36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 154
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 18, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL CHILD DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Godfrey |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOLOCAUST
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1405
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOLOCAUST
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARGUERITE-ROSE PESANT-BÉDARD
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1410
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONTREAL ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRUGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1415
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1420
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET SURPLUS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1425
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1430
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICEBREAKING POLICY
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1435
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-54
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1440
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROAD TRANSPORTATION
|
1445
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1450
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CENTRAL AMERICA
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat O'Brien |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1455
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUGUSTO PINOCHET
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
1500
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADMINISTRATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXPORT OF MILITARY GOODS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1510
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO INDUSTRY RESPONSIBILITY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-13. First reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Custody and Access
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1515
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Environment
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Conscientious Objection
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1525
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tax Reform
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Cruelty to Animals
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1530
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC Meeting
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1535
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-13
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1540
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1555
1600
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1625
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1650
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1655
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1720
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1725
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1730
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-207. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1735
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit
|
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1810
![V](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 154
![](/web/20061116185329im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 18, 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 Saint
John.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
certainly are times when perseverance pays off. A classic
example of this is Margaret Penwarden from Victoria West, which
is in my riding of Egmont in Prince Edward Island.
Margaret was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis almost three
years ago. She started taking Betaseron in July 1996. This drug
produced a substantial improvement in her condition. The
problem, however, was that Betaseron was a very expensive drug,
with an average annual cost of approximately $17,000. Even with
a drug plan she had to pay $6,000 out of her own pocket.
Many P.E.I. MS sufferers had no drug plan and therefore could
not afford the drug. Margaret, supported by the Atlantic
division of the MS Society of Canada, started a crusade to have
these drug costs covered by the provincial health plan.
While it was a long and arduous fight, ranging from a letter
writing campaign to an actual sit-in at the provincial
legislature, Margaret and her MS sufferers eventually prevailed.
In October of this year the provincial government finally
announced that the cost of Betaseron and three other MS treatment
drugs would, in part, be covered under the provincial plan.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT FUND
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
recently received the following letter from the owner of Toby
Theatre & Video Rental in Invermere, B.C.: “Regarding this EI
fund that our government thinks it has a right to use however it
sees fit, what really upsets me is the fact that high school
students who work for me have to pay EI even though the
government admits that they are eligible to collect EI but do not
qualify as long as they are going to school. Doing this to a
group of Canadians that do not even have a vote is, if not legal
fraud, certainly moral fraud. As to the rest of the EI fund, it
belongs to the workers and business people of this country and
not to the federal government. I think that it should be given
back to the people that it is”—euphemistically—“borrowing it
from, especially our young people”.
It is signed by Ron Peters, Invermere, B.C., and it is well
said.
The Speaker: I would remind all hon. members that we
cannot use words in here which are used by someone else which we
ourselves are not permitted to use. I would caution all members
in their statements.
* * *
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Friday, November 20 marks the sixth anniversary of National Child
Day, a day to increase awareness and understanding of healthy
child development.
As chair of the National Children's Agenda Caucus, I believe
that by providing a warm, loving and responsive environment for
young children our society can provide a better and more
promising future for children.
November 20 was chosen as National Child Day because it is the
anniversary of two historic events for children: the United
Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1959 and the
United Nations adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child in 1989. The convention recognizes children's basic human
rights, protects them from harm and addresses the important role
of the family in bringing up children.
But National Child Day does something else. It reminds us that
all children need love and respect to grow to their full
potential. That is why healthy child development is everyone's
concern and responsibility.
* * *
HOLOCAUST
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured today to pay tribute to the 50 holocaust survivors
seated in the gallery of the House of Commons. They are here
representing all Canadian holocaust survivors.
These distinguished men and women who survived unimaginable
horrors have contributed to making Canada the greatest country in
the world.
These heroes in the gallery today and other holocaust survivors
living throughout Canada have moved forward to help us learn from
the past. They have seen, firsthand, the consequences of
discrimination and have pledged to do their part to see it is
erased forever.
While many would have simply given up, these brave Canadians are
working to eradicate discrimination, bigotry, hatred and violence
that we still face today.
1405
They want us to learn from our mistakes so that we may enter the
next century free from the intolerances of the past.
I would ask all members of the House to join me in thanking
these heroes in our presence. Only if the horrors are never
forgotten can we say “Never again”.
[Editor's Note: Members rose and applauded]
* * *
HOLOCAUST
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I too today rise to honour these survivors of the holocaust. The
Canadian Society for Yad Vashem today honours these survivors.
Canada has been enriched by the decision of those survivors who
have made our country their home. Theirs has been no mean
contribution. After a dehumanizing challenge unparalleled in
history, after losing property, family and friends, these men and
women, survivors of the worst infamy perpetrated by humanity on
its own kind, came to Canada to seek out a society wherein they
could help build regard for tolerance, respect for diversity and
the elimination of discrimination and bigotry.
Their lives in Canada read like a model of good citizenship. In
short, they came, they saw and they made a difference, in
business, in education and in community building.
I am proud to be associated with true heroes like those in the
gallery and like my constituents, Alex Grossman, Elas Chandler,
Fanny Silberman and my good friend Michael Rosenberg. Like all
other Canadians, I thank them.
* * *
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on November 11 Canadians honoured and remembered the
sacrifices that veterans made to protect our freedom.
World War II veteran, Stuart Scott, a Radville, Saskatchewan
farmer was fined $1,500 on November 6 and was ordered to
surrender his 1988 car to Canada Customs for moving four bags of
hulless, waxy barley into the U.S. According to Mr. Scott,
“While I was fighting for the freedom of my country, my country
took my freedom away”.
Students have been pepper sprayed for protesting against a
dictator and farmers have been jailed for selling their own
grain. History can only judge this government harshly for
neglecting to protect the freedom for which so many Canadians
fought and died.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt about it now: a PQ government would
keep working for another four years at preparing the next
referendum and promoting Quebec's separation.
It is clear. The leaders debate enlightened Quebeckers on the
future of Quebec. On the PQ side, there is this will to hold a
referendum and to work hard to make it happen.
They want to expend time, effort and money to this end and
ultimately achieve separation, even if it goes against the
interests of Quebeckers, who object to a referendum.
So, let us be clear: a vote for the PQ is a vote for holding a
referendum. And a vote for the Liberal Party is a vote for
economic growth and a better quality of life in Quebec.
* * *
MARGUERITE-ROSE PESANT-BÉDARD
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
congratulate Marguerite-Rose Pesant-Bédard of Notre-Dame-des-Prairies
on being awarded the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award at
an official ceremony held last Sunday at the Quebec Citadel.
The founding president of the Quebec fibromyalgia association,
Mrs. Pesant-Bédard has conducted research, participated in
television programs, helped her members stand up for their
rights, organized funding drives, published a newsletter and
performed other most helpful tasks to bring hope and comfort to
persons with fibromyalgia.
Mrs. Pesant-Bédard deserves our admiration for her remarkable
dedication and exceptional community spirit, which do the
citizens of my riding of Joliette, and indeed all Quebeckers,
proud.
* * *
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, two days ago I was wondering which Lucien Bouchard
would be turning up at the leaders' debate, which was held last
evening.
1410
Now we know. We were treated to a Lucien Bouchard who repeated
his commitment to a referendum, provided he would win. First
ambiguity.
We were also treated to a Lucien Bouchard who did not dare
remind people that his party's reason for being is sovereignty
and independence. Not a word on that. Second ambiguity.
We were treated to an ambiguous Bouchard, one who was on the
defensive and, if re-elected, promises another period of
political uncertainty and unproductive confrontation.
On the other hand, we saw very clearly that a vote for the
Liberal Party is a vote for a strong Quebec, one that is open to
the world, a Quebec which believes that the best way to develop
fully is within Canada.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada sends observers to third world countries to make sure
elections are fair and above board.
Canada recently supervised elections in Chiapas to ensure, among
other things, the principle of a secret ballot. Yet in Canada
the Canadian Wheat Board is holding elections for board members
and every single ballot is identified with a number on the return
envelop.
Stephanie Mainil, who lives in Saskatchewan, is No. 8-8948. Her
father is 8-8938. If this happened in Mexico everyone would
suspect intimidation and tampering. Added to this problem is the
matter of ballots being sent to people who have been dead for
several years.
Now we hear that the minister is going to appoint the
scrutineers for this election. In a democracy it is the
candidates who appoint the scrutineers. Is it any wonder why
farmers are complaining that this whole process is corrupt?
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Lucien Bouchard
finally showed his true colours last night. He did not hesitate
one second in announcing that, in a coming PQ mandate, the
Government of Quebec would do everything possible to hold
another referendum on Quebec independence.
If the PQ received another mandate, the separatists would again
set to work to convince the people of Quebec that separation is
the way to go, and they are prepared to use any means to achieve
it.
The problem is that the people of Quebec do not want this
referendum. In order to fend off this threat, the people of
Quebec should give a majority vote to the Liberal Party so that
attention can finally be focussed on the real priorities, which
are health, education and employment.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's economy is falling behind. We are drifting to
the bottom of the class in innovation and R and D investment.
Our productivity growth in recent years has been the lowest of
the G-7 and we have the second lowest investment in R and D of
all the G-7.
The Liberals have presided over an economy that has failed to
invest in new skills and technologies that are the basis for
success for the future, thus handing Canada's economic
competitors a huge advantage.
The time has come for this government to recognize that we
cannot afford as a country to continue with the policies that
deepen our innovation and productivity gap. Canadians are asking
why this government has presided over this travesty and when it
will do something about it to improve the lives of Canadians and
ensure they have the resources to pay for the social programs we
all need.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTREAL ECONOMY
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a number of
federalists even among Quebeckers take pleasure in disparaging
Quebec's and more specifically Montreal's economic potential.
These federalists envisage the worst possible scenarios, which
they link to the so-called political uncertainty in Quebec.
Ironically, it was a Toronto paper that brought the doomsayers
back into line.
Last week, the National Post reported that Montreal had resumed
its role as Canada's business capital. While Toronto lost 119
head offices in 10 years, Montreal increased the number of big
businesses in its environs by 6%.
The evidence speaks for itself: business people, investors and
Quebeckers are no longer impressed by alarmist and apocalyptic
talk.
I would therefore like to congratulate the PQ government on its
efforts to revitalize Quebec and Montreal's economy.
I too am confident.
* * *
[English]
DRUGS
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, November 15 to 22 is Drug and National Addictions
Awareness week. Ironically, it is also the week that the
Minister of Health brings into this place the bill allowing
tobacco manufacturers to lure our young Canadian people into a
lifestyle of addiction, specifically tobacco usage.
1415
The tragic use of tobacco and illicit drugs by young Canadians
is clearly on the rise. For example, in Nova Scotia the number
of students using illicit substances has doubled in the past
seven years. In my home province of New Brunswick a survey
conducted last spring of 3,925 public school students reported
that 31% had used cannabis and 56% had used alcohol. What is
even more frightening is that most of the students when asked
said they did not need help.
The Government of Canada must take a leadership role in
combating youth addiction. We can begin today in this—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us talk about the Liberal assault on health care:
thousands of hepatitis C victims hung out to dry, 188,000 sick
people on the waiting list, 1,400 doctors have left the country
in the last two years, and $7 billion in transfer cuts to the
provinces.
How bad does the record have to get before the health minister
acknowledges that he has a problem?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians across the country are concerned about the future of
medicare. They have seen changes in recent years. They have
seen cutbacks. The government has made it clear that the era of
cuts is over.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that health care will be
the subject of our next major reinvestment. We have said that in
the next budget the government will reinvest the dividends that
we have earned through years of fiscal discipline.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, no one believes these Liberal stock answers any more.
Canadians are looking at what the Liberals have done to health
care, not what they say.
Financial transfers from the health minister to the provinces
are at an all time low. Federal funding for Ontario hospitals
alone has fallen from 50% of federal funding to 11.5%.
With $10.4 billion in the bank why have the Liberals not done
anything to follow up on their so-called number one priority?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have done a great deal, from the health transition fund to the
$1.5 billion increase in the transfer last year, to increases in
health research in the last budget. I urge the Leader of the
Opposition to await the next budget to see proof of our
commitment to this reinvestment.
On the subject of transfers, since he refers to Ontario let the
record show that the tax cuts which Ontario chose to implement
instead of paying off its deficit have cost $4 billion in
revenue. That is the real source of the problem that Harris and
his crew are having.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister defends his own abysmal record by attacking
others, but it was the Liberal government that cut the $7 billion
in transfers. This minister is the one who is responsible for
188,000 sick people being on waiting lines.
I want to know how long those waiting lines have to
get—250,000, 300,000 or 500,000—before the minister
acknowledges he has a problem that he is not fixing.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
quite apart from the errors in the numbers cited by the leader of
the Reform Party, I think there is something more significant
that Canadians should focus on, which is the irony of the leader
of the Reform Party standing in the House to ask about the state
of medicare.
Canadians will remember that he is the man and that is the party
which promised to amend the Canada Health Act to provide for what
they call a choice. We know what they mean. They want American
style health insurance. They want American style health care. We
are here to say that we shall never throw away medicare like the
Reform would do.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, talk about
mixing up numbers. Does the minister not know that the Harris
government raised finances for medicare? I am sure he knows
that.
The government is sitting on a $10 billion surplus and yet we
have the longest waiting lines in Canadian history. The
government is sitting on a $10 billion surplus and yet we have
doctors leaving the country.
How big does the surplus have to get and how long does the
waiting line have to get before the minister will act?
1420
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is hard to take the member seriously because we know he has no
commitment to medicare and no commitment to the Canada Health
Act.
It was the Liberal government that introduced the Canada Health
Act. It was the Liberal government that invented national
medicare in the country, and it is this Liberal government that
will show once again its commitment to the principle of the
Canada Health Act when it tables its budget next year and follows
through on the Prime Minister's commitment to demonstrate that
health care will be the subject of our next major re-evaluation.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the health minister attacks the commitment of the member
for Macleod to health care, but let us make a comparison.
The member for Macleod spent seven years in medical school. He
spent 25 years as a practising surgeon seeing 25 sick people per
day. The lawyer turned health care minister, the closest he got
to health issues was chasing ambulances in Toronto.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Preston Manning: I have a question, Mr. Speaker. If
you were a sick person, to which of these two members would you
go?
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
numbers are in: after six months, the federal budget surplus has
reached $10.4 billion, with half of that amount coming from the
employment insurance fund. Also, the auditor general has already
stated that the minister does not have the right to take money
out of the employment insurance fund. It is both illegal and
immoral.
When will the Minister of Finance tell us whether he will comply
with the auditor general's advice or amend the act to get his
way?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what
the government is doing is implementing the recommendations of
the auditor general who, in 1986, told the previous government
that it should consolidate the employment insurance fund in the
government's consolidated fund.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
the government wants to follow the auditor general's advice, how
about acting on his comments of the past two years to the effect
that the minister has no right to take money out of the
employment insurance fund, which is money contributed by
workers? That is what the auditor general said.
Is the minister, a ship salesman, going to wait until the
holiday season, when the House is not sitting, to tamper with
the figures in an illegal and immoral fashion, so he can avoid
our questions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since we took office, we have lowered employment insurance
premiums every year. It is our intention to continue to do so in
the future, and also to reduce taxes for Canada's middle class
and invest in growth sectors.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
are always limits. Is the minister going to understand that the
employment insurance surpluses belong to the unemployed who were
denied benefits and to the contributors who overpaid?
I would like him to answer the following question: What does he
want to do with the billions of dollars he has accumulated on
the backs of the unemployed? Let him answer us today and not
slip us a lump of coal on December 23 when the House is not
sitting.
1425
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just answered. We intend to lower contributions, to lower
taxes, to lower the debt and to invest in the sectors of the
future, to build a growth economy—the economy that last month
created over 51,000 new jobs.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance is working on a good one: miniscule drops in
the EI contribution rates. Then he will take off with most of
the surplus and reduce taxes for the rich.
Does the Minister of Finance know that the ministers, the
members and certain professionals do not pay into the employment
insurance plan? Does he not find it shameful that the
unemployed are being made to pay for the ministers' reductions
in taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
year, we reduced contributions by $1.5 billion. That may not be
a lot of money to the Bloc, but it is a huge amount to
Canadians.
As a result, over the first 10 months of 1998, 321,000 new jobs
were created. Planned investments, housing starts and all
Canadian economic indicators point to an upswing. Things are
fine in Canada.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
United States Vice-President Al Gore spoke out strongly at the
APEC summit in support of Malaysians like Irene Fernandez
fighting for democracy and fighting against the repressive
internal security act and other gross human rights violations.
Why is Canada's Prime Minister silent on these issues and is
instead defending Malaysia's great democratic elections? Does
Canada support Gore's call for democracy, or will we let
Bombardier and other corporate interests silence the prime
minister in Malaysia just as they have done in China and in Asia?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member has provided a very
selective and a very mistaken interpretation of what was there.
I was in Malaysia and met directly with Irene Fernandez, with
Anwar's wife and with a whole series of people who have been
detained in prison. We raised those issues with the ministers of
the Malaysian government. The Prime Minister just said that he
raised those issues with Mahathir himself. Unlike the hon.
member who is full of bluster and rhetoric, we get down to
business and raise the real issues.
