada's
youth unemployment rate is almost twice the national rate.
Canadians took home $400 less last year than they did two years
ago and their after tax income has dropped 7.2% over the past
decade. Personal debt levels also grew faster in Canada than in
any other G-7 country over the past decade. Last year consumer
bankruptcies reached 85,297, an all-time high. Never in Canadian
history have more people gone bankrupt.
Those are just the figures relative to individuals. When we
examine several key economic indicators, more weaknesses in our
economy are uncovered.
Canada's productivity growth over the past 20 years has been
slower than every other G-7 country. Canada also has the second
highest debt to GDP ratio in the G-7. There is nothing for the
Liberals to brag about. We already know, thanks to credible
publications such as The Economist, that any economic
growth during the Liberal government's term is because of the
policies of former Conservative governments.
What is the actual Liberal economic record? It is a record of
less real disposable income since the 1993 election according to
Statistics Canada. It is one of a government that collected 38%
more in personal income taxes during the past five years. With
statistics such as these, it is hardly surprising that Canada's
taxes are among the highest in the industrial world.
High taxes come at a considerable cost. They stifle economic
development. They kill entrepreneurial initiatives. They
discourage investment. Perhaps worst of all, they cause a brain
drain, a trend that results in Canada losing a lot of its best
and brightest to more favourable tax jurisdictions.
The brain drain inflicts plenty of damage on Canada's economy. A
recent study by the C.D. Howe Institute estimated that for lost
managers and professionals alone, the net cost to Canadian
society from 1982 to 1996 was $6.7 billion.
According to the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service, more than half of all permanent immigrants from Canada
were admitted on employment based preferences. This means that
over 8,300 highly skilled Canadians were granted permanent
residence status so they could fill important jobs in the U.S.
economy. Another 44,000 Canadians were granted temporary work
permits in the U.S. This must sound like a drop in the bucket
for Canada's labour force of 14 million people but these people
by virtue of American immigration rules are highly skilled and
well paid more often than not.
The C.D. Howe Institute study found that six managers and
professionals went south in 1996 for every one moving the other
way. This is a major loss to Canadian companies and governments.
It is more than a corporate problem. The departure of thousands
of highly skilled and highly paid Canadians also weakens our tax
base and endangers the services supported by that tax base. That
hurts everyone indiscriminately.
Before my colleagues on the Liberal and NDP benches start
ranting and raving about making the wealthy pay, I would also
like to cite some figures from Revenue Canada.
In 1995 more than 800,000 Canadians earned $70,000 or more. This
group represents just 4% of tax filers, 6% of taxpayers and 19%
of total income, yet this relatively small group of Canadians
contributes 31% of all federal tax and 35% of all provincial tax
paid. This tiny group of Canadians paid more than $30 billion in
federal and provincial income taxes alone.
For every 1% of our high income tax earners who leave the
country, some 8,360 emigrants, Canada loses more than $300
million in federal and provincial income taxes.
Keeping in mind the U.S. government's immigration figures for
1996, that means the Canadian government lost more than $1
billion in income tax revenue that year alone.
In short, Canadians from all walks of life and all income levels
are paying a heavy price for our high income taxes.
By significantly cutting taxes the Liberal government could help
fill the gaping holes in the Canadian economy. The weak
half hearted measures contained in last year's budget do not
qualify as significant tax cuts.
1930
We have seen the benefit of reducing taxes in my home province
of Ontario. When the PC government was elected in 1995, Ontario
had an economic basket case thanks to a decade of Liberal and NDP
misrule. Thanks to the provincial PC government's ambitious plan
of tax cuts Ontario with a third of Canada's population has
accounted for well over half of the job growth in Canada for
almost two years now.
Not only did cutting taxes help create jobs in Ontario, it had a
positive effect on the province's financial situation which was
in disastrous shape after Bob Rae's stewardship. The economic
growth that resulted from lower taxes increased the province's
revenues. That fact should not be dismissed out of hand.
Yesterday in the House of Commons the member for Mississauga
West, a former member of the Ontario legislature, mistakenly
claimed that provincial tax cuts took money out of health care in
Ontario. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is the
Ontario government is spending $1.5 billion more on health care
than the government did in 1995, even with the $1.1 billion cut
in health and the $2.7 billion cut in the CHST payments.
The Ontario record is clear: more money for health care, more
money in the pockets of Ontario taxpayers, more tax revenues in
the province's treasury thanks to economic growth resulting from
tax cuts.
Liberals like my colleague from Mississauga West try to mislead
people into believing there is a choice between more money for
health care and tax cuts. It is as if the Liberals were
convinced of the impossibility of walking and chewing gum at the
same time.
Unlike the federal Liberals, the Harris Conservatives have made
good on their promise with a stronger economy as a result. I can
understand the Liberals and the NDP for that matter not wanting
to discuss the economic successes achieved by the Conservative
Government of Ontario. I would therefore cite an international
example on the advantage of lowering taxes.
The chief economist of the investment dealer Nesbitt Burns, Dr.
Sherry Cooper, highlighted the experience of the republic of
Ireland, a country that cut taxes and saw its economy take off.
Investors have been attracted to Ireland's low corporate tax
rates that start as low as 10% versus Canada's approximate rate
of 46%. Indeed the Irish economy is growing at almost double
digit annual rates during the past two years. When was the last
time Canada achieved such growth?
Another international case representing the benefits of low
taxes is Finland. With the lowest corporate taxes in the OECD,
Finland has real GDP growth of 6% and a sharply declining
unemployment rate.
In case after case, example after example, the verdict is in.
Tax cuts stimulate economic growth and economic growth creates
jobs and generates revenue needed by governments to provide
services. That is why we need real tax cuts in this budget. We
need to reduce high unemployment insurance premiums. In 1995 the
minister of finance called payroll taxes such as EI premiums a
cancer on jobs. Yet the government insists on gouging employers
and employees through the EI fund.
Perhaps my Liberal colleagues from the GTA should heed the
warning of Elyse Allan, president of the metro council board of
trade, who told the finance committee last fall that high
premiums stifle private sector creation and reduce personal
disposable income. The actuary of the EI fund stated that
premiums can be lowered to a rate of $2 per $100 of insurable
earnings without being fiscally irresponsible.
We in the PC caucus agree with this independent, non-partisan
recommendation. I doubt the minister of finance would move in
this direction. After all, according to finance department
documents released by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, almost a
third of the $39 billion in increased federal revenues is
directly attributed to bracket creep. As with high EI premiums,
bracket creep is one of the cash cows of the minister of finance.
I urge the minister of finance to use this budget to bring in
the broad based tax relief needed to develop our economy, improve
our standard of living, stem the tide of our best an brightest
leaving this country and set a vision for this country for the
next millennium.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
a physician in the province of Ontario I feel quite
sensitive to the hon. member's comments in terms of the CHST
having been the problem. We know the reduction in the CHST
has had one-fifth of the impact on health care spending as the
tax cut in Ontario.
At the finance committee we heard from the Ontario Hospital
Association: “The underlying problem is thoughtless mechanic
tinkering with the system in nearly every province.
The crisis is rooted more in faulty planning than demographics,
finance or technology. The good news is that this management
crisis can be fixed”.
1935
I suggest this upcoming election may be what we need in order to
fix health care in Ontario. If you actually look at these
so-called increases in the health care dollars that you are
touting in the province of Ontario, a lot of that is actually the
severance for fired nurses. You have to actually have a look at
what you are saying. We know that we need accountability on this
stuff. We actually need a real plan.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I remind everyone to
address each other through the Chair.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon.
member is coming from. Let us look at the record of health care
and what the Ontario government has done. Total health care
spending for the fiscal year 1998 will be $18.7 billion. That is
the highest in Ontario's history and an increase of over $1.3
billion since the PC government was elected. That is with a $1.1
billion cut in transfer payments to Ontario by the Liberals. This
increase in health care spending in Ontario occurred despite the
federal level cutting $2.7 billion in transfer payments to the
people of Ontario. The Ontario government has put more into
health care, education and social spending.
The federal government spends only $125 per person in Ontario
for health care while the Ontario government spends $1,639 per
person to meet provincial health care needs. In other words, for
every dollar spent by the federal Liberal government on health
care in Ontario, the provincial PC government spends more than
$13. I find it despicable that the Liberals like to espouse
policy but do not put their money where their mouth is.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. colleague commented on brain drain. According
to a C.D. Howe Institute report, I do not think high tax is the
only cause of brain drain. It is not a determinant. Environment
and quality of life are part of the reason.
The cancer research institute in B.C. was very happy to announce
recently that two leading cancer researchers will return from the
U.S. to start a new project called gene research. That is happy
news and it is not necessary to go the other way.
According to statistics Canadian researchers and scientists
sometimes do go to other countries. The number is around 10,000
but we have about 20,000 newcomers to fill that gap.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, for every one person who
comes back we have seven highly skilled people leaving. They are
leaving because of the high taxes in this country. The proof is
in the history of Ontario, that tax cuts do create jobs. Is it
not ironic that it is a province with a little over a third of
the population? Since September 1995, 487,000 new private sector
jobs have been created in the province of Ontario. In the five
year period of 1990 to 1995 we lost 500,000 jobs in the province
of Ontario because of the policies of Bob Rae. For 1998 as a
whole, Ontario job growth averaged a record 200,000 net new jobs,
almost double the 101,000 annual pace for 1997.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be splitting my time. I am pleased to speak today in the
prebudget debate. As a member of the finance committee and an MP
from western Canada, I have heard from many individuals and
groups. It has become clear that Canadians want tax cuts and
more health care funding.
There are three main areas I would like to talk about, tax
relief, health care and more funding for research and
development.
1940
A reduction in the tax rate will benefit Canadians. Our
committee considered the level of reduction and how reduction
should be distributed. We believe government priorities should
be as follows. First, target tax relief to those most in need,
including students, charitable organizations, children and
Canadians with disabilities. Second, general tax relief starting
with low and modest income Canadians. Third, increase general tax
relief over time.
Based on recommendations from the finance committee last year
the basic personal amount and the spousal amounts were increased
for low income taxpayers. As well, the 3% general surtax was
eliminated for many individuals. In combination those new
measures reduced significantly the tax burden of the low and
middle income taxpayer.
Now we can better afford additional tax reductions. Now that
the tax measures aimed at the low and middle income Canadians
have been introduced, the committee believes the government must
begin to offer broad based tax relief.
It is only because the government acted responsibly in recent
years and because Canadians from coast to coast have made
substantial sacrifices that we should be in a position to
implement tax reduction measures which will benefit all
Canadians.
Our committee recommends that the next budget introduce personal
income tax reductions for all Canadians. Further, we recommend
that the government commit itself to future tax reductions by
presenting a three year tax reduction plan.
We suggest that a temporary 3% surtax be completely eliminated
in the next budget. The 5% surtax on high income earners should
be eliminated gradually.
We believe the increase in the basic personal and spousal
amounts in last year's budget should be extended to all Canadian
taxpayers, not just those with low incomes.
The second area I would like to talk about is health care
spending. We all agree more government resources should be
devoted to health care. It should be the number one priority for
government. Many individuals and groups expressed concern that
the system may no longer be funded adequately. They argued that
the federal and provincial governments should work together to
ensure this.
The federal government should use some of the budgetary surplus
to restore some of the cuts. We recommend a review of transfers
to the provinces. Investing part of the surplus in improvements
in medicare would demonstrate to Canadians the federal
government's commitment to the medicare system and the principles
of the Canada Health Act.
When cuts were made to the transfer payments many provinces
simply made across the board spending cuts. We need strategies
that ensure efficient and effective services are not eliminated.
Increases should be justified by efficiency assessments of health
care spending.
The committee is aware that as Canadian demographics change and
the population ages, it is inevitable that health care costs will
rise. We are concerned that the quality of health services could
be undermined if funding is not increased. Increased investment
could be used to improve service delivery, investment in new
technology and to reduce waiting lists.
1945
The third area I would like to address is that we need more
funding for research and development. We recommend an increase
in funding for new research initiatives. Innovative ideas are
essential to maintaining a successful and competitive economy.
Research and development can ensure the highest quality of health
care for Canadians. We need research projects to demonstrate
better ways to provide home and community services and a drug
delivery program.
At the same time as the population ages, innovative technology
becomes more and more sophisticated and expensive. We must find
ways to ensure that Canadians have access to the best medical
treatment possible. Medical innovation is a way to do that. On
a per capita basis, direct federal funding for health research
and development is five times as high in the United States as it
is in Canada.
In France spending on medical research has also increased much
more rapidly than in Canada. Therefore the committee recommends
that more resources be allocated to research and development.
In conclusion, Canadians recognize that the federal government
has a role to play in making Canada prosperous. It must also be
responsible for both fiscal and social policies. As the report
demonstrates, tax reductions and health care spending are
priorities for Canadians.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak in three ways this evening, first as the
member of parliament for St. Paul's, second as a member of the
finance committee and third as someone who has fought hard for
the protection of the Canadian health care system and who feels
deeply that the confidence that Canadians have in that system is
the most serious protection we have against the slippery slope to
a two tiered system.
In St. Paul's we had a prebudget consultation of some of the
opinion leaders and it was clear that they too felt there were
three main things that we should be focusing on. They felt that
debt reduction was imperative. It was clearly the priority of
those people who were in attendance. The talk of debt reduction
focused on how much should be spent on that and many mentioned
how debt reduction would have a positive impact in a number of
ways.
Almost everyone in attendance at the meeting spoke about social
spending. While most discussed their priorities for the 1999
budget in terms of health care, medical research or employment
spending, many cautioned that the instability of our economy in a
volatile global environment necessitated prudence in any spending
measures. They also felt that we should be cautious about
raising spending expectations.
With respect to health spending, many of those in attendance
expressed concerns about the growing gap between the rich and the
poor, which we have heard a lot about. They expressed a desire
to see the 1999 budget address the connection between poverty and
health and preventive care. National standards were also
mentioned as being health priorities. Health spending topped the
social spending agenda for the people in attendance.
The other area was in research spending. While discussing
social spending many mentioned the need to increase spending on
scientific research and that this would be a very concrete
investment that would have high returns. In fact some of them
were specific in that 1% of public health dollars should be the
target perhaps over a three or five year period.
Tax reduction was also a priority for some of the people in St.
Paul's and some felt that it should be a major priority. Like
debt reduction, many saw that the benefit of tax reduction would
translate into improvements in other areas. The number one
priority was to decrease personal taxes, especially for those who
live in poverty. Some felt quite strongly that paying slightly
higher taxes than some other nations, notably the one to the
south, was part of living in a just and civil society. They
placed tax relief after the spending initiatives.
1950
In the finance committee we found that there were many, many
thoughtful presentations. People talked about the brain drain,
about the need for health care and research. There was a rather
interesting presentation on the progress indicators as they
change from the GDP. In fact in St. Paul's we had a town hall
meeting on that subject in the past month, looking at some of the
work of Marilyn Waring. We are very proud that as Canadians it
is the first time StatsCan has been able to actually put the
unpaid work of women into our census.
There were many external factors which those of us on the
finance committee felt. Obviously there was the change in terms
of the OECD warning us about debt reduction, as well as its
admonition with respect to the necessary tax cuts.
Members felt that the rising tax burden of Canadians and the
lack of disposable income was a problem, as we have seen
disposable income, personal after tax income, fall steadily since
1990.
People were concerned about the UN, although we still are number
one in human development. We felt the fact that we are 10th in
human poverty was something we should look at. Obviously, we
considered the conference board's concern regarding our standard
of living and, again, the fact that our best and brightest are
leaving to go to other countries.
We felt clearly that an increase in the personal tax exemption
would be a good thing for almost all Canadians. This would take
a certain percentage of Canadians right off the tax rolls. It
would be of specific help for the working poor in terms of their
disposable income.
There was one night in St. Paul's when we had a town hall
meeting on bank mergers where there was one very vocal person who
said “Don't give the provinces any more money for health care”.
This was unlike the hon. member for Markham, in that they felt
that they could not be trusted in terms of what they would do
with it.
That has been the major debate in this country regarding what we
actually do about the CHST. I would like to remind the hon.
member for Markham that in the Progressive Conservative election
platform they were actually going to reduce the cash transfer to
zero. I do not think that then they would feel that the federal
government was giving zero to health care. We have to continue
to remember that there is only one taxpayer. We have to figure
out what it is that Canadians need in order to feel confident
about the quality of health care in their country.
There are four things that are most important when dealing with
health care and how important it is to Canadians. We must remind
ourselves that unfortunately when the Canada Health Act was
written the word quality was nowhere to be seen.
Although the five tenets of the Canada Health Act presumed high
quality care, I do not think it could have presumed the sort of
bargain basement care that has come about since people have not
actually been accountable for how the money is spent.
The trends from hospitals to community care, doctor to
multidisciplinary and a kind of evidence-based, best practices
kind of care have not been dealt with appropriately in the
follow-up to the Canada Health Act.
First, we have to recommit to the Canada Health Act. Second, we
must begin to measure what the outcomes actually are in terms of
the waiting lists and in terms of a real commitment to the
information technology that is required to do that.
Michael Decter, who is head of Canadian Health Information, said
in Maclean's in June that Canada had badly underinvested in
health information and that we spend only 2% of our total health
care budget on health information. He said that we would get
much better value for our total health dollar if we increased
this vital investment to 4%.
We have to know what we are doing. One of my concerns has been
that when the Canadian Medical Association or anybody else
continues their chant about underfunding we do not actually know
where that money is going. People are continually concerned
about unnecessary surgery, antibiotics for virile infections and
many other things.
In 1995 there was a paper called “Sustainable Health Care for
Canada” done by Angus, Auer, Cloutier and Albert. It was very
clear about what we have to be doing. We have to be dealing with
the fiscal pressures on government, the lack of knowledge about
the links between health care and help, the ethical dilemmas
involved in rationing health care services and contradictory
incentives built into the rules and regulations governing health
care.
They felt that those tensions were not new, but that we could not
keep throwing money at the problem.
1955
They felt that if we actually moved to best practices there
would be $7 billion worth of savings every year. In those days
15% of the public health care costs could be saved.
We should actually move to a more accountable system. Money
will not be the problem. We need to have some sort of
accountability, as we said, in terms of the Ontario Hospital
Association saying this was really about mismanagement and not
necessarily just about money.
We have informal standards in this country. When the B.C.
cancer outcome rates are much better than the rest of the country
we sort of see that as an informal standard. When Quebec's home
care system is better than the rest of the country, viewed by
experts, we see that as an informal standard that all Canadians
expect.
We now have to find a way to have all three levels of government
report to Canadians on a regular basis. It is not big brother
checking up on the provinces. It must be, as the Minister of
Health has said, a way for all levels of government to be
accountable to Canadians about how their health care dollars are
being spent, their tax dollars.
The fourth area has to be in research. As some of the people in
St. Paul's have said, the idea of moving to a target of 1% of
public health dollars for health care is a target that we should
be shooting for.
The proposal for the Canadian institutes of health research is a
good one and I am thrilled that we are starting to see things
like population health, clinical and evaluative sciences, and
primary prevention, as well as our amazing track record in the
medical model of research.
