36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 115
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 4, 1998
1005
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1010
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-418. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Environment and Sustainable Development
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1015
1020
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1115
(Division 190)
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1150
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1315
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
1330
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1345
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1350
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1355
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | D-DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1400
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1405
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PEACEKEEPING
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1410
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPÉRATION ENFANT SOLEIL TELETHON
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION OF INVENTIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1415
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SAINT JOHN FLAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1420
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
1425
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1435
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1445
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1450
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1455
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1500
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1510
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ernst Zundel Press Conference
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1515
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 2 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA GRAIN ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-26. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1520
1525
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1540
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-3. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1545
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1600
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1605
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-3. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1610
1615
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1630
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1645
1655
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on amendment deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Suspension of Sitting
|
1700
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sitting resumed
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERS BILL OF RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-302. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1705
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1750
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1805
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Varennes Tokamak
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1810
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Environment
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1815
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BC Mine in Black Lake
|
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1820
![V](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 115
![](/web/20061116180846im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, June 4, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
.TUC Prayer
1005
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour, pursuant to
section 38 of the Access to Information Act, to lay upon the
table the report of the information commissioner for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 1998.
[Translation]
This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.
* * *
[English]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-43, an act to
establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and
repeal other acts as a consequence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-418, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(mandatory counselling for certain assaults).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this morning I am please to introduce a
private member's bill concerning domestic violence, which we all
know is a very serious problem in our society. We know that if
it is unchecked, if it is not dealt with at the beginning, the
frequency increases, the intensity of assaults increases and
judgment becomes impaired. It is very difficult to get out of
the situation. The risk of bodily harm or even death approaches
certainty as time goes on.
I am pleased to introduce this bill as a small step toward
addressing domestic violence. The bill would require mandatory
counselling for those convicted of domestic assault in addition
to any other charges or penalties imposed by the courts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
move that the third report of the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development, presented on Monday, May
25, 1998, be concurred in.
I would like to take this opportunity to make my colleagues in
the House of Commons and all of our citizens in this wonderful
country called Canada aware of a most crucial report that was
tabled by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development.
The third report of our committee was entitled “Enforcing
Canada's Pollution Laws: The Public Interest Must Come First”.
The report was tabled on May 25, 1998. This being Environment
Week, it is a most crucial time to bring this to the forefront
and to apprise all of our members of the details of this
committee report.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108, the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development proceeded to study the
enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the
pollution provisions under the Fisheries Act.
There were 24 recommendations. These are the highlights of some
of the recommendations.
It is most crucial that the Minister of the Environment provide
the committee with amounts budgeted and actually expended for
inspections, investigations and prosecutions related to the
enforcement of CEPA and the pollution prevention provisions of
the Fisheries Act and, also, that any report prepared for the
review process of the department in relation to enforcement be
provided to the committee.
The committee also recommended that the Minister of the
Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans develop and
publish a comprehensive enforcement and compliance policy in
relation to the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries
Act within six months of the tabling of this report.
It recommended that the Minister of the Environment ensure that
the regulated parties are informed of their legal obligations
under the federal environment laws and that such laws and
regulations continue to apply and that they must be observed.
There are many instances in which agreements are made between
provincial jurisdictions and federal jurisdictions which fail to
highlight that federal legal obligations are still in tact.
The committee recommended that the new CEPA legislation, Bill
C-32, enable inspectors and investigators to be designated and
given the full powers of a peace officer. Bill C-32 is now being
reviewed under the House process. Our inspectors and
investigators who are out in the field have little power to issue
fines, aside from creating warnings and starting the prosecution
process.
1015
Also recommended was that the minister establish without delay a
professional intelligence gathering and analysis capacity. This
is most crucial because pollution affects our communities, our
health and our families. We must therefore establish an
intelligence agency among police officers like the RCMP, the
provincial police and the customs officers who control our border
crossing.
There was also a recommendation to have whistleblower protection
for anything dealing with federal obligations. We have many
labour groups working in our ports, our manufacturing companies
and our industries who may be aware of infractions and must
therefore have whistleblower protection in order to protect their
careers. There will be instances where they must extend their
authority and highlight the infractions that their company or
their employer may be inflicting on our environment. This is a
most crucial recommendation that challenges this government to
consider.
The minister should revise the current structure of enforcement
and establish regional branches and that the decisions not made
by officials having managerial functions must be made by members
of the enforcement personnel. Enforcement decisions must be made
by enforcement personnel, not managerial or political decisions.
Another recommendation is delaying the signing of the proposed
subagreement on the enforcement under the Canadian council of
environment ministers. Under the harmonization accord that was
recently signed there was a subagreement called enforcement which
was supposed to be introduced later. We strongly recommend that
this be delayed because the present enforcement structure and the
federal responsibilities presently are not being complied with.
The minister should publish all enforcement data relating to
CEPA, the Fisheries Act and the manganese based fuels act. All
these must be published for the media to scrutinize for the
public's interest and for leaders and politicians in the
legislatures of the provinces, the territories and the House of
Commons to scrutinize the abilities of the enforcement of this
country. These environmental laws are most crucial for the
future health of our children.
The minister should be required to publish and table officially
in parliament a detailed annual report on the enforcement actions
taken in the previous year relating to all the laws and
regulations of Environment Canada mandated under CEPA and the
Fisheries Act.
Presently we hear instances that the fisheries minister is
required to table the report here in the House of Commons and has
not been able to because the provincial governments have not been
able to give him the data. The harmonization accord has many
holes in it. If these different levels of government cannot be
involved in providing a report to the House of Commons there is
something drastically wrong with the relationship we have with
the provincial departments.
Another major recommendation that challenges this government and
the environment minister is to conduct an indepth study to
determine whether methyl mercury released in the aquatic
environment as a result of the creation of reservoirs, dams and
hydro projects in the great rivers of our northern regions is
accumulation in the fish and the food cycle. This must be
realized because under the CEPA regulations mercury is considered
to be a natural substance and not a human induced toxin into our
environment. However, because the building of dams increases
mercury in our food system we need to have an indepth study on
how to address this issue.
The most important recommendation that the minister is
challenged to seek and the Government of Canada grant is more
resources to ensure proper enforcement on the environment
legislation. Time and time again witnesses who were questioned
in committee said there was a lack of resources as a result of
cutbacks from program reviews one and two. These were financial
reviews, not environmental enforcement reviews for the protection
of our environment.
These were reviews to see where cutbacks should be properly made,
surgically cut for the financial wellness of this country. We
see the financial well-being of this country. We see an
exuberant amount of surpluses in programs that previously were in
deficit. Now is the time to draw a priority and consider the
environment as a number one priority, especially in this
beautiful country.
1020
The introduction of the report and the recommendations are a
result of public meetings held from February 18 to March 26,
1998. The committee heard various witnesses from industry, from
aboriginal peoples, from labour organizations, environmental
groups and government officials, numerous submissions from
stakeholders from across Canada.
In this consideration we would like to note the bravery and
congratulate the field staff members of Environment Canada who
came out and were honest in their perception of the challenges
they face in their daily operations as inspectors, as
investigators in enforcing the CEPA regulations and the fisheries
regulations.
The key points in the report which are highlighted are
Environment Canada's enforcement responsibilities and the need
for effective enforcement, enforcement problems under
federal-provincial-territorial agreements and involving the
Canadian public, which is the most crucial aspect of the report,
the public's right to know and the public's right to the
protection of our environment.
I draw to the attention of the House a book that was most
crucial. A quote from this book is that citizens of nations
should have a bill of rights. The charter of rights and freedoms
of this country should be considered to include environmental
protection so that we are free of the poisons and the toxins of
the many industries that indiscriminately induce these toxins and
pollutants into our water, our air and our land, the very nature
of the life we are going to depend on for future generation.
In context we have the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
That is our bill of rights. That is what defines the protection
of our environment. But the act is useless if it is not
enforced. Without a police officer system on a highway, who is
going to keep track of the speed limits? Who is going to keep
track of the traffic infractions? Who is going to keep track of
all the violations that take place from day to day without the
volunteer aspect that we expect from our citizens? The CEPA
regulations and this recommendation from the committee highlight
that enforcement is a crucial aspect of the protection of our
environment.
Under CEPA there are 26 regulations that deal with PCBs, ocean
dumping, clean air and water, CFCs, dioxins, furons and fuels.
All these issues deal with every constituency in this country.
All members of parliament should be aware of the implications, of
the inability of the government and the department to enforce
these laws.
Under the Fisheries Act we also add fish habitat, the rivers,
the lakes, the oceans and the coastlines. We have the drastic
results of the Atlantic fisheries and the decline in our fish,
the Pacific coast, the changes in our environment, the protection
of the fish species and the very economy that depends on it. A
total of 32 regulations fall under CEPA enforcement and the
fisheries.
In recent times there have been seven equivalency and
administrative agreements with the provinces and the territories.
Three are specifically under CEPA and two under the Fisheries
Act. One of them we highlight is Quebec, federal pulp and paper
regulations, a major agreement between federal and provincial
jurisdictions.
The Northwest Territories is defining a framework agreement in
the five regional offices that comply with the enforcement and
the interpretation, the Atlantic regional office, the Quebec
regional office, the Ontario regional office, the prairie and
northern regional office and the Pacific-Yukon regional office.
These regional offices play an important role. In some of the
data we were provided with, between 1996 and 1997 there 701
inspections under CEPA, 53 investigations were conducted, 2
directions, 28 warnings, 5 prosecutions and 7 convictions. In
some cases investigations had begun in previous years.
1025
In Fisheries Act data for the same year there were 778
inspections, 25 investigations, 1 direction, 8 warnings, 5
prosecutions and 6 convictions.
I highlight the major topics of the report, including the need
for effective enforcement and limited resources as a result of
the program review of the environment. Environment Canada has
realized a 40% cutback in its the financial budget. There is
also a loss of the Fraser River action plan that deals with the
west coast. The Fraser is a major river system. The
Pacific-Yukon budget has been cut by 30%. This cut was effective
on April 1. Five hundred and fifty average inspections are
expected to drop to three hundred and eighty-five as a result of
the cutbacks. The cuts have a definite impact on enforcement.
Vacant positions are not being filled, existing workloads and
work expectations are insurmountable.
There are issues of climate change and a need to research and
collect data on the state of our environment and our fish
habitat. But the workload and the expectation is based on the
existing workload which has been cutback by 40%. In the Quebec
region alone, 60% of its enforcement budget is actually used for
enforcement. We must direct these resources to where they are
needed. Existing vacancies in Quebec have been left unfilled for
as long as two years although it is one of the most
industrialized provinces in Canada.
Poor information supplied to the committee by the department is
a major highlight. We are still waiting for information from the
department that was requested by our committee. To date it has
not materialized. No on really knows how bad the situation is.
No details are brought out on the enforcement versus compliance
promotion and other activities. Two inspectors in Ontario
provide four to five days per company to verify the national
pollutant release inventory, a new international compliance. We
are making international commitments to do inventory on our
national state of pollution but our workload is being carried by
the existing staff. In B.C. areas, including non-industrial
impacts, there are approximately 17,200 possible sites for a
total of 16 staff.
Entire sections of CEPA are not being enforced in Canada. We
are trying to juggle and hope industry does not know much about
the unenforced regulations and that Canadians believe the
protection of our environment is of utmost importance. But we
cannot assume. We must make sure enforcement of this law is
taking place. Fifteen inspectors in the prairie region cover an
area roughly 50% of Canada's land mass.
In 1992-93 there were 1,233 inspections concerning CEPA by
inspectors, 93 investigations, 105 warnings, 2 directions and 22
prosecutions. By 1996 the situation deteriorated. We were down
to 97 warnings, 15 prosecutions, no directions and no
convictions, a clear reduction in environment presence and in
regulatory enforcement.
The deputy minister admitted at committee under intense pressure
of questioning that there were inadequate resources in terms of
environment enforcement. A KPMG survey highlighted that the
voluntary measures expected from companies are inadequate, about
16% efficiency compared with enforcement and regulatory
compliance measures where 90% will comply.
1030
This government continues to promote voluntary measures. In
many areas of the report, there is a lack of resources, a lack of
enforcement and also a lack of real harmonization between the
provinces.
There is inadequate responsibility of reporting to parliament on
the infractions to the fisheries habitat. The provincial
regulators and enforcers are supposed to provide this information
to the fisheries minister. He has still not been able to provide
this report to the House of Commons for all the public in Canada
to know. He is legally liable.
The agreement between Quebec and Canada on the application of
federal pulp and paper regulations was highlighted. There were
20 infractions in the same year that this was re-signed and
renewed and no prosecutions were instituted.
More alarming was the aquaculture memorandum of understanding
between DFO and New Brunswick. In that area there was rampant
disease and marine pollution. Pesticides were dumped to control
an aquaculture problem but the natural environment was being
compromised as a result.
In 1997 Ontario pulled out of its agreement with DFO to enforce
fish habitat protection. The existing enforcement officers out
of the Ontario region are expected to carry out what the province
of Ontario is supposed to be doing.
Existing resources have been cut back. The expectations have
increased and this report is a major highlight. We must address
the enforcement of our environment and pollution protection of
this country.
I beg that this House understand the implications of this report
and the challenge for this government to make the environment a
number one priority, especially this week which is environment
week.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1115
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Mark
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 92
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Brien
| Crête
| Guay
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kraft Sloan
| Marchand
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| O'Reilly
| Pillitteri
| Venne
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed from June 3 consideration of Bill C-37, an act
to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee;
and of Motion No. 1.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to rise at report stage of Bill C-37 to amend to
the Judges Act after having been so rudely interrupted by that
NDP procedural motion.
The bill seeks to raise the compensation paid to judges
appointed by the federal government over the course of two years
by 8.3%. Already federally appointed judges on average are paid
approximately $140,000 which is not exactly small change. It is
a significant chunk of public revenue.
Let me make it clear at the outset that I and my colleagues in
official opposition do not object to paying judges or anybody
else who works for the public. We do not expect these people to
be disadvantaged in terms of their compensation. We think fair
compensation ought to apply to judges as it does to all other
members of our public service, people who work for the crown.
What concerns me in the bill is the double standard we are
creating for one small group within those who work in the public
sector, that group being federal judges. It seems particularly
strange to me at a time when frontline workers in the federal
government, particularly frontline workers in the federal justice
system, people such as frontline members of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, frontline members of the Correctional Service of
Canada, frontline people who enforce our laws, receive little or
no pay increases year after year. However, those at the very top
of the stratum, those who are already paid far more than most
Canadians, would get the biggest increase.
Quite frankly the approach taken by the commission which reported
and in the legislation seems inequitable, unfair and
inappropriate.
1120
The people on the frontline of the justice system like RCMP
constables and correctional service officers are people who day
after day put their lives on the line for the enforcement of law
and order. They are accountable to performance. If they do not
perform they can be dismissed. If they make huge errors in
judgment they can be dismissed or disciplined. In other words
they are accountable.
What about the judges? Are they accountable? No, they are not.
They are accountable to no one but themselves. I submit the
principle of accountability for compensation ought to apply
throughout the public sector just as it does within the private
sector.
When my constituents look at some of the judgments made by
federal judges at various levels including the Supreme Court of
Canada, what they see sometimes astounds them. Other members of
my party have made reference to some of the recent shocking court
judgments by the people we are now proposing to raise their pay
by 8.3%.
For instance, members will have heard recently about the Feeney
case. The court ruled that a man who was clearly guilty of first
degree murder would be acquitted because a police officer entered
his residence without a search warrant, after having knocked on
the door and announced himself, to find the perpetrator of this
atrocious crime in bed with blood on his person and throughout
his trailer from the murder he had just committed. It is
unbelievable.
We are now proposing to raise the pay of the judge who made this
decision by 8.3%. Not only is he not accountable but we cannot
balance his pay with his performance. We have a cast of people
who are appointed without public oversight, without parliamentary
scrutiny, by the sole discretion of the Governor General in
Council, the Prime Minister, and are not accountable even if they
make widely outrageous decisions.
What do we say to these people? We say they are not
accountable. They make bizarre decisions some of the time. We
cannot measure their performance but we will give them an 8.3%
pay raise anyway. It is just plain wrong. It shows a completely
contorted sense of priorities on the part of the government.
Canadians families are now in the second decade of no after tax
increase in their disposable incomes. Frontline workers in the
federal government have had no raises for seven years. That we
should talk about the best paid people in the country getting an
8.3% pay raise is completely unacceptable.
Yesterday one of my colleagues pointed out that there is a
clause in Bill C-37 dealing with survivor benefits, speaking of
the spouses of judges. There is a definition of spouse in the
act, as there should be. Every federal statute dealing with
family benefits requires the term spouse and therefore defines
the term.
Recently Madam Justice Rosalie Abella of the Ontario Court of
Appeal ruled in the Rosenberg case that the traditional
definition of spouse, the definition which exists in Bill C-37
and hundreds of other federal statutes, the definition which is
rooted in 1,000 years of common law history and 3,000 years of
the Mosaic law tradition, is no longer applicable to all federal
statutes including the one we are debating today.
We are proposing to give Madam Justice Abella an 8.3% pay raise
after having made a decision contrary to the interest of the
government, contrary to the interest of justice, contrary to any
kind of public accountability. This justice was appointed
without any kind of oversight or scrutiny by the public, by
parliament or by elected representatives of the people. She was
appointed behind closed doors by bureaucrats in the justice
department offering their short list of candidates to the
politicians in cabinet to choose one name over another.
1125
We should have a moratorium on pay raises for judges of the
federal government until or unless there is some kind of
accountability. Once again, compensation must be linked to
accountability.
We in the opposition have called for the establishment of a
parliamentary committee to review and comment on judicial
nominees by the federal government. At least then we could have
some kind of screening process to make sure that irresponsible,
ideologically driven, radical judges like Rosalie Abella do not
find their way on to the bench. If people like Rosalie Abella
want to legislate their political agenda I suggest they run for
public office as has everyone in this place and not sit on the
bench where they think they can unilaterally impose their
political agenda, peculiar as it may be, on the rest of
Canadians.
The time has come for us to review the entire process of
appointments of judges and the enormous undemocratic power which
our courts exercise. Until we have done that we cannot and
should not offer them a reward in terms of a 8.3% pay increase
until they are finally accountable for the decisions they make.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we continue
the debate I would like to put on the record of the House the
fact that it is quite permissible to speak in general terms about
the judiciary. However it is not appropriate to speak about a
specific judge or to impugn motive directed to a specific judge.
That is not appropriate. It is appropriate to question the
judiciary in general terms but not specific judges.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for those word of wisdom in guiding the House
along a proper path of decorum and wise speech.
It is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-37. When I rose to
speak to the bill on March 30 I suggested several areas of the
bill that should be considered for amendment to ensure its stated
intent could be achieved. I rise today to emphasize to members
of the House the need for such changes.
Many of Canada's judges may well deserve a reasonable raise of
certainly no more than 2% which is what lower paid employees are
getting in the public service. By way of general comment, 2% on
$20,000 is much less than 2% on $140,000. The lowest and the
most needy in society are getting a much lower dollar to take
home and buy the basic necessities of life than the higher paid
in society.
Low salaries are typical of the justice sector in general,
especially in the area of law enforcement. I understand a new
mechanism for determining salaries of Canada's judges is needed.
As one of my hon. colleague's pointed out earlier, the bill will
increase the salaries of judges by 8.3% over two years. Most
Canadians would agree this is an unreasonable proposition,
especially when we consider judges' salaries in comparison to
those of other members of the law enforcement community.
The lowest paid in this public sector still suffer financial
hardship due to the broken promise of the government for a
resolution, for example, of the pay equity issue.
Here again we are dealing with people making in the neighbourhood
of $20,000 to $28,000 a year.
1130
I also speak specifically about Canada's national police force,
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Along with that group, I
suppose, one could include crown attorneys, clerks and
paralegals.
RCMP officers put their lives on the line pretty well every day,
but have only received their first small raise since
approximately 1991. Police officers make headlines by saving
lives.
The House knows how Canada's judges have taken over parliament's
role in changing, through interpretation, legislation. The
current issue that is of great concern is the change in the
definition of spouse. The Rosenberg case, which was referred to
previously, has taken it out of the hands of parliament, which
should rightfully deal with an issue as major as determining the
definition of the word spouse. I would like to think that at
some point, possibly in the fall, we will be back debating that
particular issue on behalf of Canadians to come up with a
resolution out of this House as opposed to the courts doing it.
I would like hon. members of the House to consider how a rank
and file RCMP officer will feel when this bill is passed.
Officers work every day in dangerous circumstances. Many of our
judges seem to be out of touch with the current standards of the
average citizen in our community.
I recently brought a petition to the House in reference to the
Giles case in Manitoba. One of the primary statements that I
made in regard to that petition was that judges have to reflect
the standards, the morals and the current beliefs of a society.
Otherwise, what are they doing on the bench?
This brings me to another point with regard to Bill C-37. It
seeks to establish an independent mechanism for salary
determination in order to maintain the independence of the
judiciary. There are two problems with this. I agree in part
with the intention of this because we certainly want judges to be
independent. However, they also have to be accountable and, as I
said, reflect the society they are judging.
Canada's judges should certainly not fear salary cuts if they
render decisions against the government. However, the commission
to be established under this legislation cannot hope to provide
that independence. I believe that the appointment process of one
representative by the judges, one by the government and one by
both to make up the tribunal does not lend itself to that
independence.
The government must move to prevent patronage appointments in
the case of government appointments, which are undoubtedly going
to occur under this legislation. While it may be agreed that the
judiciary should be independent of the government, this should
not mean that judges are unaccountable.
I know that hon. members opposite can mention the systems in
place for judicial review. I realize that many feel that appeal
courts provide all of the accountability necessary in our
judicial system because they provide a mechanism whereby bad
decisions can sometimes be reversed.
However, this does little to address the deeper problem, which
is judges who make decisions that are offensive to their
community standards. In that case there is no mechanism for any
accountability back to these members of our society. It is here
that the question of judicial accountability becomes tricky.
Judges should, as we have already agreed, be independent of
parliament, which might otherwise manipulate their decisions for
political purposes.
1135
The judges should not be totally independent of the communities
and the people they serve. Judges who render decisions in
keeping with Canada's laws and who use the flexibility provided
them under these laws to render sentences in keeping with the
expectations of their communities should be recognized for doing
so.
Local communities should have greater opportunity to give direct
feedback to judges' associations outside of the courtroom. If we
cannot move to a system whereby judges are elected by the people
for fixed terms of office, we can at least give communities a
voice in the process.
This legislation should be amended to allow for the input of
victims groups and community leaders in the salary determination
process for individual judges. The judges would receive this
feedback on a yearly basis which would help to ensure that they
reflect the values and standards of the public they serve. The
point is that there would be more immediate feedback in the
instance of an extremely lenient sentence being given to a child
molester or a probationary sentence being given to someone
convicted of manslaughter. The judges would find out right away
that a large segment of society is against that kind of
sentencing.
The fact that judges actually are public servants should not be
lost on the House or on the judges themselves. It seems that the
concept that they are public servants is a missing ingredient in
our society today.
When I consider the legislative action which has been taken and,
in particular, the bill which we are debating today, something
becomes obvious. The government is not reflecting community
values, standards and current thinking on appropriate
compensation for public servants, the judges, who are the subject
of this bill.
I would like to comment on Motion No. 1 and the rationale behind
the motion. Clause 5 pertains to the increase in judges'
salaries which will be 4.1%, retroactive to April 1, 1997. No
one is getting an increase retroactive to April 1, 1997 and the
judges should not be getting one either.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights, I want to comment specifically on Motion No. 2, which is
the motion that is before the House at this time. This motion
would—
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Motion No. 1.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, there
must be a way the hon. member would be able to work her comments
into Motion No. 1.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to
Motion No. 1, members have been talking specifically about the
salary increases. However, I think it is important for us to
acknowledge and to realize that, in general, while the bill
focuses in part on salaries, it focuses on other things too. That
seems to have escaped the attention of all of the opposition
parties.
In particular, attention should be given to the initiative to
create unified family courts. I see that the hon. member for
London West is in the House. She will know, because she
practised law before the courts in London, that the unified
family court, an experiment which began in the city of London,
Ontario, has been a very great boon to that community.
It has allowed the justice system to become streamlined in an
area that is crucial to family life and to the good operation of
a community.
1140
When these disputes come before a court, it is important that we
create a system that allows them to be dealt with as efficiently
as possible.
I want to comment on the mood of this debate, particularly with
respect to the comments that have been made about specific
members of the judiciary and the judiciary in general. When I
hear comments like “judges should be independent of parliament
but not of their communities” I think that sounds good. Judges
live in communities. They should be in touch with their
communities. That is good. That is why the government has
created committees composed of members of communities who are not
all judges but lay people as well. These committees vet
applications for judicial positions and pass judgment on
applicants before they come to the minister's attention.
I think of the implications of the statement that judges should
be independent of parliament but not of their communities. The
hon. member seems to be saying that if a community group or
people in the community do not like a judgment, even though that
judgment is correct in law, then somehow they can yank the chain
to bring the judge to attention and to account.
I heard a member from Calgary suggest, with respect to the
Rosenberg decision, that a particular judge was promoting her own
political goals and views. These are very serious allegations to
be made about a group of people, or even about specific people,
who are themselves public servants and not in a position to
defend themselves. Before we use our privileges in the House to
speak publicly, freely and without any repercussions, I would
suggest that we be very careful.
When we look at other countries such as Cuba, or countries where
we have concerns about the absence of democratic rights, we look
for certain characteristics when we test them for their beliefs
in democratic principles. We look for a free parliamentary
assembly where people are elected and more than one party can
run. We look for privileges for parliamentarians so they can
speak freely. We also look for an independent judiciary. A sign
of democracy is having systems in place which allow the judiciary
to operate independently and not worry about whether their
salaries will be paid or about whether they will be yanked back
or punished by a community group with a particular agenda if they
make a correct decision in law in relation to the constitution.
Reformers are playing with a very serious concept here.
Judicial independence is more important than almost any other
principle of democracy. It is certainly as important as our
right to speak freely in this House, and I would suggest that
members opposite be very careful about how they use or abuse that
privilege.
We must keep in mind that whether we are in opposition or in
government, parliamentarians are part of the justice system. We
make the laws. We are every bit as much a part of the justice
system as judges, police officers, victims, criminals and
litigants in civil law suits.
1145
It is incumbent on us when we are debating these principles to
keep the level of debate at a point where we ourselves are not
undermining the institutions that we value. The institution of
the independent judiciary is so fundamental to our democracy that
it should be protected. It should be nurtured. It should not be
attacked in an irresponsible and ill-informed manner. I would
suggest that that is what we are hearing today.
Judges cannot respond because it is not appropriate for them to
respond. It is not appropriate for them to respond because of
their position. That makes them sitting ducks for people who are
promoting an agenda of fear and intolerance so that they can then
use that to further their political agenda.
We have to be very careful to preserve these precious rights. We
have to be very careful to make sure that our judiciary is
respected and is taken care of so that they can continue to do
the fine job that they are doing.
For those reasons, I will be opposing Motion No. 1 and voting
against it. I am very happy to be able to support Bill C-37. I
just wish we could hear some more about the good things that that
bill is doing, including the unified family court.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you will find
consent for the following motion:
That if a recorded division is requested at the conclusion of any
debate on any government legislation during Government Orders
this day, it shall be deemed deferred to Tuesday, June 9, 1998 at
the conclusion of Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion put forward by the deputy whip of the government. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-37, an act to amend the
Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts,
as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of
Motion No. 1.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I listened to the remarks of my hon. colleague and
friend from Windsor—St. Clair, who said we ought not to focus
exclusively on salary as there are other elements to consider
and discuss.
Fine, but at the same time, these other elements should not
overshadow the judges' salaries issue. We can talk all we want
about principles, judicial independence, separation of powers,
Montesquieu and what not, but the fact remains that the bill as
it stands contains a very important clause on salary.
My hon. colleague and friend from Berthier—Montcalm moved a
motion, that is Motion No. 1 now before us, that would amend
Bill C-37 by deleting clause 5.
Clearly, clause 5 does not make sense. It makes no sense at all.
What difference would it make if there were no clause 5? Judges'
salaries have already been raised by 2.08% on April 1, 1997, and
by another 2.08% on April 1, 1998. This has already occurred
without Bill C-37.