The Speaker: I would ask members to be very judicious in
their choice of words during question period, both in their
questions and in their answers.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister knows the Prime Minister did not raise
those issues with Mahathir.
My supplementary question is for the solicitor general. Today
is the day of truth for this minister at the APEC inquiry. My
colleague, the hon. member for Palliser, has sworn under oath an
affidavit documenting the minister's prejudging of the outcome of
the inquiry.
Will the minister swear his own affidavit and finally come clean
with Canadians about exactly what he did say on that Air Canada
flight?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have filed an affidavit.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the finance minister told the House that disposable
incomes had increased between 1996 and 1997. He failed to tell
the House that disposable incomes have actually decreased between
1997 and 1998.
Under his leadership taxes are higher, take home pay is down and
consumer debt is at an all time high. Does the minister
understand that by using high taxes to pad his books and by
relying on a high tax policy, the future of Canadians' prosperity
has been completely destroyed?
1430
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that the net worth of
Canadians has increased year after year under this government.
The Canadian standard of living has also increased substantially
under this government. We did bring taxes down, $7 billion over
the next three years in the last budget, and we will continue to
do that. What we are doing is coming down from the mountain of
taxes created by the previous government.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is wrong.
The fact is under his leadership Canadians are paying higher
taxes than they have ever paid before and the poorest Canadians
are paying the highest tax burden under his leadership.
He used to call the GST a regressive tax. In fact, he has used
the GST to help pay off his deficit. The same policies he
criticized as an opposition critic he has used to pay off the
deficit.
Will he reduce taxes now and give Canadians the future they
deserve?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I understood the hon. member correctly, he just said
the government is using the GST to help pay off the deficit.
When the Conservatives introduced the GST they said it was to
reduce the deficit. They set up a deficit reduction plan.
What we are doing is what his government set up. He is now
objecting to it and I can understand why he would object to what
his government had set up. But the big difference is that they
clucked about it and we eliminated it.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the health minister had one of his loved ones on a
waiting list suffering or dying, he would be singing a different
tune today.
This government has been saying for five years that it wants to
fix health care. Instead it has eviscerated it to the tune of $7
billion.
Let us see if it has proof behind those convictions. How much
of this $10 billion surplus will the minister put back into
health care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is apparent that when all else fails they will resort to empty
rhetoric. When all else fails and they cannot make their points
on the merits, they resort to that kind of imagery.
We have made clear that health care will be the subject of the
next major reinvestment of this government. We have shown even
through the difficult last five years a continuous resolve in the
area of health whether through increasing funding to health
research, increasing the transfers by $1.5 billion—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as an emergency room physician, I can tell the minister
that a person waiting two days to get into an intensive care unit
is not good care.
I ask the minister once again. While Canadians dawdle,
people die. People want hospital beds. They want surgery when
they need it. They do not want more rhetoric from this
government. They want action, not more words.
Again I ask the minister will he put money back in health care
and if so, how much? Tell the Canadian people right now how much
money will go back into health care after you have taken $7
billion out of it.
The Speaker: Colleagues, be sure to always address your
questions through the Chair.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member will know that provincial governments are responsible
for delivering services. He will also remember that this is the
government whose first step after it reached solvency was to
increase transfers to health by $1.5 billion.
There is something else that has to be remembered. These
questions emerge from an unlikely source. They emerge from the
party that would gut medicare, that says the Canada Health Act is
an outdated piece of legislation, that wants to impose user fees
to have Canadians pay for medical services out of their own
pockets. This is the party—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.
* * *
[Translation]
ICEBREAKING POLICY
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just to
show how absurd the icebreaking policy is, the ships providing
ferry service between Quebec City and Lévis, Baie-Comeau and
Matane, and Rivière-du-Loup and Saint-Siméon will have to pay
icebreaking fees this winter, while federal government vessels
and Newfoundland ferries will not.
1435
Why is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans unfairly
discriminating against Quebec ferries and treating them
differently from Newfoundland ferries and federal government
vessels?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the current proposal would not apply to the Quebec
City-Lévis ferry because the kind of intraharbour transit
services provided in the Quebec City harbour would be exempt.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could the
minister tell us whether this exemption would apply only to the
Quebec City-Lévis ferry or to all ferries in Quebec?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, discussions are under way concerning ferry service
not covered by a constitutional guarantee like the services
between Newfoundland and harbours in other Atlantic provinces
and in Quebec. No decision has been made, in spite of what the
Bloc Quebecois is telling the public and this House.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot believe the Minister of Health. His government has the
worst record on health care in Canadian history.
The government has cut $7 billion out of transfers to the
provinces for health care. Fourteen hundred doctors have left
Canada for the U.S. We have a situation where 190,000 sick
people are on waiting lists today.
How big does the surplus have to grow and how long do the
waiting lists have to get before the minister puts a number on
what he claims is his number one priority? What is his number?
How much for health care?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party today is saying that it would devote
the $10 billion surplus entirely to health care.
Two days ago the leader of the Reform Party said he would devote
100% of the surplus to tax cuts. Three weeks ago he would devote
it to debt reduction. The only thing Reform has has not promised
to do is use the surplus to pay for the wallpaper at Stornoway.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is nice to see the other Kevorkian twin up, the man who actually
administers the lethal injection to health care. It is nice to
see him taking a little credit for that.
The minister has a stage right now. He can tell us right now
after all these questions how much money he wants to contribute
back into health care. He claims it is his number one priority.
If it really is his number one priority, what is his number?
How much will he kick back into health care?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health has already answered. In the last
budget we increased transfers to the provinces primarily for
health care by $1.5 billion. After we had done that, the Reform
Party then came out and said that $3.5 billion should be taken
out of the CHST.
If we want to look at Reform's real agenda, look at what it said
in its taxpayer's budget in addition to that. It would take $3
billion out of old age pensions. It would take—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mercier.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-54
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
Yesterday, the Minister of Industry stated the following in
connection with Bill C-54:
This is not an intrusion into provincial jurisdictions. It does
not even apply in the Province of Quebec, where such legislation
already exists.
1440
How could the Minister of Industry have made such a statement,
when he knows all provincial and territorial ministers of
justice say the exact opposite, and it has been demonstrated
that Bill C-54 will indeed have a negative impact on Quebec?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
discussed this bill last week at the meeting of consumer affairs
ministers.
I explained the situation to them. They accepted that it was
necessary for the federal government to introduce a bill to
protect the interests of consumers and individuals and their
privacy.
Quebec already has a bill which impacts on businesses coming
under provincial jurisdiction, and this bill will not apply. It
is as simple as that.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
knows that, according to the bill, it will apply in Quebec, and
the Quebec access to information commission is of the opinion
that Bill C-54 lessens the protection enjoyed by Quebeckers at
the present time.
What is his response to the Commission d'accès à l'information
du Québec?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
legislation currently in place in Quebec, which was passed by
the former Daniel Johnson government, protects the interests of
Quebeckers very well, except for sectors such as
telecommunications, banking and so on which come under federal
jurisdiction.
We are going to protect the interests of Quebeckers, even in
sectors that do not fall under provincial jurisdiction, as well
as those of all other Canadians in provinces where there is no
protection in provincial sectors.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this government's planned proposal to replace Revenue Canada with
a mega tax agency is unnecessary, expensive and could become an
unaccountable mess like the IRS in the United States.
I have a question for the revenue minister. If the public
service hates it, if the provinces do not want it, if Canadians
do not want it, why is the government imposing an American style
tax collection agency on this country?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last year and a half I travelled
across the country to talk to Canadians, to the provinces and our
stakeholders. Canadians have been saying that the federal
government and provincial governments should be working together.
Canadians want us to reduce overlap and duplication. They want
us to get rid of the red tape. Provinces are supportive. This
is what Canadians wanted. We have listened to Canadians. We
heard and we are responding to Canadians.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if the provinces are interested it must be something like the
Prime Minister's homeless friends because they do not exist. They
are a figment of his imagination. I would like the minister to
name one province which is committed to participating in this IRS
style tax agency.
Why is the minister pressing ahead when he has been
criss-crossing this country and not a single province has
indicated its willingness to support this plan? The provinces in
fact are going in the other direction. Why does the minister not
stop, take a minute and consult with Canadians before he makes a
terrible mistake in adopting an unaccountable IRS style tax
agency?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have been consulting with Canadians
this is the first time since February 23 this hon. member has put
up this question. We signed an agreement with the province of
Nova Scotia to look at collecting WCB premiums. The member should read
what the finance minister of New Brunswick had to say. He should
read what the finance minister of Saskatchewan had to say. If
the member paid more attention to what is going on in revenue
than in the united alternative he would know a lot more about
what is going on in this department.
* * *
[Translation]
ROAD TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Transport, in response to the repeated requests
by the Government of Quebec to reinstate the strategic highway
improvement program, keeps passing the blame for his inaction on
to the provinces.
Will the minister agree that a number of projects essential to
economic development and highway safety, such as highway 175
between the Saguenay and Quebec City and highway 389 between
Baie-Comeau and Labrador, are threatened because he is refusing
to budge in this matter? When is he going to budge?
1445
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the two highways in question are part of a national
road network. I have said publicly not only here but also to the
provincial ministers that if funds are available, then there will
be another national highway program. If the provinces allocate
funds to those particular highways, that would be their decision,
if those funds are available.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Bill C-44 proposes that the board of directors of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation be named at pleasure by the governor in
council in lieu of the current practice of being appointed to
hold office on good behaviour.
What assurances can the minister give this House that the
independence of the CBC will not be compromised?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the CBC's independence is recognized in the Broadcasting Act.
However, the government wants to reduce the uncertainty. In this
case there have been consultations with our caucus colleagues,
including the member for Parkdale—High Park. I am grateful for
their suggestions. The government has decided to amend Bill C-44
to continue to name the order in council appointments to the CBC
on a good behaviour basis.
[Translation]
I want to mention here that the government has decided to change
Bill C-44 to retain the type of appointment—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lethbridge.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a year
has passed since Canada went to Kyoto and signed the
environmental agreement and this government still refuses to
admit how much it is going to cost Canadians. We have been
asking that question for over a year.
The results of a study that Standard and Poor's prepared for
this government, and which the government had in its hands before
it went to Kyoto, indicated that compliance with Kyoto could cost
Canadians up to $7,000 per household.
How does the environment minister think that already overtaxed
Canadians are going to come up with another $7,000?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is incredible how out of step the
Reform Party is on the issue of climate change.
Since Kyoto we have seen a lot of movement across Canada from
coast to coast to coast. The vast majority of Canadians tell us
that they are concerned about this issue. They want action and
they will take action. We are providing them with the tools to
do so.
I am gratified that other Canadians feel it is a very important
issue and do not take their guidance from that party.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, nothing
was achieved in Kyoto or in Argentina.
The U.S. Senate has stated that it will not sign the deal
regardless of what Canada does. Developing countries will not
buy into it.
Once again I ask the question. Where are Canadian families that
are already overtaxed and with dwindling take home pay going to
find another $7,000?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is very ill informed about
what this government has been doing in the international
community.
The developing nations are onside. They agreed in Buenos Aires
to a timetable and the development of definitions for three
mechanisms. One of them is the clean development mechanism which
they understand will bring them great environmental and
sustainable development advantages.
Canada is working with all parties internationally to make sure
that we can all meet our climate change objectives. This is
important for the security not only of Canada but the world.
* * *
TOBACCO
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on June 3, 1998 the health minister said publicly that
he supports the principles of Bill S-13. He said it is a clever
bill and it ties money from smoking to prevention programs.
This past Monday the minister refused to answer a question about
his intentions with respect to a levy on cartons of cigarettes.
I ask the minister, and I hope that he does not evade the
question today, does the minister still believe that a levy of 50
cents a carton for prevention purposes is a good thing or not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since 1994 this government has introduced taxes on cigarettes
three times with the result that taxes have gone up between $2.50
and $5 per carton, depending on the province.
1450
Since 1994 we have introduced the toughest anti-smoking
legislation in the western world. We have committed $100 million
to reduce smoking in this country. We have shown time and time
again our commitment to tackling smoking in Canada and we will
continue to do so.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, for the record, on June 3 the minister said “S-13 is a
good bill, a clever bill, a valid bill and I think we should go
forward with it”. But he also said interestingly that there is
some institutional resistance to the idea of a 50 cents a carton
levy on the tobacco industry.
I want to ask the minister today, is that resistance coming from
his own government?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we all support the principle of reducing smoking particularly
among young people. That is something we all agree with, but
that is not the issue. The member well knows there are procedural
and constitutional issues with respect to that bill.
I want to say that regardless of what may happen to that bill,
we are going to be examining the principles behind it to see how
they can be adapted in the plans we already have, to spend money
and energy and all the forces we can muster to tackle smoking
among young people. We will take the principles of that bill, no
matter what happens to it, and direct it to those efforts.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in June 1991 while the Prime Minister was in
opposition he said “If the system of ministerial accountability
and integrity is not respected, people will never have confidence
in the Public Service of Canada”.
By refusing to give a full accounting of his irresponsible and
indiscreet discussions of October 1 the solicitor general and his
leader are yet to stand by this principle.
I ask the solicitor general, now that he has filed an affidavit,
is he willing to go before the public complaints commission and
testify under oath and submit himself to cross-examination?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said earlier, I filed an affidavit. As such the
public complaints commission is now responsible for what happens
from here. I will be co-operating in any way it deems
appropriate.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I hope that does include testifying.
A blanket denial from the solicitor general will not cut it with
Canadians. They want truth and accountability. Canadians want
credible details on this issue from the solicitor general who is
unfamiliar with candour.
The member for Palliser—
The Speaker: Be very judicious in the choice of words. Go
directly to the question, please.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general is
quoted as having discussed the financial matters of Gerald Morin.
I am asking the solicitor general now if he will confirm or deny
that those discussions took place. If he will not tell us here,
will he tell us if it is in the affidavit?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, surely the hon. member with his background would know
that now that I have filed an affidavit it is now part of the
process. Basically I am waiting on the public complaints
commission to determine what will happen from here, as is
appropriate.
* * *
CENTRAL AMERICA
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Considering the devastation which hurricane Mitch has wreaked on
Central America and the social and economic upheaval which has
been left in its wake, will the minister commit to delaying
deportations to that troubled part of the world?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member
for London—Fanshawe and all members of parliament that we are
monitoring the situation very closely in Central America. All
removals to that part of the globe are being reviewed on a case
by case basis. It is clear that we do not want to put people at
risk.
I must add that for the people also from Central America who are
on our territory right now on a legal basis, and I am thinking
about the visitors, foreign students or temporary workers, there
is a possibility to extend their visas.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have heard a lot lately about the climate of fear in
the health protection branch. Scientists are supposed to be
independent. They are supposed to be protectors of the health of
Canadians.
1455
These same scientists have testified about intimidation tactics
in the department. The deputy minister himself has said there
are problems that must not be swept under the rug. An internal
investigation has been promised. Will the minister commit today
in this House that he will make that report public?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the deputy minister acknowledged, there are difficulties in
the health protection branch which must be addressed and which
are being addressed.
Even in the last year and a half look at what has happened. We
have cut back on the reductions in the food labs. We have
appointed an arm's length science advisory board. We have
undertaken an intensive three-year transition process involving
public consultations to renew the health protection branch.
We have put $125 million over the next five years into improving
the regulations of blood supply. We are committed to ensuring
the health protection branch does its job for the safety of
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
AUGUSTO PINOCHET
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Augusto
Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, has been accused of
crimes against humanity by Spanish courts and is today being
held in a London hospital awaiting a verdict on his release or
extradition.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. If the
government considers that human rights are more than just
rhetoric, and given the request by a Canadian torture victim, is
the government prepared to support the request to charge General
Pinochet with crimes against humanity and seek his extradition
to Canada?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think that goes under the general political rubric
of a hypothetical question.
The fact is that Mr. Pinochet is at present in Great Britain.
The matter is being considered by the House of Lords legal
committee. We expect we will have a decision by that committee
under the British law at that point in time. How it would apply
under the present Canadian law would be a matter that would have
to be examined if, when and how it ever happened here.
I would like to remind the House that a major bill dealing with
extradition is going through the House of Commons at the present
moment. It would substantially change the rules under which
extradition would be applied.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government is in the process of trying to cut a deal with the
province of Nova Scotia to sell assets associated with the
Shearwater base, including land and property rights from the
jetty to the airfield, including some downtown property.
It is time for the government to come clean regarding the impact
of its closed door negotiations on workers in the Halifax region.
How many jobs would be lost? Would any work be contracted out
and if so, which jobs?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our effort here and our discussions with
the province of Nova Scotia and with Shearwater Development
Corporation is to use lands that are no longer required for
Department of National Defence purposes for the benefit of the
people of that province, of that community and to create economic
development opportunities so that jobs can be created there. We
will continue with those discussions and bring about that very
positive outcome.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of immigration. A number of
persecuted Turkish Kurds have reached Canada and have been
granted refugee status.
The minister should be aware that being a Kurd in Turkey often
involves the use of false papers. Two of these refugees were
caught using false papers by Turkish authorities. Even though
they are now safely in Canada, the immigration department is
charging them $1,000 each as a rehabilitation fee for having used
these documents.
