36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 149
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 4, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RADIO STATION CJVR
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MICHAEL HEINTZMAN
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HONDURAN FIREFIGHTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REMEMBRANCE DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANKING PRIVILEGES
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1405
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIFTEENTH ANNIVERSARY OF LA SOUPIÈRE IN ANJOU
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HURRICANE MITCH VICTIMS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1410
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FARMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLLS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXHIBITION OF MILITARY ART
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JC AT THE BAT
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1415
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1420
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1425
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1435
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1440
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1445
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREST INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1450
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1455
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AID
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1500
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Member for Mississauga Centre
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1510
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HORSE OF CANADA ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-454. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Trade
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1515
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Cruelty to Animals
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gasoline
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Post
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Leyla Zana
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTION FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-51. Report Stage
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1520
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1525
1530
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1535
1540
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1555
1600
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1615
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1630
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1645
1650
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1705
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1710
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1725
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSIT PASSES
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1730
1735
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1820
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSIT PASSES
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 149
![](/web/20061116184247im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 4, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
October was breast cancer awareness month, I wanted to join with
a number of other colleagues in promoting the need for women to
have regular breast examinations early to ensure early detection
and treatment of this disease.
Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer threatening
Canadian women today. This year alone 19,300 new cases of the
disease will be diagnosed in Canada and 5,300 more Canadian women
will die of it.
It is fitting then that the Minister of Health has recently
announced the renewal of the Canadian breast cancer initiative
which will now enjoy stable, ongoing funding of $7 million per
year.
Breast cancer awareness month is an initiative of the Canadian
Cancer Society to inform Canadians, men and women alike, of the
severity and the magnitude of this disease.
As breast cancer awareness month has drawn to a close, I know
that all hon. colleagues will want to join me in congratulating
the Canadian Cancer Society for its unrelenting efforts to
educate all Canadians about the tragedy of breast cancer and how
we can reduce the risks this disease poses to all women.
* * *
RADIO STATION CJVR
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is an old joke that asks “What do you get when you play
country and western music backward?” The answer is that you get
your girl back, you get your dog back, you get your truck back,
and, if it were not for this Liberal government, you would even
get your guns back.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what you get if you play it forward, if
you add interesting and insightful commentary, timely and
informative news programs and combine it all with community
service? The answer to that question is that you get radio
station CJVR in Melfort, Saskatchewan which was just named
country music station of the year.
Mr. Speaker, when you are in my riding of Prince Albert you will
be royally entertained, amused and informed by tuning into 750
CJVR.
I know that members of this House will want to join me in
extending personal congratulations to manager Gary Fitz and staff
on winning this award not just once, not just twice, but for an
unprecedented third time in a row.
* * *
MICHAEL HEINTZMAN
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Michael Heintzman, a reporter with the North Shore
Sentinel in Thessalon in my riding, has earned first prize
two years in a row in the best historical story competition from
the Canadian Community Newspapers Association.
The 1997 award was in recognition of his articles on Remembrance
Day which appeared in a special section of the Sentinel
that year. This beautifully produced section highlighted the
tremendous contribution of local citizens, towns and villages of
our region during the great wars.
Later today Mr. Heintzman will travel to Europe with our
colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and a group of
Canadian World War I veterans to participate in the commemorative
ceremonies taking place to mark the 80th anniversary of the end
of World War I.
Mr. Heintzman will have an excellent opportunity to experience
this momentous event with a group of highly respected and
decorated Canadian veterans. I look forward to reading his
observations when he returns.
I am very proud of his work and that of the North Shore
Sentinel in my riding.
* * *
HONDURAN FIREFIGHTERS
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to commend
three Honduran firefighters who have been residing in my riding
of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe for the past three months.
They have been undergoing firefighting training so that they can
return to Honduras to establish the first national firefighters
school in their country. They were due to leave Friday when they
heard of the disaster which killed thousands of people in their
country, many of them friends and relatives, and left countless
others homeless.
The building that was supposed to house the firefighting school
is in pieces and many people are in desperate need of assistance.
Along with two constituents, Paul Jennings and Paul McFadden,
they are returning to Honduras tomorrow to help their country.
As well, all of the fire stations in the greater Moncton area
have set up collection points to gather supplies.
[Translation]
I am extremely proud of the people of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe for
all they have done to assist the three Honduran firefighters and
the victims of Hurricane Mitch.
* * *
[English]
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Remembrance Day is a time for reflection.
My father served in the second world war with the Argyle and
Sutherland Highlanders and he imparted a great appreciation for
what people have done in wartime and the sacrifices that they
made for their country and their loved ones.
A couple of months before he died in 1992 I asked him to tell me
some of his wartime stories which I recorded. Some of his
recollections were tragic, some heroic and some even humourous.
One such story dealt with the D-Day landings in 1944. Months
before the D-Day landings thousands of allied troops had been
gathering in the fields of southern England to the point that
soldiers use to say “It's a wonder that the island hasn't tipped
leaving Scotland high and dry”.
Remembrance Day is a day that does not glorify war. It is a day
that reminds us that there were many Canadians who believed in a
better future. They were prepared to fight and even die in order
that generations to come would have a better future.
Now it is up to us to continue the work for a better tomorrow.
If we do, we will have remembered.
* * *
FRANKING PRIVILEGES
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the member for Oxford falsely accused one of my
colleagues of misusing franking privileges.
Perhaps the member for Oxford should chat with his caucus
colleagues before he feels the need to lecture the official
opposition.
I have obtained copies of letters which apparently came from the
office of the member for Mississauga Centre.
1405
These letters solicited support for an Ontario provincial
Liberal candidate named George Winter.
The member for Mississauga Centre even went so far as to include
provincial Liberal membership booklets in the mail-out.
Both letters were written on House of Commons letterhead and
used franking privileges.
We are all aware that members cannot use House resources for
their own campaigns. Therefore, is it appropriate for members to
use House resources for provincial campaigns? I would think not.
The Liberals have got it wrong again.
* * *
[Translation]
FIFTEENTH ANNIVERSARY OF LA SOUPIÈRE IN ANJOU
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I would like to congratulate La Soupière, a
community service program in Anjou, at the heart of my riding of
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, for its 15 years of service.
Weekly, for the past 15 years, the volunteers at La Soupière
have been providing a nutritious meal to the isolated and
disadvantaged residents of Anjou. In 1997-98, 40 volunteers
served close to 3,400 meals. This represents 2,300 volunteer
hours. Imagine how many meals and volunteer hours that adds up
to over its 15 years.
I would also like to draw attention to the excellent co-operation
between La Soupière, the city of Anjou, local merchants, Moisson
Montréal, the various funding bodies, and the local community
organizations.
Bravo to all those responsible for this wonderful effort. It
helps those of us who are elected to office keep in mind that,
above and beyond economic growth and competition, we must be
sure that the resulting wealth is better shared.
* * *
HURRICANE MITCH VICTIMS
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Mitch
has hit Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala,
countries that were already struggling for some degree of
economic prosperity. While the death toll is still being added
up, thought must be given to the danger of epidemic and to
preparations for putting the country back on its feet.
Jean-Paul Péloquin, a priest from Laval who has been working in
the capital of Honduras for the past 31 years, wrote to his
relatives that “the entire country, every square inch of it, has
been at least 70% destroyed”. Yesterday, the governments of
Quebec and Canada announced plans to provide emergency
humanitarian aid to the countries hit by this disaster.
The people of Quebec are very familiar with the value of human
solidarity, having reaped its benefits after the Saguenay
flooding and the ice storm.
I am therefore encouraging them to support the victim assistance
programs of such organizations as the Red Cross, CUSO,
Development and Peace, Oxfam Quebec and the Endeavours of
Cardinal Léger.
* * *
[English]
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to raise awareness of an issue important to the people of
Saint John, New Brunswick and to Canadians all across this
country.
The issue revolves around section 17 of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act.
This past summer Willis Walter Wright, a man who was sentenced
to two life terms in prison, was released on an ETA, an escorted
temporary absence.
This move was of great concern to Violet Cooke and her family.
Willis Wright was convicted of murdering Violet Cooke's sister
Janice and a friend after Janice asked him for a divorce.
On Monday, November 9 this convicted murderer will be granted a
second ETA. This is the second in a matter of five months and it
comes after he has served only seven and a half years of his
sentence.
After question period I intend to present the solicitor general
with a petition of over 10,000 names opposed to the ETA program.
Janice Cooke was the mother of two and now her family once again
is living in fear because of the ETA program.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebeckers are facing a bleak reality. The separatist government
clearly indicated that a vote for the PQ is a vote for another
referendum.
This was also confirmed by the Bloc Quebecois leader at the
beginning of the election campaign. However, Quebeckers can
change this reality on November 30. They can vote for real
change, for a stronger Quebec, a Quebec that knows where it is
headed, a Quebec that wants to be part of Canada.
On November 30, Quebeckers can change this reality by voting for
the Liberal Party, by voting for economic growth, for a better
quality of life and for the assurance that there will not be
another referendum on Quebec's separation.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Remembrance Day we think of our veterans from past wars. That is
important. But how many Canadians remember our men and women who
are currently serving and thank them for their courage and
service?
Here today we have five soldiers who served in the former
Yugoslavia. All were injured in separate actions.
1410
How many of us are even aware that Tom Martineau was shot by a
sniper while serving in Bosnia, that Matt Stopford was a platoon
commander during the 1993 battle of Medak pocket, a four-day
firefight in which Canadians held off a Croatian attack, that
Sargeant Tom Hoppy has earned the honour of being the most
decorated Canadian soldier since the Korean War, that Reservist
Peter Vallee saw frontline action on three tours of duty for his
country in the former Yugoslavia, or that Reservist Jordie Yeo
was badly wounded in an ambush while his unit defended
Srebrenica?
Canadians should know those things and this government should
make sure they do. Sitting today in the opposition gallery we
have these soldiers. They and their comrades deserve our thanks
and our respect.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on November 30,
Quebeckers will be asked to form a broad coalition and vote
against holding a future referendum in Quebec.
The Liberal Party is their insurance policy against yet another
referendum on Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada.
The Liberals' priority is clear: to harness everyone's energy to
create jobs and invest in such critical areas as health,
education and regional development.
On November 30, Quebeckers will have a golden opportunity to say
no to Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada. They will
finally have an opportunity to say yes to economic growth and to
the implementation of projects designed to improve their quality
of life.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, farmers and their families are in crisis. Why? For
many reasons beyond their control. The Liberal government
chopped the Crow transportation benefit while European and
American governments backed their farmers by retaining and
increasing agricultural supports.
American farmers receive $2.68 per bushel in wheat support, more
than it sells for right now. European farmers receive $5.58 per
bushel. Canadian farmers receive less than 40 cents per bushel.
Input costs have increased. Fertilizer costs are up 57%. Farm
chemicals are up 63%. Pork prices have dropped 60% over the last
five months alone. Net farm income has dropped 80% over the last
two years.
Today the ministers of agriculture are meeting to discuss this
crisis.
When the east coast fishery collapsed, emergency aid was
provided. When the ice storm happened, emergency aid was
provided. When the Manitoba flood occurred, emergency aid was
provided.
Farming is in crisis. Now is the time to provide our farm
families with emergency aid.
* * *
[Translation]
POLLS
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
inspired by a poll of the sexual habits of sovereignists and
federalists, I offer the following fable entitled “The Fable of
the Voyeur and the Envied”:
All summer long the federalists
Kept up their endless drivel,
But now that an election looms,
We're seeing quite a swivel.
They hang their heads in sad regret,
Their ship begins to sink,
Of arguments they have not one
To change the way we think.
What shall we do, they moan and groan,
Please tell us how to play.
But do not use a bat, good sirs
For that is not our way,
We must know how you get your kicks,
What do you do for fun?
A poll will have the answer, right?
We'll find out in the Sun.
The sovereignists want out, it's clear
Their secrets we must know.
What turns their cranks, what makes their day
What keeps them grinning so?
The answer is that virtue pays
And thirty years of work
Should have some pay-off after all
So take a hike, you jerk.
* * *
EXHIBITION OF MILITARY ART
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in order to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of World
War I, the Canadian War Museum, in co-operation with the Senate
and the House of Commons, is presenting an exhibition of
Canadian military art in the Hall of Honour in the Centre Block.
The 19 works by Canadian and foreign artists feature various
themes from the two world wars, and depict such things as the
actual fighting or the war effort in Canada.
It is entirely appropriate that these treasures from the
Canadian War Museum grace the walls in the Hall of Honour, which
is itself a tribute to the courageous men and women who gave
their lives for peace and freedom.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage invites all members to visit
the exhibit, which was officially opened today in the Hall of
Honour.
* * *
[English]
JC AT THE BAT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
It looked extremely rocky for the Liberals that day
Their game plan had been tossed out in a prime ministerial way
Though once they had been way ahead, their spirits now seemed
flat
Perhaps it would be turned around, with JC at the bat
The crowd was getting restless, discontent was in the air
There hadn't been a bunt, or hit or action anywhere
So on that stricken multitude a death-like silence sat
For JC mighty JC was advancing to the bat
Canadians were shivering as he taxed away their shirts
And crouched dumbfounded as he rubbed their noses in the dirt
Then when a poor Canadian lobbed one from the hip
Defiance glanced in JC's eye, a sneer on JC's lip
“Resign, please resign”, we heard someone from the back
And JC would have throttled him, but the Whip stopped the
attack
He couldn't really care less where Canadians were at
Though all the things that worried them were there for JC's
bat
Oh somewhere in this favoured world the sun is shining bright
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout
But there is no joy in Canada, mighty JC has struck out.
1415
The Speaker: I hope that Jean Charest is listening.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, CTV is reporting an allegation made by a former Canadian
now living in Israel. Leslie Lewis claims he was approached last
year to give his Canadian passport to an Israeli agent. Lewis
also claims his daughter was approached for the same reason.
The Israeli government has denied the allegation and says it no
longer uses Canadian passports in its fight against terrorism.
Would the foreign affairs minister tell us what he knows about
this allegation?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I make the point that we consider the integrity of
the Canadian passport to be a primary responsibility, and we have
taken a number of efforts to ensure that.
On the particular incident, the matter was reported to our
embassy. It was thoroughly investigated by passport people,
consular people, CSIS people. They could find no corroboration
for the allegations that were made.
The fact is that we continue to monitor the situation, but there
is no evidence that would require us or give us the basis for
raising the matter with Israelis at this point.
If there is new evidence that can be produced, we would be very
happy to receive it and to further investigate it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians have strong feelings on this issue. On the
one hand, we believe in the security of the state of Israel and
its fight against terrorism. On the other hand, as the minister
said, we are concerned about allegations that our passports are
being used illegally. Our passports are well respected around
the world.
It is being reported that the minister was informed of this
allegation some time ago. When did he first learn about this
allegation and what did he do about it at the time?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I just explained that when the first representation
was made the matter was investigated. Last February, March and
April it was investigated by several agencies. Certain parts of
the gentleman's story did not corroborate in any way, shape or
form. They could not provide any supporting evidence.
At that point in time we continued to monitor the situation, but
it did not warrant any direct representation to the Israeli
government without the kind of basic support and evidence that
would be required to support the kind of charges he made.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in September 1997 Canadian passports were illegally used
by Israeli agents in an anti-terrorist operation. At that time
the minister gave the House solemn assurances that this would
never happen again.
Now we have allegations that it did happen again, allegations
that the minister apparently knew about but kept to himself. Are
there any other allegations of this nature which the minister is
aware of and yet has not disclosed to the House?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the operative word is allegations. Allegations are
things we check out. That is exactly what we did. We checked
them out. There were no grounds to them.
Therefore we have continued to monitor them. The only other
allegation that was made was by Mr. Lewis about another
individual who had been approached, and he totally denied it.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, simply
following up on those allegations, I checked that out today.
Basically the foreign affairs people, your own people, are saying
exactly what you say, that they have looked at this—
1420
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to address the
Chair.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, CTV also stands behind its
story. What Canadians want to know is whom should they believe.
Should they believe—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me first clarify that I sent officials over to
the hon. member to brief him. He did not check it out. We made
sure that he was fully informed of what went on. That is exactly
how we deal with it because we want to make sure people have full
available information.
The point of the matter is CTV said allegations were made. Yes,
they were. We checked out those allegations to the best
information we could ascertain. By the way, one of the handicaps
of ascertaining it is that the individual in question would not
allow us to use his name when we went around to check out the
sources and the basis for that. He is now clearly going public.
The fact of the matter is that if there is any new evidence, if
there is any new—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I asked for
a briefing at 6 o'clock last night and again at 10 o'clock. A
briefing was set up at 9 o'clock this morning which was
cancelled. Finally I got a briefing at 1.15 this afternoon.
Canadians need to feel confident in their passports. We also
are against terrorism but not with the Canadian passport. Let us
get it straight. The minister is saying that the allegations
made by W5 last night are untrue. Yes or no.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what I have said four times in a row is that the
allegations were made. We checked them out to the best of our
ability. There were a variety of agencies talking to a number of
other agencies involved in the business. We could not find any
corroborating evidence to support the allegations that were made.
In fact as much as we could ascertain was that the event he was
talking about happened last fall before the assurances were
given. That is as much as we have been able to know.
If the hon. member has more information we will look into it,
but I want to make the point that we have in place a system where
every five years we review the passport system. We are presently
bringing in a new system. I believe it is the most secure
passport in the world.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government has long been looking for a way to raid the
employment insurance fund surplus, which it believes it has now
found. The solution is all very simple: do away with the
separate employment insurance fund and bury it in the
government's general accounts. Out of sight, out of mind.
With this sort of sleight of hand, how can the Prime Minister
look the unemployed in the eye, when he has both hands in their
pockets digging out the employment insurance surplus?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member were to look at the facts, he would see that, in
1986, employment insurance was included in the consolidated fund
of the government of the day. This is not new, this is how it
has always been done.
Sometimes accounting revealed that the employment insurance fund
was in a deficit position, and the government absorbed the
deficit. Now, because the economy is in better shape,
accounting procedures reveal a surplus because there is less
unemployment. The figures are as they have been for the past 12
years in the government's consolidated fund, as required by the
auditor general—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the Right Hon. Prime
Minister. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, any
surplus is due to the fact that only 42% of those who pay
premiums are eligible for benefits when they are unemployed.
That is the reality.
This is why the Prime Minister is at a crossroads. Either he
returns the employment insurance to workers, the unemployed and
businesses or he tries to hide the reality to avoid the risk of
illegality or immorality. What will he do?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our friend from the Bloc
Quebecois wants to continue befuddling everyone and causing
Canadians anxiety over the employment insurance system.
1425
Seventy-eight per cent of Canadian workers who lose their job or
who leave it for a valid reason are covered by the employment
insurance system. That is the reality, and not what the Bloc is
peddling on the other side in order to cause Canadians concern.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the risk of
offending our friend across the way, the figure appears on page
47 of his report. If he checked the reports, he would find the
same figure.
