36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 201
CONTENTS
Monday, March 22, 1999
1105
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT, 1999
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-76. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1110
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1200
1205
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1220
1225
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1240
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1245
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1250
1255
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
1345
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OXFAM
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1400
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GIRL GUIDES OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVIK RANGERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATO
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GRAIN INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAJOR LIONEL GUY D'ARTOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1405
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEVCO
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NORMAN JEWISON
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREARMS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD WATER DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD WATER DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1410
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PREMIER OF QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CLARICA
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1415
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN EMBASSY IN BERLIN
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1425
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1430
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1435
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1440
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-54
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REVENUE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1445
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GRAIN INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1450
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MIRABEL AIRPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1455
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WATER
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1500
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Scrutiny of Regulations
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1505
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gasoline Additives
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health Care
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1510
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT, 1999
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1515
1520
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1605
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1610
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1615
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1630
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1635
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1640
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1655
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1700
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1705
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1720
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1725
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1730
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1745
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1750
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1755
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Notice of Closure Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Government Business No. 21
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1810
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
1815
1820
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC Inquiry
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1835
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Service
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1840
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Ianno |
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Poverty
|
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1845
![V](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 201
![](/web/20061116180302im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 22, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1105
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, later today it is the intention
of the government to introduce a bill regarding the labour
disruption and PSAC.
I seek the unanimous consent of the House to do the introduction
now to allow an extra four hours for members to actually see the
content of the bill and of course to make it in the public domain
as well.
Perhaps there would be consent to go to Routine Proceedings now
for only that purpose, and this would not affect Routine
Proceedings later today which would be held in the customary way.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed now to Routine Proceedings?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT, 1999
Hon. Don Boudria (for the President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and
continuation of government services.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1110
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-68, an act in respect of
criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other
acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure this morning to speak on
second reading of the youth criminal justice act.
[Translation]
Canadians realize that several important aspects of the youth
justice system are not working as well as they ought to, and
that the system needs to be re-examined and reworked.
[English]
We know that it will take a sustained effort involving all
levels of government and many other partners to tackle the
complex problems of youth crime and to build the fair and
effective youth justice system Canadians want and deserve.
That process is underway. Last June the solicitor general and I
launched the government's national crime prevention program.
Since then millions of dollars have been invested in community
based crime prevention initiatives across our country dealing at
the front end with the root causes of crime, with a special focus
on youth at risk.
On March 11, 1999, I introduced the youth criminal justice act
and I am now pleased to participate in the second reading debate.
Repealing and replacing the Young Offenders Act with the youth
criminal justice act is the next key step in the process of youth
justice renewal.
The new legislation will signal to Canadians that a new youth
justice regime is in place.
The new legislation reflects the message Canadians want from
their youth justice system, that it is there first and foremost
to protect society, that it foster values such as respect for
others and their property, that it insist on accountability and
that it provide both violent and non violent young offenders with
consequences that are meaningful and proportionate to the
seriousness of the offence, that it be a youth justice system
that is inclusive, that engages Canadians in the response to
youth crime and that it does a better job of responding to the
needs of victims.
We on this side of the House are not prepared to criminalize 10
and 11 year olds. That is not the way to best address their
needs, a point I have made clear in the House on many occasions.
We believe that in those circumstances where a formal approach is
required, child welfare and the mental health systems are the
preferred approaches.
The federal government is committed to working jointly with the
provinces and territories to develop a co-operative approach. We
also want to ensure that we have a system of youth justice that
offers hope to young people, that gives young people who get in
trouble with the law a chance to turn their lives around for
their sake and for the sake of their families and their
communities.
The youth criminal justice act includes provisions for more
meaningful consequences for the most serious violent young
offenders. It expands the list of offences and lowers the age at
which youth would presumptively receive adult sentences.
When the legislation is passed youth 14 years and older who are
convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated
sexual assault will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can
be persuaded otherwise. The judge would need to be persuaded by
the youth that a youth sentence would be adequate to hold the
young person accountable given the seriousness and the
circumstances of the offence and the degree of responsibility,
age and maturity of the young person involved.
In addition, we are creating a fifth presumptive category for
repeat violent offenders where young offenders 14 and older who
demonstrate a pattern of violent behaviour would receive an adult
sentence unless a judge can similarly be persuaded otherwise.
1115
The bill contains an important change to what may be the most
controversial aspect of our youth justice legislation, the
publication of names. The debate on this issue essentially
involves two legitimate and competing values, the need to
encourage rehabilitation by avoiding the negative effect of
publicity on youth versus the need for greater openness and
transparency in the justice system.
The proposed legislation now before the House strikes an
appropriate balance between those competing views and values. It
would permit the publication of names upon conviction of all
young offenders who qualify for an adult sentence. The names of
14 to 17 year olds given a youth sentence for murder, attempted
murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault or repeat violent
offences could also be published in certain circumstances.
The youth criminal justice act would also replace the current
procedure for transfer to adult court by empowering all trial
courts to grant adult sentences so that the youth retains
age-appropriate procedural protections and so that justice can be
provided quickly, placing less of a burden on victims and
families. This will also ensure that the offender, the victim or
the victim's family and the community see a clear and timely
connection between the offence and its consequences.
The bill contains other important reforms to the youth justice
system. In response to concerns by the law enforcement
community, judges would be given more discretion to admit
voluntary statements by youth as evidence at their trials. In
response to the concerns of victims, victim impact statements
would be introduced in youth court and victims' access to
information regarding proceedings would be improved.
The bill provides for an increased sentence for adults who
undertake to the court to respect bail conditions involving
supervision of a young person who would otherwise remain in
custody and who wilfully failed to comply with those conditions.
The bill provides that provinces may recover the costs of court
appointed counsel from parents and young people who are fully
capable of paying. As well, the record keeping system for youth
records would be simplified and would allow for greater access by
authorized people in the interests of the administration of
justice and research.
The majority of young people who get into trouble with the law
are non-violent and only commit one offence. Unfortunately there
are too many examples in our current youth justice system of
young people serving time in jail for minor offences. We
incarcerate youth at a rate four times that of adults and twice
that of many U.S. states. We incarcerate youth despite the fact
that we knowingly run the risk that they will come out more
hardened criminals and we incarcerate them knowing that
alternatives to custody can do a better job of ensuring that
youth learn from their mistakes.
This bill includes criteria on the use of custody so that it is
used appropriately. Further, the bill includes provisions for
dealing with less serious offending outside of the formal court
process. Police would be asked to consider all options,
including informal alternatives to the court process before
laying charges. The police, key partners in this strategy, would
be given more authority to use verbal warnings or cautions, to
direct youth to informal police diversion programs such as family
group conferences, or more formal programs requiring community
service or repairing the harm done to the victim.
While every effort would be made to reduce the overreliance on
incarceration, some youth will be sentenced to custody. The
youth criminal justice act includes provisions that respect an
obligation to ensure that all young people, particularly the most
serious offenders, receive effective treatment and
rehabilitation. Successfully rehabilitated youth means fewer
victims, restored families, safer schools and stronger
communities.
To this end, the bill includes an intensive custodial sentence
for the most high risk young offenders who are repeat violent
offenders or who have committed murder, attempted murder,
manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault. These sentences are
intended for offenders with serious psychological, mental or
emotional illness or disturbances.
The sentence will require a plan for intensive treatment and
supervision of these offenders and will require a court to make
all decisions to release them under controlled reintegration
programs.
1120
The proposed legislation also makes an important reform to youth
justice sentencing to foster the safe and effective reintegration
of youth into their communities.
Under the new law judges would be required to impose a period of
supervision in the community following custody. This would allow
authorities to closely monitor and control the young offender and
to ensure that he or she receives the necessary treatment and
programs to return successfully to the community. The period of
supervision administered by the provinces will include mandatory
and optional conditions tailored to the individual youth.
The bill proposes a comprehensive, balanced and flexible
legislative framework for youth justice. It was developed after
extensive consultations with the provinces, the police, the bar,
youth justice workers, youth themselves, victims and others.
The next important phase of the renewal of youth justice is
directed at the implementation of the new youth justice
legislation. Youth justice professionals, community members and
others will need information about the new system and will need
training.
We all know that the best answers to the complex problems of
youth crime lie in integrated approaches. Effective youth
justice involves educators, child welfare and mental health
systems, voluntary organizations, victims, families, youth
employers and neighbourhood groups; just about anyone who works
with or cares about our children, our young people, our
communities and our country.
Additional federal resources in the amount of some $206 million
over the next three years have been made available to support the
important challenge of renewing our system of youth justice.
[Translation]
The government's youth justice strategy opens the door to
greater involvement by the general public and by professionals
in youth crime, and I encourage Canadians to get involved.
[English]
I would ask members to support the youth criminal justice act so
that we can put in place the kind of youth justice system that
Canadians are seeking; one that protects society and instils the
values of accountability, responsibility and respect. We owe it
to Canadians, but we owe it especially to Canadian youth.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on a
summer evening a number of years ago I was sitting in our living
room when I heard the sound of sirens. Now, that is not an
uncommon occurrence on a Saturday night in the town where I live.
However, later on I heard that there had been a drive-by shooting
in which a teenager had died. The car in which he was a
passenger was stopped at a red light when another car pulled up
alongside. A teenage passenger in the second car leaned out the
window and fired point blank.
The next day I mentioned the incident to one of my children who
had spent that night at a friend's house not too far from the
shooting. He told me that he had heard the fatal gun shot. I
remember thinking “Just what is our community coming to?” I
also remember thinking about the parents of the victim. A few
days later the suspected killer was himself killed in an act of
revenge. Again, I remember thinking about the safety of our
streets.
A couple of months later on another Saturday night a family
friend was visiting from the Queen Charlotte Islands. After
dinner, as I was sitting in my living room, our son Jesse
sauntered down the hall, paused at the top of the stairs, said
goodbye to his mother and our friend in the kitchen, glanced
toward me, and with a “See you later, dad” bounded down the
stairs and out.
Jesse was a drummer and his rock band had been asked to play at
a house party. He was excited. It was their first gig. Our
daughter, who is three years older, left shortly afterwards,
leaving us to a quiet evening of conversation.
At 11.15, shortly after our friend had left, Jesse phoned
telling me that he and his two buddies were on their way home.
They were waiting for a bus. An hour later the phone rang again.
My wife answered the phone. She swore. It was the hospital.
They wanted us there right away. Jesse had been stabbed.
A panicked five minute drive, hospital staff avoiding eye
contact as we ran through the doors, and then the words no parent
should ever have to hear: “We're sorry, we tried, but there was
too much damage”.
1125
A single stab wound to the back had pierced his heart. He was
16. That was October 18, 1992, on my father's 81st birthday.
Jesse would have been 23 years old tomorrow.
Jesse was the victim of a random, unprovoked attack on himself
and his two friends by complete strangers. He died in the arms
of his best friend at the side of the same road, about a quarter
mile from the spot where the earlier shooting, the one which he
had heard, had occurred a couple of months previous. His
attackers were part of the same loose-knit group of thieves and
thugs involved in that shooting. In fact, it later came out that
his killer, also 16, idolized the shooter and saw him as a
martyr.
There was an arrest within days. The police informed us that
the accused, because of his age, and unless the crown could
successfully argue that he be tried as an adult, would be facing
three years in secure custody followed by two years in open, most
likely community supervision and then free with no criminal
record.
Mr. Speaker, you have no idea just how devastating the knowledge
is to a family that is still reeling from the murder of a loved
one that there is a philosophy in this country which holds that
three years of incarceration is an appropriate sanction for
intentionally taking the life of an innocent stranger in a
random, unprovoked attack on the street.
Two days after we buried Jesse a six year old girl was raped and
murdered in Courtenay, British Columbia. Eventually her 16 year
old neighbour was charged. He also faced a mere three years of
secure custody and two in open.
That was my introduction to the Canadian criminal justice system
and the Young Offenders Act. I am neither a lawyer nor an
academic, but after 20 months in the courts ourselves, six and
half years of involvement with other families and individuals
who, in the words of a dear close friend, now belong to a club
that none of us wanted to join, and the same amount of time
listening to Canadians at shopping malls and soccer fields, not
conference rooms and lecture theatres, I think that I am
reasonably qualified to speak to this issue.
In fact, it was the refusal of the justice committee to allow me
to appear in open session when it was in Vancouver in 1996 which
pushed me over the edge and prompted me to seek election to this
place.
Last Friday in this place the member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley said that following my appearance before the
justice committee a number of years ago a government member
commented to the effect that victims bring nothing to this debate
other than sentiment. I make no apology for that. For far too
long our legislators and our courts have chosen to ignore the
real human impact and human cost of crime, especially youth crime
and violent crime.
I once heard that a Vancouver lawyer wanted families of homicide
victims barred from courtrooms because they cried too much and
might influence a jury.
Mr. Speaker, as you may guess, I have looked forward to an
opportunity like this for some time now. The Young Offenders Act
will hopefully be assigned to the garbage heap of history before
too long. It has been a failure and Canadians have had to suffer
its consequences for far too long. It was never a priority of
various governments over the years. Obviously it was not a
priority of the present government. The minister, upon taking
the job, claimed that introducing new young offender legislation
was to be one of her major priorities, but how much of a priority
was it when it has taken almost two years for the legislation to
come before us? What do we have? We have a new name. We have
new spin-doctoring from the government. We have new claims of
being tougher on crime, but we really have the same old thing
wrapped up in a nice new package.
For every step forward there is a step backward. Ineffective
legislation does Canadians a disservice. It does our youth an
even bigger disservice as they are most often the victims of
youth crime. Of course youth involved in crime are dealt a very
questionable hand when the citizenry become so disenchanted with
the law that they take it out on the offenders by ostracizing
them or refusing to help in rehabilitation.
What has the minister been doing for the past two years? In the
fall of 1997 she promised Canadians that changes would be made to
the Young Offenders Act in a timely fashion. She was working on
it. Over the winter of 1997 and early 1998 she claimed that she
was not going to deal with the legislation in a simplistic
manner, but was going to deal with a complicated issue in the
proper manner. Then, under great fanfare, with all the splash of
press conferences, fancy overheads and colourful brochures, the
minister came out with her youth justice strategy; not
legislation, just proposals. She was going to get tough on young
criminals and promised legislation by the fall of 1998. Of
course we did not get it. The minister claimed that she needed
more consultation with the provinces.
It soon became apparent that what she really had to do was to
shake loose some federal dollars to pay for her proposals. One
would have thought she would have had this in place upfront.
1130
Instead of getting long overdue changes to address youth crime,
Canadians had to wait for the government to pony up the bucks.
This was done to some extent with the February budget. We now
have legislation. I suppose the government is hoping that
Canadians are so worn out from pushing and pressuring for
something they will be happy with anything. I assure them that
we are quite prepared to flesh out the legislation. We are quite
prepared to see what can be done to finally give Canadians what
they have been seeking for years, but we will not be holding our
breath.
The government has shown on numerous occasions its unwillingness
to listen to reason. I only need to mention the funding for
hepatitis C, debt reduction, breaks for overtaxed Canadians,
conditional sentencing and two tier justice whereby the
government is trying to promote one form of justice for
aboriginals and another for the rest of Canadians.
The youth criminal justice act fails to deliver what Canadians
expect. We will propose amendments. We are in this for the long
haul and we will not let the issue slide as the government would
like it to do.
The minister claimed that she would deal with this complicated
issue and would take the time to deal with it in a proper manner.
While we can certainly agree that she has taken her time, we have
to question her claim that it was complicated.
When going through the proposed legislation clause by clause we
found for the most part that it was the old Young Offenders Act
rewritten and presented in a different format. When particular
provisions appear to have been tightened up there is almost
always a corresponding opportunity for the provinces or the
courts to provide exceptions and to maintain the status quo.
What actually makes it complicated for the minister is her
attempt to appease all the different philosophies within her
government. Some want tougher legislation. Others think
everything is just fine the way it is. Still others want it to
become even more lenient. Some actually believe that society is
to blame for all our crime and criminals are merely those that
society has failed. No wonder we have problems in the criminal
justice system.
Then we have the minister claiming that she needed time to
consult with the provinces. She had to understand what the
various regions of Canada were seeking in the overhaul of our
youth laws. Obviously the minister has little faith in the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
The committee spent many months conducting hearings from coast
to coast. The committee listened to the provinces. It spent
almost half a million dollars to provide a comprehensive report
with a number of recommendations toward significant changes to
the laws. I guess that was not enough so I will accept that the
minister wanted more consultation.
Was it reasonable consultation or was it merely a stall because
the government was having trouble satisfying its caucus? I
suspect that there was not adequate consultation. I cite
comments by the Minister of Justice for Alberta. He wrote to the
federal minister to complain about this very issue. He states:
Despite your assertion to the contrary, there has not been
sufficient consultation with respect to the proposed replacement
legislation for the Young Offenders Act.
The government failed to include the major concerns of at least
some of the provinces. Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island
and Ontario are on record as agreeing to a number of significant
changes. First on their list was the reduction in age of
criminal accountability in selected cases to address the serious
offences committed by children under 12 and for those in this
group who exhibit a pattern of offending.
Calgary Chief of Police Christine Silverberg criticized the
government's changes as not going far enough with violent
children under age 12. The Winnipeg police inspector in charge
of youth crime, Ken Biener, stated:
It should be of no surprise that this was not included. Not
only did the government ignore their partners in the youth
justice process. It also ignored the justice committee and its
reports which included a very similar recommendation.
The minister attacks the Reform Party for wanting to include 10
and 11 year olds within the youth justice process. She
characterizes the proposal as barbaric. She refuses to accept
that our present system is failing to properly address and help
these younger members of our society. She refuses to permit
these young offenders to obtain all the benefits of
rehabilitation and reintegration.
Instead, she leaves them in this vacuum where they do not get
the help and the support they need. She refuses to acknowledge
that the provinces want reforms in this area and the police need
support in their effort to deal with violent 10 and 11 year olds.
She refuses to even acknowledge that members of her caucus have
publicly supported the inclusion of 10 and 11 years olds in the
youth justice system. She refuses to acknowledge that the
Liberal majority on the justice committee of the last parliament,
chaired by our late colleague Shaughnessy Cohen, supported the
inclusion of 10 and 11 year olds within the legislation.
We have all seen what happens to those few Liberals who
challenge the views of the party management. Fortunately for all
of us Shaughnessy did not suffer that fate.
There is another example of failing to consult. These
provinces had demanded an amendment to apply the victim fine
surcharge to young offenders.
1135
Like the justice committee that recommended the same thing in a
victims rights report, these provinces saw the benefit of having
young offenders supply some of the financing of assistance to
victims of crime. However the legislation does not include
automatic victim fine surcharges. It merely provides the
opportunity for the provinces to bring in their own legislation.
I also note that a number of provinces were seeking a mandatory
custody disposition for youths convicted of offences involving
the use of weapons. Once again the government has chosen to
ignore those on the frontlines of the youth justice process.
There is no provision for mandatory custody for crimes involving
the use of weapons. It makes me wonder whether the government
just has a justice committee to use when its reports correspond
to the government's own political position.
As for consultation with interested participants, the government
meets with the provinces to say it has consulted but there
appears to be little intention of meaningful dialogue unless
those provinces share the political position of the federal
government.
I have mentioned a number of failings just in getting the
legislation before the House. The government does not listen to
its partners in the administration of youth justice. It does not
participate in adequate consultation. It does not even follow
its own committee when valid recommendations are made after
extensive input.
Instead the government merely goes on and does what it wants to
do for purely political reasons. It ignores the priority to do
what is right for Canadians, including those youth that find
themselves on the wrong side of the law and those youth that are
most often the victims of youth crime.
I will now move on to discuss a number of the specific issues
covered by the legislation. I will deal with a few positive
developments first and then move on to some of the negative
aspects that raise concerns.
The minister has decided to formalize the whole matter of police
discretion. This will enable the frontline troops, so to speak,
to deal with minor youth indiscretions quickly and easily. The
occasional scuffle over a street hockey game can be resolved
through police caution or warning. It is the same with most
childhood pranks. The theft of a chocolate bar from a corner
store need not go to a community based committee or even to
court.
The minister likes to characterize members of my party as being
one dimensional and interested only in locking up offenders. She
is wrong. The hon. member for Crowfoot recommended this very
initiative in his minority report to the justice committee in
April 1997. He included it within his private member's Bill
C-210. He understood the necessity to support the police. Many
officers were already doing this without legislative authority.
Others were afraid to use their discretion. They were concerned
that they could be subjected to criticism as they did not have
the proper authority.
The government has also made quite a big thing about their
interest and the need to deal with non-violent offenders
differently from violent offenders. It is regrettable that many
in the media have been sold on this idea as being solely a
Liberal initiative. It is really nothing new. In many parts of
Canada there are already programs known as diversion, restorative
justice, alternative measures, community based youth justice
committees, healing circles, and the list goes on. All the
government has done is to create an all-encompassing term,
extrajudicial measures, to cover them all.
Again the hon. member for Crowfoot proposed his two prong form
of justice whereby first time non-violent offenders could proceed
through a more informal process. They would simply take
responsibility for their actions and obey the requirements set
out by any community based committee or organization. This was
proposed both in his minority report to the justice committee and
in his private member's bill.
The government cannot claim credit for this proposal. Reform
was not interested in claiming credit. We were only interested
in doing what was needed for a proper system of justice. We have
had to bring this matter to public attention merely because of
government attempts to characterize the Reform Party as one
dimensional.
I have been personally involved with dozens of young offenders
in a diversion program in my home province for some four years
now. I want to publicly acknowledge Lola Chapman for the work
she has done in this area. Lola and I have worked closely with
the B.C. attorney general to expand the use of these programs. I
am in full support of them in the limited circumstances of first
time non-violent situations.
Some have expressed surprise, given my personal experience, that
I would even be interested in working with wayward youth. We all
know that as youth we made mistakes and some, I dare say, may
have broken some laws. All most of us needed was to be taken to
task for these indiscretions. If we failed to pay attention and
moved on to additional crimes or more serious offences then we
deserved to be treated in a more formal process. This is the
same for today's youth. This is all we are looking for from
legislation.
The final area I would like to discuss from a positive aspect is
the incorporation of my private member's Bill C-260 in its
entirety. Once again there was a massive leak of information
about the legislation before it was actually introduced. Part of
the leaks had to do with my private member's proposal. However,
most of the media reports have misinterpreted this part of the
legislation as something new in Canadian law.
1140
These reports indicate that parents will be held criminally
responsible for the crimes of their children. Nothing could be
further from the truth in both respects. What has me concerned
is whether the sources of the government leaks have deliberately
misinterpreted this proposal. Furthermore, the government has
shown little interest in correcting these misinterpretations.
After all, it is now part of its legislation.
I have had to cover the issue on a number of different types of
media. I have written a number of letters to the editor to
attempt to correct the record. The law has been around for a
number of years. My proposal merely enhances the potential
punishment. It has nothing to do with the crimes of the young
person. It has solely to do with the written agreement or
contract whereby the young person is released from custody while
awaiting trial.
The young person is essentially released on a form of bail when
a responsible adult, usually a parent, signs a legal undertaking
to supervise that young person to ensure court imposed conditions
are respected. Both the young person and the adult sign the
agreement. Both are liable to be charged with an offence if they
each wilfully fail to fulfil the agreement: the parent for
wilfully failing to supervise as agreed and the young person for
wilfully failing to obey the conditions. The offence has to do
with the court agreement. It has nothing to do with the ordinary
responsibilities of the parent.
There is only the obligation to supervise. When the person who
signed the undertaking becomes aware of a breach of conditions
there is an obligation to notify the authorities. There is a
high threshold to meet before a case may be made that an adult
has wilfully failed to supervise as required.
It should be said that the initiative for this came from my own
personal experience whereby my son's killer was in breach of a
court imposed curfew that night. He had also failed to appear in
court some three weeks earlier; another breach of conditions. His
father had signed an undertaking to supervise some months
earlier.
Obviously I support the legislation in respect of judicial
undertakings by responsible persons. I will be interested in
seeing how this portion of the bill develops. I will be
interested in seeing whether members of the government attempt to
claim this initiative as their own, and I do not really care as
long as it gets done.
Impressing upon both the parent and the young person the serious
repercussions for violating the agreement will protect members of
our communities. Hopefully the parent will think twice about
signing such an agreement if there is little expectation for the
young person to mend his or her ways. Hopefully the young person
will think twice before breaking the conditions of release and
endangering the position of the parent who wilfully fails to
supervise.
I will now discuss some of the inadequacies of the legislation,
and there are a number. Even though I have been provided with a
significant amount of time, it will take a number of
opportunities to address all of them. Fortunately we have a
committee process to go through. We have amendments to propose.
At some time we will be back here to make comments at third
reading.
Earlier I mentioned the concern with the government's scheme of
extrajudicial measures. It has taken a valuable and progressive
means of addressing minor crime and once again opened it up to
massive abuse. It did the same thing with adult conditional
sentencing.
Conditional sentencing involves serving a sentence in the
community under some form of supervision. It may involve some
type of house arrest. It may involve some form of restitution to
the community through providing service with charitable
organizations.
There are many uses for conditional sentencing. What did the
government use it for? It used it to reduce the cost of
incarceration. It said the jails and the prisons were too full
and were too costly. It said that criminals were really not bad
people and that mere arrest and conviction were enough to teach
them the error of their ways. It said that the courts would not
permit violent and repeat offenders to take advantage of
conditional sentencing.
However the courts permitted all kinds of violent criminals to
obtain this get out of jail free ticket. Killers got conditional
sentences. Violent sex offenders got conditional sentences.
Pedophiles got conditional sentences. Repeat offenders got
conditional sentences.
When Bill C-41 was debated in 1994 and 1995 the Reform Party
argued to restrict the use of conditional sentencing to first
time non-violent and non-drug offenders. We understood its value
but only for a restricted purpose. The government has been
consistent. It refused to listen. It maintained only it knew
the best.
Recently the Minister of Justice recognized the abuse of
conditional sentencing. She requested the justice committee to
review the issue. She will likely then procrastinate some more
and suggest that perhaps more consultation is required. In the
end she will do what is political. She will take much of her
direction from the Prime Minister's Office. After all, he was a
justice minister in the dim past and he is undoubtedly another
expert on conditional sentencing, even though it was unheard of
at that time.
Getting back to youth legislation, extrajudicial measures can
easily become more of a problem than conditional sentencing.
Under section 4(c) of the bill they are presumed to be adequate
for non-violent offences. The word presume is key. It means
that extrajudicial measures will be the rule rather than the
exception in cases of non-violent offences.
1145
Let us see how non-violent is defined. It means an offence that
does not cause or create a substantial risk of causing bodily
harm. This definition would include sexual touching, as there is
no risk of bodily harm. Pedophiles cause psychological harm to
young children. This definition would include the possession of
child pornography, as there is no risk of bodily harm. It would
include break and enters into homes, as there would have to be a
substantial risk of causing bodily harm in order to avoid this
definition.
This definition would include drug offences, including
trafficking. Is there a substantial risk of bodily harm for
selling crack cocaine in a school? I would hate to have to
convince a court that there was this risk when the evidence is
limited to one sale to one student, another sale to another
student and so on. How could it be proven that there is
substantial risk of bodily harm when only one hit of the drug is
provided at the time?
Extrajudicial measures will be available to repeat offenders.
While clause 4(c) limits the provision to non-violent offenders
who have not previously been found guilty of an offence, that
clause applies only to where extrajudicial measures are presumed
to be adequate. Clause 4(d) permits these measures to be used
even if there were previous convictions. It permits these
measures even if they were used for the same offender before.
This means extrajudicial measures may be used 100 times for the
same offender for any number of crimes. This means extrajudicial
measures may be used even though that offender may have been
convicted of a previous offence. There is no further limitation.
The previous offence may have been manslaughter, sexual assault
or murder.
Sometimes I wonder whether this government is interested in
putting anyone in prison. This government is responsible for
allowing all types of violent offenders to remain in our
communities threatening the safety of our citizens. It seems
intent on doing the same thing with our young offenders.
Adult sentencing will be available for presumptive offences but
even for those where there is an opportunity for the young person
to challenge adult sentencing in each particular situation. As
well, the judge may only use adult sentencing when of the opinion
that a youth sentence is not adequate. Presumptive offences are
limited to murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated
sexual assault. The definition is very limited. It does not
include all types of crimes in which a weapon is used. It does
not include kidnapping. It does not even include sexual assault
causing bodily harm. These are all seriously violent crimes but
they are not sufficient for this government to include in its
presumptive offences.
The adult sentence for murder is life imprisonment. For those
over 18 parole eligibility is at 25 years for first degree and 10
to 25 years for second degree. For 16 and 17 year olds parole
eligibility comes at 10 years for first degree and 7 years for
second degree. For those under 16, parole eligibility comes at 5
to 7 years. There is no change.
I attended the trials of a 15 year old and the 19 year old who
were convicted for the savage murder of a frail 79 year old
widow. She is buried just a stone's throw from my son. The 15
year old masterminded the plot, he was the more violent of the
two, he targeted the lady because she would be easy. He had done
yard work for her so he knew that she would let them into her
home. The judge sentenced the 19 year old to 15 years before
parole eligibility. He then complained on the record that his
hands were tied by parliament forcing him to set parole
ineligibility at only seven years for the young offender, and
that has not changed.
I will illustrate further how this government just does not
listen. In 1994 my son's killer was handed a parole
ineligibility period of ten years, the maximum allowable at the
time. When Bill C-37 was before the House in the last parliament
it proposed to fix parole ineligibility for second degree murder
at seven years. I anticipated a loophole because he was in the
process of appealing the sentence at that time. I wrote the then
justice minister, the current health minister, with my concerns.
No response.
Bill C-37 became law in December 1995. The following spring the
killer had three years knocked off his parole ineligibility
period not because he deserved it but because the new law was
made retroactive if to the benefit of the offender. I commented
publicly, saying I told you so. A few days later I received a
call from a justice department lawyer asking me what happened.
This is what happened. If a letterhead or a call display does
not indicate a university or a professional organization, this
government does not want to hear from you.
I will briefly mention the second half of the definition of
presumptive offence. In practice it will have almost no
applicability. To be included within the definition of a
presumptive offence an offender must commit three seriously
violent offences for which an adult could be sentenced to prison
for more than two years.
A judge must have made a determination that the offence was a
serious violent offence and endorse the information accordingly,
twice.
1150
A serious violent offence is defined as an offence that causes
or creates a substantial risk of causing serious bodily harm, not
just bodily harm, serious bodily harm. Most courts will have
difficulty in distinguishing between bodily harm and serious
bodily harm.
Would members like to explain to the victim and to the public
that a particularly vicious attack only caused bodily harm and
not serious bodily harm? Would members like to explain to the
victim and the public that there has been only one prior
documented incident of the offender causing serious bodily harm?
We need two.
Would any of the members opposite like to explain to a victim or
the public that this offender caused bodily harm a number of
times in the past but he only caused serious bodily harm once so
he still does not come within the definition of a presumptive
offence?
Adult sentences are also available for offences for which an
adult could be sentenced to prison for more than two years and if
the young person is 14 or older. The very inclusion of
presumptive offences and these other types of offences leaves the
courts and our youth justice system with the distinct impression
that parliament is serious about the presumptive offences and
much less serious about the other types.
In case the listener thinks these provisions for adult
sentencing will result in similar crimes receiving similar
sentences for both adults and young persons, I point out some
other wrinkles.
The overriding principles of this legislation include
rehabilitation and reintegration of the young person. There are
no words such as deterrence and denunciation. There is to be no
punishment for the sake of deterring other young persons from
similar activity. There is to be no punishment for the sake of
expressing society's displeasure and abhorrence of a particularly
gruesome or violent crime.
All young persons must be rehabilitated and reintegrated in a
short period of time. This government believes they are all
curable and pose little risk to our communities when they are
returned.
This whole idea of adult sentencing for those 14 and older is
nothing more than a con job. There will be challenges in almost
every case against their imposition. Lawyers will be fully and
extensively employed. Judges will be permitted to continue in
their lenient ways. After all, many of them have liberal
tendencies as most of them were appointed by the Prime Minister
and his predecessors. The judges have unlimited discretion to
determine when to impose adult sentencing and when to impose
youth sentencing. Section 72 does not limit this discretion in
any way.
The provinces are also involved, as the crown has the
opportunity to support youth sentencing or to fail to provide
notice that an adult sentence is to be sought. Then there is the
overriding principle that these young persons are to be
rehabilitated. They are not to be deterred and denounced.
The whole issue of deeming of young persons is of the same
nature. The government sells the idea that it will be tough and
young persons receiving adult sentences are to be named. The
government does not, however, say much about all the provisions
that permit the court to ban the publication of names. A young
person may apply for the ban. The crown has the option of not
opposing the ban. The court has complete discretion to ban
publication.
The act is set up so that rehabilitation and reintegration are
the primary principles to be applied. There is no requirement by
parliament that certain crimes automatically require the naming
of offenders so that the public has the knowledge of who is a
risk to its safety and security. Even those who 14 and over who
commit a presumptive offence like murder or aggravated sexual
assault may receive a youth sentence and may be protected by a
ban on publication of their names.
Earlier I spoke about the rape and murder of a little girl by
her 16 year old neighbour. At the time of the murder he was on
probation for sexually molesting a young child. He was allowed to
reside in a complex full of children in complete anonymity
because of his age. I do not think I need say more about
protecting the identity of those who pose a threat.