How does the minister justify that fee to penniless refugees
whose only crime was to use false papers to escape repression in
their own country?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, our refugee
determination process is one of the most generous in the world,
and our legislation enables us to welcome people from the world
over who have been persecuted.
That said, it is clear that persons seeking asylum in Canada
must provide Canadian authorities with accurate information.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the secretary of state for Africa, Latin America and the
Caribbean recently returned from Trinidad, Suriname and Guyana.
Could he tell us what was accomplished to advance bilateral
relations and Canadian interests in the region?
1500
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in all three countries I pursued
co-operation on combating drug trafficking and organized crime,
promoting trade and investments, and negotiating a free trade
area of the Americas.
In Trinidad I participated in the launch of a Canadian trade and
investment mission. In Guyana and Suriname I met with their
presidents to discuss these and other subjects.
In short, I believe it was a useful trip for both Canadians and
the residents of the three countries. I thank my hon. friend for
the question.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that
tomorrow, November 19, 1998, will be designated as an allotted
day when we will debate a motion to be moved by a member of the
Bloc Quebecois.
I also wish to advise the House that the last allotted day for
the supply period will be Tuesday, December 1, 1998.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
The Speaker: Order, please. I have the honour to
inform the House that a communication has been received as
follows:
Government House
Ottawa
November 18, 1998
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Roméo
LeBlanc, Governor General of Canada, will proceed to the Senate
chamber today, the 18th day of November, 1998 at 15:00, for the
purpose of giving royal assent to a bill of law.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
1505
While we are waiting for the messenger to come from the Senate,
I propose that we begin Routine Proceedings and I will interrupt
Routine Proceedings when the time comes.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
ADMINISTRATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Speaker: I have the honour of tabling the performance
report on the
administration of the House of Commons for the period between
April 1997 and September 1998.
* * *
[English]
EXPORT OF MILITARY GOODS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32 I am pleased to table,
in both official languages, the annual report for 1997 on the
export of military goods from Canada.
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, two reports by the Canadian section of
the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie and the
accompanying financial report.
The first report is of the office meeting held in Abidjan, Ivory
Coast, on July 4, 1998 and the second, the 24th ordinary session
held from July 7 to 9, 1998 in Abidjan as well.
* * *
1510
[English]
TOBACCO INDUSTRY RESPONSIBILITY ACT
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) moved that Bill
S-13, an act to incorporate and to establish an industry levy to
provide for the Canadian Anti-Smoking Youth Foundation, be read
the first time.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to move first reading of
the Bill S-13, an act to incorporate and to establish an industry
levy to provide for the Canadian Anti-Smoking Youth Foundation.
Bill S-13 is important in that it provides for an industry levy
that provides $120 million to combat youth smoking through
educational programs.
The funds from the levy are to provide an arm's length
foundation, the Canadian Anti-Smoking Youth Foundation, and are
controlled by its board made up of specialists in the area of
advertising to children. I am pleased to be the sponsor of this
bill in the House of Commons.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
concerning this issue. I am at the disposition of the Chair with
regard to the fact that we could be interrupted momentarily. If
it is the Chair's intention I could rise and express my opinion
on the issue now or somewhat later.
The Speaker: I have information that the messenger will
be here shortly. We will probably have a number of interventions
on this point of order. That would be my deduction.
I would like to hear all of the information, if I could, at one
time. I would propose to wait to hear the point of order of the
government House leader. Then it is my intention to listen to
members for advice as to how we should proceed.
With your indulgence that is the way we will proceed. We will
hold everything in abeyance until after we have had royal assent.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, could we continue with
Routine Proceedings.
The Speaker: I am prepared to do that but I want to put
it to the House.
Is there unanimous consent to continue with Routine Proceedings
and then come back to the point of order?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CHILD CUSTODY AND ACCESS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations among all parties in the House and I
believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion
to be adopted without debate:
That the first report of the Special Joint Committee on Child
Custody and Access, presented to the House on November 17, 1998,
be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1515
PETITIONS
THE ENVIRONMENT
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, Forest and Sarnia
who note that the use of MMT in gasoline has been proven to stall
emission control devices, resulting in higher smog levels which
will hurt our Kyoto climate change policies.
The petitioners call upon parliament to ban the use of MMT.
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions from constituents of mine who say
that the Government of Canada has yet to comply with article 11
of the Canadian Human Rights Act regarding equal pay for work of
equal value.
The petitioners feel that this parliament should instruct the
government to immediately comply with the orders of the Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal in the matter of pay equity.
APEC
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today. The
first petition is signed by residents of British Columbia and
expresses concern about APEC involving an economic relationship
with countries that have deplorable records of human rights
abuses.
The petition notes that APEC provides no forum for discussion of
social conditions, including human rights and labour, that APEC
is undemocratic and involves only business and political elites
who meet behind doors.
Therefore, the petitioners call on parliament to discontinue
APEC and its discussions until APEC includes issues of human
rights, labour and other social concerns, and to democratize the
process by including representatives from labour and other
segments of society to participate in the discussions.
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a second petition which
notes that the Constitution Act of Canada guarantees freedom of
conscience and religion in the charter of rights, and that even
before this the recognition of conscientious objection existed in
Canada. The petitioners urge parliament to establish peace tax
legislation by passing into law the conscientious objection act
which I have tabled.
This bill recognizes the right of conscientious objectors to not
pay for the military and within which the government would
declare its commitment to apply the portion of taxes that was to
be used for military purposes toward peaceful purposes such as
peace education, war relief, humanitarian and environmental aid
and housing.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of His Excellency the Governor
General that this honourable House attend him immediately in the
Senate chamber.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1525
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Earle): I have the honour to
inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency
the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was
pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to a
certain bill:
Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts—Chapter No. 30.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
PETITIONS
TAX REFORM
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to
Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of
residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, who have analyzed the
tax system and have a set of recommendations for tax reform.
Rather than go into each one individually, I will simply say
that they are calling for a major change to the tax system along
the lines of the Carter Commission of the 1960s.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, on another topic petitioners from various
communities of central British Columbia point out their concern
regarding the courts' rather lackadaisical approach to people who
inflict various forms of cruelty upon animals.
1530
They feel that the sentences that have been meted out are
woefully inadequate and judges should have a course on the
seriousness of this crime.
APEC MEETING
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on the APEC
gathering. The petitioners are concerned that the implications
of the potential agreements coming out of APEC inevitably
eliminate any concerns about human rights or environmental or
labour standards.
They point out that hopefully all agreements taken by the
Government of Canada in the future will include these crucial
elements.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I want to say as a fellow Nova Scotian how heart warming it is to
see you in the chair today.
BILL C-68
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from citizens
of Delta who wish to draw the attention of the House to their
concerns with Bill C-68.
They would like to see the hundreds of millions of tax dollars
that are wasted on licensing redirected to putting more police on
the streets.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move
that all questions stand.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I have three questions. Question No. 119 was asked on September
17. Question No. 132 was asked on September 21. Question No.
138 was asked on September 24. Time has gone by and I have had
no response.
Two of those questions have to do with the government's use of
the drug mefloquine and the fact that a veteran's family has been
denied pension benefits because it has not been provided with the
necessary information to support its case. Some of that
information should be forthcoming from these questions. I would
like to know when I will get them answered.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have noted questions Nos.
119, 132 and 138. I can assure the member I will look into their
whereabouts as soon as possible.
I point out that this week, among other things, we have tabled
replies to almost 100 petitions. It has been a very busy and
productive week. I will look into the whereabouts of those
questions.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We have seen on many occasions in the House of Commons since the
1997 election a total disregard by the government with respect to
responding to questions that the standing orders obligate it to
respond to in a certain time limit.
I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could not only look
into these matter but report back tomorrow on when these
questions will be answered. These are very important questions,
whether they are from the Reform Party, the Conservative Party,
the Bloc Quebecois or the New Democratic Party.
These questions are put on the order paper with reference in
accordance with the standing orders that allow us to put
questions to obtain information from the government. It
continues to refuse to adhere to the regulations.
I ask that the parliamentary secretary report back tomorrow on
when these questions will be answered.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, the members are quite
rightly concerned about these questions. I will continue to do
everything I can.
1535
At present we are at 85% response on petitions and at almost 75%
on these questions. I will continue to do my very best to obtain
these responses.
The Speaker: Is it agreed that all questions be allowed
to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
BILL S-13
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
concerning Bill S-13.
The bill has been passed in the other place and is currently at
first reading. Even though the bill is not presently being
debated, it has now been introduced and it is my first
opportunity to speak on it under a point of order. I wish to
discuss what I believe to be the constitutional and procedural
propriety of this bill's being initiated in the other place.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not in any way
taking the position at the present time on the policy embraced by
this bill, as there will be ample opportunity to do that. What I
am doing is responding in my duty as Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons to defend the rules, the rights and the
privileges of the House and all members who sit here.
The difficulty with Bill S-13, which has been initiated in the
other place, as I intend to demonstrate, is that it constitutes
in fact a tax bill and as such constitutionally and procedurally
may be initiated only in the House of Commons and only after the
House has concurred in the notice of ways and means tabled by a
minister of the crown.
I am aware that the Speaker of the other place had occasion to
rule on this question when the bill was in the other place. The
question before us, however, concerns the constitutional rights
of the House of Commons and only the Speaker of the House of
Commons has the authority to assert these rights, no one else.
In addition, there are standing orders of the House of Commons
that I maintain are violated by this bill and no ruling in the
other place or anywhere else can have any impact on the decision
of the presiding officer of this House in interpreting the rules
of this House.
There are two principles that come into play in this case. The
first is stated in Bourinot's parliamentary practice, fourth
edition at page 491:
As a general rule, public bills may originate in either house;
but whenever they... involve directly or indirectly the levying or
appropriation of any tax upon the people, they must be initiated
in the popular branch, in accordance with law—
This is based on section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867:
Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for
imposing any tax or impost shall originate in the House of
Commons.
The second principle is stated at Bourinot's page 430 which
reads as follows:
It is now a fixed principle of constitutional government that
all propositions for the imposition of taxes should emanate from
the ministry.
The first proposition then is that the bill must start in the
House of Commons and, second, from the ministry.
This principle is embodied in our own rules governing tax bills.
Standing Order 83(1) permits that only a minister of the crown is
able to table a notice of ways and means which, under our
procedures, must be concurred in before a tax bill may even be
introduced.
Since Bill S-13 clearly meets the test of neither of these
principles, the question revolves around the issue of whether it
does qualify as a tax bill. In my opinion it does not meet these
tests and it is a tax bill.
1540
I say this for the following reasons. Bill S-13 proposes what
it refers to as a levy of 50 cents per carton on the manufacture
of cigarettes and other tobacco products. This levy would raise,
so we are told, $70 million to be paid into a non-government
foundation that would support health and education and
anti-smoking programs as well as transitional funding for arts
and sports groups and tobacco farmers.
Proponents of the bill assert that this is not a tax but a levy
and as such is not subject to our ways and means procedures and
lends itself to initiation in the other place. This assertion is
based, so they claim, on citation of Erskine May's parliamentary
practice, 22nd edition, on page 779:
Levies upon an industry for purposes beneficial to that industry
are regarded as not covered by the rules of financial procedure
and so do not require authorization by ways and means resolution.
Even if Erskine May stopped there one would dispute whether the
proposal meets the criterion of proposing a levy for the purpose
beneficial to that industry.
But it goes on:
Modern legislation frequently makes provision for the imposition
of other types of fees or payments which, although not taxes in
the strict sense, have enough of the characteristics of taxation
to require to be treated as `charges upon the people' and
therefore to be authorized by ways and means resolution moved by
a Minister of the Crown.
This distinction between the two types of payments which are or
are not covered by the rules of financial procedure is not always
straightforward in practice. In particular, May suggests:
“Where payment is imposed in order to meet the cost of enforcing
a new regulatory scheme which is for the general benefit, rather
than for the benefit of the industry”, such a regime is one that
requires the use of a ways and means procedures.
Erskine May makes it clear that a levy must be narrowly based
and must also have a narrow purpose benefiting the industry on
which the levy is made. This is not the case today.
The fact is the very commendable objectives of the bill are of
broad public policy, namely to reduce smoking related health
costs for young people and for supporting tobacco farmers and
others. It is not the tobacco manufacturers who would obviously
benefit from this levy on them but of course smokers, farmers and
indeed the general public. That is the pith and substance of the
bill.
Even the summary of the bill states that the mandate is to
reduce the use of tobacco by young persons in Canada. This
certainly does not meet Erskine May's test of being a levy on an
industry for the narrow and specific benefit of the same
industry. As a matter of fact, it is the direct opposite.
[Translation]
Those in the other place who support Bill S-13 relate it to last
session's Bill C-32 amending the Copyright Act, which imposes a
levy on an industry, but was not preceded by a House of Commons
ways and means motion. A comparison of the two bills, S-13 and
last session's C-32, emphasizes the ineligibility of Bill S-13 as
far as procedure is concerned.
Last session's Bill C-32 imposed a levy on the manufacturers or
importers of blank tapes into Canada and provided for the
distribution of royalties to writers and performers, whose
creativity would result in increased demand for the blank tapes
distributed by manufacturers and importers.
1545
This is to the advantage of all those affected by the levy,
unlike Bill S-13, which is advantageous to all except those
having to pay the levy.
The objective of Bill S-13 is not to increase the demand for
tobacco, of course—if it were, we would not be discussing it—but
rather to reduce the demand, or in other words to bring about
the opposite of a benefit.
There are in fact several examples of bills, like the old C-32,
which imposed levies for limited purposes, for the benefit of
certain specific industries. These include expenditure and
other levies in connection with marketing plans, broadcasting
licence fees, and charges for insurance forms relating to
specific activities within specific industries.
In each case, however, when ways and means procedures were not
required, these levies were very specific, their purpose
narrowly defined, their direct benefits as far as the levy is
concerned, directly and specifically apparent.
Erskine May, 22nd edition, makes reference to a case that
illustrates our subject on page 780. It relates to a bill
concerning shipping, which was examined in the British House of
Commons in 1973-74.
This bill required oil importers to contribute to an
international reserve to be used as compensation for damage
caused by pollution, and these funds were not part of the
consolidated fund. This bill required a ways and means
resolution.
There is an obvious parallel with Bill S-13. Like the levy
proposed by Bill S-13, this levy was not to be part of the
consolidated fund and, as in Bill S-13, the sums amassed would be
advantageous only to those who are not part of the industry and
have provided the funds in question. As I have already
indicated, this bill was subject to the ways and means
procedure.
As I indicated at the start, I do not wish to see my objections
to the procedure for Bill S-13 misinterpreted. They probably
will be, anyway.
I believe the objectives of this bill are highly desirable. The
policies proposed by the bill are creative and innovative. I,
however, have problems with this bill, namely that the
implications relating to procedure are totally regressive and
undemocratic.
[English]
For more than 300 years it has been a fundamental of
parliamentary democracy that a taxation measure may not be
initiated in the upper house. It must be initiated by this House
on a motion of responsible government. That is equally true in
the United Kingdom and it is even true in the United States of
America.
No matter how interesting I may find a program proposed in a
bill that comes to us from the other place, it is my duty, Your
Honour, to draw to your attention the fact that this bill
violates the constitutional practices and more important the
rules of the House.
The fact that the presiding officer of the other place thought
the bill was in order is not material to the discussion. It is
our constitutional system, and in this constitutional system only
Your Honour as Speaker of the House and no one else can determine
what a money bill is or what a tax bill is.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that Bill S-13 is indeed a taxation
measure. As such it should have been initiated and can only be
initiated in the House of Commons after concurrence in a ways and
means motion and furthermore proposed by the minister of the
crown.
I ask Your Honour to consider this and to rule that the House
cannot consider this bill for the reasons that I have just
stated.
1550
The Speaker: We will have quite a
few interventions on this. Those of you in the House at this
point who wish to intervene will please stand so I can see who
you are.
This is how I would propose to attack this particular problem. I
caution members to begin with that we are not going to discuss
the 44 or 45 clauses of the bill. I would like your advice on a
very narrow interpretation, which is whether or not this bill
should be introduced into the House of Commons. If I find that
the arguments members are putting forward are going to be dealing
with the clauses, I will intervene. I would ask you, my
colleagues, to stick to that very narrow point. I want your
advice. I want your very best advice.
This is how I am going to proceed. I am going to take the mover
of the bill. I will hear from her first. Then I am going to hear
from a spokesperson for the Reform Party. If there is a
spokesperson for the Bloc Quebecois, I will hear from him or her.
Then I will hear from an intervener for the New Democratic Party.
I will hear from an intervener for the Conservative Party. I
will then come back to the Liberal side. At that point, I will
go back and forth from the Liberal side to the opposition side
until we have the information put in front of the House.
I would ask you, my colleagues, to stick to that very narrow
point. Please do not get into the clauses of the bill because
that may come later if we, or if I decide that this will come
before the House.
The hon. member for St. Paul's.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise to speak on this point of order concerning
Bill S-13, an act to incorporate and to establish an industry
levy to provide for the Canadian anti-smoking youth foundation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as you suggest, not to speak to the merits
of this bill but to address the four main concerns which have
been raised by the House leader. I intend to address each of the
concerns individually. There is some overlap between those
concerns. I hope we can deal with this carefully and that we can
put the proper clarity on this issue.