The government would rather use the EI surplus from employer and
employee overcontributions to reduce income taxes for everybody.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that this choice does not
make sense when he as Prime Minister could benefit from a tax
reduction at the expense of the unemployed even though he pays
no EI premiums?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am subject to the same payroll deductions as the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois. I think that I pay EI premiums just as he does.
I think that all members—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: At any rate, if we are not
contributing, if I am not covered, it does not bother me
personally. Still, I am not treated any differently from the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Why is the hon. member engaging in demagoguery when he is in the
same boat? He is trying to blame the Prime Minister for a
situation that also applies to himself and to all members of
this House.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Let us be clear, Mr.
Speaker. I do not begrudge the Prime Minister his salary, far
from it. I am simply saying that, in our society, there are many
people who, like us parliamentarians, do not pay EI premiums.
Why should he or I benefit from a tax reduction at the expense
of the less fortunate? That is unacceptable.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the great opportunity the hon. member is giving me.
Over the past five years, we in this House have steadily reduced
contributions to the unemployment insurance fund, which is now
known as the employment insurance fund. Instead of rising to
$3.30 on January 1, 1994, as planned, the contribution rate
dropped to $2.70 last year. There have been four consecutive
reductions in employee premiums.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
The best way to protect Canada is to reinvest now in the health
sector. Canadians across the country are saying it. All the
premiers are saying it. But the federal government does not
listen.
If the Prime Minister cares about the health of Canadians, if he
cares about Canada, what is he waiting for to reinvest $2.5
billion in health?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is precisely why, in the last budget, we raised the level
of cash contributions to provincial governments from $11 billion
to $12.5 billion.
We also said that we intend to invest in health in the next
budget, in February.
We do care about Canadians' health, but we are not like the
leader of the New Democratic Party who cares about Lucien
Bouchard's health.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are starving for cash contributions from the government
and as a result our health care system is in a deep crisis.
The single most important thing that the government could do for
the health of Canadians and for the health of the federation is
to reinvest $2.5 billion now in our health care system. What is
the government waiting for?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we said that last year the budget was an investment in
education and training for the young people of Canada and
innovation, and we said the next investment the government will
make will be in health care. I said that long before the member
got up. I said that in September in a speech in Saint John, New
Brunswick. She is a bit late.
We made that commitment months ago and we will have a budget in
February, as we have every year.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, a C.D.
Howe Institute report states that high payroll taxes hurt
Canadian workers and the economy. The report also suggests that
the increase in CPP premiums should be offset with an EI premium
cut.
The finance minister once told Canadians “payroll taxes are a
barrier to jobs”.
Will the finance minister tell us why he now insists on killing
jobs by keeping EI premiums high, much higher than they need to
be?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we looked
at this issue together with the provinces we did not agree with
the short term impacts cited by the hon. member.
One thing we did agree with in terms of the report was that had
we not taken steps together with the provinces we would not have
been able to secure the Canada pension plan for our retirees
today and for future generations of Canadians. We acted and we
are very proud we did.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
effect of the CPP premium hike will be to take away a week's
wages from a person earning less than $35,000 a year.
The finance minister could lower the tax burden on these
Canadians by offsetting the CPP hikes with a more substantial EI
premium cut than he has been willing to make to date.
Even the government's watchdog states EI premiums should be
much lower than they are.
Why does the finance minister insist on taxing Canadians who can
least afford it?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it
passing strange coming from the Tory party a call for EI cuts
which under its regime went from $1.95 up to $3.30. I find it
passing strange it is criticizing us for having acted to secure
the Canada pension plan for all Canadians when it ignored it
totally for nine years and stuck its head in the sand.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
enough rhetoric from the minister. The C.D. Howe Institute is
saying that the government's CPP tax hike will cost 200,000 jobs.
He can offset the impact of those hikes by cutting EI premiums
by the $7 billion recommended by the actuary.
Will the minister obey the law, cut the EI tax hike by $7
billion and preserve 200,000 jobs?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the last
four years the sole obsession of the Reform Party has been to get
us out of deficit. Now that we are out of it, it wants to put us
back into deficit by irresponsible tax reductions.
We refuse to follow these irresponsible policies. We will act in
a balanced and sane way for the benefit of all Canadians.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is already $4 billion over budget this year. That
is where it can find some savings.
The government will do anything to stay in power. We have the
finance minister who is saying payroll taxes are a cancer on job
creation. Yet the government raises payroll taxes. He said this
spring that the EI fund belongs to workers and employers. Now he
is setting out to raid it.
When will the minister quit this cynical, political manipulation
of the government's finances and put jobs ahead of his own
political ambitions?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in terms of EI
cuts, let us be very clear about what Reform is advocating.
In its fresh start document, its election platform, it said cut
the premiums 28% but for employers only. Last January it told us
we could use the surplus in the EI to help pay down the deficit
and the debt.
We intend to act responsibly and take a balanced approach. We
will continue our program of cutting EI taxes. We will continue
our program of reducing personal income taxes. We will pay down
the debt and we will invest in health care.
1435
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, with all the cuts his government has made to
employment insurance, the Prime Minister knows full well that
the gap between the premiums and the benefits is such that the
fund will never again show a deficit.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the employment
insurance plan has become a real cash cow for his government and
that he is trying desperately to get his hands on it?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note that the Bloc Quebecois
members are having a hard time living with a surplus. They are
much happier when there are deficits, and the fund is in
difficulty.
Our government takes a balanced approach, because we are careful
and realistic managers and had the courage to reform employment
insurance, something that has been helpful to many workers. The
Bloc Quebecois claims to be defending the unemployed, because
they like it when they are suffering and are unemployed for a
long time, whereas our government aims at returning them to the
labour market. That is what we want.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister would like to have us think that
he is putting thought into what he wants to do with the
employment insurance surplus, which is not his.
Why will the Prime Minister not admit that the decisions have
already been made and that his thoughts at the moment are about
ways to get hold of the fund surplus at as low a political cost
as possible?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that this
government will continue to work for the workers in this country
and to invest in helping them return to the labour market,
including in the regions where unemployment is too high.
We will continue to help the young gain work experience in
business, which will enable them to integrate into the labour
market, because this is what they lack. Our government will
continue to do its job to help young people remain longer in
school by investing in the education strategy. That is what we
want to do.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the social insurance number system is, according to
Canada's auditor general, rife with errors, fraud and abuse.
I ask the minister responsible for cleaning up this mess to
stand up and tell us when he intends to get this system
overhauled.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department has the
responsibility for the SIN cards with some of the departments,
but we are the lead department on it.
From what I understand, my official's comments in the article
reported this morning were taken out of context completely.
We agree that there are important administrative improvements to
be made and we have begun to take action. Today we have a
meeting in Montreal held by a number of officials precisely
looking into this file. We need to clean up the register. We
will do it in collaboration with the provinces.
I have asked our standing committee of the House to look into
it. I hope it will find the time to do what the auditor general
asked it to.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals have been asleep at the switch on this for
over five years.
About one million deceased Canadians still have active social
insurance numbers. When can living Canadians expect this do
nothing government to restore integrity to the SIN system?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they must have been sleeping
at the switch too because they never asked any questions on this
subject.
My department has set up five working groups to fix the problem.
We want to clean up the register and that will require working
with the provinces because they are responsible for part of it.
We want to improve the security features of the cards.
We have another working group on increasing our investigations,
on examining penalties for fraud and on improving proof of
identity. These are things already underway.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have learned
that the federal government is toying with the idea of making
any of its future investments in health contingent on its public
servants' approval of any projects the provinces might wish to
carry out.
1440
When the government tells us that health is one of its
priorities, are we to understand that what it is primarily
interested in is maximum control and maximum visibility, with a
minimum outlay of funds?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have had
occasion to state a number of times that we will be working with
the provinces in the health field.
However, if the Bloc Quebecois really wants some examples of
interference and centralization, here is a quotation from Michel
Boucher, professor of economics at the École nationale
d'administration publique:
Rather than following the North American trend, which is
strongly pro-decentralization, the Parti Quebecois government is
ignoring the municipalities' pressures for greater independence
and continues to meddle in their operations.
Now that is centralization.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that has
nothing to do with this.
On what moral principle are these people in federal government,
who have never looked after a single patient, now setting
themselves up as judges and telling the provinces what to do and
how to do it with the health funding to which they are entitled?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on what moral principle did the PQ government cut
funding to health, post-secondary education and social assistance
between 1994 and 1998, to the tune of 3.2%, when the other
provinces in the country were adding 3%?
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when warrant officer Matt Stopford joined the Canadian forces he
made a deal. He promised to put his life on the line to protect
his country. In return he expected his country, if he was hurt,
to look after him and his family.
Now Matt Stopford is seriously ill as a result of radiation
exposure on his last tour to Yugoslavia. This government broke
the deal and is not looking after him.
My question is to the defence minister. When will he provide
treatment and compensation to Matt Stopford as he promised?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem of that individual was
brought to our attention. It is being thoroughly investigated.
The matter will be dealt with accordingly.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
deal is a deal. Matt Stopford is sitting in the House right now.
He is listening to and watching this defence minister. He
represents over 1,000 soldiers who have been injured by the same
radiation exposure.
I urge the defence minister to be cautious in his reply. When
will he uphold his part of the deal, provide compensation and
treatment to this soldier and to all the others who were injured?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government cares very much about the
men and women who serve in the Canadian forces.
We recently commissioned a report that deals with the injured in
our services. We provided that to the Standing Committee on
National Defence. It has formed part of the many recommendations
the committee has made on how we can improve the quality of life
for our service people past and present.
They should be ashamed of themselves for trying to exploit this
difficulty that many people find themselves in. We are trying to
deal with the matter properly.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
We know how big the EI surplus is because there are two separate
accounts.
Are we to understand that the government—and I want a clear
answer—is considering changes and that this will no longer be the
case?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government has a very clear
answer. No decision has been taken. That strikes me as a
perfectly and absolutely clear answer.
The Prime Minister explained that, in 1986, the auditor general
asked the government to combine the two accounts and simply
include an accounting line to explain the situation. However, it
was the auditor general who asked, in 1986, that the two
accounts be combined.
* * *
1445
FOREST INDUSTRY
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during last
January's ice storm, 30,000 woodlot owners in Quebec sustained
heavy losses.
Yesterday, the president of the Fédération des producteurs de
bois du Québec, Jean-Claude Nadeau, asked the governments of
Canada and Quebec to come to an agreement as soon as possible on
a joint program to help these people, with each level of
government providing 50% of the funding.
Is the government prepared to provide adequate assistance to
affected producers, as it managed to do for small businesses and
farm producers in Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we welcome
the woodlot owners' request.
We agree that the best way to deal with this situation is for
both levels of government to sit down together as soon as
possible and work out a plan, with costs being shared 50:50, to
solve the problems experienced by woodlot owners and compensate
them.
Now, this means that the provincial government has to agree to
sit down with all interested parties in the next few weeks and
to ensure that the program will be funded according to a 50:50
formula.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the minister of agriculture suggested that
farmers should get another job off the farm in order to survive.
Is this the answer to the farm income crisis? A survey in my
constituency showed that up to 76% of the farmers were working
off the farm in order to survive.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Do you agree with the
minister of agriculture that farmers should have—
The Speaker: The hon. member should address his questions
through the Speaker.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, does the right hon. Prime
Minister agree with the minister of agriculture that farmers
should have to work off the farm in order to survive?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
of agriculture said no such thing yesterday. He said that this
government is putting in $1 billion a year along with the
provincial counterparts to help out the farming industry in
Canada. This is year after year after year. That is in addition
to crop insurance and Farm Credit Corporation policies. The
questioner is way out of line with his question.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the justice department has a double standard when it
comes to punishing farmers for selling their wheat outside the
Canadian Wheat Board. Dozens of poor farmers who cannot afford
high priced lawyers have been prosecuted relentlessly by this
Liberal government, but one wealthy farmer who disputed a huge
fine has been left alone completely for three years. Is this the
justice minister's policy, to only prosecute poor farmers who
cannot hire top notch lawyers?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is
disgraceful.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that
description of the hon. member's question. The prosecutions that
are taking place are taking place on the basis of due process of
law. They are taking place and moving forward as any other
prosecution would. At this point because there are prosecutions
before the court, I have no intention of commenting on any
particular case.
* * *
BANKS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions.
The Canadian Imperial bank of Commerce is now selling postage
stamps through 23 automatic teller machines in southern Ontario.
If this becomes a common practice for the banks throughout all of
Canada, some 1,700 small retailers that rely on stamps will find
their businesses at risk.
Can the minister explain to the House why the government allowed
the banks to get into this business when it is clearly not in the
charter?
1450
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue came
to my attention two days ago. I have asked our officials to look
into it. I will be pleased to report back to the House as soon as
I have an answer.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have with me a copy of the Bank Act. I can assure the
minister there is nothing here that allows them to sell postage
stamps. The post office is now collaborating with the banks to
allow the banks to do this. It is 75 cents a pop. There is a
service charge.
Will the minister stand in the House today and make a commitment
that he will not allow the banks in Canada to get into yet
another market, namely selling postage stamps through their ATMs,
in other words becoming a vending machine for this product and
God knows what other products in the future?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, concerning the
question of the Bank Act, the legalities are not quite as clear
cut as the member might let on. There is a question of whether it
is the sale of goods or of services. Having said that, we have
asked our officials to look into it. I will be very pleased to
hear from the House and Senate committees looking into this to
see what their suggestions are as to any potential expansion of
the powers of banks. I look forward to the members' suggestions.
* * *
[Translation]
APEC
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
In light of what is going on in Malaysia, the members of the
foreign affairs committee asked that Canada's participation in
the APEC summit be discussed.
However, since the Prime Minister has made his decision and is
about to leave with his entourage to travel to Malaysia, can he
tell us what message he will deliver to his Malaysian
counterpart regarding human rights and more specifically the
fate of Anwar Ibrahim, who is imprisoned in Malaysia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question.
This issue was raised before in the House by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Finance, who have both
protested, on behalf of the government, against the treatment
reserved to the former Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime
Minister. I also made similar remarks here in the House.
I can assure the hon. member that I will raise this issue when I
am in Kuala Lumpur, next week.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
is the first step in the right direction. The government must
now take the second step.
The Minister of Finance, as the Prime Minister pointed out,
personally phoned Mr. Ibrahim's wife to assure her of his
support.
If the Prime Minister of Malaysia refuses to improve the human
rights situation in his country, if he refuses to free Mr.
Ibrahim, what will be Canada's official position and will the
Prime Minister—
The Speaker: The question as worded is hypothetical. I would ask
the hon. member to quickly rephrase it.
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I do hope that Mr. Ibrahim's
liberation will not be hypothetical.
If Mr. Ibrahim is not freed, can the Prime Minister tell us what
Canada's official position will be, and whether he is prepared
to cut short his participation in the summit, so as to send a
clear message on human rights in that country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
trial is currently going on in Malaysia and, as a rule, foreign
governments do not get involved in a country's internal
procedures.
However, we clearly indicated to the Malaysian government that
we find totally unacceptable what was done to the former
Minister of Finance of that country.
I intend to raise the issue. I have had contacts with the other
governments that will be present in Kuala Lumpur, and I am
convinced that several of my counterparts also intend to make
representations to the Prime Minister of Malaysia when we are in
Kuala Lumpur, in a week from now.
[English]
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In November Canada will be attending an APEC meeting in
Malaysia. What is our government doing to support the
participation of citizens and NGOs in the Asia Pacific people's
assembly during the APEC meeting?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government will give $50,000 to the people who will
participate in the people's summit that will be held in Kuala
Lumpur. We did it last year in Canada. We invested even more
money to have the parallel summit held in Vancouver and we are
helping the one that will be held in Kuala Lumpur next week.
* * *
1455
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Louise Richard served in the military in the gulf war. She and
many others in our military have suffered permanently from gulf
war syndrome. This government discharged those people and refused
to give compensation.
I would like to ask the minister what loving, caring excuse does
he have today as to why these people have been shafted by this
military and have not been looked after?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all of these cases have been examined
very thoroughly. We have provided medical services to look at
all these individual cases and to deal with them fairly. We will
continue to do that.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
afternoon the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
told this House that the $235 appraisal fee imposed on anyone
securing a loan with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
was an average cost, so to speak, and that, if CMHC were to
appraise every property individually, the cost would be much
higher.
Since an appraisal is done on only one out of every twenty
properties in Quebec, where is the truth in the minister's
remarks: each appraisal costs $4,700 on average or the CMHC is
filling its pockets at the expense of borrowers?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the hon.
member understand that, first of all, with this new appraisal
and qualification system, every buyer gets an immediate
response. So, our priority is to serve the buyer so that he can
have a secured loan to buy a property.
Second, we are not the lenders and we make sure that, when
financial institutions grant a loan for an appraised property,
and building projects in general, there is premium to pay, a
rather small one, in my view. And with modern technology—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the minister. The hon.
member for Halifax West has the floor.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, our
troops face wretched decaying conditions.
Will the minister respond quickly to improve pay and living
conditions for Canada's military and, as a partial means to find
funds, provide Canadians with a complete listing of all big
ticket, high tech military equipment currently mothballed in
warehouses across this country?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we want to respond just as quickly as
possible to the report of the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs on quality of life issues.
A high priority for this government is to make sure that the men
and women in uniform are properly looked after. We are going
through an analysis of the 89 recommendations of that report just
as quickly as we can, costing of the various recommendations and
as soon as possible we will bring our report forward.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Nova Scotia and Bay of Fundy lobster conservation measures are
not being applied evenly across the board. If the minister wants
these new regulations to work, then adjacent lobster fishing
areas must have the same conservation measures. For instance,
lobsters that are illegal to catch in district 33 are legal to
catch in adjoining district 34. How is the minister going to
prevent smuggling and illegal sales between these two adjacent
districts?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, uniformity of measurement for legal
lobsters is an important objective. We have put in place a
number of measures in many different lobster harvesting areas of
maritime Canada to achieve that. Nevertheless for historic
reasons and sometimes because of the requests of the fishermen
themselves, it has not been possible to reach a single uniform
size across the entire board.
I certainly appreciate the hon. member's interest in making sure
we arrive at that situation just as soon as we can.
* * *
FOREIGN AID
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International
Co-operation.
Officials in Central America have estimated that more than
12,000 people have died in floods and mudslides triggered by
hurricane Mitch. Tens of thousands are injured and tens of
thousands more have been left homeless.
1500
What efforts has the Canadian government made to provide relief
to the victims of this natural disaster?
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe
that all Canadians share the hon. member's concern.
Yesterday CIDA made an initial contribution of $1 million in
emergency assistance through the Red Cross, the Pan American
Health Organization and our embassy. A strategic reconnaissance
team, including members of the Canadian forces disaster
assistance response team, will be deployed today to Central
America to determine what further assistance is needed.