As I have said, when this government does change legislation it
does not like to change much. It prefers to change the packaging
and the sales pitch. Canadians end up with the same old thing.
In some cases we end up with something far worse. With the youth
criminal justice act, the jury is still out.
The government refused to lower the age to 10 for purely
political reasons. The issue has been around since 1962 when the
justice department recommended this change. The government
ignored the recommendation then and it ignored it today. There
are obvious difficulties in this legislation such as the
extrajudicial measures that may be rectified through amendment.
The government is once again unlikely to listen and to admit its
error, but we will try.
There are other areas like adult sentencing and publication of
names that have so many exceptions and provisions that there is
bound to be dissatisfaction and new calls for revision from the
public.
The government has an extensive promotional budget and it has
significant human resources to sell Canadians on its legislation.
1155
Unfortunately justice legislation, unlike some other forms,
takes time to come home to roost. The youth criminal justice act
will change nothing. As case after case slips through the cracks
the weaknesses will be revealed and disenchantment will grow.
The youth criminal justice act is nothing more than the Young
Offenders Act with a face lift and a new name. I have been
involved in this debate for over six years and, as I said
earlier, I make no apology for the sentiment or emotion I bring
to it. It is unfortunate that after years of delay, years of
so-called consultations and deliberations this is the best the
government can do. Canadians deserve better. More important,
because they are most often the victims of youth crime, our kids
deserve better.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is with some degree of regret that I rise in this House today to
speak on this bill. The debate on Bill C-68 ought never to have
taken place at all, as the Minister of Justice knows full well.
It has been demonstrated on many occasions that what is not
working properly is not the Young Offenders Act itself, but its
application. Those who are applying it properly succeed where
others fail. Nevertheless, the Liberal government is
obstinately preparing to demolish the spirit of this approach.
I would like to take the time available to me to prove that the
Young Offenders Act does not deserve the fate the Liberals have
in store for it, in response to pressures from western Canada.
The act is being used as a scapegoat by a Liberal government
that prefers to take the easy way out, while it ought to be left
unchanged.
The Youth Offenders Act was passed in 1982, and came into effect
in 1984. This legislation did not spring up over night. It is
the result of several decades of reflection. In fact, one has
to go all the way back to 1857 to find the first initiative
assigning special status to juvenile delinquents.
The beginnings of the first youth justice system go back to
1908, with the Juvenile Delinquency Act. This intention of this
act was to put young people back on the right track, while
minimalizing their responsibility, given their youth.
The idea was to set up a system that would truly promote the
effective reintegration of young offenders into society.
At the time, Ontario was among the first provinces to put
pressure so that young offenders would benefit from a protective
approach. Ironically, Queen's Park is now the most vocal in
demanding more repressive measures for young offenders.
In the early seventies, Quebec took two social measures that
would prove very useful under the Young Offenders Act: the
creation of a legal aid program and a reform of social services.
Quebec adopted its first diversion measures in 1974, when it
reviewed its Youth Protection Act. The province was then ready
to implement the Young Offenders Act as soon as it would come
into effect, in 1984.
I must point out here the extraordinary solidarity displayed in
Quebec, which, at the time, succeeded in convincing the federal
government to adopt the act that we now have, that is an act
based on crime prevention, on the rehabilitation of young people
who commit criminal acts, and above all an act designed to
ensure the long term protection of society. The Young Offenders
Act as we know it reflected, and still reflects, the thrust that
it was intended to have.
At the time, there was no doubt that we had to put more emphasis
on diversion measures. In Quebec, that approach had been
stressed long before, in the Prévost report. Going before the
court should only be considered after having exhausted all other
options, such as reorientation, rehabilitation, and agreements
with the parents to provide special treatment.
That approach had been applied elsewhere, including in the
United States, in England and in Scotland.
The federal government had no choice but to set the stage for
diversion measures, through the Young Offenders Act. Still,
since the administration of justice comes under their
jurisdiction, it was the provinces that had to set up diversion
programs. Quebec did so by establishing an ambitious alternative
program.
1200
This year, 1999, we celebrate the 15th anniversary of the coming
into law of the Young Offenders Act. The Minister of Justice of
Canada considers that the law has done its time, that it is out
of date and no longer meets our expectations. Let us be clear,
the Liberal government is not getting ready to sacrifice 15
years of expertise, but rather 30 years of Quebec know-how.
The Young Offenders Act is the product of a number of serious
consultations and studies.
In 1992, the Government of Quebec established a task force to
look into the application of the Young Offenders Act. Chaired
by Michel Jasmin, deputy chief justice of the court of Quebec,
Chambre de la jeunesse, the task force brought forth a
voluminous report after two and a half years of in-depth
consultation and study.
I consider it vital to inform the House of some of the
conclusions of the Jasmin report, which remain topical and
which, it would seem, are unknown to the minister.
Drafted from testimony by many jurists, criminologists,
psychologists and social workers in Quebec, the report
eloquently describes the approach taken in Quebec in dealing
with juvenile delinquents. I will read to you a number of
passages of this important report prepared by Mr. Justice
Jasmin.
From the work we have done over the past two and a half years,
we are satisfied that the Young Offenders Act is good
legislation. We were struck by the consensus of the various
sectors that deal with this area. It should be noted that
Quebec has developed a tradition in dealing with young
offenders.
The efforts of the pioneers, who, in the 1950s,
advocated that services be human and professional, have borne
fruit that at the time would have been unthinkable. The aim was
to move beyond mere repression to focus interventions on the
education and rehabilitation of young people. A lot has been
done to reach that point.
And the judge continues, a little further on in his extremely
important report:
Juvenile delinquency is a complex problem and must be approached
accordingly. The legislation is a key element of any strategy,
but we must look at the broader picture and examine other
factors that are no less important. It is often easier to amend
legislation than to change our approach to a problem.
Mr. Justice Jasmin probably already knew the current Minister of
Justice. He goes on:
It may be tempting to think that tougher legislation is the
answer to the problems of delinquency. Simplistic responses
blind us to the full extent of complex problems and create the
false impression that we are doing what is necessary to resolve
them. One such simplistic response is substituting get-tough
measures for educational approaches.
It is clear from examination of the bill at second reading that
the minister's responses to an extremely complex problem are
very simplistic.
The Jasmin report is often mentioned by those who support
Quebec's approach. As a member from Quebec, I cannot ignore it.
I will use this report to denounce the simplistic solutions of
this government, which has caved in not once but twice to
pressure from the right and from the Reform Party.
I will again point out that the Young Offenders Act is a good
act. I cannot say often enough to the minister across the way
that substituting get-tough measures for educational approaches
is a simplistic response.
The Young Offenders Act is getting very good results. Youth
crime is steadily declining. Oddly enough, the federal Minister
of Justice presented very eloquent figures to this effect when
she introduced her bill.
1205
She mentioned that there had been a 23% decrease in youth crime
since 1991. She even told the press that the number of crimes
with violence had also decreased since 1995.
Just as we identify a tree by the fruit it produces, so should
we judge the Young Offenders Act by the results it gets, and not
by a misconception.
It would be irresponsible to blindly reform the youth justice
system without looking at the whole picture.
In protecting such vital things as life and bodily security, the
Young Offenders Act plays a front line role in strengthening the
community's faith in our institutions.
Parliamentarians therefore must respond quickly to the concerns
of their fellow citizens by making the appropriate legislative
amendments as needed.
However, they must first and foremost ensure that the public has
the information it needs to properly grasp such a complex
problem as juvenile delinquency. There is no point, however, in
doing what the minister has decided to do, namely throwing the
baby out with the bath water. We must take a very close look
and not act impulsively with such legislation.
The federal Minister of Justice failed in her duty to inform.
By advocating stricter legislation, the minister wrongly
intimates that the existing legislation is deficient. It would
seem to indicate a lack of leadership.
Bill C-68 shows it is easier for a Liberal government to
sacrifice good legislation than to advocate the effective
approach it promotes.
To properly understand the reason behind the current amendments
to the Young Offenders Act, we must go back to the 35th
Parliament to look at the first Liberal attempts at turning the
Young Offenders Act into a scapegoat.
On April 28, 1994, the current Minister of Health and former
Minister of Justice stated in the House that the move to the
right responded to election commitments. He was very candid in
his acknowledgement.
I scarcely need to point out that these commitments were
certainly not aimed at Quebec voters. In fact, it is hardly a
well-kept secret that the Liberal Party's intention was to win
over the clientele of the Reform in the west.
By passing Bill C-37 at that time, the Liberal government was
introducing into the Young Offenders Act a whole series of
automatic provisions which would greatly affect the fragile
equilibrium of the youth justice system.
By allowing 16 and 17 year olds to be automatically referred to
the adult court system, this government watered down once again
the specific nature of the youth justice system. At the rate
things are going, soon the only connection it will have with
youth will be in its title.
Continuing in the same vein, in May, 1998, the Minister of
Justice introduced her youth justice renewal strategy. In
particular, she announced her intention to extend the referrals
to 14 and 15 year olds.
All parties involved in Quebec viewed this with alarm.
The Quebec bar association had even prepared an impressive brief
in which it openly deplored this measure, which it felt was
likely to increase recidivism among youth, both in number and in
severity. In its brief, the bar association expressed the
opinion that the problem did not lie with the current Young
Offenders Act, but rather with the way it was being applied.
It also criticized the reform because it was based on grounds
that were both biased and disconnected from reality. Among
other points it raised was the following most legitimate
question, one still as timely now as it was then, “Where exactly
does the government get the information that stiffer sentences
were going to have any impact whatsoever on the crime rate?”
1210
The Quebec bar association was bang on. Not only was the reform
not necessary, but the solutions being put forward by the
minister are misguided and risky.
Last Friday, this issue received a breath of fresh air when some
fifteen organizations from Quebec publicly reaffirmed their
opposition to Bill C-68. The Association des centres jeunesse du
Québec, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits
de la jeunesse, the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse and the
Association des chefs de police et de pompiers du Quebec, to
name just a few, held a press conference at which they
reaffirmed Quebec's consensus and flatly opposed the Minister of
Justice's Bill C-68.
The message was and is very straightforward. They are telling
the minister that they want nothing to do with her bill. They
have systematically rebutted all the minister's claims that her
flexible system will allow Quebec to enforce the legislation as
it sees fit.
Criminologist Jean Trépanier, a recognized youth crime expert in
Quebec, was scathing when it came to the minister's much-touted
flexibility. At the press conference, he said: “The so-called
flexibility seems to be a political trick. Quebec's judges
cannot ignore sentences handed down in other courts”. Those in
doubt need only read the bill.
Cécile Toutant, another very respected voice from Quebec, also
took aim at certain of the bill's measures.
This criminologist, who is responsible for the youth program at
the Pinel institute, condemned the new measures allowing for the
automatic imposition of adult sentences on 14 and 15 year olds.
According to Ms. Toutant, the time served in jail has nothing to
do with the protection of the public. Perhaps the minister does
not know that.
Me Trépanier and Ms. Toutant are members of the Quebec bar
association's subcommittee on young offenders. That subcommittee
drafted, among other documents, the association's submission on
the strategy to renew the youth justice system. The minister
cannot ignore the advice of these experts.
Those who will have to live with the new legislation do not care
about the concerns of this election-minded Liberal government.
They are the ones who will have to implement the new act. The
spokesperson for Quebec's youth centres association was very
clear when he said, and I quote, that “if the bill is passed, we
will have a real mess”.
The act will be implemented based on a very fragile
discretionary power held by crown attorneys. Again, the Young
Offenders Act is a good act. It is effective and it gives good
results. Therefore, why change it? What are the reasons
justifying such a shakeup, other than the fact that the minister
is desperate to please right-wing voters and give them the
repressive measures they are asking for.
Recently, western Canada, headed by the Reform Party, was
demanding harsher sentences. It is getting them with this bill.
Recently too, western Canada's right wing was demanding that the
names of young offenders be published, and again the minister
yielded to pressure.
Reformers are still not satisfied. They now want criminal
justice to apply to 10 year olds. Right now, the minister says
she does not want to hear about such a measure.
Yet, that is what the Liberal government said in 1994, when
Reformers were asking for harsher sentences. The government
would not hear of such measures. What happened since? The
government caved in pathetically.
This government will never succeed in maintaining a balanced
approach to juvenile crime. It is much too concerned by its
election ambitions in western Canada. Who can trust such a
flip-flop government?
1215
Still today, one thing is obvious in the issue of the Young
Offenders Act. The Quebec people will not be able to make
choices that reflect its own values until it attains
sovereignty.
Every day until then, we shall rise in this House to denounce
the weakness of this government. In this issue in particular,
the Bloc Quebecois will not give up on its demands, with
witnesses to back up its position, that the minister listen to
common sense, quit playing petty politics with something as
important as the future of young people who are experiencing
trouble with the law, and make up her mind to withdraw her bill,
because it is aimed at trying to cause the failure of the Quebec
model.
It constitutes a real obstacle and a threat to the Quebec model,
which was created with the help of specialists and all those
involved in the field and goes back a good 30 years.
I am calling upon the minister to understand this, and to
withdraw this bill as quickly as possible, because it is not
good for the future of these young people involved in crime.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the New Democratic
Party to address justice issues and in particular the new
legislation that has been tabled by the minister.
I follow some eloquent speakers, who have put forward concerns.
While I concur with many of the remarks of the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm, I would suggest to him that not all MPs from
the west are members of the Reform Party. Indeed, it is my
privilege to be part and parcel of the party that contains the
progressive elements of western Canada and the progressive MPs
from that part of the country. I just remind him of that. I
know he is cognizant of it.
That being said, I would like to comment first about some
statements that were made. I will deal with the bill and the
minister's comments shortly.
For those who are listening to this debate or reading
Hansard, it is important to recognize that as opposition
parties it is our job not just to oppose for the sake of
opposing, which is often sadly what the Reform Party does, but to
examine the legislation, to offer constructive advice and
alternatives, to offer genuine criticism, to also offer
congratulations when sections of a bill are well done and to
examine that in committee. That is the job of the opposition.
Unfortunately, members of the official opposition, the Reform
Party, have forgotten that.
The comments made by the member for Surrey North tended to
defeat their own purpose. He criticized the government saying it
was one dimensional in its approach to crime and then went on to
criticize the bill in one dimensional ways.
I think some things need to be clarified, specifically with
respect to the sentencing provisions. The member for Surrey
North said there was nothing in the sentencing provisions that
would make young people accountable, that there was only
reference to rehabilitation and reintegration into society. This
is an example of simplistic language in what is an extremely
complex document.
The bill has many sections and deals with a fundamental issue.
To clarify and illustrate the simplistic measure of the Reform
Party as opposed to the complex piece of legislation which the
New Democratic Party will examine thoroughly and balance, I will
read that section.
“The purpose of sentencing under section 41 is to contribute to
the protection of society by holding a young person accountable
for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have
meaningful consequences for the young person, that promote his or
her” and then there is rehabilitation and reintegration into
society. It is a complex piece of legislation, not one to be
dealt with with simplistic hysteria.
1220
Many people came before the justice committee in the preparation
of this report. They are to be congratulated for their input.
They included the Church Council on Justice, the Canadian Police
Association and legal aid lawyers from across the country, many
of whom I had the opportunity to work with before I came to
parliament. It was interesting to read the comments of my
colleagues in that report. I also want to commend the members of
the justice department who prepared this document which as I have
indicated is complex.
There are some good things in this legislation. It is important
that we offer a balanced approach. In the principles, the
minister recognizes that the basic premise for the legislation is
the protection of society. The reason we have criminal laws is
to ensure that as a society we are safe.
As the minister indicated, many people in Canadian society today
do not feel safe. They feel that the law has failed them in
certain criminal areas. Sometimes that is fed for political
reasons. Sometimes hysteria is put forward. We hear repeatedly
day after day in this House stories from the opposition about
isolated incidents of heinous crimes, and they are heinous
crimes. For every one young offender whose story is told for
political points by the Reform Party, there are 20 young
offenders who do find their way through the system and do find
rehabilitation.
The protection of society and the accountability of young people
for the commission of their crimes are good things. The taking
of responsibility by young people has to be enunciated and this
legislation does that.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am sure the member knows and you know that it
is not within the rules of this House to impugn motive. When the
member speaks of what we are doing here and attaching motive to
it, it is wrong.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is a point of
debate.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, I understand the
sensitivity to the truth but I will continue anyway.
I have enumerated some of the good things in the legislation. I
understand how sensitive sometimes the Reform Party is to the
truth.
I go on to suggest some of the good things. There is a role for
victims in this legislation which is important and needs to be
recognized. The publication of names for serious offences for
which a young person receives adult time is an important and
significant change.
That being said, some other areas of the bill will require
extensive study. I have serious concerns with some areas.
First and foremost is the cost of the program and whether or not
there is sufficient funding by the government to implement the
changes in the act.
The act departs from the Young Offenders Act in many ways. It
grants a great deal of judicial discretion and a great deal of
power to the community in extrajudicial remedies.
The purpose of the legislation is to determine that only those
young people who commit serious violent offences or the
prescribed offences will be incarcerated, whereas the others will
find a way through the system to rehabilitation or reintegration.
The problem is that is not new; that is what the old Young
Offenders Act set out to do.
I remember practising law with respect to young offenders when
that piece of legislation was introduced. The real problem from
the trenches, as we used to say at legal aid, was the resources
were not there. My hon. Conservative colleague from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough will understand this. While there
was progressive legislation in place and a call for community
groups to deal with young offenders, without adequate financing,
those young offenders went to jail because that was all the
judiciary could do with them.
My concern is that the $206 million committed by this government
over three years is not enough, especially if we look at it per
capita. If this money is to be distributed to the provinces on a
per capita basis, it will mean very insignificant funds for the
provinces with small populations, and the funds are necessary to
fulfill the purposes of the act.
1225
It is interesting to look at youth crime statistics, especially
violent youth crime statistics. They are down, as the minister
has said. They are down in some provinces, in Newfoundland,
P.E.I., New Brunswick, Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario. They
are down in Canada as a whole. But in Saskatchewan, in my home
province of Nova Scotia, and in Manitoba, violent youth crime is
up. It is up from 1990 to 1997 by 23% in Saskatchewan, by 32% in
Nova Scotia, and by 34% in Manitoba.
Unfortunately, if the money is to be distributed on a per capita
basis, the very provinces that need the funding in order to
implement the good parts of this legislation will not have
significant funding.
The $206 million over three years would be roughly $68 million
per year to be distributed Canada wide on a per capita basis. For
my province this would amount to perhaps $2 million to do many of
the things the bill calls for.
It calls for the creation of community organizations to work
with young people and to ensure legal aid. The bill makes it very
clear that every young person is entitled to a lawyer, which is
as it should be but without substantial increased funding, that
will not be there and will create problems.
The costs for changes to mandatory probation and increased
supervision, which is what the bill calls for, will fall
primarily to the provinces. When the young person leaves the
court to be under the supervision of a probation officer, the
funds will not be there for that probation officer to do the job.
Like the old act, faced with no probationary services, no
community groups, or special facilities to deal with young
offenders, the judge will have no option but to sentence them to
a custodial period. Without adequate funding, and this is a
primary concern, even the good parts of the bill cannot be
implemented and will require scrutiny.
The bill also fails to deal with some of the concerns of the
provinces. Provinces were unanimous in requesting a return to
50:50 funding so that 50% of the funding for youth crime and the
implementation of the bill would come from the federal
government. That has been cut back in recent years.
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia have sought that kind
of funding. As I have indicated, all of the provinces have.
Manitoba has requested many things, such as mandated time lines,
which are not contained in the bill. Part of the problem is that
under the current system the funds are not there to ensure speedy
justice. Justice has to be speedy if it is to be just. Many of
the concerns of the provinces have not been met.
Other areas of the bill have to be examined in committee. I can
assure the people of Canada that we in the NDP and myself as its
justice critic will examine those things with a critical eye to
implementation.
In this legislation there is a great deal of judicial discretion
in determining whether or not a young person over the age of 14
will face adult sentences for particular crimes. That will
require careful examination.
I agree with providing police discretion to caution young
people, but again we cannot hold the police to a high standard of
behaviour if the funding is not there to ensure adequate
training. We have to ensure that the police understand the
conditions under which a cautioning can take effect. If we do
not, we run the risk of the police overstepping their bounds and
the police run the risk of not understanding where the bounds
are.
We have always encouraged police discretion, but realistically
and sensibly, the average cop on the beat who is concerned about
being held accountable has to know what those time lines are,
what he or she can or cannot do in terms of cautioning. That
will require careful examination.
1230
There are special provisions in this act for young people who
are suffering from mental illness or severe problems. We do not
know how that is to be financed or exactly what young people will
fit into that category. The statement that mentally ill young
people will find this as an alternative to adult sentencing
causes me some concern. The place for mentally ill people is not
in prison. We know that and we cannot change that for young
people. I am sure that is not the intent of the legislation but
we will guard against that kind of thing.
I appreciate that this is the Young Offenders Act, but
provisions could be made to the Criminal Code to address the
concerns we have. The Minister of Justice is right in one sense.
There is no place in jail for 10 and 11 year old children. They
should be dealt with through social services in each province
because they are children.
We have asked and called for changes to the Criminal Code to
punish those who recruit 10 and 11 year old children into crime,
especially young people who know that a 10 or 11 year old child
cannot be charged under either the old legislation or the new
legislation.
As has been pointed out by the Minister of Justice, there is a
parties section. Anyone who encourages another to commit an
offence is a party to the offence committed. However, we think
there should be a special section dealing with those who recruit
10 and 11 year olds. It is perhaps the most heinous of crimes to
induce young people into a life of crime and then only be a party
to that. Perhaps the penalty should be increased for those who
do that. Again, that is a subject matter outside of the Young
Offenders Act but an amendment to the Criminal Code could meet
the concerns of many people concerned about youth gangs in their
cities.
The member for Surrey North has put forward a private member's
bill in good faith which has been included in the provisions of
the Young Offenders Act. It is a section that will require
careful examination. I appreciate that the member says this is
not to make adults responsible for the crimes of their children.
I believe he means that but I am concerned about the wording of
the legislation.
He is also absolutely correct when he says there is currently a
provision in the Criminal Code which deals with that. The
difference is this change will make it a hybrid offence. This
means that under the old legislation when a parent or a guardian
signs an assurance saying they will be responsible for the young
person while he or she is released pending trial, if the young
person breaches the conditions then the person who is supervising
him or her has some liability for that. Currently it is a
summary offence.
My understanding of the proposed change is that it will make it
a hybrid offence where the parent can either be charged
indictably, which carries a more serious penalty, or summarily at
the discretion of the crown. If we are not imputing the crime of
the child on to the parent, one must ask why we would have
differing penalties. The crime is clearly the failure to
supervise. It is not failure to supervise if one robs the
grocery store or commits armed robbery, it is failure to
supervise, period.
That we would have differing penalties for the person who fails
to supervise leads to the impression, which is why the member
from Surrey said the members of the press were reporting it this
way, that the parent is then responsible and faces a more serious
penalty if a more heinous crime is committee. That is something
we will check on balance at committee.
As I have indicated, there are many areas to this act. There
are over 101 sections that need to be examined carefully. I
think the member from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke prior to me is
correct to some extent. The agenda has been pushed.
What we have in this new legislation, in a way to balance, is
tremendous discretion.
It is in part a response to find that balance. We will be
checking that discretion carefully to ensure that while there is
discretion the principles that guide that discretion are proper.
1235
At the end of the day we need legislation based on sound public
policy. We need neither hysteria nor platitudes. We owe it to
the young people of this country, to the people who live in
communities and who are concerned about crime. We owe them a
piece of legislation that works, that balances and that is fair.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, quite frankly, I am appalled at the hon. member. He is
accusing Reformers of using this issue for political purposes but
he is using it in resorting to attacks on the official
opposition.
At the end of his speech he said that one thing we do not need
is legislation based on hysteria. I think all members and all
political parties would agree with that. What we have seen
continuously over the five years during which the majority of
Reformers have been present in this Chamber is the unwillingness
of the government to properly address this very serious issue of
youth crime. The real problem is exactly that. It is not
hysteria. It is not that some members raise important issues and
examples of where the system is failing, failing all Canadians,
not just the victims of crime but in many Canadians the youth
themselves.
The hon. member agrees with the government in its reluctance to
lower the age to include 10 and 11 year olds. I believe he said
that the proper avenue to address crime in this age group is with
social services. I point out to the hon. member that is the
problem we have today. That is the problem we have with the
current Young Offenders Act. These youngsters are falling
through the cracks and social services cannot adequately address
that. It is not just the official opposition saying that. We are
hearing that from all sectors, from a lot of people involved in
the field of justice as it pertains to youth crime.
Could the hon. member elaborate on how he would see those
youngsters who are falling through the cracks and who are not
getting the help they need? Let us be clear that we are not
talking about 10 and 11 year olds going to jail. That is the
charge from the other side. It has been directed at those people
who have suggested and stated quite emphatically in many cases
that 10 and 11 year olds need to be included in any remake of the
YOA. The fact is we must include them if we are to help them.
I would like the hon. member to explain at greater length how he
envisions under the new act that those 10 and 11 year olds who do
flaunt the system will be dealt with adequately under social
services when they have not been in the past.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond.
There are ways we can ensure 10 and 11 year old children,
children who are usually in grades four and five, are dealt with
when they commit crimes. I say commit crimes but they are not
committing crimes, they are behaving badly. The member asked how
we can remedy that. The suggestion came from his own party. It
was a commendable suggestion by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca who talked about a head start program.
We talk about ending child poverty in this country.
Unfortunately in the race to balance books, in the race to cut
deficit, in the race to the bottom we have increased child
poverty in this country by 50%.
1240
I know we say it over and over. I know members are tired of
hearing it, but when we talk about increasing child poverty by
50%, the faces of that child poverty are the 10 and 11 year olds
referred to by the member who asked the question.
The reality is that children who do not have adequate food, who
do not have support at home for whatever reason, are children who
fall between the cracks and commit crimes. That is why we need
at the provincial level adequate social services such as a head
start program, such as increased support for families and for
single mothers, to ensure those children have both the monetary
and emotional support they need.
Sometimes I am puzzled at why some people take various stands on
things. That is why we have guidelines in terms of maintenance
support under divorce legislation. It is a way of trying to
ensure that young people have the necessary support to grow up
healthy, to grow up with respect for society and to be
accountable for their behaviour.
We need to improve schools. We have a crisis in education
across the country. Governments are cutting back on teachers.
All this is happening to some extent, especially in the poorer
provinces, because the federal government has cut back money to
the poorer provinces. When it comes time for education, teachers
who are on the front line and understand perhaps more than anyone
when children are falling through the cracks do not have adequate
resources. We have kids going to school without sufficient
learning tools.
There are many ways we can address the problem of 10 and 11 year
old children who fall through the cracks. The way to do it is to
help families through social services, not through the criminal
code.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the member. Except for some very
obvious points, I had a great deal of sympathy for what he had to
say.
I understand that at the present time we incarcerate 25,000
young people a year. Given that the vast majority of these are
boys, this means that in a four or five year period we
incarcerate over 100,000 young people.
I understand the statistics are quite skewed. Look at Quebec and
New Brunswick. I understand New Brunswick has recently closed a
number of prisons. The figures are quite different there. The
rate of incarceration is much lower.
I wonder if the member has any information on these two
provinces and what they have been doing to keep their
incarceration rates so low compared with a province such as
Ontario.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question. A great deal of what Quebec has been doing was
elaborated on by the justice critic for Quebec. Interestingly
enough, in his criticism of the government he says that the Young
Offenders Act works if the resources are available to make it
work.
I go back to my concern about this legislation. While there are
some good things in the legislation dealing with extrajudicial
remedies and some good things that provide for redirecting young
people in a way that would move them away from a life of crime,
without adequate resources that cannot be fulfilled.
I think we have a great deal to learn from Quebec in the way it
has dealt with its young offenders. The hon. member who preceded
me gave a history of the tremendous contribution of Quebec to the
youth crime issue. It is to me a startling example of working
together at the federal and provincial level and achieving the
results we want.
I perhaps would disagree with the hon. member. The federal
initiative was important in working with Quebec. The country
benefits best when we see those two governments working hand in
hand for the enhancement and betterment of the whole country and
is a shining example of what all the provinces can do if we work
well with the federal government.
1245
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am appalled when I hear that Reform is trying to
create hysteria.
I will tell the House what hysteria is. It is when one has a
son in the hospital who has been beaten to the point where they
cannot recognize him, where they have to identify him by a tag.
I was more fortunate than my hon. colleague from B.C. in having
my son restored and brought back to health. That is hysteria.
If we do not want to address it when the police in the streets
tell us that their problems are getting greater and greater, then
someone should have the experience of hysteria.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment
of the hon. member. What I am suggesting is this. We need to
hear that kind of evidence in this body. It is important for us
to hear what happens in a balanced way. When we talk about
victims of crime we need to recognize that all of society is
victimized when crime occurs.
What we tend to hear about is the person who is hurt. That is
legitimate. What we do not hear about is that many times young
offenders are victims; victims of sexual abuse, a history of
violent abuse, a history of mental abuse, a history of being
ignored by the system, of growing up in aboriginal communities
where, many times, there are no support services. When those
stories are told I would expect a balanced approach. That is
what I am saying.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for over 10 years Reform members have been calling for
reforms to the Young Offenders Act, a statute which the justice
minister herself characterized as the most unpopular piece of
federal legislation.
The leadership in advocating these Young Offenders Act reforms
has been provided in particular by the hon. member for Crowfoot,
the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, the hon.
member for Surrey North, the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford
and many others of my colleagues. I want to thank each of them
for the sincerity of their efforts and for their dedication, some
of which has come to fruition in portions of this bill.
Our interest in this bill stems from two sources: first, the
concerns of the public with respect to youth crime and the
inadequacy of the Liberal approach to dealing with it and,
second, from our interest and concern for young people
themselves.
I frequently visit high schools where I have open question and
answer periods with young people. I notice that of all the
federal laws, the one that is best known—young people know about
it, how it works and how it does not work—is the Young Offenders
Act.
Usually in my encounters with young people I ask them at the end
of the discussion to take a straw vote on would they prefer to
tighten up the Young Offenders Act, strengthen its provisions,
would they prefer to leave it as it is, or would they prefer to
loosen it. In the assemblies that I have been at I have probably
asked this 30 or 40 times over the last three or four years.
Invariably the voting is always the same. About 60% to 70% of
our young people say strengthen the Young Offenders Act, tighten
it up, and adults better believe and better understand that we
young people are the greatest single category of victims of youth
crime.
I was interested that in the minister's remarks this morning
commenting on the bill there was not a single reference to
consultation with young people on their ideas, their fears and
their concerns. Yet I suggest that they have a big stake in this
bill and it is not simply as the perpetrators of youth crime.
The Young Offenders Act reforms which the public has called for
and which we have advocated have been numerous in detail, but the
most substantive may be grouped under eight headings: one,
clarification of the purposes of the act; two, strengthening
parental responsibility; three, recognition of victims' rights
and the provision of support services for victims; four, stronger
differentiation between violent repeat offenders and non-violent
first time offenders; five, strengthening sentencing provisions;
six, publication of the names of young offenders; seven, changes
to the age of application of the Young Offenders Act; and eight,
provisions for rehabilitation and prevention.
1250
After six years of dithering the government has finally brought
forward proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act which are
found in the bill before us.
My intention today is first to briefly compare the changes in
the bill with those demanded by the public and the official
opposition; second, to identify those measures which we support
and give credit where credit is due; and third, to identify those
areas where we feel the government's response has been inadequate
or misguided and to urge constructive alternatives and
amendments.
I want to begin with the purpose of the act. I was disappointed
this morning in the minister's remarks as she devoted no time at
all to that subject.
Hon. members will know that this official opposition attaches
great importance to ensuring that parliament clearly states its
intent in any bill that we consider or that we adopt, because if
we do not, and the government is often sloppy in this area, we
simply hand jurisdiction by default over to the courts, and that
has been done far too many times.
With respect to the bill before us, it is particularly important
to clearly state the intent because there has been a lot of
confusion on this in the past. The old Juvenile Deliquents Act
made it clear that its primary purpose was the welfare of
society, whereas the Young Offenders Act introduced by the
Trudeau government focused more on the welfare of the young
offender.
I ask, what is the primary intent of this parliament in passing
this statute? Is it first and foremost the protection of the
public, or is it the rehabilitation of young offenders? If we
give the typical Liberal answer, which is that when one comes to
a fork in the road one should take it, in other words both, then
the question is which objective prevails if those two objectives
come into conflict.
I believe that one of the commendable features of the bill is
that it states in the preamble that the protection of society
from youth crime is the principal objective of the bill. I think
that is progress.
In clause 3.1 it also states that the principal goal of the
youth criminal justice system is to protect the public; a
protection to be pursued through the prevention of youth crime,
through the punishment of convicted offenders and through efforts
to rehabilitate.
This clarification of the intent of the Young Offenders Act with
greater emphasis on the protection of society is a change that
Reformers have long advocated and we are pleased to see progress
in that direction in the bill.