I agree that the government has the prerogative of financial
initiative in respect to the imposition of taxes by the
convention and as the hon. minister pointed out proposed by
section 53 of the Constitution Act. They must be introduced in
the House of Commons.
The issue today is whether the levy as established in part II of
the bill is indeed a levy or a tax. The principal authority,
Erskine May, says that a levy on an industry for its own purposes
is not a tax.
The four issues that the House leader has raised are: what is
the criteria to determine a levy; what is the stated industry
purpose; whether this bill proposes a levy or a tax in
relationship to a ways and means motion; and does the beneficiary
group of the levy have to be specific as in Bill C-32 to which
the House leader referred.
Simply because the benefits of the levy are not narrowly
identified, we do not believe that it constitutes any procedural
justification to rule Bill S-13 out of order. Nothing in Erskine
May supports the notion that beneficiaries of the levy need to
operate on the model of Bill C-32, i.e., be directed to a
specific group.
I am afraid that the hon. member was referring to a previous
version of the bill. I would like to point out that the version
passed in the Senate in June of this year has nothing to do with
sponsorship or farmers. This is purely to set up the foundation.
I think the hon. House leader has referred to an older version
of this bill.
First I want to talk about levy criteria. In British practice
as followed here in Canada, a levy is in order procedurally. We
have to remember we are only talking about procedural issues and
the definition of a levy. The levy must be imposed on the
industry. It must serve an industry purpose. The funds from the
levy never form any part of government revenues. I can say that
Bill S-13 was very carefully drafted to meet these three
criteria.
1555
The purpose of this bill is the tobacco industry's publicly
stated purpose. Mr. Robert Parker stated before the Standing
Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in April
1997:
The member companies are prepared to work with any responsible
agency on the issue of youth smoking to further reduce it.... As I
have said, I have some legitimate questions of how credible we
can be.... A program started voluntarily by the industry when it
is selling cigarettes to tell kids they should not smoke would be
attacked most vocally by... the anti-tobacco people.
Thus we have S-13 to help them out here.
Imagine next year the public relations benefit to the industry
if Mr. Parker gets to hold a copy of the bill and say “We are
spending $120 million a year to stop Canada's youth from
smoking”.
It is quite clear that the first two paragraphs of clause 3
refer to the industry's objectives. Clause 3 deals with the
purpose which is that of the industry.
Regarding clause 3(a), the industry would like to be involved in
initiatives to reduce youth smoking but it does not have the
credibility to do so. It would participate in 3(b) however in
any initiative of a credible agency.
As recently as October of this year, Mr. Don Brown the chairman
and president of Imperial Tobacco, made similar comments
regarding youth smoking and the industry's absence of credibility
to the Vancouver Board of Trade. He said:
We believe children should not smoke.... We might achieve more if
we tried working together. Perhaps a better approach would be
for like-minded groups to take a fresh look at the issue of
underage smoking.
We know we cannot be the messenger; we simply just do not have
the credibility.
Bill S-13 is a measure that has been created to assist the
industry in accomplishing this publicly stated objective. Six
explicit industry purposes are listed in Bill S-13. Clause 3(1)
gives the purpose of the act:
The purpose of this Act is to enable and assist the Canadian
tobacco industry to carry out its publicly-stated industry
objective of reducing the use of tobacco products by young
persons throughout Canada—
Clause 3(1)(c) addresses the lack of credibility:
the industry is incapable of addressing on its own the problem of
tobacco use by young persons because, by its own admission, its
members and agents lack credibility as advocates for a reduction
in the use of tobacco products;
Clause 3(1)(e) talks about pre-empting further restrictions:
The industry is well aware of the flood of legislation attacking
the use of tobacco in the U.S. and recognizes that it will not be
long before it arrives here in Canada, for example the recent
B.C. and Quebec legislation.
Clause 3(1)(f) deals with co-ordination:
In as much as tobacco companies market their products
nationally, there needs to be national co-ordination of industry
efforts to reduce or eliminate youth smoking.
Clause 31 is about sponsors:
Even with the debate around this the bill allows the industry to
use the name of the foundation for the purpose of seeking
recognition for the sponsorship. There is no point in the
industry being a party to the legislation without receiving
appropriate recognition for its contribution. Clause 31
specifically entitles the industry to seek recognition of its
sponsorship of this foundation.
Clause 32(1) is about independence:
It is the very independence of the foundation that provides the
legislation with the credibility Mr. Parker said the industry
lacked in his statement of April 1, 1997.
The bill is also beneficial to the industry in a number of less
specific ways. It is likely to help improve its negative public
image. It will probably reduce the possibility of civil
litigation and restrictive legislation being enacted, both of
which restrict the industry's very existence.
It is well accepted that smoking is addictive, toxic and in many
cases fatal. The industry's defence to liability lies in the
smokers' voluntary acceptance of these risks. The industry
recognizes that addiction is more likely when smoking starts in
youth who are less likely to make informed decisions regarding
this risk.
Bill S-13 could contribute to a successful defence against
liability for causing the addiction of youth.
It is evidence of the industry's efforts to combat youth
smoking.
1600
The levy purpose need not be exclusive for the industry.
Broader purposes are served by Bill S-13 as well.
The purpose of the levy in Bill S-13 is to provide the tobacco
industry with a credible claim that it does not deliberately
market its products to youth and that it supports efforts to curb
youth smoking.
The fact that any reduction in youth smoking also serves a
public policy objective does not challenge the procedural
acceptability of the bill.
Nothing in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice suggests
that an industry purpose cannot also coincide with a public
policy. Indeed, the precedents cited in May have both a private
and a public purpose. They include the Industry Training Act of
1964. This bill was to establish a mechanism for the creation of
a number of industry boards, the purpose of which was to provide
training opportunities for the employees. Such a scheme not only
benefited the particular industry, but served a public purpose.
One of my favourite ones is the Betting Levy Act of 1961. This
bill was designed to improve horse breeding and to further the
advancement of veterinary science. This clearly goes beyond the
private industry purpose and is in the interest of the public at
large.
In the Sea Fish Industry Act of 1951, a white fish organization
was established to develop and regulate the white fish industry.
The purpose was to benefit the industry and to serve a public
objective to preserve employment in the fisheries.
In fact, the bills cited in May that were not exempted from the
financial procedures and therefore required a ways and means
motion failed to meet the criteria because they were not for an
industry purpose or the funds became part of government revenue.
In 1974-75 there was the Air Travel Reserve Fund. This bill
established a levy to compensate passengers who sustained a loss
as a result of the financial failure of a travel company. The
charge was considered to have an industry benefit. As such, it
met the first of the two criteria for a charge to be a levy for
industry purposes.
It failed, however, on the second criteria, that the funds would
not form part of the consolidated fund. The charge was held to
be a tax because the government had the discretion to dispose of
the assets of the fund in the event of its being wound up, thus
making it possible for the consolidated fund to benefit at the
expense of the travel organizers.
In Bill S-13, any surplus reverts to the tobacco manufacturers.
The merchant shipping bill which the hon. member mentioned
established a charge to pay for pollution damage. This impost
was viewed to be so clearly not for the benefit of the industry
concerned that it was held to be a tax in spite of the fact that
the proceeds were not payable to the consolidated fund.
The precedent that the hon. member mentioned in terms of Bill
C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, adopted in the last
parliament, contained a levy provision. In this particular case
the levy was imposed on the sale of blank audio tapes and the
funds thus collected were to be distributed to authors,
performing artists and recording companies. That also did not
require a ways and means motion.
The Canada Shipping Act of 1987 established a levy to be paid by
the ship owners for the purpose of creating a pollution fund to
deal with oil spills caused by ships and tankers. The rate of
the levy is set by the Minister of Transport and the money
collected is in a special account in the consolidated revenue
fund. This act was presented twice without a ways and means
motion preceding its introduction.
The Canada Petroleum Resources Act created an account known as
the environmental studies research fund to be under the
administrative responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines
and Resources or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development to finance environmental and social studies to assess
the impact of petroleum exploration and development on frontier
lands. Every interest owner in the frontier lands is to pay into
that fund according to a rate set by the minister. Again, this
act was presented twice without a ways and means motion preceding
its introduction.
Those are the first two points. The third point is the whole
issue of a levy versus a tax.
We believe that Bill S-13 does not require a ways and means
resolution because it does not impose a tax and therefore does
not have to originate in the House of Commons.
The levy in Bill S-13 is not a tax. The express provision of
the bill makes this clear. The clauses of the bill refer to a
levy, not a tax. Levies, for industry purposes, and as we have
talked about in Erskine May, are recognized in all procedural
authorities as being distinct from taxes.
1605
If the levy in Bill S-13 were indeed a tax it would constitute a
charge on the people. According to Erskine May's 21st edition at
page 726, a charge on the people is normally imposed generally
and intended to be used for general purposes.
That is why, as May further explains, that levies upon an
industry, the proceeds of which are intended to form a fund for
the purposes of that industry, have been held not to be charges.
Erskine May lists 12 bills that have been considered levies for
industry purposes and not taxes, and so did not require the ways
and means resolutions. Some of these include the Industrial
Training Act, the Betting Levy Act and the Sea Fish Industry Act
that we talked about.
Also, as I have just alluded to, there were a number of Canadian
precedents of levies for industry purposes which did not have a
ways and means resolution: Bill C-32, the act to amend the
Copyright Act; the Canada Shipping Act; and the Canada Petroleum
Resources Act. The last two examples were introduced twice, as
we said, without a ways and means motion.
The Canadian precedents suggest that the criteria applied in
Canada to the consideration of bills containing levies are not as
strict as those followed in British practice. Bill S-13 not only
meets the criteria suggested by those Canadian precedents, it
also meets the more strict criteria spelled out in Erskine May.
To reiterate, levies for industry purposes have three
characteristics: the levies must be imposed on the industry; the
levies must be imposed for the industry's own purposes; and the
money must never form a part of government revenue.
The levy under Bill S-13 is clearly imposed on the industry.
Clause 36 of the bill expressly provides that the funds come from
the tobacco companies:
36.(1) Every person who, for the purposes of trade, manufactures,
produces or imports tobacco products is liable, on selling,
transferring, or otherwise disposing of the tobacco product, to
pay a levy...
The levy in Bill S-13 is imposed for the industry's own
purposes. Of course, there is also a broader public policy
objective which I will not go into. The two purposes, however,
are not mutually exclusive goals and there are Canadian and
British precedents to prove that this is acceptable procedurally.
The funds generated from the levy never form part of government
revenue. The specific clauses of the bill make this clear.
Subclause 33(1) states that the foundation is not an agent of Her
Majesty and the funds are not public funds. The funds are
collected by the foundation, placed in its own account and
distributed to the foundation alone. Any surplus funds after
wind-up of the foundation are returned to the tobacco companies.
Subclause 35(3) states that in the event of the dissolution of
the foundation, any property of the foundation shall be
transferred to the council, that is, the Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council.
In any event, the question as to whether the levy imposed is in
fact a tax is really a question of law to be determined by the
courts, not the Speaker.
The procedural question must be limited to whether the bill, on
the face of it, is a tax or a levy for industry purposes. The
bill expressly provides that the foundation is established for
the industry and that the purpose of the bill is to meet this
industry's objective. Inquiring beyond the face of the bill and
questioning the express provisions of it is going well beyond the
realm of procedure and into an area of law with which the Speaker
is not to deal.
The more legal opinions cited for or against the question of
whether Bill S-13 is a levy or a tax, the more obvious it becomes
that the issue is a matter of law and legal interpretation.
These matters do not normally fall within the jurisdiction of the
Speaker of the Commons.
As a matter of law, a number of legal experts have already
testified before the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs,
Science and Technology that the charge imposed in Bill S-13 is
not a tax. They have also provided written opinions to that
effect.
Mr. Mark Siegel, senior tax counsel at Gowlings, Strathy &
Henderson, is of the view that the levy in Bill S-13 is part of a
regulatory scheme. The money is not intended to provide revenue
for general public purposes. The money is to be used to carry
out the objectives of the foundation for the tobacco industry.
He reaffirmed his opinion on November 5, 1998, as a result of the
Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Eurig Estate.
Mr. Michael Clegg, an expert on matters of parliamentary law and
procedure, also has concluded that this bill is not a tax.
The last point concerns whether the beneficiaries of this levy
are specific, as the House leader pointed out, in terms of Bill
C-32.
1610
If the argument is that Bill S-13 is out of order because the
beneficiaries of the levy are not specific, simply because the
beneficiaries are not narrowly identified does not constitute any
procedural justification to rule Bill S-13 out of order. Nothing
in Erskine May supports the notion that the beneficiaries of the
levy have to be specifically designated. What is required is
that the levy must serve an industry purpose.
There is no precedent available from British or Canadian sources
that substantiates any claim that the beneficiaries must be a
specified group. There are numerous British and Canadian
examples which suggest that the beneficiaries of a levy can be
broadly defined and that they do not need to be directly related
to the industry on which the levy is imposed.
For example, consider again the Betting Levy Act which was
implemented for the advancement and encouragement of education in
veterinary science. This purpose was much broader than the
specific industry objectives of improving breeds and horse
racing. We believe that certain dogs, cats and cows also
benefited.
Although the industry objective of the Canada Shipping Act is to
protect that industry from excessive liability with respect to
suits for pollution damage, there is clearly a broader public
policy objective in ensuring that spills are properly treated and
that the environment is preserved.
It is important to realize that we are here to debate whether or
not this is a tax or an industry purpose levy. Mr. Speaker, we
believe that you are a servant of the House and that your rulings
will seek the interest of the House as a whole. The question as
to whether the levy imposed is a tax is really a question of law,
as I have explained.
The procedural question we must limit ourselves to is whether
the bill, on the face of it, is a tax or a levy for industry
purposes. Bill S-13 expressly provides that the foundation is
established for the industry and that the purpose of the bill is
to meet the industry's objective. Inquiring beyond the face of
the bill and questioning the express provisions goes well beyond
the realm of procedure and into an area of law in which the
Speaker does not deal.
In the case of any doubt, we know that the Speaker should favour
the course that will allow the House to debate the merits of the
bill and to decide rather than the Chair. This can only happen
if the Speaker lets the bill proceed to second reading.
If the Speaker rules that there are other arguments and
precedents not discussed in this debate, we would appreciate the
opportunity to address them at that time.
Canadian practice provides a precedent based on British cases,
proving that it is possible for a ways and means resolution,
should it be deemed required, to be moved post-second reading. I
believe that the Speaker should consider this option.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I personally
support the principles of Bill S-13, due to its health
ramifications. This bill deals with many of the weaknesses in
the Liberal tobacco measures, specifically the weakening of the
tobacco control act by Bill C-42 which is currently being
debated.
Health groups throughout this country are supportive of this
bill.
Reformers treat private bills as a free vote on which a
constituent has direct and significant impact.
Cabinet should hang its collective head in shame for having such
a procedural wrangle on this bill.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in
this serious discussion of whether or not Bill S-13 is in order
to be pursued in this Chamber.
The member for St. Paul's has put forward some very compelling
arguments about why first reading of Bill S-13 would be in order
without a royal recommendation. I recommend them to you, Mr.
Speaker.
I bring to your attention the specific authority mentioned
earlier to help you in your considerations. Erskine May's 21st
edition, at page 716, is clear when it states:
The imposition of charges on funds other than the Consolidated
Fund or the National Loans Fund does not require the royal
recommendation, unless it involves an increased payment out of
one or other of those Funds, or increases the liability... upon
them, or automatically attracts a grant for moneys provided by
Parliament.
1615
The Speaker of the Senate deemed the bill not to have required
royal recommendation and therefore sent the bill to this Chamber
quite properly according to the rules as they now stand.
Today the government wishes to raise a constitutional principle
of money bills not originating in the Senate. Following my
Liberal colleague's comments I will also refer to Beauchesne's,
page 97, citation 324. These citations deal very much with the
House leader's reference to Bourinot's mention of two principles
outlined on page 491. The two citations on page 97 and 98 are
citations 324 and 325. Citation 324 says:
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional
question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be
raised on a point of order or privilege.
Citation 325 says:
In all matters of doubt, the Speaker will consider attentively
the opinions of Members. Sometimes, instead of expressing an
opinion of either side, the Speaker may ask instructions from the
House or reserve his decision on the point of discussion, or
suggest that the House may, if it thinks proper, dispense with
the Standing Order in a particular case. In doubtful cases, the
Speaker will be guided largely by circumstances.
The powers of the Senate are not the only procedural issue at
stake here. It would be very useful for us and for you, Mr.
Speaker, to consider the broad procedural history of the way
tobacco legislation has been treated by the governmental
institutions of the country.
Let us remember that the current round of the Tobacco Act, of
which in effect Bill S-13 is a part, resulted from the fact that
the supreme court ruled that sections of the Tobacco Act were
unconstitutional because it held that the government had not
provided enough evidence of the public health benefits of the act
to infringe upon the free speech rights of tobacco companies. In
essence, the court placed the burden of proof on governments if
they wish to regulate the advertising of addictive drugs to
children. The court effectively gave the act of convincing
children to become addicted to a health damaging drug the
constitutional protection of free speech.