I am hugely optimistic as we move into this next budget. It is
a thrilling problem to have a surplus. I think that all
Canadians thank the government for what it has done in a prudent
fashion and I look forward to the budget.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was a
delight to serve with this member on the finance committee. Dare
I say it, we spent some numbers of hours together listening to
witnesses, albeit on opposite sides of the table.
I was very interested in the member's comments. We heard the
same things from the witnesses, that health care is indeed a very
big concern among those people at least who came to our
committee. Of course we are also hearing it in our ridings. I
often get testimonials from people whose loved ones had to go to
the hospital. They say “Hey, we do not know what the hullabaloo
is all about because we had really good care”. It is good to
hear those stories on the other side.
I have a very fundamental philosophical question that I would
like to ask the member who just spoke since she is a medical
doctor and very interested in health care. She mentioned a
deterioration of health care into a two tier system. I wonder
how she would answer this question.
There are right now a fair number of Canadians who, because of
their accumulation of wealth, are able to go to that part of the
world where the best health care is available. I had a person in
my riding not very long ago who fiddled around with Canada's
health care system and finally went to the Mayo Clinic where he
received a proper diagnosis of what his problems were. He had to
pay for it of course, and fortunately he had the financial
wherewithal to do it.
What should we really be doing so that we prevent this move to a
two tier system? Should we legislate at the border? A person
may not cross if their purpose of going into the U.S. is to look
for health care in order to equalize it for everyone here? I
think she would reject that. I certainly would.
I think if a person has the money and chooses so to spend it,
that should be their choice, provided of course that they have
earned the money by legal means. But we need to do something in
this country so that people would not even want to go elsewhere.
Under the present system that does not seem to be happening. It
is getting worse and worse.
The federal government used to fund 50% of health care and used
to have a really good insertion of funds for medical research,
which is very good for medical services. That has deteriorated.
One of the things we heard over and over was about the exodus of
our brightest people into the United States because of the
research facilities that are available.
2000
I would like a comment on the two tier system because I am very
interested in it.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, people have always gone
to the Mayo Clinic when there has been a conundrum up here and I
think we will never stop that. It is important in terms of the
choice of Canadians.
The hon. member must remind himself that sometimes we see
specialized care from watching ER or other American
television. Specialist driven care is not the best health care,
as the member mentioned. We actually know in terms of research
that we have good care in Canada where 50% of medical
practitioners are family doctors and are good case managers.
People do not end up with unnecessary tests. People end up being
counselled in terms of prevention and stress.
We actually have a great system. We need to begin to look at
accountability. We need to take time with Canadians to explain
the options. We need affluent Canadians to stick up for our
system. If we lose the confidence of the affluent people to
speak up for our publicly funded system, we actually lose our
best allies.
I would counsel anyone to have a look at the outcomes of some of
the specialist driven things that have come from Harley Street.
Going from specialist to specialist to specialist is not good
care. We have a great system. Our family doctors are platinum
trained. They are being recruited to the United States which
ends up with a cost effective care that is actually managed care,
not the kind of managed costs that is a concern in the HMO and
managed care system in the United States.
I am hugely optimistic that we know how to do it here and that
it is actually better care.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was going
to ask another question but I guess the time has elapsed so I
will move right into the most important speech I have ever given.
I had better not say that because maybe it would reduce the value
of previous speeches.
I have many things to talk about. I travelled with the
committee. We heard different witnesses. I took the occasion
when we were in different towns to walk up and down the streets
and talk to people instead of shopping.
I remember I talked to one man on the street in Saskatoon about
what he thought was important in the budget. He happened to be a
retired person. He said the thing that was killing him was
taxes. He had put money away in RRSPs and was basically living in
poverty because when he took some money from his RRSPs his
expenses were very low and he had no deductions. He ended up
having to pay $2,000 a year in taxes and was hardly able to pay
his bills. For him tax reduction was very important.
I heard mechanics who said their priority was to stop forcing
them to use after tax dollars to buy their mechanic's tools. That
seemed very reasonable to me. Every lawyer and every doctor in
the country who sets up office, shop, lab or whatever uses the
tools of their trade as an expense in setting up business. Yet
the poor mechanic has to pay for his tools and equipment with
after tax dollars. That was a priority.
I could go on and on, but I have chosen today to speak about
debt. I talked a bit about it with the NDP member from British
Columbia a little earlier. I heard two distinct messages in the
committee from different people which underlined to me that we
adopt the thinking of the people to whom we speak.
We heard from certain people, mostly labour groups and so on,
who suggested that we should not be paying off the debt. I find
this very curious. It is as a result of what I will very
carefully call fuzzy thinking. I think it is the fuzzy thinking
of the NDP that somehow if the debt is paid off all we are doing
is giving money to rich people because they are the ones who own
the debt. That is how some of those people think. I strongly
disagree with that.
2005
I am surprised the NDP would not be pushing for debt reduction
to the maximum as has happened with some fiscally responsible
governments like the one in Saskatchewan. Although I hate to
endorse the NDP in Saskatchewan, it has certainly been more
fiscally responsible than some of the previous governments in
that province. Let us take the label away and look at what
happens to debt management and with the money.
I am in such a good mood today that I find it difficult to
contain myself. I just gave a reluctant compliment to the NDP
and now I will give a reluctant compliment to the Liberal
government. Because the government could have increased the debt
much more than it did, I will compliment it on reducing its
spending by $2 billion, increasing tax revenue by $40 billion and
resisting the temptation to spend the difference.
I congratulate the government because I know the Liberal way is
to think of how to spend. When the next election rolls around I
am sure we will see that particular characteristic of the Liberal
creature come to the fore again. It is always nice at election
time to roll out the goodies and buy the votes with taxpayers
dollars.
This afternoon I hauled out a file on my computer. In 1996 I
looked at the deficit, the amount by which we were overspending
and adding to the debt. When I first came here the debt was $420
billion. We had that infamous first year where the deficit was
$45 billion. After the Liberals took office they found that the
bookkeeping of the previous Conservative government had given
them the world record in having the largest deficit ever of $45
billion. In one year the debt shot up to $465 billion, the last
legacy of what we had from the Conservative government.
Then under the federal government the Liberals reduced the
amount of the deficit and bragged a lot about it. It simply
meant that they were borrowing at a lower rate, that they were
not borrowing quite as much. In 1996 I projected what would
happen if the Liberals kept adding 3% to the debt every year. If
they would have followed that pattern, according to my numbers
the debt would now be about $641 billion. We know that it is
around $580 billion. The fact that the Liberals resisted
spending all this additional revenue deserves a compliment.
I give them that commendation, but that is the very last one.
They did that mostly on the backs of the provinces and on the
backs of the taxpayers. As I have already indicated, tax revenue
has gone up fantastically. They are looking at a projected
increase in tax revenue of around $40 billion a year over what it
was in 1993 when they first took office. There is a tremendous
sucking sound when $40 billion is taken out of the Canadian
economy.
The federal government has reduced its own departmental spending
by very little. It has done this on the backs of the taxpayers
by taking increased tax revenue and on the backs of transfers to
provinces. We all know that has been a huge item of debate and
is really called downloading. It really has not done a very good
job.
What is the impact of debt? Had we not stopped the 3% increase
in debt per year, by the year 2010, which is no longer very far
into the future, the debt would have grown to over a trillion
dollars. That is something we cannot sustain if we want to
provide services for our people, the whole purpose of government.
People pay taxes in order to get services from government.
We are presently spending a tremendous amount on interest. It
is our largest single expenditure item.
Interest is due only to debt. There are two things that affect
interest payments. One is the principal amount of the debt. The
other is the interest rate.
2010
The Liberals won the lottery. They happened to be in power
during the years when world-wide interest rates were relatively
low. I sometimes smile and snicker to myself when the Prime
Minister particularly and the finance minister like to brag about
low interest rates. Very frankly it has very little to do with
them. They just happened to be at the right place at the right
time.
If the interest rates increase, the interest payments on our
debt increase dramatically. The fact that we now have a $580
billion debt is something that I do not believe we should take
lightly. We should look at paying it off.
We speak of a surplus. It is projected to be $11 billion.
Lately they have been cranking it down to get it to around $7
billion. If we wanted to pay off that debt like a mortgage, in
30 years, the year I will turn 90, we would be out of debt if the
following happened, if we posted a surplus of $50 billion per
year for 30 years against the debt retirement fund. That happens
to be around $3,500 per taxpayer per year.
When I ask taxpayers if they are content with the federal
government borrowing so much money on their behalf that each
month they have to pay $300 in interest, they are not very happy.
Yet that is the fact. I would love for the government to reduce
its indebtedness in order to reduce tax payments.
The Reform has a very distinct plan on how to achieve this. We
propose that the surpluses be applied toward the debt. As that
happens, we can pay the debt at an increasing rate because as we
reduce the principal the interest payments go down. It also
insulates us against the danger of escalating interest rates.
I am very sorry that my time has elapsed. It is hard to
believe. I barely got my introduction finished. Hopefully there
will be some discussion.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was interested in listening to the
member. He previously asked questions of the Liberal member
opposite. He outlined a philosophical difference which gives
rise to the policy choices that are made. The choices that
governments make eventually either hurt the population or free
the population for prosperity.
Certainly we can see the disparity within Canada is not
necessarily related to geography, resources and so on. A lot of
the economic disparity between the regions of Canada has
historically been related to the kind of provincial governments
and the economic choices and incentives or disincentives that
have existed.
Would the member further expand on his proposals, outlining from
his philosophical view how Canadians would be more prosperous?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I subscribe primarily to this
philosophical premise, and I admit it is a premise that is
debated by economists who are much wiser than I am. We ship
trainloads of money to Ottawa so that the politicians and the
bureaucrats can turn around and distribute it. The premise I
believe in because it makes sense to me is that instead of
funnelling almost 50% of our gross domestic product, in other
words the collective earnings of all of us, into government we
would be better off leaving it in the hands of the people, of the
families, of the businesses.
That would have a much greater impact on our economy. That
money spread throughout the economy would produce jobs, demand
for goods and services, and give all individuals more money than
they have now.
2015
I remember many years ago looking at my tax bill. At that time
my tax bill was only about $600 or $700 a month. I was thinking
of what I could do with $700 a month. In the Reform plan we want
to arrange government priorities and reduce wasteful spending so
we can give that tax cut to businesses and individuals, so we can
leave that money out there. That is the root of prosperity.
We will have greater prosperity if we stop robbing the people of
the money they have earned. Let them spend it, let them build
industries and businesses, let them hire people. This is even for
people who are not in business, for ordinary families. If I
offered a mom or a dad $300 a month in reduced taxes, that is
like earning $600. Now you would have to earn an additional $600
to have $300 in your pocket. They say no when I ask them if they
would decline that offer and they ask if I am paying off the
debt. They are concerned about the debt and the interest
payments we are making.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I will continue on this theme. Canadians
rightly look to government to provide peace and order and to do
the collective things in society that we as individuals cannot do
for ourselves. It is also accepted that government itself must
be a strong and fair referee in the economic game. The difference
between richer and poorer nations arises from the kinds of
government they have. Politics matters. Governments can bring
health or harm, prosperity or despair. It is all in the policy
choices they make.
That is why I speak out on behalf of my community against many
of the unwise choices that have been made by this government
since 1993. Most important, I speak for the positive things that
Canada could achieve if we had a more accountable, competent
government. I speak of the need for tax relief in this context,
especially when the Prime Minister this week agreed with Brian
Mulroney about the wisdom of high taxes.
Canada's story is one of not fulfilling our potential when we
have every basic advantage. Because we have had abundant natural
resources and access to capital to develop infrastructure, we
have been able to participate in the various technological
revolutions. We have had some measure of success since
Confederation despite our poor governments and their many
misguided policies.
Successive Liberal and Conservative governments through
ignorance and/or perverseness and by being wrongly cheered on by
the NDP have left Canada in a plight far below what we are
capable of in terms of caring for our people and bringing
prosperity and freedom to all rather than just maybe most.
Governments set the climate for the economy and the right mix of
policies over time can be very beneficial. But governments can
quickly cut down years of steady progress by favouring their
friends, violating the basic laws of commerce and unreasonably
promoting a party reputation over needed national policy. So it
can be said that the Liberals have shown themselves time and
again not to be wise managers of the public trust. They continue
to mistakenly act as if they can tax and spend Canada into
prosperity.
A better mix is needed between those who create and those who
reallocate, between those who earn and those who burn the
people's money. It could be said that at some point taxation
even has a moral component of how right it is for a government to
tax and control the financial affairs of Canadians. Although
economic considerations can be complex, in our present situation
it is all too obvious that Canada now needs significant tax
relief.
The current arrangement needlessly hurts Canadians. It is
obvious to any worker who knows what the government has done by
seeing the deductions on his paycheque or the job that has been
lost.
2020
It is time that the average Canadian received a raise in pay
this year, not by confiscating as much revenue from the economy
and from paycheques. The Reform plan would give all workers in
Canada a raise in take home pay this year.
The Liberals have hurt Canadians through unprecedented high tax
levels instead of a better mix of spending control on government
and a resolve to end economic discrimination. They also
unreasonably cut health care instead of other things. We were
then able to slowly stumble toward a fiscal surplus. Now we
watch as the personal sacrifices that Canadian workers have made,
who have spawned the surplus, evaporate under old style
Liberal-nomics.
This year's Liberal surprise appears to be the changing in
questionable size of the surplus. According to the Department of
Finance's most recent pronouncement something unforeseen is
occurring that has our $10 billion to $12 billion projected
surplus shrinking to $7 billion or less. What they are really
trying to tell Canadians in the lead-up to the budget is that
most of the money that was promised for tax reliefs in the
upcoming budget has vanished from the government books. Over the
past two years at the time in the business cycle when government
spending historically should be restrained, this government still
succumbed to blowing by its spending budget a cost overrun which
also the usual habit of the NDP in my province.
The facts are clear. Any further delays in large scale tax
relief in the upcoming budget will only be because this
government refuses to stop its wasteful spending. The government
keeps telling us how great things are while the standard of
living continues to fall. An unwise high tax policy is
strangling the economy.
The deficit has been reduced by hiking taxes and slashing health
care while the government's spending levels remain the same or in
some cases rise. An eight cent drop in the value in our dollar
is somehow deemed good for business. The auditor general refuses
to sign off on the books of Canada for the third year in a row
because he believes the government's accounting numbers do not
meet required accounting practice. A $16.5 billion cumulative
slashing of health and social transfers is called “saving and
protecting health care”. The head of government says “it is
not the right thing to do in a society like Canada to call for
across the board tax cuts”. That was a recent published quote
from the Prime Minister.
Under the Liberals Canadians pay personal income taxes 56%
higher than the seven leading countries and economies. In 1996
under the Liberals the average Canadian family paid a total tax
bill of $21,242 more than it paid for food, shelter and clothing
combined. It pays even more now. Since the Liberals came to
power in 1993 they have taxed back 155% of average wage
increases. Under the Liberal government's watch this collective
wealth of our nation has been devalued as our dollar sank to
historic lows against the American currency. This result is the
international judgment about the government's handling of our
economy. Our $580 billion net public debt costs us some $40
billion a year to service and represents enough money to finance
current health care payments for about 46 years. Yet this
Liberal government still refuses to implement a serious schedule
for debt repayment.
I am only allowed two or three minutes to summarize some of the
proposals put forth by the official opposition in our 1999
prebudget submission to the Minister of Finance. I am saying
that Canadians need tax relief this year. A wise mix of policies
is needed that is more just and fair. Canadians need
comprehensive tax reform beginning with a $26 billion in total
tax relief phased in over three years. We need to continue the
simplification of the tax system and reduce the overall burden of
taxation on Canadians by eliminating the temporary deficit
reduction surtaxes. The 3% and 5% surtaxes were introduced to
balance the budget. Now that the budget is balanced they must be
phased out.
We should reduce the burden of taxation on low income and
elderly Canadians by immediately increasing the tax free
threshold basic exemption to $7,900. Forcing low income
Canadians to pay taxes and then transferring that money back in
programs is really not wise. Leave more money in the hands of
low income and elderly Canadians. Begin reducing high marginal
tax rates and flattening the personal income tax system.
Canadians pay a very high marginal tax rate at relatively low
levels of income. We propose to fold the top two marginal rates
into a single rate of 24% of income above $29,000.
2025
The reduction makes incentives to earn and invest. We must end
bracket creep. Also we must remove the marriage and child care
penalties in the tax system.
Currently Canadian families that choose to provide child care in
their own home are penalized by a tax system that does not
recognize the value of parent provided child care.
We propose to reduce the marriage penalty by increasing the
value of the marriage equivalent amount to $7,900. Further we
propose the introduction of a refundable child care expense
credit to replace the existing child care expense deduction. The
credit would be available to all parents, not just those who
choose to have their children cared for outside of their own
home. It is about ending discrimination.
In the medium term we propose to undertake fundamental tax
reform with an objective of moving toward a flatter tax system.
However, these changes would require major consultation with
Canadians and would be subject to new realities.
Nevertheless we need such long term visions to begin to see what
could be done to make economic breakthroughs for the country. We
need to introduce a comprehensive debt repayment schedule that
would reduce debt by $19 billion over the next three years and by
$240 billion over the next 20 years.
The Liberals continue to pursue an ad hoc policy of reducing the
debt with whatever happens to be left over at the end of year.
This policy does not promote international confidence in the
government's commitment to debt reduction.
We propose to introduce legislation that sets a fixed percentage
of each year's surplus toward debt reduction with periodic
deposits made to a national debt retirement fund.
The government should demonstrate restraint in federal spending
by instituting a three year spending freeze in most discretionary
spending. It would promote value for dollar audits.
These are some of the measures that would provide predictability
for private sector business planning and be a massive stimulus to
the economy. There is so much more but I have limited my
comments to tax reduction, the economic sense of it and also that
it is a moral imperative.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting that it is the Reformers who are debating with each
other but I certainly like to talk about these things.
What a delight it is to see a party that actually has a plan. In
a previous intervention we talked a bit about the necessity of
having a plan. The federal Liberal government since 1993 has
really not had a plan at all. It had rolling targets which
basically said they would hit whatever they shot at. Point the
gun anywhere and whatever we hit was what we were shooting at.
This is no way to run a country.
One of the witnesses to our finance committee hearings made that
as a very special point. It was mentioned to us that it would
engender a great deal of economic optimism in our country if the
federal government would set some realistic goals, state them and
achieve them. That is much more encouraging to the economy than
saying we will do the best we can and meanwhile build up a slush
fund for an impossible election coming up.
I would like to have the member comment on one of the things he
mentioned regarding accountability and spending money properly.
One of the problems we have had is that the auditor general has
not been willing to sign off on the books of the federal
government because of some accounting practices that are not in
keeping with those of the Chartered Accountants Institute of
Canada and other authoritative accounting methods.
I would like to have the member's comments not only on what
things are happening there but why that is wrong and why it is
discouraging to Canadian people.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, typically governments when
managing financial affairs would certainly like to minimize the
public input so it increases their own discretionary decision
power as to the regional grants they want to pursue.
One of the ways of reporting was to cover up their excessive
spending in the accounting procedures, backloading so that money
spent now really does not appear on the books until later.