I can assure all Canadians that the minister is monitoring the
situation very closely.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the public gallery of a group of teachers who
come from all over Canada.
These teachers are the participants of the third annual
Teachers' Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy. The
objective of this forum is to recognize teaching excellence and
foster a greater understanding of parliament.
[Translation]
Please welcome these teachers who are preparing future
generations of Canadian citizens.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, today there was a Standing Order
31 statement in which one of our member's used the initials JC in
his comments.
In my zeal to be overly funny, as I sometimes do, I made a
mistake.
1505
I referred to a former member of this House whose initials are
JC, Jean Charest. I apologize to you, my colleagues, for having
done that. It will not be done again.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA CENTRE
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this seems to be a day for apologies.
Unknown to me, on May 19 there appears to have been some misuse
of letterhead and possibly envelopes from my riding office.
Immediate repayment will be made for any costs incurred and I
thank the member opposite for bringing it to my attention.
The Speaker: I consider this matter closed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
109, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to the 14th report of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to seven petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present in both official languages the sixth
report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special
Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal Act.
[English]
Your committee has considered this bill and agreed to report it
without amendment. In September 1996 a subcommittee of each of
the standing committees on foreign affairs and international
trade and finance initiated at the request of the Minister of
Finance a joint study on the Special Import Measures Act. Their
report, presented in December of that year, concluded that while
the SIMA responded adequately to the Canadian business
community's expectations, some improvements could be made. Their
recommendations were received by the government favourably and
virtually all were incorporated into this bill.
I take the opportunity to thank the many witnesses who
participated in the SIMA review, the members of the subcommittees
for their contribution to these amendments and the minister and
his officials for their careful consideration of the subcommittee
representations.
HEALTH
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I too have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the second report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled
“Natural Health Products: A New Vision”.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee requests the government table a comprehensive response
to this report within 150 days.
[English]
About one year ago the Minister of Health asked the Standing
Committee on Health to examine the issues related to natural
health products, herbal medicines and alternative therapies. The
committee took the mandate and listened to more than 300 live
presentations and received over 1,000 written depositions on the
matter.
The committee sat over the course of about eight months and
through careful deliberation has come forward with a series of
recommendations that it is confident the department and the
minister will accept with great receptivity.
I take this opportunity to thank all members of the committee,
past and present, for their diligent work, their thoughtful and
energetic exercise in this matter, all the witnesses who wrote
and who appeared before the committee, and all those government
officials who made themselves available during the course of our
deliberations as well as the committee staff for being so ready
and willing to listen to our every little intervention.
1510
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 41st
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
regarding the selection of votable items in accordance with
Standing Order 92. This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
Furthermore, I have the honour to present the 42nd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. If the
House gives consent I intend to move concurrence in the 42nd
report this day.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. As the official opposition
representative, I would like to make a brief dissenting opinion
on the 41st presentation of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs.
I bring to the attention of the House the displeasure of not
just the official opposition but the rest of the opposition
parties to the fact that although there were seven private
members' bills selected from members of the House of Commons and
there were three vacancies so that private members' business
could have been debated and voted on in the House, instead the
committee chose to select a Senate bill as the one and only
votable private members' business.
The official opposition is very unhappy with that. We are very
discouraged with the fact that Senate bills take priority over
private members' bills from members of the House of Commons. I
must say it has soured the committee considerably and it has made
for very unhappy members of parliament on all sides of the House.
HEALTH
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
third report of the Standing Committee on Health in accordance
with its order of reference of Tuesday, October 20, 1998. Your
committee has considered Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco
Act. The committee has agreed to report it with amendments.
Again, I thank all committee members for the energy they put
into its deliberation.
* * *
NATIONAL HORSE OF CANADA ACT
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-454, an act to provide for
the recognition of the Canadian horse as the national horse of
Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock for seconding my private member's
bill, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canadian horse
as the national horse of Canada.
This bill is designed to pay tribute to an animal that has
played an important part in our national history and has helped
to build Canada as we know it today.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to move concurrence in the
42nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs tabled earlier today.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
TRADE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present
three petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
1515
The first one deals with Canada's signing of a number of
international trade agreements. The petitioners from Kamloops
are particularly concerned about the fact that this restricts the
ability of the federal government as well as other governments to
promote economic growth and pass legislation to protect the
health and well-being of Canadians.
They feel that we should be careful in terms of signing any
further agreements, particularly some form of the MAI.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on another matter from a
number of Canadians, namely Cam Murray and Robina McLaren.
They are concerned about the unfair tax system of Canada and
point out a number of reasons why they feel our tax system is
biased and unfair. They are calling for a complete remaking of
our tax system with a reminder of the Carter commission as a
guideline.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, on another matter the petitioners are
concerned about the lack of any serious sentences regarding
individuals who inflict pain upon animals or carry out some
cruelty against animals. I know this is an issue of concern for
yourself as well, Mr. Speaker.
The petitioners are calling upon the government to educate
judges more about this area and to impose more appropriate
sentences for those who carry out these terrible crimes against
animals.
GASOLINE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a
petition signed by residents of Grand Bend, Park Hill,
Sebringville and London.
They note that the use of MMT in gasoline has been proven to
foul emission control devices and adversely affect engine
performance, resulting in higher smog levels.
They call upon parliament to set new national clean fuel
standards for gasoline with zero MMT.
CANADA POST
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition signed by residents of Petrolia and
Oil Springs requests that parliament repeal section 13.(5) of the
Canada Post Corporation Act to allow rural mail carriers
collective bargaining rights.
LEYLA ZANA
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by
hundreds of residents of the Edmonton, Alberta, area.
It notes that Mrs. Leyla Zana, a duly elected member of the
Turkish parliament, is serving a 15 year prison sentence in that
country solely for her peaceful efforts to resolve the Kurdish
issue. This is a violation of the universal declaration of human
rights and she has been declared a prisoner of conscience by
Amnesty International.
Therefore the petitioners urgently request the Parliament of
Canada to endorse the nomination of Mrs. Leyla Zana for the Nobel
Peace Prize this year by a formal resolution of the House and to
exert all reasonable efforts to secure the release of Mrs. Zana
and all other prisoners of conscience from incarceration in
Turkey.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the
Production of Papers be allows to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-51, an act to
amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee.
Hon. David Anderson (for of the Minister of Justice): moved that
the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
1520
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Justice) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-51 contains a number of changes that the government has
identified as requiring fairly quick action, and we have acted.
These changes would have normally been dealt with in the next
major Criminal Code omnibus amendments, but the government wanted
to deal with them sooner.
The Department of Justice also tracks technical problems with
the Criminal Code. It produced a list of other amendments
correcting legislative oversights and other minor problems to
complete the package. Since this is an omnibus bill there is no
common policy theme which connects the changes.
[Translation]
Parliament has the responsibility and the constitutional
authority to pass laws on criminal matters, but the application
of these laws is under provincial jurisdiction. We must
therefore take into consideration what works and does not work,
according to the provinces.
We meet regularly with the provinces and we take their
expectations into account when we develop strategies in criminal
law. Many of the proposed amendments to the law come out of
this process.
When these changes are considered, we must bear in mind that
they arise from requests and proposals by the provinces, which
play an important role in the application of criminal law in
Canada.
[English]
A number of amendments are a direct product of provincial
requests. For example, the changes to the gambling provisions
originate from Quebec and Ontario. The changes to the child
prostitution provisions originate from British Columbia and
Alberta. The repeal of the year and a day rule responds to
concerns from a number of sources, most recently from Manitoba.
Several provinces also asked to expand the ambit of
non-communication orders to prevent persons charged with domestic
violence offences from contacting victims or witnesses both
before and after their bail hearing. The proposed legislation
authorizes the first judge or justice before whom the accused
appears to make such orders.
One of the cornerstones of the bill is the repeal of the year
and a day rule in section 227 of the Criminal Code. Cases where
it will apply are relatively rare but have been increasing in
recent years because medical advances make it more likely that
victims of assault will survive for extended periods. Forensic
advances also make it possible to prove the causation of death in
cases involving disease or environmental pollution where it would
not have been possible a few years ago. I was pleased to note
that members of all sides of the House support this amendment.
Another change which was a priority was the provision linking
the new deceptive telemarketing offences proposed by the Minister
of Industry in Bill C-20 with the Criminal Code proceeds of crime
provisions.
When Bill C-20 was drafted and introduced it was not apparent
that this was an important link. Competition Act offences are
regulatory criminal law and the competition bureau would not
usually consider it necessary to target proceeds from the other
offences it enforces such as misleading advertising.
This is not the case with deceptive telemarketing. As we have
seen both from our own examination of the problem and recent
media coverage, telemarketing fraud and deceptive telemarketing
are capable of generating large proceeds. They involve the use
of telephone boiler rooms to contact large numbers of victims.
Individual losses may be large or small, but if many victims are
targeted the overall proceeds are often very large, marking
confiscation a major deterrent and an important step toward
compensating victims.
The proceeds are so large in some cases that this sort of crime
has attracted the attention of more traditional organized crime
groups in Canada, making the targeting of proceeds even more
important.
1525
Both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Industry take
this matter very seriously. As soon as the need for this link
was identified it was included in the bill. The offence of fraud
already falls within the proceeds of crime scheme. The inclusion
of deceptive telemarketing will help to ensure that criminals
cannot hide their own considerable profits from forfeiture and
restitution to their victims.
Another organized crime priority for both Quebec and the
solicitor general was the exclusion of those convicted of
organized crime offences from accelerated parole review. This
proved to be a fairly straightforward amendment. It was
proceeded with but concerns have been voiced that it does not go
far enough.
As proposed, organized crime offenders would be excluded as long
as the organized crime element is proven either on conviction or
sentence. To go further than this and catch everything at
conviction might require the restructuring of the money
laundering offence. This would go beyond what is reasonable to
attempt to do in an omnibus bill.
The solicitor general and the justice minister were anxious to
proceed with this change quickly. The criminal organization
offence was added to the Criminal Code less than two years ago by
the government. Fairly quick action was needed on this issue
before a significant number of cases arose.
Another important organized crime issue is the potential use of
rough diamonds produced in Canada as a medium of exchange by
organized crime. As members of the House will know, the first
ever Canadian diamond mine began production in the Northwest
Territories earlier this month. This represents an important and
welcome source of economic development for Canada's north, but
there are concerns that the high value of rough diamonds will
attract thieves and organized crime interests.
For this reason the Minister of Justice wanted to move quickly
to expand the Criminal Code offences dealing with precious metals
to include valuable minerals other than gold, silver or platinum.
This would ensure the law covers rough diamonds and any other
gemstones or other similar minerals that might be discovered in
Canada in the future.
[Translation]
In the case of international cruise ships, the amendments would
allow Canadian registered cruise ships, which fall under
Canadian law regardless of where they are, and foreign
registered cruise ships in Canadian waters to offer gambling to
passengers.
The changes will also allow cruise ships entering Canadian
waters to import gambling equipment in their casinos without
charge.
This is expected to provide direct benefits to the cruise
industry itself and indirect benefits to tourism and other
business in the ports where cruise ships call.
Canadian registered cruise ships will be competitive while
abroad and foreign registered ships will not be deterred from
calling on Canadian ports.
The cruise industry is an important and rapidly growing part of
regional economies, particularly in the St. Lawrence valley of
Quebec and the coastal waters of British Columbia.
I am happy that we have proposed amendments that will address
the concerns and interests of these provinces and their
populations. I am convinced that the proposed amendments will
not lead to a significant increase in overall gambling and will
not conflict with provincially regulated gambling.
In Canadian waters, gambling will only be allowed on genuine
international cruise ships during actual international cruises.
No gambling will be permitted when ships stop over. I want to
make this very clear.
[English]
The bill also contains a series of sentencing reforms. As with
other amendments, the purpose is not to make fundamental changes
to sentencing policy but to address certain specific concerns
that have arisen with the sentencing reform bill, Bill C-41,
which took effect in late 1996.
1530
Bill C-41 created a number of general rules dealing with fines,
conditional sentences and other measures. The application of the
new general rules to specific provisions of the Criminal Code and
other acts have had to be reconciled or adjusted in some cases as
we begin to see how the various provisions are being applied by
the courts. It is too early to consider any fundamental changes
to the sentencing provisions but there are a number of areas that
warrant refinement in our opinion.
For example the legislation will clarify the relationship
between the new general rules governing fines and other specific
punishments in the Criminal Code and other statutes. There has
been some question about whether the fine provisions would have
priority over punishment rules for specific offences. The
proposed amendments will ensure that a specific fine imposed
pursuant to a specific offence provision has priority over the
general rules. They will also clarify that if there is a minimum
jail or prison term, the fine options are not available as an
alternative to it. In other words, the offender may be sentenced
to a fine in addition to custody but not instead of it.
The most important sentencing changes deal with the enforcement
of conditional sentences. They are designed to ensure that the
enforcement of conditional sentence orders is effective and that
offenders face appropriate consequences for breaches of their
conditions. Offenders who breach the conditions of their
sentences will no longer get credit for time spent while they
were in breach. The running of their sentence will be held in
abeyance until a court concludes an inquiry into the breach no
matter how long that takes.
In light of the House standing committee's plan to study the
whole issue of conditional sentencing as was requested by the
Minister of Justice, we believe fundamental changes should not
pre-empt its work. Furthermore a number of cases have been dealt
with by appeal courts and several are pending before the Supreme
Court of Canada. We believe we should allow the supreme court to
render its decisions in these cases so that any further changes
are predicated upon a solid legal foundation.
This bill consists of changes that will not revolutionize
Canada's criminal justice system. They are not for the most part
glamorous and they will not generate newspaper headlines, but
they are important. They are important to the police community
which seeks powers to target proceeds of crime. They are
important to victims who are intimidated by assailants even when
they are in custody. And they are important to our prosecutors
and our courts that are charged with the weighty task of ensuring
justice is both done and seen to be done on a daily basis.
I therefore ask that all members join the Minister of Justice,
this government and me in supporting these amendments.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been some discussions and
that there would be unanimous consent for me to share my time
with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I would ask for
that unanimous consent.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
hon. members share the time as indicated?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I will cover a few
fundamental flaws in Bill C-51.
I listened to the eloquent remarks of the parliamentary
secretary. If the millions of people who make up the vast
audience watching the parliamentary channel were to listen to
her, they might think it sounds pretty good, that we should get
this in really quick. The parliamentary secretary said that it
is important to police, victims, prosecutors and the courts. In
Reform's opinion a lot of changes could have been made in this
bill that really would have made it important to police, victims,
prosecutors and the courts, especially to victims and the
Canadian public.
The Reform Party has raised a lot of concerns. We raised them
during second reading when we had a good full debate in the
House.
We raised them in committee and had full discussion on some of
our concerns about this bill. We also put amendments in
committee which the government did not consider.
1535
The minister had a great opportunity in this legislation to make
a clear statement to criminals that the country has had enough
with this cat and mouse game. Instead the minister continues the
course of inaction in getting tough and sending a message that
Canadians have had enough of weak sentences, conditional release
for violent offenders, child prostitution and those living off
the avails of child prostitution, and organized crime figures
spending so little of their sentences in prison for major drug
offences and other very violent crimes.
Let me say a few words about the subject of conditional release.
I read a litany of concerns expressed by judges and others in the
judicial system during my speech at second reading. It obviously
was not enough proof for the minister that conditional release is
not meeting the expectations of the judges or the public.
We could debate this bill for months just reading the comments
made by judges on conditional sentencing. Judges ask why
parliament did not put right in the bill originally exactly what
they wanted with conditional releases. That is what the Reform
Party tried to do in committee. We tried to make it so Canadians
and judges would understand what conditional sentencing meant.
The parliamentary secretary tells us there are cases before the
supreme court right now and that the government wants to hear
what it says before looking at conditional sentencing again. I
say to the parliamentary secretary and the minister, is it not
time this House of Commons started making the laws and not wait
for judges who are appointed by the government to make the laws?
It is our job to look at legislation and to look at how it is
working.
We believe, as do many Canadians, that the issue is very simple.
Conditional sentencing should not be used in the case of a
violent offence. Yet it is happening more and more.
By simply amending section 742(1) of the Criminal Code to exempt
convictions for serious personal injury offences as defined in
section 752 of the code could prevent such travesties as the one
involving two gentlemen—and I use that term very loosely—who
raped and tortured a Montreal woman last year. Thanks to
conditional sentencing they were let out, free to do it again. Is
there no sense of compassion with this government or just plain
common sense?
I do not know one member of this House who in looking at that
case would think that it was ever meant for two men convicted of
rape, not only rape but a violent rape. Yet a judge in her
wisdom—and I really question that and hope that when this gets
through the supreme court we will see some major changes in
that—let this happen.
One of the main reasons we will vote against this bill is
because the government refuses to look at conditional sentencing.
It continues to let this type of sentence take place for violent
rape offences and violent murders. It is unfortunate that this
government is just not listening.
Being the official opposition, we could be accused of being
political in trying to find a weakness in the government. Heaven
knows, we would not do that.
Let me just say what a judge said because we all know judges are
not political. They may have been at one time but they are not
political in their jobs and we all know that. As one judge put
it, “conditional sentencing for these types of heinous crimes
undermines respect for the law”. That is what the Reform Party
is talking about, the undermining of respect for the law.
People who commit these kinds of violent crimes are allowed to
get out on a conditional sentence, serving no time in jail, with
no training to put them back into society so they will not do
these things again. That is why the judge said it undermined
respect for the law. That is why we put these amendments in
committee, why we are debating this bill in the House of Commons
right now and why we will vote against this legislation.
I have quote from another judge who said “Some judges fall on
the other side and have been applying conditional sentences far
beyond what parliament had originally intended”. We made it easy
for them to try to interpret something the way they wanted to
hear it. Judges have asked publicly “Why do members of
parliament not vote in the legislation and tell us what they want
and what is meant by conditional sentencing?”
1540
That is what we tried to get this minister to do at committee.
We tried at second reading and we are trying again at third
reading. I am hoping there are enough people out there listening
and paying attention, enough police officers, prosecutors and
victims looking at this and they will write the Minister of
Justice and tell her that this bill should not pass without
something being done about conditional sentencing.
Let us look at some surveys. The government does surveys. The
opposition does surveys. Survey after survey of police officers,
lawyers, probation officers and corrections staff indicate that
over 90% of the experts in the business felt that sentences
imposed by the courts were not respected. Upwards of 69% of this
same group felt that the amount of time served should be the same
as the sentence imposed. That is a shocking thing.
When somebody has committed a very serious crime and is
sentenced to 20 years in jail, the public thinks he will serve 20
years with a little time off for good behaviour. In this country
the judge can give them a conditional sentence. They can serve
no time in jail at all. That is wrong.
The message the government is sending in Bill C-51 is that a
life of crime pays, and the public remain the victims of the
cruel hoax that Canada has a system of justice that respects them
and not the criminal. Right now the average person out there in
the public believes that the system respects the criminal and not
the victim. Members on the other side know that. They know
about the motion on victims by our House leader and which was
worked on very hard by the deputy justice critic from Surrey
North. It was put forward in the committee this week. This party
is concerned about victims. This bill does very little for
victims.
