—that evidence is present and that entry is necessary to prevent the
imminent destruction of that evidence.
These are the exigent circumstances, as defined in the bill.
Clause 529.4 of Bill C-16 deals with the issue of omitting to make
a prior announcement of the entry. In the Feeney case, the supreme court
stated that a peace officer was required to announce himself before
entering a dwelling-house. However, the Supreme Court also pointed out
in the Eccles case that this obligation could be waived in case of an
emergency. This is the case of battering a door down.
It could be argued that the exceptions listed in clause 529 reflect
the case law. It is the case with regard to battering a door down.
I will stop here for now, because the House will now proceed to
statements by members. I will resume after oral question period. Mr.
Speaker, you may proceed, and I will resume later on.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member will
have approximately 25 minutes remaining. As it is now 11
o'clock, we will now proceed to statements by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADIAN WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November 1, 1997 marks the 50th anniversary of the Canadian
Wildlife Service of Environment Canada.
The Canadian Wildlife Service, together with its many partners,
plays a key role in conserving Canada's natural heritage. Its
50-year history includes numerous achievements such as the
research into the effects of toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes
that led to Canada's DDT ban; the implementation of the North
American waterfowl and management plan, a model for habitat
conservation with projects across the continent that have brought
millions of hectares under protection; and the national wildlife
areas and migratory bird sanctuaries that protect over 11 million
hectares of land.
The list of achievements goes on.
1100
The Canadian Wildlife Service helps to protect a resource for
which Canadians care deeply. Images of Canada's diverse varieties
of wildlife adorn our flags and our currency. These symbols are
recognized around the world, as is the Canadian Wildlife Service.
For the past half century the Canadian Wildlife Service has
worked to protect Canada's natural legacy for future generations.
I salute these men and women who have been and continue to be
pioneers in Canadian wildlife conservation.
* * *
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): “Lest we
forget”. Mr. Speaker, on November 11 these words will echo
throughout this land as we respectfully recognize our veterans
and war dead.
Sadly, during the rest of the year some do forget. But not the
Maple Grove Memorial Club in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. This club
encourages students to respect and learn about our veterans'
great sacrifices for Canada. These extraordinary young Canadians
attend parades, visit veterans in hospitals and seniors' homes
and promote national unity.
Next week is veterans week. I proudly salute Canada's war
veterans but I also give honourable mention to the Maple Grove
Memorial Club and teacher, Joe Bishara. They have not forgotten.
* * *
THE MINT
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to congratulate the minister for government works on
his announcement yesterday that a new plating facility will be
built in Winnipeg adjacent to the Mint.
This $30 million project will create between 100 and 130
construction jobs and 30 permanent jobs as the Mint brings online
a process which they have invented and patented for plating
coins. This allows the Mint to be more competitive around the
world and will save some $9.5 million a year in annual operating
costs.
It is a win for Winnipeg. It is a win for the Mint. It is a
win for Canada. I thank the minister for his hard work in
bringing this project to completion.
* * *
[Translation]
CLERICS OF ST. VIATEUR AND SISTERS OF THE HOLY CROSS
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this year marks the 150th anniversary of the arrival in Quebec of
two religious communities from France, the Clerics of St. Viateur
and the Sisters of the Holy Cross.
To speak of the Clerics of St. Viateur is to speak of their
schools and colleges in Quebec and in Canada: Saint-Nicolas
d'Ahuntsic, Rigaud, Joliette, Berthierville, Matane, Roberval and
Lachute in Quebec; Embrun in Ontario; Otterburn and
Saint-Pierre-Joly in Manitoba, and the list goes on. It is to
speak of Father Georges Lindsay, director and founder of the
famous summer festival in Lanaudière; of Léo Bonneville, my old
teacher, and director and founder of the movie magazine
Séquence.
The Sisters of the Holy Cross set up their first congregation
in Ville-Saint-Laurent. They provided instruction at all levels,
particularly to young girls in the Collège classique Basile-Moreau.
In my riding, they taught at Lachute, Brownsburg,
Sainte-Scholastique, Saint-Augustin and Saint-Hermas. I pay
tribute today to these educational pioneers, and to my former
teachers.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of
the week, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration published her
immigration plan for the year 1998.