Now the government has decided to give them more, as if 4% and a
bit, when the compound rate is taken into account, were not
enough. The bill gives them a 4.1% increase retroactive to
April 1, 1997—that will fill their wallets—and another 4.1%
retroactive to April 1, 1998, for a total salary increase, with
the compound rate taken into account—and this will blow your
socks off—of over 13%.
While provincial transfer payments are being cut and unemployed
workers are facing ruin—with a $19 billion surplus in the EI
fund—, while the government plans to cut payments to the
provinces by $130 billion between now and 2003, while the health
transfer is being cut and the number of hospital beds is
dropping throughout Canada, the government wants to give judges
a 13% increase.
1150
We are not saying that judges do not deserve it, we are not
saying that judges do not do their work well. We think they do.
We are not saying that their work is not important; on the
contrary, as a lawyer and legal expert myself, I feel that the
work that judges do is vital in a society based on the rule of
law.
The problem is that, as a society, we cannot afford this
increase. We simply cannot afford it.
It is a question of choices and priorities. It goes even
further; it is a question of the kind of society we want to
have.
We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that any government's priority
must be to help the most disadvantaged, those who are ill,
elderly, unable to look after themselves, or need a salary or a
decent minimum income in order to live in our modern society.
The government can always claim that it will not be able to
attract quality candidates without an increase, but as far as I
know, and I know the legal community well, there are waiting
lists for judgeships. The fact that the increase will be only
4% and not 13% will not prevent anyone from applying, far from
it. There are waiting lists because the office of judge is
prestigious and important. There is more than the salary
involved.
Once again, this government is showing poor judgement and
deciding to give money to those it will appoint later on—because,
let there be no mistake about it, these are political
appointments, judges are not elected—rather than giving it to the
men, women and children in our society most in need of
government assistance.
It is with great enthusiasm that I support the motion moved by
my colleague and friend, the member for Berthier—Montcalm,
because the Bloc Quebecois is working for those who need it, not
for the privileged few.
[English]
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-37, an
amendment to the Judges Act.
First I would like to comment that we really do not need a
lecture from the member from Windsor on how we should or should
not speak in this House. We are all cognizant of the privileges
that we need to exercise as members of this House.
This is the highest court of the land. Whatever needs to be
said needs to be said here. We are superior to the Supreme Court
of Canada. We have a right to bring forward in this House the
concerns of our constituents regarding the judicial injustice we
hear about almost on a daily basis.
More and more people in this country are losing faith in the
judicial system. In fact 52% have little or no faith in the
current judicial system. We as members of parliament have a duty
to bring their concerns and the injustices that our constituents
want us to air to this House of Commons. If the Feeney case can
illustrate a good example of this lack of faith in the judicial
system, then the Feeney case should be illustrated and made
reference to.
If this bill passes, the pay hike of 8.3% over two years for
judges will certainly happen. This is really not the time to be
talking about wages. As we know, members of parliament are
getting blasted for the pay hike of 8% over four years even
though members of parliament have not received a pay hike since
1991.
The question I would like to address with reference to this
amendment is whether judges need or deserve a pay hike. My
colleagues who have spoken before me on this amendment brought up
the issue of need. For the record I will quote from the salary
schedule to make sure the people of this country know exactly
what the current salaries are as of April 1998.
1155
In the Supreme Court of Canada the chief justice makes a salary
of $208,200. If someone is just a justice in the supreme court,
a salary of $192,900 is paid. Under the Federal Court and Tax
Court of Canada, the chief justice and associate chief justices
earn a salary of $177,700 and justices earn $162,300. In the
Superior Courts the chief justice and the associate chief
justices earn $177,700 and the justices earn $162,300. Certainly,
these salaries far exceed the salaries of members of parliament
who sit in the highest court of the land.
Do these judges deserve a pay raise? The question can only be
answered if judges are evaluated by an independent panel.
Certainly it is ironic to see judges comment on decisions made at
the provincial level regarding judges' salaries, when the judges
themselves say that the provincial governments really do not have
any business capping their salaries. How ironic it is.
MPs get evaluated every four or five years by the people who pay
their salaries. Judges should be evaluated to make sure that if
they deserve a raise they get a raise.
The other point I would like to make is that judges are
appointed for life. Members of parliament are not appointed for
life. We certainly do need term limits on judges.
It is unfortunate that Bill C-37 was not amended to develop a
new process for the appointment of judges, to make it one that is
more open and more transparent. We heard today that the current
process is very patronage based. Today judges are appointed
through a political patronage system, through their connections
to the political system and political parties. That is normally
how someone gets to the bench. We need to make this process much
more transparent and politically accountable.
Recently in Manitoba the attorney general, Mr. Vic Toews, was
criticized for getting involved in the judicial appointment
process. Personally I applaud the attorney general for Manitoba
for his intervention. If he is acting on behalf of the people of
Manitoba, he certainly has a right to make sure that the federal
laws are complied with and that the best judges are appointed.
Another point I want to bring to this House is that under the
current federal agreement, in Manitoba three of the federal
judges must reside outside the city of Winnipeg. That is a
contract the federal government made with the provincial
government. Recently there has been pressure to reduce these
numbers.
I believe that judges need to reflect the mosaic of the
province. Considering that 40% of the population lives outside
the city of Winnipeg, I believe that 40% of the federal judges in
the province of Manitoba should also live outside the city of
Winnipeg. I would hope the Minister of Justice would agree with
my opinion.
The government should not be concentrating its efforts on pay
raises for judges. We should be concentrating on introducing
victims bills of rights legislation and making substantial
changes to the Young Offenders Act.
I close by referring to an article printed in the Free China
Journal dated May 15. It was a surprise to me. The title is
“Victim recompense law passes”.
The Government of Taiwan recently passed new legislation aimed
to correct the public misconception that legal measures only
protect the offenders. A majority of citizens in our country
certainly believe that the laws are there for the law breakers
and certainly not for the law-abiding citizen. The legislature of
Taiwan had just passed a law that provides timely compensation to
crime victims and their families. This unprecedented legislation
stipulates that if the breadwinner of a family is killed during a
crime, his or her family should apply for compensation for this
sad state of affairs.
1200
In the past the government also tried direct compensation. It
found that direct compensation of this type was often difficult
to obtain. In many cases suspects could either not be positively
identified or remained at large. It made it impossible for
victims to be legally compensated for those who committed the
crime. As a result those affected families plunged into a life
of financial hardships.
This is a good example that governments do care about the
victims of their country. This is a first step that they have
taken to make sure that families are looked after. I will send a
copy of this news item to the Minister of Justice.
There are certainly many issues this government needs to address
beyond that of pay increases for federal judges. The people of
this country have waited for a long time for things to change.
Unfortunately this government tends to spend its time
concentrating on money issues rather than real issues that people
have in mind.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak on Motion No. 1 related to Bill C-37,
amendments to the Judges Act. The motion put forward by the Bloc
member is that Bill C-37 be amended by deleting clause 5.
Clause 5 has to do with pay increases for judges. The way the
pay increase would work is it is an increase of 4.1% retroactive
from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998, and an additional 4.1% from
April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999. At that time the salaries will
be reviewed by a newly created body called the judicial
compensation and benefits commission. What this amounts to is
that judges will get about an 8.3% increase over two years. It
is important to note that the average salary for judges at the
moment is approximately $140,000 a year.
A few minutes ago in the debate the member for Windsor—St.
Clair said that by talking about these judges and the outrageous
decisions that they have been making we are undermining the
prestige of the judges and the courts. I say to the hon. member
that it is not us undermining the prestige of the judges and the
courts, it is the judges who make the ridiculous decisions that
appear out there. Many of my colleagues on this side of the
House have given the most outrageous examples of decisions that
have been made by judges over the last while. I will be giving a
few from my own area as part of speaking to Motion No. 1. If
these judges were more representative of their community and our
community values we would not be faced with these problems.
In connection with the comments made by the member for
Windsor—St. Clair, a poll last July showed that more than 50% of
those polled have little faith in judges. Surely that is a very
good message to all of us that there is something wrong if more
than half the population feels that judges are not doing the
right thing. It is time to address a major problem.
In the North Vancouver area a number of my close friends are
members of the RCMP. In North Vancouver the RCMP looks after our
policing. Some members have told me about their frustration with
judges and how difficult it is as a police officer to get some
sort of charge against somebody and then get it to stick. There
are so many technical flaws or problems in the way of laying a
charge in the first place and then to be successful in court to
get somebody convicted. Then to get them put in jail is a
tremendously difficult thing to do.
It is very frustrating for police officers who know they are
faced with this problem every day. Police officers are working
hard to keep our streets safe and to get these offenders dealt
with. Yet starting constables have had their wages frozen for
five years and the starting salary for a third year constable is
in the range of $50,500 to about $52,400.
That is $90,000 less than the judges who are making judgments on
the sorts of criminals these police officers are bringing
forward.
1205
As many of my colleagues have mentioned earlier, most Canadians
now are starting to think about the justice system not as a
justice system but as a legal system, a wonderful place for the
judges to share experiences with one another and to talk about
the technicalities and how they can find flaws in the things that
parliament has passed as our laws. The will of parliament should
be ultimate in these decisions.
In the Lynn Valley area, like many other areas of the country,
we have a fair bit of youth crime. Of my constituents, like
those across Canada, well over 90% would like to see significant
changes to the Young Offenders Act and they would like to see
some judges being a lot more particular about the sentencing of
youth offenders. For example, in May there was a court date for
some young offenders in my riding who allegedly had committed a
devastating crime in the Lynn Valley area in March.
What they are alleged to have done is that in the middle of
night they attacked a person in the street, beat him so severely
that plastic surgery was required and practically trashed a
person's house and their almost brand new car. They were
identified and arrested. But of course nobody could give out
their names. It was extremely frustrating to the father of the
victim who wants to take civil action against these people but
was unable to get names until recently when they appeared in
court. There is a general feeling in the community that these
people should be named, especially once they are convicted.
There was a court date set for May. Only a few of these
defendants actually showed up in court. What did the judge do?
He said “you should tell your friends they really should
appear”. He set a new court date and put the case off for
another few months.
This is absolutely ridiculous and outrageous. Surely the judge
should have issued arrest warrants immediately for those people
who did not turn up. Instead, it was almost a flippant comment
for him to make.
This is the sort of comment that brings judges into disrepute.
Maybe they have been numbed by hearing so many cases that they
just do not take anything seriously any more. They are at this
point where we have to start imposing minimum sentences for these
judges to use. Otherwise they are just not going to do anything.
There was another case in the Vancouver area recently where a
prisoner in the Kent institution escaped from the institution in
a cardboard box. He asked for a stand for his television set.
He knew there were not any stands for television sets, so he then
made the suggestion that a cardboard box would be fine.
The prison authorities found him a nice big cardboard box which
he put under his TV set. While the cardboard box was there over
a period of a few months, he reinforced it with bits of plywood
and stuff that he got from the prison workshop. He knew a friend
of his was going to be released at a certain date. On the night
before he climbed into this box and his prisoner friend took it
to his cell. It was put in storage overnight as personal effects
of the prisoner who would be leaving the next morning.
At no time did the prison authorities ever check the box to see
what was in there. The following morning it was loaded into the
trunk of a car and left with the prisoner who was being released.
This prisoner who was in the cardboard box was then released
from the trunk and he was out at large. He was recaptured within
a short time. But he had already escaped numerous times from
correctional facilities.
The ridiculous part was when he came to court for this crime,
what did the judge do? He sentenced him all right to a number of
years in prison but he made it concurrent with the sentence he
was already serving. So there is no additional time. It is free
time. Escaping from prison means nothing. They get it free. Try
it again, please.
1210
We have to congratulate the prisoner for his creativity in
escaping in the cardboard box but there is absolutely no
accountability for that and the judge undermines the confidence
of the public by making ridiculous decisions like that.
There is a member on the government side who has been trying to
get a private member's bill into this place which would get rid
of these concurrent sentences and make people serve time for
these types of crimes.
This prisoner had been into bank robberies and had been jailed
for those a number of times and he has all these concurrent
sentences. They get time for the first crime but not for
subsequent withdrawals so it does not really matter what they do.
What we are really pointing out here is that if judges will have
their pay increased from the already very generous level of
$140,000 per year on average, it is about time they were a little
more accountable. One of the things that the official opposition
has proposed is that judges should be selected through a more
democratic process.
If we cannot get to the point where the constituents actually
elect the judges themselves to truly reflect community values,
let us at least have some sort of public process where
parliamentarians or MLAs at the provincial level can at least
grill and question, get to the bottom and background of people
who are to be appointed as judges. I think that is a reasonable
approach. It is a step we should be taking and before any of us
agree to pass a bill like Bill C-37 with these very generous pay
increases we should be insisting on accountability for judges.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready for the
question.
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on Motion
No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The division on Motion No.
1 stands deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 2.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved
That Bill C-37, in Clause 6, be
amended by adding after line 34 on page 3 the following:
“(6.1) A report that is tabled in each House of Parliament
under subsection (6), shall, on the day it is tabled or if the
House is not sitting on that day, on the day that House next
sits, be referred by that House to a committee of that House that
is designated or established by that House for the purpose of
considering matters relating to justice.
(6.2) A committee referred to in subsection (6.1) may
conduct inquiries or public hearings in respect of a report
referred to it under that subsection, and if it does so, the
committee shall, not later than ninety sitting days after the
report is referred to it, report its findings to the House that
designated or established the committee.
(6.3) For the purpose of subsection (6.2), “sitting day”
means a day on which the House of Commons or the Senate, as the
case may be, sits.”
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Motion No. 2.
Bill C-37 establishes the judicial compensation and benefits
commission to inquire into the adequacy of the salaries and
benefits of judges under section 26(1) of the bill. Inquiries
will commence on September 1, 1999 and on September 1 of every
fourth year after 1999, and the commission is to submit a report
with recommendations to the Minister of Justice within nine
months after the date of commencement. That is authorized by
section 26(2) of the bill.
The Minister of Justice is to table a copy of the commission's
report in each house of parliament as required by section 26(6).
The minister is to respond to the commission's report within six
months after receiving it as authorized under section 26(7).
1215
Parliament is given no opportunity or authority to respond to
the report. Motion No. 2 gives the appropriate committee, which
is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, an
opportunity to review the commission's report, call witnesses,
examine the commission's report and report its findings to the
House.
Why do we want this? For one thing to determine on behalf of
the people of Canada whether or not the recommendations contained
within that report are fair to society at large, the people of
Canada.
What is being recommended in terms of pay raises by this bill is
it is going to increase the pay for federal court judges all the
way from $5,000 to $17,000 over a two year period. It reminds me
a little bit of the report that was tabled in the House
recommending that members of parliament receive a 2% increase
over the next four years. This is at a time when so many
families are struggling.
The Kim Hicks family, a family of six, is trying to make ends
meet on approximately $30,000 a year. They are having difficulty
paying for dental treatments and eyeglass appointments. Thousands
of families in this country are living under economic conditions
today where they are struggling to keep the family body and soul
together. If this bill is passed it will demand more money from
those families by way of taxation in order to give judges a raise
in pay. These are judges who, as my colleague has indicated, are
receiving on average $140,000 a year. The chief justice of the
Supreme Court of Canada receives over $200,000 a year.
It is not fair for this bill to command parliament to use its
taxation powers to again weaken the economic stability of
thousands and thousands of individuals and families across this
country. This applies equally to the report tabled in the House
indicating that we as MPs deserve another 2% raise over the next
four years. We are going to take money from these families that
are struggling to provide for their children.
Why are we going to tax them more? Because judges need a raise
and of course we need a raise. This is wrong. It is wrong
because it is not fair.
If we want to give the judges or the members of parliament more
take home pay, why do we not offer them a tax cut? I would
sooner have a 10% tax cut than a 15% raise in pay. But let us do
it for all Canadians. And until we can do it for all Canadians,
let us not put a greater burden on them by demanding that they
pay more in taxes so that we and the judges can receive more for
ourselves and our families. It is not right. And it is not right
because it is not fair.
1220
The greatest threat to the economic stability of individuals and
their families is the unlimited and unrestricted power of
government to tax away their wealth. It is absolutely wrong. When
the commission makes its report saying that the judges' benefits
should be increased at the expense of Canadian families and
society at large, surely we must examine our own consciences and
ask ourselves whether this is fair. I think when most of us look
in the mirror we have to say no it is not fair. It is not fair.
How can we compare an average salary of $140,000 a year for the
judges with a family of six struggling to make ends meet on
$30,000 a year?
If this bill as it is worded goes through without any scrutiny,
some of these judges are going to receive a $17,000 increase in
pay over the next two years. We as MPs will receive 2% a year,
almost $5,000 more in the next four years. We are going to
receive that. How? By the force of law determined by the
majority over there. We are going to take that $5,000 for each
one of us out of the pockets of the taxpayers, out of the pockets
of the families that are struggling to feed, clothe and shelter,
to educate, to care for their children. We are going to do far,
far more when we pass the bill that is going to give the federal
judges in this land a raise of over 8% in the next two years.
There is something wrong with this. It is simply the
unrestricted and abusive power of the House, of this government
to tax the wealth away from the people in this country who make
and create that wealth every year.
Right now we are the highest taxed country in the G-7. The
average family spends more in taxes than it does on food,
clothing and shelter. One in five children are reported to be
living in poverty. What does that say about the families they
come from? They are living in poverty too. Why? Because
approximately 50 cents of every dollar earned is paid toward
taxes in one form or another. This bill is going to take more
from them.
It is reprehensible what we are doing to the people of Canada.
We are sent here to stand on guard, to protect the rights of the
Canadian people who have sent us here. We are not protecting
their rights when we do these kinds of things. We are not
protecting their rights when we demand 2% for ourselves and they
have got to suffer more. That is not right. It is not fair. It
is reprehensible and should be reconsidered.
I cannot go back to the people in Crowfoot and say this is fair
and just. I will go back and say it is wrong. We are caught in
the middle of this, all of us. Why? Because the government
simply decides what it is going to do and it is going to do it.
It is going to exercise its power to take money from them. Why?
Because the judges need more on top of $140,000 and we need more.
It is not right.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
gives me pleasure to speak to the motion of my colleague from
Crowfoot. He is asking that Clause No. 6 be amended so that all
reports to the House tabled by the minister will be referred to
the justice committee in order for it to conduct inquiries or
public hearings in respect of the report and to report its
findings to the House. It is a very sensible amendment.
1225
I find it rather unusual to hear colleagues from the other side
of the House, particularly the chairman of the justice committee,
say that there are some really good points in Bill C-37. If
there are some really good points, then there must be some really
bad ones. I wonder why the government members do not recognize
them and amend them. I wonder why they do not enter into the
debate and try to make some common sense out of what we want to
achieve by making these amendments.
The Minister of Justice is to table a copy of the commission's
report but parliament has been given no opportunity to respond.
This motion would allow that to happen. Like so many aspects of
this Liberal government, its members continue to feel they do not
have to be accountable to parliament. By not including this
amendment to Bill C-37, they will again prove how undemocratic
they have become.
Time and time again this government has contributed to the
declining role of parliamentarians. We have seen this most
recently at the hands of judicial activism. For example, on a
day to day basis we witness the rights of criminals superseding
the rights of victims through the court imposed conditional
sentences. That happens every day of the week.
Most recently in the case of Rosenberg v Canada, a lesbian
challenged the constitutionality of the Income Tax Act since it
forced Revenue Canada to refuse to register her employer's
private pension plan if it extended death benefits to same sex
partners. In the unanimous decision on April 23 the Ontario
court of appeal decided to read a same sex definition of the term
spouse into the act.
I think the government has an obligation to defend its stated
position on the definition of spouse. If an appeal fails, then
the issue should be put before this parliament and it should be
debated. That is what democracy is all about. When there are
going to be changes to the definitions in our laws or any changes
to the laws, they should be decided by the people in this place,
the highest court in the land.
When we are having that debate we should consciously and
sincerely keep in mind the wishes of the Canadian people we
represent. We should ask what the Canadian people want to see
come out of this House of Commons. Then we should oblige them by
being good representatives and entering into debate on their
behalf.
When he was defending the need for Bill C-33, the former justice
minister made this statement “We should not rely upon the courts
to make public policy in matters of this kind. That is up to
legislators and we should have the courage to do it”. I think we
all agree with that statement. He made a very wise and good
statement. The only thing is that they say it in one place and
they do not do it when they have the opportunity. This kind of
an amendment would help make these things possible.
It comes down to one question. Is the current justice minister
going to let the courts decide on such things as the redefinition
of the term spouse, or is parliament going to decide? As far as
I am concerned I have seen too many decisions made by these
higher courts that have become law. They are beginning to run
the country.
The highest court of the land is here. We are the ones who are
supposed to make the laws, not the Supreme Court of Canada. It
has a vital job on its hands but it is not to impose its will of
nine unelected, unaccountable individuals on the will of 30
million Canadians. We are the representatives of the 30 million
Canadians and we must have the say as to what their will is
toward the laws that govern this land.
The courts constantly make an end run around the democratic
process. This is the same as the Minister of Justice merely
tabling the report but not allowing it to be scrutinized by
members of parliament. It is the same thing as invoking closure
on a number of bills.
They do that all the time. They are denying me as a member of
parliament the right to represent the views of the people of Wild
Rose. By denying me the right to debate or scrutinize these
issues, they are denying me the ability to serve the people of my
riding, which is what I was sent here to do.
1230
When I was elected I received power. That power is to serve.
The kinds of things we are doing here takes that power completely
away with decisions made undemocratically behind closed doors:
whether we like it or not this is the way it will be.
They come from behind closed doors and make decisions by a
handful of a very few. Then they tell all members of their
particular party how they are to vote. They had better vote that
way because if they do not they will be punished. What kind of
representation is that?
Recently I made a new friend in Airdrie, Alberta. The gentleman
is in his elderly years and is a veteran of World War II. He is
a paraplegic and is having some very difficult times with the
income he receives and the help we think he should get that he
just does not get.
I was in his home visiting this individual. What a shame it has
come to the point where the following words came out of his
mouth: “I have a medal of honour. I have a medal of bravery. I
would like to give you these two medals to take back to the
government. Give them back to the minister of defence and tell
him I don't want them because I didn't fight for the kinds of
things that are going on in this country today. The undemocratic
processes that go on are not what I fought for”. He is demanding
that we change things.
He believed that his comrades in their graves across the seas
who fought and gave their lives for this country during that
great war would be turning over in their graves if they knew what
was going on today with regard to the democratic process for
which they fought so hard to try to maintain.
I encourage all members to vote in favour of Motion No. 2 to
make the bill a little more bearable and to prove the worth of
every member of parliament. Members of the House should be given
the opportunity to be the representatives many of us want to be
and are unable to be because of undemocratic processes.
Dictatorship should end, starting with these kinds of measures.
Things should be brought before us to scrutinize. Things should
be brought into this place to let us debate the definition of
spouse. The little minority groups with power in their hands
should not define these things for us and tell us what they will
be. The people at large whom we serve should have some say in
the wages of a judge or the wages of an MP. Let them be the ones
who make decisions in this regard. We should remember they are
the ones who pay the bills.
It is a shame that this place is in a state where we know more
about what is good for every Canadian in the land than the
Canadian people themselves. We know more and so we impose our
will through all kinds of undemocratic measures. There is no
call for that.
Canada is the greatest country in the world. It could be the
greatest democracy in the world, but we are not a democracy. We
are a dictatorship. Let us change it and let us change it today.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, I spoke to Motion No. 1, which I moved, and I
indicated the Bloc Quebecois' position. Subsequently, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice asked me the
Bloc's position on the bill. I want to make sure we clearly
understand each other and am going to take a few minutes to
explain it.
1235
As we are giving judges increases I consider unjustified at the
moment because of the state of public finances and because
billions of dollars are being taken away from people who need it
and as the aim of my motion was to prevent this increase of
approximately 13% from being given to the judges, it is
understandable that, if my amendment is passed, we will support
the bill in its entirety, because there are good things in it,
things that are in response to a decision by the Supreme Court
of Canada.
I want to set things straight. The basis of this bill is good,
because the government is responding to a decision by the
Supreme Court. However, since it waters down to such an extent
the remarks made by the highest court on the remuneration of
judges, we will understandably vote against the bill if the
motion is not passed.
That said, I wish to tell the Reform Party that the Bloc
Quebecois will support Motion No. 2, since it is important. I
think it is more responsive to the Supreme Court decision, and
that its aim specifically is to clarify the increases that might
be given to federal court justices in the future.
The motion calls for three paragraphs to be added to clause 6 of
the bill to ensure greater detail or to involve parliamentarians
more. I do not want to play teacher, but I think that, to
clearly understand the Reform motion,
one must look at the context and, in particular, examine the
clause where the amendment is desired.
Clause 6 creates the Judicial Compensation and Benefits
Commission. It is mandated, at intervals set out in the act, to
examine the Judges Act in order to determine adequacy of
salaries, whether the act needs to be amended and whether the
judges have reported comments to this Commission, and then to
report to the Minister of Justice.
Paragraph (1) describes the mandate of the Judicial Compensation
and Benefits Commission. Paragraph (2) states that an inquiry
is to be held every fourth year, starting with September 1,
1999. Paragraph (3) states that the Commission must report to
the Minister of Justice. Paragraph (4) refers to the
possibility of initiating inquiries at the minister's request.
Paragraph (5) refers to extensions, in case the commission wants
more time before submitting the report.
If the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission does not
have enough time to produce the report, it may obtain an
extension under the act.
Paragraph (6) states as follows:
(6) The Minister shall table a copy of the report in each House
of Parliament on any of the first ten days on which that House
is sitting after the Minister receives the report.
The Reform Party amendment follows paragraph (6) of this clause
and adds the following:
(6.1) A report that is tabled in each House of Parliament under
subsection (6) shall, on the day it is tabled or if the House is
not sitting on that day, on the day that House next sits, be
referred by that House to a committee of that House that is
designated or established by that House for the purpose of
considering matters relating to Justice.
As we know, the Committee on Justice and Human Rights is the one
that would be mandated, or given jurisdiction, to examine the
report tabled in this House.
The next paragraph, (6.2) in the Reform amendment to the bill,
states:
(6.2) A committee referred to in subsection (6.1) may
conduct inquiries or public hearings in respect of a report
referred to it under that subsection, and if it does so, the
committee shall, not later than ninety sitting days after the
report is referred to it, report its findings to the House that
designated or established the committee.
1240
This is the important part. A report is submitted to the
minister, the minister tables it in this House and the Senate,
and everything stops there. Yet, the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights is authorized to examine it and is very
familiar with everything connected with the Judges Act and other
related acts.
If the Reform Party's amendments were passed, members of this
committee could hold an inquiry and hearings. Why? For one
thing, the committee would have the very specific goal of coming
up with amendments that would reflect the public's wishes.
All members of parliament are elected to represent the
constituents in their respective ridings. We are, I believe,
very well placed to know how the public feels about a given
issue. Right now, I am sure that a 13.8% increase for judges
would not fly, when we know that they are earning, on average,
$140,000 a year or thereabouts.
The committee tasked with studying the report could report to
this House that it had heard such and such a witness from the
general public and that the increase was not warranted, or not
large enough, because we do not know what shape the public purse
will be in in ten years. Perhaps that would be the time to
increase the salaries of judges, public servants and people
generally.
Once the poverty problem has been solved and the money currently
being stolen by the federal government through brutal cuts has
been put back into health, education and social assistance, then
and only then might it be the right time to consider giving a
raise to judges, public servants, deputy ministers and, why not,
members of parliament, the Prime Minister and so on. But now is
not the time, and if it had given serious consideration to the
report, I think the committee would have told the minister not
to raise the salaries of judges right now.
Perhaps the parliamentary committee will have to give some
thought to the amendment put forward by the Reform Party, which
I think also responds to a rather widespread desire among
members. We sit regularly on these committees, give a great deal
of our time and take our job there very seriously.
I for one at least work very hard at the justice committee and,
given the time and energy we put into our committee work, we are
not involved enough.
I think that, ultimately, an amendment like this one will
enhance the role of MPs, perhaps, allowing them to make more of
a contribution on a bill or a very specific aspect like the
salaries of judges and all the various benefits they get.