On another note, the Reform Party feels strongly that
traffickers and importers of drugs spend at least two-thirds of
their sentence behind bars. These people in most cases are
members of organized crime and are a blight on society.
There must be a message sent to organized crime. If we could
have it our way, we would like the entire section on accelerated
parole repealed. Organized crime figures are serious criminals
by the Criminal Code's own definition. Why does the government
continue to deal with them as if they are petty criminals?
Automatic parole for these types of criminals is abhorrent no
matter what the standard. They are not rehabilitated after
one-sixth of the sentence. The government is going to go to
one-third, but I guess it is the best we can expect from this
government.
Think about people who are involved in organized crime.
Organized crime by definition means being part of an organization
of more than a certain number of people, and those people have
made a decision in their way of life to become involved in crime.
Crime is their business.
If someone launders a couple of million dollars and gets six
years in jail and after two we let him go, is that anything that
will stop a lot of people from getting into organized crime and a
life of crime? If they know they will spend two-thirds of the
sentence in jail no matter how good they are when they get there,
they might think twice about getting involved in a life of
organized crime.
Bill C-51 deals with the issue of child prostitution. The
Criminal Code now provides a minimum of five years for anyone who
uses violence or intimidation to get or keep a minor in
prostitution. The Reform Party feels that anyone who lives off a
minor should receive a minimum one year sentence, and I and the
public look at that and think one year is not even enough. Number
one, they will not serve a year and number two, they are not
getting any time at all on a first offence. The government does
not share our view but in fact it seems not too harsh to us at
all.
1545
I ask members of this House to look at child prostitution, what
this government is saying and what we have asked for. It is very
much a minimum.
Just about every member in this House has children. If one of
their children was to be lured into child prostitution or lured
into the drug areas they would be incensed.
I am sure a lot of members have constituents who have children
who have been drawn into the field of child prostitution. How
many street children have we in the cities of Toronto, Montreal,
Edmonton and Vancouver?
In this bill we tried to make some changes. We could not get
the amendments before the committee. The minister said she was
aware that it was a problem and she would like the committee to
look at it a little further.
Is it not time we told the courts, from the bottom right up to
the supreme court, that anybody who messes with our children, who
starts to peddle drugs to them or who tries to lure them into
prostitution is going to get minimum sentences?
The sentence for prostitution might be one year, but the
sentence for drugs has to be heavier. There cannot be any early
parole to return these people to the streets. That is not
radical. That is what the average Canadian thinks.
It is becoming a bigger and bigger issue in our country. I know
that in Vancouver and Toronto drugs are a very serious problem.
We do not find that in the polls with taxes, income and health
care. That is a day to day thing at home and not something we
tell the pollsters when they call. We may not want to talk about
the fact that our children are involved in drugs.
It is a shock to many parents. I know this from talking with
people in my own constituency who have had the unfortunate
situation happen where their children were involved with drugs.
The expense to our country, the expense of getting these people
off drugs and back to a normal life, is minute in comparison to
what it would cost to keep that person in jail who tried to lure
a child into drugs or prostitution in this country.
The Reform Party would have liked the government to send a
message to those parasites who live off juvenile prostitutes.
Society abhors their behaviour. We have to start somewhere.
On the one hand the government allows the police to use wiretaps
to deal with the problem. The government then allows a judge to
give the criminal a slap on the wrist for his bad behaviour. This
is not good enough. Give on one hand; take away with the other.
This is feel good legislation for the Liberals, but it is not
taking the problem seriously enough.
We have talked as much as we can on this side of the House on
these areas. We hope that the government listens once in a
while, looks at this issue and realizes that it has to speed up.
We will have to take the minister at her word. She has said
that the issue of conditional sentencing with respect to child
prostitution will go back to the committee for consideration.
The sooner the minister gets it there the sooner it will be dealt
with.
This is a serious problem in our country. It is not a partisan
political problem. It is something that members from all sides
of this House want to get to work on. I think it is time we told
the lawyers working in the justice department and the judges that
it is the people in this House who make the laws. We are going
to bring in some tough laws to solve the drug problems and the
child prostitution problems in this country because they are
going to affect more and more people and it will not be very
pleasant.
The other side of the child prostitution sector is the
government's lack of interest in dealing with johns. Bill C-51
does indicate something about this by making the communication
with anyone for the purpose of obtaining an under-age prostitute
an offence. This may help police to catch a few johns, but they
will probably only get a slap on the wrist.
The Reform Party attempted through amendment in committee to
impose a minimum penalty for johns of 30 days for a first offence
and 90 days for a subsequent offence. We believe this would
reduce the demand for prostitutes as it would not be possible to
get a discharge or a conditional sentence or otherwise avoid jail
time as one can now. It would have sent a message to these
perverted people that society is getting fed up with their
behaviour. Again our amendment fell on deaf ears.
Until we get serious with these issues they are not going to go
away.
1550
We ask the government to seriously think about what it is doing
in these areas.
In summation, Bill C-51 was a golden opportunity to begin a
process of equity and fairness in sentencing to deal with
organized crime figures who live off million dollar drug deals
and to deal with child prostitution and those who prey on those
individuals. Instead, the government continues in an inch deep
and a mile wide manner of tackling crime in Canada. By the very
nature of this omnibus bill we are reminded that this government
likes to wait around before it moves on specific problems and
then it deals with them by omnibus legislation because it hopes
no one will notice or no one will care.
We are going to vote against this bill on those three issues.
Other members of my party, including the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, will talk about other reasons and
perhaps the same ones I am talking about.
This is serious legislation. It deals with some of the major
issues of our young people in Canada today. I hope that Liberal
members on the other side are paying attention and that they will
convince their minister that she should speed up the process.
The government is going to push this bill through even if it has
to bring in closure, which will not be the first time in this
parliament.
We are going to do what we can to let the Canadian public know
that this bill is not good for Canadians. We hope they will get
their messages to this Liberal minister so there can be some
changes made.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank our justice critic, the member for West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, for sharing his time and other members
for allowing me to speak to this bill.
Ray Canuel, the chief of the Vancouver city police, once said
that the justice system is not working, that the Canadian public
does not think it is working and that we need to fix it and we
need to fix it now.
Bill C-51 was an ideal opportunity to do just that. Instead
what see is another effort to nibble around the edges of serious
problems, problems that range from child prostitution, as my
colleague has mentioned, to issues relating to sentencing. The
opportunity existed and, once again, the government let it slip
through its fingers.
I will go through a number of points to provide some
constructive solutions that have been around for a long time,
solutions that the government would be wise to adopt as they are
solutions that have been adopted and pushed forth by members from
Surrey North to Moncton and members from all political parties.
The government would find widespread agreement if it was to take
these constructive solutions and adopt them tomorrow.
We have to look at crime in the context of resources. We have a
certain amount of money. The money is limited and the demands on
that money are rather extreme.
These are some examples of resources not being available to fit
the demand. Many criminals, as my colleague mentioned, are being
let out of jail early. Criminals have been sentenced but are not
doing any time. The RCMP had to close down its training
facility. The public is not served well by this.
If justice is going to serve the public well we have to
implement cost effective programs. Perhaps the first thing that
we can do is address the issue of crime prevention. Nowhere in
this bill is that mentioned, yet the statistics and the data
conclusively demonstrate that crime prevention is not only
effective if done well, it is also cost effective. For every
dollar that is invested there is a $7 saving.
In our country today the cost of crime is roughly $46 billion,
yet we spend a little over $15 million on crime prevention each
year. Contrast that with countries like Belgium, which spends
$130 million on crime prevention, and Great Britain, which spends
a few million dollars and the result has been a 35% drop in
crime.
The cost to incarcerate a young offender is between $80,000 and
$90,000. The cost for an adult can be anywhere from $50,000 to
$70,000 per year. Experiments from Ypsilanti, Michigan to the
Hawaii head start program to the Moncton head start program have
shown that one dollar invested saves $7 per person.
1555
We can no longer afford to give mere lip service to this issue.
We must act.
We could take the best of the three programs. If we took the
best of the program in Moncton, the best of the program in
Ypsilanti, Michigan, which is the prairie preschool program, and
the best of the Hawaii head start program, in front of us would
lie a plan.
Then we could bring together the medical community. All women
have to go through the medical system before they give birth. We
could use the nurses and the physicians to identify families at
risk. If we did that we could address important things such as
fetal alcohol syndrome which is the single leading cause of
preventable birth defects in this country.
If we look at those who are prison, there is an extraordinarily
high number of individuals in jails who have been dehabilitated
by fetal alcohol syndrome. This irreversibly damages a person's
brain. They do not have the ability to integrate, learn and
communicate with other people. It impairs their ability to act
in an integrated way with society. It causes extreme frustration
for children and can manifest later on in criminal behaviour,
conduct disorders or worse. It is preventable, but we have to
start at time zero. Head start provides that.
The Hawaiian head start program used trained volunteers. This
is important because we could use women who have had their
children, who are responsible parents and who can provide their
expertise. It is an extremely important way in which a community
could build ties. They could use this pool of experienced
individuals to support people who need help.
What was the outcome of the Hawaii program? There was a 99%
reduction in child abuse rates because of the trained volunteers
who worked with families at risk. There is no other program that
I am aware of which provided this extraordinary benefit to
children and families.
The emphasis is on working with parents. The emphasis is on
teaching parents the basics of appropriate discipline, setting
boundaries, proper nutrition, love, care and compassion, the
effects of abuse on children and how to prevent that within the
context of the family. These may seem very basic and simple, but
they are essential if children are to be psychologically stable
children, adolescents and eventually productive adults in our
society.
The Moncton program started with children early on. The key was
that it used parents in conjunction with the school. The bottom
line was that it turned parents who were having difficulties into
good parents.
The outcome was extraordinary. It has been shown that there was
roughly a $30,000 saving for every child. These programs showed
a 50% reduction in teen pregancies. There was a 60% reduction in
criminal behaviour and incarceration.
Not only do these programs make sense economically, they make
sense from a humanitarian perspective and they have been proven
to work.
The cost of justice in our country today is roughly $46 billion
per year. The amount we spend on crime prevention is
approximately $15 million. We need a national program. We need
to use it within the context of the resources that we have today.
The Minister of Justice can take a leadership role. She can
work with her counterparts in human resources development and in
health to convene a meeting as soon as possible in Ottawa with
her provincial counterparts. They could determine and assess
what works in the provinces. They could keep what works and
remove what does not. They could take poorly used resources and
put them into something that works. If we use the existing
resources of the medical community, trained volunteers, and a
similar program to the Moncton head start program we would save
this country millions of dollars.
1600
More important, it would save a lot of people's lives both in
victims and in potential perpetrators. The stats are there. The
facts are there. The government needs to show the leadership to
do this.
In May I had a private member's bill calling for a national head
start program that was adopted by the House. This program, based
on work done by members across party lines and the National Crime
Prevention Council which was brought to bear as a result of an
edict from the House in 1994, shows very clearly that the House
will support a national head start program using existing
resources.
We just need the political will from the ministers to do this. I
know the ministers will find support from across party lines to
do this. Alone we managed to get four provinces on side to
support the national head start program. All the minister has to
do is call together the rest of them and half the work is already
done for her. She can do it.
If there is one legacy that the government can leave that is
positive right now it is to enact this program for the future of
our country, in particular for the future of the children of
today and tomorrow.
I will deal with some issues that have not perhaps been dealt
with. We are talking about drugs. Again, this bill could have
dealt with the issue of drugs. There are some important projects
that have been done that can effectively reduce the serious drug
problems we have. In Vancouver we have hundreds of people
overdosing and dying every year as a result of the drug problem.
Children are taking drugs.
We can look at existing programs that have worked. Let us look
at the Geneva experiment. After the needle experiment that
failed in Geneva in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it rethought
what it could do. The Geneva experiment basically legalized
drugs. It was an abysmal failure but now it has taken hard drugs,
particularly narcotics such as heroine, and given hard core
addicts a dosage of heroine a certain number of times every day
at set times. The quid pro quo on this is that individual has to
come in and participate in drug rehabilitation programs, skills
training. The outcome has been remarkable.
There has been a 50% reduction in hard core drug abusers who
have been off drugs for at least a year. This is a recent
program and so therefore we do not have much beyond that to look
at. The preliminary results are encouraging. No other program in
the world has worked so effectively to reduce drug abuse among
hard core drug addicts.
The savings were also remarkable because there was at least a
65% reduction in crime rates among this population of
individuals. Imagine if the minister were to speak to her
counterparts in British Columbia and other provinces to at least
adopt this in a trial program in Canada. We know what we are
doing now does not work.
On the other side of the coin with respect to those people who
are pushing drugs, we need to have heavier penalties. Right now,
as my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast mentioned,
individuals are serving a third or a sixth of their sentence and
being paroled. That demonstrates to criminals that there is
little or no penalty at all.
My colleague from Surrey North has worked long and hard on this
and many other issues of justice. He needs to be listened to by
members opposite because he has spoken so eloquently and from a
great deal of personal experience.
We need to look at projects that have worked. We do not need to
reinvent the wheel but we need to look at projects that have
worked, to adopt them at least on pilot projects here at home and
look at the international experience on these. With respect to
pushing and trafficking, these issues have to be dealt with with
the full force of the law.
We also want to address the issue of child prostitution. The
government has an opportunity to hit those people for abusing
children in one of the most egregious fashions possible. This is
not child prostitution. This is rape and pedophelia, pure and
simple.
These individuals need to be hit with the full force of the law
and this does not mean getting off with a third of their
sentence. This means being sentenced hard and being sentenced
with the full force of the law.
Programs need to be put in place to help child prostitutes get
out of that situation and move into a life where they are not
subjected to abuse that we cannot possibly imagine.
1605
On the issue of restorative justice and shaming procedures,
members across the way and in this party have articulated
experiments that have been done in some pilot projects across the
country. This can be applied to take the financial and economic
load off our justice system in a very important way. It can
provide for effective penalties that have proven in certain
non-violent populations, in particular for juveniles to ensure
that they will not engage in recidivistic behaviour. They would
benefit as, most important, the victims would benefit by getting
some retribution for the crimes that have been meted out to them.
As the Vancouver city police chief mentioned in his speech, the
victims do not find they are being supported by the system
because the justice system, largely because of financial reasons,
is unable to mete out the penalties that are required for
individuals who are committing atrocious crime.
In effect what we are often doing is lumping the violent with
the non-violent, the inveterate criminal with the first time
offender all into the same bunch. Many are being tossed out
together with little retribution as part of the justice system.
We need to divide up these two populations as and make sure
those people who are the inveterate criminals, the violent
offenders, the rapists, the murderers and the child abusers, are
put behind bars and will receive the full force of the law and of
course engage in the appropriate rehabilitation.
Those people who are non-violent or first time offenders,
juveniles in particular, can engage in issues such as restorative
justice which in British Columbia, for example, has proven to be
highly effective not only by keeping people out of jail but, most
important, by decreasing the recidivism rate and ensuring that
victims receive some retribution for the crimes that have been
meted out to them.
On the issue of victims rights the government had another
opportunity to pursue and adopt solutions that the Reform Party
has been pushing for for a long time, to make sure victims have
an important role to play in the justice system. Right now,
although victims represent half the situation in crimes, they
play a very small role in what happens.
It is a slap in the face to those who have been violated,
sometimes in horrendous ways, that they are second class citizens
within our justice system. They are not treated as the important
persons they should be within the justice system which should
first be seeking to protect them, provide retribution to them,
provide restoration to them and provide help to them.
There are many cases where the perpetrator has been convicted
and receives all kinds of help. Yet the victims are left
dangling in the breeze to fend for themselves. What a sad
situation if one knows those individuals or those families and
the pain and suffering they have to endure.
There is much that can be done within our justice system. There
is little that has been done with respect to Bill C-51. Instead
of dealing with issues such as whether we should remove the
prohibition on dice and gambling on cruise ships, whether we can
use wiretaps in the case of certain crimes and whether we remove
sentencing from one sixth to one third of a sentence, the justice
system and the members responsible on the other side should have
used existing solutions and adopted them.
We in the House have a responsibility to the people who elected
us. We have a responsibility not to nibble around the edges of
problems but to take those problems in both hands and find the
best solutions we can, the most pragmatic solutions, solutions
that have worked not only in Canada but around the world,
solutions that are cost effective and do the job and adopt those
solutions here if only in pilot projects.
Why wait to dot the is and cross the ts? Why not
implement those programs in Canada? Then we can see whether they
will work.
1610
We must have the courage to act. The continued failure of the
House to act in a courageous manner, to deal with these problems
in a substantive way rather than in a superficial way is one of
the failings we as members from across party lines have seen over
the last five years.
This is not rocket science. We can do it. We can improve the
justice system. We can effect important constructive solutions
to make the streets safer for all Canadians now and in the
future. Above all, we can adopt programs to prevent crime.
Hon. David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I seek unanimous consent for me to ask a short question
of the member.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I did not
concur with the hon. member's request, not because I am opposed
to questions, but because the debate had already begun, the
rules for had been laid down and there was not to have been any
question period.
I am pleased to again speak to Bill C-51. As my colleagues have
had the opportunity to examine this omnibus bill in the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I will devote the time
allocated to me to raising certain aspects covered by the bill.
First of all, I would like to take a few moments to make a
progress report on the work in committee.
In his speech at second reading, my Bloc Quebecois colleague
from Berthier—Montcalm placed heavy emphasis on the importance of
committee work. He indicated that, when analysing an omnibus
bill, parliamentary institutions needed to be efficient.
Too often, committees fall victim to obstruction by the party in
power. I have some knowledge of this, for I sit on the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development. We are aware that the
government and the Liberal MPs sitting on this committee do not
want us, first of all, to address the impact of the Employment
Insurance Act. In fact, the opposition parties have formed a
strong coalition calling for an emergency debate on the impact
of the Employment Insurance Act.
Along with my colleague, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, I
deplore the fact that there is systematic obstruction by the
Liberal MPs who sit on the committee. When an omnibus bill is
what is being studied, a bill as complex and detailed as this
one, one may well wonder about the quality of work that is going
into it.
I described this omnibus bill as a tutti frutti bill when I
spoke on it for the first time. It contains a number of
amendments to the Criminal Code. It is a bill that goes in a
number of different directions and affects a number of different
aspects of the Criminal Code.
Nevertheless, the sessions of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights on Bill C-51 went off very well, according to
what my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm says.
Despite the committee members' rejection of the amendments
proposed by the Bloc Quebecois—I will return to this point
later—we did enjoy some healthy discussions on the amendments
proposed by the Minister of Justice.
The Liberal MPs must not have any illusions, however. As I have
said, committee work is too often obstructed. We ought to
reflect upon the necessity of calling meetings when the dice are
inevitably loaded in advance, when there are foregone
conclusions. Consensus in committee is a rarity.