2030
When we have had the situation reversed and now have a bit of a
surplus, the government to increase its own options has a
tendency to backload things so that programs that are not yet
spent are already charged against the books for this year. That
is a typical government habit when it does not have a
philosophical approach basically to have honesty in reporting and
accountability to the community about the finances of the
country.
One of the other interesting points that the auditor general has
criticized the government for is the operational side of
government departments. They still do not have modern accounting
practices, what is called full cost accounting. Anyone in the
private sector certainly tries to develop a business plan
according to those modern standards. Governments are still in an
old fashioned way reporting and developing their budgets in
perhaps an unwise way that from year to year does not really
represent the true costs of a particular activity.
Therefore it is very difficult for the average citizen or even
an expert in the field to begin to analyse the question of what
kind of value we are getting for the dollar spent. Would it have
been better that we just not do that activity, contract some of
it out, or develop a partnership with the private sector? It has
a lot to do with managing vectors as to the efficacy of
particular government activity and whether it is wisely spent.
Someone this month said that if regional giveaways and a
government trying to pump up a region were possible and if that
philosophy worked, and historically we can look at Atlantic
Canada, then Atlantic Canada would perhaps be the wealthiest,
richest and most prosperous area on the earth because since
confederation Atlantic Canada has received many subsidies. But
that philosophy does not work.
We must have a position of truth in reporting and proper
financial accounting practices. Certainly the Reform plan is
prepared to do that.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for
Winnipeg North—St. Paul.
The preceding two speakers have conducted a dialogue which was
interesting and amusing in some ways. I do not say that in any
derogatory sense, but it seemed to be a philosophical discussion.
I heard references to a moral imperative. I heard echoes of Max
Weber and Tawney, but it reminded me of earlier views of
economics and finance that they followed God given laws, a sort
of theocratic conception.
I would suggest that the rules of economics are man made rules,
or let us say person made rules in the age of political
correctness, and they are developed and confirmed experientially.
As William James or Dewey would say, truth is something that
happens to an idea. It is confirmed operationally. That is the
pragmatic definition of truth.
To get us further into this philosophical discussion I would
have thought we were dealing with a paradigm shift, to use the
trendy words of current commentators. We are moving from one era
of economic thinking to another. Somebody said the end of
history; I would have said the end of Keynesian economics.
The great charm of our finance minister is that he has presided
over the ending at least for the time being, the death blow, of
Keynesian economics, the concept that governments would throw
away money, deficit spend and somehow the economy would come into
healthy being. This may have been true in the 1930s and 1940s when Keynes
was at his height but it is an error to take any thinker out of
its particular space time dimension.
To his credit, the Minister of Finance has refused to become a
prisoner of the past. It is not the end of history. It is the
end in our time era of the concept that governments spend. We
have leaner and trimmer governments.
It is shown in the fact that when this government came to power
in 1993 it inherited a $42.8 billion annual deficit budget. We
set as an objective to achieve budget integrity, a balanced
budget by the year 2000. As we all know, the 1998 budget was
balanced. What about 1999?
2035
Our Prime Minister is fond of repeating a conversation he had
with the prime minister of Norway at one of these economic
meetings. He said to the prime minister of Norway, “We are
going to be balancing our budget”, and the prime minister of
Norway said, “Good Heavens, I am sorry for you. Your problems
will begin. The moment you have a surplus, everybody wants to
spend it and you make a lot of enemies who find it difficult to
resist”.
I think the key note of our present budgetary policy, what I
would call the present conception of economic truth, is that
fiscal integrity is the requisite of a sane society. We have
gotten down our budget deficits to zero, we have a surplus and we
must continue with responsible economics.
The recommendation that my constituents have made and which has
been echoed by many of my colleagues is that the surplus in being
used responsibly should be earmarked 50% for reducing taxation
and amortizing the accumulated national debt, the suggestion is a
50:50 balance, and 50% for creative social programs. Putting
money back into taxpayers' hands is a way of getting taxpayers to
invest in the future, to invest in new industries.
In British Columbia I think the dramatic impact on the economy
has been the creation of the new industries, space technology,
informatics, these areas. They are interesting because they
reflect the contribution of science and technology and pure
research.
I used the metaphor in earlier discussions in caucus in previous
years of the economic miracle in Germany and Japan, the countries
whose economies were shattered by defeat. Their industries were
bombed out but they invested their first moneys in research on
the basis that fundamental research does not yield rewards
tomorrow but the day after tomorrow it may. Five or ten years
down the road is when we become the leaders in the areas in which
we have invested in pure research. The correlation between pure
research and practical application in industry is there.
I think this is the explanation of the German and Japanese
miracles. It is one of the things we have been able to sell to the
finance minister: invest in research because that is where the
jobs will come in the future and that is how to keep our best
talent.
All of us I think are alarmed by the brain drain. We are losing
our best and our brightest to the United States, to Germany and
to other countries because taxes are too high. We have not spent
enough on research facilities. We do not offer the stimulating
research environment which for many people is better than take
home pay.
Let us look at the problem of repaying student loans of $50,000
or $60,000. For a graduate student in one of the professional
disciplines it may take a number of years to repay that in Canada
but in the United States that sort of thing is repaid in a year
or two with the salaries the graduates are getting.
I mentioned the correlation between fiscal integrity, balancing
the budget, reducing taxation and spending money on research. I
will utter another connection here, another link which takes us
back to the earlier concept of economics as political economy. We
cannot separate economics from government. We have tended to
forget it. We do not need a leaner, more modern system of
government.
The pre-emptive concern with Quebec, which I do not criticize as
a concern because it is all with us, but at the expense of other
issues has prevented us from examining the rationalization of
parliamentary and governmental processes. Too much antiquity is
present in this chamber. One can worship tradition as an end in
itself but tradition is simply a way of recording customs useful
and productive in the particular time era.
The dynamic of a tradition is adjusting it, upgrading it to new,
changed social conditions.
2040
Some of the more interesting developments that are occurring now
are in a way a repeat of Prime Minister Pearson's co-operative
federalism. The new term social union comes from another more
dynamic federal system which is very modern.
It sometimes helps to have lost a war. You have to start from
scratch. You build a new governmental system. The German federal
system is much more modern than ours. The social union is
basically an attempt to readjust federal, provincial and
municipal relations, new approaches to tax power and its
allocation. But here you get the issues. If you followed the
European Union principle of principe de subsidiarité you would
allocate to governments the things they do best.
I think in the new approach to the new post-Keynesian budget we
will be concerned with modernizing the system of government,
getting the provinces to co-operate. If they do, not though, the
commitment is there. The federal government must spend money on
research, must invest in our young people. It goes hand in hand
with this business of lowering taxes, getting money back into the
hands of productive and useful people so they will invest in
creating the jobs and the infrastructure necessary to carry our
economy safely into the new century.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is the time of year when what is in the federal
budget becomes the focus of attention of most Canadians. They
would like to know whether the national government will have
addressed their priorities in the budget. They would like to know
whether it will make a difference in their lives. It is in this
context that tonight I bring to this House the interests and
anticipation of my constituents who join other Canadians in their
expectation that the 1999 budget, likely to be announced within
weeks or days, will reflect their vision of this country as we
head into the new millennium.
In the decade that it has been my privileged duty to serve in
this House on behalf of the people of the former riding of
Winnipeg North and now the riding of Winnipeg North—St. Paul and
of other fellow Canadians across the country, I boldly say the
forthcoming budget will be the best of them all. We can set new
goals for the kind of society we want. We know we now have an
even greater capacity to achieve them. Indeed, we can look
forward with confidence and greater optimism as we begin the last
year of this decade.
That was not the case at the beginning of this decade. It was
certainly not the case in October 1993 when Canadians decided
they needed a new government to successfully confront the economic
and social crises our nation faced.
There was the massive federal deficit of $42 billion, escalating
national debt, a double digit unemployment rate of 11.4% and
economic stagnation in the country. Canada's social programs,
including our most valued medicare and Canada pension plan, were
on shaky ground.
Our future at that time was not something many would want to
imagine. Understandably Canadians were worried, but they were
equally determined to change things for the better. They elected
a new government, a Liberal government. They supported the tough
decisions that had to be made to bring back our future.
It was not an easy task, nor a task without pain. But working
together with their new government, the Canadian people were
resolved to succeed, and succeed they did. Hence they renewed
their trust in this government in 1997. Today the national
deficit is history. The public debt has been reduced for the
first time since 1970 and low interest rates have been sustained
for the longest period in three decades.
Canada's economy has been revived, creating 1.5 million new jobs
since 1993. Canada is expected to lead the G-7 nations in
economic growth throughout this year. The unemployment rate of
8% is at its lowest point this decade.
2045
By 1997 the government was capable to commit $12.5 billion as
cashflow for the Canada health and social transfer, echoing the
key recommendation of the national forum on health.
Not only was the government able to deliver on this commitment,
it was able to increase last year's budget for the Medical
Research Council to $271.5 million and to announce new health
care initiatives. I shall mention only two, $150 million for the
health transition fund and $50 million for the Canada health
information system.
The government has dedicated $1.7 billion for the national child
tax benefit program, $2.5 billion for the Canada millennium
scholarship fund and $465 million over the next three years for
the youth employment strategy. These are some of the initiatives
that speak of the government's record to date, achieved in just
over five years.
For my home province of Manitoba, this record of achievement on
the part of the federal government translates to 5.9%
unemployment rate and $5.3 million invested in the province
through the Canada jobs fund between 1996 and 1998, and $2
million more for this year and next.
Eighty-two million dollars have been transferred to Manitoba via
the Canada-Manitoba infrastructure works program, $2 million
through technology partnership Canada, $17 million through the
western economic development program and $24 million more via the
Winnipeg development agreement.
Team Canada brought over $3 million worth of contracts to
Manitoba businesses, and the province received $144.5 million of
federal transfers through the Canada-Manitoba labour market
agreement.
For social programs, $260 million will have been transferred to
Manitoba via the Canada health and social transfer by the end of
the fifth year, starting 1997, not to mention the increasing
amount received by the provincial government through tax points
and additional amounts received by way of equalization payments.
Through the Medical Research Council's regional partnership
program, the University of Manitoba alone as an example received
over $4.6 million in addition to 19 Manitoba projects whose
funding will be finalized in the coming months.
Forty million dollars have been transferred directly to Manitoba
children and low income families through the national child
benefit program.
These are some of the joint federal-provincial partnership
programs and new federal initiatives that have directly benefited
Manitoba.
The Government of Canada has also allocated $185 million for
financial assistance relief for victims of the Red River flood
and another $15 million for flood prevention in the future.
What I have outlined as the federal government's record reflects
our commitment as Canadians for one another's well-being, a true
measure of Canadian citizenship.
We come to the help of our neighbours during emergencies, but we
do not wait for calamities to show that we really do care for our
fellow citizens.
This is precisely what the federal government has championed
when it champions the need for a working federation, for the
renewal and strengthening of our social union.
It is only when we speak of values such as are reflected in the
record of this government that we can truly speak of Canada as a
nation.
Canadians can anticipate that budget 1999 will be a budget that
will focus on the health of our health care system, the crown
jewel of our social programs. The Prime Minister has already made
this assurance on record on more than one occasion. Budget 1999
will be more than about medicare only, critical and most valued
as it is. The budget is about the entirety of Canada and the many
government programs that touch the lives of all Canadians.
Therefore as a prebudget submission I would like to indicate to
the House and to the government that my constituents would like
the government to continue on its commitment to sustain a
balanced budget, and reduce further the national debt and taxes.
This is premised on the belief that sustaining the fiscal house
in order ensures the sustainability of our many valued social
programs.
Indeed this member is confident that the government is resolved
to continue delivering the economic conditions necessary to
secure and enhance our quality of life.
2050
We have made great progress since 1993 when the government first
received its mandate. We have continued on that great progress
since 1997 when this mandate was renewed. We need to stay
focused on what we can achieve together that matters to all of us
and what we have achieved.
Indeed I am privileged to be part of the Liberal team whose
government is resolved not to bring back the past now that we
have again a secure hold on the future. This we must pledge for
the future of our people, for the future of our country.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to speak today in the debate concerning the prebudget
consultation report, perhaps I should add as part of the new
economic statement in December by the Minister of Finance to
members of the Liberal Party of Canada on the Standing Committee
on Finance.
The extensive cross-country consultations from Vancouver to
Halifax, in which the committee heard from economic
corporations, associations, unions and individuals who came to
denounce government decisions, was no more than a tidy marketing
operation conducted by the Minister of Finance's hacks to mask
the truth about what was really going on in Quebec and in the
rest of Canada. With the help of his Liberal accomplices, he
preferred to write his own conclusions in an economic plan that
will be part of his next budget, a sort of productivity
covenant.
Like my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I
followed the consultations throughout the country and I never
heard anything about this new “martinist” definition, which is
very simplistic, another centralizing move by federal Liberals
whose sole goal is to meddle even more in the affairs of Quebec
and of other provinces.
In recent months, the Liberal government has stepped up its
political action, its partisan politics, acting out of arrogance
and lack of compassion.
What are we to think of a government which is prepared to loosen
its purse strings for the hockey millionaires, a government
which is still refusing to compensate all Hepatitis C victims, a
government which no longer respects its own constitution, but
interferes increasingly in areas of provincial jurisdiction, a
government which obstinately insists on making workers suffer,
by maintaining an employment insurance program which now
excludes 60% of those in our society who are unemployed?
What are we to think of such a government? It is a government
that is totally disconnected from the economic realities of
Canada and of Quebec, one that is headed by a Prime Minister
more concerned with personal popularity than with governing the
country, one who backs up his ministers of finance and human
resources development, who thumb their noses at the workers by
cutting employment insurance contributions by a mere 15 cents
per $100. There have been no major changes to the employment
insurance program, nor do I expect to see the Minister of
Finance offering any gifts in that area in his next budget.
In my area, in the Chaudière-Appalaches region, in Lotbinière, we
still have to deal with two regional rates which do not reflect
the socio-economic profile of the region.
Lotbinière, the region I represent, is still subject to two
regional rates which create wide differences when newly
unemployed workers apply to the Department of Human Resources
Development.
Allow me to demonstrate once again how flawed this system is.
There are two unemployed people living in two municipalities
only a few kilometres apart. Their applications for
unemployment are not handled in the same way. One is entitled
to 22 weeks, while the other is entitled to only 14.
Despite repeated pressure from the Mouvement des sans-emploi de
Lotbinière, and other groups concerned with the rights of the
unemployed, the Minister of Human Resources Development
continues to tolerate this geographical and technocratic
fiddling by a government which uses every means of manipulating
public opinion.
2055
Here is another example. Despite the repeated promises of the
chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, who was to do
everything to stop leaks to the media, we saw what happened last
month. A few hours before the report on pre-budget consultations
was to be tabled, large extracts of this working document
appeared on Radio-Canada's Téléjournal at 10 p.m. However, at
9 p.m. on RDI, Radio-Canada broadcast a report explaining how the
Liberal government went about accumulating the employment
insurance surpluses.
The message from the press conference, chaired by the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the Bloc critic
for human resources development, caused the Liberals
considerable embarrassment. But, surprise, at 10 p.m., the Bloc
Quebecois press conference had been cut from the Téléjournal and
replaced with an outline of the Minister of Finance's policy.
The federal Liberals became, in the month of December, experts
in report leaks and figure and media tampering. The report on
the unfortunate state of our hockey millionaires was leaked.
The report on the results of the selection for the city to host
the 2010 winter Olympics in Canada is another example, and there
are many others. The Liberals' conduct in this House flew in
the face of democratic principles and made a mockery of the
rules on how committees should operate.
The Liberal government, which only holds power because of the
majority in Ontario, is definitely becoming increasingly
arrogant. We can never say it often enough. This government is
arrogant, heartless and a threat to the social security of the
most disadvantaged, those who got stuck with the bill for the
government's drastic cuts in transfer payments for health,
education and social programs.
Once again, the Liberals have taken the prebudget consultations
and turned them into a partisan activity to promote their own
election platform, instead of an exercise that honestly reflects
the comments made at these public hearings.
But we knew this was what the Liberals would do. So, this year,
the Bloc Quebecois did something new and travelled throughout
Quebec to ask Quebeckers how they thought the Minister of
Finance's budget surplus should be used. The leader of the Bloc
Quebecois and his colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
conducted a democratic exercise and tabled a report consisting
of briefs from 26 members of our party. In this report,
Quebeckers' demands focussed on the following: reimburse Quebec
and the other provinces for health, education and social
programs; substantially reduce individual income taxes, but
target these reductions; improve the EI regime. The consensus
of Quebeckers mirrored that of the majority of opinions
expressed by stakeholders in other Canadian provinces.
What did the Minister of Finance do with these recommendations?
He rejected them out of hand. The Liberals, who show no shame
in diverting funds from the employment insurance fund, are
trying to convince the public that doing so is a democratic and
transparent act.
Since last December 2, every dollar contributed to the
employment insurance fund goes to pad the Minister of Finance's
surplus, and not to provide the unemployed with reasonable
benefits. Today, February 2, 1999, the surplus in the
employment insurance fund, accumulating at the rate of $59
million a day, or $2.5 million an hour, $48,850 a minute, has
already reached the level of $3,658 million plus several hundred
thousands. That is the truth.
In conclusion, the surplus in the federal budget will in actual
fact be some $12 to $15 billion, regardless of what the Minister
of Finance says.
2100
Credible economists, for instance those at Mouvement Desjardins,
agree with the Bloc Quebecois forecasts.
I speak for the people of Lotbinière and of Quebec in calling
for the Liberal government to at last respond to the many social
and economic expectations of the people of Quebec. I fear,
however, that the Minister of Finance, with his usual arrogance,
will once again hit the sick, youth, women, the unemployed, and
the middle class with his next budget.
Such is the tragedy of Canadian federalism at the present time.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to make a comment
but to raise a point of order. Had I wanted to comment, I would
have expressed my total support for the remarks by my colleague.
I would simply like to point out to you, as you have no doubt
noticed, that the members of the Bloc Quebecois will divide
their presentations. My colleague from Lotbinière will be
followed by our colleague from Sherbrooke after the period for
questions and comments, no doubt to the great delight of our
colleagues.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak to the House today on the report by the Liberal majority
on the Standing Committee on Finance. This report was reviewed
and corrected by the Minister of Finance himself. It proposes a
number of avenues for the upcoming budget.
The use of federal government surpluses has been a current topic
for a number of months and will remain so for a number more, but
for the first time in 30 years, the federal government has begun
to have budget surpluses. This year's surplus will be
considerable. It is still reasonable to say it will be
somewhere around $12 billion.
This considerable surplus belongs to taxpayers, and this is why
the Bloc Quebecois thought it vital to consult as many people as
possible and let them give their opinions on the subject,
especially since the government's consultation in Quebec was
definitely limited.
Thus the process of consultation began with an information
session by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the finance
critic, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Through August and
September, the Bloc Quebecois criss-crossed Quebec.
These quality consultations revealed three points of clear and
specific consensus: first, the urgency for reinvestment in
health care, education and social assistance; second, a
reduction in the tax burden of individuals, specifically those
in the low and middle income bracket; and, third, an improved
employment insurance plan.