Entitled “A Stronger Canada”, this document calls for an increase
in immigration levels for the coming years, showing that Canada is a
friendly nation and proud of the contribution of the cultural
communities seeking to settle here.
We must welcome the efforts of the Canadian government which is
providing in this way for an important contribution to the future of our
country. There is no doubt that the interests of the whole Canadian
population are well represented through such a generous and appropriate
policy at this time in Canadian history.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October
marks the first ever national environmental illness month. This
month has been dedicated to raising awareness of illness caused
by environmental factors.
Over 15% of Canadians are affected by disorders related to the
environment. Illnesses such as as allergies, asthma, migraines
and some childhood behaviour disorders have all been linked to
environmental factors. Low cost, effective remedies exist.
Through education, treatment and prevention these illnesses can
be eliminated.
The Environmental Illness Society of Canada and its president
Judith Spence have worked tirelessly to educate Canadians on the
factors related to this acquired illness.
1105
It is everyone's right to be healthy. The connection between
health and the environment should not go unrecognized.
I applaud the efforts of the Environmental Illness Society of
Canada and I commend it for its commitment to bringing this
important health issue to light.
* * *
AND THE WINNER IS—
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
leadership horse race is about to begin.
And they're off.
The Minister of Finance takes an early lead with aggressive
posturing on all fronts, followed by the Minister of Health, the
Marlboro man, close behind.
Sluggish out of the gate is the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
obviously hampered by her unproductive habit of trying to run
while busily wrapping herself in the flag.
As they near the first turn it is still the finance minister out
in front, starting to labour now under his heavy-handed handling
of the pension issue, while the Marlboro man has fallen way back
in the pack, taking far too much time plastering cigarette ads
all over his saddle bags.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is struggling with the
government hope chest, starting to fade as she pauses to increase
government grants in all directions.
As they enter the backstretch the Minister of Finance is going
to the whip, thrashing his pension pony about the head and ears.
The youngsters in the crowd are starting to boo loudly and the
minister has lost his concentration, failing to steer his
portfolio with the same steady hand he was once famous for.
The minister of heritage has dropped completely out of sight,
busily looking for ways to explain to pilots that closing down
airports is a good way to improve safety.
The Marlboro man has seen his leadership chances go up in smoke.
The horse race is not even over, but the Canadian taxpayers know
that in this race nobody gets a payout.
* * *
BANKING
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Bank of Montreal, the Royal Bank and the National
Bank, three of Canada's largest financial institutions, deserve
public recognition for a job well done. They have increased the
numbers of loans granted to small and medium size businesses to
fully one-third of all loans granted in the last quarter.
As we know, small business loans have traditionally been the
most difficult to acquire. Banks have always considered small
businesses extremely high risk. In the past, up to 80% of small
businesses have failed in their first five years of operation.
Consequently, established banks prefer the safe investment of
large business. Small businesses, however, account for our most
rapidly growing employment sector.
A 1995 industry committee report encouraged all banks to reach
the one-third ratio for lending to small businesses.
Congratulations to Montreal, Royal and the National Bank of
Canada. They are willing to do the paperwork and the in depth
investigation required to safely invest in exciting new small
businesses all over the country.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise
today to inform this House of the creation of a new line designated
1-976-CATASTROPHE.
With the support of impartial and non-partisan organizations such
as the Quebec Committee of Canada, this new parapsychic counselling
service is designed for people who want further information on delirium
anti-separatum, the equivalent in Canadian political circles of the mad
cow disease in Great Britain.
Featured this week are the predictions of our funky astrologists
Michel Demers and Marcel Côté, who state that the rest of Canada is so
bent on suicide and is so undemocratic that it wants to force Quebec to
declare its sovereignty unilaterally, whereas everyone knows that common
sense will lead to a mutually beneficial partnership agreement.
Next week on the 1-976-CATASTROPHE line, you will learn that after
a yes for the sovereignty of Quebec, federalists will prevent the earth
from turning and the sun from shining on Quebec.