I will conclude by repeating that we will vote in favour of the
Reform amendment because it supports the objective of
transparency demanded by the public and, above all, the
contribution the people of my riding and every riding across
Canada and in Quebec want their elected representatives make.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rose yesterday to speak to Motion No. 1. Today I rise to speak
to Motion No. 2 put forward by my colleague from Crowfoot.
Before I start on a detailed analysis I would like to say that
in general the motion is taking about bringing transparency and
accountability to a system that has long been hidden behind
curtains where arbitrary decisions are made.
Therefore the motion put forward by my colleague from Crowfoot
is very important. I ask all members to take a careful look at
it. As my colleague from the Bloc said, it brings transparency
and accountability to this system.
1245
I rose yesterday in support of the Bloc motion asking that the
judges' pay raise be not given to judges due to reasons I listed.
The same rationale applies to me as well. I would be a hypocrite
if I stood here and said I like the 2% pay raise that is
to be given to members of parliament. Those same
arguments apply to me.
Therefore I want to go on record that I am not in agreement with
the 2% pay raise to be given to members of parliament because
over the four year period that is a 10% pay raise compounded.
The motion in front of the House asks the justice committee to
view what the judicial compensation and benefits commission will
come up with and have public hearings. What greater
accountability is there than that?
The people of Canada will have a choice to say whether true
compensation packages are in agreement with what the judges of
this country are saying.
It brings accountability to the judges too because when these
hearings are held, people will have room to vent their views
regarding how the judicial system has been conducting itself. As
members know, today this is under scrutiny.
It is viewed and seen that the judiciary is interfering with the
wishes of the people as expressed through parliament by the
charter of rights and coming to decisions that at times seem
quite baffling.
Therefore it is very important that this benefits commission
report is brought in front of the committee so that it can be
scrutinized by members of parliament and by the Canadian public.
Another question regards where the laws of the nation are made.
Are they made in the judiciary chambers or are they made in
parliament? That is a very critical and important point in light
of recent decisions made by people who have chosen to read what
the charter of rights is saying as opposed to the wishes of what
the Canadians want as expressed through the Chamber.
How does the Canadian public express displeasure and
dissatisfaction on the way the judiciary can proceed if it is not
held accountable? It can do that through the consultation
package. It can do that when public hearings are made.
Submissions can be made and attention can be brought to the
judiciary regarding what the people of Canada feel. This brings
some kind of accountability to judges.
To some degree judges would be happy to see the feedback coming
from the Canadian public on how they are perceived, although we
understand quite clearly that they are the guardians of the law.
They have to follow the law. They have to interpret the law.
They do not have to read into something when it is not there. The
responsibility of a creating a concise law belongs to this
Chamber.
1250
That is why this compensation package is generous in everybody's
point of view, in the opposition's point of view, but of course
not in the government's point of view. We know what its point of
view is. Its point of view is to spend money, keep the elite
happy.
I said yesterday in reference to working class people that
Canadians do not even dream of having this kind of compensation
package. But today I am speaking on Motion No. 2 where some
attempt is being made to take the whole picture into account so
that Canadians are served well through transparency and
accountability of the judicial system. That is very important in
their eyes. It touches their lives every day.
The Constitution guarantees judiciary independence. We are not
infringing on judiciary independence. We are extremely proud of
the fact that the judiciary is independent in this nation. It is
not under pressure. It is not pressured to compromise on the
decisions it makes.
Nevertheless there still has to be accountability. Nevertheless
the judiciary represents also the views of society. It is
important that there be an understanding by the public and by the
judiciary of what they expect of each other.
I conclude by appealing to all members of parliament to look at
this motion and see that it is a small step toward dialogue
between the judiciary and the Canadian public.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
I did yesterday, I rise to speak against Bill C-37 but to speak
in favour of the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague from
Crowfoot.
The criticism we offer on this bill should serve as reason
enough for Liberals to support the amendment that has been put
forward by my colleague, the member for Crowfoot. However, as
very often is the case in the House, the government will ram this
bill through pretty much as it is. It is not really interested
in hearing any constructive criticism from the opposition or our
attempts to make the legislation better. It wants to ram it
through and it will.
Bill C-37 will increase the number of appeal court judges from
10 to 13. It also will increase the number of unified family
court judges from 12 to 36. On the face of it this in itself is
not a bad move by the government. There is a terrific backlog in
our courts across the nation. More judges will facilitate the
movement of these cases through the court system.
1255
However, given the justice system's penchant for inventing
rather than interpreting the laws these days, I do not believe
that Canadians generally will see this as a positive move.
The recent supreme court decisions to redefine family in this
country is very much a case in point. I do not think Canadians
in the long run are going to stand for the supreme court actually
being in the business of making laws when, by our Constitution
and our parliamentary tradition, the duly elected representatives
of the people of Canada in parliament are the ones who should be
making the laws, particularly on such important issues as
definition of family. Those laws should be made here in the
House, certainly not in the Supreme Court of Canada.
However, there is a bad trend across this country which has
been recognized by Canadians and which we in the Reform Party
will fight that trend as best we can.
The bill would also raise judges' salaries retroactively by 4.1%
and an additional 4.1% from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999. In
other words, judges will get an 8.3% increase over two years.
Noting that their average salary now is around $140,000, most
Canadians are going to ask whether they really need that kind of
raise. I wonder if the judges have come in on bended knee
pleading the case that they need more money. I rather doubt it.
Many other Canadians who have been receiving only cost of living
raises or perhaps no raise over the past few years will wonder
why in the world judges need to receive an 8.3% increase over the
next two years. How cynical for this government to award judges,
senior bureaucrats and its own ministers with large pay raises
and bonuses while at the same time frontline police officers and
low level public servants will receive little to nothing. It
does not make sense and it is not fair.
Granted, my friends across the way will cry out piously and wave
their arms at me saying that is not true. In March they gave
RCMP members a raise. My goodness, how good they were to them. I
remind everyone that RCMP salaries have been frozen for five
years. The last stage of the increase calls for a .75% increase
to take effect on October 1, 1998. It does not make sense and it
is not fair.
This bill also seeks to establish a judicial compensation and
benefits commission to inquire into the adequacy of the salaries
and benefits of judges. I want to spend a few moments to discuss
that commission in some detail. Indeed it shows that under the
guise of judicial reform Liberals still have not lost their taste
for pork barrel politics.
The creation of the judicial compensation and benefits
commission provides the federal government with yet another
opportunity to make patronage appointments and another
opportunity for hardworking Liberals to be rewarded with a place
at the trough. The activities of this commission will commence
September 1, 1999. On September 1 of every fourth year after
1999 the commission is to submit a report with recommendations to
the Minister of Justice within nine months after the date of
commencement. Eventually the Minister of Justice is to table a
copy of the commission's report.
However, that does not really matter because parliament is given
no opportunity or authority to respond. Again this underscores
the lack of public accountability within this proposal.
The commission will consist of three members appointed by the
governor in council. In effect, governor in council appointments
are code language for patronage appointments. One member is
nominated by the judiciary, one nominated by the Minister of
Justice and the one who acts as chair will be nominated by the
first two persons nominated.
The members will hold office for a term of four years and are
eligible to be reappointed for one further term. There is more
opportunity for patronage.
1300
As Canadians can see, the appointment process is lacking in
transparency and therefore credibility. At no step in the
appointment process does the public or parliament have a say.
Reformers want to ensure the appointment process is transparent
and publicly accountable in order to eliminate this kind of
patronage. In fact, our national Reform assembly in Vancouver in
1996 accepted recommendations made in this regard. The report
outlined a more populace style of appointment, whereby a
committee would review and interview candidates whose names would
be put forward to the Prime Minister.
That type of enlightened thinking is not present in this bill. I
suspect that is because Liberals are against anything that smacks
of populism.
Canadians will be unimpressed with this legislation. Overall it
does nothing to address some of the fundamental problems inherent
in the justice system. In fact, while pressing issues of
criminal justice go unaddressed in this country, this is the
third time the Liberals have amended the Judges Act. There are
better things for us to do in this parliament.
During the last parliament, in 1996, the government introduced
Bills C-2 and C-42. Both bills were inconsequential pieces of
legislation and were of little significance to Canadians who are
concerned about their safety, and rightly so.
Both Liberal justice ministers have failed to introduce the
victims' bill of rights which we in the Reform Party have
advocated for many years. It has been given a low priority on
the justice agenda, as if they really do not care about the
victims of crime in this country. Both the present and past
justice ministers failed to substantially amend the Young
Offenders Act. Instead they tinker around the edges of it. Both
ministers have failed to limit the use of conditional sentences
for violent offenders. Instead the justice committee's time is
spent dealing with these administrative matters.
There are other shortcomings in the bill, but I want to turn my
attention just briefly to the amendment put forward by my Reform
colleague from Crowfoot. The amendment would give the
appropriate committee an opportunity to review the commission's
report, call witnesses and report their findings to the House.
Does that not make sense? Is that not democracy in action?
I call upon all of my colleagues in the House to support the
amendment and defeat the bill.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in this debate because of a
number of incidents which have happened across Canada in the last
year.
A year ago we were just getting over the terrible devastation of
the Red River flood. The devastation not only took away people's
income, but in many cases it destroyed their property, it
destroyed their lives and in some cases it destroyed families.
We just recovered from that and last winter we had a
terrible ice storm which again took millions of dollars and ruined
peoples' lives for one year, two years or even more.
While the effects of these two national calamities go on, we
stand here today debating a proposal to give people who are
servants of the people an approximate 8% raise in salary. This
going on while hundreds of people have not even started to pick
up their shoelaces from the disasters. It is incomprehensible.
Does the government not realize that we are elected as members of
Parliament to serve the people?
1305
How can I possibly respond to a letter I received the other day?
It was from a single parent with two children whose income is
slightly below the poverty line. Are the people who are in dire
need about to get a retroactive 8% increase? The answer is no.
There are hundreds of people who have to file income tax returns
who should not even be on the tax rolls. When they see people
being appointed to positions and receiving an 8% raise in
salaries that are already $140,000, they cry out in a loud voice
from ocean to ocean to ocean. They do not cry “no”; they cry
“no way”.
We need to follow the advice of this motion. We need to listen
to the words of my colleague from Calgary who says “Let us take
this back. Let us have a review of what we are doing”.
I well recall when the famous charter of rights and freedoms was
implemented. I recall the statement being made that now we have
the ability to make the laws. Therein is the danger which the
people have echoed throughout this country for the past two
years. They are saying “I thought we elected our MPs and our
MLAs to make laws”.
In the newspapers in the past three months I have seen terms
like “The tribunal orders the government”. The word “orders”
is used. The tribunals are telling us what definition such terms
as spouse and marriage will take. This government has nothing to
say about it because of the courts? Democracy is wavering on
some of these issues and it is wavering badly.
I want to talk about my constituents. At this time last year,
between the two cities I represent, we had a very fierce hail
storm. The people out west could not tell whether it was crop or
summer fallow. That is how bad it was. They did not lose
$140,000. Many of those people lost an amount which is double
that of the wages of a federal judge. Did they get retroactive
pay?
They have not pulled up their bootstraps from that and now they
are facing a drought. To add to that, there are hundreds
thousands of acres, including those in the neighbouring province
of Manitoba, that have had six nights of killing frost. Seventy
thousand people are sitting out there not knowing what their
income will be this fall. I am just referring to western Canada.
But we are going to give a handful of judges an 8% raise on
incomes of $140,000. I cannot believe it. I hope that all the
people of Canada from coast to coast to coast who are listening
to the debate today are aware of that.
About 18 months ago Maclean's magazine did a poll on what
bothered Canadians the most. Up near the top of the list was our
court system. They said that they were losing faith in our court
system and now we are going to reward judges with an 8% salary
increase.
Any member of this House, on any side of the House, who
represents any party in the House, should be thinking about the
real producers of wealth in this country. They should be
thinking about the miners and about those who provide the food.
They should be thinking about the people who are raising
families, the unemployed and the youth who cannot find jobs. But
what are they saying? We have a great country. We just gave our
judges an 8% raise.
1310
This is wrong. This bill, as the amendment says, should go back
to committee. The government should have no fear of sending it
back. I do not care whether the session is almost over. For the
government to move closure on this bill will ring out across this
land like no emergency has ever rung out. The people will say
“The government has done it again”.
The government is robbing from Canadians to pay people a salary
in excess of $140,000. It is saying that the rest of the people
can work it out for themselves. The farmers, the people who live
in the Saguenay, on the prairies, in the Red River valley and
elsewhere will just have to pick up their own bootstraps. It may
take them 10 years to get back to normal.
I beg the House to support this motion. If anything, stall it.
Send it back. I think the judges can live on $140,000 without
due concern. I think that can happen. I do not think our
justice system is going to fall to pieces. This is a good motion
and I beg everyone to support it.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to partake in the
debate today. There has been a great deal of bluster and a great
deal of frank discussion about the merits of this particular
piece of legislation.
To focus specifically on the motion before the House, what we
are in essence contemplating and what the motion would have this
House do is return this particular piece of legislation to the
committee for further discussion and consideration.
As the previous speaker has indicated, it would hold this piece
of legislation in abeyance until perhaps some of the more
controversial elements of it have been dealt with in a more
substantive way.
It also calls for the review process to kick in. Before the
legislation is put in place there would be a further opportunity
for scrutiny on some of the detail. In particular, we have heard
the official opposition voice its concerns about the salary scale
that judges would enjoy should this legislation be passed through
this House. Then, of course, it will be further examined in the
other Chamber.
There is a great deal of irony, of course, in the remarks of the
official opposition, knowing that members of the House are
contemplating raises for themselves. I think we have to be very
careful, very circumspect, when we speak to this topic.
I do take some exception to some of the personal attacks and
some of the remarks that have been made about the judiciary. I
think we owe it to ourselves as parliamentarians to be very, very
cautious indeed when we start to denigrate and question the
integrity of the judiciary. It is certainly not a simple
solution to castigate the entire legal process and the players in
it.
I can assure members that there are many problems within our
justice system. I do not think anyone in this country would
disagree with that. However, I believe that the majority of
people who are presently working in the justice system are doing
their best. Although it is an imperfect system, when compared
with other countries it is certainly something we should be proud
of.
It is always easy to take the wrecking ball approach and knock
down the system we have, but we must always be prepared to
replace it with something that is constructive. Unfortunately,
there is a tendency at times to simply tear things down without
having something positive to replace them with. I feel it is
important to have that on the record.
The motion itself, I will indicate quite clearly, the
Conservative Party supports. We feel that there is an importance
in this motion in that it calls for further credibility of the
system and further transparency. It would allow for greater
public scrutiny and for the calling of further witnesses to
testify.
It is a positive suggestion and one that appears quite
non-partisan in nature. I believe this is very important when it
comes to issues of justice because the benefits or the downside
of justice issues really do not know political boundaries.
1315
Once more we see far too often in the House issues of health,
education and justice becoming mired in partisan remarks and
personal remarks. We must sometimes be a little more tempered
when we speak on the floor of the Chamber.
We are certainly for the process of examination or
re-examination as the case would be with this motion. We are
supportive in principle. A positive suggestion has been put
forward. As a member of the justice committee I am not reluctant
at all to delve into this question, to look at it further.
There are many positive things about the bill itself, if I can
speak momentarily about it in the broader scheme. The suggestion
that we will be having more unified family court judges will be
of great benefit.
The legislation as well talks about a review process. That is a
process that would in future examine the question of
compensation. Let us face it. What we need in the system more
than anything else is good personnel. We need judges who will be
competent, judges who come from the practice of law and bring
with them that experience. That personal element does not come
cheap. We have to ensure that we will have individuals who are
prepared in many cases to make sacrifices by leaving the
profession.
We are supportive of this amendment. We would suggest all
members of the House similarly support the motion, and I will
leave my remarks at that.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I may,
I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House for the
following reason. I have introduced an anti-scab bill which has
not yet been drawn, but some six months ago, I moved a motion
calling for an inquiry into penitentiaries.
In the penitentiary about which I called for an inquiry, it
seems that things have settled down, that things are better now,
so I ask unanimous consent to withdraw Motion No. 244 calling
for a public inquiry of the administration of the maximum
security penitentiary at Port-Cartier, which is scheduled for
debate tomorrow at 2.30 p.m.
I believe that you would obtain the consent of the House if you
were to ask it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Yes.
An hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not unanimous
consent.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to Motion No. 2
which is asking for legislation to establish a mechanism for
reporting a decision made by a commission back to the House of
Commons.
I have to support the motion. Over the period of the four or
five years that I have been here I have watched how parliamentary
democracy is being undermined by a government which continues to
transfer regulatory authority and other authority to boards,
commissions and the executive branch of government, cabinet,
without considering bringing those decisions to parliament and
allowing elected officials to discuss, debate and make comment on
matters that will have dramatic effects upon Canadians.
1320
I have been very concerned about the tendency for this to occur.
It is just another indication or another vehicle where we see
parliament being removed from the decision making aspect or even
the accountability aspect of what the government is doing. That
is a very dangerous precedent for us to support.
As parliamentarians who have been sent here to represent
Canadians, people across the country, it is imperative for us to
be watchful that parliament retains its authority and its ability
to watch and check things occurring in government agencies and
boards.
There is a need for an arm's length commission to make decisions
on salary and pay benefits. The concern raised by the electorate
outside the House on pay increases for members of parliament is a
good example of what happens when people have a benefit to reach
in making decisions.
An independent commission was established to look at the pay and
benefit packages of members of parliament. That commission put
out a report. The report from that independent body was
completely ignored by the government. We are faced with
parliamentarians once again having to deal with changes to their
pay and benefit packages. That should not occur.
Parliamentarians should never be in a position of having to
debate and having to support or not support their salary and pay
benefit packages. That should be totally removed from people who
benefit from those decisions.
I suggest the same point should be considered in terms of this
commission. We have a commission made up of individuals who
belong to the judiciary one way or another, or who are attached
through the justice department, the judiciary committee or
whatever, to a decision on what pay and benefit packages the
judges will be given. That is wrong. It should be an
independent arm's length group that makes those decisions and
those decision should be reviewed by the Parliament of Canada.
I may sound repetitive but I cannot express it enough. I do not
think Canadians are aware of what is happening. I do not think
Canadians realize how much authority and decision making is being
removed from members of the House. I do not think Canadians are
aware of how powerless the House is becoming because of
legislation that hands over responsibility and authority to
non-elected boards and removes them from any accountability or
follow-up.
We have seen it with parole boards and immigration review
committees and this commission and that commission. We saw it
once again with the commission struck by the House, or by
somebody, to review our pay and benefit packages. Committees and
commissions come up with decisions which do not have the support
of the Canadian public that has no recourse.
We have often asked questions about semi-judicial committees and
boards. We have been told that they are arm's length and cannot
be held accountable. Who can hold them accountable if it is not
the House or a committee of the House?
The motion makes a whole lot of sense. All it is asking, as I
understand, is for a commission to report back to a parliamentary
committee so that the parliamentary committee can review its
report and can make a judgment on behalf of Canadians whom we
represent as to whether or not the report should be supported or
the recommendations should be legitimized.
1325
If for a moment we stop trying to hold commissions, committees
and the executive branch of government accountable to parliament,
we are undermining the whole parliamentary system that Canadians
think exist.
I have absolutely no problem and I would encourage all members
of parliament to support the motion which asks for parliament to
know what is going on, to be able to ask questions about what is
going on, and to be able to bring it into the public forum so
that the Canadian public knows what is going on.
Much of what happens outside the House, committees, commissions,
boards and the executive branch of government, cabinet, is held
behind closed doors. It is not public information. The
discussions are not public. Whenever that happens Canadians
become suspect and often with very good reason. They become
cynical. They feel that if it is not a debate that is happening
in public there must be something somebody is trying to hide and
they become less willing to support the end result.
We see it in the judicial system. We see it in the
parliamentary system. We see it in the immigration system. I
could go on and on. Canadians are losing respect and their
support for what we are trying to do because of the things done
behind closed doors.
It is very important that in the 36th Parliament we do
everything we can possibly do to bring our discussions and
debates into an open forum. We should not only allow Canadians
but encourage them to participate in the discussions and in
making decisions that have to be made about where Canada is to go
in the next millennium, what kind of direction we should be going
in and what end result we are trying to reach.
This is one measure with which we can start opening up the
process, opening up the dialogue, opening up committees,
commissions and boards, and letting Canadians know that we are
not afraid of talking to them or of including them in the
discussions. We should encourage them to enter into what is
happening in the House.
I would like to see support by all members of the House. It
would send a strong message to Canadians who are wondering what
we are doing that we are open, have nothing to hide and want
accountability. We want to be able to bring forward boards and
commissions that are accountable to parliament. Then we could
stand behind the decisions we make. We could review issues in a
House committee and the House committee could make suggestions.
Then the executive branch of government could respect the
decisions, the reports and the recommendations that come before
it.
If we had a government and an executive branch of government
that respected parliament and the decisions made by committees
and commissions which are held accountable through parliamentary
committees and parliamentary sessions of the House of Commons and
its members, Canadians would become less cynical about government
and about politicians and certainly less cynical about the
justice system and the judiciary.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to take a minute to set out the government's
position with respect to Motion No. 2 and to point out that
Standing Orders 32(5) of the House of Commons already provides
for the referral of any tabled report to the appropriate standing
committee.
The second part of my submission would be that Standing Order
108(2) allows the justice committee or any other committee of its
own volition to make a study at any time of a matter within the
jurisdiction of the departments it oversees.
As a result it seems to me that this is a redundant section. I
do not know if it is appropriate to override House standing
orders by statute.
1330
Standing Order 32(5) states that reports laid before the House
in accordance with an act of Parliament, which is what this would
be, shall thereon be deemed to have been permanently referred to
the appropriate standing committee. The point is that it is
already referred to us. It does not need to be referred by
statute because the standing orders already do that.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is free to
determine whether public hearings are in the public interest. I
want to point out too that at the time of tabling, it is always
open to the House to make a motion requiring the committee to
report back. That has been done from time to time.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has a busy
schedule but there is no reason why such a report could not be
studied by it and should not be studied by it, if it is the will
of the committee.
I thank the member for her submission. It is an interesting
one. It is helpful to have these debates, but I would suggest
that Motion No. 2 is unnecessary in this legislation.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise to continue debating Bill C-37, at this time
on Motion No. 2 put by my colleague, the hon. member for
Crowfoot. It would amend the bill to require that a report of a
commission established to review judicial compensation would
require a hearing at presentation with discussion, debate and the
appearance of witnesses at committee, presumably the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights chaired by the hon. member
who just preceded me.
That hon. member said during her remarks that already there is
provision which can allow for reports of this nature to be tabled
at committee and to be discussed at committee and commented on by
witnesses. That is at the discretion of the government. The
report need not be tabled at committee. It only is tabled at
committee if the government decides that it should be tabled at
committee.
What we are seeking to do through Motion No. 2 is to require
full public scrutiny and transparency of reports of this nature
so that the people who are paying the bills have a chance to
comment on them at committee stage. It is entirely different
from the status quo arrangement to which the hon. member opposite
referred.
This really begs the question, whenever we have an opportunity
to broaden parliamentary scrutiny of matters of this nature, why
is it that the government is always opposed? Why does it always
oppose greater parliamentary scrutiny? These people when they
were in opposition were the great champions and heroes of
parliamentary scrutiny, democracy and transparency in such
matters.
Whenever a motion such as this one is brought forward on a bill
of this nature the government members always predictably oppose
it. I ask why. What are they trying to hide? Who would be
harmed? What damage would be done to parliament, to the
government's agenda, to the independence of the judiciary were
reports of this nature on judges' compensation to be tabled and
heard with the comment of witnesses at committee?
I submit that no damage would be done. The only damage that
could be done would be to the government's ability to control the
agenda and to sweep these things under the carpet. That is why
the government is opposing it.
Let me be consistent because we are going through a similar
exercise right now. By way of analogy, the Parliament of Canada
Act requires that after a general election a commission be
appointed by the Governor General in council to review
indemnities and allowances for members of parliament. This was
followed of course by the government.
Following the election the government appointed the Blais
commission, three independent Canadians to sit on a commission to
review MP compensation. This commission reported back to
parliament but the hearings were held in camera without the
appearance of witnesses.
1335
Now we have a report tabled by the committee on procedure and
House affairs which has not had public scrutiny or input. An
independent commission is set up that reports but with no public
comment, no opportunity for public scrutiny, no opportunity for
witnesses to appear. Then a report is tabled in this place and
presumably will be passed.
I have a serious problem with this procedure, not just as it
affects judges but also as it affects MPs or anybody else in the
public sector. When we are discussing raising compensation for
people from the public purse, in a sense taking money from
taxpayers, using the coercive power that we wield in this place
to levy taxes on people, to pay additional compensation to
ourselves or to others such as judges, that ought to be done with
the greatest of possible public scrutiny.
That is precisely what Motion No. 2 seeks to do with respect to
Bill C-37. I really wonder why the government is opposing this.
Once again, it raises the whole question not just of the
compensation of judges but of the lack of transparency in the
manner through which judges are appointed.
Canada is probably the only one of the modern democracies that
does not allow for candidates for the judiciary to first be
screened by, questioned by or to testify in front of members of
the national legislature.
We know that our friends to the south require a senatorial
review of judicial nominees before they can be confirmed. It is
a sensible policy because it ensures that there is a check and
balance on the power of the executive in loading people who
support its political agenda on the judiciary.
Let us not be mistaken. While we have many marvellous
hardworking justices who simply interpret the law narrowly and
strictly, we also have on the benches of this country many judges
who regard themselves as glorified legislators. They sit on the
bench and legislate from the bench. They do not interpret the
law. They make the law.
We have no means as the representatives of the people, as the
guardians ultimately of the Constitution to ensure that the
people appointed to that bench are going to interpret rather than
to legislate from the bench.
I ask that we have greater transparency when it comes to
compensation for judges in Bill C-37. So too, we call for
greater transparency in the appointment of judges so that the
public and its representatives in this place, in the upper
chamber, know what they are getting when the Prime Minister and
the Governor General in council, when the cabinet decides to
foist on the bench some radical politician who calls himself or
herself a judge.
I also suggest that this principle should be applied throughout
the public sector. We ought not to isolate judges. Whenever we
are discussing compensation increases for senior people in the
public sector, including ourselves, why should we not allow for
complete, full and absolute public scrutiny?
Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? There is nothing to be
afraid of. It is quite possible that experts and ordinary
Canadians would look at a proposed pay increase or adjustment to
compensation such as the one proposed in Bill C-37, an 8.3%
increase over two years and would say “Hey, this is well
deserved. These people work hard. They have earned this
increase”. Let us not prejudge the wisdom of the public. That
is what we are doing by shutting out public commentary and expert
commentary through witnesses on this matter.
I commented earlier that I find it hard to believe the kind of
bizarre judicial decisions we see coming with greater and greater
frequency from federally appointed judges.
I commented earlier on the Feeney decision where a judge
appointed by cabinet decided that a man who was clearly,
unquestionably guilty of first degree murder was acquitted. Why?
Because an RCMP officer failed to secure a search warrant in a
rural area in British Columbia when he followed the trace of
evidence to this man's residence.
What did he do? He announced himself as a peace officer. He
asked for permission to enter. No one responded. He went in and
found the accused passed out on the bed covered in the blood of
the murdered victim. The judge in that case, a judge appointed by
the government without parliamentary oversight, allowed that man
to be acquitted.
1340
This happens all too often with respect to sentencing and
conditional sentencing. It happens all too often when judges
decide they are going to make the law in their own image claiming
some specious authority in the charter of rights and freedoms.
Now we are proposing to give those very same judges who are
accountable to utterly no one but themselves a pay increase
almost uncontemplated anywhere else in the public sector, and I
would submit the private sector, in a country where people are
earning less now than they did 20 years ago. At the same time
the government is telling us that we cannot even put such a
report before a committee before it comes to the House to allow
for proper disclosure and proper transparency.
I know from private conservations that there are members
opposite who are very concerned about Bill C-37. I ask them to
test their whip for once and vote for greater transparency in
this place by supporting Motion No. 2 on Bill C-37.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to support the amendment put forward by my
colleague from Crowfoot.
The amendment initiates the process to scrutinize and review the
commission's report calling for witnesses and reporting its
findings to the House.