I should note in passing that some of the reforms we have
advocated, like clarifying the intent of the Young Offenders Act
to establish the paramountcy of protection of the public, have
frequently been dismissed by the government, and by the minister
in particular, as simplistic. In doing so the minister implies
that complex problems always require even more complex and
complicated solutions and that simplicity is always suspect by
definition.
I would remind the minister that there are really two kinds of
simplicity. There is “simple stupid”, a simplicity rooted in
ignorance or lack of experience, which certainly should be
avoided in seeking solutions to public problems. There is also
such a thing as “simple wise”, a simplicity that is rooted in
common sense or in experience and perceptions which allow us to
reduce complexity to its essential element.
Newton's definition of the laws of motion and Einstein's
reduction of the theory of special relativity to E = MC2 were
simplifications, but they were not “simple stupid”, they were
“simple wise”.
Clear, simple definitions of the intent of parliament in passing
a statute are greatly preferred over the convoluted statements of
multiple objectives such as the minister and her bureaucrats are
wont to spout.
We need to remind ourselves that the law of Moses, which will be
remembered and studied long after the laws of this administration
are forgotten, consisted of 10 commandments, not 10,000
commandments, and it is not necessarily a sign of advancement or
sophistication when a forklift is required to deliver the laws to
the population.
Allow me to turn to another Young Offenders Act reform which
this party has long advocated, and that is increased emphasis on
parental responsibility for the actions of young offenders.
While this bill does not go as far as Reformers would like with
respect to affirming parental responsibility, it contains at
least two steps in the right direction.
1255
First, I refer to the requirement for compulsory attendance of a
parent at court, if that is considered by the judge to be in the
interests of the young person. Second, I refer to the increased
penalties provided for a parent who signs a court undertaking to
supervise a young person upon release and who wilfully fails to
fulfill that obligation.
It is appropriate to remind the minister and the House that this
latter provision on penalties for parents who wilfully fail to
supervise a young offender released into their custody is in this
bill primarily as a result of the work of the member for Surrey
North who originally proposed this measure in a private member's
bill. In question period when the justice minister is asked, as
she frequently is, why she did not include such and such a
measure in the bill, or why she failed to see such and such a
consequence of her decisions, if members check Hansard, her
most frequent response is to say that the questioner does not
understand, as if all knowledge on issues like youth crime lies
with the minister and her bureaucrats, and ordinary MPs or
ordinary members of the public lack the understanding to question
the minister or comment intelligently on such sophisticated
matters.
Last week in question period when the minister implied that the
member for Surrey North did not understand the issue of youth
crime, she made a mistake so grave that it deserves public notice
and rebuke. Members will know that the primary reason the member
for Surrey North ran for parliament, and he explained this this
morning, was to work for amendments to the Young Offenders Act to
hold parents or guardians more accountable when supervising
accused young offenders who are released from custody pursuant to
a court order or signed contract.
The member for Surrey North experienced the terrible tragedy of
having his 16 year old son Jesse murdered by a young offender who
was released into society on precisely one of these court orders
signed by a parent. That parent promised to supervise the young
offender and promised to ensure that certain conditions would be
respected. One of those conditions was that the young offender
was to have a curfew from dusk to dawn. The parent in that
particular case did not supervise his child and the son of the
hon. member was knifed to death at night when that young offender
should not have been on the streets. I for one do not ever want
to hear the Minister of Justice say again to the member for
Surrey North that he does not understand. He has an
understanding of the youth crime issue at the heart level and at
the gut level as well as the head level that no amount of book
learning or memo reading could ever give the minister.
I turn to the victims of youth crime. Victims of youth crime
have become so frustrated by the government's lack of concern for
them and their families that some, like the member for Surrey
North, have had to run for parliament to raise their concerns
directly. Let us look at Bill C-68 from the standpoint of
victims' rights and the provision of support for victims.
The bill before us contains several provisions that represent a
step in the right direction. For example, clause 52 permits the
provinces to order that a surcharge be levied on any fines
payable by young persons, the funds to be used to provide
assistance to victims of offences. Where the province has not
made this type of order, a youth justice court may order a victim
fine surcharge in an amount not exceeding 15% of the fine to
provide assistance to victims of offences.
Clause 113 permits a youth justice court, a review board or any
court to keep a record of proceedings of young persons. Clause
118 permits victims access to the clause 113 records. Clause 39
states that the pre-sentence report is to include the results of
an interview with the victim. If applicable and reasonably
possible, clause 12 permits the victim to obtain information on
how the young person has been dealt with through extrajudicial
measures.
These provisions all represent steps in the right direction.
However, hon. members on both sides of the House will notice that
they fall far short of the demand of the official opposition,
supported by this House, for a full blown victims' bill of rights
applicable to victims of offences committed both under the Young
Offenders Act and under the Criminal Code. We will therefore
continue to press for a full blown victims' rights provision
along the lines of that proposed by the member for
Langley—Abbotsford.
This minister, like her predecessor, still appears to assign a
low priority to victims' rights in relation to the rights granted
to persons accused or convicted of crimes, which reminds me of a
story.
1300
It is the story of the good samaritan with a Liberal twist. It
seems that a certain man went down Wellington Street one night.
He was attacked by a gang. He was beaten, robbed and left half
dead by the side of the street. Shortly after, the Minister of
Justice and the Minister of Health happened to be going down the
same street. They were on their way to a discussion of child
poverty at the Rideau Club over wine and cheese when they saw
this poor victim lying on the street. As they hurriedly stepped
over the victim to continue on their way they were heard to say
to one another “You know, we really need to do something to help
the people who beat and robbed this fellow”.
Like most Liberal policy statements, their words reflect a half
truth. It is true that the people who beat and rob others need
not only to be apprehended and restrained but treated and
rehabilitated. I suggest it is even more true that the victims
of their crimes, who do not need to be hunted down because they
are right there in front of us, also need to be helped and often
more urgently so.
Unfortunately the provisions of this bill for providing real
help to victims are woefully inadequate, and that is a
regrettable deficiency.
I turn to three other subjects of great concern to the public
and on which we consider the provisions of this bill inadequate.
I refer to the provisions pertaining to the differentiation of
violent offenders from non-violent offenders, for sentencing of
young offenders and for publishing or prohibiting the publication
of the names of young offenders.
My colleagues have already done this and will continue to do
this. We will comment in greater detail on all these provisions
but I will summarize our concerns in this way. It is the
position of the official opposition that a disproportionate
number of non-violent offenders are locked up, limiting space and
resources needed for violent offenders and increasing rather than
reducing the probability that these young people will be drawn
into a life of crime rather than being protected and liberated
from criminal influences.
We have consequently advocated a stronger differentiation, both
in law and in treatment, between violent and non-violent youth
offenders and between first time and repeat offenders. It was
the justice committee and the Reform Party which strongly
recommended extrajudicial measures, measures other than judicial
proceedings, to deal particularly with first time non-violent
offenders.
The legislation before us in section 2 defines a non-violent
offence as an offence that does not cause or create a substantial
risk of causing bodily harm and defines a violent offence as one
that does cause or create a substantial risk of causing bodily
harm. In part 1 the legislation goes on to provide for
extrajudicial measures for application to first time non-violent
offenders. All this is well and good and is welcomed by the
official opposition, regardless of who gets the credit for these
provisions.
Unfortunately, however, there is a weakness in this section
which if not corrected will bring the whole concept of
extrajudicial treatment into disrepute, just as the minister's
approach to conditional sentencing has brought that concept into
disrepute.
Our interpretation of clauses 4(c) and 4(d) is that these
extrajudicial measures could also be applied and will also be
applied to repeat offenders and even violent offenders at the
discretion of the court. This is a weakness on which my
colleagues will comment further and to which we will propose
corrective amendments.
In keeping with the principle of more strongly differentiating
between the treatment of first time non-violent youth offenders
and violent repeat offenders, the official opposition has
consistently called for tough sentencing in adult court of repeat
violent young offenders.
In the bill before us the list of presumptive offences for which
an adult sentence may be imposed is severely restricted. The
list includes murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and
aggravated sexual assault but it does not include sexual assault
with a weapon, hostage taking, aggravated assault, kidnapping and
a host of other serious violent offences. This too is a weakness
in the bill and my colleagues will propose corrective amendments.
The official opposition and many victims groups have also taken
the position that the public has a right to know the names of
young offenders whose activities are a threat to others,
including other young people, and that the public has a right to
know if a violent young offender has been released into the
community.
1305
Section 109 of this bill covers the publication of the names of
young offenders. It generally permits the publication of the
names of most violent young offenders 14 and over. Violent young
persons under 14 would appear, however, to have their names
protected from publication. In general, it is our conclusion
that the act contains too many provisions and too many loopholes
to prevent the publication of names of violent offenders who
constitute a risk to the people of their community.
Again, my colleagues will elaborate on these deficiencies. These
are the deficiencies of half measures. When the government
approaches a problem it never provides a whole solution, always
half measures. This bill is riddled with half measures in
respect of differentiation, sentencing and name publication. That
is why we say it needs a lot of corrective amendments.
I now turn to the age of application. The age of application of
the Young Offenders Act is provided for in Bill C-68. The
official opposition believes the government has made another
serious mistake here by rejecting proposals for lowering the
maximum age from 17 to 15 and lowering the minimum age from 12 to
10. Sixteen and seventeen year olds are legally allowed to drive
cars, to get married and to live on their own. They are able to
distinguish right from wrong and should be treated as adults
under criminal law, particularly in the case of repeated violent
offences.
The official opposition and the public take particular exception
to the government's fallacious contention that people who want to
lower the age of application of the Young Offenders Act are hard
hearted barbarians who would put 10 year olds in jail. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
According to Statistics Canada about 5% of all youth crime is
committed by children under 12. These children, more than any
other category of youth offenders, are usually victims of crime
themselves, often recruited into criminal activity, particularly
in the case of break and entry for the purposes of theft, by
older teens or adults who know that if these under 12 children
are apprehended they cannot be dealt with effectively by the
police or courts under the current law.
The whole purpose of lowering the age of application to 10 years
is not to put 10 year olds in jail but to keep them out of jail
when they are 16, 18 and 21 by giving them access to the
rehabilitative measures and services which this act purportedly
provides to first time offenders.
It is ironic that if the minister really had the faith she
professes to have in the effectiveness of the rehabilitative
provisions of this bill, the provisions for extrajudicial
measures, for warnings, for cautions, for referrals, for youth
justice committees, for community support, why would she deny
access to those rehabilitative provisions to the most vulnerable
and malleable of young offenders?
This brings me to what I consider to be the most important of
the eight categories of the Young Offenders Act and criminal
justice reforms that Reformers have advocated, the provision for
rehabilitation and prevention. I have already emphasized the
interest shown by my colleagues on the justice committee in
developing and ensuring the success of extrajudicial measures for
dealing with young offenders, in particular the non-violent first
time offender who at least in theory is the best candidate for
rehabilitative and preventive measures if these are available and
properly funded.
My colleague, the member for Surrey North, has been personally
involved for a number of years in diversion and alternative
programs whereby the community and the young offender sit down,
sometimes with the victim, to determine how best to address the
wrongs that have been done and to provide the healing of both
victim and offender, which is at the heart of rehabilitation. I
appreciated his experience and the remarks he made this morning
on this subject and I commend those remarks to the minister and
other members of the House.
Let me confine my remarks to prevention. It is on this aspect
of the treatment of young offenders where there is the most
profound difference between the government and members of the
official opposition. The official opposition believes that the
most effective approach to crime prevention, particularly youth
crime prevention, is to strengthen families. By this I mean
families broadly defined to include extended families, single
parent families, traditional families, the situations in which
the vast majority of our children are born and in which they are
raised for better or for worse.
1310
It is because of this fundamental belief that the strong family
is the key to healthy, properly educated, law abiding, secure,
adventurous and happy future generations that we advocate tax
relief for families, tax fairness for families, respect for
families, respect for their rights to make decisions that affect
the welfare of family members and acceptance by families of
responsibility for their decisions. We would like to see the
justice minister, the health minister and the human resources
minister, all ministers with social responsibility, band together
and become the strongest lobby within the government for
strengthening families.
Instead what do we see? When it comes to issues like crime
prevention, youth crime prevention, illness prevention or
unemployment prevention, the ministers of the Liberal government
put their faith not in families but in government programs
operated for the most part by well meaning but impersonal and
inefficient bureaucracies. When bureaucracy fails their instinct
is to appoint a super bureaucrat or an ombudsman to adjudicate
among the bureaucrats.
This predisposition to trust bureaucracies to deal with our most
delicate and serious social problems was graphically illustrated
last week in question period when the justice minister was asked
what should be done for these 10 and 11 year olds recruited into
crime by teens and adults and if her department was going to
ignore it. Her answer, which she repeated several times then and
again this morning, was turn them over to the provincial welfare
system.
Is the minister not aware that the public has absolutely no
faith in that answer at all? Has the minister not read about or
been briefed on the abuse and neglect of children by both
provincial and private child welfare systems across the country?
For example, the situation in B.C. of the torture and death of a
young child at the hands of his mother, both of whom were under
the care of the ministry of social services, sparked a whole
special inquiry by Justice Thomas Gove and resulted in demands
for a complete rethinking of the entire child welfare system in
that province.
Has the minister not read the briefs or seen the reports on the
situation in Manitoba where the number of child deaths in 1998 in
situations where child welfare agencies have responsibility has
prompted a complete review of the child welfare system there?
Has she not read the statistics on the situation in Quebec where
more than 100 Quebec children under five die every year in
violent, unusual or undetermined circumstances and where the
child welfare system itself acknowledges having great difficulty
in either getting to the causes or providing protection? Is the
minister not aware that right here in the province of Ontario the
starvation death of a five week old infant while under the care
of the Children's Aid Society has prompted the review of child
abuse and neglect cases in all 55 children's aid societies across
the province?
Is the minister not aware that the appointment of a children's
czar or a super bureaucrat or an ombudsman to adjudicate among
the bureaucrats is not the answer to the prevention of social
ills? Is the minister not aware it is time to challenge the whole
notion, which is embedded in the administration and has been
there ever since the second world war, that bureaucracies can
care for people, in particular vulnerable people like the old,
the sick, the poor and the young?
Why are bureaucracies not the best instruments for delivering
frontline care? There are two huge reasons. First, bureaucratic
structures with their layers and layers of organizational boxes
divide up responsibility for the consequences of their actions so
finely that no one is accountable for the final result. Thus we
can have a revolving door parole system that simply does not
work, that everyone knows does not work, and yet no one accepts
any responsibility for it, for changing it and, worse, no one
accepts any responsibility for the outcome of the defective
system, not even the minister.
Thus there can be a bureaucratic system for guaranteeing the
security of the blood system. When people die of hepatitis C
contracted from tainted blood obtained from that system, no one
is responsible. It is the same story.
The second reason bureaucracies are untrustworthy in caring for
people stems from the way they handle information.
1315
Bureaucracies are information systems that transmit information
on particular cases involving people upward to policy decision
makers and downward from those decision makers to frontline
workers. Unfortunately bureaucratic information systems can only
transmit certain types of information. The information they can
transmit most reliably is hard data consisting of objective facts
and figures. The information they cannot transmit effectively is
information about values, beliefs, emotions and feelings which
happen to be precisely the type of information one needs to make
policy on or to deal directly with vulnerable people, in
particular the sick, the old, the poor and the young.
This is not to say there is no place for the big public service
social bureaucracies, but their place should be to serve and
support frontline caregivers and not to smother or substitute for
them. By frontline caregivers, many of whose actions can
contribute to the prevention of crime, I mean all those
overworked social workers, probation officers, court workers,
doctors, nurses, teachers and day care workers.
Above all I include in the frontline caregivers overworked,
under supported and under recognized parents. Of all the
frontline caregivers it is these parents that the official
opposition considers to have the most crucial role with respect
to the care and nurture of children into productive and
law-abiding citizens.
If the government and the justice minister have any appreciation
of the need for a more progressive, decentralized, family
oriented approach to the prevention of youth crime, it should
have been evident in the budget and the other social policies of
the government but it is not.
For example, when the government takes $2,000, $3,000 and $4,000
in taxes per year away from poor families with children and then
gives them back a few hundred dollars through tax credits, it is
contributing to, not alleviating, the poverty and family stress
that breed social problems including crime.
If the justice minister had any appreciation of this alternative
family centred approach to crime prevention, it would be evident
in the section of the bill providing for consequential and
conditional amendments to other legislation. However the only
conditional and consequential amendments in the bill are some
amendments to the Criminal Code and a few other criminal
statutes. There are no consequential amendments or adjustments
to social legislation or tax legislation which is where we get at
this family centred approach to prevention of crime.
Because we see hardly a trace of this more progressive,
decentralized family oriented approach to prevention of youth
crime in the bill, we consider its approach to rehabilitation and
prevention completely inadequate and completely out of date.
My concluding summary therefore is that eight great categories
of reforms the public has demanded, which we have been advocating
for years and against which we measure the content of the bill,
have been presented. With respect to clarifying the purposes of
the act and strengthening parental responsibility we support the
measures contained in the bill.
With respect to recognition of victims rights and provisions for
victims support, the bill contains a few steps in the right
direction but falls far short of what we wanted to see in a full
blown victims bill of rights. With respect to the bill's
provisions for differentiating between violent and non-violent
offenders, its provisions for sentencing of young offenders, and
its provisions for publishing the names of young offenders, we
find major deficiencies in all these provisions which my
colleagues will endeavour to correct through amendments.
With respect to the failure of the bill to effectively change
the age of application of the Young Offenders Act, we think the
government's approach is a big mistake. With respect to the most
important dimension of treatment of young offenders, namely the
importance of prevention and the crucial role of the family with
respect to youth crime prevention, we find the approach of the
government, the justice minister, the department and the bill to
be both inadequate and misdirected.
For these reasons the official opposition opposes the
legislation in its current form and urges other members of the
House to do likewise.
1320
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will proceed to
the 30 minute slot which I understand is being divided on the
government side with questions and comments.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be sharing my time with the member for Durham.
It is my pleasure to speak to the proposed youth crime justice
act. I think all members are concerned about youth and certainly
those who engage in criminal activities. Approaches may vary,
but I believe that the fundamentals in the bill are sound and
ones which deserve the support of all members of the House. The
bill is not a panacea, but it does address the key issues that
have been before the Canadian public for some time now.
After extensive consultations with the provinces and
territories, with professionals and with community leaders, the
government has introduced a strategy to protect the public from
youth crime. As one who has advocated a scrapping of the Young
Offenders Act I am pleased that the minister has taken
significant steps to send out a strong message to young offenders
that their actions will not be tolerated.
As a former educator I know that young people want and indeed
need rules that will be enforced. The message for young people
is that if they take certain actions which are not deemed
appropriate by society there will be meaningful consequences for
their actions.
In 1996-97 about one-third of convicted youths received
sentences of custody. One-half were given probation and only
one-sixth were ordered to do community service or to pay fines.
Custodial sentences were given in approximately 25,000 cases of
young offenders, usually for short periods of time. Over
one-quarter received sentences of less than one month and about
one-half of the sentences were from one to three months. Eight
per cent were sentenced to more than six months.
I do not believe that sent out the right message. I do not
think Canadians felt that sent out the right message. Therefore
we have the introduction of the bill which I believe will address
those concerns.
The goals of the bill are to prevent young people from turning
to crime in the first place, to ensure both violent and
non-violent youths are given meaningful consequences that reflect
the seriousness of their crimes, and to effectively and safely
rehabilitate young people so they will not reoffend. I believe
these are the goals which all Canadians can and indeed will
support. The legislation reflects accountability, respect and
fairness.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to Moses and the Ten
Commandments and suggested the minister was referring to the
10,000 commandments. I would suggest there are only three
commandments in the bill: accountability, respect and fairness,
which are values Canadians want to see enshrined in the new youth
justice act.
Accepting responsibility, particularly placing the onus on the
violator, is a key element of the legislation. Only a small
number of youth are involved in serious and repeat criminal acts,
particularly acts of violence. Statistics show 18% were involved
in violent crimes. According to 1997 statistics over one-half of
all violent crimes were minor non-sexual assaults and another
one-quarter were more serious non-sexual assaults.
Criminal activity is an antisocial activity. Toughening the law
to make it clear that such acts are unacceptable must and will be
part of the message that the bill addresses.
Canadians have lost faith in the Young Offenders Act. The
government has responded with a number of key initiatives which I
believe will address these concerns and send out a tough message
to those young people who engage in acts which are unacceptable
to society. The bill reflects the protection of society. It
reinforces strong social values and proportionality of
sentencing. Recognition of the rights of victims is something I
am particularly pleased to see enshrined in the legislation.
Canadians want a youth justice system which protects citizens
and provides meaningful consequences for the actions of those who
would disregard the law. Establishing tougher consequences for
serious youth crime by expanding the offences for which a young
person convicted of a serious violent offence can receive an
adult sentence is an important change.
I support and applaud the lowering of the age of youth who could
receive an adult sentence for serious violent crimes from 16 to
14.
I support the publication of the names of all young offenders who
receive adult sentences. Individuals who commit crimes should
have their names published. It would be a warning and hopefully
a deterrent to others. Meaningful consequences to unacceptable
acts are critical if we are to maintain Canada as a nation with a
relatively low crime rate compared to other nations such as the
United States.
1325
An important section of the bill is to establish an effective
rehabilitation and reintegration process that would require all
young people who have served a period of time in custody to also
have a period of controlled supervision in the community. This
is something Canadians have wanted and the government has
responded to.
Committing a crime is not a lark. It is not something one does
for fun. Having both meaningful sentences and appropriate
supervision after the individual has left custody is something
for which Canadians have been asking. Public protection is
critical and the bill addresses that issue.
Expanding offences for which a youth is presumed to receive an
adult sentence to include a pattern of convictions for serious
violent offences and extending the group of offenders who are
expected to receive an adult sentence to include 14 and 15 year
olds will be welcomed by most Canadians.
There has been much public debate about the publishing of names
of young offenders. I believe the publication provides
transparency in the justice system which will further provide
public confidence in our judicial system.
Ensuring that consequences for young people who commit crimes
will be in proportion to the seriousness of the offence is a
major change in the proposals before the House. Sentences that
fit the nature of the crime, sentences that are meaningful and
encourage accountability, is an important feature of the
legislation.
Two elements of note are creating an intensive custody sentence
for the most high risk youth who are repeat offenders, who have
committed murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated
assault and assault, and permitting victim impact statements to
be introduced in youth court.
In terms of concerns and rights of victims, their concerns are
recognized in the principles of the act. This is a first in
federal legislation. Providing victims with the right to access
youth records and to play formal and informal roles in community
based measures is something I know residents in my riding of Oak
Ridges welcome. They further welcome and applaud the right of
victims to information on extrajudicial measures.
While the bill gets tough on youth crime it also recognizes that
as a society we have a responsibility to make sure where possible
we place a strong emphasis on rehabilitation in terms of the
youth justice system. Throwing away the key is not the answer.
At some point these individuals will be back on the street. How
they are prepared to reintegrate into society is important not
only for them but for society at large.
The long term protection of our citizens is best ensured by
making sure that the youth are accountable for their actions and
that they are supervised and supported, particularly during the
period when they re-enter the mainstream of society.
I support the provision that requires every youth sentenced to a
period of custody to also serving an additional period of
strictly controlled and meaningful supervision in the community
equal to half the period of custody. This period of supervision
is subject to several mandatory conditions. The individual must
keep the peace, participate in good behaviour and report to a
youth worker.
Additional or optional conditions may be imposed on the
offender. These include conditions to structure the individual's
life such as finding or continuing employment, obeying a curfew
or attending school, and conditions associated with the offending
behaviour such as abstaining from drugs, alcohol and attending
counselling, et cetera. If these conditions are not met then
having the individual returned to custody will occur. The follow
up is crucial if the program is to be successful.
Developing a reintegration plan where the individual and the
youth worker develop a plan of action together will assist in
successful reintegration into the community. Developing the
strategy while the youth is in custody and continuing it during
the period of supervision in the community help build a more
successful and meaningful transition.
Developing community based programs in conjunction with a
variety of organizations, individuals and parents is important. I
am pleased that in the area of York region my colleagues and I
are working together to establish a community crime prevention
council, making sure that people are accountable and involved.
I welcome these changes and I look forward to further comments
from members of the House.
1330
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to enter the debate on Bill C-68, the changes to our youth
criminal justice system.
I come to this debate with some new-found experience. I left the
House on Thursday and entered my home around 12.00 a.m. to
discover it had been broken into and violated. Windows had been
smashed. I lost about $20,000 of personal assets. It is the
second time this has happened. Obviously I cannot accuse young
offenders of doing this because I am not certain who it was. They
may well have been graduates of the young offenders school.
Therefore, I speak with some experience today.
The first constituent to come into my office on Friday sat down
and pounded on the table. He had sold some cattle and had some
money in his house. He believed that young offenders had broken
into his house and had stolen his money.
On the train coming back here last night another constituent
told me that someone had stolen his car on the same night my
house had been broken into. He is a local high school teacher.
His car was found at the high school.
I come to this debate today saying there is definitely a
problem. I can now say that I am a victim of this type of crime.
However, I do not believe that incarceration and penalizing by a
harsh system is the answer. Canada has one of the highest
incarceration rates for young offenders in all the western world.
That is not the answer. A very informative trip to Millhaven
penitentiary convinced me of the total waste of human assets in
our prison system. People are wasting their days away at the
taxpayers' expense.
In studying the whole youth justice system, one thing which
seems to be missing is some kind of retribution. The retribution
process is one which recognizes that somebody has committed a
crime against another person. We live in a very plastic society.
We turn on the television set and see crimes committed. We do
not believe there are any human beings behind the crimes. We
believe that people's property can be stolen, or they can be
maimed and there really is no downside.
I have been very impressed with some of the programs our
minister has sponsored in my riding to increase the awareness
that the people who commit crime have done so against other
people. An aggressive program in south Oshawa involves the
street crime unit, the crown prosecutor and others. We have had
some positive results. Youth crime has declined in these areas.
One commonality is it seems that communities are acting in a
holistic fashion to deal with the problems of crime. One issue
which also seems to be in there is that younger people for
example go to the supermarket and talk to the person who is
running the store or talk to families or other people who have
been violated. They see that real people are involved in the
process and it is not just some statistic.
I listened attentively to the Leader of the Official Opposition.
His simple answer was that to empower families would solve all of
our youth justice problems.
1335
I have taken the time to sit down with some families that have
been affected in that their children have committed youth crimes.
There was a period during which they felt they had lost control
of one of their children while the other children were fine.
These things often are not predictable. Parents understand that
personalities can be very different.
Everyone of these people came from very caring families. They
all said that the intervention of the state at a certain period
of time was useful. It takes the custody situation out of the
family unit. Somebody else is responsible for curfews, et
cetera, and creates a positive attitude of rehabilitation.
I know of many dysfunctional families. There are limitations as
to what we can do to empower families. It is a fair and
respectable thought process to take care of each other within our
family units, but the reality is that is not where society is
today.
Whether we should go back to that regime is another point of
view. Even if it were possible to go back to that kind of a
society is questionable as we enter into a more global society.
People are moving. Families are scattered all across the country.
People do not live in the same little areas they grew up in, the
flip side of which I suppose is that people are pursuing more
interesting careers.
The bill tries to segregate violent and non-violent crimes.
Basically it takes two courses of action. The Leader of the
Opposition talked about the fork in the road, but we are talking
about treating crimes differently depending on what the
commission of the crime is.
I think we would all stand back and say that this legislation
attempts to be tougher on acts of violent crimes against people
by allowing younger violators to be tried in adult court, the
publishing of their names, et cetera. The second area is
non-violent crimes, the type that affected me and would be dealt
with differently. I fully respect that. I would rather have
these young people out working in the community, earning money
and paying people back as a consequence of their actions rather
than having them sit in a penal institution wasting their days
away.
We are talking about preventative measures and more community
based measures in order to solve the issue of youth crime. When
the person is reintroduced into the community they realize they
are part of a family, a family of communities. Within that
structure they have a responsibility for their actions. It is for
those things that are in this bill that I am very supportive of
the minister and her legislative process. We all have a tendency
to wish there were simple solutions.
I have said to a lot of my constituents, “Do you not think that
if changing a couple of lines in the Young Offenders Act would do
away with youth crime in this country we would not have done it
long ago?” The reality is that it is a societal issue.
Members of the Reform Party think there is a cause and effect,
that before they commit a crime they study the Young Offenders
Act and the sentencing provisions and then commit the act. People
tell us all the time that there is no thought process put in
place before the crime is committed, even with adult crimes.
There is no consequence of people saying “Should I or should I
not carry a gun”. They are not brilliant people. They are
probably some of the lower educated people for a variety of
reasons and do not think that way.
Simply changing an act here in Ottawa is not going to change the
problems of youth crime in our communities. It has to be done
through assistance to communities and through preventative action
programs such as the ones in the bill. Communities must also
become more aware of how they can enhance their communities to
make them safe and ensure that young people will not follow a
course of violence and crime.
1340
I am very supportive of the legislation, especially the
preventative measures. And I hope I do not have another incident
like the one last week.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the new name of the riding is
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock. It reflects the fact that there is
only one Haliburton. There are three Victorias and many Brocks.
The name change reflects that.
I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-68. I have not
gotten over the last C-68 we had in here. I did not think I
would ever want to get up and speak on anything that had anything
to do with C-68.
In this case however, the people of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock
had a direct say in the drafting of this bill. I was able to
have some input into this bill and indirectly to the solicitor
general's bill which we debated in Minden on October 4. That
allowed for the Criminal Records Act to be changed so that
people's names could be entered into a register, for example
sexual predators and pedophiles in particular.
I listened to the member for Calgary Southwest, the Leader of
the Opposition. He has a rather simplistic approach. He talks
first about punishment and asks how society will be protected. He
tries to transpose the idea into people's minds that the more
people are punished, the more they will be rehabilitated. I find
that kind of offensive.
To my credit, and sometimes I think to my detriment, I was a
member of the society that looked after parole. As an officer in
that role I came in contact with many police officers. I
conducted a number of parole hearings just as the Young Offenders
Act changes were coming in a few years ago. I saw repeat and
repeat offenders at age 18 being brought back into the system as
young offenders. They were teaching crime to young offenders who
maybe would only have come into the system once and then would
have been rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. Had they
been taught values for the first time, they would have had a
better chance in society.
That was a simplistic approach by the Leader of the Opposition,
the member for Calgary Southwest. The member for Calgary
Northeast wanted to study caning. He thought that caning people
would somehow cure people from committing crimes. I do not know
whether he was going to study the stroke or the intensity. He
never did tell me what it was that turned his crank to want to do
that. It seems Calgary has this thing about beating everybody
into submission.
I have some examples as a parole officer. People 14 years old
who have been beaten, hung by their heels, put down all their
lives need help. They do not need another beating. Another
beating will do totally nothing for them, except turn them
further and further away from what they need to be rehabilitated
in order to be constructive, contributing members of society.
That is what this bill tends to look at. It does not take a
rocket scientist to see that the government can be blamed,
everyone can be blamed, but blaming the system for someone
murdering someone else is part of the problem. It is not all of
the problem.
1345
The fact that we will punish people who sign someone out of an
institution and say they will take care of them is a good step.
I do not think that should be taken lightly. A person who
commits a crime and intends to commit another crime will not to
be stopped by having their mother sign them out of the
institution. If they are going to reoffend, they will reoffend.
We have to find a way to reach that person, to teach them
values, to show them perhaps for the first time values. In
studying some of the personal things, some of the parts of the
Young Offenders Act that I was involved in, as a parent I went
to court seven times. Two judges did not last through the
proceedings. We came to our third judge before finally they
talked about sentencing. Was it to be closed custody or open
custody for the person who offended was what I was a witness for.
Look at the court system, which I tend to have the highest
respect for even though I am not a lawyer. Being a real estate
agent we just made all their money for them. I hear my lawyer
friends getting upset about that. The fact is it is a good part
of their practice. When they are able to delay and delay and to
wait until the witness does not show up of whom they have a
question to ask and the case is dismissed, I find that part has
to be taken into account and has to be treated very seriously in
the criminal justice system. It is something where police
officers are continually asked to appear in court to be
witnesses, which takes up valuable time they need to chase
criminals. Instead of that they end up in court and in a
situation where they are off the street. Many times they are
dealing with people who have been through system many times. They
know how the system works better than police officers, better
than lawyers, better than judges and certainly better than the
prosecutors.
Bill C-68 is not perfect. Anyone who thinks perfect law will be
passed here which changes society will be disappointed.
Everything has to be tested in the court system. When we test a
law in the court system it is done by the experience of working
it through, by having it exposed to the many people who become
involved in that system to see how the legislation works.
Going back to my friend, the hon. solicitor general, when he
brought in the publishing of the names of pedophiles, I think
that was a very positive step in our criminal justice system. It
allows institutions, boys and girls clubs, people who coach
hockey, people who are involved in the youth system, to do
background checks on people to find out if they have previous
experience. Even if they have been pardoned it will show up in
the system as they go from province to province. Changing their
name is another problem that exists in the system. People change
their names. They have a clean slate and they have been pardoned
under another name. That legislation is good because it comes
from the problems of community groups and how they want to
interact with the youth justice system and with the criminal
justice system.