Call now.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BUSHPLANE HERITAGE CENTRE
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a world class heritage facility
in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. The Canadian Bushplane
Heritage Centre, located along the picturesque St. Mary's River,
is a one of a kind museum that preserves this country's colourful
bush-piloting tradition.
The centre's most recent project is restoring three antique
bushplanes in an effort to recreate the golden age of bush
piloting.
Under the capable direction of President Ken Lajambe, a
dedicated team of staff and volunteers operates the museum to the
delight of thousands of visitors each year. In fact, one well
known newspaper columnist has named it the best museum in Canada.
I invite all members and those watching these proceedings to
make Sault Ste. Marie and the Canadian Bushplane Heritage Centre
a must stop on their next trip to northern Ontario.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this Hallowe'en the mood on Parliament Hill is eerie, to say the
least. The cabinet is huddled around the Ouija board trying to
find a friendly spirit who will agree with the new gas tax. It
is frightening.
1110
This government is not at all shy about taxes. It figures if
there is a problem it will just conjure up a potion and place a
tax spell on Canadians.
That is the Liberals' answer to things that go bang in the
night—tax law-abiding Canadians like duck hunters. The
criminals are howling at the full moon over this tax. The Prime
Minister is even taking credit for the Conservatives' hated GST.
He says that the GST is a wonderful tax. He brought the hated
tax back to life and gave it personality, like Frankenstein. The
next trick is no treat for small businesses whose life's blood
will be drained with the new CPP tax hike.
This Hallowe'en Canadians will not rest in peace while plagued
by the finance minister, who from this day forward will be known
as Count Taxula.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1993 we inherited a $42 billion Conservative deficit.
By next year the budget will be balanced.
What does this mean for Canadians? It means we can relieve some
of the burden off the shoulders of our children and grandchildren
by paying down the debt. It means we can start to reinvest in
those areas of economic and social policies that mean so much to
Canadians like job creation, education and health.
If the forecasters are right, it has placed Canada in the
enviable position of leading the G-7 countries in growth. It has
created an environment for jobs. There have been a million
created during our first mandate, and over one-quarter million
this year alone, and young people are filling more jobs than they
have filled in nearly a decade.
That is a record to be proud of. In sum, we have put an end to
crushing interest rates, we have slain the deficit and have begun
to pay down the debt. More important, jobs and hope are being
restored to Canadians.
The deficit fight is best measured by its human factor. Numbers
are abstract, jobs are real. What a difference four years makes.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, gas company profits are up. The profits of Petro-Canada
and Imperial Oil tripled in the last quarter by 103%, Shell
Canada by 129%, Suncor by 152%.
As we know, Canadians have been concerned about high gas prices
at the pumps for some time. We know that when prices of gas go
up it affects negatively the whole economy. The federal
government's position and that of its oil company friends is
“Don't worry, be happy”.
Canadians are not happy when they are being gouged at the pumps.
At this time of trick or treat Canadians are being tricked at
the pumps by high prices while oil companies have been treating
themselves to record profits.
When will the government stand up for Canadians instead of oil
companies who contribute so much to Liberal Party election
campaigns?
* * *
[Translation]
LINGUISTIC SCHOOL BOARDS
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the members of the parliamentary committee responsible
for examining the bilateral constitutional amendment to facilitate
the creation of linguistic school boards had the pleasure of
welcoming the Quebec ministers of intergovernmental affairs and of
education as witnesses.
Their purpose for appearing was to reiterate their unequivocal
support for this bill and to explain the reasoning behind the
creation of two systems, one French and one English, and the
importance of consolidating these resources.
[English]
There is a strong consensus for this undertaking across Quebec
which has been in the making over the past three decades. We are
an evolving a flexible federation able to modernize ourselves,
thereby reflecting our diversity in multicultural and multiracial
reality. Co-operation between the federal and provincial
governments always serves the best interests of Canadians and
that of course includes all Quebeckers.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
collapse of the Newfoundland cod fishery has had a devastating
effect on the Newfoundland economy. However, many fishermen are
trying to stay afloat in the industry by fishing other species.