During the Bloc Quebecois' prebudget consultation, I was in the
middle of an election campaign in my riding of Sherbrooke. I
therefore conducted the best kind of consultation of all, which
is the door-to-door kind, at the same time. I met with ordinary
people, and I also saw real tragedies, people with health
problems and people living in poverty because taxes were
depriving them of the basic necessities.
They were having problems with EI because of lower benefits and
because of reduced accessibility as well. They were also
dealing with the impact of federal government cuts in welfare.
Employment insurance has become surplus insurance for the
government and poverty insurance for those who pay premiums.
The federal government has room to manoeuvre, but the situation
continues to deteriorate.
All the finance ministers before the one we now have faced
difficult situations, and several of them, despite their best
intentions, had nowhere left to turn and had to make difficult
choices that had a negative impact on the public.
2105
Today, in view of the Minister of Finance's lack of compassion,
I can only conclude that he is heartless and insensitive to
people's needs.
As I said earlier, I sensed those needs, I saw them and was
aware of them during the election campaign. To show that people
think along the same lines as the Bloc Quebecois, on September
14, I was elected as a Bloc member because of what was being
said about how the surpluses ought to be used.
The federal government cut $6.3 billion from transfer payments.
It now says we must look to the future. But cuts to education
are cuts to the future. And cuts to health are cuts to the
future.
Cuts to social assistance are also cuts to the future, as are
cuts to employment insurance.
In my riding of Sherbrooke, there are three colleges and
universities. Need I say what impact cuts to education have had?
There is also a university health centre that is facing a $15
million deficit this year. There are also the 55% of unemployed
who are ineligible for employment insurance benefits, which
means a shortfall of $23 million for families each year.
The Minister of Finance feels no remorse when he impoverishes
people and regions. He wants to use all the money he grabs from
the most disadvantaged to intrude into areas under provincial
jurisdiction. We know about the millenium scholarships; we know
what is being planned in the area of health.
Let us look at health. The Prime Minister said that the one who
collects taxes should be able to tell taxpayers what is being
done with their money. Why is he saying that when this is an area
under exclusive provincial jurisdiction? Do we know where the
money spent by the federal government for the CIO, for federal
grants or for renovations on the Hill—estimated at $423 million
but likely to reach $1.4 billion—is going? Do we know what is
happening with the hundreds of millions spent on accounting and
computer systems? Is the government saying where this money is
really going?
I sit on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Since
September, I have read horror stories in two reports by the
auditor general. If the federal government acted responsibly and
cleaned up its management, there could be several billions in
savings.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal government
to give back to Quebec and the provinces what it has taken from
them in transfer payments, to substantially lower taxes for real
low income people—not for millionaires and ministers—and to
improve employment insurance by increasing benefits and
accessibility, because the employment insurance surpluses belong
to those who have paid into the system.
I ask the Minister of Finance to show more compassion for the
most disadvantaged and to reinvest in our social programs.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with some interest to the member for Sherbrooke. We
know that he is more recently elected than some of us, so he is
moving into the scene of looking at what the Liberals are doing
with the finances.
I have a question that is really quite different. He made
mention of the transfer payments and claims there were transfer
payments to which they were entitled that they did not get.
Does the member have any comprehension of how large those
transfer payments were and what would happen if they got their
way and left the country? I am sure he has heard this question
many times, but I think it is one of the larger reasons why they
should consider abandoning their plan of taking a big chain saw
and floating themselves out into the Atlantic Ocean.
2110
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin: Madam Speaker, I did not grasp the meaning of
the whole question, but I did get the gist of it.
There are transfer payments from the federal government to
Quebec and to the other provinces, of course. The amounts are
quite substantial and have an impact across Canada.
What I was saying just now, of course, addressed all of the
provinces, and Quebec, but given the need to find the essential
elements to demonstrate the human suffering which can result
from such dramatic cuts, I did of course take my riding of
Sherbrooke in particular as my reference, and the people of
Quebec in general.
Now, Quebec contributes a great deal to the financing of the
federal government, totalling about $32 billion yearly. It is
normal for Quebec and the other provinces to get back the
transfer payments cut from them by the federal government, so
that everywhere across Canada, obviously, they can reinvest in
health, social programs and education. That is vital.
Those three elements are what will allow Canada and Quebec to
develop in an increasingly happy future for everyone.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I will be very explicit. I
come from a province which has never received a penny in
equalization payments. We have always paid in at the same rate
as the Quebec people and maybe even a little higher. Yet they
are great recipients of equalization payments. They are net
gainers of anything between $8 billion and $10 billion a year.
I just wondered if the member would respond to that. Is he
willing to say goodbye to that?
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin: Madam Speaker, as far as I know, transfer
payments and equalization payments are two different things.
There will be a debate, moreover, on equalization payments in
the coming days or weeks. Transfer payments are one thing, and
equalization payments another. At present, my first concern is
the transfer payments. In this regard, as far as I know, all of
the provinces have been contributing since September 14.
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part
in the prebudget debate. This is the fourth consecutive
opportunity I have had since 1993 to participate in this debate
and to have an opportunity to talk a bit about what my
constituents have been saying through the prebudget consultation
as well as about what I believe Canadians in general have been
saying.
I begin my comments by congratulating the Standing Committee on
Finance—and I see the parliamentary secretary is in the
Chamber—for the job it did in travelling from coast to coast to
obtain from Canadians their opinions about the upcoming budget.
As I am sure the people in the Chamber know and Canadians in
general know, in 1993 the Liberal government under the directions
of the finance minister took what was essentially a very closed
process, a very non-transparent process in terms of budget
consultation, and turned it into a very open process, one that
begins with the finance minister's financial statement going
through the process of finance committee examination across the
country and then the debate we are having this evening. This is
a very new process, a very sound process, and one that serves
Canadians very well.
Like many of my colleagues in the Chamber, I have taken the
process one step further and have had a prebudget consultation
within my riding. In fact I held two particular sessions on
November 27, 1998.
The first took place at the council chamber in Bracebridge and
the second took place later that day at the West Parry Sound
Museum. I had the opportunity at the beginning of the prebudget
consultation to send a survey out to every household in my
riding. I wanted to give constituents who were unable to attend
the forum the opportunity to provide input. Hundreds of my
constituents took the opportunity to provide that input to me. I
thank all those individuals and those who were able to come in
person to the forums to provide their input and to be part of the
prebudget consultations.
2115
Constituents in my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka established
three specific priorities. They indicated a desire to see tax
relief and reductions in the upcoming budget. They made note of
the fact that there had been some $7 billion worth of tax relief
in the previous budgets over the past three years but they
indicated the need to move further in that area. They
specifically targeted the need to see those reductions as a
priority in the area of income tax reductions. They talked about
that reduction happening for lower and middle income taxpayers.
My constituents talked about the second priority of the need to
reinvest in health care. When they talked about health care they
talked about the need to ensure that when that was done through
the process of transfers to the provinces there could be an
assurance that those dollars would be used for health care and
not for other purposes. They expressed a strong belief in the
Canadian health care system, in a system that is publicly funded
and universally accessible. They believe this has proven to be a
very positive thing for Canadians over the last 30 some years.
They want to see this continue and they clearly want reinvestment
in health care.
My constituents talked loud and clear in both the consultations
and the surveys about the third priority that we must never allow
ourselves as a nation to go back to that situation we found
ourselves in over the past 30 years. We must never go back to a
situation of constantly spending more than we were taking in and
constantly running deficits and building up the debt. They said
that whatever policy we undertake in this and future budgets we
should not return to that type of scenario. They saw that in the
long run as we provided prudent fiscal management that we would
be able to pay down the accumulated debt both in real terms and
in terms of a percentage of our gross domestic product.
Besides the specific recommendations we also discussed the fact
that budget decisions are not made in isolation. They must be
based on principles that guide how we govern this nation. I
believe we have identified three primary principles which should
govern the budget decisions the government is about to make.
As the first principle the federal government has as its
responsibility the necessity to exercise sound and prudent fiscal
management. It is a responsibility and a principle of government
that we establish an economic environment that allows individual
Canadians to pursue their own objectives and their own dreams. If
we look back at the government over the past five years we will
see that prudent management has allowed for Canadians to do that.
We have seen the lowest inflation rate that has existed in this
country for generations and low interest rates. These types of
economic indicators and achievements allow Canadians through
lower mortgages and through protection of fixed incomes the
ability to pursue their dreams and their financial objectives.
It is government's role as a first principle to establish the
economic environment that will allow Canadians to do that.
2120
The second principle under which we must govern and make our
budget decisions is we need to protect the Canadian social safety
net. Canadians both in my riding and across the country have
clearly established as one of our governing principles the need
for a strong social safety net in Canada.
We believe in helping those who need help the most and we
believe this responsibility should be shared by all Canadians.
As Canadians we have collectively agreed that below a certain
level we will not allow individual Canadians to fall. That is why
we have a medicare system that helps Canadians who are sick.
That is why we provide an income security system for those
Canadians who have come to retirement age. It is why we provide
assistance to ensure that Canadians can find food and shelter
when they are in trouble.
When we look at the record of the government, whether it be the
establishment of $1.7 billion into a new child tax credit or our
reform of the CPP to ensure it is there for future generations,
these are the types of programs helping to ensure a strong social
safety net.
The third principle on which our budget decisions need to be
made is one of ensuring there is equality of opportunity.
Regardless of where we live in Canada, whether we come from urban
or rural Canada, whether we are wealthy, whether we are able
bodied or disabled, all Canadians should have an equal
opportunity to their citizenship rights that come as being a
citizen of this great country.
The people of my riding have established three specific
priorities that they would like to see in this budget which are
income tax reduction at the lower and middle income level, a
reinvestment in health care, and an assurance that we will
continue with the strong and prudent fiscal management and that
we will not return to an era of deficit financing.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to the member opposite and was
very interested in his comments, particularly that he also has
relayed the desire of his constituents to see comprehensive tax
reforms through income tax reductions, something we support on
this side of the House, and also a reinvestment for health care.
Making health care a priority is on the minds of all Canadians.
I ask the member to comment on one other important part of the
budget we face this time. I will address this issue later, but I
would like the member to give his thoughts on the Canadian
forces. The Canadian forces have severe quality of life problems
with very low pay. We have been putting them under extra demands
by sending them on a number of missions over the last six years.
These missions have been on an increase while the resources have
been on a steady decline.
Could the member comment on what the government can do to
improve the quality of life to give the Canadian forces the
equipment they require to carry out their missions and to
increase their quality of life?
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Madam Speaker, in terms of government
and as an individual member, there is great pride taken in the
efforts, energy and the accomplishments of the men and women who
serve in our forces.
The member addresses that one of our responsibilities as
parliamentarians is to ensure that the men and women of our
forces have the necessary equipment and resources to carry out
their missions. That is absolutely essential. We have seen the
minister of defence act in that respect in terms of trying to
ensure we have the necessary search and rescue helicopters to
allow the forces to carry out those missions.
2125
We have seen him move in terms of attempting to obtain the
submarines that will provide some of the equipment they need to
do their mission. There is also the quality of life issues that
the member talked about. There has been a parliamentary
committee that dealt with that issue and made some strong
recommendations in that respect. Obviously in the mix of
establishing what our financial priorities are, dealing with
those issues in our armed forces has to be given active
consideration.
That is a large part of what the prebudget debate is about. It
is an opportunity for parliamentarians and for Canadians across
the country to discuss those types of things they see as
priorities. It supplements some of the other work that has been
done in looking at the quality of life issues through the
parliamentary process. I say how proud I am as a citizen and as a
member of the House and as a member of the government of the work
of the men and women who serve in the forces. There is an
absolute need to provide them with the resources they need to
carry out their mission.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure this evening to speak in the prebudget
debate. I will reflect my concerns and the concerns of my
constituents in Oak Ridges.
Governing means that one has to make choices. Canadians have
indicated consistently that they want to see additional dollars
for health care. They want to see further tax reductions. They
want to see further debt reduction.
The government under the leadership of the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Finance has responded effectively to the economic
situation in Canada. When the government was elected in 1993 we
had a $42 billion deficit. Through strong fiscal management,
leadership and determination we now have balanced books, renewed
economic consumer confidence and a strong growth rate. Success
in eliminating the deficit has given us the financial ability to
deal with other key issues.
Like many Canadians, I am concerned about future of medicare.
This government is unequivocally committed to preserving Canada's
publicly funded health care system. I support the recommendation
of the Standing Committee on Finance that the federal government
strengthen its involvement in the health care system by further
increasing the cashflow by $1 billion starting in 1999-2000. If
the cashflow is raised by $1 billion dollars the 1999-2000 total
entitlements will increase by $6.3%. As a result when compared
to 1998-99 we will have $27.6 billion compared to $25.7 billion.
Provinces will have received $4 billion extra by 2002-03. The
total CHST entitlement will reach $29.5 billion in 2002-03. I
support additional funding for the proposed Canadian institute of
health research. I support doubling research for health in
Canada.
However, Canadians want accountability. Transferring millions
of dollars to the provinces without some form of accountability
and the ability to measure the quality of care needs to be part
of the formula. Canadians want to know where those dollars are
going. This is something we as a federal government should be
committed to.
Canadians want further tax reductions. The government responded
in the 1998 budget with a $7 billion tax cut over three years to
low and middle income families. I support the elimination of the
temporary 3% surtax. I also believe it is time to announce a
timetable for the elimination of the 5% surtax starting with a 1%
decrease this year.
The finance committee recommends and I support the 1998 budget
measures that increase the personal and spousal amount by $500
for low income taxpayers.
I think it should be increased a further $200, bringing to $700
the amount of additional income that can be earned tax free. I
support the view that this $700 increase of the basic personal
spousal amount be available to all.
2130
I have had many calls and letters regarding the 20% foreign
property rule. Canadian taxpayers want, and I believe should
have, an increase by 2% increments to 30% over a five year
period. I think this is the right thing to do. It will allow
Canadians to achieve higher returns on their retirement savings
and reduce their exposure to risk, which I believe will benefit
all Canadians when they decide to retire.
Debt reduction is the third area that Canadians have signalled
their support for. I have spoken many times about debt reduction
in the House and I believe the government has a firm commitment
to debt reduction and has a debt reduction plan in place. The
government has made significant strides in debt reduction and
this year the debt to GDP ratio was projected to be reduced
slightly below 63% from almost 72% in 1995-96.
Leadership and commitment to Canadian values, governing with a
social conscience and providing leadership on tough economic
issues has been the hallmark of this government, whether the
issue is homelessness, infrastructure or health care.
I believe that the government should continue the Canada
infrastructure works program that was launched in 1994. We have
a $40 billion deficit in infrastructure. In Canada roads,
bridges, sewer and water systems need to be addressed, in spite
of the federal-provincial-municipal cost shared program which
generated investments exceeding $8 billion, with federal
contributions of $2.4 billion. It supported over 16,000
infrastructure projects. It created 125,000 short term and
10,000 long term jobs across this country. It is an excellent
example of governments and the private sector working hand in
hand. That is what Canadians want. That is what Canadians
expect and that is what the government delivered.
The program assisted municipal governments in upgrading Canada's
physical infrastructure and it promoted rapid job creation to
accelerate the economic recovery.
I believe that this program was a good unifying model. It
demonstrated a shared purpose and accomplishment among all orders
of government. Sixty-three per cent of all projected funds were
for physical infrastructure, at 31% for water and sewer works and
32% for roads and bridges.
The program addressed environmental, economic competitiveness
and job creation issues. The Silverman report, the finance
department's evaluation and the auditor general's evaluation all
indicated that it was a great success.
I believe that we need to develop a five year minimum strategy
to national infrastructure and continue to work with our partners
to eliminate this infrastructure deficit.
I also urge the Minister of Finance to consider making employer
provided transit passes an income tax exempt benefit, similar to
what already exists in the United States and western Europe. I
believe this would eliminate as many as 300 million kilometres
annually of urban automobile traffic within 10 years. It is also
expected to reduce by 35% the expected growth in peak period
travel in our major urban areas, as indicated both by the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Urban
Transit Association. It will also help to achieve our Kyoto
commitments.
Another area that I believe should be addressed is providing
targeted tax relief for those Canadians who must bear large
expenses as a condition of employment. Such is the case of
mechanic's tools.
I know that the Minister of Finance must respond to many demands
and many needs. This government has a five year mandate.
Not everything was done last year. But we are going in the right
direction. We are committed to keeping Canada's finances in the
black, providing sound fiscal management that all Canadians can
be proud of. The pace may not be as fast as some may like in
some areas, but the goal is shared by all. The direction is
clear and I believe that this budget will certainly address many
of those key issues that Canadians have been calling for.
2135
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciated the speech of the Liberal member opposite.
I am again very pleased to hear that there is another member in
the House who believes very strongly that there should be
comprehensive tax reform and that there should be more of an
effort put toward health care in this country to revive our
health care system. Debt reduction was another area that the
member mentioned, as well as the social union. All of these are
very important issues facing the government in this budget.
I am not trying to throw the member off his train of thought,
but I would like to ask his opinion and get his comments on the
Canadian Armed Forces. Over the past six years we have seen a
decline in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have also seen an
increase in commitments. Right now the forces are faced with a
number of issues.
The defence minister has said that he has been trying in cabinet
to get $700 million to meet the quality of life issues that are
facing members of the Canadian Armed Forces. As I see it, the
problem is that the $700 million, if he is successful in getting
it, does not even meet the requirement of the $750 million
shortfall which the Department of National Defence already has in
its budget. Really the $700 million, if he gets it, is a moot
point.
I have an idea. That is what debates are about, sharing ideas.
I would like to get the hon. member's opinion on this idea. To
meet the quality of life issues facing the Canadian Armed Forces
there should be a Canadian Armed Forces service exemption. This
exemption would be a graduated exemption, but it would give
members of the Canadian Armed Forces an additional $5,000
deduction from their income tax. They would pay tax on $5,000
less per year, depending on their rank. The most benefit would
go to the junior ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces, the
privates, the corporals, the lieutenants and the captains.
If this was accomplished we would protect the integrity of the
defence budget so we could continue with the much needed
purchases of helicopters, armoured personnel vehicles, helmets,
boots, clothing items and other equipment. We would also be able
to deal with giving the Canadian Armed Forces personnel more
expendable income through this creative and innovative way of
dealing with the problem.
I was wondering if the member could comment on that. I know it
is just a brief thumbnail sketch, but could the member consider
supporting something like that?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague
across the aisle for his comments and his question.
With regard to my hon. colleague's question with respect to the
armed forces, I am intrigued by his suggestion. Yes, it was a
thumbnail sketch. Yes, I would be interested in further
elaboration on anything we can do to assist the Canadian Armed
Forces, given the fact that some of the residential conditions
that our armed forces live in are not acceptable.
The minister of defence has clearly indicated, both in caucus
and I assume at the cabinet table, that we have to address this
very important issue with regard to the living conditions of our
armed forces.
We are asking our armed forces to do more. I do not believe
that in this case we can do more with less. We have to provide
the physical tools to do the job.
I believe that my hon. colleague's suggestion is worth further
discussion. I would be interested in talking with him.
We need to look at innovative ways to make sure that if we are
asking Canadian forces personnel to serve in dangerous fields
abroad they will know that at home their families have proper
shelter and that they have the quality of life we would expect
for our own families. Therefore I welcome the member's
suggestion.