Allowing an adult sentence for a youth of 14 who is convicted of
an offence can result in a sentence of two years less a day. If
a person is convicted provincially they can serve up to two years
less a day for that crime. It puts an onus on people. If we
take a person and put them into a value home, a value
environment, a place where sometimes for the first time they
would have some values, I think that is an important part of this
bill.
Getting back to the simplistic approach by the members for
Calgary Southwest and Calgary Northeast who have a punishment
philosophy, let us take a look at the problem. If I were to
write a parole paper and I put broken home, substance abuse,
alcohol abuse, abused as a child, a grade eight education, a
dropout, I would have about 90% of that catchment area that I
work in.
1350
What is missing? Is it punishment? Most of them fight their
way into gangs. They do not get brought in because they have not
been beaten or because they are going to beat someone. A lot of
gangs are there. Peer pressure draws people into them. Taking
them out and beating them for being beaten is not something that
will instil any values in them.
We are talking about poor, underprivileged, abused people. The
rest of the people who are caught in this will see the results of
their actions. When they are taken away from that peer group
they will interact with people because they know the difference
between good and bad and evil.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Forgive the
intrusion. Did the hon. member indicate that he was to be
sharing his time?
Mr. John O'Reilly: No, I did not.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock has an additional 10 minutes.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, the person who was to
share my time did not show up. I do not mind doing 20 minutes. I
may have to actually start reading something, which would be
quite a change for me because the member across tells me that I
have to read a speech. I have never read one yet in here and so
I do not think I will start now.
An hon. member: Reading was never your strong point.
Mr. John O'Reilly: The happiest days of my life were the
three years I spent in grade eight.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
You have extended the member's time by 10 minutes and a Liberal
member spoke before him. Does that mean they have 30 minutes
speaking time?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No, it means that in
order to accommodate the Leader of the Opposition to speak out of
sequence we had to do some juggling to get back into sequence.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that
we were very pleased to make the arrangement so the Leader of
Opposition could speak.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I sit on a lot of
committees with the member for Calgary Northeast. Ten plus twenty
is thirty. The member is absolutely right. I am very glad he was
able to work that out. That might have something to do with that
stroke in intensity he was studying in Singapore. It takes a
fair bit of time.
I go back to some of my personal experiences in court cases
involving young offenders. It is a very serious thing to go into
a prison to do a parole hearing. I appreciate that the
simplistic approach applied by the Reform Party is well meaning.
Some Reformers are very intelligent former Conservatives and
Liberals. I know they cannot get elected out west except by
running under Reform so I appreciate that they are doing that and
I wish them well as long as it is not well in my riding.
I could talk about the young man who was hung by his heels at
age 14 by his parents, who was sexually abused and beaten as a
child, who was not taught values, who dropped out of school so he
could run away and get away from everything. When he was
arrested and incarcerated, he met people who deal with young
offenders. They took him under their wing and taught him values
he had not been taught before. He got away from his substance
abuse and alcohol abuse. He got away from the abusive nature
that surrounded him. Today he is a productive member of society.
I know that does not happen all the time and that the Reform
Party does not want to talk about it, but the fact is the Young
Offenders Act served a purpose that does not serve the purpose of
Reform.
Reformers cannot build unless they can teach everyone that
everything is hate, hate, hate, punish, punish, punish.
1355
The fact is that if we are to rehabilitate people, we do not do
it by putting them in boot camps or by putting them in a caning
camp or whatever the member wanted. We have to teach them values.
We have to teach them the societal things expected of them. If
young people are to be productive members of society, they have
to be taught values. That simply is what changes people to
be productive members of society and that protects society.
I was impressed with a criminal I met who was a musician. When
money machines first came out and PINs had to be punched in which
had a different tone to the pad, this man could stand behind
someone making a withdrawal with their card and he could pick off
their pin number because he had a musical ear. He could play any
instrument. He was a very talented person. He would follow that
person home, find an undetected way to break into their house and
steal that card out of their wallet.
If the card is not in our wallets, we often think where did we
leave it. We take a couple of days and think somebody else might
have it, whatever. Just before midnight or just after 2 a.m.
your bank account has been cleaned out by that person. The
reason was not because he was a thief but because he was a heroin
addict. How do we get a person like that into methadone
treatment and let them put their talent to work in society? That
same young man is now playing in a band and is very productive.
These are a couple of examples the Reform Party cares to not
notice.
When we talk about the Young Offenders Act and about
rehabilitation, we talk about people who suddenly come into a
society where values are taught and they offend only once. They
do not become repeat offenders. Repeat offenders are a shame and
there has to be a way to deal with them.
If we can save the majority of young offenders, which the Young
Offenders Act did and which the Reform Party does not want to
mention, we have done society a great justice. I believe Bill
C-68 is a good start in changing the Young Offenders Act so we
will have a youth criminal justice system that will stand the
test of time.
The Speaker: My colleague, you still have 10 minutes of
questions and comments. I propose that we now go to Statements
by Members and we will return after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
OXFAM
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and to support OXFAM Canada
and OXFAM Quebec as they launch OXFAM's international report
“Education Now: Break the Cycle of Poverty”.
The report focuses on the 125 million primary school age
children in developing countries who are deprived of an
education. Mass illiteracy has left them disadvantaged,
vulnerable and impoverished. In over 20 developing countries
more than 50% of the population, mainly women and girls, are
unable to read or write. Universal primary education goals
cannot be achieved.
OXFAM's campaign calls on governments to deploy debt relief
measures to guarantee basic education targets in developing
countries.
I call on all members to support OXFAM's activities in their
ridings and to support OXFAM's campaign to eliminate global
illiteracy.
* * *
ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to announce the bicentenary of Rocky Mountain
House, a community in my riding. Its 6,000 people are
commemorating the important role this town played in the
development of western Canada. It was the base from which David
Thompson explored the mountains to the west. By 1840, 2,000
people lived there when Fort Edmonton had only 12 permanent
inhabitants.
As we celebrate the 125th anniversary of what is today the RCMP,
we should recall the role the town played in this important
event. Its lobbying helped convince the Government of Canada of
the need to create a permanent police force in western Canada.
That presence is an important part of western Canadian identity.
Rocky Mountain House is also the site of Alberta's only national
historic park, a generous gift from the late Mabel Brierley.
1400
I know members of the House will want to join me in saluting its
history and extending our best wishes to the people of Rocky
Mountain House, Alberta.
* * *
GIRL GUIDES OF CANADA
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
recently had the opportunity to attend the Girl Guides of Canada
ceremony to present the prestigious Canada Cord to 14 Pathfinders
in my riding of Scarborough East.
These 15 year old Pathfinders achieved this top award in 1998
through hard work and dedication, having fun and learning skills
at the same time. To achieve the award Pathfinders completed
challenges in a number of different areas.
I want to congratulate Nadia Bedok, Lauren Canzius, Julie
Cushing, Lianne Easton, Katie Eley, Theresa Enright, Jaclyn
Iantria, Melissa Kaye, Erin Kotva, Lisa Moore, Amanda Mykusz,
Kimberley Rose, Janet Stephens and Heather Wing.
I extend my best wishes to all of them on their outstanding
achievement for earning this highest honour, and I wish them
continued success in the years to come.
* * *
[Translation]
NUNAVIK RANGERS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Nunavik Rangers are a subgroup of the Canadian armed forces
that has existed for at least 50 years and that was a strong
presence at the New Year's avalanche in Kangiqsualujjuaq.
In 1994, the Junior Rangers, for boys and girls aged 12 to 18,
was established in northern Quebec.
The 14 communities in Nunavik now have their Junior Rangers
patrols. They are supported by the Canadian armed forces and by
the senior Rangers.
In the Rangers, young Inuit learn such skills as navigation,
weapons safety, ancestral traditions and hunting.
The Canadian armed forces and Major Claude Archambault last week
visited the village of Kangiqsualujjuaq with its mayor Maggie
Emudluk to offer praise to the Rangers who participated in the
rescue operations on January 1, 1999.
Nakuqmiik to the Nunavik Rangers.
* * *
[English]
NATO
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to salute
40 Canadian forces engineers and other Canadian forces personnel
who have just returned from Kumanovo in the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia.
They were a part of NATO's deployment to that region and
recently received NATO medals for their important contribution.
The Canadian forces engineers and other Canadian forces support
personnel worked closely with French engineers to construct and
renovate infrastructure such as medical facilities, showers and
meal areas in order to enable the members of NATO's extraction
force to perform their task.
The conditions in which they were working were very difficult
and have been subject to consideration in the House. Once again
members of the Canadian forces have shown their determination and
professionalism.
Canadians can be proud of the job they have done. Their
accomplishments in that region are an eloquent illustration of
Canada's commitment to peace efforts in that troubled region.
* * *
GRAIN INDUSTRY
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
western grain farmers have experienced a difficult year with an
income crisis and disruptions in key markets, and now with
rotating strikes by PSAC workers in the grain weighing sector.
Strikers are back to work today but with no contract. There are
no assurances they will not again bring grain movement to its
knees.
The government has failed to enact final offer selection
arbitration as recommended by Reform for five years. These
recurring stoppages are killing agriculture and threatening small
communities dependent on the industry.
Governments were told for years that these grain strikes were
hurting the whole Canadian economy. The government must now
enact legislation that will finally bring a solution to these
work stoppages. Farmers can no longer afford these losses caused
by government negligence.
* * *
[Translation]
MAJOR LIONEL GUY D'ARTOIS
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to pay particular tribute to Major Lionel Guy
D'Artois, a national hero, who became famous around the world
during more than 30 years of service with the Canadian armed
forces.
Major D'Artois passed away Monday in the veterans' hospital in
St. Anne. He joined the army in 1934 as a member of the militia
contingent of the University of Montreal where he was studying
chemistry.
Major D'Artois enrolled as a private during the second world
war. For his exploits on French soil, he received the highest
military distinctions, including “la Croix de guerre avec
palme” from the President of France.
I offer my most sincere condolences to the family.
* * *
1405
DEVCO
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister of Canada must have been joking when he recently told
world leaders gathered in Davos that the Canadian economy is no
longer dependent on the country's natural resources.
Indeed, at the same time, his government was announcing that a
large part of Devco's mining operations, on Cape Breton Island,
would stop for good.
The reality is as follows: raw materials and their by-products
still account for 35% of Canadian exports, which is more than
for any other G-7 country.
The transition from a resource based economy to a knowledge
based economy has begun, but it is obviously not completed.
Devco is a perfect illustration of the Canadian government's
inability to manage this industrial change. No economic
diversification programs were implemented to provide
alternatives for those who suddenly find themselves out of work.
The Canadian government must take responsibility for this failed
economic transition. In the case of Devco, Ottawa must treat the
communities affected with the dignity to which they are
entitled.
* * *
[English]
NORMAN JEWISON
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
night on the occasion of the 71st Academy Awards in Los Angeles,
California, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
presented Mr. Norman Jewison with the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial
Award.
Celebrated before the eyes of the world a Canadian was
recognized for his lifelong commitment to film making.
[Translation]
Mr. Jewison made his debut in London, as a comedian and a screen
writer for the BBC. In the fifties, he came back here to work
with the CBC and then pursue an impressive career as a producer
and director. Mr. Jewison is also the founder of the prestigious
Canadian Film Centre, in Toronto.
[English]
With a total of 12 Oscars and 46 nominations for films such
as The Russians are Coming, Fiddler on the Roof, A
Soldier's Story, In the Heat of the Night and
Moonstruck, he has taught us how important it is to choose
stories worth telling and then tell them brilliantly.
I ask the House to join me in congratulating Mr. Jewison for his
achievement of excellence and making Canada so proud.
* * *
FIREARMS
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to share with the House the frustration that one
of my constituents has experienced with the new gun registry.
Louis Carew is the owner of CMP Sports in Fort Nelson, B.C. He
writes about the hoops that he must now jump through just to
continue to sell firearms, hoops that cost him 25% of his
Christmas sales.
First, he orders a firearm and gets a reference number from the
supplier who has to wait to get a number from the firearms
department in Miramichi, New Brunswick.
Second, the government sends him a reference number in the mail.
Third, when he sells a firearm his customer needs a TAN number
for which he is charged $25, and again there is another wait.
This fee is charged for each new and used firearm purchased.
Fourth, the customer needs an FAC number that has gone up from
$10 to $50 plus $200 to take a course. “The amount of
government bureaucracy and the wait over the phone is
unbearable”, he concludes.
This debacle has cost taxpayers and businesses hundreds of
millions of dollars. Would it not make more sense to invest
these precious tax dollars in police officers?
* * *
WORLD WATER DAY
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is World Water Day.
In 1993 the United Nations called upon all nations to promote
the conservation and protection of water resources in a
sustainable manner. For Canadians, freshwater has an important
real and symbolic value. This is why in 1997 we participated in
the Global Forum on Water Resources.
Nine per cent of the world's renewable freshwater is found
within Canada. We must do everything we can to protect it.
Freshwater sustains our life and health on a daily basis. It is
a commodity worth preserving.
Our government is leading initiatives to restore, conserve and
protect major Canadian watersheds. We are working on the
prohibition of the bulk removal of water, including water for
export. This is the first issue being addressed nationally as
part of the federal freshwater strategy which is presently under
development.
On this important day I would encourage all members of
parliament to consider the growing global concerns for water
quality and quantity.
* * *
WORLD WATER DAY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today,
March 22, is World Water Day. Countries around the globe will
remember that water is a precious resource essential to human
life. Without safe drinkable water we cannot survive.
Unlike many countries, Canada is blessed with an abundance of
freshwater. As a result we often take clean water for granted
but Canada's waters are not endless.
On February 9, a New Democratic Party motion stated that the
government should, in co-operation with the provinces, place an
immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater shipments
and interbasin transfers. The House agreed to assert Canada's
sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater
resources for future generations.
Today we should revisit how we use water in our homes and in our
everyday lives. We must value and protect this vital resource.
1410
In my riding communities such as Pukatawagan, God's Lake Narrows
and Red Sucker Lake do not have running water in their homes. We
must ensure that all Canadians benefit from our resources.
Canada's water supply should not be diminished so that a few will
profit.
On World Water Day, Canadians have much to be thankful for and
to think about.
* * *
[Translation]
PREMIER OF QUEBEC
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers have
much to think about right now.
In his travels abroad, Mr. Bouchard is proclaiming that Quebec
needs to have its own voice in international forums. Yet that
same Lucien Bouchard is denying francophone Quebeckers the right
to have a voice in the Année de la francophonie canadienne.
What right does Lucien Bouchard have to deprive Quebeckers of
their voice within Canada?
What right does he have to try to deprive Quebeckers of their
Canadian identity? What right does he have to continue to
promote separation, when Quebeckers have twice rejected that
option?
Lucien Bouchard claims to be carrying on the tradition of Jean
Lesage and Robert Bourassa. Yet these Quebec politicians did
not seek to stifle the voices of Quebeckers in their own
country, in Canada.
These men had a clearer notion of the word “democracy”. René
Lévesque would be ashamed of this Parti Quebecois strategy and
would certainly not associate himself with it.
* * *
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we
celebrated the international day for the elimination of racial
discrimination.
This is an issue which involves every individual and every state
in our daily struggle to eliminate the obstacles to equality
between people. We must work together to make society a fairer
and more democratic one.
Yesterday, during the activities celebrating this event in
Montreal, the Bloc Quebecois made a commitment to hold
symposiums in the near future to specifically address the issues
of democracy and citizenship. These will provide an unequalled
opportunity to reflect on ways to bring Quebeckers of all
backgrounds closer together.
The Bloc Quebecois also wishes to congratulate the Government of
Quebec for the decision, just announced by Robert Perreault, the
Quebec minister of citizens relations, to make the Quebec public
service more accessible to minorities.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party's motion to end discrimination against single income
families reflects what the Progressive Conservative Party has
been advocating for years.
Our position has been consistent since our 1996 policy
conference. Our document clearly states that “a PC government
would introduce a joint tax return so that single earner
households with dependent children stop paying more tax than dual
earner households with equal incomes”.
The Sears family of Quispamsis in my riding, like so many
families across Canada, is being discriminated against because it
chooses to have one parent stay at home to raise the children.
Let us get away from this unfair tax policy where the government
believes it can make the best choices. The best choices can and
must be made by the people it affects, Canadian families. We
should allow Beth Sears to make the choice that best suits her
family without unfair tax penalties.
On March 9 the PC caucus along with the opposition members voted
in favour of this motion. Unfortunately Liberals voted against
it. Again the government had an opportunity to demonstrate its
support for children and their families, and it failed to do so.
* * *
CLARICA
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the purchase of Met Life in Ottawa by Mutual Life
threatened a thousand jobs in this area, MPs from the national
capital region began a series of meetings with the company and
the minister to minimize the impact on employment in our region
and on individual employees.
Recently Mutual officers met with the members to report on how
they had met their commitments to us. Mutual has developed 600
jobs in four centres of excellence in Ottawa. Priority was given
to hiring nearly 600 staff from Met Life with a freeze on
external hiring and a survey to remove any barriers to employment
in the new organization.
A career centre, training opportunities and counselling ensured
that 93% of affected individuals were successfully repositioned
within the first year. A $5 million transition fund has helped
over 100 individuals and remains available to assist those who
need additional help.
Mutual, under its new name Clarica, will continue and enhance
its contribution to volunteer and charitable organizations.
* * *
BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
back to work legislation that was tabled today has a bunch of
glaring omissions in it.
The government is asking us to debate and vote on this back to
work legislation, and it does not even tell us what the offer is
to the corrections officers that are part of the whole Public
Service Alliance job dispute.
1415
It seems odd to us. We cannot understand how we can be asked to
enter into a prolonged debate today, to deal with something as
critical as back to work legislation, and not have, as part of
the package, the offer that will be made to the prison guards, to
the corrections officers. Back to work legislation is offensive
enough, but it is doubly offensive when the government is trying
to shroud the whole thing in a veil of secrecy.
We would like to know, and we will be debating it later today,
what the government hopes to achieve by this subterfuge, by this
idea that it is not going to tell us the terms and conditions
that are being offered to the prison guards. How can we order
people back to work when we do not even know the terms?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for more than two weeks the Prime Minister has been
avoiding questions about government grants being funnelled to
personal associates. He sits on his hands in question period.
He avoids reporters. He will not release documents. Access to
information requests are censored.
Why does the government think that the Prime Minister does not
have to account for his conduct or his ethics in this matter?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister, the government, myself and other
ministers have been quite open and upfront about this. The
projects in the Prime Minister's area have been broadly supported
by the community, the provincial government and the local PQ MNA;
no friends of the Prime Minister or the Liberal Party. We were
upfront and open. This is perfectly proper.
If the hon. member does not want to see the area go ahead
economically, then the public should realize that he is against
jobs in that area and across the country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is not about jobs. A convicted criminal named Yvon
Duhaime received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the
government after he bought a money-losing hotel from the Prime
Minister. The Prime Minister's assistant personally intervened
in the process.
Pierre Thibault, another businessman with a crooked track
record, also met with the Prime Minister and soon he gets
hundreds of thousands of dollars in public grants.
Why does the Prime Minister not tell us about his private
dealings with these people? Why will he not release all of his
notes and records on these transactions?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these have not been private dealings. When it comes to
the hotel convention centre in downtown Shawinigan, the Prime
Minister has never kept his involvement, as the local MP, a
secret, nor have the mayor and council of the city of Shawinigan,
nor has the provincial MNA. This project has been strongly
supported by the PQ provincial government. It has also been
strongly supported by the city and council of Shawinigan. This
has been open, desired and supported by the community.
The Prime Minister, as the local MP, has worked for his
community. There is nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not talking about jobs. We are not talking about
local communities. We are not talking about the Prime Minister
associating with his imaginary homeless friends. We are talking
about his association with crooked business people, a convicted
criminal and an embezzler, both receiving government grants.
Why would the Prime Minister have dealings with these people in
the first place? Why does he not disclose the nature of these
dealings and clear the air?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these are unwarranted innuendoes and assertions. The
Leader of the Opposition is accusing the mayor and council of
Shawinigan of associating with crooked people. He is accusing
the local PQ member of the provincial assembly of associating
with crooked people. He is attacking the PQ provincial
government of associating with crooked people. Those assertions
are false. They are false on the face of it and they are false
on the basis of any analysis.
If the hon. member had any courage and was straightforward he
would withdraw these insinuations. He is refusing to—
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am sure that no one's courage
is under question in the question period.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister lobbied for grant money for a former business
associate. There is a difference. This is a conflict of
interest. Not just with one letter did the Prime Minister lobby,
but with letters, faxes and personal visits from the Prime
Minister's own assistant.
The person the Prime Minister was lobbying for was Yvon Duhaime
who bought a money-losing hotel from him.
I ask, and I would like to get a real answer this time, in all
of that lobbying, why did the Prime Minister not reveal this
conflict of interest?
1420
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject the assertion of the hon. member that there was
a conflict of interest. He looked into the matter as MP. He had
a representative of his office attend meetings with officials.
As far as I am aware, the decisions were made at other meetings
where the Prime Minister and his staff were not involved and the
decisions were made in the ordinary course, on the merits of the
project.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the list grows because Pierre Thibault also had the benefit of
the Prime Minister's intervention.
He has admitted misappropriating a million dollars from a
company in Belgium. He is under criminal investigation, yet the
Prime Minister met with him and, abracadabra, hundreds of
thousands of dollars became available to him for a hotel. The
Prime Minister must remember that place. After all, that is
where he hosted the Liberal caucus last summer.
Why is the Prime Minister using his influence to funnel
government money to shady characters in Shawinigan?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is doing the same thing that members
are expected to do at the request of their communities. When the
Prime Minister was asked to be involved, to help the community
and the project supported by the mayor and council of Shawinigan,
supported by the PQ member of the provincial assembly, supported
by the provincial government, I think he would be subject to
criticism if he had not responded to the request of his
community, including the tourism association of the community.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN EMBASSY IN BERLIN
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have learned that the Minister of External Affairs disregarded
the opinion of a jury of experts, who had the benefit of advice
from senior officials of his department and from Canada's
ambassador to Germany, and decided to award the contract to
build the Canadian embassy in Berlin to a consortium that
included a firm of architects from Winnipeg.
Will the minister explain why he overturned the jury's six to
one decision, and awarded the embassy contract to a consortium
with an office in Winnipeg? This is another suspicious piece of
business.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it was very simple. There were four very distinct
criteria. One was design. Another was functionality, including
serious questions of security, which has to be a major concern in
any embassy construction. Cost was another criteria. The fourth
criteria was how it would work as an embassy. Those were the
four major areas, of which design was only one.
I should point out to the hon. member that there was also a firm
from Montreal which was part of that consortium.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
does the minister explain that the only member of the jury of
experts to come from Winnipeg voted in favour of the design
proposed by the Winnipeg firm, and that the minister, who is
also from Winnipeg as it happens, decided to award this juicy
contract to a consortium, one of whose firms is based in his
Winnipeg riding?
Is it not odd that the only member of the jury to vote for the
design chosen by the minister, the firm preferred by the
minister, and the minister himself, all have Winnipeg in common?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is just being silly. The major
design firm was from Toronto. It was supported by associates
from Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg, which provided various
engineering and other support services.
I do not know how the jury worked. I was not there. However,
what I can say is that we will have a very good embassy that will
represent Canadian interests and be a showcase for Canada in the
new Europe.
We should all be proud of the work that Canadians are doing in
this area.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when a jury is
split three to three or four to four, naturally the government
has to be able to cast the deciding vote. But when, as in the
Berlin case, the jury makes an almost unanimous recommendation,
then it is surprising.
How can the minister claim that he overturned the jury's
decision because of special security requirements, when a senior
official from his department and the ambassador himself were
assigned to help jury members make the best decision? Was it
not the specific function of these two individuals to provide
the jury with guidance?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the jury was made up of a group of design people who
were arranged to make a judgment, of which a small, final
selection was made, including the final project that was applied.
At the same time there were separate reviews being done on the
question of functionality, which included a wide variety of
performance criteria; cost, which is always a concern when
constructing public buildings; and the technical working of the
building to suit the particular nature of the site in downtown
Berlin.
1425
The point of the matter, which hon. members of the Bloc missed,
as they do most points, is that design was only one among four—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
is doing a very poor job of defending himself. A firm from
Winnipeg, which just happens to be in his riding, was given a
leg up and that is what concerns us.
The minister invited three top German architects to sit on the
jury in order to ensure that the Canadian embassy fit in well on
the Berlin site. These three experts voted unanimously for the
same project, as did other members of the jury. Only one person
was in favour of the Winnipeg project.
How does the minister explain that he went with the opinion of
one jury member from Winnipeg over the opinions of three German
experts?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are not in the habit of letting foreigners decide
what Canadian embassies will look like. Canadians will make that
decision.
In this case the firms chosen were firms that have won awards,
firms from Montreal, firms from Toronto, firms from Winnipeg,
firms from Vancouver. It seems that that represents a pretty
good cross-section of the Canadian fabric, and Canadian knowledge
and skills.
* * *
FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, who many years ago
authored a report about foreign investment in Canada. The sale
of Spar Aerospace, and with it the Canadarm, has raised concerns
once again about foreign investment in Canada and the extent of
it. Investment Canada reports that 796 foreign acquisitions took
place in 1998, only 28 were reviewed, all were approved, and this
constituted $63 billion in one year in foreign acquisitions.
Is the government not concerned about the extent of foreign
acquisitions? If it is concerned, what does it plan to do about
it?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I was quoted as saying over the weekend, the
acquisition of Spar by MDA is saddening. However, it is
important to point out that in the context of this deal the
acquisition by MDA, previously by Orbital, has resulted in an
increase in employment at MDA in Richmond, British Columbia. It
has enabled it to compete effectively, in fact so well that it
won the RADARSAT II contract which was open to bidding.
We are confident that in the long run the investment in the
robotics division will continue to maintain Canadian leadership.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is not just a question of short term jobs; it is also
a question of long term control over our economy.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister again, hearkening back to
another day: What has happened to the Liberal Party that brought
in the Foreign Investment Review Agency, the national energy
program and a number of other measures that expressed concern
about foreign control, in particular American control of the
Canadian economy? Is this no longer on the government's agenda?
Is it simply a matter of Canada being up for sale and the highest
bidder take all? Is that the situation we are in?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his ongoing
support of Liberal government policies. We will continue with
our policies in the best interests of Canada as we respond to
current and future situations. His key support of the Liberal
Party will be noted in the byelection in Windsor.
* * *
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, Yvon Duhaime is
a convicted criminal with financial problems. Pierre Thibault
stole a million bucks from his business partners and is under
criminal investigation in Belgium. Yet thanks to help from the
Prime Minister, Duhaime got over $800,000 in federal loans and
grants, while Thibault got the big prize of $1.5 million, both
for hotel projects in the Prime Minister's riding.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister clear the air and table all
documents related to the Prime Minister's support of Pierre
Thibault and Yvon Duhaime?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has already been quite upfront about
his interest in projects that are in the best interest of his
riding and the surrounding area.
There is a process which the hon. member can follow if he wants
documents and I would suggest he make use of it. That is what it
is on the books for.
1430
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, if there is
nothing wrong with these deals the government should release the
documents.
An alternative would be to use section 11 of the Auditor
General's Act to direct the auditor general to conduct an
independent audit of the grants and loans to Duhaime and
Thibault.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister show some courage, show
some integrity and ask—
The Speaker: I want the hon. member to please go directly
to his question. It is not a question of courage.
Mr. Jim Jones: Will he ask the auditor general to
independently review these questionable projects? Anything less
smells of a cover-up to protect the Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member is abusing the process of the House of
Commons in this question period to make unwarranted assertions.
The PQ member of the assembly was interviewed by TVA Mauricie
today about this very issue. He said:
[Translation]
<“No, no, no, there can be no favoritism”. He went on to say
“Mr. Chrétien did exactly the same thing I did in Quebec City,
that is within the standard government programs with specific
criteria we made sure our ridings got their fair share”.
[English]
That statement by the political enemy of the Prime Minister
speaks for the Prime Minister's integrity and the integrity of
the process.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of human resources told me on February 4
that he only approves job creation grants if the applications
meets “all the standard eligibility criteria”.
The grants he handed out in the Prime Minister's riding have
been to individuals with criminal convictions, shady pasts and a
documented track record of financial mismanagement and business
failure.
Is this the minister's definition of standard eligibility
criteria?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the innuendoes of the member
are not very appropriate for discussion in the House. We will
try to restore some kind of stability in this place and look at
what really took place.
The Prime Minister, who is also a member of parliament, is doing
a great job for business development and job creation in his
riding. In this case every one of the criteria was indeed met.
According to regional studies there is a shortage of hotels in
that region which has a great potential for tourism.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Duhaime's own business consultant told this
government before it gave him a nickel that his hotel was
improperly managed, had huge mortgage debts that it could not
afford to pay and had an additional $350,000 in unpaid bills. Yet
this minister gives Duhaime hundreds of thousands of taxpayer
dollars. How can he explain that?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that very project was also
supported by the Quebec government, a Péquistes government, that
has also put money into it. It has been supported by the city of
Shawinigan and the mayor.
This morning a provincial member, a Péquistes in Shawinigan,
certainly no friend of the Prime Minister in Saint-Maurice, when
asked about this very project, said:
[Translation]
<“No, no, no, there can be no favouritism—It must be understood
that, if the Prime Minister had created some special program,
that would be a whole other matter”. But he says “He did exactly
the same thing I did, that is within the standard government
programs with specific criteria we made sure our ridings got
their fair share”.
That is what the hon. member for Saint-Maurice did. He did his
duty.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the report
released by the Minister of Human Resources Development on
Thursday strikes a real blow at the employment insurance plan.
Women and young people are victims of discrimination. We
already knew that, but we had to await the report. We waited,
and now it is confirmed.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has had ample time
to consult the report. Will he be proposing changes to the
employment insurance plan in order to eliminate the
discrimination against young people and women, since the plan
has a large surplus and he therefore has the means to do so?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to be sure that
women have fair and equitable access to the employment insurance
plan. That is one of the priorities of our government.
1435
I can assure you that I am concerned by the figures that we saw
in last week's report, but it would be premature to jump to the
conclusion that there is discrimination, as the member for
Québec has stated.
There may be fewer women drawing employment insurance benefits
in the past year because two jobs in three created in 1998 went
to women.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
has had the report for three months. If he needed additional
information, could he not have checked it in the meantime rather
than stall for time on the backs of young people and women by
calling for study after study?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of study
after study. I am saying that if indeed women have been
rejected by the employment insurance system because the access
requirements are too severe, that call us into question as the
government, and we will have to do something.
However, if the labour market was more generous to them, and
more women found work, I am saying this is a whole other
reality, which will involve other actions by the government.
But the member for Québec has, for the last three years, been
saying in the House that women are being penalized and that they
do not have the same maternity benefits as before. Despite the
4.6% reduction in the birth rate, however, maternity benefits
remain unchanged. What does the member for Québec say to that?
* * *
[English]
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think the minister is answering the crucial question today in
this Duhaime affair.
Why did the Prime Minister not disclose his conflict of interest
with the business associates in his own riding?
This is not about helping the community, it is about helping
former business associates and friends get an inside track to
government grants and government loans. That is the conflict of
interest.
Why did the Prime Minister not disclose the conflict of
interest, remove himself from those negotiations and let the
grants go to the people who deserve them instead of friends and
business associates?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that every
one of the criteria of the transitional jobs fund has been
respected, that this project has also been supported by the
provincial government as well. It was also supported by the
provincial member.
The mayor of Shawinigan was there. Some people were asking the
Prime Minister to do more. The Prime Minister has been doing his
job to make sure the Government of Canada, with the regular
program is has, would help in his riding as it did in the
riding—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the Prime Minister would even recognize himself in the
1993 videotapes of his campaign promises.
He used to talk about the end of patronage and the ethics
counsellor. Now we find out that the ethics code is secret. We
cannot even see it. The documents we are supposed to have access
to have been so whited out they are of no use to anyone.
We are told now to follow proper procedures by the Deputy Prime
Minister and those procedures do not give us the documents, the
memos or what it was about, the conflict of interest from that
business associate.
Why does the government not table the documents, all the
correspondence today, so that we can all see what the Prime
Minister's involvement was with these business associates of his?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, speaking of videotapes, we remember the Reform
videotapes and the cruel, unjust attack on the Prime Minister and
on French speaking politicians.
The material presented under the access to information rules
followed the legislation passed by parliament. If the hon.
member feels that more was whited out than should have been, he
has an appeal procedure. Why does he not use it?
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday, a coalition of people in Quebec working with young
offenders stated, after a thorough review of Bill C-68, that this
legislation is a decoy, in that there is no confirmation
anywhere of the right of Quebec and the other provinces to apply
their own model.
Will the minister admit that nothing in this bill guarantees the
provinces, including Quebec, can maintain and continue their own
youth justice programs?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our new youth criminal justice
legislation was drafted after lengthy and ongoing consultation
with all the provinces and territories.
We believe the new youth criminal justice legislation provides
the necessary degree of flexibility to reflect the real diversity
in this country in terms of dealing with the challenging issues
of youth crime and youth justice.
1440
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
that case, could the minister state that the Quebec justice
minister legally issue a directive to crown attorneys to
automatically exclude all 14 and 15 year old Quebeckers from
being given adult sentences?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that
the youth criminal justice legislation introduced in the House
two weeks ago speaks for itself. I know I will have the
opportunity to engage the hon. member more directly when I appear
before committee.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
that corner over there we have the industry minister telling us
taxes are far too high and that it hurts our standard of living.