There are discussions, of course, but the outcome is known in
advance. The government rarely makes use of the recommendations
made by the various parties, particularly when the opposition
parties have reached a consensus.
1615
It is very rare for the party in power to adopt suggested
directions, although these would often be beneficial to the
entire population.
The members of the opposition have to roll up their sleeves and
jump back into the fray. I believe one has to have a hard head
when one really believes in an amendment like the one we would
like to see in this omnibus bill. One has to be determined.
It is not always easy to get across to the Liberal government
that it is not on the right track.
We are very much aware of the example the Prime Minister gives
to his troops by his arrogant attitude and his refusal to ever
go back on what he has said, even if it is something
incomprehensible, as it often is, and not in the public
interest.
I believe the Prime Minister often sets a poor example for his
troops, and does not show them frankly and honestly how to carry
on debate.
It is not always easy to get this government to listen to
reason, this government we would describe as arrogant. One has
to keep at it, sometimes even drawing a picture when that is
what is needed.
This is the spirit in which the Bloc Quebecois has carried out
the mandate entrusted to it by Quebeckers since it was first
elected in 1993. We have confronted the House of Commons head
on, in order to defend the interests of Quebeckers.
We worked exceedingly hard to move the heavy Liberal machine,
which, as we say in Quebec, is too often asleep at the switch.
Propelled by this desire to change things, very early, along
with the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans and other
members from the Quebec City area, we started a crusade to
enable cruise ships to operate their casinos on the St.
Lawrence.
It may seem banal, but this amendment will have a significant
economic impact for the Quebec City area, as I will explain
during the course of my speech.
The cruise industry represents several million dollars to our
region. In fact, on average, tourists each spend about $110 per
visit.
Given that each ship has between 1,000 and 1,500 passengers, it
is not hard to imagine that a significant increase in the number
of calls by these ships in our ports will have a strong economic
impact on our communities.
However, this increase will not be possible unless the needs of
the passengers on these ships are taken into account. At the
moment, many of these tourists enjoy casino cruises, and casinos
are increasingly popular with people on cruises. In an effort
to respond to the demand, ship owners provide casinos for their
clients.
Up to now, Canadian law limited the expansion of the Quebec
tourist industry that depended directly on the influx of cruise
ships. Since the Criminal Code prohibited the operation of
casinos from Anticosti Island on, a number of carriers did not
call in Quebec City.
The legislation provided that the casinos had to be closed at
Anticosti Island and before the port of Quebec City. This meant
two or three days where the casinos were closed on the cruise
ships. So their stay was considerably reduced in order to not
upset passengers. The situation does not occur in international
waters, because access to ports is direct.
The effect of this prohibition was to slow down the economic
growth of the Quebec City region, a slowdown it did not need.
Because of the Criminal Code provisions, the number of ships
that stop over in Quebec City every year has dropped by about
25. This creates an economic shortfall of several millions of
dollars.
It is for this reason that the members in the Quebec City region
and the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans
have been waging such a battle on this important issue of being
able to operate casinos on cruise ships. It represents $2.5
million in lost tourism dollars every year in the Quebec City
region.
This is why the industry has been after the government for so
long to amend the legislation.
1620
The member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans
introduced a bill in 1997 to remedy the situation. All the
members for the Quebec City region supported his efforts, of
course.
Faced with the government's apathy and its refusal to take
action, the member introduced his bill again in 1998, hoping to
bring about changes for the economic benefit of the Quebec City
region.
After much pressure from the industry and from Bloc Quebecois
members, the government finally woke up—it did not have much
choice—and realized, after many years of listening to our
arguments, that the situation could not go on and that something
must be done. It had no choice but to act or look like it was
dragging its heels.
That is why we have been hounding the government since we were
elected in 1993, and we know that industry representatives have
been doing the same for ten long years. The government had no
choice but to introduce this amendment authorizing casinos on
cruise ships sailing on the St. Lawrence River.
Although the government has finally decided to take action, it
must not be forgotten that its lethargy has cost the Quebec City
region dearly. Too many years went by before the Liberal
machinery finally decided to do something.
Today, we applaud this legislative change allowing gambling on
international cruise ships.
There are many other areas where the federal government's
lethargy is having a detrimental effect. Gambling on cruise
ships is but one example, and consideration of Bill C-51 has
helped us identify more examples of this government's lack of
political resolve.
In introducing her bill, the justice minister was proud to
announce she was out to control the activities of organized
crime. And then she proceeded to introduce a change to the
accelerated parole review process under the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act.
First of all, let us make it clear that the Bloc Quebecois has
for some time been condemning the absurdity of the accelerated
review process. My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, the hon.
member for Berthier—Montcalm, repeatedly questioned the Minister
of Justice, asking her whether she thinks it is right for a
major drug dealer like Joseph Lagana, who laundered nearly $47
million, to get paroled after serving only one sixth of his
sentence.
The Bloc Quebecois did not simply question the justice minister
on this issue, it also proposed solutions. Indeed, my colleague,
the hon. member for Charlesbourg, presented a bill to amend the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act to deny high-profile drug
dealers access to an accelerated parole review.
The amendments proposed by the hon. member not only addressed
organized crime, as the minister proposes in her bill, they also
went beyond that to encompass conspiracy and money laundering.
The solutions of the hon. member for Charlesbourg were even
submitted to the justice committee as an amendment to Bill C-51.
We know what happened; the Liberal majority rallied around the
minister and refused to pass them. This refusal is typical of
the Liberal government's lack of courage as far as money
laundering is concerned. If the minister really wanted to deal
with this dangerous problem, she would follow up on the Bloc
Quebecois proposals.
Among the recommendations were the withdrawal of the $1,000
bill. In our opinion, this is an extremely sensible proposal.
What we are asking of the government is very simple: not to
issue any more $1,000 bills.
That would have a direct effect on money laundering.
Obviously, it will take this government a few years to
understand, just as in the case of amendment for the cruise
ships, that Canada is a money laundering centre. It will take
the government even longer to realize that having $1,000 bills
in circulation helps the cause of money laundering.
The Liberal government cannot be pushed. It prefers a step by
step approach. It does not appreciate our telling it what to
do, even when what is needed is obvious.
1625
The government, which we consider arrogant, wants to seem to be
taking initiatives, although we have long been proposing
solutions. Despite this strange situation, the Bloc Quebecois
has not given up. We will continue to ride this government to
get it to act rather than remain complacent.
We have introduced private members' bills to get things moving.
I know something about this because I myself introduced two
private member's bills. Both were rejected by the Minister of
Justice, even after I had devoted a great deal of effort to
raising awareness among stakeholders. There was a great deal of
support for my bills, and several members here in the House were
behind me.
Faced with this situation, the Liberal government had no choice
but to proceed, but it took all the credit. It turned it into a
government bill and made us wait two years for the amendments to
the Criminal Code, instead of giving credit to members who have
the public's interests at heart.
One amendment involved sex tourism; it would have made it an
offence to engage in sex with children in another country. The
other had to do with genital mutilation of African girls who are
now Canadian citizens.
I worked very hard on these two bills and they were rejected by
the then Minister of Justice.
After much pressure from stakeholders and from members, the
Liberal government finally caved in and agreed to amend the
Criminal Code, because it had no choice.
We are not about to give up. After a careful review of a
situation, we do everything we can to bring about the amendment
of legislation that is outdated or contrary to the public's
interests.
The Bloc Quebecois has the interests of Quebeckers at heart.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to this bill today. I have many remarks, some
of which will echo comments already made by other
parliamentarians here today.
I will start by saying for those who are listening to this
debate or who are reading Hansard that this is an omnibus
bill. That means this bill is a catch all, as has been commented
on by other members in the House. The bill affects not just the
Criminal Code but other statutes as well. It is a fairly large
omnibus bill. Like all complex and large pieces of legislation,
there are some good things in it and there are some things that
cause me some concern. The government has gone some way to deal
with crime issues in this bill but perhaps not far enough on
others.
It is to me no coincidence that this bill comes before the House
today at this particular hour. I was just speaking with the
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who comes from the
same province as I come from. He is a member of the Conservative
Party. He and I sit on the justice committee.
Yesterday this bill was not on the Order Paper but it is today.
Ironically at this very hour the Minister of Justice is appearing
before the justice committee to deal with the extradition bill
and to answer questions from members of the justice committee who
might have questions for her. I certainly have many questions
but of course it is difficult to be in both places at the same
time. Is it a coincidence that this bill comes before the House
today so that I cannot question the minister? I do not know.
I will move on to talk about some of the aspects of the bill. I
do not want to be hard on the Minister of Justice.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: There is no conspiracy, Peter.
Mr. Peter Mancini: I am told there is no conspiracy. I am
told that by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice. I agree with her because I am sure she
would like to be at the justice committee today as well.
Let me talk about some of the good things in this legislation,
and there are some good things. One is the year and a day rule
that is changed in the Criminal Code.
1630
The Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice has talked
about the history of this aspect of the legislation. It is an
old anachronistic piece of legislation. It is time that it was
changed. I think we in all parties can agree that the Minister
of Justice by amending the Criminal Code to get rid of this
section has done a good thing.
There are some other good things. Toughening the laws that deal
with those who abuse children in the form of child prostitution
is a good move. I have had many conversations with colleagues in
my party from Winnipeg, Vancouver and Halifax who see the growing
trade in child prostitution. We recognize that this has to be
dealt with by tough measures in the Criminal Code. I think the
bill, by amending those sections that deal with prostitution,
goes some way to deal with that.
On the issue of telemarketing fraud, as technology invades all
our lives, changes the way we work and changes the way we do
business, it also unfortunately creates one of the enhanced
opportunities which technology creates, the opportunity to commit
crime in different ways. Telemarketing fraud is one of those
ways.
Telemarketing scams are widespread. They cost North Americans
billions of dollars yearly and do not know any borders. It is
important that the changes cracking down on telemarketing fraud
are a first step in dealing with that kind of crime.
Particularly susceptible to that crime are seniors and people
who perhaps are not as sophisticated with the whole telemarketing
system as younger people who have grown up with the technology.
It is important that the government recognizes the people who are
vulnerable and deals with that appropriately. I think the bill
does that. I am somewhat congratulatory to the minister for
dealing with that.
The counterfeiting proposal has been addressed by other members
today. That too is a good measure. Money laundering is a
serious problem. Last year I was contacted by a radio station in
Montreal that wanted to know my opinion on the fact that Canada
was named as a nation of primary concern by the United States
because we were a source of money laundering. It is not
something that makes Canadians proud. The government has taken
some initiative to end money laundering and to deal with
counterfeiting.
The hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke before me
referred to her colleague from Charlevoix. The taking out of
circulation $1,000 bills is a good suggestion. I do not know why
the government would not accept it. It is something that could
go some way toward stopping money laundering. Unfortunately the
government has not accepted it. It could have improved the
legislation somewhat if it had done so.
The bill also deals with conditional sentencing. Conditional
sentencing is a section in the sentencing provisions. It is an
opportunity to deal in a particular way with those who commit
crime. It ought not to be abused. When it is abused it harms
all those who might take advantage of the program.
The government has made some necessary changes to the
conditional sentencing provisions so that when an offender is
alleged to have breached or violated his or her conditional
sentence and is arrested, the conditional sentence will now be
stopped from the time of the offender's arrest until the
conclusion of the court hearing. That is a progressive move by
the government.
There is, however, the downside of the bill. There are some
things in this omnibus legislation that cause me concern. One of
them that we have to balance—and I am not saying it is entirely
wrong—is the section that amends the Criminal Code to allow for
a non-contact clause at bail hearings.
Many people may know but some may not know what that means. At
the time of arrest there is a delay between the time of arrest
and the time the bail hearing is held to determine whether or not
an offender is permitted to be released or whether he or she
ought to be incarcerated.
At the time of the bail hearing the judge can impose all kinds
of conditions. One may be that the offender have no contact with
certain individuals. That is a necessary protection because with
some offenders there may be a concern that they will threaten
other witnesses or that they will interfere with the
administration of justice.
1635
In changing the legislation the government is saying that at the
time of arrest before the bail hearing a non-contact clause can
be imposed. The good side of that is that if the judge has
concerns about witnesses being interfered with or the
administration of justice being interfered with it gives the
judge an opportunity to prevent that. On the other hand, if
there is a presumption of innocence we have to ask very real
questions about a judge being able to impose a non-contact
clause.
There is also a particular area that causes me concern, that is
the family law area. Although this is a Criminal Code change it
spills over into the family law. In many cases when there are
allegations of domestic violence or allegations of any kind of
crime being committed, this will allow the judge to impose a
non-contact clause which may interfere with family court orders
that are currently in existence involving access to children,
custody or whatever. It is one in which we have to find a
balance. There are some good points to be made in favour of it
but there are also some concerns.
The final item is the gaming provisions that have been addressed
by other members who have spoken today. They cause me particular
concern. I have to ask why gaming provisions, provisions that
deal with people having the right to gamble on international
cruise ships, have been lumped in with very serious changes to
the Criminal Code. We are dealing with child prostitution, money
laundering and conditional sentencing. Somewhere in between all
these important changes are sections that deal with international
cruise ships and the right to gamble.
It was my suggestion that those sections ought to be taken out
of this omnibus bill and introduced on their own merit. The
debate concerning those is different than the debate concerning
amendments to the Criminal Code and the criminal element. Had
the government done that, there may have been all party support
for some of the very necessary changes to the Criminal Code to
make our communities safe. The failure of the government to do
that makes me wonder if there is not some sleight of hand here.
I have real concerns about the cruise ship provisions. The hon.
member from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke prior to me is in favour
of them, at least I took that from her speech. I should put
before the House, just to illustrate what we are dealing with,
that I come from a community where casinos were just introduced.
That has resulted in a large casino in the downtown core that has
siphoned off business from many local small businesses on the
main street: the local restaurants, bars and entertainment
venues. Many of those businesses have lost their revenue to the
casino. The casino has hired many people. Some of those who
were displaced in one section have found jobs in the other.
The legislation will allow tourists on cruise ships to gamble
when they are in Canadian waters. This will have a direct impact
on the community I represent. Tourism is being touted by many,
especially on the government side, as the saviour of the economy
of Cape Breton. We have managed to attract a large cruise ship
industry. It has done some economic good. Many people on cruise
ships come to the main street to buy souvenirs. They take part
in activities, attend museums and purchase goods. They go to the
restaurants. However there is only so much money to go around.
I have a real concern that by encouraging cruise ships to allow
gambling when they are in Canadian waters—and I appreciate that
within five nautical miles of the port they will not be able to
do that—we are siphoning off some of the disposable income that
might better be spent in the community where these tourists are
destined.
Let us be absolutely frank. The reason for having a tourist
industry is to invite people to spend money in our communities on
goods and services local people can produce.
I question the wisdom in terms of economics of allowing cruise
ships to have onboard gambling. I questioned some justice
department officials who appeared before the justice committee on
this issue, as did other colleagues of mine, and I have not
received satisfactory answers.
1640
The other side of that gaming provision allows the provinces to
introduce dice games. There are people who have real concerns
about the influence of gambling in their communities. We know
gambling can be an addictive form of behaviour. We all know the
stories of people who have gambled away their life savings in
some situations because they could not help it.
Those sections cause me concern. It would have been prudent and
wise for the Minister of Justice to separate those sections of
this omnibus legislation and introduce them separately in the
House where they could be debated. We now have to accept the
bill in its entirety. We can be supportive of cracking down on
crime, making communities safer and preventing child
prostitution. The minister is also asking us to accept
provisions dealing with gaming. It would have been nobler,
perhaps, had she separated those issues.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to debate Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal
Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It is an omnibus bill
that we will not be able to address in its entirety in the short
time we have allotted. However I will take a stab at a few
aspects of the legislation.
Any bill that comes before the House respecting criminal justice
should start from the premise that the most important thing the
criminal justice system in Canada can do is set out a first
principle, that the life and protection of law-abiding citizens
and victims must be the highest priority of that system and of
the government. Sadly and unfortunately often times we see a
criminal justice system that seems to stand that principle on its
head. I would argue that too often the rights of criminals come
before the rights of law-abiding citizens. We need a complete
philosophical change, which I will discuss later.
I will deal with the provisions in Bill C-51 to end the
accelerated parole hearing after one-sixth of a sentence for
anybody who has been convicted of a crime as a gang member. This
raises a bigger issue, the whole idea of having automatic parole.
As an Albertan I can say people back home feel very strongly that
it is crazy to have a system with automatic parole. Why have
sentences when people are released automatically after one-third
or two-thirds at the most? It is crazy and unbelievable.
The criminal justice system is full of terms and language that
mean absolutely nothing. If people are convicted of two or three
crimes the judge might say on the first one that they get two
years; on the second one, three years; on the third one, four
years. However they will all be served concurrently and the
effect is that they spend at most four years in jail. It is
really two-thirds of them because people never serve their full
sentences. They are out after two-thirds. We have a situation
where none of the language we see in the Criminal Code or in any
provision that lays out sentencing means anything.
It is always a complete exaggeration of the time the person will
actually have to serve.
1645
As a fundamental of the justice system when we sit down and
consider it, we should have some assurance that it is relatively
close to what actually happens. If it says a sentence of five
years and the judge metes out a sentence of five years, then
there should be some possibility that the person will stay in
prison for five years, but that is not the case in Canada today.
It is the same with provisions that allow criminals who are
sentenced to a life term to apply to get out of jail, the faint
hope clause. When we say life in Canada, it does not mean life.
It means 25 years. It is really not life. When people are
sentenced to 10 years, they are so-called sentenced to life. That
is ridiculous. With the faint hope clause we find out that the
25 years is not necessarily going to be what they serve.
Prisoners could be out in 15 years.
When we look throughout the criminal justice system we run into
this. It is time we revised all of that. Instead of getting a
bill such as Bill C-51, we should go back to the drawing board
and set up a system where a sentence that is going to be handed
out actually has some correlation to what is served. That makes
sense to me.
It is time for a fundamental change to the criminal justice
system. And while removing the accelerated parole hearing for
members of organized crime may be a positive step, it really is a
baby step. It is a tiny step in fixing the overall problem.
I want to focus on the issue of conditional sentencing. I cannot
say how counterintuitive this is to most people back home. The
government philosophy is that if one commits a crime in Canada,
only as a last possible option would we consider putting that
person in prison. If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt
that a person is violent and is going to reoffend, then perhaps
they might go to jail. Other than that, we see an increased
reliance on the whole idea of conditional sentencing.
Conditional sentencing is referred to in Bill C-51. I do not
believe this government understands how much that provision is
being abused. I want to emphasize that by pointing to a case in
my own riding, in the town in which I live, Brooks, Alberta. It
is a long tale so I hope members will bear with me for a bit.