For the record I would like to say that the concern is that the
commission, which is comprised of three members appointed by the
governor in council: one nominated by the judiciary; one
nominated by the Minister of Justice; and one, who shall act as a
chair, nominated by the first two nominees. Does anyone think
they will be objective in their deliberations? That is precisely
the point and it is the concern of the public and our
constituents. These members may not be objective as they have a
vested interest in increasing their and their colleagues'
salaries and benefits.
The issue here is optics in that it just does not look right and
it will not sell. From a political point of view I cannot
understand why the government would put forth such a bill with
such an amendment.
I would like to briefly return to the issue of the 8.3% pay
raise over four years. The bottom line salary today of judges is
$162,300. If this bill passes there will be a retroactive raise
of $13,000. A lot of my constituents in Dauphin—Swan River do
not even make $13,000 on an annual basis.
The real issue is not about a pay increase for judges. If this
government really wants to do some real work in terms of
reforming our judicial system, it needs to deal with those issues
and not about pay.
How many people in my own riding would support this pay
increase? I do not think too many would. My constituents would
say that there are lots of issues and problems in the judiciary
system so why are we not addressing them first?
More and more people are feeling unsafe these days because of
youth crimes. For years we have talked about the Young Offenders
Act. In fact as early as 1991 when I was first elected as a
councillor I remember very well a municipal initiative calling on
the federal government to deal with the Young Offenders Act. I
remember filling out surveys sent out by the solicitor general's
office asking for input on how the Young Offenders Act could be
changed and reformed.
Fortunately the municipal organization co-operated and did submit
its surveys but unfortunately there was no response on the part
of the government, and this is going back as early as 1991 and
1992. The people of this country want to see change but
unfortunately the government at this level at that time did not
deem it important enough to follow through on.
1345
Therefore people have very little faith in our judicial system,
the lack of a justice system. We have heard figures of 52% of
the country having very little faith in the justice system. Bill
C-68 is another indicator where the government is treating
law-abiding citizens like criminals. The government knows that
with expenditures of $1.2 billion projected to implement the
registration of all firearms this has no effect whatsoever on
crime control. A whole new bureaucracy has been established and
I am sure thousands of people will be hired to implement another
bureaucracy which will cost taxpayers more money.
There are many components to a justice system. My colleagues
speaking on this subject indicated that politicians are included.
I agree, politicians are part of the problem. Perhaps they are
the problem. Politicians know that people want changes in
sentencing practices. The public wants changes victims rights to
be addressed by the politicians. As I indicated, we all know the
public wants changes in the Young Offenders Act. The government
has to be more accountable for this current situation. The
government can respond to make judges more accountable and to
make changes to the Young Offenders Act.
What I am basically trying to say is although we have said many
things about judges I think the politicians need to take some of
the heat as well.
Governments cannot use the judicial system as a vehicle when
they believe it is expedient, as we have experienced in these
latter years of our history. Judges need to answer to this House
because this is the supreme house of this country.
I ask all members in the name of democracy to support the
amendment put forth by the member for Crowfoot.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Motion No. 2 was put forward by the Reform Party and adds a few
lines after line 34 on page 3 of the bill:
“(6.1) A report that is tabled in each House of Parliament
under subsection (6), shall, on the day it is tabled or if the
House is not sitting on that day, on the day that the House next
sits, be referred by that House to a committee of that House that
is designated or established by that House for the purpose of
considering matters relating to justice”.
The amendment goes on with two other parts related to getting
some accountability into the system.
Some years ago there was an attempt to roll back judicial
salaries as part of the cost cutting measures of the government.
The supreme court actually ruled that any attempt to roll back
judicial salaries was an interference in the independence of the
judiciary.
It is amazing that rolling back salaries is an interference in
the independence of the judiciary but increasing its salaries is
not. Is that not amusing, that one is an interference and one is
not?
1350
The court ruled that the government had to set up a commission
to set judicial salaries. It issued it as an order to the
government. Theoretically the government does not actually have
to obey the order. It could say we are certainly not going to
take orders from the judges. But if the government did not
accept the position put forward by the supreme court, it would
find itself in court. What a sort of rigmarolic circle we would
get into then with the government trying to legislate itself out
of court and the court trying to take the government to court and
all from the starting point where the judges felt the government
had no right to set their salaries.
Many of the examples my colleagues have given throughout the day
indicate quite clearly that the general public is quite
dissatisfied with what is happening at the judicial level in this
country. The poll mentioned in July 1997 showed more than 50% of
the population dissatisfied with the performance of judges. The
examples I gave in my speech earlier today are just from the
North Vancouver area over the past few months. They are
decisions people were outraged to see, short sentences, failure
of people to appear in court, no arrest warrants issued, simple
instructions, please turn up next time.
Judges are acting as if they are running classrooms and not
courts of law. This lack of confidence in judges has caused the
opposition to look at this bill and ask what on earth is going
on. Judges are telling us what to do while as the supreme level
of justice in Canada we should be setting the rules. That is the
reason for the number of motions being put forward to alter this
bill. It is unfortunate that as usual the government will not
accept any of them. It will overrule all of them. No matter how
good the ideas might be, no matter how logical the arguments, it
will use its voting power to overturn anything we propose.
We can get up and talk to the bill or speak in favour of any of
the amendments here but we know in our hearts that none of them
will pass. If nothing more, at least we can get the message out
to the people of Canada that we are speaking on their behalf,
that we are telling the government side and this place that
people are dissatisfied with what is happening in this thing
called the justice system which the average person is now calling
the legal system and is not even respecting it anymore for what
it should be. It is time we took action in this place to correct
the problems. That is the main thrust and the main reason the
opposition is taking a position of opposition to this
legislation.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 2 put forward by
my hon. colleague from Crowfoot.
It deals with the issue of accountability. That is where this
amendment is going. It drives home the point that the commission
to be set up under Bill C-37 to review the benefit packages and
the pay of judges should be scrutinized. If this amendment were
passed the commission would come before the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights. That is what this amendment
accomplishes. I do not see the problem with that.
A Liberal member stated earlier that in her opinion she felt
this amendment was redundant since the committees in exercising
their independence already have the ability to call witnesses on
virtually any subject that falls under their domain. As one of my
Calgary colleagues indicated during his brief and brilliant
presentation, everyone, certainly those in parliament, knows the
simple fact that the government has a majority position in the
standing committees.
1355
The minister of a particular department to which a standing
committee is connected basically sets the agenda through their
parliamentary secretary who sits on that committee. Those are
the facts.
We can pretend these committees are basically independent but it
is simply not the facts. The facts would indicate the cabinet
and the minister responsible for that portfolio set the agenda.
Clearly in this case the Minister of Justice and her
parliamentary secretary and their appointed chairman of the
standing committee all desire that this report from the
commission not be reviewed by the standing committee. They crack
the whip as they do in the House of Commons. They get all the
government members on the standing committee to stand and they
simply would not bring that forward to be scrutinized.
That is the point of this amendment because if this amendment
were passed there would be no choice in the matter. The
commission's report would have to come before the standing
committee and there would be public scrutiny through the
committee.
When looking at Bill C-37 and this 8.3% increase in salary that
it will bestow on our judges, what is the view of the people in
the real world? What would they think about this piece of
legislation?
As has been clearly laid out by a number of my colleagues, when
we look the tough times a lot of people are having to make ends
meet today, they would certainly question the need for judges who
on average are making $140,000 a year to receive a retroactive
pay increase of 8.3% at this time.
This is something the average person has no control over. This
is something that will ultimately result in higher taxes. The
money has to come from somewhere. Where will it come from? It
will come out of the pockets of taxpayers and therefore this type
of increase should be defensible. It should be scrutinized by
the general public through the standing committee, which this
amendment calls for. I see my time has expired. I always I get
interrupted by question period.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member, but he knows how important question period is to the
opposition as well as to the government. I assure him that he
will have five minutes remaining in his time after question
period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
D-DAY
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Canada's important role in
the D-Day invasion of France which took place 54 years ago this
Saturday.
A number of men from my riding of Sault Ste. Marie fought in the
battle of Normandy, including Bill Bentley, the honorary
lieutenant colonel of Sault Ste. Marie's 49th Field Regiment.
Canada was assigned Juno beach, one of the five beaches targeted
in the invasion. By the end of the first day our troops had
advanced farther and reached more objectives than either the
British or the Americans.
Canada's losses were considerable but our soldiers did not die
in vain. Their remarkable courage and sacrifice helped ensure
the defeat of Hitler and the liberation of Nazi occupied Europe.
On June 6, I encourage all Canadians to remember that the
freedoms we enjoy today came at a high price, a considerable
portion of which was paid in blood and horror on the beaches of
Normandy.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Canadians
do not trust the federal government to deliver on promises for
pensions at the time of retirement. Canadians are looking for a
secure alternative.
Reformers listen. Canadians tell us that in their retirement
planning they want choice, fairness and security.
Last week in London, Ontario, the Reform Party brought forward a
proposal that will deliver all three.
1400
In terms of choice, the choice to stay in a government plan like
the CPP or to place workers' premiums in their own individual
privately managed retirement account.
In terms of fairness, a pension that treats all generations
fairly and does not burden the young with excessive taxes.
In terms of security, a secure, fully funded pension, personally
owned and not subject to the whim of future governments.
Reform offers a fresh alternative. Retirement planning under
Reform government means choice, fairness and—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Davenport
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Ontario stands out for allowing up to 579 parts per
million sulphur content in gasoline. In Alberta and Manitoba the
sulphur count is only 198 parts per million and in British
Columbia, 260 parts per million.
Canada's Minister of the Environment will soon decide on
national standards for sulphur in gasoline. We urge the minister
to set a standard for a low sulphur content in gasoline of 30
parts per million as recommended by the government working group
on sulphur in gasoline.
A reduction to 30 parts per million would help in reducing smog
and protecting the health of Canadians.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to commemorate the innocent
lives lost on June 4, 1984 when the Golden Temple in Amritsar,
Punjab, India, was attacked by the Indian government.
Thousands of innocent devotees peacefully worshipping within the
temple were massacred by army tanks, mortar and machine gun fire.
This act of cruelty demoralized an entire people. Twenty
million Sikhs around the world still feel the deep and scarring
pain of this unjustifiable act of violence.
State violence against its citizens, as seen when China attacked
students during the Tiananmen Square democracy protests or
India's action against the Golden Temple, is a symbol of a
government that has forsaken democracy and the rule of law for
the power of the gun and the rule of violence.
Canadians must remember these tragic events and promote human
rights by condemning state violence whenever and wherever it
occurs in the world.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in condemnation of the inflammatory
comments made by Ontario Premier Mike Harris and by the Reform
member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast with regard to 10
middle eastern refugees currently in jail in Israel who may be
considered refugees in Canada.
It amazes me that these democratically elected politicians could
cast aspersions on the validity of refugee claims by people
simply because they are in political prison. Have we forgotten
that Nelson Mandela was also in prison? Had he been offered
refugee status in Canada these politicians would surely have
condemned his application because of his supposed status.
As chair of the subcommittee on human rights I am aware of
accounts of real human rights violations and would not be so smug
as to make a judgment on the cases of these men without the aid
of an investigation.
If the Reform Party were in power its motto would be guilty
until proven innocent.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's own mother goose egg, the finance minister, has added a
new nursery rhyme to the repertoire for our children and it goes
like this:
Old McMartin had an EI fund
E-I-E-I-O
With that fund he had some fun
E-I-E-I-O
With patronage here, patronage there, Liberal spending
everywhere
Old McMartin spent that fund
I-O-I-O-U
Members will see that in this rewrite of the old nursery rhyme
that EI fund now equals IOU. I am sure members will agree this
non-existent fund for a rainy day rates a place with the best
fairy tales of our time.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this might be entitled a tale of two résumés.
Canada continues to welcome to its shores in excess of 200,000
people annually. Unfortunately when they arrive they cannot
always find jobs commensurate with their skills.
I recently received two résumés from one individual. It
discloses a Ph.D. in history of international relations and
foreign policy from Kiev State University and an MA in
international relations. He lectured at Kabul University,
faculty of law and political science, and speaks at least three
languages.
The second résumé is for an entry level position in hotel
management. He has a certificate in sanitation, safety and
hygiene.
1405
In Canada he does pizza deliveries twice a week and organizes
chairs in hotel rooms. Canada cannot continue to waste its human
capital.
* * *
PEACEKEEPING
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our peacekeepers in
Bosnia-Hercegovina. These men and women, the majority of whom
are stationed in CFB Petawawa in my great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, are doing a remarkable job under
very adverse condition. The 1,285 Canadians who stand watch in
this region represent Canada's largest peacekeeping commitment.
I had the distinct privilege and pleasure of meeting a number of
these soldiers on a recent trip to the area as a member of the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affair.
Canada's peacekeeping efforts are recognized and respected
throughout the world. These brave men and women who are now
serving in this troubled sector are representing us in an
exemplary fashion.
I want to say thanks on behalf of my riding and on behalf of all
Canadians to the members of the Canadian military who leave their
families and friends to serve their country. They serve it well.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Senator Cogger has been convicted of the offence of unlawfully
using his influence. This disgrace within a high office has been
a reminder of the need for Senate reform.
The Reform Party has been calling for a triple E Senate for the
last 10 years. Canadian are tired of this political
ineffectiveness and corruption.
This senator's actions serve as another disappointing example.
Do the right thing. Senator Cogger must resign his seat. An
election should be held to replace him. An election can be held
without constitutional amendment. It is happening this fall in
Alberta.
This senator must not be allowed to keep the pay and benefits of
the high position he was just convicted of abusing. If he
refuses to resign the Senate should send him out.
Patronage pork is out. Let Canadians pick an elected Senate. It
is overdue.
* * *
[Translation]
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last night's
attempt in Quebec City to improve relations between Reformers
and the people of Quebec was a big public relations fiasco.
We saw the look of disdain on the faces of Reform Party members,
which are demanding cuts to funding for associations of
francophones outside Quebec.
Can anyone tell me why the Reformers are so resentful of
francophones?
We have known for a long time that the Reform Party did not look
kindly on the groups and associations of francophones outside
Quebec, but for them to go from that to cutting their funding is
taking things just a bit too far.
Quite frankly, the leader of the Reform Party has a lot of gall
to think he might represent the people of Canada. With a speech
like that, clearly he will have a hard time making any headway
in Quebec and finding his Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine.
I find the Bloc Quebecois' association with them offensive.
* * *
[English]
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it seems that the successor program to TAGS has been
decided by the federal cabinet. It is reported that the size and
terms of the program were conveyed by the federal government to
the provincial Newfoundland government yesterday.
This is an affront to members of the House who were assured they
would be briefed on the content of the post-TAGS program by the
minister of HRD.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador also have a reason to be
angry. First, TAGS is being wound up prematurely, a year earlier
than promised. Second, rumour has it that sums involved in the
new program are insufficient to address the scale of the human
distress created by the collapse of the cod fishery. It does not
appear that there will be a provision for a license buy back,
traditional income support or early retirement packages.
Instead of a community based and administered program designed
to help the fishers and plant workers of Atlantic Canada, the
Minister of Finance and his officials concocted this plan so as
to wipe their hands of this file. Their callous treatment of the
people of Atlantic Canada will not soon be forgotten.
* * *
REFORM PARTY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the marriage between the Reform Party and the separatists
continues with the Reform leader now saying that he would like to
hold meetings with his new found friend, Lucien Bouchard. His
party called the Parti Quebecois yesterday to ask if it could
make a formal presentation to the national assembly.
After meeting with the Bloc in Quebec yesterday Reform MPs have
even come out in agreement with the separatists in opposing the
millennium scholarship fund, endorsing an end to support for
anglophone groups in Quebec and claiming that the 1982
Constitution was not democratically adopted. I do not see how
those ideas would be very popular in western Canada.
1410
I challenge the Reform Party to repeat that at its joint meeting
with the Bloc in Edmonton tonight. Many Reformers would be smart
to pick up the Calgary Herald and read what it had to say:
The Reform leader must never forget that the sovereignist
idea—includes the unshakeable belief in an independent
Quebec—The adherents to this belief will never be satisfied
with parliamentary reforms and decentralizing modifications that
Reform has in mind.
* * *
[Translation]
OPÉRATION ENFANT SOLEIL TELETHON
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the organizers, the volunteers, the
performers, the sponsors and the generous donors from all over
Quebec who together made the Opération Enfant Soleil telethon a
success.
This organization raised nearly $7 million just to help give
sick children in Quebec better care.
Trying an original approach in order to raise money from the
people of the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, and more specifically,
the city of Berthierville and its environs, I agreed to remove
my mustache for donations totalling a minimum of $2,500.
Well, it was with the tidy little sum of $12,000 for the
Opération Enfant Soleil that the contributors from home decided
to change my appearance. I will do as promised tomorrow
morning.
In conclusion, on behalf of the children of Quebec, I thank them
for their generosity and, Mr. Speaker, I will see you Monday
morning, minus a few hairs, but for a good cause.
* * *
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want to see Quebec separate,
and the Reform Party will not be able to form the government
unless it does. So they represent two sides of the same dubious
coin.
In 1991, when the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party were still
in the shadows, they were talking about being allies for
practical reasons. One Reform member voiced her opinion that
the separation of Quebec would happen sooner than people think.
Lucien Bouchard said “I do not view the Reform Party as an
adversary”. He also said “Long live Reform”, adding that at
least with them, the position was clear.
Both parties specialize in stirring up passions and fomenting
dissension. That is the truth. The Bloc Quebecois and the
Reform Party are pursuing the same objective, and it is one we
must speak out against.
The Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are
going through a profound crisis, and this is just the beginning,
according to what 65% of Quebeckers are telling us.
* * *
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, data just released by Statistics Canada indicate that
family violence is an escalating social problem, but the most
disturbing aspect of this social affliction that has not been
made public until now is that children under the age of two are
most likely to be murdered.
Data compiled through 154 police departments, largely in Ontario
and Quebec, show that one in every five family murders was a
child killed by a parent. Sixty per cent of sexual assaults were
against children and one-third was at the hands of family
members. This report echoes the findings of the National Council
of Welfare called “Poverty Profile” which reports that child
poverty is at a 17 year high of 21%.
While these two reports have not been related formally there are
issues here that beg to be addressed when we consider future
policy directions in our deficit free economy.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of fisheries is operating in slow motion on
the B.C. coast to the detriment of all parties. Announcements of
the regulations for the sports fishery were bungled so badly in
1996 that it unnecessarily cost the British Columbia economy $170
million.
There is every opportunity for sports fishing on the B.C. coast
this year, yet once again the minister is very late and is still
muddying the waters.
Fishing resorts, charter operations and communities are very
concerned. The commercial fishery cannot plan because the
minister is sitting on everything. His office has confirmed
rumours of a $200 million buy back, only to make no announcement.
He still has not produced the 1998 fishing plan. Many transition
programs for fishermen are still up in the air.
The hold ups are political. This is unfair to the people
concerned and is costing B.C. tourism investment and jobs.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION OF INVENTIONS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this year, the
26th International Exhibition of Inventions was held in Geneva.
Its more than 100,000 visitors came from all over the world.
Some 650 participants representing 44 countries attended the
event, and seven Quebec firms won prizes.
1415
A Gatineau company, TEB-MAR, was awarded the Geneva state prize,
as well as a gold medal. JARDIBAC of Nicolet was awarded the
industrial design award. Three more gold medals were won by TOP
SÉCUR of Saint-Grégoire, PRO DUKE of Lorraine, and T.F. Jeux of
Sainte-Foy, and silver medals were brought home by André
Ouellette of Glace Énergie in Magog, and Gilles Villandre of
Val-Bélair.
Once again, Quebeckers have brought us honour on the
international scene, and they are a source of great pride to us.
Congratulations to all of these prize winners.
* * *
[English]
SAINT JOHN FLAMES
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, today I
rise in the House to honour a hockey team close to my heart in
Saint John, the Saint John Flames. The Flames have advanced to
the finals of the American Hockey League's Calder Cup against the
Philadelphia Phantoms.
The people of Saint John have truly embraced AHL hockey in their
city and the entire city has become Calder Cup crazy, in the
process breaking franchise attendance records.
Saint John will be buzzing this weekend as the greatest little
city in the east hosts games four and five.
As one of the biggest fans, I call on all parliamentarians and
hockey fans across this country to join me in cheering the Saint
John Flames and the people of Saint John. Go Flames, go.
The Deputy Speaker: While we are on sports matters, it is
my duty to inform the House that in the pages versus MPs soccer
game last evening the MPs won three to two in a double shootout.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today we received all the working papers from the recent
health officials meeting in Edmonton. This was the meeting where
the hepatitis C victims stormed out when they were not allowed to
see the federal position.
But now we know why the Prime Minister did not want the victims
to see the federal position. The federal position did not
provide one dime in new compensation.
Why did the Prime Minister say he was willing to look at all the
options and then instruct his negotiators not to provide one more
dime in new compensation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is important for the Leader of the Opposition to understand
the process in Alberta. Officials are meeting in order to explore
a whole range of options.
The documents the member is referring to were referred to in the
newspapers on the weekend. I see that four days later the Reform
Party is getting around to reading them. All the options are
being carefully and methodically examined by officials so that
when ministers are given the results of that work we will be in a
position to make a decision. That is the way we think work is
properly done.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's negotiators had two proposals, a do
nothing proposal and a do next to nothing proposal.
All the Prime Minister was willing to do was set up a few
additional hospital beds so that the victims would have somewhere
to die; not a word about additional compensation. But of course
there was a warning about bad press that might come from that
decision.
Why does the Prime Minister not just admit he is stubbornly
refusing to allow his negotiators to offer one more dime in
additional compensation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition wants to ignore
the process going on here.
We have people looking carefully at all the options. Why will
he not let that work go on?
On one hand he says he wants to have compensation for all
hepatitis C victims and on the other, when governments
responsibly and methodically look at the options with their
officials, he takes some documents out of context and criticizes
us for not coming to a conclusion before the work is done. He
ought to wait.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we prefer to hear from the Prime Minister rather than
from the government's lawyer.
One of the federal government's options put forward by its
negotiators was labelled the status quo option. I assume that is
the Prime Minister's favourite option since he favours the status
quo on everything. But in listing the pros and cons of this
option the federal officials under the cons say it does not meet
recommendations set out by Krever.
Will the Prime Minister finally admit that his preferred
position on hepatitis C does not meet the recommendations of
Justice Krever in his report?
1420
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are a lot of people I would rather hear from but I will
answer the question put by the Leader of the Opposition.
It does no one any good for this member to take documents out of
context, bits and pieces of paper that officials are working on,
and try to make some point in the House of Commons. I would
rather see the work done properly.
That is why we have asked officials from provincial and federal
governments to sit together, work on the details and look at the
options. When we have that information we will then make a
decision. That is the responsible way of approaching this.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, these
important documents pull the mask of compassion from the Prime
Minister's face. We now have written proof that his empty words
of compassion were just a cover for a policy of no compensation.
Why did the Prime Minister tell us that he would listen to all
the options when he was secretly, behind the scenes, telling his
bureaucrats to scuttle any deal for compensation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the documents to which the member is referring were referred to
in newspaper reports on the weekend. It was really breaking news
for the member, I suppose.
The reality is that all the options are being examined. No
decision has been made. A decision will not be made on the new
national consensus until we have all the information, which is
exactly what the officials are doing.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, some of
these individuals came to the meeting ready to come up with some
money. Some of them came there saying they were uncertain if
they could afford that. But at least they came with an open mind
to listen to all the proposals.
The Prime Minister's officials came there with one thing in
mind: no compensation for the victims.
Why did the Prime Minister say one thing in public and then send
his bureaucrats with another thing? Why has be betrayed these
victims again?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have said the same thing wherever we have gone, that we want
officials to look at all the options so that governments will be
in a position to make a decision.
Listening to the member for Macleod taking bits of documents out
of context, I think it is important for him to remember the
welfare of the people we are trying to help in this case. I
think it is important for him to remember he is a medical doctor
as well as a spin doctor.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Transport argued that he needed two
competitive airlines in Canada.
That said, the minister then candidly admitted that he is
deliberately starving out Air Canada and favouring Canadian.
Is the minister aware that, by obviously favouring Canadian, he
is preventing the normal development of Air Canada and therefore
the creation of jobs in Montreal?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there were extensive discussions with the airlines. We
made what I think was a fair decision, not only for Toronto and
Vancouver, but also for Montreal.
[English]
The notion that somehow we are favouring Canadian Airlines over
Air Canada is not borne out by the facts. What we are trying to
do is strike a balance so that Canadian's restructuring plan can
go forward, which is in the best interests of its employees and
all Canadians, also giving Air Canada better flexibility with
more routes.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, be
that as it may, Air Canada's CEO slammed the federal government
for continuing to base the assignment of international routes on
political considerations.
How does the minister explain that his government is blatantly
favouring Canadian Airlines at the expense of Air Canada by
basing its decisions on political rather than economic
considerations?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, of course the president of Air Canada would express
some reservation. He is a businessman and likes to get
everything he wants. However, we in government have to take a
balanced view. We have to decide what is in the best interests
of all Canadians, and that is what we have done.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the Minister of Transport that one
Liberal government was the cause of the mess at Mirabel and that
another is hindering the development of Air Canada.
1425
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister
admit that his political decisions are not only promoting the
development of Canadian but also slowing the growth of Air
Canada by denying it such vital direct routes as Montreal-Milan
just so as not to threaten the Toronto-Rome route held by
Canadian?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we gave Air Canada the Toronto-Hong Kong route, and that
is in the best interests of Montreal residents, because they can
take advantage of the service. We also gave five code sharing
preferences, which is good for Air Canada.
[English]
We have given five code sharing preferences for Air Canada and
five for Canadian Airlines. We have said that we would review it
in a year. We have said that Taiwan will probably be given
within the year. What more does Air Canada want?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I do not see how the Toronto-Hong Kong route helps
Montreal's development.
Will the minister admit that by intentionally slowing the
development of Air Canada in favour of Canadian, he is also
slowing the development of the Montreal airport?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Notwithstanding the obvious vocal
talents of some hon. members, it makes it very difficult for the
Chair to hear the questions and answers.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it seems that our friends from the Bloc are always
singing the same tune, the tune of being aggrieved.
In this case we have taken a very rational balanced look at the
air routes. We have said that it is going to be continually
reviewed. Certainly within the year there will be further
changes.
In the meantime, new routes and code sharing possibilities have
been given to Air Canada. That will all benefit the travelling
public not just in Toronto and Vancouver but in Montreal and in
other parts of Canada.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
defence minister claims to support a policy of zero tolerance for
sexual wrongdoing, but his actions do not match his words.
In February 1997 the human rights commission directed
compensation for one of the victims recently named in
Maclean's magazine. Sixteen months later, there has been
zero action. Is the minister not sending the message that sexual
harassment will indeed be tolerated?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. Provost Marshal Col.
Patricia Samson today announced that of the 26 cases covered by
the Maclean's magazine article, 2 will be reopened, 6 will
require further review, 15 are considered new allegations and
will be investigated, and 3 were determined to have been
conducted thoroughly and therefore no further action is required.
We are taking action on this. We have put in place the
mechanisms. We put in place the training to make sure we show
support for our policy of zero tolerance.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
clearly a policy that it will be tolerated unless discovered and
brought to the light of day.
We know the military justice system simply has not protected
women. Yet the minister wants to keep sexual assault cases in
military courts and away from civilian courts.
Under the military system women have been subjected to ongoing
reprisals rather than redress. They have been victimized again
and again.
Why should women trust a military justice system that has
consistently failed them?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party
has it all wrong. Most of the cases I cited, most of the cases
in Maclean's, were investigated by civilian police and
tried in civilian courts in Canada.
* * *
TAXATION
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, not one
province has signed on to a plan to set up a national tax
collection agency, but a bill to set up such an agency was
introduced this morning.
Alberta and Ontario want more independence from Ottawa on tax
policy but they fear the new agency will rob them of any freedom
they now have.
1430
Why is the revenue minister moving ahead with this legislation
when the study he commissioned to form this proposed agency was
based on the assumption that all provinces would be involved? Is
the minister out in his own field of dreams?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since I have been Minister of National
Revenue I have consulted across the country. I can tell all
members that Canadians want a single tax administration.
Canadians want to reduce overlap and duplication.