2140
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak in the prebudget debate.
There are a few points that I would like to bring to the
attention of the House.
I would like to begin by saying that there are a number of
voices across Canada that are calling for fair family taxation
and these voices continue to increase every year. Meanwhile, we
see a finance minister who has continued to ignore the voices of
these families. In fact the changes he has proposed have
actually made the situation worse.
Reformers have called for fairer tax treatment for families
right from the beginning. I want to add to our voice the voices
of many current think tanks and study groups that have reported
on the impact of the current government's taxation policies on
the family.
Let us consider what two recent independent studies discovered.
A recent 1998 Compas poll commissioned by Southam News and the
National Foundation for Family Research and Education found that
90% of respondents felt that taxes being too high for parents
with children is a more serious stress now than a generation ago;
82% of Canadians felt it should be a priority for the government
to change the tax law to make it easier for parents with young
children to afford to have one parent at home; and 78% felt that
not enough respect for the efforts parents put into raising
children is now more serious than a decade ago. Those are high
percentages.
Even the December report from the Canadian Council on Social
Development, which was titled The Progress of Canada's
Children: 1998 Highlights called for reform of the tax system
to make it more equitable for low and moderate family income
earners.
There is another unique group of voices that is coming together
to raise the volume on the call to fairness and family taxation.
This new group, The Family Tax Coalition, is made up of 10
national family organizations, academics and financial experts.
Let me read their recommendations. These are national groups
with tens of thousands of members right across Canada. This is
their very simple set of recommendations that they have lobbied
for independently for years, but have now come together as the
family tax coalition. They state:
Tax concessions for the care of dependent children should be
distributed equitably to all Canadian families.... Given this
discrimination, most dual-income families with dependent children
share common ground with single-income families. Tax fairness
for all families must include these measures:
1. Base taxation on family income, through either income
splitting or joint filing;
2. Convert the child care expense deduction into a refundable
child tax credit for all children;
3. Make the spousal exemption equal to the existing personal
exemption;
4. Give homemakers access to an independent RRSP.
Those were their four recommendations.
I would like to speak about the first one. One of their key
recommendations for fair family taxation is the conversion of the
child care expense deduction that we currently have into a
refundable, and I emphasize the word refundable, child tax credit
for all children.
Let me explain the refundable child tax credit option that
Reform has long endorsed and championed. What this means is that
when income tax is calculated there is a certain amount of tax
payable. The refundable tax credit would be subtracted directly
from the tax payable so that the hard dollars taken out of
pockets would be decreased. This would be a direct advantage in
hard dollars to every person who is paying tax.
What about the person who is not paying tax or has no taxable
income? Because it is a refundable tax credit—and this is an
important concept for people to grasp—it would be paid to the
family that did not have any taxable income.
In that way, it is equitable to all families. All families are
given the credit. In certain cases where there is no tax
payable, they would receive the refund.
2145
Then the parents can determine what is the best option for the
rearing of their children, whether it be institutionalized
daycare or a grandparent or one parent staying at home. It
recognizes that parents are the best ones to make the decision
for their children rather than being biased in one direction or
another by discriminatory tax policies.
All the voices of this coalition are consistent with that of
Reform. The Reform Party has called for the current child care
expense deduction program which rewards only third party child
care to be replaced with the child care expense credit I have
spoken about. It would provide a consistent benefit to all
parents regardless of the type of child care chosen.
The key here is to let the parents decide. Leave the money with
the taxpayer and let the parents decide. Reform has called for
this for many years. Why? Because it is fair and it is what
families want. The volume is getting louder.
Based on last year, the finance minister is determined not to
listen. What did he do in the last budget? He increased the tax
deduction incentive for receipted third party daycare. Again, he
told those who care for their own children in their own home or
with the help of an extended family member that there is no value
in that. This is very troubling at a time when people are
becoming increasingly aware of how valuable family health is and
the parental attachment to society's health.
The family tax coalition also called for the spousal exemption
to be equal to the personal exemption. Today it is not. The
spousal exemption is substantially lower. The current tax
treatment sends a message that a stay at home spouse is less than
a whole person.
This is why Reform has long called for equalization of the
spousal exemption to the same level as the personal exemption.
Year after year the call has fallen on the seemingly deaf ears of
the finance minister. Will he continue to treat single income
earner families unfairly and knowingly endorse a system that has
the single income family paying almost a third more in income
tax?
Unfortunately, it seems to me that this government is more
inclined to fund child advocates who, after receiving funding for
their programs, seldom seem to recognize that children live
within families and that helping families through tax relief and
equitable tax treatment helps the children.
In a recent Compas poll 92% of the respondents said that
families with children today are under more stress than families
of 50 years ago and 89% felt that divorce and family breakdown is
now more serious.
Stress on families is high. Often financial stress is a key
factor in family breakdown. What is the biggest budget item for
the Canadian family? You guessed it, Madam Speaker. Taxation is
the biggest item in the family budget. According to Statistics
Canada, personal taxes make up the largest share of the household
budget. It is greater than shelter. It is greater than
transportation. It is far greater than food.
The C.D. Howe Institute report “Giving Mom and Dad a Break:
Returning fairness to families in Canada's tax and transfer
system” of November 1988 points out another way the finance
minister ensures that he gets the most from families who pay the
least.
Allow me to quote from the institute's report. “The take
portion of Canada's tax system, the revenue raising part,
assesses tax on an individual basis, while the give portion, the
many spending programs associated with the income tax, calculates
benefits on a family basis. Is this inconsistency defensible?”
The point here is that this government and the finance minister
are determined to maximize taxes from families and minimize
benefits.
I will wrap up with a few final comments.
2150
The tax policy sends a message about what the government thinks
is important. It is long overdue for the tax policy of this
government to serve to strengthen families rather than to
undermine them. In order to achieve fairer family taxation
within Canada's tax system, the government must make these
changes in the next budget.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I really
appreciate this speech and the approach that this particular
party is taking, the party to which the member belongs. It is
very refreshing to have a party that says let us do something
that is financially sustainable and that is financially
advantageous to those families who choose to care for their own
children. That is just delightful. I have talked to a number of
people who feel that this is the direction in which we should
travel.
I would like the member to respond to one of the criticisms
which we sometimes get on this, which is that we are trying to
use a tax measure in order to direct and social engineer things
the way we want them instead of letting the Liberal government
social engineer the way it wants. I would like him to respond to
that. I do not think it is an easy question but it is one which
we often hear.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Speaker, I would be glad to
respond to that question. Probably one of the best ways to
respond to that question is to refer to a recent report by the
Fraser Forum which states that this study reveals that
fully 48% of the yearly income of the average Canadian family is
consumed by taxes visible and hidden. Canada's various levels of
government claim to spend their tax revenues for the good of
Canadian families but ultimately that revenue comes from
families.
I would suggest to the member, in response to his question, that
it is not social engineering. Families know their own needs much
better than the government does and their administrative costs
are much smaller. We would be far wiser to leave the money in
their hands.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to
participate in this prebudget debate. Many of my colleagues have
touched on the important issues of health care funding and
taxation which face the Canadian public.
Of course we have spent a considerable amount of time on this
side of the House explaining the Reform Party's proposals to the
government which include comprehensive tax reform, making health
care a priority for Canadians and for the government, by
reinvesting the dollars it has taken away over the years, and
debt reduction.
The area which I have chosen to speak on tonight is the fourth
one the Reform Party has put forward, which is reinvesting
dollars in the Department of National Defence. I would like to
focus my comments on the Liberal government's reduction of the
Canadian armed forces over the past five-plus years.
The Canadian armed forces have gone through decades of decline
and are now at a crossroads. The Canadian government can choose
one of two paths for our once proud forces. The first of course
would be to continue the budget cuts and personnel reductions
leaving Canada's armed forces with little more than a
constabulary force. The second path would be to take a road that
has yet been travelled by Canadian governments by giving the
Canadian armed forces the resources and funding they require to
meet the challenges of a modern armed forces in the 21st century.
Before we get too far on this I would like to cover some of the
history since the 1993 election of the Liberal government when it
comes to defence policy. In 1994 shortly after its election the
government set up the Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence
Policy, the first comprehensive parliamentary review of Canada's
defence policy.
The special joint committee, which I was a member of, was an
all-party committee. Members from every party in this House took
part as well as the Senate.
We were tasked with answering the following question: What
principles, purposes and objectives should guide our government
in setting Canada's defence policy in a rapidly changing world?
2155
At that time defence spending was at $11.6 billion and it
supported 73,200 regular force personnel. The government was
facing a further $7 billion in spending reductions in the 1994
budget. In light of that the special joint committee made a
number of important recommendations to the government.
First, the special joint committee recommended that the Canadian
armed forces should not be reduced below 66,700 personnel and
that they must maintain a core budget of at least $10.5 billion
in 1994-95 dollars. That was inclusive to fiscal year 1998-99.
Second, the committee stated unequivocally that any cuts below
the recommended minimum would mean less equipment or less capable
equipment, delays in purchasing of necessary equipment, and this
one is very important, the inability to fulfil policy objectives
of the federal government including the defence of Canada, less
training for personnel and too few personnel.
The Liberal government's response to the special joint committee
was the Minister of National Defence's 1994 white paper on
defence. Within the white paper the government admitted that
Canada's defence policy commitments and national interests could
only be fulfilled through the maintenance of multipurpose combat
capable forces that are able to fight alongside the best and
against the best. While making this admission, the government
failed and continues to fail to give the Canadian armed forces
the necessary number of personnel and material resources to
fulfil the white paper commitments.
The government reduced the size of the regular force to 60,000
personnel. That is 6,700 less than the 66,700 recommended as a
bare minimum by the special joint committee. The defence budget
was also reduced from $10.5 billion to $9 billion, a serious
reduction in purchasing power for badly needed new equipment. One
might ask what is the result.
This year chief of defence staff General Baril said: “We
possess a limited capability for deploying our forces often on
short notice to meet international crises. The limitations are
in the areas of troop movement and lift capability, intelligence
gathering and the ability to effectively lead or co-ordinate
multinational operations”.
I would like to stress that. Canadians really have to hear that
and let it sink in because the chief of defence staff, the top
general in the Canadian armed forces is saying that our armed
forces have limitations in troop movement, getting them to an
area where they are needed and also getting them back from an
area where they were needed. Our armed forces have limitations
when it comes to intelligence gathering which is a very important
aspect for military operations. The chief also says that we have
limitations in the ability to effectively lead or co-ordinate
multinational operations.
That is very serious stuff facing the Canadian armed forces.
And it is not because our troops are not well qualified. They
are. It is because the resources of the Government of Canada
have not been put into this very important area. All of this is
at a time when our Prime Minister boldly committed what little
armed forces we have left to military combat in Kosovo just the
other day.
As obsolete equipment is not replaced, the problem of rust out
of equipment occurs. In April 1998 the Auditor General of Canada
reported to the House on the state of the Canadian armed forces
equipment. He expressed grave concern that the deterioration of
equipment was preventing the Canadian armed forces from
fulfilling Canada's defence policy, the same defence policy that
was written just a few years ago in 1994 by the Liberal
government.
2200
In terms of the army the auditor general pointed out that
operationally it had not kept pace with technology to modernize
its equipment, leaving it vulnerable to threats of low level and
mid level operations. Its infantry and armour could be detected,
engaged and defeated long before it was known that the enemy was
even present. The auditor general unequivocally stated that the
money for capital funding would decrease even further due to the
high maintenance and operating costs of servicing aging
equipment.
Here is the question. What should the Liberal government do to
reverse the decline in the Canadian Armed Forces? I have some
suggestions and some advice for the government this evening.
First and foremost it must tackle the serious quality of life
issues plaguing the forces and its personnel.
Since the Department of National Defence is facing a $750
million shortfall this year, the defence minister's much
publicized attempts to acquire $700 million in funding is a moot
point. What we need are creative solutions.
I propose that the Government of Canada create a Canadian Armed
Forces service exemption of $5,000. The service exemption would
be a graduated income tax exemption with the greatest benefit in
favour of the lower ranks, the lowest paid members of the
Canadian Armed Forces. The service exemption would increase
spendable income for our troops. It would give them more money
in their pockets without cutting into the defence budget and
would protect capital projects and personnel levels in the
Canadian Armed Forces.
Then the Liberal government must inject at least another $1
billion into defence spending so it approaches the $10.5 billion
recommended by the special joint committee. This additional
funding should be used to purchase badly needed equipment
including ship borne helicopters. In the long term DND should be
provided with stable funding so that defence planners can plan an
attainable force structure.
Our forces play a meaningful role in world affairs. They must
have air and sea lift capabilities and be prepared to acquire
integrated battlefield technologies demanded by the high tech
revolution in military affairs. If the government continues to
cut defence spending or refuses to allocate more resources to
defence in the future, it must revise its defence policy so it is
consistent with the reduced capabilities of the Canadian Armed
Forces.
Committing our forces to sovereignty protection, collective
defence within NATO and international peacekeeping-peace
enforcing without adequate resources is not only bad policy but
is unfair to the proud men and women serving our country in Her
Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I appreciated the comments of my hon. colleague. I am not an
expert in this area but I have high regard for our military and
the great men and women who serve our country so admirably. It
is a point of pride for all Canadians but particularly Canadian
men and women on the frontlines in the armed forces.
The hon. member did not touch on one area. I wonder if he would
be willing to comment on it. We often see our military called
into service and action on the national scene in natural
disasters such as the recent snowstorm in Toronto. There is even
reference now to the Y2K issues and leaves being cancelled.
Everybody appreciates their efforts and there are all kinds of
accolades when it is over for the photo ops.
I am concerned about what the member revealed today on the
treatment of these honoured individuals when it comes to pay,
compensation and respect for the service they give and what will
happen if we jeopardize the service these people provide to
Canadians at home when we are facing natural disasters. I wonder
if he could comment on that.
Mr. Jim Hart: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. The defence budget is allocated for training personnel
to make them effective. We had them in my area of the Okanagan
fighting forest fires.
We have seen them in action during the floods. Even the mayor of
Toronto called on the Canadian Armed Forces for snow shovel
activities this winter. Our Canadian Armed Forces should be in
the public eye. They should be able to respond to disaster
situations at home.
2205
I encourage the member to continue to talk about that very
important subject. We do not see enough of our Canadian Armed
Forces personnel from coast to coast to coast because of base
closures, militia reductions across the country and reservists
who are no longer there. The latest numbers show that we
probably have more young people in Canada's cadet activity with
some 70,000 than we have regular force members serving the
important needs of Canadians. That is a disaster and I would
like to reverse that trend.
I strongly urge the government to look at increasing the budget
and at creative solutions like the Canadian Armed Forces service
exemption so Canadians can be proud of members of the air force,
the navy and the army at home and abroad.
I urge all members of the House to urge the government, as I
will be doing and have done over the past five years, to look at
that issue very seriously. Once the military is gone we will not
be able to replace it. It is something we have now that we can
be proud of. It is an institution like the RCMP which encourages
national unity. We are proud of the work our men and women do. I
want to make sure we do not take a step back too far and lose
what we once had as a proud tradition of the country.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, since the
Liberal members are not getting into the debate I find it is my
prerogative to ask questions on their behalf.
This is a question I think one of the government members would
probably ask the member. If he is so eager to increase the basic
exemption for members of the armed forces, because presumably
their salaries are so low that they cannot make ends meet, why
not extend it to everybody as the Reform Party is proposing?
Mr. Jim Hart: Madam Speaker, I believe all Canadians
across the board should receive a tax break on their income tax.
I will focus in on it for a minute because it is very important.
People within the Canadian Armed Forces have unique careers.
Eleven people died in Bosnia and helicopters have gone down. It
seems like a couple of times a year we hear about deaths in the
Canadian Armed Forces. That is very sad indeed. It is the only
type of career I can think of where people actually sign a
contract and say that they are willing to lay down their lives
for their country.
A service exemption would recognize the fact that people are
expected to lay down their lives if required. Although Canadians
should all enjoy an exemption, special recognition should be
given to the proud men and women serving our country.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
also glad to participate in the prebudget debate. The Minister
of Finance will be bringing down a budget in a few short weeks.
We will find out what the news is and this time we expect it will
be a fair amount of good news. We can somewhat predict what the
minister will say.
We anticipate a surplus for the year ending March 31, 1999. For
the first time in many years we will see the cumulative debt
Canadians have hanging around their necks, courtesy of the
Liberal and Tory governments over the past 30 years, being
reduced albeit by a small amount.
We can anticipate some new and long overdue investment into
health care, something the Reform Party has called for on many
occasions. We can also anticipate some tax cuts by the Minister
of Finance when he introduces the budget in a couple of weeks.
2210
These three things all sound great, but let us look at the
history of how we got here. We will enjoy the rhetoric of the
Minister of Finance on budget day and the great plaudits and
accolades he will receive for these great announcements.
The debt currently stands at $580 billion that we have
accumulated over the last 30-odd years. It may come down by $10
billion or $15 billion for the year ending March 31, 1999, a
small amount. While the debt is coming down, and fortunately
interest rates are now low, one-third of the taxes we as
Canadians pay the federal government go to pay the interest on
the debt. In many ways that is why we feel we are overtaxed. For
every dollar we pay the federal government, we are only getting
67 cents back in services. We are being short-changed. We feel
we are being ripped off because we are not getting value for our
money.
How many people go into a store, for example, and voluntarily
pay $10 for something that is only worth $6.67? They would say
“That is too expensive. I do not want that. It is a rip-off”.
So it is with federal taxation. For every $10 that we pay in
taxes we only get $6.67 back. That is why we feel overtaxed and
ripped off.
I know we have accumulated this debt, but it was accumulated
through mismanagement and promises that governments were prepared
to deliver services to Canadians without raising taxes at the
appropriate time. I remember the famous words of former Prime
Minister Trudeau who said “Don't worry about the debt. We owe
it to ourselves”. We owe $580 billion and the interest cost is
$40 billion or more a year. That is just to pay the interest.
That is over $1,000 per year in federal taxes for every man,
woman and child to pay the interest on the debt. That is why we
feel we are not getting value for our money.
Let us bear that in mind when the Minister of Finance stands to
take great credit for paying down the debt that started back in a
previous Liberal administration when the prime minister said
“Don't worry. We owe it to ourselves”.
The minister will take great pride in the fact that he will
start putting some new investment into health care. We say it is
long overdue. Not only is it long overdue. Let us remember that
this government consistently cut its commitment to health care in
the years since it was elected in 1993. It has hung on to the
five principles it keeps ranting and raving about including
public administration of health care but at the same time has
refused to put in the investment required to sustain the health
care Canadians want and Canadians demand.
When health care was first introduced the federal government
said it would pay 50% of health care costs. This was laudable.
Everybody thought the government would live up to its commitment.
Then we found that the 50% became 40% and the 40% became 30% and
the 30% became 20%. Some 20% of health care costs are now being
paid by the federal government.
Now that the tide is likely to turn the Minister of Finance will
make a new contribution to health care. Then everybody will sing
his praise about what a wonderful job he is doing. Surely let us
recognize that he is only undoing the damage he has done over the
last number of years by cutting health care.