People I know in the town of Brooks who run an insurance outfit
had hired a woman to do their books for them. They found out
that over a period of a couple of years this person had stolen
not a little bit of money but tens of thousands of dollars. The
woman was eventually found out and she was convicted. We were
thankful for that. I think Gwen and Paul Vickers were probably
pretty happy to find out that the system worked to that point.
The person was convicted.
The Vickers found out that the system broke down in how the
judge meted out the sentence. The person found guilty of this
crime received a conditional sentence. Her name is Ms. McKennit.
Ms. McKennit received a conditional sentence. Tens of thousands
of dollars were taken from the Vickers. They did get a good
chunk of it back. I do not think they got it all back. Ms.
McKennit was sentenced to a conditional sentence which
essentially meant that she had to stay at the farm where she
lived.
There is a problem with that. The government went ahead and put
in place the conditional sentencing without giving money to the
provinces so people could follow up and make sure the sentence
was actually being carried out. Therefore, we have a situation
in the little town of Brooks where one person has to supervise
all the people on conditional sentence and parole.
There is no possible way they can ensure that this sentence is
being served out.
1650
A lot of people question right from the start whether or not it
is a just sentence because in effect people are being sent home
to watch television or to do whatever. In fact during the day
from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. the person does not even have to be at
home. They can wander around the community and only have to be
at home in the evening. But there is no way to supervise that.
The government has gone ahead with conditional sentencing but
has not provided any resources to the provinces to ensure that
the provisions of conditional sentencing are carried out. It is
an absolutely empty sentence because the one person who is there
to supervise cannot possibly do it.
We have seen this situation before. The government effectively
downloads in an area that is its responsibility in terms of
sentencing but when it comes to administration it is the
provinces'. The provinces do not have the money and so the whole
thing does not work. It is toothless and completely useless.
It would be bad enough in the case where somebody who has stolen
tens of thousands of dollars effectively goes home. That is
their penalty. They go home. A real tough penalty. That is bad
enough, but what about all those cases, and we see so many of
them now, where people are guilty of extraordinary violence and
are found guilty of it? Yet the government allows these people
to be sentenced under conditional sentencing provisions.
People who are guilty in some cases of violent rape are sent
home in the community where they raped the person. That is their
sentence. They do not serve one day in jail. How can that be
just? That is not just in anybody's books. But this government
seems to think that somehow if violent rapists are sent to their
homes, it is a just sentence.
I would argue that it is completely wrong-headed. It is contrary
to natural law. It is contrary to everybody's common sense. That
is not a sentence. The only sentence that is being meted out
there is to the victim.
I know my colleague from Abbotsford has spoken often in this
House about a situation in his community. A young woman was
brutally raped. The man was found guilty and was conditionally
sentenced to stay at home in the community. The woman lived in
the same community and feared for her life and her safety because
that animal was released back into the same community. There was
no one to supervise him. He is sitting at home and the victim
cowers in fear.
I wonder what goes on over in the justice department when those
types of things happen.
There is another situation in my riding. A woman is living in
absolute fear because her ex-husband will get out after
two-thirds of his sentence. He has written threatening
suggestive notes in the past and has had a girlfriend monitoring
the woman's home. She is living in absolute fear. She has lived
all around the province trying to get away from this man. He
will be released very soon. She is deathly afraid her life will
be in danger, that this man is going to take her life. I have
sent the file over to the justice minister. I have not heard
anything. This woman is living in absolute fear that she will be
harmed and possibly killed by this man.
I cannot believe that the government sits there on its hands and
does nothing when there are so many examples of this going on
across the country. We know that in many cases judges use
conditional sentencing to sentence people who are violent, who
are bound to reoffend. That is so crazy. It is so wrong-headed.
It is contrary to everything that Canadians believe in and the
government does nothing. I do not understand. I wish somebody on
the other side would stand up and enlighten us, tell us how this
contributes to protecting the public. I do not see it.
1655
It may save a few bucks by putting people at home. As the
Reform Party finance critic I can say that our party is pretty
tightfisted on a lot of things, but we would be more than willing
to find the money somewhere within that existing envelope of
spending where we know there is lots of waste. We would devote
that money to putting violent criminals behind bars and to the
greatest degree possible we would not let them out until we knew
they were not going to commit another crime. That is common
sense.
It makes me very angry when I see women in my riding having to
live in fear because this government cannot get that through its
head. The government does not understand the sense in that. It
is unbelievable it allows that to continue.
By way of expanding the debate a little, I want to say how
wrong-headed this government is and how its priorities are mixed
up. When the Liberals came to power, one of the first things
they did was to push through the gun legislation. Some of the
members who have not thought it through perhaps think it will
somehow help with the crime problem in Canada. Of course we
already have had a handgun registry for a long time. I defy
members across the way to point to a single crime that it has
helped prevent or solve in the last 60 years. Of course every
time we make that challenge, they cannot rise to it because there
are no examples.
This legislation will cost somewhere in the range of $140
million or $160 million. In B.C. the government is withdrawing
funding for the RCMP. The government has a chance to show that
it is serious about dealing with the problem of crime. It could
take the money that is being spent on a program that ostensibly
has never worked in this country because we have tried it already
with the handgun registry and it could give it to the RCMP. We
could have RCMP on the beat around the clock. They could have
their planes in the air and their boats on the water to watch for
smugglers of various kinds.
There is a huge drug problem on the east side of Vancouver
today. We have third world rates of HIV infection there because
drug use is so rampant. What do we have here? We have a Liberal
government that has decided it is much more important to medicate
itself with the illusion that somehow this registry is going to
solve the crime problem. On the other hand, it denies funding to
the RCMP who would actually do something about the crime problem.
There is a real misallocation of resources.
We know that for five years the government has been under fire
over the Young Offenders Act. It is five years since we came to
this place. We have made it an issue weekly. We get up in this
place and excoriate the government because it has done absolutely
nothing about people's concerns about the Young Offenders Act.
For 18 months the justice minister from Edmonton, Alberta has
said that her number one priority is the Young Offenders Act. If
that is the number one priority, we would hate to see the number
two priority because she has done absolutely nothing. Here is the
only legislation that we have received of any kind to deal with
criminal justice in a long time. And these are very, very minor
changes for the most part. If her real commitment is to fix the
Young Offenders Act, what is she waiting for?
We know that Canadians from coast to coast want that act dealt
with and they want it dealt with now. We propose three big
changes over and over. This is not the Reform Party's wonderful
idea. It comes from the people of this country.
People want young offenders, ages 15 and 16, who are guilty of a
serious crime dealt with in an adult court. That makes sense to
me. They want to see them dealt with in an adult court because
regular people understand that the highest priority of the
justice system is to protect the public, not to protect the
criminals. I submit that is exactly what happens when these young
people are allowed to be sentenced under the provisions of the
Young Offenders Act. They barely get a slap on the wrist. We are
saying if they do a serious crime, if they are charged with rape,
murder, armed robbery or serious assault, those sorts of things,
then by all means let us get them into the adult court.
1700
Second, on the other end of the Young Offenders Act authorities
need to have some power to deal with young persons who are 10 or
11 years old who steal cars or start fires. There was a 12 year
old in Toronto who was suspected of rape a couple of years ago.
All the police could do was catch him and release him, only to
have him mock them on the front page of the Toronto Sun
because he knew there was nothing the police could do. The
authorities need to have power to deal with these people, not so
they can go to a federal penitentiary, break rocks into gravel
and make license plates, but so they can at least get some
counselling.
Finally, why are we protecting the names of young people who are
found guilty of serious offences? Why are we doing that? We
believe that the criminal justice system is there to serve the
public, not to serve the offender. If there is somebody guilty
of a serious crime, a dangerous criminal, should we not know
their name? I think we should.
That is a common sense proposal. I know my Liberal colleagues
across the way have heard it.
I suggest that this government has its priorities standing on
their head. The real issue is that we have a criminal justice
system that is there to serve the public and that puts the rights
of law-abiding citizens and victims ahead of the rights of
criminals. That is completely missing in this legislation.
I encourage members across the way to put some pressure on the
Minister of Justice, who is from Edmonton, and tell her that not
only Liberals feel strongly about this, but remind her that the
people of Edmonton and Alberta feel extraordinarily strongly
about it.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I address my question to my colleague from Medicine Hat.
He has cited many examples as to why Canadians today, with each
passing week, are losing faith in the justice system of Canada.
It does not matter where we go.
My hon. colleague talked about conditional sentences, parole and
the Young Offenders Act. Every day in some newspaper we see the
results of a justice system that is breaking down. Cutbacks have
been made to the RCMP in my province and there have been cutbacks
right across Canada, while crime is running rampant.
Would the member for Medicine Hat not agree that a public losing
faith in their justice system will only amount to more and more
crime simply because there is no punishment being meted out
through the justice system?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with
my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain.
I spoke at a school the other day in Foremost, a little town in
my riding. I spoke to the grade 10 social class. We talked
about the Young Offenders Act and about the problem of crime.
We know that amongst young people crime is escalating. Some of
the crime is extraordinarily violent. One of the most disturbing
trends is the increase in violent crime amongst young women. That
is an area that the government must address.
One of the things which came out of that school visit was how
young people are most often the victims of youth crime. When I
go to schools in my riding, or when I speak around the country, I
talk about the issue of crime. I ask grade 10 or grade 12
students, or whatever grade they are in, “Do you think that the
penalties in the Young Offenders Act are just right, too tough or
too soft?” Unfailing they say they are too soft. The reason is
that young people are most often the victims of youth crime.
I remember in my province the terrible case of young Ryan
Garrioch who was brutally murdered in the schoolyard by another
young offender. A young man, just coming of age, lost his life
because of youth violence.
1705
The government must start to take this issue more seriously. I
believe my friend is right. Crime is escalating. We see it
amongst youth. We have to do something about it. It has been
five years. I do not understand it. I plead with the government
to do something.
The minister has said for 18 months that this is her highest
priority. She has done nothing. She has let the people down in
her riding of Edmonton. She has let the people of Alberta and
the people of Canada down. I entreat her and her colleagues to
take this issue seriously. Today many people are being
needlessly hurt and in some cases killed. We need to do
something about this and I hope the government will get busy and
do it right away.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I commend the hon. member for his comments. They are thought
provoking and, in that light, I have two questions which I would
like the member to comment on.
The first one is that I have read recently that crime statistics
are down and that the homicide rate is the lowest it has been for
30 years in this country. There is every indication from those
statistics that in this country homicide rates are down. I would
like to have the member's thoughts on that.
Secondly, we have heard a number of stories, anecdotal evidence
if you will, from the hon. member concerning cases that he has
heard about. I appreciate what he has told this House, but
oftentimes I am concerned that we hear the interpretation of
events. We are all subject to that. We read the headlines. I
wonder if he was in the courtroom for those cases and if he has
heard the other side.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comments.
First of all, he mentioned that homicide rates are down. I
believe that is a fact and it is important to note that.
I think he will also acknowledge that youth crime has been
increasing in this country and a lot of it is violent youth
crime. That causes me a lot of concern. While homicide rates
are down, I do not think we should allow this whole debate to go
to sleep. We need to continue to discuss it.
Following up on that, it points to the fallacy of the
government's argument with respect to the gun registry, that
somehow guns are the reason we have the level of homicides that
we have in the country. The gun registry is yet to be put in
place and, if I recall, homicide rates are down to a level
equivalent to 1969. That absolutely explodes the fallacy we
heard from the government that the gun registry was going to be
the thing that would cause homicide rates to go down.
The member asks whether or not I was in the courtrooms. It is a
good question. In the case of the Vickers family, to whom I
referred to earlier, I was not in the courtroom. However, I have
carried on a long discussion with the Vickers family and also
with the crown prosecutor through correspondence. I have not
talked to him directly, but I have seen his responses to the
family with respect to some of their concerns. The crown
prosecutor, whom I know personally, is an extraordinarily
intelligent crown prosecutor. He presented a very fair case when
he was scrutinizing for the Vickers family what had gone on. I
am convinced that in this case he was being nothing but
absolutely accurate in his depiction of what happened in the
courtroom.
I left out some of the details of this case because I did not
want to exaggerate what had gone on. There are a number of
things that are being alleged that I have not mentioned simply
because I do not want to exaggerate what happened in that
particular case.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the hon. member with great interest. However, I am always a
little concerned when I hear members of the Reform Party address
the issues like crime, the Criminal Code, law enforcement and
justice.
I too am a Canadian citizen and, like them, I am greatly upset
by especially despicable actions.
1710
For instance, when I am sitting in this House and I hear members
of the Reform Party say, as I have hear them say previously,
“God has created men unequal. One should not interfere with
God's established order. There are poor people and rich people,
and that is God's will”, I think the worst place to learn
criminal behaviour is prison. Indiscriminate imprisonment of
anyone who has made a mistake, because they are young or maybe
because they made one mistake, is not a solution.
With their conservative attitude, Reformers are the ones who
never show any compassion.
I think that education should prevail. With its young offenders
legislation, Quebec can boast about having the lowest youth
crime rate in Canada. I realize that, low as it may be, it will
always be too high. However, building the future on prison
megaprojects does not ensure that we will live in free,
democratic and safe societies, where the relationship between
individuals is harmonious.
This is what worries me about the Reform Party's position. Like
all members of parliament, I agree that crime must not pay.
Being a criminal is nothing to be proud of, that is right. But
they failed to stress prevention and education, and stubbornly
dig their heals in.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
raised a couple of good points. The Reform Party does believe
that prevention is very important and we could and should have a
whole debate in the House with respect to that. My colleague
from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca did an excellent job of pointing to
preventive measures that can be taken.
I also take issue with some of the things that my colleague has
stated. I think that the primary purpose of the justice system
must be to protect the public.
With some criminals, my colleague must know, it is much more
prudent, in fact it is in the best interest of the criminal, to
put them in prison where they cannot do harm to other people.
We are simply saying that too often today we see people who are
released from prison or who were never put in prison who should
have been put in there. That does not mean that we do not
believe there should be rehabilitation. Of course there should
be. But the primary purpose of the justice system should be to
protect the public.
That is the Reform Party position. I am sorry if I did not make
that very clear to my colleague.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe this bill deserves the support of parliament in large
measure. It is an omnibus bill and, by definition, an omnibus
bill is a housekeeping bill and can in fact be quite tedious.
A particular provision that caught my eye with respect to this
bill was the homicide and criminal negligence provision, the year
and a day provision, which permits prosecution even though the
victim may have survived beyond a year and a day by virtue of the
advances of medical science. That makes perfect common sense.
It makes all kinds of sense, given our present state.
However, may I suggest with respect to an omnibus bill that the
devil is in the details. I would like to, if I may, draw the
attention of the House to one of those details, namely, gaming.
The apparent effect of the amendment would be to amend the
criminal code with respect to international cruise ships that are
exempted under certain provisions of the Criminal Code.
In addition, provincial governments under certain limited
circumstances would be able to conduct and manage dice games
without the heavy hand of the Criminal Code upon them. Apparently
this has been a request put forward by both Ontario and Quebec.
I would like to address this addiction by all levels of
governments to the business of gambling. The province where I
come from, Ontario, raises something in excess of $2.4 billion of
its revenues from this addiction. This translates into
approximately 5% of all of the revenues of the government.
1715
I could stand to be corrected on my numbers but that is my
recollection from newspaper articles.
The governments of Canada and the Government of Ontario in
particular are heavily addicted to revenue generated by way of
gambling. It is certainly within my memory that this was not
always a source of revenue for any government. Governments have
now become dependent on their gambling fix in order to meet the
ever growing demands on their treasuries.
This bill facilitates that addiction and, I would argue, is not
necessarily a public policy we should encourage.
Gambling by definition is largely a recreational pursuit enjoyed
by a great number of people and abused by a relatively small
number of people.
There is, however, a parallel to the government addiction to
revenue generated from alcohol. Alcohol is clearly enjoyed by a
large number of people and abused by a small number of people.
However, in the decriminalization of that activity, we have
diffused the criminality associated with the consumption of
alcohol from the streets of Chicago in the prohibition days to
the streets of all our communities.
I dare say that if any member asked a police officer what is the
greatest contributor to crime in our society, that police officer
might well answer the criminality associated with the consumption
of alcohol.
The effect that we intend, mainly the reduction in criminality
with respect to the illegal disruption of alcohol, has been
replaced with criminality of other forms, mainly drunk driving,
spousal assault, et cetera.
In the decriminalization of any activities, society in general
and governments in particular frequently do not calculate the
bottom line, cost to the populace, while they merrily rake in the
revenue from the activity. This is most readily observable in
the revenues generated from alcohol and probably less observable
in the revenues generated from cigarettes.
However, I would submit that the revenues that are generated
from both those activities do not go back into serving the
populace that has the addiction by virtue of the ready
availability of those products. In other words, revenues raised
in alcohol and cigarettes far exceed government expenditures for
those members in society who become addicted to those products.
In a perverse way, governments become the handmaidens in the
addictions of their citizens.
It is my view that governments should not be participating in
creating addictions among their citizens. I would argue that
there is a parallel being developed here. As governments
decriminalize certain activities they create a dependency in a
certain portion of the populace and that dependency is not
compensated by making those revenues generated by the
decriminalization available to those who are addicted.
Therefore governments in general and particularly the Government
of Ontario become handmaidens in the addiction while not giving
any hand with respect to the help for the addiction. This is in
my view a rank form of hypocrisy and bad public policy.
Time does not permit me to give example after example of
individuals and families ruined by their addictions to these
social pastimes. I would further argue that the hypocrisy of
government cuts out its high moral ground of leadership and in
fact erodes its ability to lead the populace in directions for
society which are good directions.
If I may be permitted a small illustration, prior to becoming a
member of parliament I was on the board of an organization called
Christian Indigenous Development Overseas. The concept was
relatively simple. We lent money to micro enterprises in third
worlds. We lent money to people who had no security. We lent
money to the people who were the poorest of the poor. We had
projects in the Philippines, in Columbia and in Jamaica, and no
sensible banker would ever lend money to these folks.
Our message, however, was quite simple. If you work hard, if you
are an honest person, you will succeed.
When we started this project we were assisted by CIDA and by the
Wild Rose Foundation of Alberta. For every dollar we raised our
funds were matched somewhere in the order of three to four
dollars. It was a very successful formula and widely
acknowledged as a good use of resources.
1720
However, the Wild Rose Foundation decided to generate its
revenues in part from gambling activities. As a funding
organization we questioned whether we could receive funding
generated from gambling activities. It seemed to us that we were
being hypocritical. How could we use the funds that were
generated in a somewhat less than honest way from something other
than hard work and then give the funds to people who were
desperately in need and to whom we were giving the message work
hard, be honest and you will succeed? We felt we were being
hypocrites.
When the Wild Rose Foundations declined to withdraw from
gambling activities we felt we had no alternative but to withdraw
our request for funding.
Just as we felt we were being hypocrites, this bill puts an
additional layer of hypocrisy on all governments. There has been
virtually no debate with respect to the larger social policy
issue. While I support the bill and will in the end vote for the
bill, it is my view that the social policy issue needs to be
addressed.