One fishery that is being developed as a supplementary effort is
our seal fishery.
However, when I turned on the TV last night I found that the
International Fund for Animal Welfare is running ads back to back
condemning that fishery. Needless to say it is causing damage to
our marketing efforts in North America and Europe.
The federal government regulates the seal fishery. I call on
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to take measures to counter
that ad campaign and thereby safeguard the efforts of those who
are still trying to make a living from the sea.
* * *
THE DEFICIT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this month the finance minister announced that
the final deficit for 1996-97 was $8.9 billion.
This is down almost $20 billion from the previous year and is the
largest year over year improvement in Canadian history. However
restoring health to Canada's finances is not an end in itself. It
has always been this government's goal to build a strong economy
and a strong society which provide Canadians with opportunity and
security.
1115
As our nation enters this new economic era full of challenges
and choices, it is vital that we hear from Canadians about their
priorities, values and expectations. As chair of the Standing
Committee on Finance, I encourage Canadians to participate in the
town hall meetings being held by their local members of
Parliament. Your views are important to our committee. Let them
be heard.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you
can check in Hansard. This fall we have asked this
government literally 50 times to clarify its position on Kyoto.
We have given it lots of opportunity. We think it is a fair
question. We just want an answer. That is why we have had to
ask the question 50 times. After all, every other G-7 nation has
already released its position on greenhouse gas emissions and the
countdown to Kyoto is on. It will take place 31 days from now.
My question for the Prime Minister is this. What are those
Liberal targets and how much are they going to cost Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated very clearly that our
position will be before the public and the world before the Kyoto
meeting. We want to continue and complete our consultations with
the provinces before we finalize our position.
We want to make it clear that our approach is to negotiate fully
but for a good deal for Canadians that will take into account the
needs of every part of the country. Unlike the Reform Party, we
will have a position. All we hear from the Reform Party are
questions and suggestions but as yet nobody in this country can
say—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here we go again. The reason the Liberals cannot answer the 50
questions is because of the process they are using to cook up
this deal. They are developing a position in secret. There has
been no public discussion on it. They refuse to wait for all the
provinces to sign on to the deal and they have actually already
committed to signing the deal in Kyoto when the treaty has not
even been written yet.
This kind of process did not work when we went through our
constitutional fixing process. Why does the Prime Minister think
Canadians will agree to this environmental Meech Lake process?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member why the Reform Party has
abandoned its principled position where it says that the party
believes that environmental considerations must carry equal
weight with economic, social and technical considerations. What
happened to the Reform principles? Have Reformers abandoned
these principles? Is the position of the Reform Party nothing
more than what was done by the tongue troopers in the Reform
leader's office when they muzzled the Reform critic and said that
anything he says is nothing more than a dopey mental hiccup?
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
a government that is supposed to govern, the answers get weaker
every day. Every day this government fudges the answer is
another day that taxpayers worry about what position this
government is cooking up behind the doors. Studies by the
conference board say that the Kyoto deal could cost the average
Canadian thousands of dollars per year. The Canadian Association
of Petroleum Producers warns that it could cost a lot at the gas
pumps.
So I ask again, and please just give us an answer. Canadians
cannot wait for the Prime Minister to settle all these internal
cabinet struggles. How much is this Kyoto deal going to cost the
average Canadian?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fearmongering is being created here by the Reform
Party. All Reformers are doing is talking about taxes. They
ignore all the other means available to deal with this problem
without having to slow down the economy. Why does the Reform
Party fail to adopt a position which recognizes threats and costs
to human health, to the economy of western Canada, to future
generations? Do Reformers not care about their children and
grandchildren?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister has been here for a few decades so he
should know by now that the opposition asks the questions and
the government is supposed to answer them.
When the finance minister was in opposition, he boasted that the
Liberals would cut carbon emissions to 1988 levels by the year
2000. But now the man who was then a radical environment
critic is silent about the Kyoto deal. So my question for the
government is this. With all the talk of taxes in the air, why
has the finance minister been silent about the Kyoto tax attack?