Is the member against reducing the compliance cost? Is the
member against giving better service to the public, better
service to the provinces and better service to Canadian business?
She does not know what she is talking about. She should go back
and look at how we can become more efficient, more cost effective
in serving the Canadian public.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, if what
the hon. minister stated is correct, all of the ministers and all
of the provinces would have signed in by now.
The government claims that the new tax agency will improve
administrative efficiency at Revenue Canada. Revenue Canada
comprises one-quarter of the entire public service. If there is
an efficiency problem with one-quarter of the public service,
then there is a problem with the entire structure of government
and the entire public service.
Is this the government's piecemeal solution to that larger
problem, carving off the government agency by agency?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me quote the Manitoba finance
minister. Eric Stefanson, Manitoba's finance minister said
“Western provinces have long advocated a national agency. So we
support this concept fully”. The member should listen to some of
her own cousins out there.
Let me say to the member. Is she against an opportunity to
reduce overlap and duplication? Is she in favour of building
parallel systems across this country? I do not think so.
Canadians want—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary
Northeast.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
May 25 Maclean's magazine revealed 26 cases of sexual
misconduct in the military. Today in committee the chief of the
defence staff confirmed that 23 of the 26 cases mentioned are to
be reopened. There is something wrong with this picture. In
other words the media did what the military police would not do.
My question is for the defence minister. Why were these sexual
assault cases not treated seriously in the first place?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, wherever this information has been known
it has of course been treated quite seriously. Not all of these
cases were known.
As I pointed out before in this House the national investigation
service was only established last fall to deal with these kinds
of investigations independent of the operational chain of
command. We have also put harassment advisers in place. We are
about to put an ombudsman in place. We are in fact improving the
mechanisms and the training to make sure we can back up our zero
tolerance policy and to change the culture which is necessary to
do to ensure that this does not happen again.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this week we heard of more allegations of sexual assault coming
out of Edmonton and Quebec. Allegations of this nature will
continue until the defence minister is really serious about doing
something about it. It is not good enough to say that all the
safeguards are in place. They will not work on their own.
When is the defence minister going to get really serious about
controlling this type of crime and establish an independent unit
to investigate and prosecute criminal misconduct?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have an independent unit, the national
investigation service headed by Colonel Patricia Samson which in
fact is independent of the operational chain of command.
Furthermore an ombudsman will shortly be appointed that is
totally outside the chain of command and reports to the Minister
of National Defence.
This and many other safeguards in fact are in place or are being
put in place to make sure our policy of zero tolerance is
implemented. The hon. member of the opposition would rather we
get rid of the victims. We would rather get rid of the
perpetrators.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Transport.
The Minister of Transport refuses to grant Air Canada any direct
international links, so as not to have it compete with Canadian.
As a result, more and more Canadian passengers must transit
through the United States.
By blocking Air Canada's direct access to major international
destinations, does the Minister not understand that he is
forcing Canadian passengers, more often than not, to use
American carriers?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is in the best interests of the
travelling public to have two viable airlines in Canada. That is
why this government put in place measures a couple of years ago
to assist Canadian Airlines with its restructuring plan. That
plan is working quite well. Canadian Airlines is now making
money, as is Air Canada which incidentally made $427 million last
year and is doing very well. It will do very much better as a
result of these changes.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the more the
Minister intervenes to keep Canadian alive, on artificial live
support more or less, the more Canadians must pass through
American airports to get to Europe. This is simple enough and
the minister ought to understand it.
Will the minister admit that his policy for saving two Canadian
carriers in Canada, which is in some ways hindering the
development of Air Canada, is also doing harm to the Montreal
airport, which is ending up as a satellite for U.S. airports?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how designating Air Canada as the
carrier from Toronto to Hong Kong seven days a week and five code
shares of their choice, much of which will benefit the travelling
public of Montreal, is somehow putting Air Canada at a
disadvantage. To the contrary. The fact is these changes and
further changes that are expected within the year will assist Air
Canada in becoming more competitive. It will give it more
revenues. It will also do the same for Canadian Airlines. That
is the balanced approach, which is what this government believes
in and we will stand by it.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning the Canadian Taxpayers Federation released a report that
indicates very clearly that Bombardier was one of the worst
welfare bums in Canada. It has received $1.2 billion in grants
and subsidies over the last 15 years. The Prime Minister gives
Bombardier a lot of untendered contracts, 110 untendered
contracts. At least these followed the rules of providing public
disclosure. So why did the Prime Minister not follow that rule
when the government awarded the largest contract valued at $2.85
billion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in relation to this contract in Cold Lake and so on, I
can quote “On May 2 I attended a supper in Grand Centre, Alberta
to welcome a NATO delegation. They are studying” and there is a
lot of very good text in favour of all of that. “The
government-industry team has focused on the military and economic
benefits of training there” and so on. The special evening “was
an excellent example of western hospitality” and so on. It was
a great statement made under Standing Order 31 on May 6, 1996.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister just does not get it when it comes to untendered
contracts. Frontec Corporation, part of the Bombardier
consortium and part of that $2.85 billion contract, is about to
receive another $550 million untendered contract. Our beef is not
with Frontec. Our concern is with the Prime Minister not
following the rules.
When will the Prime Minister stand up and follow the rule of
public disclosure, be fair, have fair competition and put all
these massive contracts out for tender?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the contract the member is referring to was tendered. It
is an alliance between the Inuit and this company in the north. A
renewal of the contract is possible at some point in time.
1440
Any company that wants to make a proposition is welcome to do
so.
Perhaps for the edification of the House of Commons I should
finish the quote. When the member for Edmonton was lobbying to
have this company get the contract she said that the special
evening “was an excellent example of western hospitality.
School kids decorated the entire area with handmade NATO country
flags. The guests were treated to a fabulous supper of Alberta
beef. It was a great display of unity and support” for this
contract.
* * *
[Translation]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Fishers and fishery workers have been waiting months to find out
what the government is going to do after the TAGS program
expires. The minister is refusing to provide clear answers.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Sometimes he says one thing, sometimes
another. In short, he contradicts himself.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult for the
Chair to hear the questions that are being put. We are losing
time.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: My question is very simple: Will there be
another TAGS program and, if so, when it will be announced?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have ever
contradicted myself on this. I have always said that we were
concerned about the post-TAGS situation starting in August.
Our people have worked very hard. In the past two weeks, some of
our officials have visited the Atlantic provinces, where they
are holding consultations to explore certain avenues; so we are
working in partnership with the provinces in an effort to
address the situation.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the TAGS program ends in August, but the minister
must not wait until the evening of July 31 to take action.
I would like the minister to tell us whether the new program
will include measures like early retirement, license buyback,
income support and regional economic diversification. Will
these four measures be part of the future program? In short, I
would like him to act before July 31.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the package we are preparing
contains a number of options. It will contain several
development tools, and I hope that we will be in a position to
announce it very soon.
* * *
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let me just say that I was in favour of top gun then and I am in
favour of it now. I support it but I am also in favour of open
disclosure.
Speaking of open disclosure, the information commissioner tabled
his last report today. When he should have had a last hurrah, he
had to say that this government is just clouded in guilt.
Secrecy still flourishes. This is wrong. At least Mulroney had
the odd press conference and so does Boris Yeltsin.
Let me ask the Prime Minister about the information he is
giving. Is he proud of his badge of honour?
1445
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am in the House of Commons three or four times a week.
I am always here to reply to questions. It is not my fault if
the opposition is all mixed up.
Perhaps I should end the statement that she made in the House.
Thanks to Gary Blanchard, the chairman of the project, and his
committee, they did an excellent job of promoting our facilities.
Congratulations, she said. Target: top gun.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I guess it
is a little difficult to understand exactly where the Prime
Minister is coming from. My question, however, is to the foreign
affairs minister.
Yesterday, the Department of Foreign Affairs signed a deal with
South Korea to build nuclear reactors in China and Turkey. That
was yesterday.
Considering that our nuclear fingerprints are all over the India
and Pakistan nuclear programs, can the minister justify the
signing of this deal to peddle nuclear technology at this
critical point in time?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman is comparing two different points in
time, 24 years apart, and two quite different sets of rules.
Based in part upon the experience in the 1970s, Canada
substantially toughened its nuclear non-proliferation
requirements. Bilateral arrangements are required with any
recipient countries. Signing onto the international
non-proliferation rules is required. International inspection by
the International Atomic Energy Agency is required.
Anybody who wants to do business with Canada must adhere to
those requirements.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
conflict in Kosovo is worsening daily.
After violently repressing demonstrations last March, the
Serbian army is now engaged in heavy shelling, forcing tens of
thousands into exile.
Since the economic sanctions and repeated warnings of the
international community are not deterring Serbia, is the
minister now in favour of stiffer measures, including sending
combat forces to the region?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, last week at the NATO
council meeting a series of important initiatives were
established by the foreign ministers to be looked at by the
military committee and others.
Yesterday at the NATO council our ambassador asked that those
examinations be accelerated so that they can be ready for
examination by NATO defence ministers when they meet next week.
We are very active in making sure that the opportunity to
respond to our preventive action is accelerated at the NATO
council because we have to do it together.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade.
There is growing public concern about decisions being made by
international bodies without any accountability or transparency.
What does the minister plan to do to improve the process of
transparency on trade issues at the World Trade Organization?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for her very insightful question.
I would point out that at the opening plenary of the World Trade
Organization two weeks ago last Monday the minister made a speech
in which the keynote thrust was to let the light shine on the
WTO. Two days later I had the honour of speaking at the closing
plenary and the thrust of my speech was to let the light shine on
the World Trade Organization.
* * *
1450
TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the human resources minister denied any scandals in the
transitional jobs fund. Does he deny that 124 employees in St.
John's lost their jobs? Does he deny that $1 million was wasted
at BPS for politics? Does he deny that the $285,000 given to
Cape Shore Seafoods has not created a single job? Does he deny
that the president of Cape Shore admitted using a government
guaranteed loan to pay backtaxes and liens for one of his other
companies?
Will the minister—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I think needs to be
made very clear for members of the House and for the Canadian
public is that the transitional jobs fund has proceeded on 700
projects and has created more than 30,000 jobs in this country.
Out of 700 projects, maybe six or seven of them have not done so
well.
I think that six or seven projects having difficulty out of 700
is a very good average.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
last minister would not substantiate that the transitional jobs
fund created 80,000 jobs. At least this minister is willing to
stand up. He has not denied anything. He does not have a clue.
He challenged me yesterday to go outside the House and repeat the
challenges. I am challenging him to go outside the House today
and deny in front of the cameras that these things have happened.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed by the
exaggerations of the member across the aisle.
The example used was BPS. The member said that 124 workers had
not been paid a thing. He asked “Where has the million gone?”
I must tell the member that these workers were paid for seven
months before there were difficulties. When we realized there
were difficulties, we corrected the situation immediately.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
information concerning untendered contracts at defence continues
on a daily basis. However, I want to focus on the Bombardier
NATO, 20 year sole source contract.
Is it not true that Industry Canada is permitting Bombardier to
qualify for Canadian industrial benefit credits even though it
will create work or jobs at offshore locations including Northern
Ireland? If that is the case, will the defence minister assure
this House that these sole source contracts do not allow any
industrial employment benefits which are not totally based in
Canada?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would think the hon. member would be
very happy that Moose Jaw is being saved by this particular
project.
In fact, the Bombardier contract is part of a consortium that
has delivered service to us already in Portage le Prairie,
another community well served by the pilot training program. We
were able to get this particular program because we were able to
move fast within the NATO deadlines and we were able to provide a
contract that will save the Canadian taxpayers $200 million over
20 years.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is pretty evident that this defence minister has been
a disaster.
Bearing in mind that the minister has presided over the
mishandling of the recommendations of the Somalia inquiry, the
mishandling of sexual misconduct and black market activities in
Bosnia, outrageously expensive going away parties for retiring
generals, low morale and working conditions in the armed forces,
untendered sweetheart deals with Bombardier and continuous
numerous allegations of sexual harassment in the military which
he has called poor performance, when will the Prime Minister get
rid of this defence minister? How many strikes does there have
to be before he is out?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have received many requests from the premier of the
province of Saskatchewan asking that we preserve the base in
Moose Jaw.
There seem to be a lot of problems in that little family in the
corner.
* * *
TOBACCO
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, if the
government was serious about reducing the number of people,
particularly young people, who smoke it would not have reduced
taxes on tobacco in 1994. This capitulation created the single
biggest increase in the number of smokers in the history of
Canada.
Attacking the smoking problem and the 40,000 deaths associated
with it requires a three pronged approach: pricing, advertising
and education.
When will the Minister of Health get serious about reducing the
number of Canadians who smoke and reverse the regrettable
decision of 1994?
1455
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should know that yesterday we tabled legislation which
will introduce a total ban on tobacco sponsorship over the next
five years.
After a transition period, to give an opportunity for those
events to get other sponsorships, we are going to have a ban in
this country against tobacco sponsorships well ahead of the
Europeans, well ahead of the Americans. Once again we are going
to lead the world in our anti-tobacco efforts.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, on this
issue the Minister of Finance could stand in his place and do
something he rarely does, and that is support the Minister of
Health. He obviously has not done it on the hepatitis C issue.
If he did consider raising tobacco taxes, there would be a 30%
reduction in the number of new smokers, particularly young
smokers, especially if that increase was coupled with tough
advertising and education.
Will the Minister of Finance consider doing that to help save
young Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has made it very clear that it is
desirous of increasing taxes on cigarettes and it is certainly
prepared to do so. It would require an agreement between the
federal government and the provinces, including the Conservative
government of Ontario. We are prepared to do so as quickly as we
possibly can. The provinces, however, have said to us that they
do not want any risk of increasing contraband. We understand
their position, but we are talking to them.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Last Thursday at a function in Montreal, Canadians of Pakistani,
Chinese and East Indian heritage shared with me their deeply felt
concern over the nuclear testing which has led to a really
unstable situation in the area.
Can the minister tell this House what action the Canadian
government has taken or is taking with respect to enabling a
return to stability in the southeast Asia area?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is very encouraging to see the broad range of
representation in the member's riding supporting what I think all
Canadians support, which is that we must put a stop to the spread
of nuclear weapons.
The actions that we have taken began with the Prime Minister's
meeting at the G-8, where he renounced the testing and asked that
a series of measures be taken by all countries. Since then we
have followed up to lead at the NATO meetings in a condemnation.
We also led at the OAS just this last week and we will be
attending meetings next week.
It is absolutely essential that we put the nuclear genie back in
the bottle and Canada will do everything it can to make that
happen.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for weeks now the Minister of Fisheries has been refusing our
suggestions to amend Bill C-27, the fisheries protection act. As
it stands now, Canada will not be able to prosecute foreign
vessels who are breaking our laws. Ironically, when Premier
Tobin sends a letter asking the minister to make amendments, he
turns around and says “No problem”.
We know the Prime Minister asked to have this letter kept under
wraps, but what we do not know is who is running fisheries and
oceans: Tobin or the member for Victoria?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is a member of the
fisheries committee he should understand that neither I nor the
premier of Newfoundland run that committee. He should also know,
if he has attended the meetings, and apparently there is some
doubt about this, that in fact the bill is now before the
committee. If the committee proposes amendments, that is good.
The rest of us in the House will consider them when the bill is
reported.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
response to a question from the member for Chicoutimi this week,
the Minister of Transport said that he had had no request from
Quebec's transport minister for financial assistance with
respect to route 175 between Quebec City and the Saguenay.
How could the minister make such a statement when a letter
containing a very clear request for help repairing route 175 in
the Parc des Laurentides and signed by the Minister of Transport
for Quebec on May 27, was faxed to his office on the eve of the
Edmonton meeting?
What kind of game is the Minister of Transport playing?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the statements that were attributed to Mr. Brassard
were clearly made in the aftermath of the Edmonton meeting.
Route 175 was not raised at that meeting. Obviously the
minister for Quebec has some interest in Route 175.
1500
The fact is we talked about the national highway system funds
potentially being available. If those funds are available, route
175 would be eligible for funding, subject of course to the
approval of the Quebec government.
There is no contradiction in what I said two days ago and what I
am saying today.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
1993 the Prime Minister clearly stated that the change to the UI
system put forward by the Conservative government was having a
devastating effect on Canada's unemployed. Why the flip-flop?
Currently, 780,000 unemployed workers do not qualify for UI.
Will the Prime Minister stand by his campaign promise and help
the unemployed by using the $17 billion surplus to widen
accessibility to UI?
[Translation]
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, some aspects of this reform were
not working at all. The fact that the family income supplement
we introduced in our reform applied to total family income and
not to individual income, as it did under the preceding
government, was clearly unfair, and this was recognized in all
the reports on how the system was working.
We also wanted to put the system on an hourly basis in order to
give Canadians a fairer and more equitable system.
There is no contradiction, because we wanted to improve on
previous reforms and correct some of the errors made by the
previous government.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to draw to hon. members'
attention the presence in the gallery of Dr. Franz Fischler,
Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development of the
European Commission of the European Union.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we have a document that appears to have been leaked from the
government House leader's office that indicates this House will
recess on or about June 16. I would like to find out from the
government House leader if that is in fact true and ask him what
the business is for the remainder of this session.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting question.
If this was leaked from my office, someone has obviously misread
it.
This afternoon we will continue and hopefully complete Bill
C-37, the Judges Act amendments at report stage, followed by Bill
C-26, the grains legislation, then by Bill C-3, the DNA bill.
Tomorrow we shall consider second reading of Bill S-2, the
transportation safety board bill, and report stage of Bill S-3,
the pension benefits legislation.
As already announced, next Monday and Tuesday are allotted days.
After the supply is disposed of on Tuesday evening, our
priorities will then be the completion of Bill C-37, at third
reading hopefully; concurrence in the Senate amendments to Bill
C-4, the wheat board legislation; and the completion of other
bills already mentioned.
In addition, among other matters we intend to pursue the
completion of the following: Bill C-38, respecting the Tuktut
park; Bill C-25, the defence legislation; Bill C-27, the
fisheries bill; Bill C-20, the competition legislation; Bill S-9,
the depository notes bill; Bill C-30, the Mi'kmaq education bill.
This is a heavy load to complete before the adjournment date set
by the standing orders. I intend to consult the other House
leaders to determine whether we will require evening sittings to
meet this deadline. I hope that we do not, but as I have been
saying for some time, it is clear that we have at least two more
weeks of intensive work.
I know that the rumour mill has it that the House would be
adjourning much earlier.
Some people have even said, and quite irresponsibly, that we
could be adjourning as early as June 12. This is plain silly.
There is more work to be done. I would hope to be able to
adjourn by June 19 if all goes well.
1505
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if the government House leader could comment in terms of
legislation expected to be introduced but not passed by the
summer break. Can he tell us whether he expects that the House
will have an opportunity to see the post-TAGS legislation and
whether or not the government intends to bring forward
legislation having to do with the implementation of the seniors
benefit? Certainly a lot of people would like to know whether or
not the government intends to proceed with this. They hope that
it does not, but they would like to know what the government's
plans are in this respect. Perhaps the government House leader
could enlighten us on these two issues.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, obviously it would be
inappropriate for me to comment on legislation which has not yet
been introduced.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-37, an act to amend
the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of
Motion No. 2.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question
period the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River had the
floor. There were remaining to him five minutes in his allotted
time.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as always it is a pleasure to rise to speak. It strikes
me as somewhat unfortunate, as it seems that the four or five
times I have spoken this spring my presentations have been
interrupted by that one hour question period. Today continues
what has been set as a tradition for my presentations.
I remark at the outset in reply to the government House leader
who just spoke about legislation we have to deal with and he
hoped we would not have to have evening sittings. I think that
is certainly the hope of everyone.
The reality is, if the option is that the opposition just cease
being opposition and we rubber stamp everything that the
government has brought forward in order that we can get all this
legislation, this heavy load as he called it, through, that is
not going to happen. If it requires that we sit well into the
evening over the next couple of weeks, then that is what we will
be doing in order to represent the concerns of Canadians who live
and work out in the real world. They have some very deep
concerns with the legislation the government wants to ram through
the House of Commons.
When we adjourned the debate just prior to question period I was
in the midst of talking about Bill C-37, specifically about
Motion No. 2. We are at report stage of Bill C-37, an act to
amend the Judges Act. Motion No. 2, which was brought forward by
my colleague from Crowfoot, deals with accountability and having
the reports of future recommendations by the commission that will
be set up under Bill C-37 to consider judges' compensation, wages
and benefits packages brought before the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights.
What I was getting at is that this is really an issue of
accountability, of bringing an element of public scrutiny to
these reports. In this way the general public can have some input
through their opposition members of parliament at the standing
committee as to what they feel is fair compensation for our
nation's judges.
What bothers Canadians most about the issue of an 8.3% increase
in salary for judges? I suspect that probably what bothers them
most is some of the rulings that they see from some of the
judges. I want to be very clear in saying that it is some of the
judges, not all of them. A lot of them are making judgments and
rulings that are defensible to the general public.
Certainly increasingly it seems that there is one underlying
theme running through a lot of the judgments that come down from
our courts.
1510
Earlier in talking to report stage Motion No. 1 of Bill C-37 I
referred to three specific cases that are fairly well known in my
riding of Prince George—Peace River, the Feeney, Solomon and
Baldwin cases and ultimately the judgments that were rendered
with those cases. My concern is I do not feel that in a lot of
the cases where the judges are actually legislating or making law
rather than fairly interpreting the law that their decisions are
supported by the general public.
I hear this increasingly from my constituents and I think the
Feeney case is a classic example. It does not seem to matter any
longer whether an accused is innocent or guilty. What seems to
matter is whether it is legal or illegal. The courts seem to be
more concerned about technicalities rather than guilt or
innocence. There is something sadly lacking in our legal system
which is masquerading as a justice system today.
We will not be supporting this bill. We do not feel that the
Canadian public at this time will defend an 8.3% increase in
judges' salaries when they cannot understand or support a lot of
the decisions that these same judges are making.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ERNST ZUNDEL PRESS CONFERENCE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. It has come to my attention and I
think to the attention of other House leaders and members of
parliament that tomorrow there is a press conference scheduled in
Room 130-S by Mr. Ernst Zundel.
It is a matter of great concern to all members of parliament
that the premises here should be used for this purpose. I would
like to register my concern and I am sure others may want to rise
on the same point of order.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to continue a little further than my colleague, the
House leader for the New Democratic Party.
The conference to take place Friday, June 5 at 10.30 a.m. in the
Charles Lynch press conference room, Room 130-S Centre Block, I
think flies in the face of what Canadian people truly believe.
This fellow is a well-known Holocaust denial spokesperson. I
cannot believe that the people responsible for the Charles Lynch
conference room would allow such a thing to happen.
I would like the government House leader to give this House the
confidence that not only will this not occur but that it will not
occur again as far as the booking of that facility for such an
individual is concerned.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the comments made by my
colleagues. I think this entire parliament and the House itself
borders on being brought into disrepute by having a press
conference hosted by this individual, given his statements and
his well-known position, as was mentioned, on the issue of the
Holocaust.
It really borders on lunacy that this would be permitted to take
place in this building which is supposed to be the bastion of
tolerance and moderate thinking. That this would take place on
Parliament Hill really challenges the bounds of credulity when
one considers that this is going to happen tomorrow.
I am hoping there is some way that the government can remedy
this. I am anxious to hear the response from the government
House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I became acquainted with this
condition around 1.45 p.m. this afternoon.
Upon being notified, I immediately contacted the officials of
the Press Gallery on Parliament Hill who I understand have the
responsibility for these premises.
1515
I expressed to them my dissatisfaction with the fact that this
building, the house of democracy in our country, was going to be
utilized in any way, shape or form for the benefit of one Ernst
Zundel. The people informed me that, in fact, the room was
accessible to this person, but that they were going to look at it
further, and I really hope they do.
I indicated that although I had not spoken to the other members
of the Board of Internal Economy I was confident that I was
speaking on their behalf when I expressed my displeasure at the
fact that Mr. Ernst Zundel would be using part of the
parliamentary precincts to host this press conference.
Members will know, of course, that the government itself does
not administer any part of the building, much less that room.
However, having heard the comments from other House leaders and
being reinforced by their support, which I believe I am by the
statements I have just heard, it is certainly my hope that those
who are in charge of reserving this facility will change their
minds forthwith and ensure that this press conference, if it is
held at all, is held elsewhere and not in this building.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the representations made by
the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the House leader of the
official opposition, the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the government House leader
will be drawn to the attention of those who are responsible for
the administration of this room.
I stress, as the government House leader has pointed out, that
it is not a matter which is under the administrative jurisdiction
of the Speaker directly or of the Board of Internal Economy
directly, but that it is under the administration of the
parliamentary press gallery, as I understand it.
I am sure these remarks will be drawn to their attention
forthwith and we will await developments. I do not see any point
in continuing a discussion on this point at this time.
* * *
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-37, an act to amend
the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of
Motion No. 2.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 2. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
In accordance with the motion adopted
earlier this day, a recorded division on this motion is deemed
deferred until Tuesday, June 9, 1998 at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
* * *
CANADA GRAIN ACT
The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the
Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act
and to repeal the Grain Futures Act, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise again today at this time
to address Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and
the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties
Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act.
Before I get into exactly what Bill C-26 does and why the
official opposition is opposed to this legislation, I wish to
express my appreciation to all members involved in the decision
that took place last Thursday when Bill C-26 was last before the
House.
I was unavoidably committed elsewhere on that day.
At first it appeared that I would not be able to have a final
chance to address this particular legislation, but with unanimous
agreement from all the parties it was decided to bring the bill
back today and that allows me the opportunity to speak. I
appreciate that decision, particularly on the part of the
government.
1520
Bill C-26 will accomplish three distinctly different objectives.
First, in repealing the Grain Futures Act, Bill C-26 paves the
way for the Manitoba government to regulate the Winnipeg
Commodity Exchange rather than having the exchange fall under
federal jurisdiction, the Canadian Grain Commission to be
specific, which it does at present.
It is my understanding that the exchange wants to offer trading
of non-grain contracts, especially hogs, and the repeal of the
Grain Futures Act will facilitate that.
As I noted previously during second reading and at report stage,
having the province of Manitoba assume responsibility through the
Manitoba Securities Commission to regulate the Winnipeg Commodity
Exchange is a positive step and one which we support.
Second, Bill C-26 will bring the Canada Grain Act under the
umbrella of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary
Penalties Act, thereby permitting fines for violations of the
Canada Grain Act and its regulations to be levied by the Canadian
Grain Commission. Because this legislation has a wider range of
enforcement options which will allow greater flexibility, we view
this as a positive step and therefore one which we support.
This brings me to the third item which Bill C-26 accomplishes.
Because this government once more has failed to listen to the
farmers and their representatives who appeared before the
standing committee on agriculture, we find ourselves in
opposition.
Bill C-26 began with the establishment of the special crops
rural initiative program committee. This SCRIP committee is made
up of producers and processors from the three prairie provinces
and is assisted by a representative from the Canadian Grain
Commission.
Since 1993 the committee has consulted with stakeholders and in
April of 1996 it drafted a report called the “Special Crops
Rural Initiative Program” upon which this bill is loosely based.
Many of the recommendations made by the SCRIP committee are not
included in Bill C-26, but will be laid out in regulations which
do not undergo scrutiny by parliament.
While it would be impractical to set out specifics such as levy
rates and deductibles in legislation, it would be more reassuring
for farmers if certain limits were set out. For example, the
legislation could have ensured that the levy rate not exceed 1%
of the gross value of the grain sale proceeds. This would provide
comfort in the years to come that the levy would not simply
skyrocket to an unreasonable level.
The government likes to wax poetic about the success of the
consultative process through SCRIP, but we saw very early on that
SCRIP recommendations were overruled by the Canadian Grain
Commission when the levy was set at a higher level than
recommended by the committee. That is a rather ominous start and
a cause for concern for farmers of special crops.
The farmers who will be affected by this bill will be those
producing beans, buckwheat, corn, fababeans, lentils, mustard
seed, peas, safflower seed, soybeans, sunflower seed and
triticale.
The production of those products or commodities is on the
increase all across western Canada. As a farmer myself, as
someone who has farmed close to 20 years in the Peace River
country, I can tell members that farmers are increasingly looking
at these special crops as a way in which to diversify, as a way
in which to try to spread their risk and as a way in which to try
to increase their profitability.