In this corner we have the finance minister saying we do not have
a tax problem. In fact, the tax money is flowing very well,
thank you very much.
How will we ever raise the standard of living in this country
when the government cannot even agree there is a problem?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is complete agreement on the front benches and
there is complete agreement in the government on this issue.
That is why in the last budget we reduced taxes and in this
budget we reduced taxes, $16.5 billion over the next three years.
It is also why in budgets to come we will reduce taxes, because
we understand the necessity of increasing disposable income. We
also understand, which the Reform Party obviously does not, that
one has to pay for health care, education and all those other
matters that are so important to the Canadian fabric.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is interesting to hear the finance minister say he is in complete
agreement with the industry minister because on the industry
minister's website that speech still stands where he says that
taxes are 20% higher in Canada than in the U.S., that the
standard of living is falling like a stone in Canada relative to
the United States.
Does the finance minister completely agree with those statements
of the industry minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I made it very clear that I agree with what the industry
minister has said. What I do not agree with is what the Reform
Party has said, that we should take another $16 billion out of
spending which would gut health care, that we should take $16
billion out of spending which would gut education, that we should
eliminate equalization in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, that we
should simply eliminate the middle class in this country.
That is the Reform Party's position in terms of our basic social
programs and we sure as heck do not agree with that.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-54
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the more we
look at Bill C-54, the more we find it is an excuse to invade a
provincial jurisdiction, namely civil law, and the more we find
it is confusing and does not adequately protect the public.
When will the Minister of Industry do the responsible thing,
suspend consideration of the bill and go back to the negotiating
table with Quebec and the other provinces to harmonize these
laws?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
confusion is on the other side, because all Canadians want
private information to be protected, and that is what we will
do.
This bill truly complements the only existing provincial act,
that is the legislation adopted in Quebec under the former
government of Daniel Johnson, which we support.
* * *
[English]
REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
The PSAC rotating strikes are occurring during the tax filing
season. These strikes are costing Canadian taxpayers generally
and small businesses specifically millions of dollars, money
needed to operate their businesses.
Can the Minister of National Revenue tell us how the disruptions
will impact on Revenue Canada's ability to service Canada's small
business sector?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about our ability to
deliver service to Canadians and to small businesses.
While efforts are provided to maximize service to Canadians we
continue to expect disruptions because of the ongoing PSAC
strikes.
I have to report to the House that we are 1.2 million tax
returns behind our normal processing. In addition, we are
seeking legal action to stop the illegal activity. It also has
cost Revenue Canada $10 million for this strike. Canadians want
us to resolve this issue and we will. I hope Reform and the
opposition will support the government.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the finance minister seems to continue to take this don't worry,
be happy approach to Canada's falling standard of living,
notwithstanding what the Conference Board of Canada says or the
industry department or the government's own pollster or the
Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters.
Let us look at the evidence. The Dow Jones hit 10,000 points. It
grew by 30% last year, while the Toronto Stock Exchange shrunk by
3%.
1445
Why are Canadians who are investing their money for their
retirement getting poorer, while their American friends to the
south are getting wealthier?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member would like us to look at the facts, so
let us look at the facts.
This morning the announcement was that retail sales in Canada
rebounded strongly in January, gaining 1.7%. Our nominal exports
were up 2.1% in January. Our employment, as members know, is up
13,000, an increase of 51,000 a month over the last eight months.
The help wanted index increased in February, its third
consecutive month of solid growth. Those are the facts.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the facts according to the Alliance of Manufacturers and
Exporters are that this finance minister is simply off base when
he says Canadians should not worry about falling living
standards. They pegged our productivity as having gone from
fifth to seventh in the G-7 last year. The ultimate indication of
economic growth is the stock exchange, which in the United States
has increased by 30% and is stagnant in Canada.
While the finance committee says this government should let
Canadians invest more of their RRSPs abroad, the finance minister
says no. Why is he continuing with a policy of making Canadians
poorer when others are getting wealthier?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's facts are simply wrong.
Our productivity has improved in the 1990s over the 1980s. Of
course we want our productivity to improve more. Of course we
must invest in research and development. We must continue to
eliminate debt. We must continue to get taxes so that it will
increase. The fact is that the 1990s are better than the 1980s
and we are going to make sure that the next century is a great
deal better than the 1990s. That is what we are about.
* * *
BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there
is a number of goofy aspects about the back to work legislation
the government wants to ram through today. For one thing, the
corrections officers mentioned in the bill are not even on
strike. Second, the proposed legislation does not tell us what
their settlement is to be.
My question for the President of the Treasury Board is how do we
order somebody back to work who is not even out on strike? How
are we supposed to debate and vote on a pig in a poke, on a wage
settlement that we have never seen?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in fact the correctional officers do not have the right to strike
because they are all designated workers. If some of them went on
strike and there was a riot in a prison, this would obviously be
unacceptable to Canadians. However, through a quirk and a
loophole, 500 or 600 of them have the right to strike. Obviously
since they have the right to strike and since they have indicated
that they intend to use it, we have to close the loophole. That
is why they are included in the law.
* * *
GRAIN INDUSTRY
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government has completely flubbed negotiations with the result
last week of a total tie-up in the grain industry all the way
from the west coast to the prairie farm gate. There were ships
waiting to be loaded in Vancouver. Every day they sat empty.
Already hard-pressed farmers are being assessed tens of thousands
of dollars in demurrage and damages. The job action is the
government's fault but it is the farmers who are feeling the
pain.
Will the agriculture minister commit to paper losses being
sustained by farmers due to Ottawa's total mismanagement of these
negotiations?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the way to prevent further losses for the
farmers is for members of the New Democratic Party to support the
government in getting the workers back to work. That is exactly
what my counterpart the minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan
asked last week. We look forward to their support in getting
people back to work so we can move the food.
* * *
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, section 2 of the
Inquiries Act allows cabinet to order a public inquiry into
issues of good government and conduct. Surely the Prime Minister
will realize that his good government and conduct are discredited
when he helped a convicted criminal and admitted thief get $2.3
million in taxpayers dollars.
I challenge the government. Will it stop hiding, show some
integrity and appoint an independent inquiry so Canadians can get
some answers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this has been looked into on the floor of the House of
Commons. The questions and answers confirm that the insinuations
of the hon. member are without foundation.
If the member is talking about Mr. Duhaime, I am advised at
least from reading the press that his convictions are not related
to his commercial activities. Besides that, the Government of
Quebec, no friend of the Prime Minister and no friend of this
government, has said that the grant in question under the
transitional jobs fund is perfectly proper.
1450
The hon. member should recognize that, or is he accusing the
Quebec provincial government of doing something improper?
* * *
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the
Liberal red book promised an independent ethics counsellor. If
parliament had an independent ethics commissioner today, we could
ask him to investigate the Prime Minister's hotel support plan.
Conveniently the Prime Minister created an ethics counsellor who
reports in secret to him and him alone.
Why will the government not live up to its six year old promise
and establish an independent ethics counsellor who reports to
parliament?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that
it was his own party when it was in government that refused to
have the institution of an independent counsellor who acts in a
different measure than the one we have now.
On the point about the ethics counsellor reporting to the Prime
Minister, it is quite clear to all of us that the Prime Minister
has never shrugged off responsibility by assigning it to someone
else. He has been quite clear about that. We have a fine
institute and a fine individual holding the position of the
ethics counsellor. I am sure all members of the House have
confidence in him.
* * *
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Science,
Research and Development.
It will be a big loss for Canada when Dr. Shirley Neuman, a
leading Canadian scholar in Canadian literature and publishing,
leaves her position as Dean of Arts at the University of British
Columbia to accept a similar appointment at the University of
Michigan.
What is the government doing to restore funding to research in
the social sciences and humanities, a true pillar of Canadian
identity?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that this situation has occurred, but I
also recognize, as does my colleague, the importance of social
sciences and humanities research in Canada.
There were important investments in last year's budget, followed
by more investments in this year's budget. I want to emphasize
that the budget has been applauded by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council as well as the and Social Sciences
Federation of Canada.
This government recognizes the importance of all research. We
have invested heavily and shall continue to do so. We want to
provide Canadians with a range of tools so they can be
competitive.
* * *
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government's propaganda about the new youth criminal justice act
talks about adult sentences for young persons age 14 and over.
What it does not want to talk about is section 745.1 which
mandates that 14 and 15 year olds sentenced as adults for murder
are eligible for parole at five to seven years when anybody over
18 must serve 10 to 25 years.
Does the minister actually want Canadians to believe that a
murderer who gets parole after as little as five years is really
getting an adult sentence?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, I am not going to get
into a detailed discussion of sections of the new criminal
justice act here. We make no apology for the fact that 14 and 15
year olds can now receive adult sentences. They will be presumed
to receive adult sentences in relation to five presumptive
categories.
The parole provisions that exist in the Criminal Code will
continue to exist.
* * *
[Translation]
MIRABEL AIRPORT
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in an attempt to sort out the mess the federal government made
of Mirabel, the Government of Quebec has just introduced a
series of tax measures to turn the airport into an international
free trade zone.
However, federal personal and corporate taxes will continue to
apply.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. When will the
federal government do its share to get the airport area up and
running again by offering the same tax benefits as Quebec is
offering for the Mirabel international free trade zone?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, said
recently, we have already been working for quite some time now
with the Mirabel area for the very purpose of creating certain
areas with tax benefits, and I am told that things are going
rather well.
As for economic development, we have read the conclusions of the
Tardif report and also support ADM's intervention and
development strategy.
1455
I also wish to say that this government has invested $1.4
billion in the greater Mirabel area over the last 15 years. As
well, it has recently worked with Corporation Espace 2002.
There are also other projects soon to be announced.
This government is committed to developing the Mirabel area and
will maintain that commitment.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Nisga'a people have spent the last 20 years negotiating a land
claims treaty with the federal government. Now that the
fulfilment of a 100 year dream is near, the feds are stalling.
As usual, the Liberals are weighing the political pros and cons
instead of sticking to their commitments.
We say that the time has come to right the wrongs of the past. I
ask the minister, will the federal government keep the promise it
made in good faith negotiations with the Nisga'a people and move
immediately on this historic agreement?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on several occasions this
government has made it absolutely clear that we are committed to
writing modern treaties in British Columbia.
The Nisga'a agreement is the first in British Columbia and we
are strongly supportive of it. We are working now with our
partners in the province and with the Nisga'a to write the
complex legislation that must be prepared and brought to this
House and we will do so when we are ready.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, fishers
throughout the Atlantic region have expressed their anxiety over
the possibility of major government cutbacks within the Canadian
Coast Guard budget.
With the safety of both our Sea King and Labrador helicopters in
question, will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to
maintaining and even enhancing coast guard services so our
fishers can feel more secure in the event of an emergency?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has
stated many times in the House that regardless of budgetary
commitments, safety is always a priority of the government. We
will ensure that we maintain that safety through the coast guard.
* * *
WATER
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
recent report by the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and
Policy has called into question the government's commitment to
clean up the Great Lakes.
As today is world water day, can the Minister of the Environment
tell the House what is being done to protect both the quality and
quantity of Canada's water resources?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are many Canadians who would say
that Canada's fresh water is our most important natural resource.
That is why my department expends so many resources on science
and research and provides technical and funding support to tens
of thousands of Canadians to protect our water systems.
We have programs in the Atlantic coastal area, the Atlantic
coastal action program, St. Lawrence vision 2000, Great Lakes
2000, the northern rivers ecosystem and the Georgian basin
ecosystem initiatives.
The federal government is also working with the provinces to
negotiate a national accord which will prohibit the removal of
bulk water and the first step toward developing a fresh water
strategy.
Canadians everywhere are concerned about water and are becoming
involved in this very important issue.
* * *
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, our new youth criminal justice act does not include
10 and 11 year olds. The Tony Blair government in Great Britain,
a very moderate government, has just brought in a new act similar
to ours but it includes 10 and 11 year olds because it cares
about young children and their problems, just like we do on this
side.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, is it
not a fact that her justice committee asked for 10 and 11 year
olds and the only reason we do not have it is that she cannot get
the money out of her cabinet colleagues to help the young
children of this country?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have heard an awful lot
recently about how much the official opposition supposedly cares
about young people.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan: The member for Calgary Northeast
said, “I suspect flogging straightens up behaviour by jolting a
young criminal into reality”. What about the member for Wild
Rose who said that when he was a school principal his students
performed better once they had tasted a piece of wood? This is
the party that cares about young people.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after last
year's announcement by the British government that it would be
carrying out clinical testing of marijuana on 600 patients, the
American government has just made public a study by the
prestigious National Academy of Sciences in which it comes out
in favour of the medical use of marijuana.
When is the Minister of Health going to get moving and take all
the necessary steps to legalize the medical use of marijuana,
thus allowing Canada to catch up in an area where it is
seriously lagging behind other countries?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased that other governments followed Canada's example.
As has already been announced, we intend to carry out research
on the results of marijuana use for medical purposes. We shall
be doing so shortly.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Joseph Sempe
Lejaha, President of the Senate of the Kingdom of Lesotho.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to table in the House today, in both official
languages, a number of order in council appointments which were
recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 123(1), I have the honour to present
the fifth report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny
of Regulations concerning SOR/93-43, an order varying a letter
decision of the Chandler Subdivison issued by the National
Transportation Agency. The text of the relevant section of the
regulations is contained in this report.
* * *
1505
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1
I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of
this House, a bill in the name of the President of the Treasury
Board, entitled an act to provide for the resumption and
continuation of government services, shall be disposed of as
follows:
1. Commencing when the said bill is read a first time and
concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House
shall not adjourn except pursuant to this Order or to a motion
proposed by a Minister of the Crown, and no Private Members'
Business shall be taken up;
2. The said bill shall be read twice and thrice in one sitting;
3. After being read a second time, the said bill shall be
referred to a committee of the whole;
4. During consideration of the said bill, no division shall be
deferred.
5. Immediately after the said bill is disposed of, the sitting
shall be suspended to the call of the Chair, provided that the
House shall adjourn immediately after returning from the granting
of the Royal Assent to this said bill or at fifteen minutes
before the scheduled time of commencement of the next sitting
day, whichever comes first.
The Speaker: Will those members who object to the motion
please rise in their places?
And more than 25 members having risen:
The Speaker: More than 25 members having risen, the
motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.
(Motion withdrawn)
* * *
PETITIONS
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
a petition signed by residents of Stoney Creek and St.
Catharines.
They urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT, noting that
studies under way at the University of Quebec are showing adverse
health effects especially on children and seniors and that car
manufacturers also oppose the use of MMT.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present a petition
that has been six months or more in the making.
I have 100,000 signatures from people across this great country
protesting the Young Offenders Act as it stands. They talk about
substantive changes they want to see come forth. They hope the
amendments we put forward in the next few days will really make
that happen.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present another petition from a large
group of Canadians who are very concerned about the state of our
health care system today.
The petitioners call upon the government to act as quickly as
possible to ensure that the Canada Health Act is upheld,
strengthened and enhanced. The petitioners also call upon the
government to respect the principles of accessibility,
universality, portability, comprehensive coverage and public
administration.
1510
They call upon the government to entrench those principles not
only in terms of the immediate needs within our hospitals and
medical system but to use those principles to expand our health
care system to cover the whole range of health care needs.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition
signed by a number of Canadians including from my own riding of
Mississauga South on the subject of human rights.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world
in countries such as Indonesia.
The petitioners also point out that the Government of Canada and
Canada have continued to be a champion of universally accepted
human rights. The petitioners therefore call upon the government
to continue to condemn human rights abuses around the world and
to seek to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
* * *
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Questions Nos. 124 and 183 could be made orders for returns,
these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 124—Mr. Derrek Konrad:
Could the government
provide a list of the complaints/challenges the Department has
received on band elections held between 1996 and the present,
including: (a) the name of the band involved; (b) details of the
complaint; (c) the date of the initial election; (d) the date the
complaint/challenge was made; and (e) the status of the complaint
within the Department (i.e. what action the department has
taken)?
Return tabled.
Question No. 183—Mr. Rick Casson:
With respect to the transfer
payments as outlined in the 1998-99 Estimates (Part III), could
the Minister of Environment provide details as to the recipients,
use of, or any further details concerning the monies distributed
to date under Grants and Contributions, specifically: (a) the
contribution to the Province of British Columbia and
environmental non-government organizations (ENGO's)—Wildlife
Strategy, Pacific Coast Joint Venture of $325,000; (b) the
contribution to Building International Partnership of $1,009,423;
and (c) the contributions made under Minister's Authority of
$393,500?
Return tabled.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT, 1999
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of
this House, a bill in the name of the President of the Treasury
Board, entitled an act to provide for the resumption and
continuation of government services, shall be disposed of as
follows:
Commencing when the said bill is read a first time and
concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House
shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a
Minister of the Crown, and no Private Members' Business shall be
taken up;
The said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting;
After being read a second time, the said bill shall be referred
to a Committee of the Whole; and
During consideration of the said bill, no division shall be
deferred.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I must this
afternoon introduce the subject at hand. Obviously the
government is in a position now where it must bring an end to the
strike and bring people back to work.
My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, will be
giving a detailed speech on what the bill, which was introduced
earlier today, will contain as soon as the order that we have
before us has been disposed of by the House.
Meanwhile, might I take this opportunity to thank the House for
having agreed earlier today to the introduction of Bill C-76, the
Government Services Act. This has allowed members to see the
bill for a few hours more than they would normally have been able
or entitled to. Hopefully it has succeeded in convincing at
least a number of members of the House as to why the bill is so
urgent.
Our government has settled collective agreements with some 87%
of its civil servants. However, there is a number of groups with
which a settlement has not proven to be possible. With a view to
reaching a settlement the government was very flexible at the
bargaining table.
Again, the President of the Treasury Board will be speaking I am
sure very eloquently on this issue when he makes his second
reading speech.
1515
Our last offer compared very favourably to what 87% of our
unionized employees, including more than 90,000 PSAC members, in
other words the same union, have already accepted. Unfortunately
an agreement has not been possible with a smaller group who
nevertheless provide services in critical areas.
Not only do they provide services in critical areas but they
have picketed in a way that has prevented other people from
attending to their regular duties and deprived Canadians of the
services they need.
Strike activities have been affecting millions of Canadians, in
particular Canadian farmers, Canadians who pay income tax or,
perhaps more important if we look at it through the eyes of the
taxpayers, those numerous Canadians who are expecting income tax
refunds. Some 900,000 claimants are waiting for their benefits
as we speak because we are unable to process these claims.
There is also an issue involving Canada's prison system which of
course came to light last Friday through the media and we all
know how important the preservation of that is for the security
of Canadians and for providing for the security of those who are
incarcerated.
Last week Mr. Speaker determined that an emergency debate on
this issue was necessary. If no less than the Speaker of the
House of Commons has decreed that this was an emergency to be
debated on the floor of the House we in the government are
treating this issue as an emergency and agree with what Mr.
Speaker ruled on some days ago.
I quote the member for Selkirk—Interlake who stated on March 18
that grain farmers are facing one of the worst financial years in
a decade: “Farmers are innocent third parties in this labour
dispute”. These concerns were raised again on Friday, March 19
in the House by other hon. members. We agree this is important
and urgent.
Today Revenue Canada offices were heavily picketed across the
country, the national capital region, the Atlantic region,
including St. John's, Sydney, Halifax, Summerside and Saint John,
the Ontario region office at Belleville and the prairie region
offices at Winnipeg and Edmonton. This adds to the problem at
Revenue Canada that I was speaking of a while ago. This is
disrupting and it is disrupting to many Canadians and sometimes
Canadians least able to help themselves and who need our help and
our support in this time of need.
[Translation]
This is why the government has today tabled a bill in the name
of my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, for the
purpose of ordering 14,000 of these blue collar workers back to
work and imposing a collective agreement.
The government is also calling on parliament to order some 4,500
correctional officers to remain on duty in the interests of
public safety and to negotiate a collective agreement as quickly
as possible in order to maintain the safety of inmates and of
all Canadians.
For the government and for millions of Canadians, this is
therefore an urgent matter, as the Speaker of the House pointed
out last week. It is urgent that action be taken immediately.
Blue collar workers are responsible for the operation of
government facilities and buildings throughout Canada, as well
as health services in federal institutions. In addition, of
course, when these people are picketing, they can prevent other
equally important workers from delivering services to Canadians.
1520
Numerous low income families and small and medium size
businesses will have to wait for cheques to which they are
entitled and which they urgently need.
After 10 weeks of rotating strikes, the impact on Canadians has,
I would argue, become unacceptable.
[English]
As a member of parliament representing a rural constituency, I
do not want to see my country lose sales of grain and other
agricultural commodities. Our agricultural commodities are the
pride of this country and we do not deserve to see the sales of
these products diminish for any consideration.
This strike is having a serious effect on Canada's economy,
particularly on grain farmers, small business, low income
Canadians and all those who are counting on receiving their
income tax refunds. Canadians are counting on us today. I ask
the House to approve swiftly the motion before us. Having passed
that motion, we will then proceed with the bill in the name of
the President of the Treasury Board, Bill C-76. After that bill
is in place we will be able to resume all the services that
Canadians deserve.
[Translation]
I therefore call on the House to pass as quickly as possible
today this motion that will enable us to pass Bill C-76 in order
to restore the services to which Canadians are entitled.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today we finally have a debate about the emergency
situation facing this country. We have a debate based on some
facts and some details which this government has failed to
provide since I raised the motion last Thursday for an emergency
debate.
At the end of this debate this afternoon Canadians will start to
fully realize the level of incompetence and uselessness this
government that went ahead and negotiated over the past five
years since it came to power in 1993. We are in this emergency
situation today because of the negotiators who work against the
unions as opposed to working with them in an attempt to get a
fair and reasonable negotiated settlement. What happened? They
dillied, they dallied, they wasted time, they did not bargain in
good faith. They knew these negotiations were absolutely vital
to coming to an agreement before there was any harm done to the
Canadian economy. They did not bargain in good faith. Otherwise
we would have had today a negotiated settlement.
They disregarded the farmers in this country who are already
suffering from a serious financial situation due in no part to
their own actions or decision making. The actions I described
were due to subsidies in foreign countries and a general
oversupply of the commodity product.
Today we have Bill C-76 in front of us, an act to provide for
the resumption and continuation of government services. The
Canadian people will see the spin doctoring of this Liberal
government done by its henchmen back in the offices behind the
ministers. We will see that the people of Canada will see what
has gone on in the House and outside. I will go over that spin
doctoring a little. The true facts will arise from this.
I hope the agriculture minister is following my speech very
closely today. Whether or not the Treasury Board minister and
the agriculture minister agree, the question of how serious this
was and when the government should have known about it is one of
the key things.
1525
Today we had the revenue minister stand up in the House and
refer to 1.2 million tax returns that have not been filed.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: You guys are worried, aren't you?
You better send a few more task forces up there.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult
for the Chair to hear the hon. member who is making his remarks.
Perhaps there could be a little more order so the hon. member
could be heard.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, it is behind by 1.2
million tax returns. The revenue minister has to know that as of
January 1 Canadians are entitled to file their tax returns and
try to get back some of the money that the government has taxed
out of them. They deserve that money and they deserve it on
time.
The government saw this coming. Here again it goes right back
to those poor negotiating tactics. It attempts to squeeze the
union people and farmers out of every penny they have.
We also heard another member speaking today with regard to
corrections. The Treasury Board minister said he had to close a
loophole, a quirk in the previous agreement they had negotiated
with the corrections officers and the unions representing them.
Why did they have to close that loophole, that little quirk? Not
only did they not negotiate with the unions in good faith and
come up to an agreement, but the very legislation they put in
making them essential workers was incomplete and incompetently
drafted. The government went ahead and passed that legislation
which is another reason why we are here today.
We can continue on about the incompetence of this government in
its labour negotiations. We look back to when we were dealing
with Bill C-19, a labour bill. That bill and other major labour
legislation were designed to have agriculture products continue
to move through the ports. When we look in Hansard at the
debate, Reform members put in amendments to say this legislation
did not cover the 70 grain weighers out on the west coast.
I will not name the member, but a member of the Liberal
government came to me on Thursday, the night I asked for this
emergency debate, and said “Are you sure this did not cover
those 70 members of the PSAC grain weighers union on the west
coast?” I had to tell him it did not.
We were telling this to the government back in 1997 and 1998,
that Bill C-19 did not cover that. As late as Thursday these
Liberal members were coming to me and admitting that they knew
not what was in that bill, assuming it covered the necessary
labour agreements to keep the grain flowing.
Let us go back to March 18. The summation of everything I have
said to this point is quite clear. This government since 1993
has not bargained in good faith. It has not done the things
necessary to establish good relations and come up with a fair and
reasonable settlement for the union people, the farmers and
Canadians.
It is a known fact that in this country, as in any country,
productivity is directly related to the workers and the amount of
produce, product and manufactured goods. Over the years we have
seen billions of dollars lost to union strikes and other labour
disruptions. Even those disruptions were due to the previous
governments over the past 30 years negotiating in poor faith and
not understanding what union people were trying to put across to
them which was simply a fair and negotiated settlement.
1530
They failed in all those 30 years. I remember seeing these
stoppages from the time I was a very young lad in Saskatchewan
living on a farm. They started back with the seaway negotiations
with the pilots. That was when governments lost control of
negotiations. History shows us that inflation took off in Canada
and put us into this $600 billion debt. We only have to look at
who was in charge of the country over those 30 years. I look
across and I see the Liberals and I see the Conservatives. They
have brought us here today.
Reform has put forward solutions to some of these problems and
has certainly worked closer with the unions than the government
with respect to the very problems we are facing today.
One of the possible solutions which I mentioned in my speech in
the emergency debate of Thursday, March 18 was the fact that the
grain weighers are an essential service provided by government,
due to the fact that they are the only ones who perform that
service, and they should have the benefit of final offer
arbitration to settle their labour disputes.
Due to the incompetence shown by the government in Bill C-19,
those 70 weighers were not treated properly and, as a result, all
14,000 Public Service Alliance of Canada workers have been
dragged into this dispute.
I will certainly give credit to the Speaker who authorized the
emergency debate on Thursday, March 18. However, in the Liberal
spin doctoring, no credit was given to myself or the Reform Party
by the government. Government speakers went outside the House to
give part of the story of what had happened in the House. There
was no mention of the fact that final offer arbitration was
suggested as one way of settling these disputes.
In the debate of Thursday, March 18, there was an amazing
coincidence. This was again spin doctoring. This time it was
the Minister of Natural Resources, the minister responsible for
the Canadian Wheat Board, saying that Canadian Wheat Board
negotiators, the salesmen, the marketers for the Canadian
farmers, were in Japan and were announcing the loss of a $9
million sale.
This was the first time I had ever heard representatives of the
Canadian Wheat Board say they had lost a sale. It is a
coincidence that it came up just at the time they were trying to
put pressure on the labour unions. They were trying to put
members of the official opposition into what they perceived as a
beautiful, spin doctored, compromising position to make us look
bad before the Canadian public.
The comment on the Canadian Wheat Board is a question I am going
to be asking farmers and one which farmers are going to be asking
their elected representatives. Farmers are going to find out how
the decision was made to make a public announcement that our
grain was not selling in Japan and why this government was unable
to settle the labour negotiations to keep our grain moving; and
not only settle negotiations, but in fact have legislation in
place to facilitate grain movement.
On Friday, March 19 the government came into the House to put
forward a motion. The Liberals expected us to buy into a motion
that gives absolutely no details of the legislation they intend
to bring forward. The government also asked the Reform Party,
the NDP, the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois to accept this
no detail motion on behalf of Canadians and to assume that the
government will take care of Canadians and their interests.
1535
This government has not taken care of farmers' interests. It
has not taken care of the PSAC union members' interests. It has
not taken care of the productivity interests of Canadians in this
country. It certainly has not taken care of the high taxes or
the high debt.
I think the Canadian public is starting to understand and
realize that this whole problem, this whole emergency, this whole
non-negotiated settlement, this requirement for back to work
legislation, rests solely on the head of the Liberal government.
It does not rest on the opposition members. The government has
been in charge of this House since 1993. That is precisely why
this problem rests on its head.
When I asked for the emergency debate the other day we were
trying to get solutions from the government as to what facts it
had to bring forward and what it was going to do about the
situation.
We sat here that night. It is all in Hansard. There were
no solutions coming forward from the government. It threatened
the union. It talked about hostages and that kind of thing. But
it is not the union's fault in this situation, it is the Liberal
government's fault.
There is no point in reading the full motion that was put
forward on March 19, but it stated that it was a bill in the name
of the President of the Treasury Board, entitled an act to
provide for the resumption and continuation of government
services, and it gave the manner in which it was to be disposed
of. There were no details.
Once again, I hope it is abundantly clear to the House and to
the Canadian public that members of the Reform Party stood for
Canada. We stood for the unions. We stood for the farmers. We
said that we were not going to let the government sell us a pig
in a poke. The Canadian public bought that in the election of
1993 by electing the Liberal government. I do not expect to see
them make that mistake again.
I hope the Canadian public can see that the opposition parties
took the right stand in saying that before we would give consent
to the government to do anything, which would probably cost a lot
of money and a lot of heartache, we wanted to see the facts.
Today we have the facts in Bill C-76, which we can now debate.
In this chronology of despair over the emergency situation, when
there is no real need for an emergency situation, we saw the
Saturday and Sunday press releases describing the attempt to put
the motion on Friday. Over the weekend I followed the
newspapers. They did not even bother including the other
opposition parties because they wanted to try to make Reform,
with our strong base in western Canada, look bad to Canadians. I
know today that Canadians and western Canadian farmers know what
happened.
When those newspapers are reviewed and when the facts start to
come out over the next couple of days, our western Canadian
farmers are going to see that Reform stood for them and has a
good track record in regard to this whole issue.
I have already covered some of the history. This government has
been in power since 1993 and it continued the wage freezes which
were started a year or two earlier under the Conservative
government. The freezes continued right through until the last
two years. The government knew that there had to be negotiations
and that agreements had to be in place. There was ample time for
it to do that, instead of leaving it go, instead of making poor
decisions, instead of not showing any leadership, instead of not
taking the bull by the horns to come up with a settlement which
would treat people properly.
We referred to June 18, 1998, when royal assent was given to
that essential service in Bill C-19. Our suggestion at that time
was that the government should include in the bill final offer
arbitration.
1540
The issue is that 70 grain weighers who were not covered were
able to harm the incomes of 115,000 grain farmers in western
Canada. The grain weighers did not want to harm these farmers
financially, but they did have to stand for their interests. The
government had the opportunity in Bill C-19 to make sure that did
not happen, but once again flawed legislation prevented Canada
from moving ahead with its economic programs.
If we look back in history a few months, on January 27, 1999 the
Western Grain Elevator Association was very concerned about the
rotating strikes. Members of the association said that it was
time to do something about the labour negotiations. They were
concerned about the movement of grain through the Vancouver port.
We have seen from the situation we are in today, this emergency
situation, that in fact that letter, if it was not ignored, it
certainly was not acted upon. That was not the only warning, I
am sure, telling the government that something had to be done
immediately.
Let us look at the government's previous history with respect to
labour negotiations. I am not going to go back to 1993 or the
many years that Liberals have been in government, but I am going
to go back to the famous debates we had on back to work
legislation for the postal union. I am saying this so that
everyone fully understands the incompetence with which the
government has dealt with labour-management problems in this
country.
The postal union strike was not settled. There was back to work
legislation about two years ago. In fact I was informed the
other day that there has been no negotiated settlement of that
dispute. It is ongoing. Who knows? If the time runs out on
that legislation, I guess the government's idea of labour
negotiations is simply to bring in another piece of back to work
legislation.
This country cannot be run by a dictatorial government. That is
exactly what back to work legislation is. It is a dictatorship
which has been resorted to and implemented. The government has
ignored the normal democratic processes, including listening to
the official opposition when it puts forward good amendments to
legislation.
I would like to deal with the introduction of the legislation
this afternoon by the government House leader. Once again the
spin doctors came out. I guess in this case it was his own spin
doctor. I do not know if he was handed the information or if he
collected it himself, but he said that he introduced this
legislation with some regret. I am referring to Bill C-76.
The time for his regret was back in January. It was back in
1998. It was back in 1997 when something could have been done
about it.
When the Liberals know that something is coming down the pike,
why if they are doing their job, if they are representing the
people of Canada, would they wait until the last minute, wait
until it is a crisis, wait until the situation cannot be
resolved, wait until financial harm has hit some of the poorest
people in the country who are waiting for tax returns? I do not
know. I have to refer to it as simply being incompetence.
That was a nice bit of spin. Then the government House leader
went on to say that he hoped this bill would convince some
members of the House, referring to members of the Reform Party
and possibly other members of the opposition, that we were wrong
on Friday. That was the gist of his remarks. I have already
explained that we had no details on Friday.
For him to stand today and try to make it look as if the
opposition parties were against having this legislation come
forward, like we said, we will not buy a pig in a poke in this
House. If we did, who knows the dismal conditions the Liberal
government would have us living in within very short order?
1545
There was a comment by the House leader. I do not want to dwell
on his presentation but he brought it up. Like they say in the
old school yard, he started it. And at the schools I went to, I
was of the opinion that somebody else may have started it but I
was going to finish it and that is exactly what I am going to do
today.