Earlier the government ignored its deadline in the Tobacco Act
for the introduction of tighter regulations on tobacco
sponsorships. It has acted as if an agreement it had struck in
private with the tobacco companies had the force of law. I
brought this matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker, in a point of
privilege on September 30, 1998.
It is also worth pointing out that the government is seeking to
pursue a technicality to trump a badly needed public health
measure to protect children. At the same time it refuses to take
effective measures to enforce existing laws against the sale of
tobacco to children and is therefore collecting some $80 million
a year from the sale of tobacco to children.
If the government is concerned about technicality and is
preoccupied with procedure and formality then there is clearly
one area where the government should be focusing its attention.
It clearly should be looking at technicalities around the
enforcement of laws today which restrict the sale of tobacco to
young people.
Throughout this sad episode all the legal, constitutional and
procedural cards have been stacked against those who want to
improve public health and in favour of those who seek to profit
from selling an addictive poison.
1620
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to keep this in mind in your decision,
because I think we truly are dealing with a grey matter in terms
of procedures and constitutional and legal issues around Bill
S-13 before us today. Given that the precise occasions requiring
a royal recommendation and the definition of a money bill are in
that grey area of procedure and history of procedure in the
House, I ask you to give the benefit of the doubt to those who
wish to advance the cause of our children's health.
As my final point it is worth mentioning that it is curious
indeed that the government, in rising on this point of order,
actually has expressed concerns about the democratic rights of
the elected Commons versus the rights of the unelected Senate.
Certainly it is causing us some concern because we know this is
a government that resurrected the undemocratic practice of
routinely introducing government bills in the Senate before the
House, something which the New Democratic Party has vigorously
protested.
This is the government that has steadfastly refused to act upon
calls from the New Democratic Party and millions of Canadians to
scrap the unelected Senate, so we think it is rather
inappropriate at this point to be focusing so much in terms of
constitutional issues and the origins of a bill from the Senate.
We believe that the government cannot have it both ways. It
cannot use the Senate when it finds it convenient to do so and
then hide behind it when it does not want to proceed with a
particular measure.
I conclude with the most important message I think all of us
concerned about Bill S-13 are raising today, and that is we are
procedurally dealing with a grey area. We need to look very much
at the circumstances surrounding the bill and the history of
tobacco legislation in the country. We need to very much
consider the public interest and the health of children in these
deliberations. I recommend that position to you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to
this point of order and to offer my humble comments. I commend
the hon. member for St. Paul's for her initiative in this regard
as well as the original mover of the bill in the Senate.
I am proud to follow the remarks of opposition members,
particularly from the Reform and the NDP, who at least appear to
be prepared to embrace a bill coming from the Senate, which is
refreshing.
I had hoped the government House leader would have reconsidered
this strategy of buck-passing to you, Mr. Speaker. It seems that
the government is content to hand this ticking time bomb to the
Chair as opposed to clearly and publicly state the government's
opposition, or should I say cabinet's opposition to this
initiative.
The record will show that the government House leader in his
remarks admitted that there is a technical difference between a
tax and a levy. That is an important admission.
It is doubtful that any decision that you will make, Mr.
Speaker, will have more far-reaching impact on the health and
longevity of the lives of young Canadians than the decision that
you will be making on this point of order. I say this at the
outset as a backdrop to the procedural arguments I would like to
make.
I have every confidence that the Chair will make its decision
based solely on the rules of the House, not the merits of the
bill, not the emotion or the rhetoric that sometimes follows a
bill such as this one.
My earnest submission is that there are grey areas for the
Speaker to decide. Your Honour is treading into an unchartered
area. These grey areas, I submit and as has been previously
submitted, should be decided in favour of this House, this
Chamber as a whole, not the government which has refused to
engage in a debate on Bill S-13. It is only the cabinet, it
appears, that is unwilling to declare its opinion with respect to
the bill.
You will have available to you, Mr. Speaker, the decision of the
Speaker of the other Chamber. I will admit that that is not
binding on you, Mr. Speaker, but it is in fact a compelling
argument and something that should be considered by you.
1625
The government House leader has suggested that the levy proposed
in the bill amounts to a tax, a burden on people. Certainly the
levy has some similarity to a tax at first blush, that is to say,
it looks, smells and perhaps acts like a tax but is not a tax.
One might say that there is a charge to be made on anyone selling
tobacco products and an offence is created by failing to pay that
levy. However, there is proof that this is not a tax if one
examines in detail the provisions of the bill.
Let us look at this closely. The charge is made not on the
population at large but is placed on the industry itself, with
the proceeds directed specifically. The proceeds are to be used
completely outside the purposes of the government. The proceeds
are not to be used by the government. It is specifically directed
in the bill that they not be used for that purpose.
There is precedent for this situation and it is dealt with at
page 763 of the 18th edition of Erskine May. Speaking of the
instances when levies have been treated as matters outside the
ways and means rules, Erskine May cites 10 instances of bills
which imposed levies and levies which have been used for purposes
other than the direct positive benefit of an industry. The levy
can be used for other purposes. I submit this is the case with
respect to Bill S-13. I quote from page 763 of Erskine May:
It may sometimes be difficult to define the limits of an
industry, as in the Wheat Bill of 1932 (which was treated as
within this rule) under which levies upon importers of flour
formed a fund for making payments to growers of wheat. An even
more difficult case was the Mineral Workings Bill, 1951, under
which a fund fed by contributions from ironstone operators,
owners and the Exchequer was set up to restore agriculture land
from which iron ore had been extracted. This again was held to
be a levy on the operators and owners though it involved some
extension of the rule.
The royal recommendation was required on the mineral workings
bill because of the contribution required from the exchequer.
That was significant in the House, as recorded in volume 486 of
Hansard, column 1809. There was no royal recommendation
required in the instance of the wheat bill. Both bills passed
both houses without being treated as taxes.
My submission is that Bill S-13 has nothing to do with public
funds at all. Further, it distinguishes itself from this
traditional definition of tax because there is no reference to
public funding.
The House passed in the last parliament a levy under the
amendments to the Copyright Act. A levy was placed on the sale
of audio tapes and the proceeds of the levy were directed to go
to a board, not for the improvement of the audio tape industry
but for the benefit of music composers. The House at that time
did not treat this levy as a tax. I suggest that this situation
is very akin to the one now before the Chair presented by Bill
S-13. It is a strong precedent that I urge Your Honour to
examine closely.
Whether or not a levy proposed by Bill S-13 is a tax may be a
question for the determination of the courts, as was mentioned by
my hon. friend across the floor. There is a legal definition
that I would refer Your Honour to and that is in the case of
Lawson v Interior Tree Fruit and Vegetable Committee of
Direction, 1931, SCR,357, a Supreme Court of Canada decision.
I cite from a crib note in the decision where a definition of a
tax was given: “Whether a levy is a tax or a fee was considered
in Lawson—Duff J. for the majority concluded that the levy in
question was a tax because”—and this was the test—“it was
enforceable by law”. Clearly it would be here. Second, it was
“imposed under the authority of a legislature”. There is no
difficulty with that. Third, it was “levied by a public body”.
This is not the case here. Fourth, it was “intended for a
public purpose”. Again, it does not fall squarely within the
definition contemplated by the supreme court.
1630
Mr. Speaker, in that discussion you will read of the evolution
of tallage to taxes. The central theme is that taxes are funds
for the use of the crown. The industry levy in Bill S-13 provides
no support for the crown. Indeed the funds from the levy are
specifically denied to the crown by the terms of this bill. That
is specifically set out. This is significant.
The proceeds of the levy do not accrue to the crown and equally
important, are not for public uses, that is, uses determined by a
government body. Here the body is non-governmental. The
proceeds go to a private body, the foundation, for its use within
the restrictions that are set out in the bill.
While there may be a general benefit to the community derived
from the work of the foundation, the work is not carried out by
the crown or any agent of the crown. The work of the foundation
is not subject to the scrutiny of parliament. Indeed one of the
criticisms against this bill is that the auditor general would
not be able to examine the funds or the foundation. That again I
submit is an admission that this is outside of government
control.
In ordinary language it is not a government body supported by
tax revenue from the consolidated revenue fund. This clearly
demonstrates that the body is outside the purview of government
regulation or interference and not subject to direct government
scrutiny.
Therefore I submit that if there is any doubt in your mind, Mr.
Speaker, about the difference between a tax and a levy on this
industry, as discussed in Erskine May, that doubt should be
resolved in favour of consideration by this House, leaving
ultimate determination for the courts, should it go that route.
As to the precedents which may be cited of instances where the
Speaker has disallowed Senate bills on the basis of their being
taxation measures, please keep in mind that in most instances
these bills altered existing tax rates. There was no doubt or
grey area in those precedents.
This is not a case to err on the side of caution or exclusion
regardless of the merits of this bill. There is provision in our
standing orders to permit the House to waive any claim to its
financial privilege vis-à-vis the Senate. If the House is to
have the opportunity to either waive such a claim or to have a
conference with the Senate on a bill such as Bill S-13, which is
also an option, the Speaker ought not to intervene to prevent the
House from considering those questions. This is tantamount to
the government posing a pre-emptive strike. Any intervention by
the Speaker at this point before the House is fully seized with
the complexities of Bill S-13 would deny the House the
opportunity to perform its usual duties to deliberate on these
questions.
Therefore I would urge Your Honour not to intervene in this
matter. This pre-emptive strike would in fact deny the
opportunity for us in this House to do the work that is important
and desired by all Canadians and all members of the chamber.
There is one techical point I would like to make. The hon.
government House
leader referred to the summary of the bill in his
remarks. Your Honour will be aware that the summary is not part
of the body of this bill and is not really a proper point of
reference.
What the government is essentially trying to do is on the one
hand to give the impression that it likes the bill. The
government House leader used words like praiseworthy and
commendable. Yet the government is trying to kill this bill. He
is saying “Wash me but don't make me wet”.
I want to make one final point. The government House leader gave
a public interview on this matter and he asserted that the bill
was improper “in its present form”. Those were the words that
he used.
The government House leader and the government itself has within
its power the ability to cure each and every one of these alleged
irregularities in the bill if that is in fact the government's
concern. If that is what the government is worried about, the
Minister of Health or any minister of the cabinet can adopt this
bill and take it under their wing and can call it their own. I do
not believe there would be any objection from the movers of this
bill in either the Senate or this chamber to the government doing
that.
Earlier this month I asked the government House leader if he was
prepared to provide government time for this bill and he refused.
The government could and should assume responsibility for the
carriage of this bill. I ask that this House waive any alleged
claim to its privilege. This is what the government should be
prepared to do.
1635
Those are my remarks with respect to this point of order. As a
final note, again I am urging you, Mr. Speaker, not to do what
the government itself is not prepared to do. If we strike down
Bill S-13 at this particular time, the House and the government
will not have the opportunity to speak or propose remedies to the
government's objections, nor will the entire membership of the
House, and through us, the Canadian people, be provided with a
true and healthy discourse on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, make the government politically responsible. The
government does not have the votes to defeat this bill, if that
is the route it wants to go. In the name of patience and what is
right for this House and what is right for every house in Canada,
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to deny the government House leader's
arguments. Let us put children ahead of political preference on
this point.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I raise this point of order at the first opportunity so
that I may conform to your dictum suggested in the House in your
ruling of October 16, 1995 when you said “It is the duty of
every member of the House to be vigilant in regard to section 53
of the Constitution Act and to scrutinize bills no matter where
they originate”.
Mr. Speaker, section 53 of the Constitution Act as you are
aware, states that bills for “appropriating any part of the
public revenue or for imposing a tax or impost shall originate in
the House of Commons”.
I respectfully submit that Bill S-13, an act to incorporate and
to establish an industry levy to provide for the anti-smoking
youth foundation, while not a bill that appropriates any part of
the public revenue requiring a royal recommendation, is
nevertheless a bill that imposes a tax or an impost and
accordingly should have been originated in this House.
Bourinot on page 491 of his fourth edition reminds us that:
As a general rule, public bills may originate in either house;
but whenever they... involve directly or indirectly the levying or
appropriation of any tax upon the people, they must be initiated
in the popular branch, in accordance with law and English
constitutional practice.
With respect to this practice, Bourinot points out that it is
now a fixed principle of constitutional government that all
propositions for the imposition of taxes should emanate from the
ministries.
Our standing orders provide that in order to introduce
legislation that imposes a tax or an impost there must first be a
notice of ways and means followed by the adoption of the motion
and only a minister of the crown may do so.
Clause 36 of Bill S-13 requires those who manufacture, produce
or import tobacco products to pay a levy. Historically in Canada
tobacco has been taxed by means of legislation preceded by a ways
and means motion that provides for “that it is expedient to
impose, levy and collect on tobacco and cigars manufactured in
Canada”. So reads the Commons Journal of 1918, page 233
and so reads the act based on that ways and means motion, an act
to amend the Inland Revenue Act 1918, C.28,2.1.
In fact, going back even earlier in Canada's history, the Inland
Revenue Act of 1883, section 248 uses the same language, i.e.,
“on tobacco and cigars manufactured within the Dominion of
Canada, there shall be imposed, levied, collected the following
duties of excise”.
The same wording continues to this day. In the Revised Statutes
of Canada 1985 in chapter E-14, the Excise Act, section 200,
duties of excise, states “there shall be imposed, levied and
collected on tobacco and cigars manufactured in Canada”.
As Shakespeare said, what's in a name, a rose by any other name
would smell as sweet. That is in the case of Bill S-13 it may be
demonstrated that a levy is in fact a tax.
During the debate in the other place in support of the
procedural acceptability of the bill, the sponsor of Bill S-13
relied particularly on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright
Act, which was adopted by this parliament in 1997. Bill C-32
imposes a levy on persons who manufacture blank tapes in Canada
or imports them and arranges for the distribution of these levies
to groups, including those representing authors and performers.
1640
While Bill C-32 may not have been preceded by a ways and means
motion, it was yet introduced by a minister of the crown.
Furthermore, the summary of Bill C-32, now chapter 24 of the
Statues of Canada for 1997, points out that the enactment in
effect provides among other things a regime to protect
performers' performances to conform to an international
convention, and establishes a remuneration regime in relation to
the private copying of musical works, performers' performances
and sound recordings.
In other words Bill C-32 comes within the exception set out in
May's Parliamentary Practice, 22nd edition, at page 779
where it states “Levies upon an industry for purposes beneficial
to that industry are regarded as not covered by the rules of
financial procedure and so do not require authorization by a ways
and means resolution”.
The sponsor in the other place relied considerably upon the 21st
edition of May's Parliamentary Practice in support of his
position. The 22nd edition of May notes at page 779 “Modern
legislation frequently makes provision for the imposition of
other types of fees or payments which, although not taxes in a
strict sense, have enough of the characteristics of taxation to
require to be treated as `charges upon the people' and therefore
to be authorized by a ways and means resolution moved by a
minister of the crown.
He also goes on to say “This distinction between the types of
payments which are or are not covered by the rules of financial
procedure is not always straightforward in practice”.
In particular May suggests “Where payment is imposed in order
to meet the cost of enforcing a new regulatory scheme which is
for the general benefit”—and I highlight general
benefit—“rather than for the benefit of the industry”. That is
on pages 779-80. Such a regime is one that requires the use of
financial procedures.
Section 3 of Bill S-13 says the purpose of the act is “reducing
the rise of tobacco products by young persons throughout
Canada”. While the section refers to that being an industry
objective, there is nothing more fundamentally public than
matters of health, in particular the health of our young
Canadians.
In the case of Bill S-13, the smoking public would be the real
recipient of any benefit, not the tobacco industry. The purpose
is a public purpose. That is its pith and substance. It is a
public purpose. As the summary of Bill S-13 states, the mandate
is to reduce the use of tobacco by young persons in Canada. In
fact, the new title of the bill endorses the public purpose.
Accordingly, Bill S-13 does not come within the exception
mentioned above.
In fact, Bill S-13 is not unlike the reference in the 22nd
edition of May to the case of the merchant shipping bill, 1973-74
which imposed an obligation on importers of oil to contribute to
an international fund for the compensation for oil pollution
damage, which required a ways and means resolution, even though
the contributions were not to pass through the consolidated
revenue fund. The levies to be raised by Bill S-13 are also not
destined for the consolidated revenue fund.
In effect the levy to be imposed by Bill S-13 smacks of a tax.
It represents the imposition of levies, charges or fees which are
akin to taxation in their effect and characteristics and thus are
subject to a ways and means resolution. That can be found on
page 777 of May.
Apart from the public policy of permitting a group or an
industry to raise money either through a public tax, levy or
impost for a benefit that flows to the public, as opposed merely
to the industry, Bill S-13 would also not only breach the
historical constitutional convention that only the crown may
impose a charge upon the people, but it would also fly in the
face of the House of Commons jealously guarding its role in
parliament. As Bourinot reminds us, such measures “must be
initiated in the popular branch”.
The history of raising public revenue from the tobacco industry
in Canada shows clearly that it was done by means of imposing a
levy of excise under the aegis of the financial procedures in our
standing orders. This is not the case for Bill S-13. Accordingly
this bill should not remain on the Order Paper.