That is why there is a great concern about this bill and how it
is being brought in, and more specifically, how the levy will be
structured and administered.
As for the licensing insurance scheme created under this
legislation, there is an alarming lack of competition. Even the
parliamentary secretary confirmed that the Canadian Grain
Commission developed this bill. So there is indeed a high level
of self-interest since the commission will also administer the
plan.
1525
At present buyers and dealers are free to shop around for the
best price on their bond. I brought this issue up when the bill
was before the committee and representatives of the Canadian
Grain Commission were appearing as witnesses. Under the present
system there is a certain competitiveness. The dealers, if they
are licensed and are required to put up a bond, can shop around
amongst the various agencies in order to purchase that bond.
Under this new system they will not have that option. They will
not have that freedom of choice.
As well, special crops producers are free to shop around for the
best price for their product. In doing so they have to recognize
the potential risk if they choose to deal with an unlicensed,
unbonded dealer. If the buyer was to go into bankruptcy prior to
them receiving payment for their delivery, they obviously would
not be covered. That option is available to the producer. If he
or she can see that there is a potential for a higher return for
the product, they may indeed be willing to accept that risk.
All dealers will be licensed and insured with the Canadian Grain
Commission acting as the agent and the Canadian Export
Development Corporation becoming the single insurer.
There was a suggestion by the government that sometime in the
future one or both of these tasks could be contracted to the
private sector. I do not think I will hold my breath. Without
such a goal outlined in legislation I see no real hope that the
Canadian Grain Commission will be willing to release its grip on
the plan so that it can eventually be transferred to the private
sector. It is the farmers' money and they should run the
insurance plan, not the bureaucrats. We have learned time and
time again that the bureaucracy is not very good at running
programs and plans such as this, where the expertise,
capabilities and resources already exist in the private sector.
While Bill C-26 does provide some positive developments for
producers of special crops, it also reminds me of a runaway train
that is increasingly getting beyond the control of the farmers.
I would like to digress for a moment and refer the viewing
audience at home to some other examples of legislation where this
government has increasingly shown open disdain to listen to
farmers, the people who will be affected by this legislation. In
some ways there is a trend here. There is a similarity with Bill
C-19. the labour legislation.
We had a number of producers and farm groups who suggested that
because Bill C-19 takes a small step forward under section 87.7
in ensuring that the standard grains will continue to flow, even
in the case of a pending labour disruption at the ports, and that
ships will continue to be loaded that we should support Bill
C-19. But the point we have repeatedly made is, why is it that
this government will not listen to farmers and amend legislation?
Why is it that it will not listen to opposition members and amend
legislation to improve it? We have to settle for second best.
We have to make do. We have to simply say that there is some
good in the legislation.
In defence of the government, there is some good in the majority
of legislation that goes through this House. The government is
not bringing forward legislation just because it has nothing else
to do. I am sure that it is bringing it forward with the best of
intentions. However, the fact remains that almost all
legislation, certainly all the legislation that I can think of
that goes through this House, could be improved if only the
government and its members were willing to listen, and in this
case listen to the farmers.
It also reminds me of legislation that is going to come back
before the House next week, Bill C-4, the amendments to the
Canadian Wheat Board Act. Here again the government has shown a
tendency not to listen to the farmers and act upon their
recommendations.
Let us look at what we had to give up to get this plan.
1530
Farmers will be forced to pay for the insurance plan up front
whether or not they want to participate. They will then have to
write to ask for their hard earned money to be returned to them.
It is like a tax in that sense. If they are lucky they will get
a refund at the end of the year. It is modelled on negative
option billing which I recall the government repeatedly hailed as
an unfair way in which to do business.
Criticism of this aspect of Bill C-26 was abundant during
witness testimony when the legislation was considered by the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. During the
month of April besides the Canadian Grain Commission we heard
from representatives of the Manitoba Pulse Growers Association,
Saskatchewan Farmer Consultations for SCRIP, the Western Canadian
Marketers and Processors Association, the Western Canadian Wheat
Growers Association, the Alberta Pulse Growers Association, the
Saskatchewan Pulse Growers Association and the Western Barley
Growers Association.
We had an opportunity to appear before the committee even though
the time was shortened and the bill was hastened through the
process. There was not a lot of time to hear from them about
their presentations or for members, be they government or
opposition, to cross-examine the witnesses to probe deeper into
their concerns about the pending legislation. We had the
opportunity to have a substantial number of farm groups appear
before the committee.
We were very fortunate to have had the opportunity to hear from
all these witnesses. It is one of the best tools of
parliamentarians to accurately determine the will of the people.
As a result of their opinions the Reform Party moved a number of
amendments at both committee stage and report stage to reflect
that feedback.
Unfortunately, as I have said, it appears the government does
not value the opinion of farmers and defeated our amendments that
would have made Bill C-26 an improved piece of legislation in the
opinion of special crops producers.
In the time that I have remaining I would like to go over a few
of the amendments the government has chosen to defeat. At
committee stage some Liberal government amendments to the bill
were put forward and passed which Reform supported. If I recall
correctly they were supported by all the parties. Some of them
were technical in nature. One amendment to clause 7 was to
ensure that a producer's contribution to the insurance plan would
be reimbursed after withdrawal from the plan in a more timely
manner at the end of the season.
We heard repeatedly from farm representatives about negative
option billing where everybody is in the levy. They cannot opt
out as it were. They cannot say up front “No, do not collect
this. Every time I haul a load of one of the designated crops to
the elevator I do not want that taken off my cheque”. They
cannot do that. It is taken off anyway. They were also
concerned that they would have to keep track of it throughout the
year.
I note even with the amendment that it is unclear at this point
just exactly how it will operate and how cumbersome the
administration will be for individual farmers. That concern was
pretty unanimous in the farm representations we heard.
Another Liberal amendment was basically an exclusion amendment
which we certainly supported and applauded. A concern was
expressed by a number of farm groups representing western
producers of special crops. Even the Canadian Grain Commission
said that at some point in the future perhaps this levy, this
insurance and licensing scheme, could be expanded to include the
six standard grains: wheat, oats, barley, rye, canola and flax.
A lot of concern about that was expressed by farmers.
When the government brought forward this amendment to very
clearly state that those grains would be excluded we supported
it.
1535
As well motions were put forward by the other parties. What we
heard really came down to two main contentions with respect to
the legislation.
We heard that farmers were concerned about the way in which the
levy would be collected. They were concerned that like the GST
it would be foisted on them. They would have to keep track of it
as they went along. Then, if they did not want to have their
crops insured with the dealer, they would have to keep track of
the levy, which is 38 cents per $100 of sales, how much over the
year had been taken off their cheques, and then apply for it.
This would create additional bookkeeping they were not too
interested in.
They were also concerned about the lack of freedom of choice.
They felt once more that government was intervening in the
marketplace, in their freedoms as business people, and that if
they wanted to accept the risk of selling their product to an
unlicensed, unbonded and uninsured dealer or buyer it should be
their choice. Once more they saw government intervening and
telling them the way in which they should run their business.
We brought forward a number of amendments at report stage to
address this last issue. The farmers were also concerned that
the advisory committee the minister would be required to set up
to advise on the administration of the insurance plan would have
no power. Under the legislation it does not have any power
despite the fact that all administration costs and the costs of
the insurance would be borne entirely by farmers through the
levy.
They were telling us the advisory board should be a board of
directors that would administer and oversee the insurance plan
and decide themselves. It would be farmers looking after their
own money since it is their money and dealing with it as best
they could.
The official opposition brought forward amendments dealing with
all those concerns and the government chose to defeat them. In
light of the fact that the government consistently ignores the
concerns and desires of western producers and western Canadian
farmers, whether it is Bill C-4, Bill C-19 or Bill C-26, the
official opposition, the Reform Party of Canada, cannot support
Bill C-26 even though as I said earlier there is a lot of good in
it. The government will not amend or improve the legislation.
Shame on the government. We cannot support it.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and
the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties
Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act.
The positive effects of this bill are that it will better serve
specialized crop producers by providing them with more solid
financial foundations and an insurance plan to help protect them
from the weaknesses of the present system with grain dealers.
It is to be hoped, therefore, that the minister will select
board members from the agricultural community, specifically
specialized crop producers.
Overall, this bill presents no problem to the party I represent,
and our caucus will therefore support it.
1540
I must, however, add that I have several reservations, which I
have brought up in both the Standing Committee on Agriculture
and Agri-food and the House. This bill specifically concerns
specialized crop producers in the Canadian West, on the
Prairies. It is part of a reworking of legislation affecting
that group.
As a Quebec MP, I do not feel much affected by this bill, except
to ensure generally that the producers benefit as much as
possible from it.
If I were to meddle in this debate at a more technical or more
detailed level, this would be interfering in matters that do not
concern me, and I have no intention of doing so. For example,
where the voluntary contribution to the insurance plan is
concerned, we have our own insurance plan and the whole strategy
surrounding this debate is totally foreign to me. I will not,
therefore, try to get involved.
It is obvious, however, that the interests of the specialized
crop producers must be served, and we will therefore be voting
in favour of Bill C-26.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[English]
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (for the Solicitor General of
Canada) moved that Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA
identification and to make consequential amendments to the
Criminal Code and other acts, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The solicitor general has now
arrived. Is it agreed that he may speak since he is the mover of
the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the consent of the House. I just left the
reading room where we were having a familiarization program on
our crime prevention initiative. I appreciate the number of
representatives of your staff who are participating in that
exercise. You are to be commended.
I am pleased to address the House today at third reading of Bill
C-3 which provides for the establishment of Canada's national DNA
databank. The DNA identification act will make Canada one of
only a handful of countries in the world to have a national
system of this kind. I am very pleased to say that this
groundbreaking legislation is a major milestone in the
government's safer communities agenda. Public safety is my
priority. To that end Bill C-3 forms an important part of my
commitment to Canadians.
Our intention in the legislation is to create a practical law
enforcement tool for police that will stand the test of time. We
have been mindful that this exercise involves a careful balancing
of public safety measures on one hand and privacy rights which
Canadians hold dearly on the other. In this regard we have found
the right balance.
Since the bill was introduced last September members of the
House have proceeded cautiously in their consideration of the
legislation.
I believe this approach is laudable given the scope of the issues
surrounding the use and potential misuse of DNA profiles and
samples as well as the legal and ethical considerations. That is
the reason Bill C-3 was referred to the committee prior to second
reading.
1545
I encouraged amendments to improve it and had every expectations
that we would come out of this exercise with a better bill. In
my view that is exactly what has been achieved.
[Translation]
I will now explain how Bill C-3 was drafted, how it is to be
applied, what its advantages will be, and finally how it has
been improved through the efforts of the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights.
Introduction of the DNA Identification Act constitutes phase two
of the government's strategy on DNA.
[English]
The introduction of the DNA identification act marked the second
phase of the government's DNA strategy. The first important step
involved laying out the requirements for when DNA samples could
be obtained for the purpose of criminal investigation. As a
result, in July 1995 amendments to the Criminal Code were passed
to allow police to obtain DNA samples from suspects in criminal
investigations with the use of a warrant.
That legislation provided the police with an effective tool that
has helped them solve hundreds of serious crimes. It has been
effective because it has been used to help eliminate suspects and
secure convictions. It has been instrumental in obtaining guilty
pleas, thereby sparing victims the trauma of testifying and
reducing overall investigation and court costs. It has also
withstood constitutional challenge.
With the DNA warrant legislation firmly in place, the government
is proceeding to the next step of its DNA initiative, creating a
framework for storing DNA samples and using stored DNA
information in the investigation of serious criminal offences.
A national DNA databank will be an important tool to help police
link a suspect with evidence left at a crime scene. The ability
to store and later retrieve DNA profiles will shorten
investigations and help prevent further violence by repeat
offenders. This means better public safety for all Canadians.
Further, Bill C-3 will authorize police to collect DNA samples
for offenders convicted of designated criminal offences. These
include the most serious personal injury crimes, including
homicide and sexual offence, which are likely to be associated
with DNA evidence being found at the crime scene.
Samples will be analysed with the resulting profile entered into
the convicted offenders index of the databank. The databank will
also have a crime scene index containing DNA information
retrieved from crime scenes. By having this structure profiles
can be cross-referenced to find a match in the system.
The benefits of such a system are clear. Stored DNA information
will enable police to more quickly identify suspects where they
have no leads and identify repeat offenders across police
jurisdictions. It also has the potential to deter offenders from
committing future crimes as they will know that because their DNA
profile is in the databank they will not be able to slip through
the cracks.
Throughout the development of Bill C-3 the federal government
has sought the advice and expertise of many groups and
individuals, including those on the front lines.
In addition, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
held 15 witness hearings on the bill with representatives from 17
different organizations, including police associations, victims
groups and legal organizations.
These consultations revealed strong support for the creation of
a national DNA databank but there were also a number of concerns
regarding Canadian values of privacy, public protection and
individual rights guaranteed by the charter. To respond to those
concerns and improve the overall effectiveness of the bill, a
number of amendments have been made since the legislation was
introduced last fall.
Various interest groups, including the privacy commissioner, le
Barreau du Québec and the national action committee on the status
of women, suggested that the bill did not contain sufficient
safeguards to protect the use of DNA profiles from the samples of
victims, cleared suspects and people who volunteer samples to
help police.
1550
As a result, the government brought a motion to clarify that
access to the information contained in the crime scene index
shall be permanently removed if it relates to a victim or person
who has been eliminated as a suspect in a criminal investigation.
We heard that DNA analysis has come a long way since it was
first used in the criminal justice system just 10 years ago.
While the technology has matured at a swift pace, one thing
remains constant. DNA has the potential to reveal much more
about a person than a fingerprint. As one committee member put
it, a fingerprint leaves an impression of me, DNA is a part of
me.
To ensure that DNA information is safeguarded and used only for
the purpose of forensic DNA analysis, the bill sets out very
limited access to the databank. It prohibits any improper use of
information and limits access only to those directly involved
with its ongoing operation and maintenance.
To further protect the privacy of innocent persons, the bill
contains a new provision specifying that access to DNA
information shall be permanently removed where a person has been
eliminated as a suspect.
During committee hearings on the bill we heard from several
witnesses and committee members that the proposed designated
offence list could be expanded to capture other serious offences
for which DNA evidence might be useful.
The committee addressed this by adding infanticide to the
primary list and expanding the secondary list to include
dangerous and impaired driving causing bodily harm or death and a
number of sexual offences.
I believe these changes will be invaluable to police and will
enhance public safety. During the committee's hearings, several
witnesses recommended that the retroactive scheme be expanded to
include samples from not only dangerous offenders and repeat sex
offenders but murderers who have killed more than once.
The government acted on this by bringing in an amendment to the
bill to allow DNA to be collected retroactively from such
offenders. This expansion will capture offenders like many known
in Canada and will provide the police with valuable information
to help solve outstanding criminal cases.
I conclude by sharing the rationale for taking samples at
conviction. The police have expressed strong views that DNA
samples should be taken earlier, at the time of arrest or charge.
I remind members that police already have the authority to take
DNA samples at the time of arrest where they get a warrant to do
so. They will continue to be able to use DNA evidence for
investigative purposes in accordance with the DNA warrant scheme
in place for almost three years.
The departments of justice and solicitor general consulted
extensively on this issue and the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights thoroughly reviewed it. The vast majority of
those consulted expressed the view that taking samples after a
person has been convicted will respect the rights of all
Canadians under the charter.
They also shared the position that taking samples at arrest or
charge could pose a very serious risk of being struck down as
unconstitutional. Given that many individuals and organizations
have continued to press for expanding this provision, my
colleague, the Minister of Justice, sought independent legal
opinion from three of Canada's most eminent justices.
Each one concluded that a proposal to take samples at the time
of arrest for databanking purposes would not survive a charter
challenge. Some members have brushed the legal opinions aside
and have argued that the charter is simply a road block to
justice.
Let me remind the hon. members that parliament's authority to
legislate flows from the Constitution. The Constitution includes
the charter which protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of
all Canadians.
It is the duty of parliament to exercise its authority in a
manner that respects the charter. Taking samples for the
databank at the time of conviction rather than at the time of
arrest or charge will not prevent police from doing their job.
It will provide police with an effective investigative tool that
will allow them to do their job and ensure that the authority to
use this tool will comply with our constitutional requirement as
recently defined by the supreme court.
As I said earlier, we have come out of committee hearings with a
stronger bill. It is the government's view that Bill C-3 is
fundamentally sound.
1555
We are confident that we have found an effective balance between
the need to provide the police with the tools they need to do
their job and the requirement to respect the constitutional and
privacy rights of all Canadians. There is no question that the
use of DNA evidence has been a significant breakthrough in the
criminal justice system. But we must be mindful that it is a
powerful tool and one that must be safeguarded against potential
abuse. The creation of a databank that can be upheld by the
courts will go a long way toward protecting Canadians from repeat
violent offenders.
I urge members to support Bill C-3 so that we can proceed in
creating Canada's first national DNA databank. I thank all
members who have brought much to improve this bill for their
participation in this exercise.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the member for
Sydney—Victoria has a plane to catch. We would be prepared to
switch the order of speakers.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria
will have 20 minutes with 10 minutes questions and comments. Then
we will go back to the two remaining 40 minute speeches from the
official opposition and the Bloc Quebecois.
Is there unanimous consent that we proceed in this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the members.
The solicitor general has indicated that there were long
deliberations before the standing committee on justice. There
have been. Many members participated in that and many expert
witnesses came before the committee. Many of us on the committee
learned a great deal. We learned what DNA means. We learned how
it is extracted. We learned how it is banked. We heard from
many groups as varied as the national action committee on the
status of women, police association representatives, the Canadian
Bar Associations. Many groups had an interest in this
legislation.
Many members in this House put forward amendments to the bill.
They were well thought out amendments that concerned the way the
bill would be in place and the process by which it would be
accessed by both the police and the courts.
The solicitor general was correct when he said we attempted to
achieve a balance between the civil rights of individuals, the
privacy rights of individuals and the very compelling need for
the police to have an important tool to help them fight crime.
The question of where a balance is met is always one that is
open to debate. Each of us would have differing views as to
exactly where on the scale we ought to shift some of the weight.
I introduced amendments, some of which were taken into account by
the government and incorporated in the legislation. Others were
introduced in the House and have received support from most
parties except the government.
1600
It was my request that the period of incarceration for someone
who would breach the privacy laws be extended from two years to
five but that was not deemed appropriate enough for the
government to support it.
It is important that the House with the passage of this bill
will provide the police with an important tool to more readily
address and solve crime. We cannot forget that the DNA databank
is a tool of investigation. It is one more weapon in the arsenal
of the police to allow them to bring forward information
essential to assist the courts, the judiciary and in some cases
juries in determining guilt or innocence of an individual.
It will assist the police in bringing forward charges and help
them establish whether they have reasonable and probable grounds
to determine whether a crime has been committed and a charge
should be laid.
It will help society. It will citizens. It will help the
police. We must always balance that with the rights of the
individual. I expect my colleagues will address the issue of
whether DNA samples ought to be taken at the time of arrest or at
the time of conviction. That was the subject of a motion put
forward by the member for Crowfoot and it received extensive
debate in this House. My comments on that are well known.
I could not have supported that motion but it was still one view
to balancing what is the best way to bring forward this
legislation. There are others. I do not think any member was
discouraged from making their views known.
We debated this issue extensively and I think as a result
Canadians are getting a typical piece of Canadian legislation.
It is one whereby compromise has been made and one whereby we
hope we have come up with the best legislation. It is subject to
review and there were amendments put forward during debate to
ensure that it came before the House on a more regular basis. It
will be reviewed by the House in a few years to determine whether
we made mistakes, whether changes need to be made.
I acknowledge the many witnesses who came before the committee.
Even though we may in some cases have disagreed with them, every
member of that committee respects the views presented. We
engaged in great debate and dialogue with those individuals and I
thank them on behalf of my party and on behalf of the House for
coming forward, for making the trip to Ottawa to give us what
they felt was important information.
We have struck a bill. It may not be the best but it is one that
my party can support. We have compromised to some extent but I
think we still have protected the rights of individuals and
provided the police associations with the necessary tool to fight
crime. That is always a difficult balance. It is one that we
have all struggled with but I think we have come up with the best
we could.
* * *
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
pursuant to an issue raised earlier this afternoon and well put
by all House leaders. Pursuant to discussions held subsequently,
I now offer the following motion to the House and ask for
unanimous consent that it be passed immediately without debate. I
move:
That this House order that Ernst Zundel be denied admittance to
the precincts of the House of Commons during and for the
remainder of the present session.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1605
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, an
act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential
amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts, be read the third
time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: We will dispense with the period for
questions and comments on the speech of the hon. member for
Sydney—Victoria.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-3 at third reading. I have some
concerns about this bill.
The Reform Party is firmly committed to restoring confidence in
our justice system and providing Canadians with a truer sense of
security. This includes strengthening our law enforcement
agencies by providing them with the latest technological tools to
quickly detect and apprehend the perpetrators of the most violent
crimes committed in our society. DNA identification is that kind
of tool.
If used to its full potential, the DNA databank could be the
single most important development in fighting crime since the
introduction of fingerprints. To deny our police the full use of
this technology in their fight against crime, as Bill C-3 in its
present form does, is reprehensible and unacceptable because it
maintains an unnecessary level of risk to the lives and safety of
our citizens. If passed unamended, Bill C-3, an act respecting
DNA identification, will provide Canadians with at least a false
sense of security. Therefore the Reform Party cannot support this
inadequate piece of legislation. The Reform Party fully supports
the creation of a DNA databank. However, we do not support the
limited scope of Bill C-3.
Bill C-3 does not grant our police forces full use of the DNA
technology so readily at their disposal. It is a tool that would
help close hundreds of unsolved murders and rapes with an
enormous potential to save lives by removing predators from the
streets.
Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of a DNA sample at the
time of charge. It does not permit samples to be taken from
incarcerated criminals other than designated dangerous offenders,
multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers. If a multiple
murderer commits the murders on the same night we cannot take a
sample from him. The murders must be committed separately.
Again, it is unacceptable from that point of view.
Bill C-3 provides a dangerous and unnecessary exemption. It
authorizes judges not to issue warrants for the taking of samples
if they believe that in doing so the impact on the individual's
privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the
public interest in the protection of society. We asked during
committee hearings for an example of that. I did not hear a
reasonable or common sense example of what that meant, what that
part of the bill is really addressing.
There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides
where DNA evidence has been left at the scene by the perpetrator.
DNA identification now offers an unparalleled opportunity to
solve many of these cases and bring the perpetrators to justice.
However, because of the government's irrational fear of violating
the privacy rights of those responsible for these heinous crimes,
it is restricting the use of this very important technology by
our law enforcement people.
As it stands now Bill C-3 is a hindrance to more effective law
enforcement and a safer society by these limitations. Those
responsible for shaping our justice system continue to express a
willingness to place the lives and safety of innocent people in
jeopardy. I sometimes wonder if the government does not consider
the lives of Canadians very cheap.
1610
It is very unconcerned about the lives and safety of people in
society although it expresses comments contrary to that. Life is
pretty cheap when we look at some of the decisions being made as
a result of legislation passed by this place and the refusal of
the government to move where it is obvious that it could move and
where there is no obstruction except its irrational fear of what
the Supreme Court of Canada might do with regard to the charter
of rights and freedoms.
Those responsible for shaping our justice system continue to
express a willingness to place the lives and safety of innocent
people in jeopardy whether by paroling violent offenders who go
on to rape and murder again or by freeing convicted violent
offenders through conditional sentencing or by tying the hands of
our police officers through Bill C-3. The safety of society
seems to be a secondary issue to this government.
During report stage of this bill I introduced an amendment which
would allow for the taking of samples at the time of charge from
offenders with one previous conviction and retained for analysis
upon conviction. Our original amendment introduced during clause
by clause review was to allow for the taking of samples from all
persons charged with primary designated offences. Since this
amendment was defeated, we put forward an amended version at
report stage taking into consideration the concerns raised by the
government.
The government cited finances as one reason why it would not
expand the DNA bank and allow for samples to be taken and
analysed at the time of charge rather than conviction. I
specifically addressed the issue of cost, proposing that samples
be taken upon charge but not analysed until conviction. This
would satisfy the Canadian Police Association's concerns
regarding offenders who are released on bail pending trial
skipping out.
If offenders are guilty of a previous offence for which they
have not been charged, they may not appear for their trial if
they realize that upon conviction their DNA sample may be
compared to DNA evidence left at the scene of unsolved crimes.
This amendment was recommended by the Canadian Police
Association.
The other reason supplied by the justice minister for refusing
to allow samples to be taken at the time of charge was that it
would not withstand a constitutional challenge. To date, a
number of this government's bills have resulted in court
challenges.
Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and the two territories
are awaiting the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision on the
constitutionality of Bill C-68, the firearms legislation.
The rape shield law, brought in by the former justice minister,
has been deemed unconstitutional. Conditional sentencing, also
courtesy of the former justice minister, has been the subject of
controversy in the courts. In January a three judge panel from
the Alberta Court of Appeal issued a ripping indictment of what
it termed unimaginative and skimpy attempts to apply the new law.
In the 50 page ruling the appeal justices detailed several major
complaints they have on the way judges and lawyers have been
applying the reform. The Alberta court blasted judges for
handing out poorly reasoned and lenient conditional sentences
that amount to little more than house arrest.
After Bill C-3 was reported out of committee and ready for
report stage, the justice minister circulated to members of the
standing committee three legal opinions on the constitutionality
of taking DNA samples at the time of charge. The legal opinions
were expressed by the hon. Claude Bisson, the hon. Martin Taylor
and the hon. Charles Dubin. They all stated that the taking of
DNA samples at the time of charge would be unconstitutional. The
minister failed to provide any dissenting opinions such as that
prepared by Tim Danson for the Canadian Police Association.
I have examined the three opinions hurriedly provided to
indicate that the taking of DNA samples at the time of charge
would be unconstitutional. They seem shallow and unconvincing
perhaps because of their hurried nature. The opinion prepared by
Tim Danson for the Canadian Police Association was presented
before the committee and we had an opportunity to examine it.
We have not had an opportunity to examine the three legal
opinions by the authorities that I quoted. The committee has not
had an opportunity to call witnesses or to ask witnesses who
appeared before the committee questions about the three legal
opinions.
1615
I want to just touch on why I have a grave concern in this area
and to quote from legal opinions. The honourable Claude Bisson
does not deal with the authority of police to obtain a blood
sample from a person suspected of impaired driving from alcohol
or drugs. That authority is contained within the Criminal Code
now.
Why would he not deal with that? If there is authority to take
a blood sample now for impaired driving, why is there concern
about taking a blood sample or a hair sample or a swab from the
mouth? Why, if the authority is there now and it is
constitutional, would an amendment allowing for a blood sample to
be taken at the time of charge for a primary designated offence
for the purpose of DNA sampling be unconstitutional in the bill?
I do not understand why the honourable Claude Bisson did not
address this issue in his legal opinion. Also, the legal opinion
prepared by the honourable Charles L. Dubin makes the same
omission. It does not deal with the authority of police to take
blood samples when individuals are suspected of driving while
impaired by alcohol or drugs.
That issue is covered to a certain degree by the honourable
Martin R. Taylor in his legal opinion. Yet it is difficult for
me to understand the reasoning in this document, why it is
constitutional to take a blood sample today under certain
circumstances but unconstitutional to take a blood sample from
someone not suspected of a crime but charged with a crime, of
committing a primary designated offence.
I say with consideration and respect that these three legal
opinions appear to be hurried and not well thought through. I
want to quote one of them. This is the legal opinion submitted
by the honourable Martin R. Taylor, Q.C., who stated on page 4:
Certainly some scepticism is to be expected in Canada today
regarding the handling of bodily substances by public
authorities. When DNA samples pass out of the control of the
arrested person into that of the State, the uses to which they
may be put depend not only on the law as it is and may become,
but also on the competence of those who take control of them and
their willingness to obey the law. The uses to which DNA may be
put in providing personal information regarding the individual,
while known to go well beyond the field of criminal
identification, are at present only partly and imperfectly
understood. Such factors as these will, in my opinion, be found
by the courts to render the taking of DNA samples against the
will of the individual particularly significant in terms of both
denial of reasonable expectation of privacy and invasion of
security of the person.