He also said that he did not want to see lost sales exports.
The rotating strikes and lost sales exports started back in 1998
and in early 1999. If he does not want to see them, why the heck
did the government not do something about them before today?
The hurt for farmers will not stop today. To get the grain
system and the hopper cars spotted on the tracks by the elevators
and inland terminals will take several days. It will probably
take a week or more to get the system back up and running.
Demurrage charges will kick in. Late delivery penalties will
kick in from our customers. The financial hurt is there and it
should be on the government's head.
The agriculture minister sat back until December 1998 saying not
to worry about that income problem because the western Canadian
farmers have crop insurance and a NISA program, and that is fine
and dandy, they will be all right. The farming industry and the
opposition members finally convinced him by December that he was
totally misguided, misinformed or he misunderstood what the facts
were.
I bring that up to point out that the agriculture minister is
part of this whole terrible scenario leading up to this emergency
today. He is supposed to be representing farmers across the
country, including western Canadian farmers. When the agriculture
minister saw the hurt that was happening, even if he did not want
to admit it, and when he had the opportunity to do something
about it and did not, that to me is what Canadians will see as
incompetence on the part of the government.
I will close with the final comment that the government will
have to pass this legislation. I will support this legislation
because incompetence has brought us to this point. The government
has put Canadians, farmers, the union, everyone in a box from
which they cannot escape without this drastic dictatorial action.
It is a sad day but that is what will have to happen.
Starting this minute, the government will not get off lightly
having left us in the lurch. Tomorrow we will have to continue
on with two things. We will have to try to get some amended
legislation on Bill C-19 that went through on labour relations.
We will continue to push the government to negotiate in good
faith and come up with a solution with the union that is fair and
reasonable for both the union and the people of Canada.
As with the postal workers, I do not believe we will see
anything different in the negotiations with the PSAC workers.
As a result it will take all of us on this side of the House, and
I intend to be part of it, to work with the Public Service
Alliance of Canada and the farmers to get this country into shape
so we do not have to suffer this financial harm.
1550
In the long term, what can I say? We hope that in the next
election we can come up with a new government. I am certainly
looking forward to a Reform type government. People like to
comment about the united alternative, but we will certainly come
up with a government to replace this government with one the
general population of Canada wants.
As the last of the speeches are made from the opposition side
today, we will see the truth of this whole emergency debate come
out. We will see the truth of the legislation. We will see
whether there can be some amendments to include some final offer
binding arbitration for the 70 grain weighers out on the west
coast.
Once again I say that this is a sad day. We have been left in
the lurch by the Liberal government. Starting with the emergency
debate the other night, we are finally seeing that something is
being done. It is not perfect but something is being done. We
will continue to push this government into doing not what it
wants to do but what Canadians want it to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, and as its
labour critic, on this special debate, but I share the
government leader's distress in doing so. There is good reason
to be sad when we are required as legislators to introduce such
a bill in the House, since it constitutes admission of a failure
in the way our organizations and institutions operate.
All of our labour relations are based on a relationship of power
that is meant to be a fair one. When we are forced to take
steps such as those being taken today, it means something has
gone wrong with that relationship.
What we are dealing with is a legal strike, a strike by a
legally recognized and constituted union. It is part of the
rules for the labour relations process that, when the workers'
side considers that what has been offered is inadequate, they
may strike. This is what we are dealing with at this time: a
union that is legally using its right to strike and, by the very
fact that it operates within the governmental system—because the
government wears two different hats in a context such as this
one, as employer and as legislator—is having forced upon it
special legislation.
The government, acting as both employer and legislator in this
case as I said, wakes up one morning, supposedly exasperated
after a few days of strike—at least as far as the people at
Vancouver are concerned—and decides to take action, arguing that
the services involved affect public health and safety, thus
qualifying as essential services. Measures are in place since
public health and safety is an integral part of essential public
services, and that was the rationale for taking this line of
action.
Right now, the government is going overboard and is failing to
demonstrate—and this is where it is not following procedure—the
urgency of the situation, but one does sense a kind of
exasperation.
The government has, moreover, had its task made easier for it.
I personally have a hard time figuring out the workings of the
Reform Party, which set the table last Thursday by so eloquently
dramatizing the situation in the port of Vancouver. In my
opinion, it considerably facilitated the government's action and
this is why Friday and today we see the government acting
entirely exceptionally by taking measures to impose special
legislation.
I think we ought to deal with matters one at a time.
1555
The exceptional measure used here is the suspension of the
debates on the order paper. It is called a special debate. We
are talking about the motion that will enable the government to
introduce special legislation, perhaps tomorrow. That is what
we must be discussing. We will talk as eloquently as possible,
except that the time frame as you know is very short.
It cannot be said often enough. It is an illegal strike. It is
a process recognized by the parties and by society. We support
bargaining and civilized balance. This has been upset today.
It is excessive on the part of the government, which happens to
be the employer, to try to impose its own rules, its own way of
seeing things, its own working conditions.
We will discuss this into further detail later on, but we are
convinced that it is still possible to negotiate in good faith,
to restore a normal balance of power between the parties. Look
at what happened at the two bargaining tables where there are
now problems, that is table 2 and table 4.
For the benefit of members of parliament and those listening to
us, table 2 deals with labour relations between the government
and general labour, ships' crews and trades represented by the
Public Service Alliance of Canada, while table 4 is for Canada's
correctional services employees, who are also members of the
PSAC.
Some progress had been made, albeit slowly at times, but at
least to the point where, in the case of correctional services
employees, an agreement had been proposed by a conciliator. That
agreement was accepted by the union, but rejected by the
employer. The parties could find a solution, provided they
negotiate in good faith. This is where the attitude of the
employer, the government, becomes a concern because, given that
the conciliator's report had been approved by the union, there
is already the basis for an agreement.
It may be premature and inappropriate for the government to take
this kind of action today. It should have been a little more
patient, a little more conciliatory. It should have tried to
find a compromise, given that the union had committed itself,
making it unnecessary to this kind of measure, which is always
exceptional and sad.
Only the government can get away with taking the sort of action
it has taken today as an employer. From the smallest company to
the largest multinational, no organization except the government
has the power to take the action being taken today of
legislating heavy fines to force people back to work under
conditions set by the employer, in this case the government.
As for table 2 on general labour, ships' crews and so forth, the
workers represented by this union are prepared to go the
alternative route of arbitration, so desperate are they. It is
good for the government to see how its offers are perceived, if
they are seen as being as reasonable as it claims.
In our opinion, and this is why we are opposed, all efforts have
not been made to reach a negotiated settlement. This is a
serious matter. Time is running out, and let us not forget that
these people's salaries have been frozen for six years. They
have every reason to make demands, to make strong demands, given
the rise in the cost of living, inflation, and so on.
The government has taken a very firm stand, and resorted to
legislation to get its way. That is how we see it.
1600
We think it is a matter of principle, that this is an illegal
strike and that the government should honour the mechanisms
currently being used. Neither the negotiations nor this House
should be upset with strategies built on the other side.
I will summarize our position, which is clear. We believe the
freedom to unionize exists in Canada for employees and
employers. This freedom exists for the parties, and the option
of calling a strike exists from the moment there are good
reasons for doing so, and this is the case here. It is part of
a fair balance of power, except when the employer is also the
government and is abusing its legislative power. Special
legislation must be used only as a last resort.
This has not been shown to be the case here in our opinion. In
the meantime, we want the government to return to the bargaining
table with an offer acceptable to the workers and to resolve the
problem democratically and in a civilized manner through
negotiation.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not want to prolong this debate, but I cannot let
the comments of the member for Selkirk—Interlake go by
unchallenged. He said that the truth would come out in the
emergency debate last Thursday.
On all the remarks by the member for Selkirk—Interlake about
Bill C-19 being inadequate and that we need to amend it so that
this sort of situation can never happen again, if people
listening to this debate check Hansard of last Thursday
they will find that all those remarks and recommendations were
made by me, a Liberal.
Moreover, I was the only one during that emergency debate, not
the Reformers, who proposed that we should have back to work
legislation. I was puzzled by the silence of members of the
Reform Party on that issue. They were silent and now I know why.
When the motion by the government was put forward on Friday
calling for back to work legislation they voted against it.
If people wonder about what is happening here, all they have to
do is check with the phone logs of the ridings of the Reform
Party and the Liberals. They will find that the phone logs of
the ridings of the Liberals will be choked with angry calls from
PSAC and that the phone logs of the Reform Party members will be
choked with angry calls from farmers.
Who represents whom around here? It is the Liberal Party this
time that is representing the farmers and the Reform Party is
representing the unions.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: This is a period of questions and comments
on the speech by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. I am not
sure that what the member has just said was on topic.
If the hon. member for Trois-Rivières wishes to respond, he is
welcome to do so. Otherwise, we are going to continue with
questions and comments.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Liberal
member correctly, there is, in my opinion, some ambiguity in the
Reform Party's position. Reformers have, at the very least,
dramatized the situation, thus making life very easy for the
government in this debate. Their position in this debate is very
ambiguous to say the least.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question for my respected
colleague from the Bloc Party is quite simple. The Liberal Party
in 1993 promised in the red book that it would eliminate regional
rates of pay for blue collar workers of the PSAC union. To date
it has not done that. It has in fact reneged on that promise.
Would the member comment on what he thinks of a government that
breaks many of its promises, especially this very critical one to
14,000 workers across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP member for his
question. Indeed, this is more or less what we mean when we say
that the government did not demonstrate the validity of its
position.
1605
Arbitrariness seems to be the rule and it is being supported
through legislative means. This is very annoying.
I should also tell you that the union's arguments in this
respect were good ones. If the salaries paid to members of
parliament were based, as is proposed for union workers, on the
differences that exist between regions of Canada, people here
would be very upset.
Perhaps the government's position is defensible, but we would
greatly appreciate it if the government showed more conviction
than it has so far.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the
member for Trois-Rivières. I have the impression we are reliving
events we have already lived through in this House.
In this case, we realize that when the federal government fails
to accept its responsibilities fully, when it does not pursue
negotiations fully or when it does not achieve the desired
results in its negotiations, it is tempted to play employer
government rather than just plain employer. We see this in the
current situation.
In the representations made by the support employees, there are
things that could be discussed at the bargaining table. There
are differences in salaries between provinces. This is not an
issue in which the government must remain closed to all
negotiations.
This is a situation in which there is a way to resolve such
things at a bargaining table or to take an original approach to
doing so, without necessarily coming down on the union and
wielding a mandate like the one the government wants today, at a
time that strikes me as—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, could you ask the Liberal member
shouting on the other side to be quiet while I speak? I would
hope we could speak in this debate in a civilized and rational
manner.
There would have been a way to continue negotiations longer to
come to a conclusion that would mean better labour relations.
There is more involved than just the resolution of labour
disputes. We have to be able to live with the situation
afterward.
I would like the comments of the member for Trois-Rivières on my
remarks.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for
his question.
It certainly shows us one thing about this government. It is
very authoritarian when it comes to labour relations and
anything related.
This is the same government that is refusing to recognize the
court decision on pay equity. This is the government that uses
discriminatory orphan clauses, as it did with Canada Post. This
is the government that last year refused to bring in clear
antiscab legislation, when such legislation already exists and
has been very useful in Quebec. Here we have an example. All
it had to do was follow Quebec's lead, which, more often than
not, is very good. Last year, the government was not
interested.
When it does intervene in the labour market, as it did with
employment insurance, this is the kind of government that
discriminates shamefully against new arrivals by requiring them
to have twice as many hours the first time or on coming back
after x number of years.
This is more of the same. It is part of this government's
philosophy to be very arbitrary and authoritarian. I hope that
the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam will listen
carefully and be more polite as the debate goes on.
1610
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
seems like deja vu to me. Here we go again with back to work
legislation. We went through it recently. We probably heard
many of the same debates. I heard the same heckling, the same
sort of protestation from the other side that it was in the best
interest of Canada to order these people back to work. It was
somehow so essential to the well-being of the country that the
government could trample all over the democratic rights of people
to withhold their services.
It is galling to those of us in our caucus. We obviously do not
approve of the movement to order back to work legislation in this
matter. We think it is offensive, which is the best word that
comes to mind. What is even more offensive is the fact that at
the end of today I have no doubt the government House leader will
stand and move closure on this debate. The government is piling
insult upon insult when it comes to the democratic process.
I should point out that it will be the 50th time the government
has introduced time allocation and closure. It is icing on the
cake to the government. We are dealing with the subject of
stripping away people's right to withhold their services and we
will even strip away their right to have a debate about it in the
House of Commons later today.
Let us talk about what this strike is all about, even before we
get down to the terms of back to work legislation. What
triggered blue collar workers to strike was the regional pay
issue, the fact that a carpenter working for the federal
government makes one wage in Halifax and another wage in
Vancouver doing the exact same job.
There are even more glaring examples where a truck driver would
be crossing the Alberta border to drop off a trailer to be picked
up by another driver on the other side who would be making $3 or
$4 an hour more in wages even though they are both doing the same
job.
That had to end. The workers were pushed and pushed. They
tried to negotiate their way out of it after bargaining year
after year. It was not possible. They used the only weapon
available to them, the strike weapon, the right to withhold their
services to try to satisfy this issue.
I notice in the package being rammed down people's throats today
that there is some movement on the zones. They are going down
from 10 zones to 7 zones, but we should recognize the way the
Liberals are doing it. It is almost unbelievable. Rather than
harmonize in any kind of a common sense way they are merging the
province of Saskatchewan and the province of Nova Scotia into
one, Saskatlantic or something, because it will not cost them
anything. There is no sense. There is no logic.
I will tell the House how flawed is the package we have been
presented with today. The Liberals forgot Nunavut. On April 1
we will celebrate the creation of Nunavut and there are no rates
of pay in Nunavut. They left it out. It was omitted. Even
people working outside Canada are listed in the rates of pay. The
people working in Nunavut will have none of it. It is crazy.
When I stood and asked a question earlier today I was saying
this was a goofy package. There are all kinds of inconsistencies
and flaws. Yet we will not be given a chance to give it the
visitation it needs to review the clauses to try to correct some
of these things because debate will be terminated.
We would be happy to point out some of the inconsistencies so
that perhaps the Liberal government could correct some of them.
One of the things that I pointed out is that correction officers
are listed in schedule 2 of the bill. Correction officers are
not on strike. Corrections officers do not have the right to
strike. They are designated an essential service, but as the
minister pointed out 600 or 800 of them somehow slipped through
the cracks. In other words we are seeing exactly what we saw in
the postal workers dispute. The government is trying to slide
this in. It is trying to slip this in through the back door.
Back to work legislation is supposed to be about back to work.
How can they order employees back to work if they are not on
strike? In other words, the government is trying to designate
these corrections officers as an essential service without having
the guts to come in through the front door and stand up to the
test of honest debate on that subject. They would rather do it
by subterfuge and by stealth. It is truly offensive.
This is the same that happened to the Canada Post Corporation
Act. They tried to slide the whole profitability issue in during
back to work legislation. They wanted to use Canada Post as a
cash cow. They wanted $200 million a year worth of revenue to
come out of Canada Post, but they did not have the guts to come
forward and introduce an amendment to the Canada Post Corporation
Act. No, they tried to slide it in under the carpet again with
the back to work legislation.
We caught that right away. We did not have that bill more than
five minutes before we noticed how sleazy that effort was. We
find it offensive from where we are.
1615
Let us really look again at the trigger of the strike, what
caused the impasse. Certainly wages are part of it. These
people have not had a raise in pay in seven years. They have not
had a negotiated settlement in nine years. It has been imposed
settlements all the time. Where is the right to free collective
bargaining in this country if our own government, the major
employer in the country, is always imposing settlements,
legislated settlements like this one, year after year? With no
raise whatsoever for seven years, the union was asking for a
pretty modest package.
On March 12 when the talks broke down the union's position on
the table was 2%, 2.75% and 2% with a 30 cent sweetener into the
last two years. That is not exactly catch-up money. With the
cost of living increases over that seven year period, union
members are way behind. They are not asking to make all that up.
On March 12 the government was not that far apart. The
government's last offer to them was 2%, 2.5%, 2% and 1%, which
is really not miles apart. Why then would it want to provoke a
strike that has had such devastating effect on prairie farmers
and our commodity industry? Why for the sake of a lousy 3%
spread does it provoke a strike like this and cause the kind of
rancour and disruption we have seen across this country? Where
is the logic?
The costing of this spread is $7.8 million. I wonder what the
total impact and the cost of the total impact to prairie farmers
has been of shutting out the industry and the grain handling in
this strike. A little more than $7.8 million, I think. This is
what is really irritating about this strike. We fully endorse
and respect the right of workers to withhold their service. It
is the most peaceful way of handling an impasse. In the old days
things got rowdy. Heads were split open. Withholding services
in a peaceful way is the most civilized way of trying to put
pressure on the other party.
It goes back to the ancient Greeks and Lysistrata. The
women of Troy withheld their services from their husbands because
they were tired of them going to war all the time. They were
walking around with little tents instead of togas. That is the
first reference we have to that kind of organized withholding of
services. It is a time honoured tradition. We do it today
because somebody has to recognize the historic imbalance in the
power relationship between employers and employees.
That is why we have enshrined it in our charter of rights, that
is why the United Nations recognizes it, that is why it has
become one of the hallmarks of a free democracy, a strong and
democratic trade union movement with the right to organize, the
right to bargain and yes, the right to withhold your services if
you reach an impasse. We have seen that trampled on twice since
I have been here and I have not been here very long. We have
seen those rights trampled on. I did not come to Ottawa to vote
away workers rights. That is not why I came here. I will not
have anything to do with it.
We have heard the Reform Party as if it were somehow the
champion of the working class all of a sudden. This is
particularly grating as a trade unionist. Reformers would like
to wipe unions off the face of the earth. They have said so
publicly. It is no secret what they think of free collective
bargaining and the trade union movement. One Reform member is
the only professional union buster I have ever met. It is
honestly galling for us to listen to Reformers saying that they
are on the side of the trade union movement. They do not even
take phone calls from unions. They will not acknowledge or
recognize organized labour. Lobbyists from unions who come to
the Hill are not welcome to come to their offices. It is almost
fraudulent for them to try to portray themselves as any kind of
friend to the working class. It is almost unbelievable.
Let us get down to politics since we are in the business of
politics. The irony of the whole thing is that the public sector
votes Liberal.
Public sector workers, by and large, support Liberals.
1620
I really have to question the logic of the Liberal government
poking them in the eye with a stick and provoking this strike in
the way that it has if it really hopes to forge any kind of
relationship. Even if I were not a socialist and a trade
unionist, as a taxpayer I do not want the morale of my public
sector so demoralized that productivity does drop. If we want to
talk about the issue of productivity that we have heard so much
of in the House lately, that is a productivity issue.
When the government does not give somebody a raise for seven or
nine years and then keeps heaping more and more work on them
because it used to take ten people to do a job but it has laid
off half of them so the other five have to do the same work for
less money, frozen wages, how does it hope to garner support from
public sector workers by beating them up like this all the time?
It is trampling on their rights. Now they are being ordered back
to work.
Again, with the corrections officer thing, the CX table 4 worker
is confusing to me. Not only do we have a case where they are
not on strike, but they are being ordered back to work as a
preventive measure or something.
In the package that we are having rammed down our throats
unceremoniously in the next few days, the government does not
even tell us what the settlement is to be. It is completely
silent on what the settlement is supposed to be for the 4,500
corrections workers who are being lumped into this back to work
legislation.
The Reform member for Selkirk—Interlake was talking yesterday
about a pig in a poke. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke
because we do not even know what the package is. Obviously we
will vote against it. Who in their right mind would vote for
something when they do not even know what it looks like? It is a
huge leap of faith and I do not have that kind of trust in the
members opposite to act on strictly faith that everything will be
okay, we will treat everybody fine.
Why do government members not state up front what the terms and
conditions will be for those employees? Are they allowed to go
back to the bargaining table and keep negotiating? That is what
was implied. Negotiations are not really over for them. Why are
they being legislated back to work and having the right to strike
taken away? Most prison guards do not have the right to strike
as it is. They were designated essential a long time ago. This
is to try to catch those 600 or 800 who have somehow slipped
through the cracks. In other words, it has nothing to do with
back to work legislation. The government is trying to achieve
some other, secondary objective.
It is intellectual dishonesty to try to go through the back
door. We have seen examples of it. It is not unlike the idea of
taking a deduction off a person's paycheque to use it for a
specific purpose and then to use it for something completely
different. That is a breach of trust that borders on theft. I
would never say the government is stealing from workers because I
know that would be wrong. It is certainly a breach of trust to
deduct something for a specific purpose and to use it for
something else again. That is fundamentally wrong whether it is
dishonest or not.
This is along those lines. This is misrepresentation. It is
subterfuge. It is stealth. It is trying to say this bill is
about back to work legislation. For 14,500 members of the Public
Service Alliance of Canada it is about back to work legislation.
The government is trampling on their right to withhold their
services.
The other 4,500 must be as confused as I am. The 4,500 prison
guards must be mystified by this. The government has taken away
their right to strike and they are not even on strike. They do
not strike.
The package we were given today is 530 pages of very detailed
wage schedules with wage increases accurately itemized. These are
the increases being imposed on these workers. Nowhere does it
say they are getting a 2% raise or they are getting a 2.75%
raise. It is up to us in the few short hours we have to try to
get our pocket calculators out and figure out how much of an
increase is this new wage schedule the government has listed. A
bunch of us were calculating away. I would think it was the hope
of the government House leader and the minister for the Treasury
Board that we would not be able to figure it out. Again, stealth
and subterfuge.
Even in a court of law one has to tell the other side what one
is doing and what evidence one will present. Here we were
presented with 530 pages of evidence that we have to plough
through and try to make some sense of, yet the government is
asking us if we are willing to vote with it today and support
this.
It is almost inconceivable. I did not think I would see things
like this when I came to Ottawa. It is really quite an eye
opener for me how this place really works. It is disappointing.
1625
As a trade unionist I went through a great number of issues like
this. We were never legislated back to work because I was in the
private sector with the carpenters union. We had the right at
least in the private sector.
I guess it is all the more reason for not going to work in the
public sector. The pay is lousy and the minister responsible for
the Treasury Board will steal your pension and there is not even
the right to strike when trying to improve the terms and
conditions of employment or to elevate the standard of wages and
working conditions. How do working people advance their causes
if they do not have the right to strike? It is the only tool we
have left.
To add insult to injury, this is the same government that has
given us advance warning that in early or mid-April it will be
introducing legislation so that it can get its hands on the
public sector pension plan surplus, $30 billion. That is its
next big windfall.
First it paid off the deficit on the backs of its own $10, $11
and $12 an hour employees by freezing their wages. It pays off
its deficit there. The only advantage for taking a public sector
job used to be there was a reasonable pension plan. That was
always the excuse. The wages are crappy and it is a thankless
job but at least there was a decent pension plan. Now it is
targeting that, zooming in there. First it was the UIC program
and now it is the pension plan.
Honestly, this is probably the most uncomfortable situation I
have been in since I have been in Ottawa just because the
circumstances surrounding this bill are so nonsensical, so
unnecessary.
Talking about pensions and wages, I was a private sector
carpenter. I made about $25 an hour. It was good money. The
public sector carpenter makes $15. Figure that out. Still the
government wants to contract work out instead of using its own
forces. It will contract it out to the private sector, often to
immediate family or close personal friends. It would rather pay
$25 an hour than pay its own people $15 an hour.
That is what led to a lot of the hard feelings and the animosity
that led to an impasse in these negotiations. It was that huge
disparity between the public sector and the private sector in
terms of wages. How can it be explained? Never mind the
regional differences. Those we have already dealt with, that it
unfair for a carpenter to make $15 an hour in Halifax and $10
elsewhere under the arbitrary zone system.
Is there is any commitment to the concept of equal pay for work
of equal value? The prevailing wage in an area for a carpenter
might be $25 an hour. The federal government pays $15 and takes
away the ability to elevate the standards of wages and working
conditions by trampling on their right to withhold services. It
is added insult to injury. How does a working person ever move
forward without being able to exercise that one basic,
fundamental right to withhold services for the sake of moving
them and their family forward?
It is the most peaceful way to solve any kind of impasse. It is
not violent. People look at it as economic violence. It is not
economic violence. What gets foisted on workers is economic
violence. The threat of layoff is economic violence.
The constant Damocles sword hanging over every public sector
worker's head, that is economic violence, when people are
threatened with their jobs every minute of every day. A
workplace that used to do a certain task with ten people is now
asked to do it with five and then freeze their wages for seven to
eight. I doubt that many public sector workers feel very
inclined to keep voting Liberal if that has been their practice.
I doubt it very much because they have been poked in the eye with
a stick one too many times, their rancour has been provoked.
Watch next month when the government finally tries to get its
hands on the surplus of the pension plan. It will wake a
sleeping giant. It will regret the day this was even raised
because they will rise up in a way they have never been seen
before. The government will regret it.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is very exciting. It sounds like the red flag is about to be
waved. I am ready to strike into a chorus of the Internationale.
1630
I would like to comment on the hon. member's remarks. I have a
great deal of respect for the member. I understand his
frustration as a man with considerable background in the trade
union movement.
I would like to correct a couple of comments he made at the
beginning of his remarks. He said, “The Reform Party would like
to wipe unions off the face of the earth” and that it was almost
fraudulent to claim that we had any support for unions.
I think the hon. member perhaps got a little carried away in
hyperbole. He may doubt the degree of commitment of my party to
trade unions and collective bargaining, but in all sincerity, I
would point out to the member that one of our basic principles as
a party and as defined in our policy statement is that the Reform
Party supports the right of workers to organize democratically,
to bargain collectively and to strike peacefully. We also
support the harmonization of labour-management relations and
reject the view that labour and management must constitute
warring camps.
Personally, many of my own economic views are influenced by the
social teachings of the Catholic church. I have been heavily
influenced by the encyclical letter Rerum Novarum on the
dignity of human labour. I understand and appreciate the right
of workers to work together, to bargain collectively and the
freedom to associate and the freedom to strike peacefully.
That is why we have had difficulty with the approach of the
government on this issue. We would prefer to see final offer
binding arbitration to the kind of destructive game we see being
played here between the union and the government.
Could the hon. member comment on whether he sees that kind of
final offer binding arbitration as a possible constructive
alternative to the kind of adversarial relationship that is
destructive to the interests of both the workers and, in this
case, the farmers whose product is being held up?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
because the issue of final offer selection has been raised as a
possible solution for this impasse and others.
I have quite a bit of close personal knowledge of final offer
selection. I have actually used it in my own negotiations. It
was law in the province of Manitoba for a number of years. It
was chucked out by the Tories when they got in. They thought it
was weighted too much in favour of the union, which was not
really true.
The thing one really needs to know about final offer selection
is that it is not very effective unless both parties stipulate
themselves to it, that both parties are willing participants. In
other words we cannot legislate final offer selection by telling
them they are going to settle their impasse by final offer. That
puts a disadvantage.
It is also very difficult to use final offer selection for
complicated matters other than strictly monetary issues. For
instance, if rules of work or the organization of the workplace
have some part in the impasse or the strike which is taking
place, then it is very difficult because we cannot weigh apples
to apples. When one party is asking for a 5% raise and the other
one wants the washroom moved closer to the lunch room, how do we
compare those two and how does the arbitrator make a selection?
Suppose it is Roger Maris dealing with his baseball team. Final
offer selection originated with pro ball. If it is only about
money and the company is offering $1 million and the player wants
a $1.5 million, the arbitrator does not have that difficult a
time. Both parties then try to temper their demands with reason,
one would hope, and get closer to the centre until they are not
that far part so that there are no real losers.
Those are my comments on final offer selection. It has its
place. There is nothing precluding people from using it now if
both parties stipulate themselves to it.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the
government leader says that it saddens him to have to act as he
is acting today, I believe that there is also an element of
shame involved.
I would like to know what my NDP colleague thinks of the
attitude of the government leader in this respect. How does he
feel about the introduction of this bill?
1635
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I fully
understand the question. The translation was a little
questionable.
Our party's position is that it is fundamentally wrong. We are
always opposed to back to work legislation. We are fundamentally
opposed to taking away the rights of workers to withhold their
services. I believe the comments of my leader have been
consistent with that party policy.
One of the issues my leader, representing the riding of Halifax,
was most concerned with was the regional pay issue. Some public
servants are paid differently based on where they live.
It seems fundamentally wrong that skilled trades people doing
exactly the same job but in two different parts of the country
are paid differently. Members of parliament are not paid
differently based on where they come from. Neither are members of
the RCMP nor most civil servants.
It is only that group, the 14,500 blue collar workers, that
suffers this inconsistency. It can be as much as $3 an hour from
one coast to the other. We are not talking high wages to begin
with but we are talking about a spread of $3 or $4 an hour for
the same job. It is a pay equity issue, not dealing with gender
this time but with geography. It is fundamentally wrong.
How sloppily crafted was this back to work legislation? Looking
at the zones, the government left out Nunavut. How could we
forget about Nunavut? It is in the papers. April 1 is the big
day. The legislation must have been thrown together at midnight
in a coal mine or something with no lights on because there are
glaring omissions.
One of the omissions is in the translation. In the definition
of common law spouse, the English language version talks about a
relationship existing for a continuous period with the employee.
It contemplates same sex. In the French translation it says that
the common law situation shall be a relationship between a man
and a woman who have lived together for a certain length of time.
The government forgot to update its own bill which we are being
asked to pass. On the basis of that omission alone, we should
vote down this legislation because it is not consistent with the
government's own policy to recognize same sex relationships when
it comes to benefits.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am quite interested in the comments by the hon. NDP
member.
The member knows that in western Canada the grain issue and work
stoppages have been going on for the last 30 years. I also run
into a number of problems where workers are migrating from one
part of the country to another.
If I am right, unemployment insurance is also discriminatory for
some people who have worked in higher workfare areas such as B.C.
and then have come to Manitoba and are unemployed. They are paid
at a lower scale. There are a lot of inequities.
I liked his comment on final offer selection arbitration. We
have talked to quite a few shippers in the last couple of years
on transportation reform. This type of arbitration works quite
well in some instances in other sectors such as the coal
industry. There is some good in this. There should be enough
common ground so that we can work toward the legislation and not
have these interruptions any more. That is what western farmers
want.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have had this
matter raised.
As we went through the amendments to Bill C-19, we did put in
place some protection to make sure the grain would go through.
Let us remember that is the Canada Labour Code. The workers who
are at an impasse today are under the Public Service Staff
Relations Act and therefore are not affected by that.
If the government were really sincere about never having the
flow of grain interrupted again by anybody, the simple solution
would be to let those public servants be covered by the Canada
Labour Code, not the Public Service Staff Relations Act. This is
exactly what they have been asking for for decades. The Public
Service Alliance of Canada wants to be under the Canada Labour
Code. We would not have any more grain problems because this
would be covered under Bill C-19.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, APEC inquiry; the
hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore,
Public Service; the hon member for Mississauga South, Poverty.
1640
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
what I am about to say is very important. It has a lot of
importance in reference to western Canada, particularly in the
grain industry. We will deal with that.
I want to emphatically say that the blame here and this debate
is happening today because of inactivity and inaction on behalf
of the government of this country. Treasury Board has had two
years to resolve this issue. Because of the inaction of Treasury
Board and this government, members of PSAC table two were
required to go on strike in order to get their message across to
the President of the Treasury Board. It is inexcusable that
labour-management relations have dropped so low that in two years
they could not get to the bargaining table and come up with a
resolution to a labour issue.
I speak from experience. I have had ample experience in dealing
with numerous unions in a previous life. I can also stand here
today in front of the House and say that in all of the negotiated
settlements we had, not once did we require a strike mandate to
get a settlement. Not once did we have our unions hit the bricks
in order to get what they felt was a reasonable negotiated
settlement from the corporation. That speaks to good, honest,
equitable, in good faith negotiations between labour and
management. That is something this government and the President
of the Treasury Board do not understand, open honest negotiation,
an honest negotiated settlement with their unions, in this case
PSAC table two.
Let me talk about PSAC. I stood in the House not that long ago
when PSAC was still on strike. It is still on strike today but
perhaps not in the next couple of days. I said in a statement
that it is unconscionable to have a unionized group of
individuals who have not had a wage increase for seven years. Not
to give a wage increase to any labour organization for seven
years speaks to disaster.
Since 1991 we have all gone through some very tough economic
times over the last seven years. There was a thing called the
recession. I am sure most members will remember the recession of
1991-92. It is pointed out to us regularly when we talk about
how after 1992 the economy got spurred along by a number of very
major initiatives that the government of the day put into place.
However, I digress just a bit. From that point on when those
initiatives of that government were put into place, the economy
did turn around. We are seeing the fruits of our labour today
because of those initiatives taken in 1991-92.
Let us go back to PSAC's position. Since 1991 it has not had an
increase.
The same circumstance faced us and we gave increases to our
unions. They may very well have been small increases. They were
half of 1%, three-quarters of 1% on an annual basis. The reason
we did that as an employer is so we would not have to worry seven
years later about trying to catch up. We did not have to worry
seven years later about having a very disappointed and unhappy
union that would go on strike. We never had that because we were
logical in the way we faced labour-management relationships.