1645
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am here to speak on the point of order concerning Bill
S-13, an act to incorporate and establish an industry levy to
provide for the Canadian anti-smoking youth foundation, a bill
that I personally support. I rise not to speak on the merits of
the bill but to address the concerns raised on the point of order
by the hon. member and also to compliment the hon. member for St.
Paul's for her action on this as a member of parliament and as a
physician.
This bill would not have come up if not for the failure of the
government to deal with the issue of smoking in Canada, a failure
of a government that in 1994 lowered the tax rate on cigarettes
which has caused nearly a quarter of a million children to take
up cigarette smoking. Bill S-13 attempts to deal with it. That
the bill had to be brought in this way is unfortunate but it has
been dealt with and brought in this way because of the
government's failure to actually do very much on the issue of
smoking in Canada.
I would like to speak on procedure and the way this is done is
supported by a number of precedents, including Bill C-32, the
Canada Shipping Act, and the Canada Petroleum Resource Act that
show very clearly this is a levy and not a tax.
I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, in your position as an upholder of
the House and as an upholder of the rules of the House, to look
at that issue and see very clearly that the hon. member for St.
Paul's is correct in her assessment and that the government House
leader is not.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will not take long on this point of order, but I want to address
the concerns raised in the point of order by the hon. minister.
I express first of all my sincere concern that this legislation
will not be given the proper attention that I think it deserves
in the House of Commons.
As hon. members well know, parliament evolved out of the
Westminster model of parliamentary government. There are three
very important actors in this model, the government, the House of
Commons and the electorate.
As our brief but colourful history as a nation has progressed,
two basic principles have emerged that govern the relationship
between the government, the parliament and the electorate. These
principles are a responsible and representative parliamentary
government. Responsibility and representation is what we have
known for the life of this nation. We have a responsible
cabinet. We have a representative parliament.
A responsible and representative parliament performs very
important functions. Parliamentarians deliberate, investigate
and legislate items that come under their purview. The upper and
lower chambers that compose the Parliament of Canada share these
roles. Parliamentarians deliberate. We look at issues and try
to decide if these issues are worthy of debate, worthy of change
or whether the issues raised are worth our attention at all. We
use our collective judgment to decide what work gets done
Parliamentarians investigate. We have investigated many issues
that relate to smoking. We investigate many issues that often
result in the creation of laws. We legislate. We have been
given the honour to create laws, to be the ones who make
decisions that affect the welfare of all Canadians, our youth
included.
Mr. Speaker, I am not here to tell you whether this bill or
should not be passed. I am here simply to say to you that this
bill deserves to be fully scrutinized by the traditional
mechanisms of our parliamentary system.
I believe Bill S-13 deserves the attention and the process that
it and many other bills in the history of this nation have
received. Let us give this bill the attention it deserves and
let the members of this Chamber do their jobs and decide whether
it deserves second reading.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to expand on some of the comments
made by my colleagues.
I think I have a possible solution to assist you in your
decision and in a sense get you off the hot seat.
1650
Obviously the other place is involved in this issue. It has
dealt with it. It has passed it duly through the process.
Obviously the House of Commons now is captivated by this issue.
The government certainly is interested in the issue but, most
important, the people of Canada and the children of Canada are
involved.
Notwithstanding the constitutional arguments, notwithstanding
the procedural arguments, notwithstanding whether this is a tax
or a levy or an impost, if there is a will to pass this
legislation surely we can agree among ourselves today to just set
this aside and the government can introduce a ways and means
motion tomorrow morning. It will pass before Christmas if there
is a will here on behalf of the people of Canada to do this.
Rather than perhaps go on for hours, if the will is here and I
suspect from what I have heard that the people have spoken
through their duly elected representatives in the House, we can
actually have legislation before us in the morning and deal with
this expeditiously and actually have the entire legislation
passed and proclaimed before Christmas.
What a generous gift it would be for the Parliament of Canada to
give the people of Canada a life saving gift for generations to
come.
The Speaker: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Yukon, the environment; the hon.
member for Tobique—Mactaquac, Asia-Pacific economic co-operation
summit.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to intervene on this point of order, but not to
reiterate the excellent arguments of my colleague from St.
Paul's.
I will focus on two very specific points. The first is the
matter of the ways and means motion as it pertains to a tax
rather than a levy. The second point concerns the criteria
associated with the levy.
Today, Mr. Speaker, you will have to decide whether a levy or a
tax is involved. When a bill proposes a levy and not a tax it
is exempt from certain prerequisites. A ways and means motion
must be concurred in before a bill imposing a tax on the public
can be introduced.
There is no such requirement for a bill proposing a levy.
It serves no purpose to repeat that a ways and means motion may
be moved in the House only by a minister of the crown.
According to the traditions in this House, a levy must meet
three very specific criteria.
[English]
The first one is that the levy is imposed on the industry. The
second one is to serve an industry purpose. The third one is
that the funds from the levy never form any part of the
government's revenue.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, yours is the role of judge. As you said earlier,
you want our opinion. Other opinions, including legal ones,
have been or will be submitted to you, no doubt. You yourself
will also seek other opinions, I am sure.
I close on the comparison, which was used earlier by the
government House leader, between Bill C-32 on copyright and Bill
S-13 before us. Unlike the government leader, I see a lot of
similarities between the two bills. Bill C-32, which includes
the levy on blank cassettes, did not require a ways and means
motion and royal assent, because it essentially involved a levy.
This bill must be passed and debated by this Parliament, which
will judge it on its merits.
I believe this bill meets all the criteria necessary to proceed.
With your permission, I would like to table in this House legal
opinions to this effect, which I hope will help you in your
consideration of the matter.
1655
The Speaker: If the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard wishes
to table these legal opinions, I would ask him to have a page
deliver them to me so I might read them.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I want an idea of how much time I have because I want to
go through some supreme court rulings in relation to the topic
today. They are somewhat detailed and will take more than a
minute or two of your indulgence.
The Speaker: I am prepared to listen to the hon. member
as long as he has pertinent information to this point of order.
If the hon. member feels he could refer me to a particular case
he might give a summary of the case in his own words and deposit
the information on the table so I will have access to it.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I will go through it as
quickly as I can. It certainly speaks to the issue at hand. It
is very specific.
One of the arguments raised by the House leader is this is a tax
and not a levy. I want to step through here for the Canadian
public. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that through your examination of
this you have discovered some of this on your own, but to put it
on the record I think is important.
A tax is generally defined as a compulsory contribution levied
on a person by a government body with the intent to transfer
resources from the private to the public sector. A tax is
imposed to finance public sector goods and services and to
redistribute income among different economic groups in society.
The issue of whether a charge imposed by a government is or is
not a tax has been examined by the courts in relation to section
92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867 in determining the status of
various charges, some of them federal and some of them
provincial.
Since pursuant to section 92(2) a province or the federal
government may impose a direct but not an indirect tax, if the
charge were an indirect charge it would be invalid.
The Supreme Court of Canada has examined this issue in the
following cases and I will use the appendix of some of these
cases to explain in more detail: the Agricultural Products
Marketing Act, 1978; the Exported Natural Gas Act, 1982; Allard
Contractors v Coquitlam, 1993; the Ontario Home Builders'
Association v York Region Board of Education, 1996.
In the agricultural products case the Supreme Court of Canada
held that marketing levies imposed by a marketing board were
regulatory charges intended to deal with the expenses of the
marketing board. The marketing levies were not a tax because
they were not imposed to raise revenue for the public purse. The
member for St. Paul's articulated this very clearly in her
argument, that it is not moneys for the public purse.
In the Allard Contractor's case the Supreme Court of Canada held
that a fee imposed by a municipality on companies engaged in the
extraction of gravel was not a tax, as the fees raised were
intended to be used to repair roads. The fee had a specific use.
The key is specific use and because that was a specific use it
was a valid regulatory charge.
1700
In The Ontario Home Builders' Association case, the Supreme
Court of Canada held that a charge imposed by school boards on
land developers, which was intended to be used to fund the
construction of new schools, was a regulatory charge and not a
tax.
The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the probate fees levied
by the province of Ontario were part of a regulatory scheme
relating to the maintenance of the Ontario court. The levying of
probate fees was part of a general revenue raising program and as
such was not a tax.
In the natural gas tax case, the Supreme Court of Canada found
that the charge in issue was intended to raise revenue for
general public purposes and as such was a tax.
The result of these cases is that a levy imposed by a public
body can be characterized as a regulatory charge and not a tax if
the amounts received pursuant to the levy are to be used for a
specific governmental service and the amount of the levy
reasonably relates to the cost of providing that service. That
was articulated very well by the member for St. Paul's in terms
of what would be raised by this levy, where and how it would be
spent, how much of it would be spent and what would happen if all
the money were not spent.
The levy intended to be imposed pursuant to part two of Bill
S-13 is a levy that is clearly intended to provide funds to
defray the cost of providing the services and products referred
to in section 5 of the proposed act. It is not intended that
the levy provide revenue to be transferred to any public
authority to be used for general public purposes. The levy is to
be specifically applied toward the needs of the foundation.
The relationship between the levy and the expenses of the
foundation is indicated in section 36(3) of the proposed act in
that if the number of young persons in Canada who are smoking
tobacco products declines to 5% or less in the fifth or the
subsequent year of the foundation, the foundation may reduce or
eliminate the levy imposed pursuant to section 36(1) of the
proposed act for the particular year. It is to be presumed that
the expenses of the foundation would decrease if there were fewer
young persons in Canada smoking and as such the need for a levy
to satisfy these expenses would be correspondingly reduced. That
is articulated very clearly in the bill. It is my opinion that
the levy to be imposed pursuant to part two of the proposed act
is not a tax.
I have another two or three pages to go. In the interests of
time I would like to table them.
The Speaker: This would be a proper way to do it. He can
give the information to the page and I will personally take
charge of it.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I know we must speak to
the technicalities of the bill. We are talking about 40,000
deaths per year in Canada because of smoking. We have to do
everything in our power to address that issue.
I make a point that goes back to a precedent and I do not think
it has been mentioned today. Canadian practice provides a
precedent based on British cases. This proves it is possible for
a ways and means resolution should it be deemed required to be
moved to the bill post-second reading.
Mr. Speaker, that is an option you should consider because that
would allow the bill to be on the floor of the House of Commons
and debated for its merits. Obviously that has to be part of
your consideration.
1705
I hope your ruling is based on the arguments and precedents we
are hearing today. If your ruling is based on anything other
than that I think it would be grossly unfair to this House. I do
not think you will do that, but I want to put that on the record.
Looking at both sides of the House, we want to have the
opportunity to discuss those because I know from time to time in
the past rulings have come down in the House where technicalities
or arguments have been used which were not based on what we have
heard on the floor of the House. I hope when the ruling does come
down it is on the merits of some of the arguments you have heard
today.
I hope at the end of the day consideration is given to the bill
and that we will have the opportunity to debate it on the floor
of the House of Commons.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to back up the arguments of my colleague from St.
Paul's and all the other members who have spoken in favour of the
recognition of Bill S-13 as valid to be introduced in the House.
It is clear among all of us that a tax is a charge on the
people. We agree with that. If a tax is a charge on the people
then it must be preceded by a ways and means motion. We all
agree with that. A ways and means motion must be introduced by a
minister of the crown. A tax bill can originate only in the House
of Commons. In one way or another tax revenues will form part of
the general revenues of the government.
A levy is a very different thing. A levy is imposed to serve a
particular beneficial industry purpose. The funds from the levy
never form part of the revenues of the government. We need to
find out whether the levy imposed on the tobacco industry in this
case is a charge on the people and forms part of the revenue of
government. If such is not the case, if it is not a charge on
the people generally and does not form part of a revenue of
government, it is a case for saying Bill S-13 constitutes the
introduction and imposition of a levy on a particular industry
and is valid for introduction in the House.
The bill is very clear. My colleague from
Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant quoted section 36, saying there is a
distinct imposition on a particular industry.
1710
I refer to a the ruling by the Speaker of the Senate:
I have two things to do here. I do not have authority on
constitutional law but I can look at the bill and compare it to
precedents to find out whether it is valid for introduction or
not as a levy.
What is within my authority, however, is examination of the bill
in order to assess what it declares itself to be. I accepted the
plain and ordinary meaning of its words and studied them to see
if all the clauses relevant to the issue of the levy were
internally consistent. I then measured the levy described in the
bill against the criteria Erskine May sets out at pages 730-737
for identifying levies that are exempt from financial procedures
governing the imposition of taxes.
With respect to the matter of the plain language of the bill, it
speaks in terms of a levy rather than a tax. This is evident
from part II of the bill. It is also clear that the levy is
imposed upon the tobacco industry alone.
Therefore it is not a charge on the people. It is a charge on
the tobacco industry. He states further:
The purpose of the levy, as stated in the bill, is to meet an
industry purpose beneficial to it, although this industry purpose
also has a public benefit. Clause 3 states categorically that
the purpose of the bill is:
Consequently, with respect to the language of the bill I must
accept that what is proposed is a levy, not a tax.
Then he goes on to compare it with Erskine May:
The first criterion is that the levy must be for industry
purposes. The second is that the funds collected must not form
any part of government revenue.
He concludes by comparing the provisions of Bill C-32:
There is further evidence that the levy [in Bill C-32] was not
viewed as a tax. I say this because, so far as I have been able
to determine, the bill was not preceded by a ways and means
resolution, which would have been a prerequisite if the funds had
been viewed as a tax.
I refer to section 35. I am not discussing the substance but
just the case of proving that it is a levy. If part of the
general revenue, the consolidated revenue of the government, it
would have to come back to the consolidated revenue of the
government. If a charge on the people, it would have to be part
of government revenues and, if anything happened, come back to
government revenues.
This creates a foundation and section 35 clearly establishes
that if the foundation is wound up the revenues have to be
transferred from the council of the foundation and therefore back
to the tobacco industry.
The bill clearly identifies that the objective is to impose a
levy on one particular industry just as was done with the blank
tapes on Bill C-32. There is no difference at all. It is for
the benefit of a particular purpose which is beneficial to the
industry as a whole. The tobacco industry supports Bill S-13 by
saying “We cannot do it ourselves, we are not credible, nobody
will accept it from us. Therefore an arm's length foundation
that keeps the revenue which it is totally in control of can do
this on our behalf”.
What is the difference between this and Bill C-32? There is
none at all.
My colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard tabled two legal opinions
by Michael Clegg and Mark Siegel, experts in the field.
1715
They appeared before the Senate and they clearly established
that in their minds it was a levy and not a tax.
There is a letter in the Ottawa Citizen today from one of
our foremost lawyers, Lawrence Greenspon, and I would like to
quote from it because I think it is very important at this time:
Canadian courts are used to dealing with this issue and have
distinguished between these kinds of regulatory charges on the
one hand, and taxes on the other. They are not the same thing.
The first legal requirement is that the levy be imposed on the
industry for what is called an industry purpose. Here the aim is
clear. The bill targets the tobacco manufacturers, collects the
money from those manufacturers and then uses the money
exclusively to direct information at a segment of the population
affected by the products of those same manufacturers.
The second condition that must be satisfied is to ensure that
none of the money collected ends up in the Consolidated Revenue
Fund. The provisions of the bill ensure that if there is a
surplus it goes back to its source, the tobacco manufacturers.
That is the case with this bill.
Mr. Greenspon also says “As a lawyer I am saddened by the
prospect of legal interpretation being misused to overcome this
life-saving effort”. Mr. Greenspon concludes that in his mind
it is definitely a levy.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize this as what it very
clearly is. My colleagues, I would say, fully support the
principle of this bill. I disagree with others who say they do
not because I know that they do, and strongly do.
I feel that members feel duty bound to intervene on a question
which is very germane to what we do here. I think it is very
important that they did. I appreciate that they did. It will be
your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
I notice that members opposite invoked section 53 of the
Constitution Act. Members referred several times to the
Constitution and I suggest that in Beauchesne's it is very clear
that matters of constitutional law and matters of the law itself
are not your prerequisite. I think this goes beyond the scope of
what the Speaker should do.
I feel it is within your scope, Mr. Speaker, to look at this
legislation which is expressed in very clear and plain language,
which clearly identifies its purpose, its meaning and its
objectives. Look at it and agree with us that there is no tax
chargeable on the people, that there is no need for a ways and
means motion, that it can be introduced in the other place, as
has been done, that it is valid here and that we should deal with
it.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that is the way you will conclude your
recommendations to us.
The Speaker: There are still four members on the list who
wish to speak. At 5.30 p.m. we are supposed to go to Private
Members' Business. That is an order of the House.
There are approximately 12 minutes left and there are four of
you on your feet. May I suggest that you summarize your remarks
in three minutes, if you can. I am going to hear the hon. member
from the Reform Party, then the hon. member for Whitby—Ajax,
then the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas and then you will wrap
up.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, some people in this House seem to be under the mistaken
assumption that the 50 cent a carton donation is a tax or a levy.
In my view it is not a tax, it is not a levy, it is merely a
compulsory donation supporting a cause which I think is above
reproach, that is, to discourage children from experimenting and
becoming addicted to a totally foul and nasty drug. The intent
of this bill is not to fill the pockets of the taxman.