Waiting lines are getting longer. Research is underfunded. The
list goes on and on. Let us also remember that when the Minister
of Health says more money for health care it is not more money.
He is putting back a small fraction of what he took out in the
past.
Then of course we will see tax cuts too. Tax cuts are laudable.
Everybody thinks tax cuts are great. I would just ask the
Minister of Finance to think about the relationship of the debt
to the GDP. It is much like a mortgage to a person's income. If
the mortgage comes down and the payments come down accordingly,
one feels a bit better off. If one's salary and income go up and
the mortgage stays the same, one also feel a bit better off.
As far as the federal government is concerned the mortgage is our
total federal accumulated debt and our income is the gross
domestic product of the nation. If we can raise the gross
domestic product of the nation and keep the debt the same, we
will feel a bit better off.
2215
I would ask the minister of finance to think about that when he
is talking about tax cuts. The tax cuts focus on improving the
productivity of this nation. The productivity of our workers is
falling behind the rest of the OECD countries. If we can raise
the productivity of our nation we as individuals will then feel
more affluent and better off and our standard of living will
improve.
Therefore I would hope the minister of finance when he is
thinking tax cuts focuses on productivity growth. While that
gives tax relief to Canadians it also gives us more affluence and
the opportunity to earn a higher income. Surely that is what we
want as Canadians.
We also want to think about job creation. While the government
talks about the great achievement of bringing unemployment down
to 8%, we think of our neighbours to the south where it is 5%.
Surely if we are talking tax cuts we should be talking job
creation. Job creation is not just a simple number of 11%, 8% or
5%. We are talking about people's lives. We are talking about
people's futures. We are talking about their hopes, their dreams,
their aspirations to buy a house and pay the mortgage, their
aspirations to start a family and to take their place in society.
We are talking about our young people who find they have Mcjobs
rather than real jobs and give them the opportunity for a real
career for prosperity and for something that they can look
forward to and say “it is great to be a Canadian because I have
a future”. Many young people today do not have that.
I would hope the minister of finance would think about that when
he is talking about tax cuts. The tax hikes that we have had
over the last number of years have strangled that opportunity for
our young people. They have destroyed their opportunity.
When I advertised for people to work for me in my
parliamentary offices I was shocked to find that many people with
one and two university degrees who have been in the workforce for
a number of years have restaurant jobs, low paying jobs, not
career jobs because they cannot get a start. When they cannot
get a start they suffer, their families suffer, Canada suffers,
our economy suffers, our tax revenues suffer and the whole cycle
gets into a negative spin.
Surely the minister of finance knows that tax hikes over the
past years have killed the future for many people and I would
hope he would start to undo that in some small way.
The debt has to remain the same and if we can grow the GDP by
giving opportunity and hope for our young people in real jobs,
then we will feel more in control and the ratio of the debt to
our income will start to drop and things will start to improve.
These are the types of things that we are going to see in the
speech, but it is not just all good news. As I pointed out, the
mess we are in has to be undone slowly.
There is one other thing that we will not find in the budget. It
is unfortunate that we will not find it in the budget, but it is
also the waste and the mismanagement of government that soaks
millions of dollars out of taxpayer pockets for zero return.
Recently in the public accounts committee which I chair we dealt
with social insurance numbers. Social insurance numbers are a
small thing. Everybody has one. The vast majority use it to file
their tax return and give it to their bank so they can report
their T-5. But the auditor general pointed out that millions of
dollars of fraudulent activity is being done through the use of
the social insurance numbers because no one has bothered to
update the security of social insurances for 35 years.
The auditor general pointed out that one person who had 72
social insurance numbers was collecting child tax credits by the
hundred, all because the government did not think that social
insurance numbers are no longer a way to identify who you are
when you pay taxes but now a methodology of identifying who you
are so you can collect all kinds of benefits from the government.
It is a ripoff in the millions of dollars, waste, mismanagement
and unaccountability.
2220
We heard a speaker talk about the military and how underfunded
it is. We had the chief of defence staff before our committee
again because the auditor general pointed out that the military
was buying helicopters that did not meet the simple
specifications of what it wanted. They had to lift a certain
amount of weight such as artillery and move it to the front in
the case of a battle and they were not capable of lifting what
they were designed to lift. They could not get off the ground,
yet we were spending millions of dollars buying helicopters that
could not do the job they would be required to do. Bad decision
making by the bureaucrats and by the government is no excuse for
wasting taxpayer money.
National defence is involved in technology in a big way. The
assistant auditor general said a couple of years ago that it was
not at the leading edge of technology but at the bleeding edge of
technology. We were paying hundreds of millions of dollars to
fill up this highly sophisticated equipment. Now we find that
the military is at the bottom of the heap when it comes to Y2K
preparedness. No doubt we have been spending all this money
developing all these systems and forgetting the Y2K computer
problem and the year 2000 is approaching, so let us make sure
that it is Y2K compliant. These types of things are inexcusable.
With regard to Indian and northern affairs, a consultant said it
would take $26,000 to fix the problem that a reserve had with its
water supply. This is not a large amount of money as far as the
government coffers are concerned but we have now spent $2.3
million, not $26,000, and we still have not provided a new water
supply rather than fixing the old one which is perfectly capable
of being fixed. For $2.3 million we still do not have enough
water and we do not have the quality of what it was when we
started to fix the problem. It may cost a few more million
rather than getting the consultant to fix it for $26,000.
I shake my head at that kind of waste, mismanagement and
unaccountability. Unfortunately we will not hear that in the
budget speech. We will not hear the minister talk about it, yet
the public accounts committee finds that waste, mismanagement and
unaccountability are endemic through the government. Millions or
perhaps billions could be saved. Taxpayers could be better off
if we had good management in the federal government. The answer
lies there and I would hope the Minister of Finance would take
these issues seriously and deliver not just lower taxes but good
government to Canadians because they deserve no less.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to share the floor with my hon. colleague from St.
Albert.
He has done a great job in highlighting government waste.
Instead of asking him a question I will simply congratulate him
for his very hard work and dedicated efforts toward the task. I
am sure there are over 1 million people watching this on CPAC. We
really appreciate CPAC and the work it does in helping
communicate important things from the House of Commons to the
people of the country. I would encourage everyone to go to the
website of the hon. member for St. Albert. They can enter
www.reform.ca and then click on “Go to Members”, find that
member and go to the home page. The member has an excellent home
page on his website highlighting all the different ways in which
we as elected officials have the responsibility to keep
accountability on behalf the taxpayers.
2225
I often think of this when I have to spend money in my office
budget as a member of parliament. I never want to lose sight of
this thought in my head when I am authorizing an expenditure.
That is, this represents a taxpayer's hard work and the taxes
they have to pay for say, a whole week or whatever it is, however
much money I am spending.
I wish we could develop that kind of thinking in all the people
who work on behalf of the taxpayers, not only elected officials
but all the civil servants.
Certainly our friend, our colleague from St. Albert, is making
such a tremendous contribution in this regard. I simply want to
commend him. I probably embarrassed him by saying this.
Mr. John Williams: I would just like to acknowledge the
compliment, Madam Speaker, from my colleague and good friend from
Elk Island for his very kind words indeed.
I think he speaks on behalf of all Reform Party members, indeed
all the opposition members. Our role as opposition is to hold
the government accountable.
Sometimes a partisan debate gets a little heated at times but
our constitutional role is to hold the government accountable. We
on this side have a responsibility to ensure that the people on
that side are governing this nation to the best of their ability.
I hope I also in a small way have made a contribution to this
great country of ours.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the members
who contributed to this debate. It is certainly a great
opportunity for members to reflect what constituents are thinking
in their ridings. Collectively it really reflects what Canadian
priorities are in varying degrees.
I want to spend a few moments and point out what I consider to
be the obvious. Canadians who are watching this program might
not realize that the budget process itself under the Minister of
Finance has been very open and transparent. It is really an
exercise that some years ago was conducted behind closed doors
with a lot of secrecy.
Now we have a process where we are engaging Canadians in the
debate. Members of parliament are going back to their ridings
and holding town halls on what should be the budget priorities
for the government.
It is by encouraging and engaging members and Canadians
that the whole budget process has certainly become a much more
effective one.
Tonight's debate reflects many different views. Some
members in this House talked about what their constituents have
been saying to them. Some of them said that the government now
needs to invest in program spending substantially.
Other members have said freeze program spending at its current
level. Other members have said to cut taxes substantially right
across the board. Others have suggested that any tax cuts remain
something that is targeted, more moderate, focusing on lower and
middle income Canadians.
Others have said to cut EI premiums more substantially and
members again have said we need to reinvest more money into the
employment insurance program. Others have said to pay down debt
substantially and other members have said we need to pay down
debt but we need to be quite cautious and we should not be too
aggressive. There are other priorities.
Economists from right across this country have
provided forecasts and some insight into where the Canadian
economy is going. They have rarely developed any sort of
consensus. There is as much disagreement among the economists
themselves, again depending on the model they use.
I think it is important to note that this debate is possible
because as a country we finally managed to turn the corner.
We have turned the corner from an era of deficits to an era of
surpluses. We have turned the corner from a time when we were
continually increasing the debt to a time where we are now
decreasing the debt; a time where program spending was being cut
to a time where we are now talking about reinvestment in Canadian
priorities, reinvestment in health care and reinvestment in
education.
2230
The last number of speakers talked about reinvestment in the
military and the importance of supporting our Canadian armed
forces. There is agreement that there is a need to look at the
quality of life that members of the Canadian armed forces are
experiencing.
The focus is now on how we allocate this fiscal dividend. What
do we do with the money that we have? Estimates have varied. I
would like to make a few points about the actual amount.
Economists have come forward and I have heard over the last
couple of days figures ranging from a $6 billion, $7 billion to a
$15 billion to $20 billion surplus per year.
It is important that I comment on the accusation that the $9.7
billion surplus recorded in the first eight months of 1998-99
points to a very large surplus at year end. That is not exactly
true.
The surplus is expected to increase in December. That is when
revenues are typically strong. But a simple extrapolation of the
remaining months of the fiscal year would be highly misleading.
We know that monthly deficits are expected in the final quarter
of this fiscal year. Why? Because we know that the recently
announced reductions in the employment insurance premium are
effective January 1. That will have an impact on the final
surplus number.
Revenues are typically depressed in January due to the payment
of GST low income credits and refunds. We know that corporate
income tax returns are expected to be down significantly in the
February-March settlement period. Exchange funds earnings which
are reported in March will also be significantly lower. Personal
income tax refunds pertaining to the processing of the 1998 tax
returns will further depress revenues in March 1999.
The income tax relief measures that were announced in the 1998
budget will take effect. These measures will cut personal income
taxes as well, so we have a reduction in government revenues
again.
These factors will all serve to bring the underlying surplus for
1998-99 below that recorded in 1997-98. It is important that
Canadians realize and understand this and that members of
parliament also understand that we cannot simply extrapolate a
surplus of one month and take it throughout the entire year.
Like businesses, we do have a cash flow and we have a cycle
throughout the year so that revenues go up and revenues go down.
In the end we will have to wait for that final number. There are
additional pressures in this final quarter that will impact on
the final number. While the surplus may be less than that
recorded in 1997-98, this government will continue to build on
past successes.
I have heard from members of the Reform Party, members of the
Bloc, members of the NDP and from members of the Conservative
Party that we need to focus on Canadian priorities. The Standing
Committee on Finance toured the country asking Canadians what
they would like to see in the upcoming budget. I believe the
government will reflect what those Canadian priorities are
because we know that budgets are much more than balancing
numbers. Budgets are about people.
We will continue to reflect those Canadian priorities. We will
continue to maintain a balanced approach. We will continue to
follow through on the plan that we have adopted since coming to
office. I know that the members of the NDP throughout the debate
this evening commented on the fact that there is no plan that
this government is following.
I want to reiterate that since coming to office there has been a
plan, there continues to be a plan and what we are seeing is the
successes of that plan. We now have a balanced budget. We are
going into a surplus. We are reinvesting in Canadian priorities.
We are providing tax relief. We are paying down the debt.
2235
We are certainly doing that prudently. We are ensuring that we
do not jeopardize the successes Canadians have experienced. We
want to do more. We would certainly like to do everything we
can, but we do not want to jeopardize this and neither do Canadians
want to jeopardize our success and be too extravagant. We have
lived for some 30-odd years with continued deficits and continued
increase in debt.
We are committed. We have faced many challenges before. We
have had to make tough choices. Government is about making
choices. I think that the budget will certainly reflects choices that
Canadians can agree with and certainly support.
I reiterate that this particular exercise is certainly a very
useful one. I thank members who participated in this prebudget
debate in ensuring that the government and the Minister of the
Finance had the opportunity to hear their input. I certainly
welcome any questions that may be addressed to me.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
one quick question for the parliamentary secretary. Obviously,
because he is in the inner group I am sure he has much better
information than we do. I wish he would enlighten not only me but
other members of my party, other members of the House and perhaps
the Canadian public.
When the finance department of the Government of Canada does its
projections, surely it is aware of these different aberrations
that occur every year. He mentioned a list of things, income tax
refunds, the reduction in the EI premiums and so on. He did not
say anything about the increase in the CPP premiums. He forgot
that one but I will just add that on his behalf.
When the finance department with all the brilliant minds in the
world and all the Y2K ready computers does its fiscal
projections, surely it must take all that into account. Can he
enlighten us on that, please?
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, I will address the CPP
point first. The reason I did not address the CPP premium
increase was because the CPP premiums do not flow to government
revenues. They flow outside of government revenues, whereas EI
contributions do flow to the bottom line of government. Any time
we make any sort of change on EI premiums, it does impact on the
bottom line. That would reinforce the point the hon. member made
that Canada pension plan premiums do not flow to government
revenues. That is why I did not make reference to that.
When the finance department works out its numbers, it does take
into consideration the things I mentioned. I was addressing the
number of individuals out there who were extrapolating a surplus
of one month throughout the whole year without taking into
consideration the reduction in revenues that flow into
governments in the last quarter of the fiscal year.
It is important to note that any time there is an initiative on
the part of the government, a reduction in EI premiums or the
fact that corporate earnings are going to be less than they were
the year before and when the corporations file in the last
quarter of the fiscal year, the revenues flowing to government
are less. All of these adjustments in the final quarter need
to be factored in to what will be the underlying surplus.
What we were hearing through to the end of 1998 was that because
the federal government was running a $9.7 billion surplus over
eight months of the year that the final surplus should be
extrapolated to be $18 billion or $20 billion because of the $9.7
billion figure. However, when one takes into consideration what
in fact happens in the last quarter, that $9.7 billion goes down
rather than increases.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to commend the parliamentary secretary for being the
last dog here as it were on the government side. He is a very
lonely advocate of the government's policy this evening but a
persistent one nevertheless.
I have a question for the member for Stoney Creek. When he
speaks about the government's purported success in balancing the
fiscal budget, I think all Canadians will admit, as do I
partisanship notwithstanding, that some credit is due this
government, but I say only some credit.
2240
Would the member not admit that about three-quarters of the
deficit reduction to date is attributable directly to higher
revenues, a large portion of which is attributable to higher tax
rates partly through bracket creep, partly through the CPP
payroll tax and other things such as the capital taxes on
businesses.
Would he not furthermore admit that the percentage of cuts in
the CHST for health care to the provinces was far higher than
were the actual cuts to the government's own operating budgets
for its departments?
Would he not fairly admit that revenue increases were the
principal source of deficit reduction and that the government for
whatever reason chose to cut health care transfers to the
provinces to a far greater degree than it cut its own program
spending here in Ottawa?
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, again I will address the
CPP question. Because CPP does not flow to government revenues,
when references are made to the CPP payroll tax, it is actually
an inaccurate statement. Those revenues do not flow to the
consolidated revenue fund.
With respect to the increase in revenues, certainly the vast
majority of the increase in revenues is as a result of increased
economic activity. Certainly it is the same experience I often
hear the members opposite talk about, of how the increase in
revenues of the Ontario government comes from increased economic
activity. It is the same logic.
It has often been said that we need to address the personal
income tax challenges we face in the country, that personal
income tax is uncompetitive when we compare it to other G-7
countries. We have started to make progress in that area. We
have made a commitment to continue in that area to make it more
competitive and deal with the issue of bracket creep by
increasing the basic exemption. Certainly we realize that and
want to ensure we can do that in a very sustainable fashion.
We do not as a government want to make any commitment with
respect to tax reductions where we would find ourselves two,
three or four years down the road having to reverse a tax
decision because the government found itself without enough
revenue and had to go back into a deficit. That certainly is not
a policy of this government. We want to make sure that anything
we do on the tax side is sustainable.
With respect to the reduction in the CHST, certainly the members
opposite when they do make reference to the reduction in the
CHST, they always make reference to the cash portion of the
transfer. They should also make reference to the tax points
which continue to grow in transfers to the provincial
governments.
We can talk about where we have been but the impact of this
debate is really to be focused on where we are going. It is only
because of the hard work of Canadians and the commitment of
Canadians in supporting the government in making the decisions it
has had to make that we are now talking about what should be done
and how the government should allocate a surplus.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite
the late hour, I am happy to have the opportunity to intervene
in the debate on the pre-budget consultations.
There are three parts to my intervention. First, a review of
the main Bloc Quebecois demands, then, an overview of the ad hoc
consultations in my riding last September and, finally, an
outline of the funds needed to meet the most pressing needs in
the area of Canadian heritage.
Over the fall, the Bloc Quebecois responded to the government's
call and carried out wide ranging consultations in the ridings
it represents to find out people's budget priorities. Then the
Standing Committee on Finance visited Canada to find out
people's wish list.
Then the Liberals released a report that disappointed us a lot
because it did not reflect people's expectations.
2245
I would therefore like to review the main priorities of the Bloc
Quebecois, which are the priorities it heard from its own
audiences.
In the area of health care, the federal government must return
the billions of dollars it cut. By doing so it made it extremely
difficult if not impossible for the provincial authorities to
manage health care, which is under their jurisdiction. The
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says the government
respects the Constitution. Let us see that in action.
In the matter of employment insurance, I believe that everyone
is aware of the drama being played out from coast to coast. The
last to recognize and sense the misery and poverty all around us
appear to be sitting opposite. The Minister of Finance must
realize that the employment insurance reform has gone too far
and created perverse effects.
They must review the rules for eligibility. For example, a
young student in police science leaves his job because he has to
do a stint at the police institute in order to graduate. He has
no choice as to when his placement there will start, because the
institute calls the young Cegep graduates.
At the end of it, while he is waiting to find a job, he is
denied employment insurance benefits because he is alleged to
have left his job voluntarily.
This is a flagrant injustice that must be corrected.
Benefits must be reviewed. The government has come up with a
system—no doubt the target it hit was not the one it had in
mind—but it wants to penalize seasonal workers such as those in
our region who naturally fish only during the periods they are
authorized to do so by the government. They are not even free
to take their boats out when they wish. This is partly due to
nature, of course, but also to the regulations of the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans, which tells them when they must fish.
It is therefore wrong to penalize these workers year after year,
by depriving them of 5% of their income over a maximum of five
years.
Statistics Canada tells us that, in the Lower St. Lawrence
region right now, 68% of unemployed workers are receiving
benefits of this type, which are reduced year after year, and
this number will rise to 80% next year.