It seems it is all right to take a blood sample in the case of a
suspected impaired driver but when we start to talk about DNA it
is altogether different.
The word DNA seems to create a degree of apprehension, a degree
of perhaps even fear. The consequences of not properly guarding
and protecting a DNA sample, whether we call it a blood sample
taken for the purposes of determining if a person is impaired by
alcohol or drugs, or whether it is a sample to compare with a DNA
sample left at the scene of a crime, does not really matter. The
invasion of privacy has taken place. We already have that in the
criminal code. It is already there. What is the difference?
1620
When we talk about the security of the person there is no
justification to deny on the grounds of privacy because the
authority is already there, as I have said, to take a blood
sample in the case of impaired driving. That authority is there
and overrules the privacy of the individual.
Let us look at the other reason the honourable Martin R. Taylor
pointed out, the invasion of the security of the person. Privacy
and security. The point I am making and I am coming to is that
thousands and thousands of blood samples are taken every day by
doctors. There are blood banks in clinics. Every time we go for
an annual check-up and a blood sample is taken it goes into a
bank. Every time a child is born a blood sample is taken from
that child for obvious reasons.
Those samples are there for at least a period time. I do not
know how long banks hold them. If there was a realistic concern
as expressed in this legal opinion that the privacy of the
individual were at stake and that somehow these samples would be
used improperly, why is that not happening? Why is there no
evidence of that happening?
Surely the bank, the taking of samples and the databank designed
through Bill C-3 provide the greatest protection of the gathering
of blood samples and other samples anywhere in the country today.
These people are telling us different through their legal
opinions. They are trying to convince us that somehow there is
lurking in the wings a successful charter challenge against doing
what is being done all over the land based upon the fact that
someone may use these samples incorrectly.
There is no evidence that has ever been done. There is no
criminal offence as there is in the legislation for the improper
use of DNA samples. There is no offence legislated for anyone
misusing the blood sample that I give during my annual check-up
or those of anyone or the samples taken from human beings at the
time of birth. There is no evidence of this and this is not
addressed in the legal opinions.
This is very important. With the greatest respect, the
government has obtained legal opinions that suit its purposes and
has brought them forward to attempt to negate the clear legal
opinion by Mr. Danson who prepared and submitted a legal opinion
for the committee by the Canadian Police Association, clearly
indicating that there is no constitutional concern about taking
samples at the time of charge.
1625
The three legal opinions were obtained after we had an
opportunity to call witnesses and to examine the contents of
their findings, their recommendations and their decisions on this
question. I am prepared to move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
“Bill C-3, An Act respecting DNA identification and to make
consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and others Acts, be
not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of
reconsidering Clause 17, in order to ensure that the taking of
DNA samples at the time of charge be subject to review”.
The Deputy Speaker: Debate is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-3.
This bill was considered at length in committee, and I must
commend the work done by all members of the committee.
While opinions differed, I would say even very significantly at
times, discussions were always courteous. The bill was examined
responsibly and with professionalism and I thank the members of
the committee.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would also like to thank all
the witnesses who presented their views to the committee. Their
opinions were attentively listened to, unfortunately not always
so attentively by the government members, but I will come back
to that.
Bill C-3, which concerns DNA identification, is the focus of a
number of societal debates in Canada. Science has made such
progress, especially in the field of genetics, that debates such
as the one on Bill C-3 are giving rise to great moral,
philosophical, ethical and, consequently, political questions.
To the great distress of many, I am sure, I will leave aside
philosophical and moral considerations and limit myself to
practical aspects and to the actual application of the
provisions of C-3.
Before going into greater depth in this area, I must, as a
parliamentarian, lament the narrow-mindedness of the government
in this matter. The legislative process followed by Bill C-3 is
comparable to the Liberal reign. The scope is narrow, there is
little movement and there is no interest in hearing not only the
members of this House, but the many witnesses who came to
express their various opinions before the committee.
The Liberal government, unfortunately, was trying to score
political points with issues as important as Bill C-3.
It is important to speak out against the Liberals' attitude,
because the public will most certainly end up having to live
with the consequences of this government's narrow-mindedness, its
rigidity throughout the entire process of the debate on Bill C-3.
1630
I cannot help but admit that I am somewhat disappointed, because
Bill C-3 is an innovative bill that will lay the groundwork for
the use of DNA for a number of years to come.
We must be aware that the technology of today will be obsolete
in 5, 10 or 15 years, and the guidelines set out in this bill
will be those followed when new technological advances come
along. This is, therefore, a very important debate.
The solicitor general's original initiative to create a DNA data
bank on the most dangerous criminals in our society is a highly
laudable one. I should point out here that the Bloc Quebecois
is in favour of this bill and will support it regardless, once
this debate is concluded.
The partisan attitude of the Liberals, however, has blocked
certain constructive amendments which, in my opinion, were
essential to application of this legislative measure.
There were 14 motions at the report stage, in order to clarify,
modify or tighten up Bill C-3. I myself proposed eight of them
on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. The purpose of most of these
was to ensure greater transparency in implementing the act, and
particularly to protect the highly confidential information the
data bank will contain.
As my New Democratic colleague mentioned earlier, this entire
bill will be decided by the balance between the rights of
individuals and the need to protect society. The whole debate
can be summarized by this dichotomy of individual rights versus
protection of society. Most of the discussions we have had in
this House or in committee centred on this issue.
Let us imagine for an instant the scope of information contained
in the genetic index. DNA profiles infallibly identify an
individual from a hair, saliva or blood. However, they identify
not only the individual, but the individual's family as well. A
brother, a sister, a son, a daughter, a father or a mother may
also be identified, to a lesser degree but be identified
nonetheless, from the individual's DNA.
So, the discussion of the rights of individuals includes the
individual in question and his or her immediate family.
Inappropriate use of information taken from the DNA could ruin
or destroy an individual and his or her family, hence the
extreme caution that we as parliamentarians and legislators must
exercise in debating and passing this bill.
I proposed an amendment to limit the use made of genetic
information gathered. The Liberal government autocratically
refused to support the motion, unfortunately, probably because
it came from a member of the opposition and a member of the Bloc
moreover. I think that is a shame.
In the same vein, I proposed amendments to force the government
to report on the application of the law.
Once again, unfortunately, the government, for whom running the
nation is a secret business, showed its contempt and refused to
support us.
It refused, for instance, to allow the privacy commissioner to
report every three years on the use to which the data in the
bank were put. What are they afraid of? We were asking that a
agency independent of government be allowed to examine the use
to which these data were put, so that this bill would respect
the private lives of individuals, of Canadians and Quebeckers.
1635
Once again, I ask “What is the government afraid of? The
privacy commissioner?” I find this most unfortunate.
I could go on for hours—and I know members would like me to, but
I must disappoint them—about particular situations that we have
tried to correct, but that the government refuses to tackle.
Knowing as we do the ideological narrowness of the Liberal Party
and the tight leash on which the Prime Minister keeps his
members, I was prepared to drop several, if not all, of the
amendments I was sponsoring out of concern for integrity and
public interest and in order to remove from the political arena
a debate that is essentially apolitical in nature.
A bill such as Bill C-3, which we know is important, should not
be used to engage in petty politics. I have always been
open-minded and as non-partisan as possible, as apolitical as
possible, but I must point out that this has not been the
attitude of the Liberal government.
I must, however, point out the open-mindedness of my colleague
from the New Democratic Party and my colleague from the
Conservative Party, with whom there were some good and frank
discussions, despite our differing points of view.
As I said, I must admit I am disappointed with the government's
general attitude in the way it handled this matter. The
proposals of my opposition colleagues and myself met with
constant refusals to even consider them. I am convinced that
those who speak after me will refer to this as well.
I feel obliged to point out that the Solicitor General, the
sponsor of this bill, appeared before the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights on another matter, while we in this
august Chamber were debating it. This was evidence of his
disdain—the word may be a bit too strong—the lack of importance,
at the very least, that he attaches to a chamber of
representatives duly elected by the people. Once again, I must
repeat how disappointed I am.
I am greatly disappointed because he was not there when the bill
was being debated to hear what we had to say and let us hear
what he had to say. While he was presenting another more or
less important initiative in committee, we of the opposition
parties could not be there. We had to choose, because no one
can be in two places at the same time. We opted for the debate
in this House, while unfortunately the Solicitor General did
not, and I feel he too ought to have been here.
Of the 14 motions debated in the House, it is important to
mention that only three were supported by a majority of members,
and therefore received government approval. Not surprisingly,
the amendments recommended in Motions Nos. 9 and 14, in Group
No. 5, were passed, having been moved by the bill's sponsor
himself, the solicitor general. The solicitor general
introduced certain amendments and, wonder of wonders, his
Liberal sheep followed.
I was very surprised, however, that Motion No. 13, which I
myself moved, was agreed to. Admittedly, it would have been
ill-advised for the government to refuse to remove data with
respect to individuals who are acquitted. The opposition, the
Bloc Quebecois anyway, was prepared for another no from the
government. Statistically speaking, I presume that it is the
exception that makes the rule.
We think the government could have done better and left aside
the shocking partisan politics it has engaged in throughout
study of this bill. That having been said, the Bloc Quebecois
is open-minded, and we will support Bill C-3, even though we have
certain reservations about its application.
In conclusion, we sincerely hope that the creation of this data
bank gives police forces throughout the country all the tools
they need to solve the unfortunately very large number of crimes
being committed in our communities.
1640
We still have certain concerns about the biased and
inappropriate use of DNA samples and unnecessary analyses that
will not be explicitly prohibited under the present
legislation.
The Bloc Quebecois thinks it deserves credit for its
constructive interventions and fervently hopes that the
government will adopt a more conciliatory attitude when the
bill, in this or another form, is again studied in the House,
and also when other bills are introduced before the people's
elected representatives. The legitimacy of parliament, the
legitimacy of this House, and democracy itself hang in the
balance.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: 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 Verchères, Varennes Tokamak project; the hon. member
for Waterloo—Wellington, the Environment; the hon. member for
Frontenac—Mégantic, BC Mine in Black Lake.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I must say it is an honour for me to rise in the
House and participate in this very important debate on Bill C-3.
It touches on an issue that I know the mover of the motion, the
member for Crowfoot, holds very dear to his heart as a former law
enforcement agent.
I know that other members of the committee, as mentioned by
previous speakers, took an active part in the committee debate
where we had a number of witnesses. It was certainly an exhibit
of parliament at its best at the committee level where we had
such a diverse discussion. There were a number of divergent
opinions as was referred to by the previous speaker, the member
from the Bloc. It was very important that the process did not
grind to a halt. We had members moving amendments that
unfortunately were not accepted by the government but the process
itself did not bog down. We are now at a stage where this bill
is on the verge of becoming law.
The sad and unfortunate situation that members often find
themselves in is that they support the bill in principle and
almost without exception, in its entirety but there are problems
with it. There is a flaw, a fly in the ointment so to speak.
That fly is a significant one. There is a significant
opportunity with the passage of this bill to put into the hands
of the law enforcement community the ability to fight crime in a
very substantive way.
To use the minister's own terminology about prevention in the
area of crime, this bill if it was amended in the way that the
some members on the committee had suggested, would allow for the
use of DNA at the time of charge. When I say at the time of
charge, that in and of itself sets a certain standard, that
standard being that reasonable and probable grounds had to exist
for a person to be taken into custody and enough evidence had to
exist to lay a criminal charge. If the DNA could be taken at
that point in time, it could be used in a very important way to
match the DNA crime scene bank that would have evidence from
other crimes that had remained unsolved.
This is a golden opportunity. We talk about the use of
technology and the speed at which technology is moving. This DNA
data bank is not being used to its full potential in the manner
in which this legislation has been drafted.
At the outset, I want to say that I do support the motion tabled
by the hon. member for Crowfoot, the motion being in essence that
the bill be returned to the justice committee for further debate.
This arises from a situation where the government in its wisdom
decided to seek legal opinions after the fact. That is, there
was a legal opinion rendered by the Canadian Police Association.
They sought the opinion of an eminent criminal lawyer, Mr.
Danson, who after considering the situation and looking at the
practicalities of the use of DNA offered the opinion to the
committee that in fact if DNA was taken at the time of charge
this would withstand a constitutional challenge. The timing I
have to submit is very suspect here. The government chose after
the committee had completed its deliberations to then seek the
legal opinion of three very learned retired jurists who gave a
contrary opinion.
1645
I do not question for a minute the intent or the fact that the
contrary opinion came back from these jurists. In fact it would
surprise me if it happened any other way. We all know there are
dissenting opinions constantly. Constantly there are juxtaposed
positions taken by those involved in the criminal justice system.
That is part of the process. That is part of the healthy debate
and the adversarial nature of the practice of law.
But here we have again an opportunity to use this legislation to
the full degree of the law. To be held back in essence is what
is going on, to be held back by fear. I would not call it an
irrational fear. I would not go so far as to say that this is
not founded in common sense. But I do suggest that we cannot in
this chamber and we cannot as members of the elected body be held
back or be in constant fear that if we pass a piece of
legislation here that it may in some court in some part of this
great land be struck down by one judge or a panel of judges who
feel that it is perhaps beyond the bounds of the Constitution.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
With apologies to the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, this is a matter with respect to
quorum at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans which is
being held right now. The chair of the committee has
unilaterally decided to continue to conduct the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans—
An hon. member: It is not a point of order.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Beauchesne's citation 806 states:
The general rule establishing a quorum for committees is
contained in Standing Order 118(1). A majority of members of a
special, legislative, or standing committee constitutes a quorum.
In the case of joint committees the quorum is established by the
House in consultation with the Senate for each joint committee.
I understand the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans now
has only six members in the committee. They were down to between
eight and six, and a quorum is nine. The committee's own motion
that was passed on a special motion is three members with one
opposition member and there are no opposition members present.
Standing Orders 118(1) states—
Mr. Stan Keyes: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wonder first of all if the Speaker could rule if this point is
indeed a point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must advise the
member that this is a matter for the committee and the Chair
cannot hear this report from the committee at this stage. It is
a matter to be settled with the committee.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, I know you have ruled on
this. If you do not wish to indulge in it, I would like to call
quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1655
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I now see a quorum.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the amendment. Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Editor's Note: Chair read text of amendment to House]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order made
earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until
Tuesday, June 9, 1998, at the end of the time provided for
Government Orders.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I think you might find unanimous consent in the House
to read the clock as 5.30 p.m. so we could proceed to Private
Members' Business, provided that the member proposing the private
members' bill tonight is present in the chamber. If he is not
present, may I suggest that we suspend to the call of the Chair
but to no later than 5.30 p.m., in order that the member wishing
to present the motion can do so at an earlier time than 5.30 p.m.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there agreement to
proceed as such?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.57 p.m.)
1700
[Translation]
SITTING RESUMED
(The House resumed at 5.02 p.m.)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.05 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
FISHERS BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC) moved that Bill C-302,
an act to to establish the rights of fishers including the right
to be involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish
conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing licensing and
the public right to fish and establish the right of fishers to be
informed of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood in
advance and the right to compensation if other rights are
abrogated unfairly, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
1705
He said: Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my
colleague from Nova Scotia.
I believe if members look carefully and examine what has
happened since the election last year, this is the first major
fisheries bill to be introduced in the House. I am very pleased
that it is mine and coming from the opposition side of this
House.
This sends out a certain signal to the fisheries community. I
do not think the government has been listening carefully to what
is happening in the fishing community.
Canada has been abused by other countries in terms of offshore
fishing. Successive governments have never really stood up for
our fishermen and outlined the rights of fishermen. That is what
this bill is intended to do. It is the fishers bill of rights. I
know the word fishers is more politically correct today but I am
from the old school. I still use the term fishermen. I hope my
colleague from Quebec forgives me.
What I am attempting to do with this bill is give fishermen the
right to be consulted. Examine what has happened on the east and
west coasts and with Great Lakes fishing. We are also talking
about Lake Winnipeg.
Fisheries from coast to coast are in desperate straits. What
they need is some protection. What we have to do is consult with
the fishermen. I am convinced that had we consulted with
fishermen from day one we would not be in the state we are in
today where on both coasts of this country we are into a
situation of vanishing stocks.
We have allowed foreign overfishing for years. As a result we
have a fishery in Atlantic Canada that is almost broke. Cod have
virtually disappeared. Groundfish in some areas have virtually
disappeared.
I am not standing up to blame the present government because
that would be wrong. I am not standing up blaming the government
I was part of from 1988 to 1993 because that would be wrong.
It has been a succession of governments, regardless of political
stripe, making errors along the way but never really standing up
for fishermen. Now we have a fisheries on the east coast that is
virtually in collapse.
The other part of this bill I think fishermen will take a
keen interest in and support is that when support programs
for fishermen are being negotiated they have to be at the table.
Whether they are talking about support programs to move them
from fisheries into something else or to buy back their licences,
they have to be consulted from day one. That has never happened.
Where was the consultation from the very beginning in terms of
the TAGS program? It was a program basically invented in Ottawa.
Again, I am not blaming any government. It was invented by
bureaucrats and administered by bureaucrats. From the very
beginning there was no consultation with fishermen.
1710
The other problem I see where it would have made a big
difference is on the conservation side if fishermen had been
consulted. There is no secret that in the early days of
international overfishing our fishermen knew what was happening.
They saw huge quotas granted to outsiders, outside countries
coming into Canada and fishing our stocks. The result was well
known by fishermen at that time as to what would happen. It is
like the old story about Canadians. We are much too polite to
tell it like it is.
I remember the story of a Canadian in New York. When a New
Yorker stepped on his toe the Canadian looked at the New Yorker
and said “excuse me”. The New Yorker said “you must be
Canadian”. He asked why. “Because you are the only people in
the world who apologize if someone steps on your toe”. Is that
not what we have done internationally?
I can remember when Premier Tobin stood up internationally for
fishermen. I was the first one to applaud him. The former
fisheries minister, Mr. Crosbie, was very congratulatory as well.
We had a politician who for the first time in recent Canadian
history stood up and told it the way it was.
We might debate whether the outcome of that was successful. At
least the international community heard us. All politics aside,
it is something we should have done years ago. What the
fisheries minister was doing at the time was listening to those
people he represented regardless of political stripe. That is
what we have to do.
Testimony was heard by the fisheries committee of what some of
our fishermen go through in terms of income and cost of getting
on the water or attempting to catch fish that are not there. Some
of this is absolutely outrageous.
Mr. Fortin on November 27 gave his testimony to the fisheries
committee. I use his testimony to show just how ridiculous the
situation is. This year he caught $40,000 worth of fish, gross.
His earnings were $16,000, of which he paid $5,500 in fishing
expenses, $5,400 in fuel, oil and other things, $5,525 in repairs
because they were out of luck, $4,775 for electronic equipment,
$1,500 in groceries because they live on the water for days. He
paid $4,000 in car insurance because he has a family to support
at home. He paid $1,400 for the CSST and $2,400 for other
expenses.
Then there was interest on the loan he had to take out from the
credit union and taxes. That is 25% of the boat payment. He has
a deficit of $30,000 and $10,000 in expenses, and they still want
to take his TAGS benefit back. He said he cannot accept that.
Who in this House could accept that? I think it goes right back
to the bill I brought into the House. Again I stress it is the
first major fisheries bill to hit the House since the election of
last year. There is a deficit on that side of the House in terms
of what it could do today to pay attention to fishermen, the
people the government is supposedly representing back home.
That is just a small example of what has happened over the
years. What we have to do in the House is say fishermen have
certain rights that cannot be taken away by governments.
When rights are taken away to fish and to make a living, they are
to make sure there is adequate compensation. When the
compensation package is decided upon fishermen will be at the
table. They will be there helping us make the decisions. It
will not be left to bureaucrats in their ivory towers in Halifax
or in Ottawa. It will be in consultation with fishermen.
1715
I will pass over the remainder of my time to my colleague from
Nova Scotia. I am sure he can carry on this debate. I thank the
House for waiting for me to arrive. I know the previous debate
collapsed a bit early. I am looking forward to hearing from the
hon. member for South Shore.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak in the House to
the motion of the hon. member for Charlotte on a fishers' bill of
rights.
The state of the fishery in the country is far too often
overlooked, specifically in Nova Scotia and certainly in the
South Shore riding which I am honoured to represent and in my
neighbouring riding of West Nova which is very aptly represented
in the House of Commons.
We talk to the people in the fishery. We know the people in the
fishery. I am not a fisherman. I do not contend to be a
fisherman but I certainly have many constituents who are
fishermen. The South Shore riding is the largest single fishery
riding in Canada with 800 and some registered fishing boats in
Shelburne county alone. Queens county has another 200 and some
and Lunenburg county has 180. It is a tremendous resource.
That resource is no longer there. That resource has declined.
As the member for Charlotte mentioned, it declined over the years
because of bureaucratic intervention, because of government
intervention. He did not want to point the finger at anyone. I
do not think I am willing to do that either. Certainly all
governments of all parties have made major mistakes in the
fishery and I think to this very day they continue to make them.
One difficulty I have with something called a fishers' bill of
rights and the public right to fish is that I am not sure we any
longer have a public right to fish. We cannot simply buy a
fishing licence today and go fishing. There is no fish to catch.
There are ITQs. There are community quota groups. There are all
kinds of restrictions against fishing. The public right to fish
is something I am very much afraid we may have lost a long time
ago.
Even in new fisheries I have a number of cases—and I am sure
members opposite have a number of cases—where people in an
experimental fishery were not even granted the first licence to
be given out in that fishery, whether it was an experimental
shrimp fishery in St. Margaret's Bay or a clam fishery in the
midshore, the endshore or the offshore. The people who developed
those fisheries, the people who did the experimental work, very
often were overlooked when it came to licences in direct
contravention and contradiction of the Fisheries Act.
The hon. member for Charlotte mentioned TAGS. I would like to
talk for a moment about the failure of TAGS to address the
problem. To begin with TAGS was designed for ice plugged ports
in Newfoundland. As an afterthought it was thought that it could
apply to diminishing groundfish stocks in Nova Scotia. They
brought TAGS in combined with a licence buyout that did not take
enough out of the fishery. The TAGS program only covered the
first $26,000 of gross landings by any fishing boat. After that
they had to buy it back.
Let us figure out what it takes to accumulate the first $26,000
gross of a fishing year. They pay for their steamboat licences.
They pay for their crews. They pay for their provisions. They
pay for their diesel. They pay for their onboard catch
monitoring. They pay for any ITQ transferring they do.
They have not made any money and they are over the $26,000 gross.
1720
The people who tried to work were penalized. The people who
benefited from TAGS were the people who decided to sit back and
improve their golf game or to go trouting. For the fishermen who
tried to continue to work and to feed their families it was a
dismal failure. That is the best thing that can be said about
it.
We move on to the situation these people are still in with
diminishing fish stocks. The south shore of Nova Scotia and
parts of southwest Nova are extremely lucky. We have a few fish
left. We are a long way from having a successful fishery. There
was quota by every community group in Nova Scotia left in the
water last year, quota they were unable to catch or quota that
was not there.
We are encouraging the shacking of small fish. Shacking is a
term fishermen use for throwing fish overboard. If they have a
quota and they are only allowed 4,000 pounds of haddock what are
they to do with the small ones? They cannot afford to bring them
ashore as little haddock are worth 40 cents per pounded compared
to big haddock which are worth $1 a pound.
It is a very dismal situation these people find themselves in.
They are environmentalists and conservationists and they
understand. They also have families, mortgages and car payments
and have to attempt to make a living. The fishermen of Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Newfoundland and Quebec are in
dire straits as a result of TAGS.
We can look at the effort out there on the ocean by dragger
fleets, seiners and foreign fleets. They have caught our bait.
They have caught our food fish, our cod, our haddock and our
halibut. It goes on and on.
This year Atlantic salmon stocks are expected to be at an all
time record low of returning winter salmon to the rivers of
southwest Nova. These rivers are under stress. We know acid
rain has stressed the ability of the spawn to survive in the
rivers. This is not rocket science. We understand that
pollution is a factor.
We are at an all time low and we have the most stringent
conservation methods we have ever had. No longer are estuary
fisheries allowed at the mouth of rivers. Mature salmon can no
longer be kept. Fishermen are encouraged to keep only grilse and
only male grilse.
The aboriginal fishery takes male grilse out of the fish way for
its allotment. This is not a threat to the salmon going upriver
to spawn and reproduce.
What is a threat has been the fact that the federal government
has allowed a foreign fishery in St. Pierre and Miquelon to buy
the gear of the Newfoundland fishermen who sold their salmon gear
to St. Pierre and Miquelon fishermen and set that gear in a 10
mile swath 200 miles long out to the edge of the shelf. No one
in the House or on the fisheries committee or in the department
will convince me that this has not affected returning fish to
Nova Scotia.
For a long time we had a moratorium on commercial salmon
fishing, which is indicative of the state of the fishery. The
real money in the fishery is made from haddock, cod and flounder.
The sport fishery is important but the real money and the real
livelihoods of the majority of the people are in the ground and
lobster fishery.
We have more pressure now. We have complete devastation in the
fishery. Now in the lobster fishery there are more lobster
licences and more effort in the lobster fishery than there has
been in the past 50 years.
1725
The point is that the lobster fishery needs a much more serious,
increased effort. It is the sole provider of many families in
Nova Scotia, South Shore and southwest Nova. That fishery is
under serious pressure. I suspect it is under serious pressure
in P.E.I, Newfoundland and parts of Quebec. We have to be very
careful how we treat that fishery if it is to survive.
In my closing remarks I would just like to say a bit about the
inability of the government to come forth with a proper buyout
program for active licences. The licences on the banks about
which there is some discussion about buying, the licences that
have not been used for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, are
not catching fish. We do not have to worry about those licences.
We should buy the active licences and put a restriction on
bringing an inactive licence back into the fishery.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I certainly
welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-302.
The bill that is before the House is very laudable in terms of
its intentions but is seriously flawed in terms of its approach.
I can even agree with the intent of the member opposite in terms
of what he is trying to do through a fisheries bill of rights. I
say laudable in its intention because the hon. member is as
obviously motivated by a concern for Canadian fishermen and
Canadian fishing communities as we are.
I am sorry to say that this afternoon when we were dealing with
a very important bill, the United Nations fishery agreement, his
colleagues walked out of the committee. Two very important
witnesses were before us. We were trying to deal with the issue
of straddling stocks and getting a United Nations fishery
agreement through in legislation so that Canada can be one of the
initial 30 to ratify the agreement.
I am disappointed and concerned about the opposition members
walking out. They should not be playing political games with an
issue that is so important to fishermen by walking out of the
committee when we had two very important witnesses before us.
Let me deal with the bill. It is seriously flawed in its
approach which would not help Canada's fishing communities deal
with the realities they face. In all seriousness it could well
undermine Canada's conservation efforts and damage the fisheries.
I know that is not the member's intent. I am sure he intended
otherwise, but that is the reality of what could happen with the
bill.
Several issues need to be addressed, in fact too many for me to
cover in 10 minutes. However, let us start with the wording of
the bill which suggests that these communities would be better
served or somehow protected from hardship if fishermen had
certain legislated rights:
—the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock
assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing
licensing and the public right to fish and establish the right of
fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a
livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other
rights are abrogated unfairly.
We cannot know exactly what is in his mind but perhaps the hon.
member thinks fishermen need protection from us or from
supposedly arbitrary decisions by distant officials in
governments that affect their lives profoundly but over which
they feel they have no control.
1730
We can all sympathize with anyone who feels this way, especially
when they face hardship as a result of certain decisions being
made by governments and fisheries managers.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has been holding
very extensive hearings across Canada since last September. I
believe in November we held hearings in Newfoundland and eastern
Canada. We have held hearings on the west coast. We have held
hearings in the eastern Arctic. We have held hearings in the
Great Lakes region.
I believe the committee will be coming down with very strong
recommendations related to all those points that the member is
talking about which concern the rights of fishermen. I think we
will find when the committee reports that there will be sound
recommendations with respect to finding ways to ensure that
fishermen are consulted, that their rights are protected, that
fisheries conservation remains a priority, that fishermen are
involved in the discussions and consultations on fishing quotas
and so on.
What fishermen need and want is the chance to make a good living
on the sea, not just for today and tomorrow but for the next
decade and the one after that. That is what this government is
trying to do with its various efforts.