In all seriousness, the issue of whether it is a tax or a levy
is a grey area. I think that gives the Speaker some latitude
when considering this. It certainly gives you some latitude in
determining whether or not this bill is appropriate to come
before the House.
1720
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when you consider this you consider
the fact, as you have said many times, that you are a servant of
the House and the members of this place. I believe that the will
exists on both sides of the House to see that this issue is
brought forward and debated in full. I ask you to take that into
consideration.
I think it unseemly that the government should attempt to
prevent the introduction of this bill through a technicality. It
is time that we did something for our kids. I would like to see
this bill brought forward quickly for debate.
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
you have already heard eloquent arguments about whether this bill
really constitutes a tax or a levy and I do not intend to repeat
them. However, I do intend to highlight another aspect of this
process as it concerns your involvement as Speaker of the House.
Mr. Speaker, asking you to rule this bill a tax bill and
therefore out of order is asking you to contradict the stated
intentions of the bill. The bill states that it is proposing a
levy, not a tax. The bill states that the levy is for publicly
stated industry purposes and objectives. The bill states that
these funds will not flow into the consolidated revenue fund. As
articulated by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, this bill
clearly states and proves that it will impose a levy, not a tax.
Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, it is not your role to
impugn motives other than those stated in the bill. You are in
effect being asked to speculate about the possible impact this
bill will have in law. You are being asked to provide both a
legal and a constitutional decision.
I know you are familiar with Beauchesne's, but for the record I
repeat citation 168(5) at page 49 of Beauchesne's 6th edition:
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional
question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be
raised on a point of order or privilege.
It is the role of the courts to make this determination, not the
role of the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, your role, as you well know, is to guard the
privilege to debate and speak freely on virtually every issue.
In the absence of any compelling reason proving that this bill is
procedurally unacceptable, your duty is to allow the debate to
continue and to allow us, the members of this place, to make an
appropriate determination on the merits of the bill.
In closing, I would like to say that it is unfortunate that such
a worthy initiative is being caught up in procedural wrangling,
particularly when there appears to be broad multi-party support
for the goal of this bill, which is to protect the health of our
young people.
Mr. Speaker, you have a bill with stated intentions. You must
apply the rules, not interpret the law or impugn other motives.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will obey your injunction and be very brief.
I want to associate myself with the eloquent arguments that were
made initially by the member for St. Paul's and thank her for
bringing this important legislation before the House. I also
want to pay tribute to Senator Colin Kenny who has travelled
tirelessly across this country, in the shared objective of
members on all sides of this House, to deal with the human
tragedy of 40,000 deaths each year, too many of which are
teenagers and young people.
While there have been a range of arguments on the issue of a tax
versus a levy and the constitutional acceptance of this
legislation, I suggest an alternative which might meet with the
approval of members on all sides.
I have consulted with the Table. There is another option, other
than a ruling at this stage which may or may not preclude debate
on the substance of this bill. I appeal to members to consider
seriously this option.
I make it very clear that this argument is without prejudice to
the position that I, the member for St. Paul's, my colleague from
Winnipeg North Centre and others would take, which is that the
bill is in order and should proceed.
I suggest to members that the House is in a position, should it
agree not to give unanimous consent to allow this bill to proceed
through all stages, to give consent to allow this bill to proceed
through second reading and committee stage. The House can give
that consent now. Members can give that consent. Should that
consent be forthcoming, then Canadians would be in a position to
be heard on this issue through members on all sides, both in the
House and in committee.
1725
At the same time the government could consider the advisability
or the wisdom of proceeding with a ways and means motion, should
it believe that necessary.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, procedurally I would suggest that should
consent be granted, your ruling would be postponed until
necessary to rule on the specific issue of the necessity for a
ways and means motion.
I want to appeal to members of the House. There is a will on
all sides of the House to allow the merits of this very important
legislation to be heard. Therefore, I want to ask members on all
sides of the House for unanimous consent to allow Bill S-13 to
proceed through second reading and committee stage.
Should consent be granted, then obviously it would still be very
much within the purview of the government to consider the wisdom
of proceeding with a ways and means motion. But what this would
allow—and, as I say, I have consulted with the Table—is for the
merits of this very important legislation to be considered in the
House and in committee. Therefore, I seek that consent.
The Speaker: I want to understand, so I will put this to
the member. The member wants permission to ask for unanimous
consent to advance this bill to a certain stage, and I believe he
said second reading and committee stage. That is what he wants
the consent of the House to do. That is in order.
Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to put the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will try to give you some constructive suggestions.
The issue around Bill S-13 seems to be revolving around the
definition of the word levy. I point out in the legislation that
under definitions it says “Levy means the levy”. The
legislation defines levy by the same word. It is a levy for
industry purposes.
Mr. Speaker, there have been arguments that you should pay
careful attention to what judges say, to what the supreme court
says on issues like this, and to what the courts in general say.
I will ask you to speak as the president of the highest court in
the land. I look to you to make a decision that is above the
courts because this place is above the courts.
Having said that, I do not think we need to go to the courts to
define what the word levy means. All we have to do is go to the
table in front of you and examine the Concise Oxford
Dictionary, which is the Table dictionary. If we look up the
word levy we will find that the definition is “the collecting of
a contribution, tax, et cetera”.
Mr. Speaker, were you to go to the parliamentary library and
look up the Oxford English Dictionary, volume 8, you would
find this definition of levy: “the action of collecting an
assessment, duty, tax, et cetera”. Collins English
Dictionary defines levy as: a) the art of imposing and
collecting a tax, tariff, et cetera; b) the money so raised”.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
defines it this way: “to impose or collect a tax”. Finally,
if we look at Larousse, we will find that “prélèvement”
is translated as “impôt”.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question about what the English and the
French language mean by the word levy, and it is a tax. However,
you have heard arguments that there have been interpretations of
the word levy made by the courts as having something to do with
raising money by regulation.
The member for New Brunswick Southwest drew your attention to
the Ontario probate fees. He said that if you want an example of
a levy you could look at the Ontario probate fees, and he cited
court documents.
Recently that has been the source of a court challenge and those
fees have been declared a tax. As I understand it, the Ontario
government is now on the hook for about a billion dollars on this
levy.
1730
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider very carefully what we
really do mean by a levy. Again the dictionary before you on the
table defines tax. We have seen in that dictionary that a levy
is a tax and now we will look at the definition of a tax. It
reads:
One of the arguments we have been hearing is that because this
compulsory tax goes to a foundation it is not really a tax at
all. I submit that because a foundation is a creature of this
parliament, a creature of this government, it is indeed a
recipient of a tax. We do not evade the question of whether a
tax is a tax simply because it goes to an arm's length agency
that has been created by the government.
The key word is the fact that money is being raised from people
compulsorily. I point out that normally in our legislation we do
not make a distinction between individuals who are persons like
myself, single people, and corporations. They are often viewed
in legislation as individuals and they are regarded as such.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to another definition in the
legislation:
If we transpose the word levy for tax, that definition actually
is that sponsor of the foundation means a person who pays a tax.
In other words, this is all about taxing somebody.
The Speaker: This has been a very interesting
afternoon. I would imagine that this will be a far-reaching
decision.
I will take the advice that you have given me and I will look to
other sources so that I get a complete view of this particular
problem. Of course you would not want me to limit myself only to
what was said in the House because there is, no doubt, other
information that I will need.
I will take into consideration the very valuable information
that you have given me today. When I have looked all the
material, I will return to the House with a decision on this
particular point of order.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if you come across
information that would be interesting to the House or possibly
new information that was not raised here this afternoon, would it
be possible for you to bring that to us so that we could comment?
The Speaker: I know you do not want to get into a debate
with your Speaker, but when I bring my decision forth there will
be no doubt as to where I get my information from. That will be
laid before the House when I make my decision.
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]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.) moved that Bill C-207, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(trespass), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a privilege to begin
debate today on my private member's Bill C-207 dealing with
amending the Criminal Code with respect to trespassing.
The bill arises out of community response. My motivation is
based on complaints from police officers, security at shopping
malls and so on; my experience in dealing with family disputes
being an officer of the criminal justice system in the past; and
comments from the general public.
Certainly my motivation is to protect my community, to protect
the viability for children in a library, at a skating rink, on
the school grounds or at a local shopping mall.
In domestic family disputes it would certainly go a long way to
facilitate voluntary compliance in preserving the peace in
residences to protect children there.
1735
Essentially the frustration is that persons are trespassing on
property, causing a public disturbance and destroying a sense of
community and livability for children, yet are unable to be
removed permanently for a small period of time. For example,
malls are a popular place for youth to hang out, sometimes for
young drug dealers to strut their style, or for casual gangs to
want to show off and simply take over an area.
Security in malls consistently has a difficult time in
maintaining civility. The main reason is that they have little,
if any, authoritative jurisdiction when they want to give a
warning to someone. They really cannot warn the person with
anything other than saying that legally they could remove them
from the property.
If the security staff of the mall, a library or whatever, is
forced to remove a problem person, that person can just re-enter
within minutes. There is no place in the Criminal Code that
states the trespasser must stay off the property for any period
of time. The only way the person could be charged is if he or
she resists while being removed from the property. If the person
never resists that act could continue over and over again, and it
does in some cases.
Something that federal government officials seem to often forget
is that teenagers are extremely street smart. I recall when
serving on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs we
were dealing with the Young Offenders Act. A witness wanted me
to believe that most young offenders have no idea of what the
possible penalties were under the Young Offenders Act. That is
certainly not the case.
For a long time now, Reformers have been calling for the Young
Offenders Act to be strengthened in order to deter young
offenders from committing crime. One of the reasons for that is
the community reputation. The observation of outcomes from that
act were known to be rather light or inconsequential. Therefore
there is no respect for the law.
Before I became a member of parliament I served as a family
justice counsellor and a probation-parole officer in the attorney
general's ministry of British Columbia. I spent a great amount
of time dealing one to one with young offenders. After a while
in that kind of role one understands how they think. In many
circumstances they know exactly what they are doing. Their
actions are quite calculated. Many know how to beat the system.
If there is a loophole in the system, an offender will certainly
find it and the word quickly travels on the street.
What Reformers have been doing for the past five years is
attempting to amend the justice system by closing some of these
obvious loopholes, one loophole at a time in an orderly way.
Every province seems to have a different way of dealing with
trespassers. In British Columbia trespassing laws are rather
weak. Something has to be done with this most serious issue.
With the provinces sometimes doing very little to remedy the
situation, I believe that something should be done to amend the
Criminal Code so that we can have a national standard of
reasonable social behaviour in a public place, perhaps a Canadian
identity of civility to one another.
Recently an employee of the Department of Justice phoned my
office to inquire about the bill we are discussing. The official
asked a member of my staff why we just do not lobby the provinces
to amend their legislation as this change apparently borders on
federal-provincial jurisdiction. My response was that we cannot
always look to the provinces as an escape for federal inaction.
We cannot simply blame the provinces and say that it is their
fare.
Here is an example where the federal government needs to take
some lead for once. It is rightly in the jurisdiction of the
federal government to amend the Criminal Code, section 41, and it
will not be trampling on the feet of the provinces.
The amendments that I am proposing in Bill C-207 would
strengthen section 41 of the Criminal Code. Section 41(1)
clearly states:
That every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house
or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting
under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any
person from trespassing on the dwelling house or real property,
or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force
than is necessary.
I am proposing an amendment to section 41 of the code, making it
a summary conviction, that is a minor offence, for a person who
has already been lawfully removed from real property or a
dwelling house not to be able to lawfully return for just 24
hours. The reason for 24 hours is to provide adequate time for
the individual to cool off. It is amazing how attitudes change
the following morning.
1740
It also provides a social intervening time for the crowd
mentality behaviour and the show off behaviour to others to be
interfered with. Often the issue is the timing. When someone is
being legally removed the whole idea of their being able to come
back within minutes and mock the system is often the game that is
played.
I will give a hypothetical situation. A teenager is removed
from a shopping mall for causing a disturbance short of a serious
crime. That teenager then must stay out of the shopping mall for
a total of 24 hours under my provision. Otherwise, he or she
could be charged with trespassing and may be found guilty of an
offence punishable upon summary conviction. In other words, the
teenager would be given a ticket.
In another hypothetical situation a boyfriend enters the
property of his girlfriend and little children and is told to
leave. He will not leave so the police are called. They arrive
and legally remove him from the property. But under the law
there is nothing that stops him from repeating this an hour later
and the lady will be forced to go through the same exercise over
and over. The police know their hands are tied, especially if
this happens on a Saturday afternoon rather than prowling by
night on residential property.
The amendment to section 47 would keep this fellow off that
property for 24 hours. Otherwise he would be charged with a
summary conviction. When being removed for the first time he
then could be warned of the consequences if he returned before 24
hours had passed. In the current situation no such warning could
be given.
This is a real gap in the issue of domestic disputes and
preserving the peace for children. Because of the way the
government has manipulated Private Members' Business, Bill C-207
is unfortunately finished at the end of this hour. However I do
not plan to give up on this issue.
It is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to make
the criminal justice system loophole free and get rid of these
problems. That is why from time to time we receive omnibus bills
that deal with a variety of issues throughout the Criminal Code.
We do have the larger agenda of trying to provide peace, order
and good government and to have safer streets.
Today should have been the first hour of three hours of debate
on Bill C-207, but the way in which the subcommittee on Private
Members' Business conducts its selection is rather atrocious. It
is a travesty that members who diligently work to create
legislation are not allowed the opportunity to get something
through parliament.
I was elected in 1993. Since that time I can count on one hand
the number of times I have had a bill drawn. Once I made it
through that lotto I was rarely fortunate to have one of my
private member's bills adopted into federal legislation which
eventually became law. I was lucky at one point to have that
happen.
The bill I introduced amended the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
It was a minor amendment but it was significant as far as I was
concerned. It closed a loophole and was similar in nature to
what I am proposing today. The Minister of Industry at the time
acted justly and adopted my bill into the government bill and the
contents of my proposal is now the law in Canada.
It really did not matter where the bill came from. It was the
matter that we got the job done. The issue is trying to provide
co-operation and reconciliation in the House instead of always
dividing on every issue.
The subcommittee on Private Members' Business held a round table
discussion on the issue of making all private members' motions
votable. It is my hope, and I am sure the hope of every
backbencher in the House, that change will occur soon.
Every member of the House knows the Criminal Code has loopholes.
When the justice minister introduced omnibus bills amending tiny
flaws in the code the minister was admitting there were
adjustments that needed to be made.
Canadians do not expect the Criminal Code to be perfect. It is
an evolving piece of social legislation in some respects which
reflects public sentiments and attitudes. It needs to be
adjusted over a period of time to new realities. The public does
expect government to act forthwith when a flaw is clearly pointed
out.
I pointed out a loophole in section 41 of the Criminal Code.
Bill C-207 would help to eliminate a great deal of problems for
local authorities and citizens who have spent a great amount of
time investing in their local community centre, only to see the
peace and enjoyment of that centre or hockey rink degraded to the
point where it becomes unusable and they are afraid to bring
their children there.
There is a concern in my community. My constituents asked me to
help to throw water on this little fire.
1745
It is unfortunate that Bill C-207 was not made votable.
Therefore I will have to tell my community that its voice has
little weight in Ottawa because of the arrogance of the Liberal
government. The people's agenda is not reflected here. It is
sadly just the agenda of old tired ways.
The Minister of Justice is no more of an expert in community
justice issues than any of us are. All she needs to do is once
in a while look on the order paper at some of the bills
introduced by backbenchers to see the needs are for better law
and order in Canada. It is not complicated, not difficult. It
just requires courage provided the minister and the rest of her
cabinet cronies have the will to make Canada a better place to
live. I have outlined a community need. May this House find the
same sense of courage to act.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-207 would provide for an amendment to the code to create a
new offence in relation to trespassing. It would also create a
summary conviction offence of subsequent trespass. This offence
would occur where a person trespasses on a dwelling house or
other real property within 24 hours of having been lawfully
removed from or prevented from entering the same property.
It essentially criminalizes the second trespass that occurs
within a 24 hour period with respect to the same property.
[Translation]
The bill would provide for an amendment of the Criminal Code to
create a new offence in relation to trespassing. The hon.
member's bill would create a summary conviction offence of
subsequent trespass.
This offence would occur where a person trespasses on a
dwelling-house or other real property within 24 hours of having
been lawfully removed from or prevented from entering the same
property. Essentially, it would criminalize a second trespass.
[English]
It is important to begin with a clear understanding of what
trespass means. Trespass is a specific legal term referring to a
civil fault or tort. A trespasser is a person who enters a
premises without the permission of the occupier or owner. A
person invited on to the property can become a trespasser if the
individual is revoked by the owner asking the person to leave.
Nothing more is required for trespass to occur than for a person
to enter without permission or to remain on the property after
being asked to leave.
Even the most minimal intrusions on to property constitute a
trespass in law. There is no need for any damage to be caused to
the property. Trespass is a private matter between the
trespasser and the occupier of the property. The proper remedy
for trespass is a civil action for damages and injunctions are
available in extreme cases to prevent future or ongoing trespass.