The addictions of governments to revenues generated from these
kinds of sources versus the benefits to society affected by the
decriminalization of these kinds of activities is a broad social
debate and one that is ongoing.
However, I suggest that an analogous ground might well be to how
corporations prepare the balance sheets. Frequently the picture
of a business generally on a balance sheet is quite limited. One
has assets, one has liabilities, one has income and one has
expenses. What the environmental movement is teaching us is that
there is more to the bottom line than what appears on a balance
sheet.
I suggest that the analogy is appropriate here. There is more
to the bottom line than what appears on the balance sheet. We do
not know what social damage is caused by our governments'
addition to these kinds of revenues.
I would argue that in gambling we do not put on to the bottom
line the actual cost. We do not know what the impact of gambling
is on the populace at large and the cost it has to society.
To carry the analogy further, government similarly has a
balance. It has revenues and expenses. I will not get into
assets and liabilities because there the analogy really breaks
down because of the way governments count assets and recognize
liabilities. However, we do not really know what the social
costs or the welfare costs or the addiction costs are to society.
It certainly only minimally impacts the bottom line of
governments but it does impact us all in society. It hits
society's bottom line but it does not hit governments' bottom
line.
As I said, I will support this bill because there is a lot of
good work in it and it tightens up areas that need to be
tightened, but the whole area of gaming needs to be addressed by
parliament.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the member. He has spoken very
well. He has spoken to the point that Canadians very often would
like an answer. On this bottom line the member has mentioned, we
fail to take a look at it. When someone makes a study, they do
the revenues from cigarettes, revenues from alcohol, revenues
from gambling, but no one really puts a price tag on the results
of these commodities within society, how much they cost the
Department of Health, how much they cost the social structure
with family breakdown and so on. We should be as a government
taking a look at the bottom line.
1725
Does the member feel that the bottom line with regard to revenue
more often than not generally clouds the real issue, that society
does not see it as such and that we have a hard time dealing with
it?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
good question. It is not something to which I have an immediate
answer. If governments back away from these addictions, these
sources of revenue, other problems will spin out. The classic
example is that of mafia activity in these areas because they are
so lucrative.
I do not know that there is not another way to deal with those
issues. The difficulty is correlating the
family-social-individual breakdown to the availability of these
products and activities and their decriminalization. I am being
perfectly candid. I do not have that answer.
The environmental movement has recognized this. A Harvard
professor has recognized that damage to the environment can be
quantified. If Kyoto is anything, it is nothing other than a
glorified accounting system so those kinds of issues can be
addressed.
I do not know why good thinking people could not arrive at some
sort of accounting system that would bear some similarity to the
quantification of environmental damage. How could we quantify
damage to individuals, society, families, et cetera, over that
portion of time?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
criminal justice is very important to Canadians. I would submit
to the member that Bill C-51 is hardly a burning priority for
most Canadians. His minister has had 18 months to bring forward
changes to the Young Offenders Act. Could he tell us why, if
that is her number one priority, we are still waiting 18 months
later?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the
speech of the hon. member. It had precious little to do with
Bill C-51. He seemed not to be interested in addressing the
issues raised by Bill C-51. In particular he did not address the
two issues I raised. He did not address some of the more
profound social issues.
As to the specific issue of when the legislation will be
introduced, that is well within the prerogative of the minister.
She has generated fairly substantive support based on a report
from the justice committee. I expect to see that drafting in a
timely fashion, as she would say.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will
now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
TRANSIT PASSES
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider making employer-provided transit passes an income
tax-exempt benefit.
1730
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member who seconded this
motion which does not reflect a new request. The Canadian Urban
Transit Association and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
have been lobbying for this policy change for many years.
In 1997 they were joined in their quest by the Amalgamated
Transit Union Canadian Council, the Canadian Labour Congress, the
Ontario Lung Association and Pollution Probe. These groups
together have now formed a national task force to promote this
issue.
I would be remiss if I did not give special mention and
recognition to the two project managers for the national task
force, Amelia Shaw and Donna-Lynn Ahee. These two individuals
turned this initiative into a national grassroots campaign. I
speak from personal experience when I say that if anyone had the
opportunity to meet with these two exceptionally committed people
they could not help but be convinced of the absolute need, the
extreme importance and the widespread support for this
initiative.
We all pay tax on our earnings. Some benefits we receive from
our employer must also be declared as income and are therefore
income taxable. Employer provided parking and employer provided
transit passes are both examples of benefits that are considered
taxable under the federal Income Tax Act.
However, Revenue Canada's interpretation of this act provides
loopholes allowing most employees to receive their free parking
income tax free. Workers with this benefit save approximately
$1,722 annually. This is an incentive for commuters to drive and
represents a significant loss of income tax revenue.
The government can address this bias by making employer provided
transit passes an income tax exempt benefit. This change would
provide a rare opportunity for the federal government to
seriously affect public policy at the local level.
I would say, if nobody in the House minds, that employer
provided tax exempt transit passes is a form of linguistic
juggling so I will refer to it by the acronym many of its
supporters use, TEI
In the United States TEI became available under the deficit
reduction act, 1984, and the tax reform act, 1986. While both
the amounts and the manner in which a transit subsidy could be
offered were limited, transit use increased on average 25% among
employees offered this benefit. Obviously it was a significant
change in emphasis.
In San Francisco, for example, transit use among participating
employees increased by 31%, removing an estimated 17 million
vehicles miles from the Bay area, avoiding 61 million tons of
pollutants and generating $1.6 million of new transit revenue.
More recently American highway policy legislation known as the
ISTEA bill is expected to further promote the use of public
transit. Employers will be able to offer up to $100 per month of
transit benefits and some of the barriers that discourage many
employers from participating have now been eliminated.
Canada is the only OECD nation where the national government is
not involved in funding urban transit. Why should the government
be interested in promoting public transit? Because, by almost
every measure, transportation in Canada is heading on an
unsustainable path. Transportation is the largest single sector
source of Canada's carbon emissions at 32%, accounting for 30% of
energy used and 65% of all petroleum consumed. Half these
emissions occur by cars and light trucks in cities where public
transit is available.
Transportation emissions are expected to rise 52% between the
years 1991 and 2020. If we are serious about reducing our
greenhouse gas emissions we must find a way to promote the use of
public transportation. Making employer provided transit passes a
tax exempt benefit would be a good first step.
If we do not act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we will face
a long term set of consequences. No Canadians have been able to
escape the consequences of global warming. In Canada our average
temperature for the first six months of 1998 was 2.7° above
normal and 5° above normal in parts of the Northwest Territories.
Our first eight months have been the hottest in 600 years. We
are beginning to see the impact our actions in urban settings are
having on ourselves and on our rural neighbours.
1735
We were all shocked by the graphic images of the devastation
that occurred as a result of the floods in the Saguenay and
Winnipeg. The cleanup of the ice storms that hit eastern Ontario
and Quebec has cost more than both floods with rural communities
and farmers bearing the brunt of the disaster. The frequency of
hail storms in Calgary has increased from one every four years in
the 1980s to two every year in the 1990s. There has been a
twofold increase in Canadian forest fires and pest outbreaks to
the cost of $210 million each year.
A 10% to 30% reduction in crop yields across the prairies is
being predicted by Environment Canada's environmental adaptation
research group. The range of disease carrying insects, in other
words the number of Canadians contacting malaria in foreign
countries, has doubled. In 1998 a Toronto woman became the first
Canadian to contract malaria from a local mosquito. We have yet
to examine the cost of introducing new diseases to our country.
Canadians are quickly realizing the seriousness of the challenge
before them. Any incentive encouraging the use of public
transport is an important step in our struggle to meet the Kyoto
protocol.
The same increases in auto use that have profoundly contributed
to our greenhouse gas emissions also affect Canadians locally
both in terms of health and the infrastructure needed to support
vehicular use. Despite tighter vehicle emissions regulations and
reductions in some pollutants, smog increased by 20% over the
past decade in Canada largely because of an increase in the
number of vehicles and the distance these vehicles were driven.
The Minister of Transport made this observation in a recent
address in the city of Toronto:
You don't need to see the seat belt sign to know you are coming
into Toronto. You recognize it by the brown haze of smog.
Therein is a very telling tale. As we approach most significant
urban areas of our country we are well aware of the advancing
city by the haze hanging over it.
Transportation related air pollution is particularly harmful to
people at risk, meaning young children, the elderly and those
with asthma or chronic lung and heart disease. Hospitalization
for young Canadian children with asthma increased 28% among boys
and 18% among girls between the years 1980 and 1990.
In greater Vancouver, part of the world with which I am most
familiar, air is killing 900 people each year. Air pollution
wipes out 2,100 people across the province of British Columbia
and 16,000 people across Canada each year. For each death 100
more received expensive medical treatment. If nothing else,
these statistics speak for themselves. We are dealing with a
major killer component in our environment as a result of
pollution.
Provincial governments are struggling in their own ways to
deliver the health services required by our aging population
while preventable pollution related illnesses escalate. Hundreds
of millions of dollars can be saved by reducing smog. TEI is a
proven incentive to get many people from using their cars and
back into public transit of one kind or another.
Municipalities have been asking for this tax exemption for many
years to promote their public transit systems. In the greater
Toronto area commuter growth of 50% is expected within the GTA
and 100% outside the GTA in the next 25 years. I think we all
agree that with every visit to the greater Toronto metropolitan
area we are reminded of the increasing traffic flow in that part
of the country.
We ought to acknowledge that traffic congestion increases the
travel time required by individuals, vehicle costs, pollution of
the area, and demand for parking and other forms of vehicular
infrastructure. Improving transit service is a less expensive
alternative than adding lanes, widening bridges and
intersections, and increasing parking availability.
The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton estimates that
taxes devoted to transportation will triple if it cannot achieve
its target to reduce rush hour car traffic. Municipal
governments do not have the resources, that is the taxes, to
maintain and expand their transportation infrastructure. In many
cities such as Vancouver and Montreal expansion of highway
systems is limited by geographic location.
1740
Canadians can no longer afford to support indefinite increases
in automobile use. Implementing the TEI would provide the
incentive necessary for many commuters to switch to a mode of
transportation with lower costs to society as a whole.
I have heard several comments being made as an excuse for
inaction on this suggestion. It would cost too much in revenue
loss. There would be a perceived inequity between those using
public transport and others. There is the question of whether or
not taxation is an appropriate or an effective tool to motivate
people's behaviour, the question about subsidies to public
transportation, and the question about it setting a precedent for
excluding other benefits from taxation. I would like to take a
moment or two in the time remaining to address each of these
major concerns.
Can we afford the revenue loss? The Canadian Urban Transit
Association estimates revenue loss to be between $18 million and
$28 million based on U.S. data that 10% of employees will be
offered $40 per month as the average benefit. This is potential
loss as few Canadian employers currently provide transit passes.
Real losses can only occur when employers substitute transit
benefits for currently taxed wages.
Transit benefits are generally cheaper to provide than parking
benefits. Employees who trade a parking spot for a transit pass
increase their employer's taxable corporate profits or their own
taxable income. This would result in a new tax revenue. A net
gain is expected with higher modal shifts to transit. As well,
for reasons previously cited it could save hundreds of millions
of dollars in health care and municipal infrastructure costs
should the TEI be implemented.
There is only one taxpayer. As we all know, an investment from
one level of government that results in reduced cost or new
revenues at other levels of government ultimately benefits the
individual taxpayer. We cannot afford any further inaction in
this sector.
Would this create inequities within the tax system? Some equity
concerns provide a convenient although rather ludicrous argument
in my judgment. I have heard critics say that allowing this
income tax exemption would be unfair to employees with bosses
that would not provide this benefit. I cannot believe that any
Canadian thinks it is unfair that different jobs pay different
wages and benefits even though we may be underpaid for the work
we do as a rule. What Canadians think is unfair is
discrimination, when an employer is paying a different wage or
benefit to two employees at the same company doing exactly the
same job.
Sixty-two per cent of Canadian commuters enjoy free or heavily
subsidized parking while less than five per cent pay income taxes
on this benefit. Co-workers without a car receive no comparable
benefit. Tax losses from this benefit are estimated at $260
million.
By the year 2000, 80% of the Canadian population will live in
urban centres with access to public transportation. Incentives
that result in increased public transit use benefits all transit
users, lower income families, women, students and the elderly, by
increasing transit revenues and transit service.
All taxpayers benefit from decreased congestion. They also
benefit from health care savings, reduced infrastructure costs
and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Very few tax policies
impact so favourably on so many Canadians.
It is unfair that cuts to transit service have occurred in order
to deal with unstable funding. It is unfair that low income
families have been left with less access to educational and job
opportunities simply because they do not own a vehicle. It is
grossly unfair that hospital emergency rooms fill on “smog”
days with young children who cannot breathe properly.
Would TEI be an effective and appropriate tool for increasing
transit ridership? Taxation is already effectively used to
manipulate behaviours. We increase taxes on alcohol and
cigarette use. We give tax credits to oil companies for land
reclamation costs. We allow tax deductions for charitable
donations, political donations and RRSPs.
In the United States this tax exemption is a proven incentive to
increase transit use. The Department of Finance, quoting the
U.S. general accounting office study, concurs that ridership will
increase about 25%.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of TEI is its potential to interact
with other transportation demand management measures to increase
the effectiveness of both. While local and provincial
governments can develop transit systems and control land use,
fiscal incentives are essential to maximize the results.
1745
The Victoria Institute for Transportation Policy, a research
facility in British Columbia, suggests that any transportation
demand management policies implemented at the local and
provincial level will be approximately 20% less effective without
this incentive.
The other question is transit properties constantly hear that
higher excise taxes on gasoline and substantial subsidies from
provincial and local governments currently favour the use of
public transport.
Most provincial subsidies have been slashed. When they did
exist, the hidden subsidies of car drivers almost equalled per
passenger per kilometre the more visible transit subsidies.
Our taxes pay for road construction, road maintenance, policing,
health care for pollution areas and accidents. Car drivers tend
to travel more miles than transit users which increases their
individual subsidy substantially. A 1993 study showed that
Ottawa-Carleton residents paid $425 annually to support each car
user and only $121 to support transit users.
The finance department is concerned that promotion of this
initiative would be precedent setting. The red book claimed a
Liberal government would establish a framework in which
environmental and economic policy point in the same direction.
What better way to green the hill then to provide our employees
with transit passes in lieu of parking?
We need many precedent setting strategies to fulfill our Kyoto
commitment to combat climate change and to reduce traffic
congestion. Implementing the TEI would be a sign of good faith
that this government is interested in working toward a
sustainable economic future.
Reducing congestion, pollution and the environmental and health
impacts requires a number of strategies. One easily
implementable first step the federal government could take is to
make employer provided transit passes an income tax exempt
benefit. This is a win-win situation. Implementation requires
only a policy change from the federal government. It is the
responsibility of individual transit properties to successfully
market this service. Potential revenue losses are an
insignificant investment compared to the long term social,
economic, environmental and health benefits of supporting
sustainable transportation use.
It is interesting that both the Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce
and the Toronto Board of Trade are now calling on the government
to allow this tax exemption to proceed. Businesses are voicing
their concern over the impact and high cost of congestion. This
is viewed as an important demonstration of the government's
commitment to achieving emission reduction targets. We need
proactive policies providing long term savings and avoidance of
tax impacts as we plan our society for the new millennium.
Supporting public transit is not solely a transit issue. It is
a health issue. It is a social issue. It is a pollution issue.
It is an environmental issue. It surely is an economic issue as
well. It is a solid foot forward in the battle to meet our Kyoto
obligations. It makes sense. It is cost effective. It has
proven to be effective in other jurisdictions.
If we cannot agree to provide an incentive for Canadians to use
public transportation when so many groups and organizations are
supportive and we have no clear opposition, how will we ever be
able to make that much bolder and controversial step necessary to
create a sustainable future? It is time to make employer
provided transit passes as tax exempt benefit.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to stand today to discuss the issue of whether the
government should consider making employee provided transit
passes an income tax benefit.
In my many years in municipal politics I supported this
position. As the president of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities I lobbied the government on this very point.
My friend across the way talks about the support of the FCM and
the Canadian Urban Transit Association. There is no question that
the government should consider the motion proposed by my hon.
colleague.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development has stated that it is incumbent on the
government to ensure that environmental policy is not hampered by
fiscal policy. It is unfortunate that at the moment Canada has
not joined other industrialized countries such as the United
States and several countries in western Europe in making employee
provided transit passes a non-taxable benefit.
Under current federal income tax policy, employer provided
parking benefits are officially taxable, but most employees
qualify for exemptions. Employer provided transit passes are
fully taxed, providing an estimated $570 per year federal tax
advantage to the average automobile commuter.
1750
The value of an urban parking space and GST avoidance result in
an average $1,726 annual financial incentive to commute by
automobile rather than public transit.
For those of us who live in the greater Toronto area or the
Vancouver area or in Montreal, we certainly know the impact of
congestion of automobiles.
This proposal would assist in our Kyoto commitments. It has been
estimated that as many as 300 million kilometres annually of
urban automobile travel within 10 years would be eliminated if
this proposal were adopted.
It has also been estimated that it would reduce by 35% the
expected growth in peak period travel in our major urban centres.
We would save billions of dollars in road construction costs as
well.
It would also prevent tens of thousands of tonnes of greenhouse
gas emission. Clearly the battle to deal with reducing C02
emissions is going to occur in our cities. Therefore this
proposal will assist in that reduction to meet our commitments,
those targets at Kyoto.
It would relieve traffic congestion, thereby reducing
transportation costs. It would enhances economic efficiency. No
doubt it would lead to a reduction in health costs and fewer
respiratory related illnesses.
Current taxation policies favour the automobile over public
transit. Let me elaborate. We could amend the Income Tax Act so
that employer contributions toward employee transit commuting
expenses are not treated as a taxable benefit. Alternatively,
the same effect could be achieved by the Ministry of Finance at
the administrative level publishing a statement of regulations in
an interpretation bulletin. In either case employers could pay
some or all of the cost of employee transit commuting expenses
without listing them on employee T-4 tax forms as taxable
benefits and employees would pay no income tax on them.
The proposal has the support of the Canadian Urban Transit
Association, the Transportation Association of Canada, the House
of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development and the national round table on the environment and
the economy. I had the pleasure of participating in that round
table when I was president of the FCM in November 1996. The
climate change task group of the national air issues
co-ordinating committee also supports it.
Making transit benefits tax exempt leverages a much greater
value by giving employers an incentive to offer such benefits. A
typical transit benefit would total $480 per year plus $182 in
tax exemption for a total benefit of $662.
Experience in other countries such as the United States and
western Europe indicates that many employers would offer transit
benefits if they were tax exempt. This is an effective strategy
for increasing transit commuting, particularly for communities
that develop other incentives for transit use.