If the minister was laid off every summer when the House rose
and saw his income drop every year, he would undoubtedly be the
first to want to review his own punitive policy, which is merely
driving the poor deeper into poverty.
EI premiums must also be cut. At least, that is the conclusion
reached by anyone who gives thought to how the EI fund can best
be used. There is too much money in the fund.
Right now, the government is accumulating surpluses and seems to
be unaware that these surpluses do not belong to it.
Moreover, the government has a duty to use them solely for the
purpose for which they were collected. What is the point of the
government's continuing to accumulate money when the people are
in desperate straits?
As well, the conditions for maternity leave need to be
re-examined, for these have changed a great deal recently, and in
a way are impacting on the birth rate in Canada.
If the Minister of Finance were to announce a tax cut, he would
also have to raise the basic personal exemption, index the tax
tables, and lower taxes for the low and middle income groups.
The second point in my speech is an overview of the ad hoc
consultations carried out last September in my riding.
The people of Rimouski—Mitis were no exception to the rule as far
as the key priorities are concerned. They want the federal
government to return the money to Quebec so that it may be
reinvested in health and education. They are also calling upon
the federal government to cut personal taxes.
2250
Another important point they raised was their concerns about the
realities of the employment situation in the region, which
continues to be a problem, and they want to see the budget
surplus used to help create jobs.
The public is keenly aware of the social problems needing
attention in the region, and calls for greater social justice
between individuals and between regions. Perhaps unemployment
has decreased everywhere in Canada, but not in the lower St.
Lawrence region where my riding is located. Over the past five
years, the unemployed have seen $83 million less in employment
insurance.
It will be understood that, under these circumstances, when that
much money disappears from the pockets of those who could be
spending it, this is anything but good for the regional economy.
In fact, it is very harmful.
I then took the time to look at what could happen to us, and
what we needed from Heritage Canada, the area I am mandated to
monitor the most.
Here I will set out a principle to which the Bloc Quebecois
attaches much importance: public administration and
accountability of all funds devoted to the arts.
Recently, a task force proposed the creation of a film fund. It
was obvious that one of the key elements in this planned
creation of a fund was a kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
We will go nowhere in the arts if we deprive the NFB and
Telefilm Canada of the means to operate properly in this area.
If the Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to take the lead and
create a fund for films, the government must, in the upcoming
budget, put out the same financial effort it did when it created
the television fund by becoming a major financial partner in
creating and renewing cable companies' funds.
The government must act the same way and invest new money in
this area. It should not ask the organizations it funds to give
up part of their budgets to create this fund, since
organizations such as Telefilm Canada or the National Film Board
would have a hard time recovering from more cuts.
The Minister of Finance must pay serious attention to the
complaints made year after year by artists and consider the
major problems it must resolve in the area of taxation.
In this next budget in particular, the minister must finally
provide a clear and definite response to a request the Bloc
Quebecois considers legitimate, namely, that of spreading
artists' income over a number of years so the rich ones
compensate for the lean ones, because most of our artists earn
less than people who live below the poverty line.
The government must also re-establish some justice for the
francophone and Acadian communities. This is the year of the
Francophonie. The rate of assimilation across Canada is 40%.
The government must put words into action by assuming its moral
obligation to return budgets for francophones to their 1993
levels at least.
In closing, I remind the government that it must listen to the
people, hear the distress calls from all over and meet the
expectations expressed instead of trying to sell the people on
the Liberal program, which is long out of date.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with a surplus of energy that I wanted to wind up the day by
adding my comments to those of my Bloc Quebecois colleague, and
especially to speak about the main challenge for members of this
Parliament, which is the fight against poverty.
2255
Members would have to agree that this government has little to
say, little to offer and little to suggest when it comes to the
fight against poverty. And yet what a paradox that is. Back
around 1968, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a Liberal, urged Quebeckers
to continue the Quiet Revolution in Ottawa; his goal was to
build a just society.
Forty years later, we can only observe that there have never
been so many poor Canadians as there are today. Of course, it
could be said that poverty is a question of adjusting the
available manpower to the manpower required.
This would be to ignore the fact that we are faced with a
government that is deliberately setting out, through its
policies, to create poverty. There is not a single
parliamentarian of any experience who will not admit that the
government has created poverty with its EI reform.
It takes some nerve. Despite all the imperfections of the labour
market when left to its own devices, and not content with
destroying the social safety net, the government decided to
deliberately create poverty and exclude people from the social
safety net by means of EI reform.
This calls for two comments.
How is it that Canada is allowed to be one of the only OECD
countries that does not contribute to its public EI scheme? By
what principle should the Canadian government, in contrast to
workers and representatives of employers' associations, be
exempted from contributing to the EI regime?
What is most tragic about all this is that we have never seen a
weaker ministerial deputation. We have never seen a ministerial
deputation as lacking in ambition and as spineless as this
bunch, for whom anything is fine as long as the party line
prevails.
I think it must be made very clear: there is a deliberate desire
on the part of this government to create poverty. If ten
unemployed people were collected at random from here and there
in Canada, it would be found that barely four of that ten could
qualify for what is supposed to be a protection for workers.
Were there any voices raised by the government majority calling
upon the Minister of Human Resources Development to improve his
reform? This is a man of letters, a man who writes, who
publishes, a wise and knowing man. The problem is, he is not a
man who listens. He is a man lacking in sensitivity, one who is
unable to stand up to his public servants in order to finally
propose some corrective measures to improve a reform which has,
and I say it again, deliberately created poverty.
I would like to share with you my feelings of outrage when I saw
and heard the minister responsible for Human Resources
Development, I shall not say his name, on RDI last Monday.
2300
He was plugging his book, which had just been released. It is
called “Pour une politique de confiance”. Confidence—I would like
to see the minister come down to the lower St. Lawrence region,
to Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, to Gaspé, to central Quebec, and tell
the unemployed, whom he has deliberately excluded from his
policy of social protection, that they must have faith in the
future.
The biggest paradox is that there was the minister on television
with his stylish suit, telling RDI viewers that there was
something worse in society that exploitation: exclusion. As a
Liberal minister, he is suddenly aware that this is a society
which excludes some of its members.
He should have realized that before and not contributed himself,
through the policies he proposed as a member of this government,
to the exclusion of people. This is my first example of someone
speaking from both sides of his mouth.
The second subject I wanted to raise is the problem of
unsuitable housing, which is of concern to those facing
financial difficulties. To all intents and purposes, the
various governments that have succeeded each other since 1992,
both the Conservative and the Liberal one in place, got totally
out of public housing.
According to the evaluation by FRAPRU—a very credible activist
group in Quebec that has developed expertise in government
policy and especially in analyzing social housing issues—and
according to the latest census, more than 1,670,700 households
in Canada spend over 30% of their income on rental
accommodation.
There is a problem because the definition that should be applied
to poverty ought to take into account the portion of a person's
budget that goes to housing. It is generally agreed that an
individual spending over 30% of income on rent is likely to be
in the disadvantaged class, spending a disproportionate amount
of his income on public housing.
Has this government been sensitive to this since 1993? Has it
proposed measures to help these people with housing problems?
Absolutely not. Not only did it follow the example of the
Conservative government, but it is now negotiating—and I say
negotiating, although it is not really negotiating—so it can
transfer $1.9 million to the provinces to manage the rental
housing stock.
Negotiations are under way, but the approach is ill-conceived, to
say the least, because not only does the government want to
transfer a responsibility that it should never have had, but the
rental housing it wants to transfer will need major repairs in
the years to come. So the government does not want to transfer
to the provinces the equivalent funds that would enable the
provinces to look after social housing, which is their
constitutional responsibility, as they see fit.
Historically, because it has always resisted, as it should, the
federal government's invasive policies, Quebec has received on
average 19% of the available funds since it has taken part in
the social housing shared cost program. Quebec, however, has
29% of the people who need such housing.
Quebec is responsible for 25%—its demographic weight—of the
federal government's revenues.
2305
This represents a distortion that provincial negotiators tried
to get the federal government to understand, but in vain,
because the federal government was not interested.
This brings me to the conclusion—because I think that is where I
should be headed—that we need anti-poverty legislation. I repeat
that there are two broad categories of people still being
discriminated against in our society: homosexuals and those
with low incomes.
You can count on the Bloc Quebecois, on the Bloc Quebecois whip
and on the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, to make a suggestion
in the House in the near future for anti-poverty legislation that
we hope will meet with the favour of the members across the way.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House tonight to speak to the prebudget
debate.
I would like to echo the comments made by my colleague from the
Bloc who talked about the need to have an anti-poverty law in
Canada. I think that is something that should be a real priority
for this government.
The Liberal government loves to boast about its fiscal record on
battling the deficit, but the government is much less comfortable
talking about the social deficit it has created in the process.
Today Canada stands accused in the court of world opinion of
fighting the deficit on the backs of the poor. In its report on
Canada the United Nations committee on economic, social and
cultural rights expressed its deep and grave concern on 25 issues
relating to Canada's treatment of its most disadvantaged
citizens.
In the words of the committee chair:
I would not be surprised to hear about these things from a
developing country. But, in a very well developed country like
Canada, with so many resources—the degree of homelessness and
poverty is really quite shocking.
It needs to be pointed out that Canada was a signatory to the UN
covenant on economic, social and cultural rights which lays out
the basic foundation for equality and rights, and which should be
the law that my colleague just spoke about, the basis on which we
could eliminate poverty in this country.
If we were to read the finance committee's majority report on
its prebudget consultations we would wonder if it was talking
about the same country.
The Liberals claim in their majority report that “As its
finances have improved over the past five years, the government
has introduced several new programs designed to help build a
strong and compassionate society”.
That sounds very wonderful. In fact the Liberal members on the
finance committee think that Canada is in such good shape that
the best thing the finance minister could do in his upcoming
budget is to give huge tax breaks to Canada's upper income
earners.
Is this the same country that the UN committee condemned for
exacerbating poverty and homelessness during the time of strong
economic growth and increasing influence? Yes, it is.
Last year, with a balanced budget in sight, we were supposedly
on the cusp of a golden age. After years of budget cutting and
zero inflation policies, the big question before the committee
was how to spend the fiscal dividend. In fact the finance
minister was delighted to announce a new fiscal milestone every
time he stood up. As it turns out, the fundamentals are weaker
than they have been since the 1930s, and the 1990s are shaping up
to be a lost decade.
In fact per capita GDP has not risen through the decade. Real
living standards have declined for a majority of Canadians and
are at desperation levels for the growing numbers of poor.
While governments retreat behind slogans about market discipline
and fiscal responsibility, the reality is that in our local
communities health care bleeds to death from a thousand cuts.
More than half a million more children have fallen into poverty
and students seeking education are pushed into a lifelong debt,
if they can afford it.
The training system in the country is awash in chaos and
confusion.
The majority of the unemployed are denied benefits, while a
surplus of $20 billion accumulates in the government accounts.
2310
Canadian farmers are killing their livestock rather than facing
complete ruin trying to market them.
On the streets of our largest cities homelessness has been
declared a national disaster. That is the reality that is facing
a growing number of Canadians today.
Meanwhile, out in the market economy, the top 10% of income
earners have increased their share of national income by a factor
of 15. Today those folks earn 314 times the income of the bottom
10% of Canadians, up from 21 times in 1973.
It is in this climate that the Business Council on National
Issues urged the finance minister to make the courageous choice
and support major tax cuts for those earning up to $150,000 a
year. It is in this climate that the Liberal majority on this
committee is now pushing tax cuts for upper income Canadians as
the number one priority for government spending.
Last year one of the finance minister's proudest boasts was that
he had cut government spending back to 1949 levels. The impact
of this year's recommendations will be to lock in downsized
government, to promote private wealth while the public sector
deteriorates, and to ignore the genuine needs of Canada's poor
and unemployed whose lost benefits have paid for the finance
minister's budget. It is my constituents in Vancouver East and
in other low income communities who have paid the price for the
government's attack on low income Canadians.
Last December the finance minister called child poverty a
national disgrace. He said that the elimination of child poverty
should be a great national objective. That is very worthy. He
said it should be on the scale of the battle to reduce the
deficit. But to date there is no indication that the federal
government plans to do anything to ease the financial burden on
poor people.
Later in 1998 two major reports condemned the federal government
for its record on child poverty. The Canadian Council on Social
Development noted that the number of food banks operating in
Canada had doubled in the 1990s. The National Council on Welfare
reported that only 17% of single parent families, the poorest of
the poor, will get the so-called child tax benefit. Overall only
36% of poor families will get any benefit from this much wanted
government solution to child poverty.
Despite the finance minister's supposed concern and the fact
that our justice minister calls poverty our most glaring human
rights problem, the new government approach to child poverty has
done absolutely nothing. What the government really wants to do
is define poverty out of existence.
According to StatsCan we have 1.5 million children and some 3.8
million adults living in poverty under what we call the low
income cut off, which is the commonly understood poverty line in
Canada. By changing the definition, essentially dropping the
income floor by about 20%, governments could remove 1.8 million
people with the stroke of a pen, including 500,000 children, from
the nation's poverty rolls.
The government likes to say that the child tax benefit—and we
have heard this so many times—is designed to improve benefits
for low income families with children, to reduce the depths of
child poverty and to promote attachment to the workforce. What
the government does not say is that the poorest of the poor are
denied the benefits, those on welfare. The government does not
say that because of clawbacks the child tax benefit effectively
denies benefits to roughly half a million poor families on
welfare.
It does not say that parents unfortunate enough to lose their
jobs will be made poorer by cuts to employment insurance benefits
and will likely be denied benefits in training. It does not say
that its newest approach to reducing the depth of poverty for
families might be to drop the floor by over $6,000, handily
reducing the depth of poverty by two-thirds.
What is needed is not a new definition, but a real commitment by
this government in this budget to set targets to reduce
unemployment and to set targets to reduce poverty for all
Canadians living below the StatsCan unofficial poverty line.
If the Liberal government had a shred of sincerity about
addressing poverty it should expand the program, end all the
clawbacks and index the benefits to the cost of living.
A week or so ago I concluded a national tour across Canada on
homelessness in this country. One of the things I learned from
housing activists and anti-poverty activist in places like
Toronto, Moncton, Winnipeg, northern Manitoba, New Brunswick and
in my riding of Vancouver is that more and more people are
feeling the impact of the abandonment of the national housing
program by the federal Liberals since 1993.
2315
This is one of the true tragedies in this country. One of the
real causes of growing inequality and poverty is the lack of
housing and increasing homelessness. The government must take
real measures on this in the budget. We have seen this situation
in Toronto. Although there are many Liberals from Ontario who
are hearing a lot about what is going on in Toronto, we have a
national disaster on our hands when it comes to homeless and lack
of adequate housing.
In this budget we expect and demand to see an investment by the
federal government to get back into the provision on the supply
side of housing and work with the provinces to ensure that there
is indeed a national housing plan. Canada is the only
industrialized country that does not have a national housing
plan.
I would just like to say a few words about health care because
that too, like homelessness, is a growing crisis. The crisis in
health care is evident in the growing numbers of Canadians who
are losing confidence in the system. In May 1991 over 60% of
Canadians rated the system as excellent or very good. By 1998
less than 30% of the population could support that claim.
Canadians are growing skeptical because they look around and
experience a system in crisis. They know there are longer
waiting lists and delays in treatment, crowded emergency rooms,
lack of beds, nursing shortages, diminishing access to care,
higher drug costs and the list goes on and on.
On a cumulative basis $15.5 billion in federal cash transfers
have been withdrawn from the system since 1995-96. Privatization
is increasing as well. For example, essential tests such as the
MRIs in Ontario are increasingly being made available to the well
who can pay for them rather than the sick who need them.
The New Democratic Party believes that health care has to be a
number one priority. Our prescription for health care is to
reinvest $2.5 billion into health care in the upcoming budget, to
restore funding to the health protection branch, to conduct an
independent audit, to stop the slide toward private for profit
health care by reinforcing and enforcing the principles of the
Canada Health Act and to convene a national summit on health.
I would like to move now to another key issue before us in terms
of this budget debate, the EI fund. This year the government
expects to bring in $7 billion more in EI premiums than it pays
out in benefits. On a cumulative basis we know this now has
resulted in a $20 billion surplus while over 900,000 unemployed
Canadians have no income support, no access to training and very
little prospect of finding new jobs as the economy contracts.
It is clear that government raided the funds to pay down the
deficit and that it apparently intends to continue to do so.
Meanwhile, less than 40% of the unemployed are receiving benefits
today, only 31% of unemployed women and only 15% of unemployed
youth.
As part of my tour across Canada on homelessness I talked to
unemployed workers who were living in shelters. I remember one
young man who gave me his last EI slip for $121. When I told him
about the $20 billion surplus and how that really belonged to the
workers of Canada, he asked me why he could not get access to
that fund for training, to find work and to get help because he
did not want to be in an emergency shelter.
What right does the government have to take that money from
unemployed workers in Canada? Those funds should be used for
retraining, to expand the benefits and to help the unemployed.
But apparently the Liberals see nothing illegitimate about
taking that money and using it to subsidize debt repayment,
nothing corrupt about seizing it to fund a tax break geared to
upper income Canadians. It is precisely because the government
cannot be trusted to manage the fund that New Democrats, along
with other opposition parties, called for the UI premium account
to be separated from overall government revenues as of April 1,
1999 with an independent commission made up of worker and
employer representatives.
2320
Theft and misuse of EI funds must be stopped. There is no
question about that.
Pumping millions of dollars of spending power back into the
hands of Canadians through the EI fund by expanding the benefits
and the coverage in some of our poorest communities and regions
would strengthen local demand, assist provincial governments
coping with increasing welfare caseloads and, more important,
would put food back on the tables of the jobless, restore their
dignity and bring new integrity to the government's fiscal
accounting.
That is what the Liberals and the finance committee should be
fighting for. Instead, the central message of the Liberal
majority report spending proposals is “the time has come for
personal tax reductions directed at middle and higher income
Canadians”. Their report calls for a flattening of the
progressive income tax by presenting a three year tax reduction
plan at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. They call for the
elimination of the 3% surtax on incomes over $65,000. The cost,
$1.05 billion.
They call for a timetable for eliminating the 5% surtax that
applies only to the very high earners. The cost, $650 million.
The list goes on and on.
The above plan amounts to tens of billions of dollars of tax
cuts depending on how phase-ins are structured and a strong
reduction of the tax burden on those who clearly can afford to
pay.
Clearly the committee is not interested in the glaring fact that
after tax inequalities are increasing in this country or that the
poor are falling further and further behind.
New Democrats are concerned about the vast number of Canadians
who are being excluded from the Liberal's frame of reference. Do
these people even exist anymore to the Liberal government?
Our approach would be to rebuild our deteriorating social
infrastructure with health care at the top of the list; restore
the unemployment insurance program to the working people of this
country; address the glaring issues of inequity around us by
addressing the shocking levels of poverty and the widening gap
between rich and poor and growing discrimination against the
unemployed; to provide proper and timely relief to Canadian
farmers devastated by the drop in commodity prices; and to
introduce tax relief for all Canadians, as finances permit, with
an increase in the GST credit and a 1% tax reduction rate to
generate new jobs.