PSAC table two has not had an increase for seven years. Of
course those workers frustrated. We would be frustrated if we
had not had a wage increase for seven years. Members of the
House gave raises to themselves. Mr. Speaker, you, me and
members in the House got salary increases. We did it ourselves.
1645
By the way, members of this party said we would rather see wage
increases go to the RCMP, to PSAC and to those government
employees who have not had salary increases for seven years.
When we ran for office we knew what we were going to be paid.
Those people have families like we do and they have to make sure
they keep pace with inflation. They have not had it, but they
should have a wage increase.
PSAC went back to the table for 14 days. On the last day the
government decided that it would try to negotiate in good faith.
Those negotiations lasted for three hours. Then the government
walked away from the table. That is why we are here today, with
a PSAC strike that is still ongoing and a government that is not
prepared to negotiate honourably and fairly.
As I said, two years is a long time. Fourteen days of
negotiations with nothing happening is a long time. The
frustrations of PSAC came to a boiling point and it went on
strike.
Unions have certain rights in negotiated agreements. PSAC has
the right to strike. PSAC has the right to remove its services
from the government, the employer that is paying its members. The
PSAC membership has taken that strike vote and it has taken that
strike to the streets. That is the right of PSAC and the unions.
I had the opportunity to meet quite a number of PSAC members in
my office over the weekend when I was in my riding. They are
like the rest of us. They have families, they have jobs, they
have lives, they have mortgages and they want to go back to work.
They actually want to go back to work. They would rather be
working than not working and on strike. However, they want a
settlement which is fair and equitable. I mention the strike
vote because they have the right under their union agreement to
take their services away from government.
Last week when the grain weighers went on strike they impacted
another industry, an industry that is very important to me and my
constituency in western Canada, and to Canada in general. In my
opinion they crossed the line. They went too far. When I met
with these people I mentioned that. I told them that I spoke on
their behalf, that I believed the government and the President of
the Treasury Board had not done what they were elected to do and
that they had been negligent in their duties. But when these
people took their services away and impacted the agricultural
industry, they stepped over the line.
As members are well aware, the agricultural industry is in
difficult straits. We have problems in trade relations with our
major trading partners, the United States and Japan. We have
problems with commodity prices worldwide. Western Canadian
producers are getting the lowest commodity price they have had in
generations. There is difficulty in the farming economy to the
point where the government has put together the AIDA program, an
aid program to give farmers the opportunity to plant their crops
again this year.
We recognize that there are serious implications when the trade
of that agricultural commodity is impacted. I told the PSAC
members that, unfortunately, this could not happen.
I was very fortunate last month to travel with the agriculture
committee to Washington. I was very fortunate this month to
travel with the minister of agriculture to Japan. Two issues were
always being put on the table by our major partners. The United
States of America is our major trading partner and Japan is our
second largest trading partner in agriculture. In both cases our
trading partners told us that they would trade with us if and
only if we could guarantee delivery of our product in a reliable
fashion.
1650
Remember what I just said. There are problems in the world with
commodity prices. There are problems in the world with a number
of other countries producing the product that we would like to
sell to the open market. There is a lot of competition out
there. We have good customers who depend on us. They depend on
the delivery of that product. The delivery of that product has
been impacted by the PSAC strike. That cannot be tolerated.
The best solution is not back to work legislation. The best
solution is not to force people to do something they do not want
to do. The best solution is to get the President of the Treasury
Board back to the bargaining table, to sit down and negotiate a
fair settlement with that organization, which in fact should be
dealt with in a similar fashion as other members of that
organization were dealt with previously.
They are not asking for anything totally out of the ordinary.
They are asking for fair compensation. That is all they are
asking for.
I said that they should not to be forced back to work. We will
debate this legislation that is before us right now, the back to
work legislation. However, I cannot in good conscience suggest
that farmers in western Canada will be able to take this on the
chin, a third party which has absolutely no opportunity of
getting its grain moved without PSAC going back to work.
The process is something we would like to talk about. As I said
earlier, this motion should never have been introduced. This
should never have been an issue. It should never have been a
problem. I again must repeat myself and say that I hold this
government totally to blame for not solving this problem before
it got here. The government had two years to solve the problem.
It should never have come to the floor of this House. Now it is
here. We will have to make sure that grain exports, grain
handling and grain transportation are not impacted by this group
of individuals in PSAC.
In my closing remarks to the union people whom I met with this
weekend I told them quite emphatically that we cannot stand for
what they are doing and how they are impacting grain. We will
have to consider supporting back to work legislation if they are
not able to get back to the bargaining table or back to work.
I am very disappointed that we have to be here today to speak on
this issue. I will hopefully have an opportunity when we debate
the legislation within the next day or two to explain why it is
totally unfair that this government has not been able to come up
with a negotiated settlement with this particular table of PSAC.
I would be more than happy to answer questions. I wish the
motion would come forward quickly so that we could debate it.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with intent to my
colleague from the Conservative Party. It almost sounds like he
wants to have it both ways. However, I do agree with him on the
fact that the government of the day is responsible for the
current impasse. He is absolutely correct when he says that.
The only reason we are having this debate today is that when the
back to work legislation was presented by the minister the NDP
and the Bloc stood to force it. The Conservatives, Reform
members and the Liberals all sat down. That is the reason we are
having this debate. But that is another story and in my speech I
will talk about it.
My question for the member from Manitoba is this. I am sure the
hon. member is fully aware of the Liberal broken promise on
regional rates of pay. He is sitting next to the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who has briefed him on the
regional rates of pay issue and the fact that the Liberals broke
their promise on it. If they broke the promise they made in
1993, what makes him or his party think that this government has
any credibility when it comes to fair bargaining with PSAC
workers?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It is my understanding that my colleague is not in fact the
member for all of Manitoba. Although I understand that he has
aspirations in that direction, he is actually the member for
Brandon—Souris.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sure the hon.
member for Brandon—Souris is very disappointed to hear of his
new abridged responsibilities, but we will give him a chance to
work up to them.
1655
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for, I suspect, some ambitions that I may have, although I was
not aware of them. Maybe he could tell me where he has been
getting these particular pieces of information. However, things
are strange in this world of politics, so one never knows.
I am the member for Brandon—Souris and I accept that there are
members from Manitoba who represent other ridings, perhaps not as
well as Conservative members in Manitoba, but they do represent
them all the same.
I will try to answer the question from the hon. member of the
NDP. As he is probably aware, with respect to zones or regional
rates of pay, an offer was placed on the table by Treasury Board.
As I understand it, PSAC table two has even agreed to a massaging
of the zones at the present time from ten zones to seven zones.
As to his other comments about breaking our promises, I would
suspect that we have not broken as many promises as the Liberals
have broken. We can talk about the GST, the NAFTA, the EH-101,
Pearson airport and a lot of other things, but we do not break
our promises. We negotiate honourably and sensibly and try to
make it as best we can for labour-management relations.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for Brandon—Souris has
seen through some of the Machiavellian aspects of this piece of
legislation.
I have never, since I came to parliament, encountered a
situation like this, where we have a national emergency of 70
people tying up the entire western agricultural economy.
Everyone on this side wants to see that ended, as I am sure even
hon. members from the party to my right would like to see that
particular disruption ended.
What does this government do? It brings in this bloody piece of
garbage that is going to take away the right to bargain by all—
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We have spoken about this with respect to the Reform Party
before. Intemperate language is not appropriate. There are
children watching this program. I heard words from that member's
mouth. I think this is the third time in a week that the Reform
Party has been using language of this type and it is not
appropriate when across the country children are watching.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The point of the
government House leader is certainly well made. I will invite
the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands to continue his
dissertation.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was being
rather temperate under the circumstances.
The government has brought in a bill which is going to directly
affect thousands of workers who have absolutely nothing to do
with the emergency at hand and nothing to do with the problem
which we are going to have to resolve. In effect, it is probably
going to force a lot of people who would not otherwise want to do
so to vote to relieve people of their bargaining rights to solve
a problem in one corner of the labour movement.
This is absurd. It is wrong. It is mean and it is
Machiavellian. That is the only way I can describe it. I hope
the hon. member for Brandon—Souris really had that in mind. I
think that is what I got out of his speech. I would like him to
confirm that.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is true
to a point. There is no question that this is a huge hammer to
use to try to resolve a problem that could be resolved in a
better and more honourable fashion if the assurances were there
that the grain would be moved.
The problem is that farmers are being used as the badminton bird
in this game between management and labour. Do not use my
farmers as that badminton bird or that pawn. If we make sure
that the grain can be moved, then I would be very happy to
continue with the negotiating process that has now been put on
the table by treasury and the union.
It is a terrible sledgehammer to use back to work legislation
right now in order to resolve this problem.
1700
When the union took the grain handlers out and used this
particular gambit, it also knew it would get the government's
attention because it was affecting an $18 billion industry, most
of western Canada and probably all of Canada. The union knew
when it did it that it would get the government's attention and
that this would be the result.
Nobody has total right on his side. The hon. gentleman is
right. It would be very nice to be able to resolve the situation
without this piece of legislation, get them back to work and make
sure there are no strikes on the grain handling side of it.
Bill C-19 should have spoken to a situation where we would not
have any more tie-ups with Canadian grain moving to the
marketplace.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
been listening to what sounds like the government using a
sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. It is too little too late in
many cases.
I have in my riding a number of PSAC union members who work at
the base in Dundurn for the Department of National Defence. They
are actually situated in the same grouping as the grain workers.
I have been in contact with them over the last few days. They
are very upset that they will be taken out of the bargaining
process for no reason other than the government wanting to
wholesale everybody back to work. They think it is ridiculous. I
feel for them. In fact, they have many concerns that I would
personally support as a Reform Party member.
What are the thoughts of the member for Brandon—Souris on why
the government would not have brought in final offer selection
long ago to prevent these strikes or lockouts from ever happening
in the first place?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. To try to understand the logic of the
government is impossible. To ask me how I think the government
thinks, it is impossible for me to get to that level. I am sorry
but I cannot answer that question. At some point in time when a
member of the government stands to speak perhaps the question
would be better directed to him or her.
I still go back to my original comment. I cannot believe that a
negotiated settlement could not be achieved in two years of
negotiating. That shot my wildest dreams. I do not know why the
Liberals would not go to binding arbitration. I know that the
union has put that on the table before and they have not taken
binding arbitration. I do not know why it was not extended in
Bill C-19 so that grain would not be affected.
We recognize this is the pawn. We recognize the unions will use
it. Let us be fair about it. They will use anything they
possibly can to get the attention of a government that is not
prepared to sit down and negotiate.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to debate the motion introduced by the
government.
The heavy handedness of the government goes beyond the pale in
the way it thinks it can use its majority to impose its will not
only in the House but right across the land. The motion
introduced reads in part:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of
this House, the bill standing in the name of the President of the
Treasury Board, entitled an act to provide for the resumption and
continuation of government services, shall be disposed of as
follows:
1. Commencing when the said bill is read a first time and
concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House
shall not adjourn—
They wanted us to give our consent, even before they had tabled
the legislation, to rush the bill through first reading, second
reading, third reading, hold our nose and presumably vote for it
too without even having the courtesy of giving us the bill to
tell us what they intended to do with the legislation. That type
of attitude in this place cannot be tolerated and that is why the
Reform Party says the government is very heavy handed.
We can think of other types of legislation that have been
brought into the House.
1705
I think of the hepatitis C debate we have had in the House
wherein we talked about providing compassion and compensation for
people who were infected with tainted blood. I have some people
in my own riding, whom I know personally, that were tainted with
hepatitis C. The member for Macleod is a physician and critic
for the Reform Party on health matters. He has stated in the
House many times that the government has an obligation to
compensate these people because the Red Cross and those
administering blood products were quite aware of the dangers in
blood back in 1984 and before then. They had the capacity to
test it and did nothing.
The government absolved itself of the responsibility. How did
it do that? The Prime Minister cracked the whip and told
everybody to get in line and support the legislation. Now it has
taken it one step further. Now it is asking us to support the
legislation before we even see the legislation. Surely that is
too much.
An hon. member: Do you know about grain handling?
Mr. John Williams: The government member is asking if we
know about grain handlers on this side. Maybe they do not over
there, but we know that farmers are hurting.
We commend the minister of agriculture because he brought in a
package to help farmers in serious trouble. As we know,
commodity prices have gone through the floor. When it comes to
hog production, the faster farmers produce hogs the faster they
lose money because the price of a hog is below the cost of
production. Farmers are absolutely suffering a great deal.
Seventy people on the west coast who, because of the job they do
weighing grain as it ends up at the coast, have been able to put
a strangle hold on the prairie farm economy by stopping the
movement of grain.
It is late March. A month from now farmers on the prairies will
be wanting to be out in their fields to get this year's crop in.
If last year's crop does not work, there is always next year.
Farmers are always hoping for next year, and next year is just
around the corner. They will have to pay for more grain,
fertilizer, fuel and soon thereafter the cost of spraying that
grain crop. These things are just over the horizon for farmers,
and 70 people on the west coast have put a strangle hold on the
entire farming economy on the prairies at the very time they need
it most.
The cash is no good for them in late May. They need it to buy
the seed that has to go in the ground in the springtime, not
later. The seed cannot be put in any later. It has to be
planted in the spring or it does not grow. It is that simple. We
all know that.
It is the most opportune time to put the squeeze on the
government. That is one of the reasons we as Reformers feel the
motion deserves serious consideration. There is an emergency and
that is why we feel the motion deserves serious consideration.
That does not mean to say that we like it. That does not mean
to say that we like the way the government has introduced it. It
has had opportunities to negotiate in good faith. It knows these
contracts expire. There are five different tables of ongoing
negotiations with PSAC. There are these different unions and
they all expire at different times. The governments knows that
ahead of time.
I think of computer specialists. They have a contract that
expires at the end of April. That is only six weeks from now.
This year we have the Y2K problem coming up. If we do not get the
Y2K problem fixed before January 1, 2000, we will have a problem.
The government knew that years ago. Yet it negotiated a contract
with computer technicians that will expire on April 30, 1999,
knowing full well that they have the potential to move into a
strike position if they cannot get what they want before the year
2000.
1710
I can see a few months from now standing here again talking
about back to work legislation for computer programmers because
government negotiated a contract that expired on April 30, 1999
rather than on April 30, 2000. It does not take a rocket
scientist to understand that we have given computer technicians a
stranglehold on government operations by saying that if they go
on strike the government will not be ready for January 1, 2000.
If it is not ready by January 1, 2000, it is all going to shut
down. That is incompetence by the government.
That is what we are talking about when we debate back to work
legislation. If the government were to negotiate in good faith
as an employer being able to offer a proper compensation package
and the union had an understanding of its obligation to society,
I am sure they could have come to an agreement before now.
Let look at the labour relations with the government. First it
legislates no pay increases for six years. Then when it says
they can have a pay increase it is only what it is prepared to
give because they will not have the right to binding arbitration.
It wonders why they are concerned when treated as something that
can be legislated out of existence or legislated back to work any
time the government wants.
Today Bill C-76 was introduced. We are only talking about 70
grain weighers in Vancouver, but the legislation wraps up the
14,000 people in the general labour and trade services, hospital
services, fire fighters, heating and power, ship crews,
lighthouse keepers, general services and grain weighers. I do
not think these other people are on strike, but they will get
wrapped up in the back to work legislation before they even go on
strike.
The heavy handed government is not bothering to wait for them to
go on strike. It expects they will because the relationship is
so bad. Therefore it will not wait. It does it now by wrapping
it up in one piece of legislation to get the job done. That is
not right. It cannot be.
If the government wants a good relationship with its employees,
how can it justify legislating 14,000 people back to work before
they go on strike, before they even say they are going on strike,
before they have even indicated they are going on strike?
As I explained there are 70 people and we feel 70 people should
not have the right and the responsibility to hold up the entire
farm economy on the prairies.
There have been all kinds of debates in the House about the
wheat board, how it manipulates farm prices and how it should
have and could have provided better incomes to farmers. Finally
the government has opened the board a bit but not very much. We
need to make sure the board is a lot more accountable to farmers.
The government is stonewalling on that. The whole message of the
government is stonewall, ignore, disregard. Then when people
rise up and say “you are trampling on my democratic rights and I
want to push you around”, the government legislates them out of
existence.
Therein is the problem. We have 70 people on strike and we want
to do something for farmers. We want to ensure that they cannot
hold these people to ransom. Yet the government takes 14,000
people and wraps them up in the same argument.
We cannot deal with that.
1715
The list goes on and on, whether it concerns hepatitis C,
legislating that people cannot have a raise or the farmers. The
government does not recognize and respect the democratic rights
of very many people. The only thing it respects is the Prime
Minister's whip, who says “You will vote the way we tell you”.
And when they vote the way they are told, the government gets
what it wants.
Therefore, we will debate this issue as much as we can. Our
hearts are with the people of this country. Our number one
concern is for the people of this country, the taxpayers of this
country, the people who built this country, the people who opened
up the prairies and who make a livelihood as best they can,
sometimes under very difficult conditions. I do not think the
hundreds of thousands of people in the prairies deserve to have
their livelihoods and their lifestyles held for ransom by 70
people. We oppose that. We are glad the government is doing
something about it, but we are mightily upset that it has wrapped
the rest of the people in at the same time.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple. The
member is correct that this government has faltered quite
seriously in its negotiation processes with the unions. However,
I should remind the hon. member that it is more than just 70
members on the west coast who are on strike. Blue collar workers
on the Atlantic coast are also staging rotating strikes.
The member made mention of these 70 people having a stranglehold
on the Canadian economy. He makes it sound as if that is what
these 70 members want to do. They want to go out on strike.
They want to lose pay. They want to suffer through possible
mortgage loss or possible car payment loss. Do people go through
school, get educated and get a job so they can go on strike and
put a stranglehold on the country?
I should remind the hon. member that this is not what they want
to do. What they want to do, and I am sure the hon. member knows
this, is to bargain in a fair collective bargaining process. If
that fails, then a third party should become involved, an
arbitrator, whose ruling would constitute binding arbitration,
which would be the law.
This government has legislated away binding arbitration. This
government also has not, even with the adjustment of the ten down
to seven zones, gotten away with regional rates of pay. The
personal love of the President of the Treasury Board is to have
different pay scales across the country for the same work.
I hope the hon. member from the Reform Party does not believe
that these 70 members on the west coast and the strikers on the
east coast love to go on strike. I can assure the member that
they do not.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, obviously the member was
not listening to my speech when I went into great lengths about
how the government denied them a pay raise for six years and
denied them the right to bargain, and that it had the right to
impose a settlement rather than binding arbitration. The
democratic rights of many people have been taken away, including
the people who work for the government.
This government, if it wants to have a good working relationship
with its employees, should bargain in good faith, rather than
allow the situation to deteriorate to the point where we are now
legislating them back to work.
It is not that these 70 people want to have a stranglehold on
the economy, but the point is that they do. They do have a
stranglehold on the economy. By virtue of the fact that those 70
people have gone on strike hundreds of thousands of people have
had their livelihoods affected. Those hundreds of thousands of
people have absolutely nothing to do with the dispute. They have
no input in the debate. They are the ones who are greatly at
risk. That is why we have to think seriously about helping them.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one
of the strangest and oddest things about this back to work
legislation has been the fact that the correction officers, who
are being lumped into the back to work legislation, are not on
strike.
They are being ordered back to work even though they are not on
strike. When the President of the Treasury Board was asked about
that oddity, that strange set of circumstances, his reaction was
that corrections officers are designated essential so they cannot
strike. We all knew that, but there are 600 or 800 of them who
somehow slipped through the cracks. The government is using this
back to work legislation to plug that hole, to patch up that
anomaly.
1720
What does the hon. member think about trying to use back to work
legislation as a vehicle to slide under the table or to sneak in
other things which are not even related, which are completely
secondary objectives? My personal feeling is, if the government
wanted to designate these other workers as being essential, why
did it not come in through the front door and do it honestly so
we could have an open debate? It should not try to sneak it in
under the table. I would ask the member to comment on that.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, that is right. It is the
arrogance of this government which is denying people their
democratic right, which was the general theme of my speech. It
does not matter who it is. The House of Commons has the
democratic right to challenge and hold the government
accountable, but it rams through its legislation because the
Prime Minister says that what he wants he gets. That type of
attitude has to be stopped. The member is absolutely right.
His question was: How can we have back to work legislation for
people who have not gone on strike? If the government says it
made a mistake and they were not designated as being essential,
is that a problem for this side of the House? No, it is a
problem over there, but the government is trying to co-opt us
into fixing its mistakes. That is not our responsibility.
Our responsibility is to stand for the democratic rights of
ourselves and others in this country. We all agree that these
people have the democratic right to strike and to bargain freely,
yet this government, through all the things it has done over the
years, has not shown a great deal of good faith in dealing with
its workers.
Here we are today having to deal with an issue in which the
government and its employees are at a deadlock and people who
have no control of the situation, who have no influence, are
being held for ransom. That is the issue that we have to deal
with.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
remember sitting in the House shortly after many of us were newly
elected in 1993. I believe it was in the winter of 1994 when the
government brought down its first back to work legislation on a
strike which affected grain handlers and transportation workers.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin stood to ask the government if it
would take action so that this would not happen again. Here we
are, five years later, and we are still doing the same old thing.
This government has abdicated its responsibility to a lot of
people. It has abdicated its responsibility to the victims of
strikes and lockouts, in this case farmers and the farm economy.
It also has abdicated its responsibility to other groups. We
have talked about corrections workers, for whom I happen to have
a soft spot in my heart. Also, there are people whom I have just
talked to in my riding at Dundurn who have some very serious
concerns.
The government has abdicated its responsibility. It has done
nothing in five years to change this.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have heard of the rock group “Hootie
and the Blowfish”. I am not sure which one Hootie is over
there, but I can hear the blowfish.
I want to ask my hon. colleague from St. Albert if he remembers
the day when the government promised it would take action. Does
the hon. member remember the day when the government said it
would take action, five years ago, so that these kinds of things
would not happen again?
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I remember the day well,
but then of course promises are easy to come by from that side of
the House because they will promise anything and they seldom
deliver.
We just talked about the fact that the correctional services
people are potentially going to go on strike, but they will be
legislated back to work before they go on strike. I have not
figured that one out yet.
Why are we dealing with the firefighters? I was not even aware
they were talking about going on strike. Then we have the
heating and power workers, ship crews and lighthouse keepers.
I know they have a problem. As we have automated the lighthouses
we have put them right out of business, completely and forever.
We had to fight that on the west coast to try to maintain safety
and to ensure that the people who travel up and down the coast do
not run aground. As well, there are the general service workers.
These are the people who have been wrapped up in this draconian
piece of legislation.
1725
My friend is perfectly correct in saying promises, promises,
promises. The only thing the government did was balance the
budget on the backs of taxpayers as it hiked revenues by 25%.
The government did not tell us that it was going to hike revenues
by 25% to balance the budget. It may get small credit for that,
but it is now manipulating the numbers to try to ensure that we
pay more taxes and we do not get the services.
There is the millennium scholarship fund. The taxpayers have
put $2.5 billion in the bank and there will be no benefit to
students until next year. Then we have the $3.5 billion for
health care, paid for by the taxpayers, and no money will be
spent on health care until next year.
Those are the types of promises. The government stands and says
it is doing wonderful things, but when we look at the fine print
it does not work out.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a sad
occurrence to again find the House of Commons involved in back
to work legislation with a special bill entitled an act to
provide for the resumption and continuation of government
services.
This bill is also the subject of time allocation, so that there
cannot even be any serious debate on the issue of this abruptly
interrupted negotiation.
However, I have a great many questions.
It seems to me, of what I know—and in the past I dealt with
labour relations, I taught labour relations—that what cannot be
regulated does not justify the bill as it is presented.
I would argue that the workers are on a legal strike. Not only
are they on a legal strike, they are on a rotating strike. This
is not a full general strike that will go on forever. It is a
rotating strike, action taken by the workers in turn before the
workday starts or after it finishes to get themselves talked
about and of course to slow traffic. If they did not get
themselves talked about, if they do not hold a full general
strike, how do we know there is a problem?
There is a problem that strikes me as a fairly serious one. The
problem, it must be repeated, is the fact that these workers
have contributed their share to the deficit reduction. They
have not had an increase in six years. Their collective
agreement expired two years ago, or a little less. Some expired
in June 1997, some in April 1997.
Are these highly paid workers? No. They can easily have 25
years' seniority and be earning $30,000. They are fathers and
mothers. These are not people about whom we can say “These
government workers are choking the public”. No. For the most
part, they are blue collar workers, with positions of
responsibility.
1730
Some of them, such as those who were with national defence and
were relocated, may have ended up in a region where the salary
is lower than in their original region. It must be pointed out
that, not only have these workers not received any increase for
six years, but—and, as far as I know, they are the only public
servants in that situation—they are not paid the same salary in
all regions, unlike members of parliament or judges.
The further west they are, the higher their salaries.
Conversely, the further east they work, the lower their
salaries. The gap can be as much as $3 per hour.
So, since many of them are paid about $14 per hour, an hourly
difference of $3 is very significant.
The workers who come under the Public Service Employment Act
would like to be covered by the Canada Labour Code. Why? Because
the rules concerning essential services are not the same. What
is the problem in this House? It is that these workers, by using
their legal right to go on strike, do not have to provide the
essential services they are expected to provide. But do members
realize that the Public Service Employment Act does not include
the type of provisions on negotiating and providing essential
services that were recently included in the Canada Labour Code?
Such provisions on essential services did not exist when railway
workers went on strike, but now they do. But they do not apply
in this case.
Another very serious concern is that, for these negotiations,
the government has suspended these workers' right to
arbitration. Not all workers in our society have the right to
binding arbitration, but those in the public service do.
Why was this right suspended? The fact that these workers, who
perform duties that can be compared to others, have not had an
increase for six years, may well explain why the federal
government thought it best to prevent them from going to
arbitration. Why? Because they would have been wrong? Hardly.
Why then? Because, on the contrary, arbitration would have
given the workers much larger increases than what they were
offered and than the offer that in one case was actually lower.
I have trouble seeing any goodwill in the federal government's
actions, all the more so when I read Bill C-76, an act to provide
for the resumption and continuation of government services. The
operational services group includes firefighters, national
defence and coast guard workers, and so on. What I see in the
collective agreement section leaves me enraged on their behalf.
Negotiating a collective agreement is important for workers who
are not entitled to arbitration.
1735
What does this bill have to say? Under “Collective Agreements”,
clause 7 reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the
Treasury Board, and taking into account collective agreements
entered into by the employer in respect of bargaining units in
the Public Service since the Public Sector Compensation Act
ceased to apply to compensation plans applicable to them—
—prescribe:
(a) the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the
employees: and
(b) the period during which those terms and conditions of
employment are applicable.
As I understand it, the government has not negotiated seriously
and has refused mandatory arbitration, and now says
“Well then, the governor in council, very familiar with the good
of the people, will be the one to decide”. One might well term
this “in lieu of a collective agreement” But no, it states “the
collective agreement”.
It goes on:
The Governor in Council may provide that any of the terms and
conditions of employment is effective and binding on a day
before or after the beginning of the period prescribed—
So there we have it, the governor in council knows what is good
for the people.
The terms of employment prescribed under paragraph (1)(a)
constitute a single collective agreement binding on the
bargaining units composed of the employees referred to in that
paragraph.
The same thing goes for correctional services. In the
correctional services negotiations, union members obtained a
majority report. Who was the minority? The government.
Why does the government not comply with the majority report? It
empowers itself to act otherwise than its own law tells it to.
It gives itself the means to go against a process that is not
only legitimate, but legal as well.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: The truth hurts, Mr. Speaker.
As regards table 2, those providing support or operating
services, there was no majority report, because there are three
different positions. There was no real bargaining. The spirit
in these reports and in these facts is not a spirit conducive to
agreements.
There are balances of power in the public sector and in the
private sector. They must exist, in fact, because, if one party
completely dominates the other in negotiations, the results will
never be fair. That occurs in private life. That occurs among
people. There must be a balance somewhere.
These workers took the means at their disposal, not illegal, but
legal means.
They did not take them excessively, even if a full general
strike is not excessive, but in this case they did not go out on
a general strike. It is a rotating strike. They used the means
at their disposal under the law.
This then is why we have this bill, with a time limit. It is a
total shame for this House, for which this is definitely not a
first, for this House, which has seen the arrogance of this
government in other matters, arrogance often in dealings with
the provinces.
This is the approach where the government says it knows what is
good for others and it does it in their stead or, to coin a
phrase, it knows what is ours and makes sure it will get it.
1740
The best additional proof is that the hands of the government in
this matter are not clean. It is including in the bill workers
who have announced they would strike, that is, the federal
corrections officers. That is something. Here we have a bill
allegedly to correct something excessive, which makes no sense
because, as I said earlier, this is a legal strike, but some
people are not yet on strike and are being forced to go back to
work before they have struck.
What is affected by this way of doing things is the bargaining
process itself. But, more importantly, it is the relationship
between the state, which is the employer, and its workers, to
whom it is sending a message of contempt.
The federal government thinks this is the way to get the loyalty
and services to which citizens are entitled. It did not look any
further than its nose. The workers appear to want justice, since
they have not had a raise in six years and some of them are paid
based on the region where they work, which is not the case for
other people around them. These workers are at their wits' end.
They are resorting to legal means, not in an excessive fashion,
and yet they are being forced to go back to work.
This is poor judgment on the government's part and it does not
augur well for the years to come.
I used to teach labour relations. Experts know that when there
is real and deep dissatisfaction, it is always better that
workers not necessarily always get everything they want, but
that there be a negotiated settlement. Otherwise, they will not
feel any incentive to work, to be helpful. This is true both in
the private and the public sectors. Nowadays, the government can
do better than this mess.
Again, I deeply regret that we are being put in this situation,
since everything tends to give workers the impression that they
are not being treated fairly, far from it, and that in fact the
government only has contempt for them.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon.
member from the Bloc. I know agriculture is very important in
Quebec. I agree with a lot of her comments about getting
fairness and equality and about the arrogance of this Liberal
government in dealing with some of these questions.
We in the west as farmers have known this for over three
decades. In early 1970 when western farmers asked the prime
minister of that day to help them market some of their wheat,
they got the finger. That was how much the Liberals cared for
agriculture.
1745
I wonder what my hon. colleague would say to the farmers who
have been continually losing through these strikes by paying huge
demurrage charges and by losing sales. This year especially,
when they already have an income crisis, they will be asked to
bear again all these extra costs. They have no recourse; they
are helpless. They have to accept these losses and they have no
way to reclaim them by pricing their product higher.
What would the answer be to help these farmers because of the
losses they have had to bear time and time again because of the
arrogant government's attitude toward western grain farmers?
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: I will begin by recalling the rail
strike.
This is something I remember very clearly, because I was
opposition critic at the time. I remember that we did not have
an easy time of it with western members. But what did we say
back then? We said that the labour code was there for these
workers. I said:
[English]
“If the Canadian economy cannot afford the Canadian Labour Code
then change it”.
[Translation]
What happened was that the code was changed. As far as I know,
workers were in agreement with these provisions. There was
agreement on the essential services provisions.
The problem with this public service legislation is that it does
not have the same provisions. I do not know exactly why these
people are unhappy. We are told that 70 workers are involved.
One thing is certain and that is that they cannot strike without
substantial support. I wonder if the reason for this support is
not precisely because they have been without increases for a
long time, on top of the cost of living in the west, the
flourishing businesses and so on?
If there was discontent, as there was a few years ago, I would
imagine that ways would have been found to make their strike
less frequent.
It is certainly not by taking the sort of action now being taken
that the problem will be resolved for the next time around. It
will only come back.
And that says nothing about how people who think they have been
forced back to work unfairly will feel.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Mercier on her
presentation. I believe government members would be well advised
to read it again.
It contained many references to the fact that the government
does not seem to learn from its past mistakes. She mentioned the
rail strike. Indeed it had several elements in common with the
special back to work legislation the government wants us to
debate today.
Worse yet, the stakes, the differences between the negotiating
parties, the contentious issues are not as important as the ones
in the rail strike.
Are we not talking about a government that dilly-dallied during
the negotiations? It chose this approach because of its power
relationship with support staff, employees who are making
demands. As a former personnel manager, I can say that the issue
of regional pay scale, the fact that salaries vary from one
province to another or from one economic region to another,
should not be hard to settle at the negotiating table. I find it
amazing that the government has not succeeded in settling this
issue.
Finally I wonder if the chickens are not coming home to roost.
For too long the federal government has ignored problems of its
own doing, and now it wants to make its employees pay for its
ineffectiveness as a government. This is an age-old trick: divide
to conquer.
1750
It has been said that this is hurting farmers and people who are
not receiving their income tax returns. Why, then, should we let
those workers exercise their right to strike?
In this case, I believe the government should have anticipated
what is happening. If those workers are so important and
significant to the government, did they not deserve to be better
listened to at the bargaining table? At the end of the day, they
would have come out with a negotiated collective agreement and
adequate labour relations for several years to come.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's
question, which already contains elements of answer. It is
actually quite legitimate to ask why the federal government did
not foresee the present situation.
Maybe we should ask the question differently. Maybe the
government foresaw the strike and still wanted to impose a
settlement, which will not solve the problems in any case. I
think the answer is already contained in the question. Had the
government understood the importance of the issue, it would have
been careful to bargain seriously with those workers.