For this reason transit benefits are tax exempt in most other
developed countries. Several European countries provide tax
credits to employers or employees for transit pass purchases.
U.S. income tax law exempts up to $65 worth of employee transit
benefits per month, about $88 Canadian, although it would be a
little higher now.
Transit benefits can take various forms. Employers could give
free monthly transit passes, tickets, tokens or transit fare
vouchers including bus, rail, ferries and form van pools, but not
car pools.
In the United States transit benefits typically average $20 to
$30 U.S. per month or about half the full price of a transit
pass. Employers typically offer transit benefits to an employee
who agrees to commute by transit at least a few days a month.
The results of a transit benefit tax exemption are that transit
voucher programs are being established in many major American
cities. Transit vouchers are produced by transit agencies or
independent firms and they are equivalent to a money order or a
cheque that can only be used for purchasing transit passes or
tickets.
1755
As an example, an employee might receive a $30 voucher with his
or her monthly paycheque. They may pay the balance, perhaps
another $30, to purchase passes or tickets from any local transit
agency. These programs are popular because they minimize
employer administrative costs and they allow one instrument to
be used in an area with multiple transit companies.
I believe this proposal clearly has merit. This proposal, as
the hon. member indicated, should be considered. We need to look
at those benefits and say that fiscal policy should not hamper
good public policy in terms of improving and encouraging public
transit, improving our environment and improving the overall
health of Canadians.
I suggest current federal tax policy is both economically
inefficient and unfair because it provides automobile commuters
with a valuable benefit that is unavailable to other modes. This
policy is at cross purposes with municipal, provincial and even
federal transportation objectives to develop a more efficient and
sustainable transport system.
In conclusion, federal income tax exemptions have a significant
leverage effect. They induce employers to provide benefits that
meet exemption criteria and as a result most Canadian employers
are offered parking benefits but virtually none are offered
transit benefits. The total value of untaxed parking benefits
represents $1,726 in annual economic incentive to commute by
automobile rather than by public transit. We need to look at
this and we need to take action. I hope the House will consider
the motion and support it.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in debate on Motion No. 360, put so
eloquently this evening by my colleague from Kamloops, that in the
opinion of the House the government should consider making
employer provided transit passes an income tax benefit.
At the outset I sincerely commend my colleague from Kamloops for
his very thoughtful presentation and initiative. He has brought
before us a very considered approach to providing an incentive
for a responsible transportation policy which would have a
positive impact on the environment.
It is refreshing to find that the first government speaker
following the member from Kamloops was not the obligatory
parliamentary secretary standing up to read a speech written by
bureaucrats opposing a good initiative from a private member. It
is encouraging to see that pattern broken this evening.
I am open to supporting this motion, but I have several
significant concerns which I will outline and which I hope my
hon. colleague will have an opportunity to respond to.
My principal concern is that tax policy should be neutral. One
of the guiding principles of good sound tax policy should be
neutrality and we ought not to design the tax code as a lever of
social engineering. We ought not to try to force or create false
incentives for people to act in a way we think is desirable.
1800
To do so is really beyond the principal purpose of the tax
system which is simply to raise revenues in the most efficient
way possible to finance the needs of government.
Instead of a tax system free of exemptions, deductions and
credits of the nature proposed this evening, I prefer one which
is much lower overall, with much more generous basic personal and
spousal exemptions which in effect would allow people to make
decisions about how they spend their money and conduct their
lives by themselves, according to their own priorities and not
the priorities of politicians and bureaucrats.
I have a deep theoretical reservation to supporting initiatives
of this nature. I was the only member of my party to vote
against a private member's bill which came before us earlier this
year from my hon. colleague from Portage—Lisgar to allow for the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments on principal
residences. While this would have been an enormously popular
incentive for people to invest in home ownership, it occurred to
me that it would have been an enormous addition of a complex,
special credit in the tax system which would make it even more
costly to administer and would again create these kinds of false
incentives rather than letting people face a completely neutral
tax system.
I opposed the motion for mortgage deductibility then and that is
why I have some serious theoretical concerns with this kind of
exemption.
I would much prefer to completely overhaul the Byzantine, 1,300
page Income Tax Act which we have constructed in this parliament
over the past 80 years since the temporary Income Tax Act of 1917
by adopting some kind of simple, pure, clean, neutral, flat or
single tax similar to that proposed by the hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood in his various versions of a single tax or
in some of the propositions for a flat tax offered by members of
my own party.
This kind of tax reform would allow Canadians to decide whether
or not they are going to use their after tax income on transit
passes, on parking or on other priorities. It would not create a
government incentive for social engineering.
I have other questions that relate to other potential objections
that I hope the hon. member will have a chance to respond to.
It occurs to me that the adoption of employer provided transit
passes and the tax exemption thereon would create an inequity
between those who have these transit passes provided by their
employers and those who do not have such a privilege, those who
by circumstance of their employment agreements have to pay for
their transportation costs individually through after tax
dollars.
It seems to me that this would weight the playing field and
reduce the neutrality of the tax system in favour of some
taxpayers who happen to have employers who subsidize their
transportation against those who would end up having to pay after
tax dollars for their transportation. That is the kind of
inequity that arises when we play with the neutrality of the tax
code.
I am also concerned with the cost issue. The national task
force to promote employer provided, tax exempt transit passes
estimates, in its very thoughtful submission to the House of
Commons finance committee, that the potential gross loss in
federal revenue through this measure would be between $18 million
and $28 million.
This contradicts quite significantly the estimate made by the
Department of Finance which suggests that the cost to the public
treasury in reduced revenues would be as much as $140 million.
I do not think any of us in this House are capable of examining
in detail the assumptions used in these competing estimates, but
there is such an enormous disparity between the $18 million
estimate and the $140 million estimate provided by the Department
of Finance that I think before we support this motion we really
ought to have a clearer and better answer to the question of how
much potential revenue we are prepared to forgo through the
adoption of this exemption.
1805
Let me also say that there is another potential inequity, in
that many millions of Canadians do not live in urban areas and do
not have access to or need major transit systems and would not
use a bus or a subway system. I can imagine many people who
drive to work through necessity, whether they live and work in
the suburbs, in smaller towns or in rural communities. These are
people who have to pay for their own personal transportation
costs through after tax dollars. It seems to me, again,
inequitable to suggest that only those who live in major urban
centres and have access to major urban transit systems would get
a special tax exemption.
For all of those reasons I would like to reserve judgment on
this motion, although I am very open to supporting it. I hope we
can get clearer information on the potential cost to be incurred
by the treasury. I also think that we should look more closely
at the question of the potential inequities that this kind of
special tax exemption would create.
In closing, I would call on all members to work toward a
simpler, less costly, more efficient and more neutral tax system,
with a much lower overall burden, which would allow Canadians
themselves to make decisions about how they will spend their
after tax dollars, rather than we as parliamentarians making
those decisions for them through the adoption of special
incentives of this nature.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
indeed my pleasure to have the opportunity today to speak to
Motion No. M-360 moved by the member from Kamloops.
First, I would like to say that the Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada is very pleased to support this motion.
I would like to suggest why this piece of legislation has been
brought forward.
The premise that the member from Kamloops utilized throughout
the course of his speech was the need to actually address the
serious challenge of climate change.
Last December, a mere 11 months ago, the international community
met en masse in Kyoto, Japan. It was the first time that the
industrialized nations actually met to begin setting targets and
timelines to address the serious issue of climate change. Climate
change is something that will ultimately affect every region in
the world and predominately those countries situated in a
northern climate.
This issue of achieving our targets with respect to Kyoto really
stems back to the sort of country we have. Perhaps no other
country in the world lives off its natural resources more than
Canada. We have a diverse country and with our geographical land
mass transportation has always been a historical challenge for
Canadians. We also live in a colder climate. That means that
our economy is very energy intensive. It is resource based and
is also export driven. We need to ensure that we actually find
some initiatives that are market driven and incentive based for
us to actually begin to address the serious issue of climate
change.
There is no single solution available today, and I believe well
into the future, that will enable us as a country and the world
community to be able to reduce our greenhouse gases. This
initiative is a step in the right direction.
1810
Before I get back to the motion, on the issue of climate change,
this is a very positive and well thought out initiative. There is
a change in the political tide to some degree because the New
Democratic Party of Canada is advocating a tax cut. I applaud
the New Democrats for doing that. All individuals in this country
are overtaxed. Any time we provide Canadians with any kind of
tax relief it is a step in the right direction.
I want to address an issue that was addressed by my colleague
from Calgary Southeast. He was discussing whether this would be
too interventionist from a taxation perspective. He said that
government tax initiatives should never have a role in society.
I prefer broad based tax relief for Canadians. This motion heads
in a very positive direction and should be given some thought.
The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys and
the Liberal member who spoke both addressed the issue of climate
change. The member for Calgary Southeast never mentioned the
issue of climate change. The member said that it would be good
for the environment. Yes, it would reduce emissions in terms of
smog and other things that are harmful to human health, but he
missed the opportunity to say once and for all that the Reform
Party of Canada understands that climate change is a global
problem.
My Liberal and NDP colleagues will remember that the member for
Calgary Southwest stood in this House on the eve of the world
community meeting in Kyoto to address this real and serious
issue. The member for Calgary Southwest denied there was a
problem with respect to climate change. He actually said that
the science was inconclusive and that perhaps more study should
be done. Saying that the science is divided is the same kind of
logic as saying that cigarette smoking is good for you.
There are individuals who advocate a so-called meeting of the
minds. They ask why the two conservative parties do not have
some kind of fusion, alliance or coalition. But there are some
fundamental issues that differentiate the Reform Party and the PC
Party. One issue is our environmental commitment and our
understanding with respect to the big picture.
The hon. member pointed out that transportation accounts for 32%
of all carbon dioxide emissions or greenhouse gases within
Canada. Local transportation is a significant component of that
figure.
Why would we not want to go forward with this? Canadians in
general are overtaxed. This would encourage Canadians to use
public transportation en masse. It would reduce consumption of
automobile gases and smog which would be very good for human
health.
I applaud the member from Kamloops for his initiative and for
saying that there is only one taxpayer. He is right. We spend
billions of dollars allocating moneys to maintain our rural and
urban highways. This would enable us to lessen some of the day
to day pressures on our roads.
I challenge the government to adopt this motion. The government
says time and time again that it is committed to early action in
order to address the serious issue of climate change. I would
submit that Canadians would look for any action or at least a
little more.
A case in point is that this government has still to bring in
initiatives and aggressive tax incentives with respect to
research and development on energy efficiency.
The government has yet to bring in aggressive tax incentives for
the use of renewable sources of energy.
1815
In terms of home heating, only 1% of all homes being constructed
in Canada today are R-2000 compatible. There are many solutions
out there. The government has a role in leading the way so we
can actually make it market driven, incentive based and get
Canadians engaged in the issue. Another solution is producing
less emissions of carbon dioxide. Public transportation would
head us in that direction.
As I said earlier Canadians are overtaxed. I understand the
concern is that perhaps this would favour individuals who live in
urban areas and some individuals such as myself who reside in the
beautiful riding of Fundy—Royal, which is very rural, and may
not have the opportunity to use transportation en masse. I would
also indicate that many communities would have to do that.
In my riding half the population lives in a suburban area just
outside the city of Saint John. Nearly 35,000 individuals are
within five or six miles of the city of Saint John. There is no
public transportation system for individuals who would choose to
use public transportation in terms of the bus to go into the city
of St. John.
That is not necessarily because of a lack of will on the part of
our valued municipal leaders such as Mr. Bill Artiss, mayor of
Rothesay, and Alyson Leslie Brown-Hamilton, mayor of Quispamsis.
I do not blame it on these individuals. They would be committed
to public transportation if they had the critical mass to do so.
Providing a tax incentive for more individuals to take the bus
would be most cost effective. The people in the Kennebecasis
Valley in my riding of Fundy—Royal could ultimately develop the
critical mass to use a public transportation system.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member opposite for the motion. The government should
consider making employer provided transit passes a tax exempt
benefit.
I must admit that when this initiative came across my desk I
thought it was a provocative thought, so I enter into the debate
with that kind of mindset. These are interesting initiatives
from members who are trying to address real and valid issues that
exist in society.
This is a bit of a peephole reaction to creating tax
legislation. One is forever looking through a narrow glass and
not necessarily getting the entire picture. I offer this as more
of a response than a criticism. It does not address the fact
that all employers do not offer transit passes. It does not do
anything for those people who use transit who are not employees,
people such as seniors, students and the unemployed. It does not
do anything for these folks. I am not entirely convinced that we
can confer a certain kind of benefit on one class of citizen
without expanding the benefit to other classes of citizen, all of
whom are transit riders.
I would like to see a proposal, if this was the kind of
direction in which the government wished to go, where the
benefits of using transit were readily apparent and were of some
use to all classes of citizens.
The second consideration that bothers me is the peephole
approach to public policy. Municipal, federal and provincial
governments already give substantial subsidies to transit.
1820
It is my understanding that at this point in time approximately
48% of transit costs are subsidized costs. Ridership or public
riding contributes only 52%. This brings me to one of the more
critical components of the argument of my friend opposite, that
there is an implicit assumption that with this exemption
ridership will increase.
It was not clear to me in debate or in reading his support
materials that ridership would increase. Again I react
anecdotally here. I would have thought that employees who are
using transit already will not necessarily increase the
ridership. They will continue to use the transit regardless of
whether or not they get a tax exempt benefit. I am not at all
persuaded that ridership will be increased. If ridership is not
increased, we do not achieve what we want to achieve in terms of
harm reduction to the environment or trying to meet Kyoto
targets.
I would ask the hon. member to think, if this debate goes
forward, about the issue of how he can give assurances that
ridership will increase. The only clear evidence at this point
is that tax revenues will be reduced. I do not find this
argument to be a persuasive one.
We all wish to reduce greenhouse gases and to meet our Kyoto
requirements. The linkage is not necessarily demonstrable. The
assumption is that cars will be taken off the road—and I hope
that is true—by giving this exemption. If cars are taken off
the road our greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced and we will
be able to meet our Kyoto requirements.
The linkage again is not clear in my mind. This is in some
respects an article of faith rather than a clear evidential
linkage. Those are the criticisms I have of the motion. As can
be seen in the phrasing of my criticisms, I am not at all opposed
to the thought or to the general direction. I would like to
suggest that possibly the exemption may be only one way of
achieving the benefit the hon. member wishes to obtain. There
may well be better ways to achieve these laudable goals by not
taking a kind of peephole approach to little pieces and sections
of the Income Tax Act which in and of themselves may create
inconsistencies that are not necessarily anticipated.
Again I laud the hon. member for his initiative. As I said,
when this initiative came across my desk I thought it was a good
idea. It was not one that readily yielded criticism. I offer my
observations to him in the form of encouragement to a fellow
parliamentarian.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to comment on my colleague's initiative. This is a
very bold challenge for the government to consider.
I must highlight that my hon. colleague who has just risen and
spoken to some of the considerations that should be taken into
account raised the issue of the effect a transit pass exemption
for employees would have on the environment.
My hon. colleague mentioned a statistic from San Francisco as an
example. Transit use among participating employees increased by
31%. This in turn generated $1.6 million of new transit revenue.
Other members mentioned inequality.
If employees were given these benefits and incentives to use
transit as opposed to driving their vehicles it would mean the
transit companies would have more resources and more capabilities
to decrease the costs to the public, the unemployed, the
students, the elderly, the people who are using the present day
transit systems in the cities.
1825
This incentive is a challenge for this government to consider.
Today 32% of emissions in Canada are caused by our transportation
system. We are per capita the second highest emitter of
greenhouse gases in the world. We have to correct our ways. We
have to readjust our way of living, our day to day urban
lifestyle, which this incentive is directed at. The government
has said that we will reduce our 1990 levels of emissions by 6%
by the year 2005. Today we are 12% beyond that. Add 12% to the
6% promised and that is an 18% reduction. But there is no
incentive.
This government has not acted on greenhouse gas reductions since
coming back from Kyoto. It has not done anything except consult.
It has 12 specific tables which were created by the greenhouse
emissions secretariat. These people are continuing to discuss
but there is no action plan.
The hon. member has created an incentive through Revenue Canada
which would be revenue neutral for employers. It would be a
major incentive for employees to consider. If they are getting a
benefit from their employers and then having to pay a tax portion
of that at the end of the year, that is a disincentive. It
reverses the whole process and our commitments.
I ask all members to consider this motion and vote in favour of
it. The government would then be challenged to take it back to
the environment committee, because this is a major environmental
initiative, or to Revenue Canada. The finance committee would
then seriously have to look at the impact of this.
Again, it should not have banked on the taxation of employer
benefits for their employees to get to work. A lot of these
employees travel from suburban areas. If we look at the
outskirts of the capital region of Ottawa our transit system does
not even go the airport. Somebody in downtown Ottawa wanting to
utilize the public transit system has to stop at the Hunt Club
region. Then they have to walk the rest of the way, or take a
taxi, or hitchhike, or use emit more greenhouse gases in some
other shape or form. It we had employer incentives that increase
the use of transit it would increase the extent of our transit
system in our cities. It would be an incentive for the employees
and the transit systems.
The hon. member mentioned that municipal transit associations
and municipal authorities throughout the country would be very
much in favour of this. Major cities have lent their support to
this issue.
I beg all members to seriously consider this. Vote in favour of
the motion. It deals with the conscience of the country in
making legal commitments for greenhouse gas reductions and making
decisions on a tax exemption our citizens truly deserve. When an
employer hands them a transit pass as a benefit and then asks
them to pay taxes on top of this it is a disincentive.
This is repealing a practice by the government to create revenue
that is uncalled for. It is a very small investment by repealing
a tax revenue that could have many benefits.
1830
I must highlight some statistics. San Francisco employers
passed out transit passes to their employees as an incentive and
transit use increased by 31%. That would mean 17 million vehicle
miles in the bay area of San Francisco. Pollutants were
decreased by 61 million tonnes and $1.6 million in new revenue
was generated for the transit system in San Francisco. The hon.
member across the way challenged us to come up with some sort of
example. Those are the statistics we can come up with.
There would be further time to research the issues through
committee and I think the topic of the motion would come back
into the House for further debate. The challenge is given to the
hon. member who has presented the motion and he would have
another opportunity to speak to it.
I would ask that those members who are suspicious of the motion
in terms of a tax loophole reconsider. The benefits are beyond
what the government can afford in terms of the greenhouse gas
emissions. Our cities are being challenged with the whole aspect
of transportation and the redesigning of our lifestyle.
In the new millennium—
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the
House to move concurrence in a committee report.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would ask for unanimous consent of the House that the 13th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
presented on Wednesday, November 26, 1997 be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
TRANSIT PASSES
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to reaffirm that Canada is the only OECD country where
the national government is not involved in funding public urban
transit systems. That is a major challenge for us and it is an
opportunity for the government to show leadership and act on it.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired and the
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
Order Paper.
It being after 6.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.)