As the Canadian government brings down its last budget before
the millennium and as the world celebrates the 50th anniversary
of the international declaration of human rights, December 10,
1998, a fitting tribute to the occasion would be a recommitment
from this government and from all parties to the standards and
rights that we pledged for all our citizens and a budget that
starts to address the serious lapses that are a major blot on
this country's reputation in the world community.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank my colleague for Vancouver East for her remarks. She
articulates a very serious concern about poverty, child poverty
and its social consequences. Whether she believes it or not, all
members of the House share her concern. We may disagree on the
remedy but we all share the concern.
However, one often hears from this hon. member and members of
her party statistics and figures about 1 in 4 Canadian children
living in poverty and a huge percentage of the adult population
living in poverty. She went on to suggest that the government
somewhat cynically could change these numbers by redefining
poverty.
I would like the member to comment on this issue because I think
it is not a flippant one, it is a serious one. If we want to
solve the problem, we need to know what the problem is. We need
to define it. We need to know what we are dealing with and that
means getting a proper and accurate measure of poverty in Canada.
My understanding, and the member could correct me if I am
mistaken, is that the poverty measure to which she refers is
actually not the poverty measurement at all but is rather the low
income cut off measure of Statistics Canada, LICO.
2325
I am sure she could confirm for me that the low income cutoff is
calculated as a relative percentage of family expenditures on
necessities such as food, shelter and clothing. This is
calculated as a percentage of the average family expenditure on
these items.
In other words, would she not agree that as a relative measure
it would be literally and mathematically impossible to ever
eliminate poverty or substantially decrease poverty in Canada as
long as there is any degree of income disparity? Would she not
therefore agree that absolute poverty as it is understood in
common language and common parlance by common folks is not
measured by the LICO? Would she agree that it might be helpful
to come up with a fair definition of what the basic necessities
of life are while understanding there are contingencies,
differences by region et cetera?
Would she agree that the case she and other social advocates
make would be stronger, more compelling and convincing if
Canadians could really define the number of folks who really do
go without the basic necessities of life, if we could get beyond
a relative measure of poverty which is a permanent measure
because it will always exist as long as there is even an
infinitesimal income inequality?
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his very serious question. To have a fair definition is
something advocates and anti-poverty activists would agree with.
The UN report, in addressing its comment to Canada on its
performance under the UN covenant on social, economic and
cultural rights, actually raised this question and challenged the
government to work with anti-poverty organizations to ensure
there is an accepted and fair definition around poverty measures
in Canada.
It is true that the LICO has been used by Stats Canada as an
unofficial poverty measure in Canada for decades. The danger
here is that there is a very high level of cynicism in the
population that the purpose of this exercise is not to help
people who are living in poverty. It is to simply politically
recast the question, redefine what we mean by poverty so we can
attempt to somehow eliminate what is a growing political problem.
I work with anti-poverty activists in my own community and
across Canada. There is great fear and skepticism that is what
this exercise is about. The exercise is being led by the Fraser
Institute, which wants to move us to a kind of criterion and
measure that would see a huge drop in how we would define the
number of people living below the poverty line. It is called the
absolute poverty measure.
The reality is there are people paying 40% to 60% of their
incomes in rent. No matter how we define it, they are living in
poverty. They are living in a homeless kind of environment.
Single parents making minimum wage, parents trying to survive on
EI payments or parents whose EI payments have run out are living
in poverty.
At some point it gets to be a very academic exercise. To be
optimistic, if there were a genuine effort by the government to
work with people who know what poverty is about and to have an
inclusionary process then there would be some discussion. There
is so much skepticism and fear about what the government is
attempting to do through this exercise that we will see a lot of
people resisting any attempts to change the LICO.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in this prebudget debate we have heard every aspect of fiscal
policy conceivable addressed.
Many of my colleagues have quite adequately spoken to our
critique of the government's misplaced fiscal priorities with
respect to taxes, health care and debt reduction. We have also
articulated our view about different priorities to place greater
emphasis on health care, tax relief and debt reduction.
2330
While I recognize the Reform Party is fallible, nevertheless we
have worked hard as an opposition party, harder than any other
opposition party that I am aware of in my political experience to
present constructive details on substantive alternatives to the
government on fiscal policy.
In that respect we have released a lengthy paper “Taxes and
Health Care: A Critical Prebudget Submission of the Official
Opposition”, of some 60 pages, that complements the paper we
released last year “Beyond a Balanced Budget” which analyses in
some detail the fallacious claims of the government to fiscal
prudence. It goes into some detail into offering the kinds of
tax relief we would like to see, ideas like legislated debt
reduction, legislated balanced budgets and an increase in health
care funding by reallocating spending from lower priority areas.
I encourage people interested in these issues to give us a call
and receive a copy of this paper.
The government has claimed that it is about to provide tax
relief to Canadians in the upcoming budget. I am more than a
little skeptical when I hear the comments of the Right Hon. Prime
Minister who in 1996 said in response to a question on whether he
preferred across the board tax cuts: “I do not think it is the
right thing to do in a society like Canada”. He did not believe
it was right to provide Canadians with tax relief in a society
like Canada.
I do not know what he meant by that, but perhaps we got further
clarification last week when the Prime Minister was at the
economic summit in Switzerland and said that he agreed with the
previous Conservative government's policy of steeply raising
taxes in the midst of the 1991-92 recession.
This was the same Prime Minister who as Liberal leader
castigated the then Conservative government for having raised
taxes, for having deindexed the tax system and putting into play
the vicious logic of bracket creep. He criticized that same
Conservative government for having introduced the goods and
services tax and for having raised taxes on corporations,
businesses and individuals through the various 3% and 5%
so-called high income surtaxes. That very same Liberal leader
who six or seven years ago went across the country criticizing
the then government for raising taxes, we now discover, secretly
admired the deadly tax and fiscal policies of the then
government.
It does not surprise us when we look at the record of his own
government, a government which is rhetorically committed to the
notion of tax relief but has committed itself to a policy of tax
increases. We know, as the hon. parliamentary secretary admitted
in questioning earlier this evening, that about three-quarters of
the fiscal progress, the deficit reduction achieved in the
government's mandate is attributed to revenue increases.
A fair chunk of that is attributable to higher tax rates through
the pernicious, invidious tax of bracket creep which sucks about
a billion additional dollars out of the pockets of middle income
Canadians every year; through the $10 billion 72% increase in CPP
payroll taxes, the single largest tax increase in Canadian
history; and through some 36 other tax increases levied by the
government on individuals and businesses. Yet the government
still claims that it is committed to tax relief.
2335
The government has perpetuated in Canada a shrinking standard of
living, a shrinking level of disposable income. Never before in
Canadian history have individuals worked harder and longer. Never
before have we had more families with both parents earning two or
more incomes. Never before have we had individuals, according to
Statistics Canada, working longer hours and longer work weeks
under greater pressure reflected in many of the social problems
we are experiencing. Never before have we had Canadian families
earning more in gross pre-tax dollars.
Yet, while people are working harder to get ahead, they are
falling behind, not because of their own lack of effort and
diligence and fortitude, but because federal tax policy keeps
taking more of what they earn. We now have the atrocious
situation where Canadian middle class families have seen their
after tax disposable incomes on the decline for over 15 years,
working harder year after year to try to get by economically and
falling further and further behind. They are powerless to change
it because only the government has the ability to undo the
damage.
That is why the OECD says that Canada has the worst record among
its 26 member nations with respect to per capita GDP growth, the
worst record in terms of standard of living. Imagine that a
country that ought to be the most prosperous, the most productive
nation in the world given our enormous resources, human and
natural, finds itself falling further and further behind.
Relative to our G-7 partners, the personal income tax burden in
Canada is a full 56% above the average. The corporate income tax
burden in Canada is 9% higher than the average of our G-7
partners.
If we were to roll back the personal income tax burden to the
level where it was when the government took office in 1993, it
would require an $8 billion reduction in federal income taxes.
Canada has the highest property tax burden in the OECD. We have
the highest total tax burden in the G-7 when we remove social
security taxes, with a total tax burden 28% higher than the
average of our major six economic partners, a whopping 48% higher
than our single major competitor, the United States, where we
conduct 85% of our trade.
In 1996 the average Canadian family paid a total tax bill of
$21,242 or 46% of income. The average family was paying 46%, not
the high income families. It was more than they paid for food,
shelter and clothing combined. However in 1981, in constant
dollars, the same family paid only $11,000 and change in taxes.
In the first six months of 1997, just a couple of years ago,
governments in Canada took 67% of the increase in the personal
income of Canadians. Of every $3 in additional income received
by Canadians that year, governments took $2, leaving one for the
individual who earned them. Since the government took office the
average Canadian has lost 155% of the increase in real income to
taxes.
These may sound like just figures and statistics to you, Mr.
Speaker, but I know you have a heart and understand the very real
frustration many people feel because they work harder and yet
fall further behind and the government takes two and a half times
the actual increase in their real income.
The top marginal tax rate in Canada kicks in at about $60,000
Canadian, whereas in the U.S. the top tax rate kicks in at about
$420,000 Canadian. This is an enormous discrepancy. When the
Americans tax the rich they are taxing people who earn over
$420,000 Canadian. When we tax the rich we hit middle class
people who earn over $60,000, and hence such an enormous drain of
human capital from our country in the brain drain.
As I mentioned the CPP is going up, consuming any relief we see
on employment insurance premiums and then quite a lot again. That
is why we are proposing an ambitious program of tax relief which
would provide an average taxpayer with an annual $1,300 pay raise
and more than $2,500 for a one income family of four.
2340
I would like to focus for a moment on a particular issue that is
of increasing concern to me. That is the question of the
inherent unfairness in the tax system for families who make the
choice to raise their children at home. I cannot understand for
the life of me why the government would adopt such a policy. It
is not a partisan matter as the government is continuing the
policy of the previous Conservative government. It is a policy
which says that if Canadian families decide to make an economic
sacrifice to forgo a second income and have one of the two
parents stay at home most of the time or all of the time to raise
young preschool children, they will be penalized. On the other
hand, if they decide to raise their children in part through
third party institutional day care and go off to earn the second
income or extra income, they will receive a benefit from the
federal government.
This is an absolutely perverse social and fiscal policy. It
gets Canadian families all wrong because the vast majority of
Canadian families want to have the option to stay at home and
raise young children.
I know some members from other parties will say that this view
is just some antiquated neanderthal view of Reformers who do not
understand that the state of the family has changed and so on and
so forth. I would submit that it is those folks who do not
understand the nature, the desires, the longings and the dreams
of Canadian families.
I refer to public opinion research recently undertaken on the
issue. Compas Research recently did a poll indicating that 92%
of respondents say that families with children today are under
more stress than families 50 years ago. Most Canadians attribute
this increase in the level of stress to economic pressure and
consequently the impact the stress has on family breakups, rates
of domestic violence, divorce, child abuse, et cetera. Many of
the social pathologies with which we attempt to deal in our
criminal justice system and our social programs are caused by
economic stress in families.
What about the family tax burden? Eighty-two per cent of
Canadians, not Reform Party members, felt it should be a priority
for the government to change the tax law to make it easier for
parents with young children to afford to have one parent at home.
Eighty-two per cent is about as close as we get to unanimity in
public opinion polling. Seventy-nine per cent felt it should be
a priority to allow couples with children to pay lower taxes by
filing joint income tax returns. Nearly eight out of ten
Canadians say “Let us file our taxes jointly so that we are not
discriminated against if we are a single earner in our family”.
Eighty-one per cent felt it should be a priority to change the
tax law to make it easier for families to take in and care for
elderly parents.
To quote the pollster, he summarized it by saying that by an
overwhelming margin Canadians wanted governments to slash the tax
burden on families. They call for more favourable tax treatment
of families supporting the elderly, joint tax returns and
especially adequate cuts in family tax burdens to allow one
parent to stay home with the children.
It is not the only interesting finding. We have seen that other
polls have reached similar conclusions. Ninety per cent in a
Compas poll indicated that a family setting was preferable to day
care when raising a preschool child. Again it was not some crazy
ideological agenda but the near unanimous majority of the
Canadian people.
2345
A 1991 poll conducted by Decima Research of working women
indicated similar findings: 70% said that if they had the choice
they would stay at home to raise their children as opposed to 27%
who said they would rather work outside the home.
By a margin of seven to three Canadian professional working
women say they would rather have the choice if they could afford
it to stay at home and raise their preschool children.
What happens when these very same families look at the tax code?
What do they see? They see that if they give up that second
income and the father or mother decides to stay home with two or
three young children and raise those kids at home, they will be
forgoing the child care tax deduction. That deduction is
available to people who take their kids out to third party
institutional day care. The government increased it in the last
budget. I think it amounts to $7,000 per preschool child. That
is a huge subsidy that family is giving up. At the same time it
is giving up the second income.
Similarly, if that father stays home while the mother is
working, he will only be able to claim a spousal tax deduction as
opposed to the full personal amount. The spousal amount is
$2,000 less than the full personal amount.
If the same family were to divorce and reconstitute itself as a
common law couple, then both parents could claim the full
personal amount. That is a penalty against marriage, while the
child care deduction is a penalty against rearing children at
home, which 90% of Canadians and 70% of professional women would
like to do. It makes no sense. It really is bizarre.
All sorts of credible organizations have spoken to this issue.
The National Foundation for Family Research and Education, an
organization on whose board I once served, has publicized the
results of some very interesting academic research. After having
conducted a lengthy meta analysis of child rearing researchers
Violato and Russell in their 1994 paper on the effects of
non-maternal care in child development concluded that
non-parental care for more than 20 hours per week has a negative
effect in three areas of social pathology, social-emotional
development, behavioural adjustment and bonding. Furthermore, 20
hours per week of non-parental care such as institutional daycare
has a minor negative influence on the cognitive realm, learning.
These are significant findings.
They are telling us that the explosion we have seen in our
society in the past three decades in youth and teen suicide, the
second highest level per capita in the developed world, the
explosion in youth violent crime which has increased by 150%
since 1986, all the related pathologies and social problems can
at least partly be traced to the increase in non-parental care
which this parliament chooses to subsidize through the child care
deduction and other similar inequities in the tax system.
These subsidies add up. Let us imagine a scenario where a
married couple has two wage earners. The husband earns $40,000
and the wife earns $20,000 per year and they have a relative who
takes care of the kids. They pay a combined total of over $6,000
in federal income tax.
A similar couple across the street with one income earner
bringing in $60,000 will pay $10,000 in income tax. That is
$4,000 more than the two income family. That is a significant
difference.
Finally, a two income couple earning $60,000 and paying for
third party care outside the home will have to pay $10,000 less
in federal taxes than the single income family raising their
children at home.
2350
In effect, couples who choose to marry legally and raise their
children at home seem to be signing a guarantee of tax
discrimination when they put their names on their marriage
certificate.
What then is the solution? The solution is very simple. The
solution is for parliament to decide to allow the practice known
as joint filing of tax returns so that single income families can
split right down the middle the income of the one main earner,
thereby moving their total taxes into a much lower marginal rate
and allowing them both to claim the full personal exemption.
This would make an enormous difference in the taxes paid by
single income families. Another major change would be to create
equity in the child care system by converting the current
deduction into a refundable credit which would be very
progressive. It would be available to all families, regardless
of how they choose to raise their kids, whether at home or
through institutional care, and regardless of their income.
I close by inviting the government to look much more closely at
the need for family tax fairness. I know that in the last
parliament the member for Mississauga South had Motion No. 30
passed which called for the same kind of tax treatment that I am
proposing. It was actually passed in this House by a majority of
members.
There is a consensus in this parliament and a consensus in this
country. There is no good reason to continue to discriminate
against Canadian families working so hard to do best by their
children.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is only proper that I
take the opportunity to comment on what my hon. colleague has
said.
I really want to focus on the budget plan. The member made
reference to it in his opening remarks. The opposition party has
gone to great lengths to provide an alternative to the upcoming
budget. I really want to focus on that area.
When I reviewed the plan that was released, essentially what I
found was that a lot of the promises were really based on some
widely optimistic revenue assumptions.
When one combines the optimistic revenue and naive expenditure
assumptions, it really results in a very unrealistic picture of
future budgetary surplus. If one were to look at a three year
period and go out to 2001-2002, they are actually predicting
surpluses of about $30 billion to $35 billion.
That is actually much more optimistic than the private sector
forecasters which is what the government uses in order to build
its budgets. We go to the private sector. The private sector
provides a consensus of what these forecasts should be and that
is what we build into the actual budget.
The Reform plan assumes a revenue growth on average of 5.5% for
the next three years. It is almost two times the private sector
consensus. It also ignores the cost of maintaining existing
programs like old age security and equalization.
There are other incremental costs of maintaining other existing
programs. The member has not in any way included economic
prudence in the revenue forecasts. That means that if the
economy turns out ever so slightly worse than what was predicted,
the plan is derailed.
The question is how to deal with the impact of a slower economy
based on these overly optimistic assumptions. Either programs have
to be cut or taxes have to be increased. Which is it?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the
member would regard the assumptions we have made as being
unrealistically optimistic given that his government has followed
a deliberate policy of under projecting growth in order to
politically manage the political aspects of the surplus problem.
Clearly the Minister of Finance does not want his spendthrift
Liberal colleagues such as the distinguished lady who manages the
heritage department grappling for dollars in a pinata contest for
the next Liberal leadership.
I am sure he has a hard time getting to sleep imagining what
would happen if he were to tell his cabinet colleagues the real
truth about the surplus.
We know from his treatment over the last two or three years that
the government has overshot its surplus projections by an
enormous amount. I do not think it is an entirely bad thing. I
think it is good that the government has used very conservative
projections.
2355
I think that for political purposes it has been a prudent
approach generally. I also think it is good to include a
contingency amount, as this government has done, of $3 billion a
year.
In constructing our own projections we consulted with all the
private sector forecasters and indeed the government's own
forecasts and we chose assumptions for future growth which is
slightly less than the average projection among private sector
economists.
Furthermore, we did include a contingency provision. I am trying
to find the precise amount. I will have to take that under
advisement and get back to the hon. member. However, we did
include a contingency amount and we did try to select projections
for growth, inflation, employment and revenue growth which were
reasonable and prudent.
The point is well taken. We can have an argument I suppose
about whose projections are more prudent but I think frankly ours
are more accurate. In the last two or three years the
projections that Reform has made have been closer to the actual
outcome than those made by the government in its own budget
documents.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is
purely a comment. This sounds like Bryan Williams. It is
midnight here. Back in Alberta it is only 10 o'clock and in B.C.
it is 9 o'clock. However, I think it is very appropriate for us
to say a special thanks to the pages, to the staff who have
helped here, the officers of the clerk, Mr. Speaker, certainly
the Liberal representation here today and the interpreters
without whom we would be lost. I just want to say thank you very
much to everyone for doing that.
The Deputy Speaker: I know all hon. members are very
pleased the debate has come to an end. In spite of the enjoyment
we have all had in the proceedings this evening, I know we are
all looking forward to the real event. The debate will follow on
that no doubt shortly.
[Translation]
It being 11.55 p.m, the time provided for debate is over.
Pursuant to order made Monday, February 1, 1999, this House
stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 11.57 p.m.)