Besides, it is true that the government finds itself in the
present situation because the Public Service Staff Relations Act
does not provide anything for essential services.
The government finds itself in a situation similar to the one it
found itself in during the private sector strike, when the
Canada Labour Code did not contain the provisions it now does.
But the government only has itself to blame, because it sets the
legislative agenda and could have anticipated the situation we
are in today. The government could listen to the Public Service
Alliance, which would prefer to be under the Canada Labour Code
rather than the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to take part in the debate and particularly to follow
the member for Winnipeg Centre who gave a very cogent and
comprehensive speech about the shortcomings of this onerous and
odious legislation. He did it from the point of view of working
people. I will at least begin my remarks by talking about the
impact on farmers and the situation they find themselves in.
The strike by table two members of the Public Service Alliance
of Canada has been in effect for a couple of months. There have
been rotational strikes. It is the second time the 70 grain
weighers have put up picket sides at the seven grain terminals on
the west coast.
The last set of pickets has been in effect for some six days and
has aroused a lot of the bluster from the other side on the
impact of the anti-democratic legislation we have before us. The
rationale is that the government is moving to do something about
grain. However, when it is behind by one million income tax
files and there are crocodile tears about income taxpayers not
getting their refunds, I rather suspect it is the government not
being able to collect the money and get it into the government
coffers as fast as it would like to.
For people who are not from the prairies or who do not have a
farm background, the movement of grain from the prairies to the
west coast is quite a Byzantine world that in some cases almost
defies description.
1755
I would like to take a minute to explain what I think happens in
this regard. The farmer grows the grain and stores it on his
farm. We would think that was okay, that he or she was still
accountable for it when it is on the farm. Then it is trucked to
the country elevator or more likely to the inland terminal. We
would think that maybe it is the people who truck the grain or
the elevator operator who would then be responsible. That is not
the case. The farmer is still on the hook for any problems that
arise when it is at the elevator.
Then it goes by rail to the west coast or to Thunder Bay. Again
we would think it is out of the farmer's hands, that he has no
control over it so it must be the responsibility of Canadian
National, Canadian Pacific or Omnitrax. However it is still the
farmer. If there are any problems with it at the point it is the
farmer who pays any of the demurrage or any damages.
It is not until the grain is actually loaded on the ship that
the farmer's responsibility for his product ends even though his
accountability and his ability to correct any problems ended when
the product left his farm gate perhaps a couple of months
earlier. It is clearly a Byzantine system.
The Estey report that came down in December on which the
government is still not showing any leadership talks about the
need for accountability and for those involved in the system to
be responsible for it. While my caucus and I have many problems
with the Estey report this is certainly not one of them. We
think that Mr. Estey's comments on accountability and
responsibility are extremely important.
This is a grim time particularly for farmers on the prairies. In
December the government announced its so-called AIDA program,
agricultural income disaster assistance. Farmers have other
acronyms to describe it. It is not helping very many farmers in
our region. I have yet to speak with a farmer who thinks that
there will be any pay off or any relief for his or her operation
at the end of the day.
The strike of grain weighers has added insult to injury. It
would be true to say that many farmers out there believe that the
disruption needs to be dealt with because they are in dire
straits and sinking deeper. As has been mentioned by other
speakers, spring seeding is just around the corner. It is a time
of very quiet desperation and perhaps not so quiet desperation
for farm families.
At the same time many farmers feel that what is before us today
is inherently unfair. They implicitly recognize that the
government is playing off farmers and workers. That in the long
run gets nobody very far down the road.
In terms of the table two negotiators, I want to read into the
record some references contained in a letter addressed to me on
March 19 from a table two member in the riding of Palliser in
Moose Jaw. This individual is employed at 15 Wing in Moose Jaw.
The letter reads in part:
I have been a loyal employee of the Federal Government of Canada
for over twenty years and a member of the Public Service Alliance
of Canada. As an employee represented at the PSAC table
two-Treasury Board negotiations, I feel compelled to bring a few
things to light, and hope the attached documents will shed some
light on the “real issues”.
The letter references the fact that the President of the
Treasury Board stated that the government has accepted a
conciliation board report when under the staff relations act the
conciliation board has to have agreeing parties to substantiate a
report.
1800
The letter writer says that in the case of table two
negotiations there was no agreement between the three members of
the board, thus the report is invalid. The letter also points out
that the minister responsible for the Treasury Board has also
stated: “Unfortunately, at this point the union has been asking
for things that are excessive and for which Canadian taxpayers do
not want to pay”. He appended some tables that approximately
80% to 85% have already settled agreements with federal
government employees and the table two requests are by no means
out of line.
His third and final point is that in a review of comparable
market rates, public service employees in Saskatchewan make an
average of 70% of the going local market rate. He wrote
“Clearly, not only as public servants, but as folks from
Saskatchewan, we are treated as the poor sister of Canada”.
He ends his letter by urging that we intercede to get Treasury
Board back to the negotiating table. “Treasury Board has come
to a reasonable agreement with other groups, why not us? We
deserve to be treated fairly and equitably”. We in this caucus
agree very much with the sentiments expressed by that individual
from the prairies.
There is also a letter from Nova Scotia. I want to zero in on
the regional rates of pay. It is brought to light in the letter
that the regional rates of pay discriminate against about 1,500
blue collar workers in Atlantic Canada and about 11,000 Public
Service Alliance of Canada blue collar workers across the
country.
According to the letter, 97% of federal government employees are
paid national rates of pay. Only 3% are not.
The letter contends that Atlantic Canadian employees are paid
the lowest rates in Canada. Treasury Board officials have
consistently argued in the House and in the media that regional
rates of pay cannot be paid to blue collar workers. They say the
policy has been in effect since 1922 and was based on market
comparability with private regional rates of pay when introduced.
They argue the regional rates of pay cannot be eliminated
because of regional costs of living.
This may have been true seven decades ago and may have remained
true for many decades after that. However, for the past 20 years
regional rates of pay have been amalgamated in an attempt to
eliminate them gradually and regional rates of pay really no
longer reflect regional markets. The question remains, if
regional rates of pay were a cost of living issue, why does the
policy apply today to only 3% of federal government employees and
not the other 97%?
To follow up on that, in a letter to the federal government on
behalf of the province of Nova Scotia, the labour minister for
that province, Mr. MacKinnon, wrote to his Liberal counterpart:
“It is our view that the work Nova Scotians deliver is of equal
quality and value to the work delivered by workers in other
provinces. It would only seem just to consider wage parity for
all Canadian government employees no matter what their
classification”.
Mr. Chisholm, who many of us hope and expect will become the
next premier of the province of Nova Scotia has written:
“Provincial workers in similar positions already make higher
incomes than those affected by regional rates of pay. When 97%
of federal workers already have uniform rates of pay, surely
giving it to the other 3% would not lose unheralded inflationary
pressures”.
These are some of the reasons that this party remains
fundamentally opposed to the legislation before us this
afternoon, which we will be debating and discussing over the next
couple of days.
The wrap up of this individual's letter from Halifax said: “The
federal government's regional rates of pay policies discriminate
against blue collar workers. Treasury Board's bargaining tactics
have been counterproductive for the public service in Canada.
Treasury Board manager Alain Jolicoeur suggested to the media in
Ottawa that had we not been happy with our wages, we could have
quit, entirely ignoring our real economic situation as modest
wage earners and our commitment to serve the Canadian public. The
government has treated us as though we are entirely worthless and
disposable”.
1805
And these are modest wage earners. It is fair to say that the
average salary is in the neighbourhood of $26,000, hardly a
king's ransom. As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre noted in his
remarks, the pay scale does not compare with what folks earn in
the private sector in provinces such as Saskatchewan or indeed
Nova Scotia.
By way of concluding my remarks, it is my contention that had
the government opposite negotiated in good faith, this rotating
strike situation would be over in a day. We note that the public
service employees, members of the Public Service Alliance of
Canada, have not had a raise for some seven years. It was
pointed out to me earlier that in some groups, not all in table
two but in some, settlements have been imposed. It has really
been 15 years since they have had any kind of meaningful
increase. These people are not asking for the moon. They are
asking for a wage increase of what will amount to less than 3%
per annum.
It is our contention that this strike is fully and totally the
responsibility of the government opposite. At the same time, as
was noted in question period today, it is the farmers who are
being hurt as a result of this. There is a grain backlog from
the west coast terminals all the way back to the farm gate in
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta.
While we are debating this legislation, it is noteworthy to
point out that the strikers are back at work today. The
government should have seized the opportunity when the pickets
came down on Friday morning to get back to the bargaining table
and to have negotiated a full and final settlement over the
weekend.
As a result of the government's bungling and total mishandling
of this situation, it should pay Canadian farmers for the losses
they are suffering due to this aforementioned bungling.
NOTICE OF CLOSURE MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57, I give notice that at the next
sitting of the House, immediately before the order of the day is
called for resuming debate on the motion, Government Orders,
Government Business No. 21, and on any amendments thereto, I will
move that the debate shall not be further adjourned.
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NO. 21
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a rather simple and direct question for the hon.
member. Can the member see any reason, either in practicality or
in law, why the government could not have brought in targeted
legislation to keep the grain moving for the benefit of the
western Canadian economy without involving thousands of other
unionized workers who have absolutely nothing to do with the
principal crisis that has caused us to be debating this today?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his question.
There is some merit in what the member is proposing. However,
to have done that the government would have had to have brought
the 70 grain weighers into the labour standards of Canada as
opposed to the Public Service Staff Relations Act which they are
currently under.
The more important question was noted by my colleague from
Winnipeg Centre when he talked about the number of people that
were brought in. I recall specifically the member talking about
the prison guards who are not affected because they are essential
workers, but nevertheless they have been drawn in under the terms
of reference of this all-encompassing piece of legislation.
1810
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Palliser mentioned the impact on farmers and on grain.
I would like to share something with him which just happened
outside in the lobby. I received a phone call from the leader of
the grain handlers union who is very interested in the debate
that is going on. I would like to share this with the member for
Palliser.
He lamented the fact that this government enters into back to
work legislation so lightly and so easily. The grain handlers
union is thinking about the next time it goes to the bargaining
table and what is going to happen to its members. Are they going
to be legislated back to work?
Their union has come up with a very creative idea that I would
like the member for Palliser to think about. Rather than going
on strike, and perhaps being legislated back to work, they are
thinking of taking a 70%—I should say a 30%—cut in pay and
asking the companies to take a 30% cut in profit while they are
at impasse. This money would be put into a pool to be donated to
the farmers to offset their demurrage costs and charges.
It seems like a really sensitive and intelligent solution to an
impasse. If they do not make any progress in two weeks, they
bump it down another 20% to 50%, so that both sides suffer
equally, share the pain and offset the inconvenience to the farm
community.
I am wondering if the member would comment on creative solutions
like that coming from the trade union movement.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his question. When he talked about a 70% reduction, I thought he
was going in the direction of the AIDA program because that has a
70% threshold.
It is this sort of creative solution that perhaps could work to
put these things in perspective and result in the speedy
resolution of labour-management difficulties.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I see the clock
ticking and I am afraid I may not have enough time, but I
promise you I will be here tomorrow morning to continue this
debate.
What we are discussing here today is very important for
workers. In fact, I hope there are a lot of workers watching us
now on the parliamentary channel.
I think people will finally find out what is hidden behind the
Liberals' mask. The Liberals are always saying how they work for
the common good and how they try to stabilize the economy. But
at whose expense do they do that? At the expense of workers.
I formally accuse the Liberals of continuing their crusade
against the workers of Canada and Quebec. A lot of Quebeckers
are victims of this bill, and I find it unacceptable.
People must understand what is hidden behind the Liberals' mask,
and I intend to take about twenty minutes to try to describe it.
What I want to say is that the Liberal government wanted its
employees to go on strike. They did, and now it wants to
legislate them back to work. And it is totally intentional. This
problem did not come about suddenly. These people have been
asking for salary increases for a long time.
As some of my colleagues mentioned, these people have not had a
salary increase in six years. The government could have settled
the issue over the last two years, but that is not what it has
decided to do.
It has been decided to wait until the very last minute. And now,
they stand up and say “We are going to protect Canada's and
Quebec's economy. We will put an end to this”. But the problem
is of their own making.
Maybe I should tell you a little bit about my own background.
During 20 years, I was a trade unionist with the CSN before
entering into politics. I have had the opportunity to see what a
government employer is. It behaves like the Liberals do. They
sit at the bargaining table, and have negotiations. When it does
not work out, they pass a bill.
Just imagine the power they can wield. All they need to do is
leave the bargaining table, make offers that are lower than the
union demands, and they will end up saying the employees do not
take up what is being offered. Employees have the right to
strike, and the government knows that.
Once the employees have decided to go on strike, the government
introduces a special legislation.
1815
It is unfair, cynical and machiavellian. That is what the
government is. It is not the first time we can see that. It has
done the same thing with postal workers, railway workers and
now, with specific groups that are amongst the lowest paid in
the federal public service. They are the victims of a government
that is legislating them back to work.
I do not hold that view only because I have been a trade
unionist. Members of parliament are here to represent
constituents. In my riding, between 400 and 500 people working
at the military base will be legislated back to work. This
probably represents a fairly high pay loss in my riding.
The fact that the government did not want to adjust those
salaries also meant a loss of revenue for several years now.
Not only has the Liberal government shut down the military
college in my riding, totalling $32 million a year, but now we
are stuck with a special bill because the government has decided
it has had enough. Canada is supposedly on the brink of a major
crisis, yet it is this very government that has driven the
federal public servants of table 2 and table 4 to use their
right to strike.
Maybe we ought to settle this fundamental issue once and for all
with this government. Does the right to strike still exist in
the federal public sector? Does it? Do employees have the legal
right to say “We have had enough of the proposals coming from
the government, we have had enough on these never-ending
discussions and negotiations, we have the legal right to decide
to go on strike”?
What we have right now is a smoke screen, because as soon as the
workers start using their right to strike, the government tells
them “You cannot go exercize your right to strike, because you
are disrupting the economy”. This is what the government often
does. They did it to the rail workers on strike, to the postal
workers on strike, and now they are doing it to the federal
public servants who are members of table 2 and table 4.
What we have to remember about the Liberal record is not only
the way the government has been badly protecting and even
persecuting the workers.
We also have to look at what has been going on with wage parity.
How long have women in the public service been demanding wage
parity to ensure that they are properly paid for their services?
Public servants, many members of the public, and myself, all
believe these women deserve to be paid fairly. But not this
government.
We see the same thing happening over and over again. They are
going to wait for a decision to be brought down in another case
before they alter their position. If the judgment is to the
government's advantage, it will say “We are now going to
implement it”. If it is to the government's disadvantage, it
will say “We are going to ignore it and do things our own way”.
The government waited very long before settling the issue of pay
equity for women in the federal public service. I hope people
who are watching us this evening will remember that, because
most of them are just coming home from work. These are people
who pay taxes so that the Government of Canada and other
governments throughout the country, including Quebec, can
continue to operate.
But this is not what this government is doing. It is targeting
workers. Again, if we look at the impact on a riding such as
Saint-Jean, we can see that it is not negligible. It was
estimated that the riding of Saint-Jean alone suffers an annual
shortfall of about $2 million, because the government is taking
so long to settle the pay equity issue.
The workers should get used to the idea that to vote for a
Liberal government is to vote against workers. In Quebec, many
have realized that. Who really looks after the interests of
workers in this House? Who will oppose special legislation that
adversely affect these workers? The Bloc Quebecois has always
stood for these workers.
1820
This is one of the reasons the Bloc Quebecois is so popular in
Quebec. For sure the millionaires, the banks and the insurance
companies dealing with billions of dollars do not contribute a
red cent to the coffers of the Bloc Quebecois, because we are
popularly funded. We do not want our hands tied.
It is true that, when it comes time to put an x beside the Bloc
Quebecois in the booth, these people hesitate. But workers, for
example, can see just who can rise in this place and defend them
effectively.
Another example is the EI fund. Who pays for the EI fund?
People will tell me it is partly paid for by employers, and I
would agree. But workers put in a large amount. And with all
the changes to the EI fund, all the amendments to the
legislation since it was introduced, who has benefited? The
government, which, in my opinion, is levying an indirect tax.
Workers contribute every week.
In Quebec, we have workers who have paid EI premiums for 25 or
30 years. During the ice storm, to give one example, we asked
the government to be more flexible, because people needed money.
Workers needed money to cope during a major disaster. And the
government said no.
This government continues to say no to workers, not just to
those who are the victims of disasters.
Members should take a look at the wording of the legislation.
My colleague, the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouta—Les Basques, is doing an
excellent job, so that these inequities will be corrected.
Unfortunately, the government is turning a deaf ear, all the
while accumulating billions of dollars in the fund and paying
down its deficit. In the meantime, big corporations have it
great in Canada. It is workers who are watching their salaries
and living conditions slide ever downward. It is not for
nothing that this Liberal government has been accused of going
after workers. In my view, this is another blatant example.
There was another development recently. This goes back a few
weeks.
A few years ago in the House, I raised the important
issue of the Singer employees.
I was told for two years, after I do not know how many
questions, that the government had no responsibility in that
case, whereas it was clearly stipulated in the contract that the
government was a trustee, that it was the guardian of the plan
and the fund.
It allowed Singer to stop paying premiums, taking the money from
the fund surplus. Today, Singer workers, who are 83 years old on
average, receive a monthly pension ranging from $20 to $50.
There are people, like my father, who worked in that company for
45 years. We told the government “Look, this does not make
sense. You were a trustee of the fund. Why did you allow the
company to take money from the fund?”
If we annualize the whole pension fund, what has been taken out
of it from 1962 to today, plus the accumulated interest, we get
around $8 million, which could greatly benefit the Singer
pensioners.
And what has the government been planning for the past two
years? It has watched the public service pension plan grow. It
has been getting ready to put its hand on the surplus. Contrary
to what the President of the Treasury Board often says, the
surplus does not belong to the government. Public servants have
been paying into this fund.
Today there is a surplus. It should be used to enhance the
pension plan and not by the government saying “This belongs to
us now. Workers, you have contributed for 10, 15, 20 or 30
years.
There is a surplus, but sorry, the plan will remain unchanged,
while we are use it to eliminate the deficit, we are using your
money for other purposes”. The money is used for purposes other
than the one provided for in the act, namely to enhance these
employees' pension plan.
1825
I noticed that the former workers of the Singer Company have
probably been the first victims of this government's intentions
to reach into the pension funds of its own employees. The
government will not admit that I am right and that it should
help those 250 people who on average are now 83 years old. The
government will not help those people by enhancing their
pensions because this would put at risk its intention to dip
into the federal public service employees pension fund.
For those workers who are listening today, I believe those are
examples which should not be forgotten. Do we have to ask who
the Liberal Party is defending? Is it defending workers, those
who pay the bulk of taxes and income tax? I do not believe so.
What has happened here today is despicable, but we could already
feel it coming last week. I have had contacts with people on the
Canadian forces base in my riding who are in touch with their
union delegates. I told them that I had the feeling a special
bill would be introduced in Ottawa.
I learned Friday that there had been two attempts to get the
debate going rapidly. I believe workers sensed, knew what was
coming. This is not to mention the way workers were treated. As
far as I know, workers on strike have the right to put up picket
lines and to protest in front of the offices of members of
parliament or ministers.
By the way, the people who come to my riding office want to tell
me about their concerns, not to protest in front of my office.
They go do their picketing in front of the Liberals' offices,
since they know these hon. members are responsible for the
situation they are in, because, as I said, the government really
wanted this strike to happen. Now that it is here, they want to
quash it.
There is also the issue of privatization. I remind the House
that less than a year ago this issue was very much on the
agenda. The government wants to contract out to some agencies
the work being done by several people at DND and throughout the
federal public service. For some years now, we have seen the
government contracting out.
Listen to this. At CFB Saint-Jean, we have personnel with 20
years of service and officers who are retiring.
These officers are paid. Those who have worked for 20 years get
their full pension. They turn around and set up businesses, and
they tell their employees “Sorry, friends, I can rehire you, but
you will not get $12 or $13 an hour. I can afford to pay you
only $8 an hour”.
These officers are double dipping. They get their full pension
from the Canadian army, they set up businesses, and they make
profits by lowering the working and living conditions of workers.
What do we have before us today? When I say that this strike was
planned, it is because the government is laughing at the workers
when it says “Special legislation is coming up. If you do not
accept our offers, you will strike out because we will impose
them on you”. The government is taking advantage of this special
legislation to lower the terms and wages offered to the workers.
However, this is not all the government has up its sleeve. It is
saying to these workers “You are not skilled workers, anybody
can do your work. So, if you do not accept our offers, we will
impose special legislation on you”. Moreover, we often hear that
employers say to their employees “If you are not happy with what
you are getting, you can resign, leave your job”, whereas they
are the lowest paid in the public service. The government wants
to make money on their backs, saying “If you all resign, we will
give the contract to the private sector, and we will make even
more money”.
This is why I say that what is happening here today is really
unfair and cynical. The Bloc will stand up because, to my
knowledge, it is the only party that has been standing up for
the workers, so far.
1830
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: You are not mistaken.
Mr. Claude Bachand: My colleague from Chambly tells me I am not
mistaken.
There are those who claim to be the defenders of the worker. I
repeat, in the event of a rail strike, a postal strike, a
federal public service strike, such as we have today, we are the
only party to stand up for these workers, to stay on their side
for as long as it takes. In my opinion, they are victims of
this government, it is simple as that.
It is the federal Liberal government that is forcing these
people to strike. Today, they face—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Jean
will have two minutes left when the House resumes debate on this
matter.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and discuss this
important matter. As the public complaints commission resumes
its hearings today into the APEC security fiasco, it is my
pleasure to speak to this matter.
On November 23, 1998, I asked the Prime Minister during question
period when the government would call a complete independent
judicial inquiry into the security at APEC, a relevant question
then and now. Because the public complaints commission has never
had a mandate under the RCMP act to investigate the Prime
Minister's office, the public complaints commission has never had
the opportunity to delve into allegations that the RCMP was only
following government orders when it pepper sprayed protesters in
1997.
The embarrassing actions of the Liberal government and the
solicitor general of the day to avoid broad accountability
prompted some to call for the end of the RCMP public complaints
commission. In the aftermath of resignations, indignation and
media manipulations, the commission went into hibernation and
only recently returned to the spotlight when the new committee
chairman, Ted Hughes, a very able and learned jurist, was
appointed.
Since his appointment by the Prime Minister, Mr. Hughes has
shown his ability to make an impartial and fair process work. Mr.
Hughes has stated that he will go where the evidence leads him
and that his questions will be answered. Mr. Hughes must have
the Liberals shaking in their boots with this attitude because as
he has stated he will not rule out issuing a subpoena that might
call for the testimony of the Prime Minister at this inquiry.
During question period in November the Prime Minister responded
to my question by stating: “The inquiry can ask on all subjects
it wants of anybody in the bureaucracy and even in my office and
not only of the RCMP”. I wonder how comfortable the Prime
Minister is with that statement now that he does not control the
commission like a puppet on a string.
Whether it is the public complaints commission or the building
of summer cottage access roads, the Prime Minister likes to have
his own way and people in place to control the outcome when he
does not have his own way. This time, however, the process will
not be easily manipulated. Canadians are left still wondering
about the meaning behind the former solicitor general's famous
comments on his ill fated plane ride when he stated that Hughie
would take the fall.
What is next? The RCMP has been directed to chase after dead
ends in the Airbus scandal, so will the Liberal government make
the RCMP again take the brunt of the criticism after the
decisions of the Prime Minister's office which actually led to
the APEC scandal? I am hopeful that this current version of the
public complaints commission will have the mandate to look at
what happened as a result of the PMO's direction should those
events transpire and as it relates to the RCMP's handling of
these protesters.
As I mentioned, I am cautiously optimistic that the commission
will now be able to draft a report that will give us answers that
get to the bottom of these important questions. This being said,
I am hopeful that the public complaints commission will be able
to make a proposal for the proper and meaningful retribution of
student protesters involved in the APEC scandal.
These are questions Canadians deserve to have answers to. Now
that the commission is back in full operation and is down to the
business of looking at these issues as they are brought forward
by lawyers like Cameron Ward for the protesters currently giving
evidence, we are hopeful these answers will be carefully studied
by the government. There is an opportunity here to perhaps
restore some of the lost faith that came about as a result of the
events in Vancouver.
1835
As Mr. Speaker is a very ardent supporter of individual rights
and has always taken an interest in transparency and openness in
government, I am sure you would agree this is an ample
opportunity for the government to do the right thing for a
change, to have an opportunity to let the public see what is
actually behind some of the inner workings of this government.
I thank the House very much for its indulgence and I am
anxiously awaiting the response of government.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
intervention.
Some members of the opposition have been calling for a while for
an end to the hearings by the RCMP public complaints commission
and the holding of a judicial commission of inquiry in its
place. Such a demand indicates a lack of understanding of the
mandate and powers of the commission. It is simply not up to
the federal government to call a halt to the hearings by this
independent administrative tribunal. I repeat: it is not up to
the government.
Established by parliament, the RCMP public complaints commission
is an impartial and independent mechanism to which Canadians may
direct complaints about the behaviour of members of the RCMP.
The commission decided to hold a hearing as the result of
complaints about the behaviour of members of the RCMP at the
APEC conference in Vancouver.
The commission determined the parameters of the hearing. In
December 1998, the commission named Ted Hughes, an experienced
and a highly respected jurist, to hear the testimony of the
complainants. The PCC will prepare a report at the end of the
hearings and will publish the conclusions and recommendations of
the committee. It will send this report to all complainants, to
the solicitor general and to the commissioner of the RCMP.
Let me return to the mandate of the commissioner of the public
complaints commission looking into complaints against the
conduct of RCMP officers during the demonstrations at the APEC
conference.
In fact, as the Prime Minister has repeatedly pointed out here
in the House, Mr. Hughes has been given a very broad mandate.
This mandate was established by the public complaints
commission, not the government. As the public complaints
commission said in its December 21, 1998, press release, Mr.
Hughes will examine the events that occurred during the
demonstrations that took place at that time and will submit a
report. Mr. Hughes has already made it clear how broad a
mandate this is in the decisions he has handed down.
If the public complaints commission is ever allowed to do its
job, I am sure that the Canadian public will be much enlightened.
[English]
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank all
members of the House and of the Senate for the opportunity to
change the name of our beautiful riding from Sackville—Eastern
Shore to Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. On
behalf of the 83,000 we thank the House and the other place very
much for that.
It is interesting that we are debating today the concern of my
question on February 16 about the blue collars workers of the
PSAC union. It is unfortunate that in 1993 this Liberal
government broke its promise to end regional rates of pay which
in my riding of Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore are
a very major bone of contention for these hardworking Atlantic
Canadians who are not paid equitably for the work they do
compared to other workers with the same union across the country.
Today in the House we saw crocodile tears from the House leader
of the Liberal Party who said how upset and how ashamed he was
that these workers can actually hold hostage the people of Canada
or the farmers of Canada. In all my years of labour negotiations
and all my years in the union never once have I ever met a
picketer who loved to be on a picket line. Never once have I met
a family that wanted its main earner to go on the picket line and
lose income so it could end up losing the house, having to go
further into debt, having to lose the car and so on. No one
likes a picket line, especially farmers. No one likes a picket
line, especially the workers who are on that picket line.
What they do want and what they have asked for time and time
again is fair collective bargaining. In the event that
bargaining process breaks down it is up to the two parties, in
this case the government and PSAC, to bring in an arbitrator to
make a ruling which is binding on both parties in this case.
That arbitration was legislated out so the workers do not even
have that opportunity.
I also wish to name two people, Mr. Howie West and Ms. Cathy
Murphy, in Nova Scotia with the PSAC union who have done yeoman's
work for their membership and for the citizens of Nova Scotia by
bringing these issues to the forefront and displaying a very
positive attitude as to how they can reach a settlement in this
case.
1840
The government refused to negotiate pay equity and now it is
before the courts and they are appealing it one more time. Then
it was regional rates of pay it refused to discuss. Now the
government will go after its own workers' pension plan.
Three strikes and this government will be out. As my colleague
for Winnipeg Centre said, the government is waking a sleeping
giant it does not want to wake up. I can assure the House that
from coast to coast to coast retired PSAC workers and current
PSAC workers from all stripes will rise up in anger over the fact
that this government is refusing to listen and has brought the
morale of these workers to an all time low.
I have letter addressed to the President of the Treasury Board.
It basically states if this government thinks it can legislate
these workers back to work and replace the picket line outside
and move the picket line inside, it is sadly mistaken because it
is in for a lot of trouble it does not wish to have.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, aside from saying that the NDP is not
surprising anyone with its usual rhetorical lines, supporting
regional rates of pay is not difficult to understand. The
striking blue collar workers want one rate across Canada.
That would make it inequitable for many in the process. It
would mean excessive income for some in certain areas while
others would be underpaid in other areas. That is simply not
fair.
The government has offered blue collar workers contracts in line
with what it has provided other public servants in negotiated
settlements while paying wages that reflect local market
realities. In fact, 87% of PSAC has negotiated settlement. We
believe in the negotiated settlement approach and collective
bargaining.
The government has offered to reduce the number of regions where
different rates apply from ten to seven. That is fair. If the
government were to pay Vancouver rates to blue collar workers in
Halifax, imagine the outcry. Small business would be competing
for needed workers, not just the federal government but the
corporations rich enough to match the higher rates. That would
disrupt the local labour market.
Why do we pay higher wages in Vancouver? Quite simply, the cost
of living on the west coast is much higher. Consider housing
prices alone.
By paying regional rates, the federal government contributes to
social and economic stability across Canada. That is why we
should simply return to the central issue, passing a bill to end
a strike that is hurting Canadians and threatening the trade so
vital to our economy, exporters, grain producers, the many
Canadians who desperately need their income tax refunds, et
cetera. This government has responsibilities to ensure all
Canadians work.
POVERTY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
recently had the opportunity to ask a question of the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources
Development. It had to do with poverty measures.
By way of background, Statistics Canada has a measure called low
income cutoff. It measures poverty on a relative basis, which
basically means that Canadians are looked at as to how their
requirements for food, clothing and shelter match up to the
average Canadian expenditure.
The low income cutoff has measured poverty in Canada to be at a
rate of 17%. In December of last year the United Nations
committee dealing with such matters addressed poverty. With
regard to Canada, even the Government of Canada made
representations that it does not consider the low income cutoff
to be an official poverty line.
As a result, the UN committee made a recommendation that Canada
must adopt an official poverty line so that we can properly
measure poverty in Canada in order to properly target our
resources available and measure our progress.
I understand the federal and provincial governments are looking
at another measure called the market basket measure. That is more
an absolute measure of poverty. It looks at how much is required
for basic necessities as well as certain provisions for
participation in society so that Canadians would be able to fit
in, as it were.
The proposed market basket measure right now would measure
poverty in Canada at 12%. That is five percentage points lower
than the LICO measure, or a 40% decline.
1845
My concern would be that Canadians will start asking questions
about whether we have reduced poverty in Canada simply by
redefining what we mean by poverty. I do not believe that is the
case. I hope the parliamentary secretary might be able to shed
some light.
In 1989 the Campaign 2000 coalition identified that there were
one million children living in poverty. In 1998 it reported a
figure 50% higher, that 1.5 million children were living in
poverty. That was used in the LICO measure.
If we look at the LICO measure we see that 40% of the people who
are poor own their own homes. In addition, of those 50% do not
even have mortgages. It is very clear to me that the low income
cutoff measure is not an appropriate measure of poverty in Canada
and that something more akin to a market basket measure may be
appropriate.
Canadians should be engaged in a dialogue about what constitutes
poverty in Canada. We need to define poverty so that we can
better measure, target programs and convince Canadians that we
have made progress and not fallen behind as shown by the low
income cutoff.
Canadians have been exposed to what I think is called sympathy
fatigue. If the numbers get far too large people do not believe
them any more. For that reason I believe the UN committee is
correct in recommending that Canada adopt an official poverty
line. I am hopeful the government will look carefully at the
proposition and engage Canadians so that when we establish a
poverty line in Canada everybody understands it and accepts it.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like almost
all industrial countries other than the U.S.A., Canada does not
have an official measure of poverty.
Since the early sixties Statistics Canada low income cutoffs
have often been used as measures of poverty by journalists and by
advocacy groups. These cutoffs calculate low income as compared
to the average family income.
In 1990 Statistics Canada introduced a second measure called the
low income measure which calculates income levels both before and
after income taxes relative to the median or middle income level.
This is comparable to the way the United Nations calculates
international comparisons of poverty.
Today many in Canada favour the development of a third measure,
a market basket measure that takes into account the cost of
people's essential needs like food, clothing, shelter and
essential services.
To adopt an official measure of poverty in Canada, parliament
would have to agree on the form such a measure would take and at
what income level the measure would be set.
Currently there is no consensus about how to appropriately
measure poverty. Most people seem to agree that we need to
broaden our understanding of poverty. We believe it is prudent
to have a number of complementary measures based on different
concepts of poverty. Trends using these various measures can
then be followed over time.
Any new measures that we would look at would complement, not
replace, existing measures like the LICOs or the LIMs and would
build on our knowledge of the real conditions of low income
Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)