Fishermen not only want that for themselves, they want it for
their children and their grandchildren. That is what they need.
Depending at the moment on where they live and what they fish,
they may face reduced quotas and closed seasons. We recognize
that. Or they may, on the other hand, depending on where they
live and what they fish, already be seeing the benefits of the
government's efforts over the last few years to restructure the
fishery.
The last member who spoke mentioned the lobster fishery.
Although we had to take some strong measures this year to ensure
that lobsters are there for the future, the lobster fishery is
indeed quite healthy. We have to ensure that the egg production
is there for the future, but it has been the mainstay in terms of
the fishery in Atlantic Canada.
In Atlantic Canada, even with the groundfish turndown, which we
have learned some lessons from, the economic returns as a result
of the expanding shell fishery and lobster fishery have been
increasing dramatically and providing good incomes for those
fishermen and those communities. We are already seeing some
benefits from some of the actions the government has taken.
Whether we like it or not, no legislation is really going to
change the reality. The reality is that we cannot exploit the
sea and its resources as generations before us have done. It is
a very complex industry which today's government has to manage
very carefully, with the best scientific evidence available, for
the benefit of everyone: for the fishermen, for the communities,
for the industries that utilize those fish stocks which are
caught, and for the industries that provide the equipment and the
technology to the fishing industry. These industries are not
only on the three coasts, they are in central Canada as well, in
terms of the economic spinoffs from the fishing industry.
In this day and age, with the kind of technology and equipment
that is available, in many cases decisions must be made quickly.
This bill, although I know it is not its intent, would in fact
institute a review process that would be extremely cumbersome and
time consuming. The implementation of necessary and quick
decisions could be delayed until all appeals had been exhausted.
The most important element concerning fisheries management in the
future, although it is not the intent of the bill, is that it
could be brought to a complete standstill.
1735
I know that is not the desire of the member opposite, nor is it
his intent, but that is the reality of where Bill C-302 could
lead us. It could drive fisheries management to a standstill.
I will tell the House of the five principles that guide the
government. First, the fishery must be environmentally
sustainable. Second, it must be economically viable. Third, it
must balance harvest capacity with the available resource.
Fourth, participants must have a greater role in the making of
decisions, and we are really working on that. Fifth, our fishing
industry must be internationally competitive.
This government is moving forward on those principles.
Conservation is a key priority. I am sure that in its hearings
process the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will
continue to push us on those principles and foster us with even
greater ideas down the road.
However, I am sorry to say this bill will not help us in
achieving the principles this government wants to move forward
on.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it was with no pleasure that I left the fisheries
committee this afternoon. The witnesses who appeared before the
committee this afternoon were there at my request. When the
government ganged up on the opposition to ensure that the
committee could not insist Premier Tobin appear before it on a
very important matter, we had to express our displeasure.
I am pleased to speak at second reading to Bill C-302. The bill
put forward by the member for Charlotte contains three main
elements. The three elements are: protecting the public right
to fish, involving Canadians who fish for a living in the
consultative and decision making process, and establishing that
compensation is due when fishing rights are abrogated by
decisions not involving the affected parties.
I strongly support the public right to fish, which has existed
in common law since the Magna Carta in 1215. It should be common
sense that if such a right has existed for so long there
should be no need to implement legislation to preserve this
right. Unfortunately, that is not the case. This government
would prefer to obliterate this right because it is totally
compromised by its inability to provide statutory authority to
its divisive aboriginal fisheries strategy pilot sales program.
In the last parliament the government introduced a new fisheries
act that would have given the minister the ability to grant a
private right to fish for commercial or sports purposes to any
group currently in political favour. It is fortunate that Bill
C-62 died in the last parliament.
Reality does not always reflect common sense. We like to think
rights do not need to be spelled out because everybody knows we
have them. We think the rights apply to all, but in fact they
only apply to this Liberal government because it is playing the
power game. We can see from our many statutes that the power
groups only sometimes agree to give rights to other groups. That
is why these groups fight for and obtain things like the public
right of access to fish.
This is what happened. The king assumed he had the right to do
whatever he wanted with the fishery. The public got together,
created the Magna Carta and told the king otherwise. That is why
the public right to fish is a written right. It is a hard won
right and it must be carefully guarded or this power group will
take it away when we are not looking.
1740
The fishery is a public resource and the responsibility of the
minister is for conservation, management and protection. The
minister does not have the right to decide who gets the fish.
However, in the management of the fishery there will have to be
decisions made about who gets licences and when the different
fisheries should be opened and closed. In making these
management decisions fishermen should be consulted and permitted
to contribute to the decision making process.
Because resources such as fish are limited, we the public have
to decide who can access them or who has the right to catch fish.
That is why we have limited entry licensing and designated core
fishermen. But we have delegated the responsibility for making
licensing and opening decisions to the government. After all, we
think that is what government is for. Unfortunately, the
government has a political and power based agenda that influences
its decision making. We saw this most clearly, as I stated, with
the racially divisive AFS introduced in 1992.
Do we want to delegate this kind of decision making to one
person alone, to one person who may be influenced by specific
interest groups who do not see the big picture? I do not think
so. Bill C-302 tries to prevent this situation from arising. I
agree with its broad intent.
The preamble presumes that Canadians who fish for a living are
the most knowledgeable about the fishery. Although those who
fish are certainly in this group, there are others such as
scientists, social policy makers, DFO officials and field workers
who have a great deal to contribute. In other words, good advice
can come from a diverse group but must include those involved who
fish for their livelihood.
In clause 4 of the bill fishers are given the right to be heard
in the process of government decisions respecting fish stock
assessment, fish conservation, quotas, licensing or the public
right to fish. This right should be established and is not
exclusive of other parties. The government would be under no
obligation to vigorously follow the advice of the fishermen, but
it would certainly move the agenda along from the current
situation. Current governments are notorious for pretending to
involve people in decision making and then doing what they want
anyway.
Clause 5 proposes items on compensation. What is needed in all
government activity is transparency. If people see what the
government is doing and there is no secret as to why things are
done the way they are, I believe that people will not feel their
rights are being trampled on. They will rarely feel the need to
continue to fight the results.
If the provisions are mandatory and if they are carried out,
then there should be no losses, as contemplated by clause 5.
There should be stern consequences for any government that tries
to abrogate the public right to fish. But as we know from
experience, monetary consequences such as compensating people for
the loss of their rights do not protect the right itself.
I have been a vocal supporter of the public right to fish, as
well as an opponent of ministerial discretion in making up rules
about who gets to fish and who does not.
I fully support the intent of Bill C-302. However, there are
some minor changes that I would like to see. It is important
that those making a living from the fishery do not have their
rights abrogated, leading to a loss, without consultation, if
they have not been involved in the whole process.
It is important in our ongoing battle to keep the government
from making further inroads into long established principles for
the benefit of the short-sighted government of the day.
1745
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my voice to that of the hon. member
for Charlotte, who sponsored this bill. It is refreshing to see
that some people are concerned about the fishers.
I would like to remind the House that the Secretary of State for
Fisheries and Oceans promised last fall, in response to a
question from the Conservatives, that a fisheries policy would
be tabled in February of this year. We have not seen it
yet.
I must also remind the House that the Auditor General of Canada,
Mr. Desautels, also recommended that Canada develop such a
policy.
In its absence, we are currently faced with administrative chaos
at the hands of the federal government.
I too have some reservations about this bill, but at least
someone has managed to manoeuvre through the system and to
introduce a highly worthwhile bill. This is very interesting.
Introducing legislation that will give fishers a hand in
assessing stocks is very intelligent. Allowing fishers to take
part in preserving fish stocks is very intelligent. I do,
however, have misgivings about the setting of quotas and about
licensing.
As for the administration of public fishing rights, I too would
like to see fishers protected.
We have to agree in committee on whether it is to protect
currently active fishers from any discretionary power the
minister of fisheries presently enjoys under the law, which he
tried to consolidate in the former Bill C-62.
Those fishers still active are satisfied, but they are always
afraid the minister will upset the balance they have achieved.
I think it vital that their rights be protected, but, if the
public is going to be allowed to fish, the circumstances under
which others may enter must be defined.
What I find interesting in the second part of the bill is the
discussion of establishing the right of fishers to be informed
in advance of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood. I
imagine the member is referring to native fishing.
Personally, I think it makes good sense to be informed.
However, I will link this with the second right the bill
attempts to establish, namely the right to compensation if other
rights are abrogated unfairly. Let us look at native fishing. I
believe in the rule of law, in that, if native people are
entitled by treaty to certain things, I am not going to take
them away. Except that it is not the fault of the non native
fishers and it is not up to them today to pay for everything.
If Canada ever recognizes the rights by treaty, we must be able
to compensate the non native fishers currently there. It has to
be done systematically.
On the subject of the unfair abrogation of rights, reference
must be made to moratoriums.
When the minister of fisheries establishes a moratorium,
prohibits certain types of fishing, fishers who have always
earned their living from this sort of fishing lose their rights
and have their lives changed. I think that warrants
compensation.
I refer to the famous income support program, the Atlantic
groundfish strategy, known as TAGS. We are two months away from
its expiry, and fishers are still waiting to find out what will
happen.
1750
The members opposite continue to give mixed signals, telling us
that maybe the program will be extended and maybe it will not.
If such rights had been established, it would be automatic. If
the bill goes to committee, we could suggest a few things for
members to add.
We in committee saw the nasty tricks the government can play,
how it tries to weasel out of its responsibility. If this needs
to be formalized, we have a suggestion for members.
The points I would like to develop further concern the
establishment of quotas, that is, allowing fishers to take part
in the establishment of quotas, and the awarding of licences.
It is not that I am opposed in any way, but going back to the
spirit of TAGS and my reading of it, which I shared with the
fisheries minister, the fisheries minister admitted in the House
last fall that the reason TAGS had not worked, and was a passive
rather than an active program, was precisely because Ottawa had
not involved the provinces in the strategy's development.
It is therefore important for the provinces as well to be
allowed to help establish quotas and award licences.
Canada, a member of NAFO, claims to be a world leader when it
comes to oceans management.
Canada supplies NAFO with biological data and it is through
participation and the sharing of biological information that it
is possible to work out a conservation policy as well as decide
on what should be caught and what should be left in the water to
ensure the sustainability of the resource.
I will talk only about eastern Canada and leave the western part
of the country up to the members who represent it. In the Gulf
of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic Ocean in zones 2GH and 3KL—for
fishers in the know—why could Canada not operate along NAFO lines
and work in concert with the provinces, sharing biological
information in order to ensure that there is a conservation
plan? The provinces, once they have established the quotas,
could then issue licences, that is distribute the resources
within their territory.
We must always bear in mind this rule of thumb: every fisher at
sea creates employment for approximately five people on shore.
The biggest problem, in terms of what we are looking at today,
is in the provinces' backyards right now. I think some
connections should be made between the two.
The secretary of state listed earlier the five principles that
guide the department. He mentioned environmentally sustainable
fisheries, economically viable fisheries and talked about Bill
C-27, criticizing the opposition for withdrawing its support.
What he failed to mention however—and I am glad the hon. member
of the Reform Party picked this up—is that the opposition
members on the committee wanted to call in as a witness the
father of former Bill C-29, Brian Tobin. He is the one who
drafted the legislation to preserve straddling stocks in the
last Parliament.
This government is making sure this legislation does not have
any teeth. My concern is that we end up with nothing.
When, across the way, they brag, giving lip service to using to
preserve the resource, I think they are taking kid gloves, not
to say a 100-foot pole, to avoid taking their responsibilities in
this respect, as they did with TAGS.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party and every single
fisher person and plant worker that I have spoken to across this
country, we want to thank the hon. member from Charlotte, New
Brunswick for his private members' bill. It is absolutely
fantastic.
1755
It is rather shameful that a private member from the opposition
has to introduce a bill of this nature. Even to have to discuss
this bill is incredible. He basically wants the rights of
fishermen and plant workers to be at the table when discussions
or decisions are made on their behalf.
I wonder how much consultation the government did with
Bombardier before giving it the largest defence contracts of all
time. I bet it consulted big time on that. But when it comes to
fisheries matters, there is no consultation at all.
The parliamentary secretary indicated the five principles under
which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans operates. I would
like to give the Government of Canada and those people listening
today the five principles under which I think the DFO operates.
The fifth one is do not tell anything to anyone in a timely
manner. Number four, pit one region against another. Number
three, waste valuable tax dollars. Number two, put policies in
place without consultation with those closest to the industry.
The number one principle under which DFO operates is fatten up
the bureaucracy in Ottawa and keep the minister in the dark.
That is exactly what is happening.
It is unknown to many Canadians, but DFO has about 800 people
working for it in Ottawa and I do not see anybody fishing in the
Rideau Canal.
The territory of Nunavut has two million square kilometres.
Guess how many enforcement officers are up there. For two
million square kilometres, there are two. There are six parking
lot policemen for the West Block and Confederation building
parking lots. It is unbelievable where this government puts its
priorities.
I will give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans credit because it is due. He mentioned that
the all-party Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will
come up with some serious and strong recommendations and preamble
language to assist the government in what it should do for the
future of the fisheries. I definitely agree with him on that.
Let us face it. Today in the papers there is talk about a
crisis with the Atlantic salmon on the east coast. There is talk
about a crisis with the salmon on the west coast. That is quite
amazing because they are not supposed to join. The common thread
is we have a crisis on the west coast, a crisis on the east coast
and a crisis within our freshwater fishery in Manitoba and
Ontario. What is the common theme of all these three? The DFO.
Mr. Speaker, do you want to know why since the day I was elected
I have been calling for a public judicial inquiry into the
practices and policies of this department? This department is
completely out of control. It is absolutely out of control. It
has no vision. It has no future. A good example of that is the
so-called post-TAGS review.
In 1992 the government of the day put a moratorium on the cod
and came up with the adjustment programs, NCARP, AGAP and TAGS.
To this point $3.4 billion has been spent and there is more
capacity to catch the fish today than there was when it started
the moratorium. It is absolutely incredible.
I cannot understand why the government will not consult with
fishermen when it comes to the allocation of quota, when it comes
to the type of gear, when it comes to everything else.
Recently in southwest Newfoundland there was an announcement of
a quota of 20,000 tonnes of cod. I would certainly hope that the
government would work with the fishermen of that region on a
sustainable harvest of that catch.
As we know, Atlantic salmon is in deep trouble. If big nets,
big draggers or trawlers are used, it is well known what will
happen. A lot of bycatch is going to happen and history shows
that a lot of this bycatch will be thrown overboard.
Regarding the issue of TAGS, the fishermen and plant workers of
the east coast have been asking and begging for answers from this
government. The minister of human resources indicated to this
House that there would be a report in place on post-TAGS. What do
we get? We get federal officials gallivanting around Atlantic
Canada presenting their new vision of the post-TAGS program. It
is absolutely unbelievable that he would disregard all members of
this House when it comes to such a viable issue. Obviously DFO
does not listen to the fishermen and plant workers.
The 1983 Lockeport, Nova Scotia experiment with National Sea
pumped hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into this
company that just sucked the oceans dry.
1800
In central Canada there is the Freshwater Fish Marketing
Corporation. With absolutely no consultation with the fishers of
the north, it sort of picks and chooses who it wants to talk to
and its policies are set basically on that.
I do not understand why this government has such an incestuous
relationship with those people, for example, on the west coast in
the Sport Fishing Institute. We have a classic example of Ms.
Velma McCall. She used to work for the Sport Fishing Institute.
She lobbied very hard for the Sport Fishing Institute to get an
exclusion zone of commercial trollers around Langara Island.
What happens a year later? This woman is now the ministerial
assistant for the DFO on the west coast.
Tom Bird used to work for DFO. Guess who he works for now? The
Sport Fishing Institute. The personal relationship between the
hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Mr. Bob Wright of the
Oak Bay Marine Group is absolutely scandalous. They pick and
choose their policies, give them to their friends and under no
circumstances do they consult with commercial fishermen of any
kind or those people of the Coastal Community Network on both
coasts.
It goes on and on. These are the types of people who will assist
the government and DFO in new policies. They are Eric Tamma,
Coastal Community Network from Ucluelet, Ross Helberg, the mayor
of Port Hardy, Sam Ellsworth of Nova Scotia, Arthur Bull of the
Bay of Fundy region, and Mark Butler of the Ecology Action Centre
of Nova Scotia. These five people are just a small example of
the experience and the expertise this government needs to listen
to.
Again I have to say it is absolutely incredible that it takes a
private member's bill in order to push this forward. I really
encourage everyone on the Liberal side to take this bill
seriously because it really is important and it is mandatory to
involve the people who are closest to the resource to have their
say in such a viable industry.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I support the bill. I can prove that allowing fishermen the right
to be involved with consultations is a great thing. There is
really a unique situation on the north shore of Nova Scotia in my
riding where the fishermen for years lobbied the department of
fisheries to increase the standards on lobster size and the
department of fisheries refused for years to do it.
The fishermen banded together. They made an agreement among
themselves to catch and keep lobsters only above and beyond the
size the federal government allowed as a minimum. They actually
threw back lobsters that were legal in the interests of
conservation. This is a really good example of fishermen being
involved with their own industry and in consultation.
It is hard to believe the government will not allow fishermen to
be involved with these decisions when they have proven they will
do a good job.
This bill is about allowing fishermen to have a say, but today
in the fisheries committee we were not even allowed to have a
say. The opposition members moved to have Brian Tobin, the
premier of the province of Newfoundland, testify because he is an
expert in this field. He is a former minister of fisheries and
he is very well respected. He became Captain Canada and yet the
members of the government on the committee voted to refuse to
have him. That is like refusing to hear Albert Einstein when
talking about the theory of relativity.
He is the expert and it is awful to muzzle this fountain of
information and source of wisdom and refuse to allow him to
testify at committee.
Bill C-302 is appropriate for fishermen to give them a fishers
bill of rights, but we should have a bill of rights too to be
allowed to hear the people we have to hear from.
This is a really good example of the department of fisheries
trying to muzzle all the information, all the input, all
consultation from not only fishermen but from premiers and former
fisheries ministers.
1805
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order
paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
VARENNES TOKAMAK
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this evening
I would like to follow up on a question which I put to the
Minister of the Environment on May 15, when I asked her whether
she recognized the usefulness of research and development of
renewable energy of the type that is being conducted at Tokamak
in Varennes, in the context of climate change.
Given that the Minister of the Environment confirmed the
usefulness of such activities, the federal government can no
longer claim that it cannot continue to fund the Tokamak project
in Varennes.
Yesterday, in another adjournment debate on this most promising
research project, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
Human Resources Development told me that the decision to
withdraw federal support for the Tokamak project in Varennes was
made because of financial constraints.
Before being given a similar reply this evening, let me tell you
that this is not the case at all. Not only is the money now
available since the federal government is accumulating
surpluses, but it is also an irresponsible decision from a
budgetary standpoint. Why invest in the development of top
technical and scientific expertise if scientists must then leave
the country to put their expertise to good use?
With the closure of Tokamak in Varennes, the specialists we have
trained at taxpayers' expense will be taking their knowledge of
nuclear fusion to Japan, the U.S. or the European Community. And
what about Tokamak's state-of-the-art equipment and infrastructure?
Close to $150 million in public funds have been invested in the
past 20 years or so, and are now a total loss, because of this
government's lack of vision.
Within a few years, Canada will probably be forced to spend an
absolute fortune to purchase a technology it has helped develop
for mere millions. In the end, all this will cost far more than
its annual investment of $7.2 million in Tokamak.
Such an edifying demonstration of good management of public
funds! Such visionary spirit! I must add that the very exacting
quality standards at Tokamak, both scientific and technological,
have allowed its partners to develop leading edge technological
expertise. For instance, one company, MPB Technologies, was
able to land a $64 million contract thanks to technology
developed in collaboration with the Canadian Centre for Magnetic
Fusion.
It is believed that the economic spin-offs from the Tokamak in
Varennes bring far more to the federal government in tax revenue
than its annual $7.2 million investment in it.
In order to prevent the upcoming dismantling of the Varennes
Tokamak's technological heritage, and since the Minister of
Natural Resources has shown himself to be open to this
possibility, I would like to know how this government intends to
make use of the facilities and knowledge of the Tokamak team in
the context of related studies as part of its strategy on
climate change. Could the government not, for example, continue
to develop the Varennes Tokamak's expertise, which is
world-renowned, in the microwave sector?
Yesterday, the national forum on climate change was critical of
how little the federal government was doing to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. This is all the more worrisome because,
according to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development, greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000 will have
increased by approximately 11% over the 1990 reference level.
Such a statistic makes it even more important that clean and
safe forms of energy, such as the magnetic fusion the Varennes
Tokamak is working on, be used in the future. The energy
alternative proposed by Tokamak represents a much less serious
risk to the environment than the Candu reactor technology, which
still has the unshakeable support of the federal government.
This is a long-term undertaking, to which the Varennes Tokamak
can make a positive contribution, provided the government lets
it.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for raising once again this issue which has a direct
influence and effect on his jurisdiction.
1810
This government clearly does understand that the reduction in
greenhouse gases does not stop with our commitment at Kyoto. The
issue raised here is put in the context of climate change and
global warming and innovative solutions around those very
significant problems.
The issue of climate change will be with us for a long time to
come. However we are acting now to find a solution. Even as we
reduce emissions, atmospheric concentrations will continue to
rise for many decades before stabilization. This means that we
will experience a continued increase in the human influence on
global climate.
What is of major concern is the possible future rates of climate
change. If we are to keep that rate of change within reasonable
limits, we must begin to reduce emissions by applying new
technologies within the next few years. We cannot wait decades
before taking action.
The hon. member has raised a particular point on a particular
issue. This government is always interested in innovative
solutions and applying the knowledge and expertise of
individuals, of academics, of other governments and as well of
people throughout Canada in offering solutions to the climate.
We cannot afford at this time to pursue all options. We have to
make choices and this sometimes has to be at the expense of very
high risk and very long term expensive options.
We had to make difficult choices in this process. We simply do
not have the resources to do everything we want to do but we will
continue to work with hon. members and with the Canadian public
at large to find the best, least cost, most effective options
which will provide solutions in the Canadian context to climate
change.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians living in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington and indeed
Canadians all across Canada are very concerned about our
environment. They want to know that all levels of government and
all partners are doing their utmost to secure a safe and clean
environment for the generations to follow.
Canadians want and demand action on issues concerning the
environment. As a government we need to provide vision and
leadership in tackling the environmental challenges it faces. We
need to provide that vision and leadership in the context of
sustainable development strategies which are beneficial for the
country.
A key environmental challenge facing Canadians is climate
change. Climate change could bring about such possible long term
effects as drier summers in the prairies, increases in forest
fires and insect infestations, coastal flooding and more frequent
extreme weather events. All of this could be very devastating for
Canada and all Canadians.
It is clear we need to act now. I am heartened to know that the
government has accepted that the risk of climate change is real
and that the consequences are potentially very devastating. I am
heartened to know that Canada is considered to be a leader in
international negotiations on climate change.
The federal government has the responsibility to lead the nation
in responding to climate change. It needs to ensure that
partnerships are well defined. It needs to have targets to
measure progress and it needs to have contingency plans for
corrective actions if required.
[Translation]
The federal government should continue to defend the interests
of all Canadians. It should lead us into the new millennium
with vision and judgement.
[English]
In light of all of this, my question for the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources is simple. What
steps are being taken by the government to ensure that Canada
meets commitments made in Kyoto last December? What are we doing
to secure our environment for future generations?
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
respond to my colleague whose interest in the environment is
legendary.
Since Kyoto, we as a government have stopped questioning whether
we should be making this kind of commitment. We and the
international community have been directing our energies to how
to meet our collective obligation to reduce emissions below 1990
levels by 2008 to 2012, because meet it we shall. Meeting that
obligation will be a difficult challenge involving changing the
way we produce and use energy and transport people and goods.
Last month the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of
environment and energy met in Toronto. They agreed on a process
for the development of a national implementation strategy on
climate change to honour our Kyoto commitments.
1815
It will be based on consultations and input from other
governments as well as from the private and public sectors. All
sectors of society will be called upon to share their views and
best practices so we can learn from each other what works and
what does not.
Ministers have agreed to move forward in the development of
credit for early action and strengthening voluntary action.
I cannot stress enough the government's conviction and
commitment to engage with as many players as possible in
developing and implementing actions to reduce greenhouse gases.
In fact it is the only way to proceed.
By harnessing the impressive creative and innovative talents we
have in Canada, I am sure that we can not only meet our emission
reduction targets but also have economic growth and improve the
quality of our lives. If we can offer Canadians concrete ways in
which to reduce emissions or be more energy efficient, they will
do so.
Our recent budget will help us do this. The budget will provide
$150 million over the next three years to help achieve the
following: first, to develop Canada's national implementation
strategy to meet the reduction targets of the Kyoto protocol;
second, to improve public education on climate change and to
engage Canadians in ways to reduce emissions; third—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the hon. member's time
has expired. The hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic.
[Translation]
BC MINE IN BLACK LAKE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, seven
months after the closure of the BC mine, we realize that the
Minister of Human Resources Development's active measures are
not working.
As of May 28, only 25 former employees of the BC mine had
benefited from the minister's active measures. Sixteen use the
supportable wage subsidy, nine are in training, either job
related or general. Of the 305 miners laid off on November 1
last year, only 25 are using a small part of the $3 million
announced by the minister for active measures.
What will the minister do with the money not used? This is the
sort of questions the 100 former employees of BC came to ask the
minister on Tuesday. They travelled 10 hours by bus from
Thetford to Ottawa and ended up with a short meeting with the
godfather of the riding of Frontenac—Mégantic, the member for
Beauce, who simply asked for a photocopy of the file.
The minister should read the recent column by Michel Vastel on
the subject. The minister is totally out of touch with reality.
He should step out of his limousine. He has never been
unemployed. He has never worked for minimum wage. He has never
worked nights. He knows nothing of the middle class, the poor
of this country who have nothing to give their children before
they go off to school.
I remind the minister that his predecessor, Doug Young, made a
commitment to replace the POWA with something allegedly better
when he axed it on April 1, 1997. The Minister of Human
Resources Development has done absolutely nothing. What will he
do?
I put the question again: What is he going to do with the $2
million, the $2.5 million left unused in his program? He has no
respect for the working class. He has no courage. He refused
to meet André Laliberté and Charles Lacroix. What can he offer
Clermont Bégin, 63 years of age, whom he wanted to cut off
employment insurance claiming that he was not looking hard
enough for work in a region where unemployment runs at over 11%?
What can he offer the 58 year old miner, who has a number of
skills, but none recognized by other employers?
What about the miner, aged 48, with 28 years of experience and a
sixth grade education?
1820
The minister is so timid he did not even appear this evening to
answer the men from BC. He sent his parliamentary secretary.
What can he say to Noël Loubier, 50 years of age, with 31 years'
seniority at the BC mine? And to Richard Rousseau, aged 49, a
labourer employed at the BC mine for 25 years?
I could provide him with a whole series of sad and unfortunate
cases, but this minister is still not in touch with reality.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources I am pleased to
respond to this question. It is one of several that have been
raised by the hon. member opposite on this issue which is of
direct effect and consequence to his riding.
The hon. member has so often raised this question and we have
responded in kind appropriately. We have said specifically to
the hon. member that this government honours the efforts of
workers. We are very much in tune with the needs of workers.
That is why the Minister of Human Resources Development has
pledged a $3 million fund to provide assistance and transitional
assistance for this particular industry and sector.
As has been done on several other occasions I am pleased to
report to the House that the workers are taking advantage of this
opportunity. In addition to the 40 or 50 workers who have sought
employment opportunities elsewhere, several are taking on active
employment measures. They are taking their futures into their
own hands. We are seeing a return to work for that group of
workers, not to the extent we would like but it is continuing. We
expect to see future mining activity in the area which this group
of workers will take advantage of.
We emphasize that while the hon. member opposite postures by
suggesting the minister is the most appropriate one at this forum
to answer this question, he once again deludes the people who are
watching this broadcast. As the hon. member knows it is the duty
of the parliamentary secretary. He has asked questions directly
to the minister. The minister has responded directly. We are
following parliamentary procedure. The minister cares very deeply
about these workers.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.22 p.m.)