The existing law allows the owner of the property to lawfully
eject the trespasser at any point. As a matter of property and
civil rights, the law of trespass falls within the legislative
jurisdiction of each of the provinces. In addition to the civil
law relating to trespass, many provinces have enacted legislation
creating provincial offences for trespass.
[Translation]
As a matter of property and civil rights, the law of trespass
falls within the legislative jurisdiction of each of the
provinces.
[English]
Trespass to property is not currently a criminal offence.
Trespass is not a criminal offence because in and of itself it
may be a relatively minor intrusion into the rights of another
and may not be sufficiently harmful to require the criminal law
as a response. The civil remedies combined with provincial
legislation cover most situations.
[Translation]
Trespass to property is not currently a criminal offence.
Trespass is not a criminal offence basically because, in and of
itself, it may be a relatively minor intrusion into the rights
of another, and not sufficiently harmful to require the criminal
law as a response.
[English]
The Law Reform Commission of Canada studied the issue of whether
to criminalize mere trespass without any further criminal intent
or criminal conduct. The commission found this inadvisable. In
addition to restating the fundamental principle that the criminal
law should be used with restraint, the commission found that
provincial trespass legislation and civil tort law provided
adequate protection. The hon. member's proposed amendment does
not seek to make a mere trespass a criminal offence. Instead, it
is aimed at the mischief caused when a person who trespasses is
asked or made to leave and then returns within a short period of
time.
It basically seeks to make a second trespass a criminal offence.
1750
Since the first trespass is not a criminal offence, it is
difficult in principle justifying making the second trespass a
criminal offence. If a first trespass is not sufficiently
harmful conduct to be considered criminal then it is not entirely
clear what feature of the subsequent trespass makes it serious
enough to be criminal.
Certainly it does aggravate the owner and requires the owner to
eject the trespasser a second time. But this added aggravation
in itself is not sufficiently harmful to render the trespasser
subject to the criminal process although at this point they may
clearly be violating the civil property rights of the owner of
the property and be subject to a civil action and they may also
be violating other provincial legislation.
[Translation]
Certainly, it does aggravate the owner and require the owner to
eject the trespasser a second time, but this added aggravation
in and of itself is not sufficiently harmful to render the
trespasser subject to the criminal process, although at this
point they may clearly be violating the civil property rights of
the owner of the property, and be subject to a civil action, and
they may also be violating other provincial legislation.
[English]
Also, the hon. member's proposal creates a somewhat arbitrary
offence as well in that it criminalizes a return to the property
only within 24 hours. It is not exactly clear why two trespasses
within 24 hours should be a crime and not two within 25 or 30
hours.
In many situations there might be little or no serious harm
caused to society but the mere presence of a trespasser if there
is not also some more serious criminal intent or interference
with the rights of others. While it may be the case that a
property owner is inconvenienced or aggravated by the repeat
trespasser, the hon. member's proposal would make a criminal out
of every person who returned to a place after having been asked
to leave.
For instance a door to door salesman who we all know tries twice
to sell his wares would be captured as would be the teenager
delivering flyers against the wishes of a homeowner. Such people
may very well be a nuisance to the property owner and this kind
of behaviour may well be a violation of civil or provincial law,
but there should be evidence of at least more serious or
potential harm before that behaviour is deemed to be criminal
under the Criminal Code.
I recognize the hon. member's concern that it can be difficult
to deal with a teenager who returns to a favourite spot to loiter
or a person who returns to a party after having been asked to
leave. What is really at issue in these instances is the
occupier's desire to control what happens on their property, and
this is a matter regulated by the civil law of the provinces and
in some cases by provincial offences.
This is not at all to say that the existing criminal law does
not protect the rights of property owners and occupiers. This
government strongly supports and protects private property rights
and various legislative provisions in the Criminal Code already
address many forms of conduct by a trespasser who poses a real
risk to society and to individuals.
For instance, it is an indictable offence to break and enter
into any place with intent to commit and indictable offence. A
person breaks and enters not only where they forcibly find a way
in but if they enter by an existing permanent or temporary
opening without lawful justification or excuse. In the case of a
dwelling house it is a further offence to be in the dwelling
house without lawful excuse with intent to commit an indictable
offence.
These offences criminalize the conduct of a trespasser who is
trespassing for the purpose of committing a serious criminal
offence. In these cases, there is serious harm or potential for
harm caused by the trespasser. They also recognize that if the
trespasser is present for an innocent purpose, for instance a
lost hiker seeking refuge from the elements in a cabin, there
would be no criminal offence. There may, however, be a tort and
the property owner could sue for any damage to the property.
An additional offence is in section 177 of the Criminal Code
which creates the offence of trespassing at night. This offence
prohibits loitering or prowling at night on someone else's
property near a dwelling house. Here the circumstances of the
trespass are clearly in and of themselves serious enough to
warrant being criminalized.
The Criminal Code also contains various offences that prohibit
behaviour that interferes with the rights of others to enjoy
public and private spaces. For instance, section 175 of the
Criminal Code makes it a summary conviction offence to cause a
disturbance in a public place in various ways such as screaming,
shouting or impeding people.
1755
It is also an offence to loiter in a public place while
obstructing people. Further, it is an offence to disturb the
peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling house by
disorderly conduct.
These offences target the harmful and disturbing consequences of
conduct on others who are lawfully entitled to peace or to
unimpeded movement in public places. A trespasser who goes so
far as to interfere with the rights of others in these ways by
causing a disturbance or by interfering with people's movements
commits an offence and can be charged accordingly. For example,
the teenager who loiters in a shopping mall would be committing
an offence if his behaviour was disturbing others or preventing
them from moving freely.
If the teenager is sitting quietly despite being asked to leave
repeatedly, he may very well be violating the mall owner's
property rights in some way or committing a provincial offence
and the mall owner will have options available under provincial
law. However, the teenager should not be labelled a criminal if
he is not disturbing or interfering with anyone else.
The hon. member's proposal would criminalize the mere trespass
without any requirement of proof of a negative impact on the
person's free movement or right to undisturbed enjoyment of
public places. The criminal law should target the harmful
consequences of action instead of criminalizing all action simply
because they may have a negative impact under certain
circumstances.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate and to be
supportive of Bill C-207 sponsored by the hon. member New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.
Bill C-207 is straightforward and what I would deem a common
sense piece of legislation that would in essence crack down on
those who repeatedly trespass on the private property or dwelling
houses from which they have already been lawfully prohibited or
removed.
As mentioned, the bill would amend section 41 of the Criminal
Code to make it a summary conviction offence for a person who has
been already lawfully removed or prevented from entering a
dwelling house or real property within the previous 24 hours to
trespass on that dwelling house or real property.
With such a provision in the Criminal Code, police and the
courts would have an additional tool to protect individuals who
can be terrorized. As a former crown attorney I challenge any
member in this House to stand here tonight and say this would not
have a positive effect on keeping criminals away from their
victims. It would be an effective deterrent.
In particular, Bill C-207 would give our justice system one more
tool to create the ability to combat the serious problem of
criminal harassment commonly known as stalking. This is a crime
whose victims, more often than not, are women. Criminal
harassment has been around for a long time but it has only been
codified in recent years.
While I support Bill C-207 I feel that there must be more done
specifically to address this problem created by stalkers. As on
most issues of concern, the Conservative government actively
pursued measures to crack down on stalking.
In April 1993 the hon. Pierre Blais, justice minister of the
day, introduced legislation that created for the first time in
the history of Canada in legal statute the offence of criminal
harassment. This bill quickly received passage in both the House
of Commons and the Senate and received royal assent on August 1,
1993.
This was the first of an important series of steps in providing
victims of this horrendous crime with recourse within our
criminal justice system. Regrettably, the effectiveness of this
legislation has since proven to be less than stellar.
In October 1996 the Department of Justice issued a report which
evaluated the new law's effectiveness in prosecuting harassment
behaviour in the protection of victims of crime.
This report concluded that the offence of criminal harassment
was not treated seriously enough by judges and lawyers. Several
indicators illustrate this point.
One is that the number of criminal harassment charges withdrawn
or stayed by the crown as well as the number of charges withdrawn
in exchange for peace bonds are extremely high when compared with
charges related to other specific categories of crime. This is
something that happens quite often in the context of plea
bargains; that is that a criminal harassment charge may be laid
in conjunction with another charge, for example assault, and the
criminal harassment charge is essentially dealt away.
1800
This illustrates the point that sadly this type of criminal
offence has not been as effective as it was originally intended.
The justice department review reported that almost 60% of
criminal harassment charges are withdrawn or stayed. It is also
disheartening to hear from the justice department's information
that 75% of those convicted of criminal harassment receive either
probation or suspended sentences. The report concluded that the
severity of the sentences imposed by the courts in cases of
criminal harassment has not met the expectations in that
legislation.
Some members may be asking why is this a problem. It is a
problem because the previous criminal record, a record of
violence against that same victim, or a record of breaching court
orders, does not assure a stronger sanction from our criminal
justice system, which is what this legislation in effect is
intended to do. It gives crown prosecutors, police officers and
ultimately judges greater ability to impose sanctions in response
to criminal activity. Moreover, the great majority of accused
criminals are released prior to their trial even though many of
them had previous criminal records. Many of them had records of
previous breaches of courts orders and many of them had been
violent to their partners in the past.
The bottom line is that the justice department's report from
1996 seems to indicate that the strong anti-stalking legislation
message has not been received by Criminal Code provisions and
those who practice law in this country. It has not adequately
been implemented.
We need more than a codified definition of criminal harassment.
Although I support Bill C-207 and its simple positive intent, we
need legislation that extends much further, legislation that
would clearly and unequivocally state that Canadian society does
not accept this type of crime in any way, shape or form.
I therefore use this opportunity to highlight a related piece of
legislation, Bill S-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code
respecting criminal harassment and other related matters. Fellow
Nova Scotian and Progressive Conservative Senator Donald Oliver
introduced Bill S-17 in May.
Many members of the House, particularly members of the Reform
Party, have an unfortunate propensity for taking needless cheap
shots at the upper house. While the Senate is an institution no
doubt in need of change and in need of comprehensive change to
reflect Canadians entering into the 21st century, the majority of
senators as individuals are making positive contributions in
federal legislation. We have witnessed such positive
contributions, particularly laudable legislation such as Bill
S-13 which was the subject of debate today.
We also have Bill S-11 regarding amendments to Canadian Human
Rights Act from Senator Erminie Cohen, sponsored in this Chamber
by my caucus colleague from Shefford. We also have another
example in Senator Forrestall, another fellow Nova Scotian
Conservative, who introduced several successful amendments to the
Canada Marine Act this spring. Senator Forrestall's hard work
even drew applause from the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern
Shore, whose New Democratic Party favours outright abolition of
the Senate.
Instead of using the Senate as a tired political prop, to which
my colleague from Calgary West appears chronically addicted, let
us work with senators to ensure that Canadians get the best
legislation from this parliament.
In that vein I hope that Bill S-17 presently before the Senate
committee on legal and constitutional affairs will make it to the
House. If it does I look forward to obtaining the support of all
hon. members and even the sponsor of this bill. Regardless of
political affiliation we should be worried about preserving the
law in order to help pass good law into being.
Turning back to Bill C-207, on behalf of the Progressive
Conservative Party we speak in favour of it. It is consistent
with our party's overall tradition of keeping Canada's streets
safe through effective legislation. I cannot say enough,
however, that we need more co-operation on all sides of the House
to ensure this type of effective legislation passes.
Specifically, we need to do more to get tough on stalkers and
protect innocent Canadians. This bill goes a long way to
accomplish that end.
If we continue to work together and ensure that bills such as
Bill C-207 and Bill S-17 are passed there will be no confusion
among Canadians as to what the purpose of parliament is, that
Canada has a zero tolerance policy with respect to criminal
harassment. This is a laudable aim. I urge all hon. members to
support this legislation. Again I commend the hon. member who
moved this motion.
1805
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would like to summarize what we have
heard today.
Sadly what I have heard from the justice department are some of
the most arcane arguments that are not really relevant to the
point I put before the House.
One of the main understandings we have to get with this motion
is that it really supports community resolution of these
conflicts without having to use a heavy handed approach. In
these situations it is contemplated that the warnings are given.
Generally if there is some legal sanction that backs up the
warning, then alternative dispute settlement actually happens and
no one is actually charged in the end because someone would know
that if they cross the line then they will be charged. Therefore
it positively supports community peace.
One of the other aspects that is often overlooked is around the
area of domestic disputes. Restraining orders in themselves are
not all that easy to obtain, especially from the supreme court or
a provincial legislation such as non-interference with children
orders. So the availability in those circumstances is often
difficult. Then there is the ongoing viability. A policeman is
called and some lady puts an order to the policeman saying she
wants it enforced. The policeman does not know if the order is
still valid and what the essential jurisdiction of it is. The
whole history of these extra court orders to deal with ongoing
difficult situations of an identified individual showing up on a
premises is very poor.
This legislation would greatly help in that circumstance around
child access problems and protecting the peace for children.
One of the other circumstances is public school grounds.
Individuals who may be known drug dealers or whatever may not be
carrying drugs with them but will come to an elementary school
ground, hang around wanting to become familiar with certain
children. We have had the circumstance of their trying to
ingratiate themselves to individuals. The long term agenda as we
know from discovering the circumstances later is that they want
to get these children involved in prostitution. School
authorities have had great difficulty protecting the sanctity of
the public school grounds from these individuals.
I am really upset when I hear this hand wringing, do nothing
approach from the justice department. It is just incredible. It
fails to reflect the community mood about these obvious breaches
of the public peace. The system appears absolutely incompetent to
do anything about it.
Having someone lawfully removed in the first place is the
trigger for this offence. It is not entered into lightly.
Someone would have to be removed for the circumstance involved in
the second instance. I believe this is in the public interest to
preserve the peace. It is not a draconian measure. It is most
reasonable and it does go a long way to preserve the peace and
order of the community and especially to protect children.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There being no
further members rising for debate and the motion not being
designated a votable item, the time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
ASIA PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION SUMMIT
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Madam Speaker, for
several weeks now the Prime Minister and the solicitor general
have been avoiding answering questions about APEC, with the
excuse that they could not say anything because the matter was
under investigation by the RCMP public complaints commission.
The solicitor general has totally contradicted what he said
previously in discussing APEC in a public place, on a plane.
[English]
The solicitor general has questioned the accuracy of the account
taken by the member for Palliser on that plane, but he has never
denied that he discussed APEC, nor has he ever stated exactly
what he said in that conversation. In fact, the Prime Minister
has made reference to the accuracy of the account as it deals
with Airbus.
By trying to impress a friend and chattering on in a public place
about very sensitive information entrusted to him in his position
as the minister responsible for the RCMP, he has demonstrated he
is unfit to sit in cabinet.
1810
Indeed, by his indiscretions he has become an object of ridicule
by his colleagues, the media, voters and even his own
constituents.
This was best summed up by an editorial in the Globe and
Mail on October 8: “Stupidity isn't a crime, but it's no
foundation for cabinet office either”.
The Hill Times said: “This has damaged the solicitor
general's career and has raised some serious questions about his
competence”.
The Halifax Herald said: “The member from Fredericton
should not be solicitor general. His offence was to say anything
about a matter before a public tribunal for which he has
ministerial responsibility. This was as wrong as a judge
casually talking about cases out of court”.
The member for Fredericton was indiscreet by talking about
confidential information in a public place. It is immaterial
what were his exact words used in that conversation. It does not
matter who heard the conversation. The fact that he had this
conversation at all shows that the member has compromised the
office of the solicitor general. He has put his own
self-interests ahead of the interest of Canada and the APEC
inquiry.
I have not changed my mind. He should do the honourable thing
and resign.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
ability to question any perceived wrongdoing makes up a
fundamental component of our criminal justice system and indeed
our human rights as a nation.
Under the RCMP act, members of the public can make complaints
regarding the conduct of RCMP members to the public complaints
commission which has the power to look into and make
recommendations on the conduct of RCMP members.
The terms of reference of the APEC hearing show clearly how
broad the scope of such an inquiry can be. The APEC panel will
hear all evidence and will report on “the events that took place
during or in conjunction with demonstrations during the APEC
conference in Vancouver”.
The chair of the public complaints commission has stated that
the panel will follow the evidence where it leads and that the
scope of the investigation will be broad. Any questions
regarding RCMP operations prior to and during the APEC summit are
squarely within the scope of the hearing.
The hon. member from Tobique—Mactaquac has inferred that there
was inappropriate political interference in the actions of the
RCMP with regard to security at the APEC conference.
While the solicitor general is the minister responsible for the
RCMP it must be remembered that it is the commissioner of the
RCMP who is solely responsible for criminal investigations
undertaken by the RCMP.
As the solicitor general has pointed in the House on many
occasions, he does not get involved in operational matters of the
RCMP. With regard to the APEC conference he was kept informed by
the commissioner in general terms about security for this major
event.
In the case of the APEC conference, as with other large and
complex international meetings, it was appropriate and necessary
that the RCMP consult with interested parties such as the
Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the
Prime Minister's office in finalizing security arrangements. The
RCMP, however, made the decisions regarding security in this
event.
Police officers work in difficult circumstances.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt. The
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.13 p.m.)