1120
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are working on this as a team, unlike the Reform
Party. The member for Kelowna questioned whether there is a
problem, he questioned the science. The Leader of the Opposition
suggested that there is a problem, but he does not like the
process we are using to follow up on it. And their critic is
muzzled by the tongue troopers in the Reform leader's office and
is accused of being nothing more than a dopey mental hiccup.
Yes, the Reform members can ask questions. However they claim
to be the next government in waiting and as such they have a
responsibility to state their position.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the last time I checked, the government was supposed to be
responsible and we are not getting any answers. The people who
watch this are not stupid. They know a partisan evasion like that
when they see one.
It was the finance minister who wrote the Liberals' 1993 red
book which promised carbon cuts even bigger than those being
proposed at Kyoto, but he has not said a word publicly about the
Kyoto deal yet.
My question for the government is, what has the finance minister
said privately about the Kyoto tax attack? On which side of the
cabinet squabble does he stand?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after listening to the hon. member's question, we know
that although his party celebrated its 10th anniversary this
week—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, they can applaud now because
they know that 10 years from now they will not be here at all.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development, who is responsible for employment insurance.
Two important figures clearly stand out in this dossier. In
1997, there were 35% more people unemployed than in 1989, and yet
there are 33% fewer employment insurance recipients.
Will the minister finally admit that his reform has gone much
too far, and that it deprives the unemployed of the minimum income
they require to support their families?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our employment insurance reform
was necessary, and all Canadians agree totally with it.
The situation was such that our system was totally unsuited to
today's labour market. We therefore had to carry out an extremely
significant reform, a courageous one, and what I can tell you is
that we are following this reform very closely in order to ensure
that it continues to serve Canadians well.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is showing his flagrant and
unacceptable disdain for the unemployed, for those who cannot make
their money last until the end of the month, who are unable to make
ends meet to feed their families.
How, in light of the figures released yesterday morning, can
the minister be proud of his reform, when only 36% of the
unemployed draw benefits, the surplus in his employment insurance
fund is up to $12 billion, and two-thirds of the unemployed are
going hungry?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition party obviously has
an excessive attachment to a system from the past, a system which
encouraged dependency on government funds.
Our reform focuses on active return-to-work measures. If we
look at the concrete situation instead of just using big words, it
will be seen that welfare figures in Quebec have not gone up since
our reform, despite what they keep saying on that side of the
House.
* * *
POVERTY
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
A few weeks ago, anti-poverty groups gave a cry of alarm.
Even the women in the Saint-Michel district, in the riding of the
Minister of Human Resources Development, took to the streets in
protest against increasing poverty.
When will the minister finally realize that these senseless
cuts to employment insurance are simply increasing poverty?
1125
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is very aware of
the poverty. I, for one, am proud to represent a Montreal riding
that is dealing with poverty. It makes me very aware of the
situation, because I am there every Friday afternoon. I see and
experience this poverty with my constituents.
This is why our government made it a priority in the last
budget to increase the child tax credit by $850 million effective
January 1998 and why we will double this amount in the next term to
help low income families.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us take
a specific example.
Let us look at the case of Louise from Montreal. She worked
as a clerk for five years. Her employment insurance cheque was cut
by 27% because she took an unpaid three-month leave to look after
her sick mother.
What is the minister's response to Louise's situation?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can respond to Louise's problem
with the solution we found for the problem of Yolande, Huguette and
Maryse, who were not covered by the old system because much of the
part time work in our economy is done by women. The fact that the
current system is based on hours resolves the problem of many women
who work part time.
Women are now covered from the first hour and not just after
a number of weeks, which they could not accumulate in the past.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Over the last little while we have been trying to get an answer
from the Minister for International Trade as to whether or not
Canada is seeking at the MAI negotiations to achieve a set of
binding and enforceable core labour and environmental standards.
The minister has been unwilling to give us a straight answer on
this. Can he give us a straight answer on this today? If he is
not willing to do so, will he at least tell us why he is not
willing to give us and answer? Canadians deserve to know what
the Canadian government position is, or why it is not willing to
tell us.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since assuming this portfolio the member
knows that we have certainly provided as much information as
possible.
The member has been briefed. His party has been briefed. All
the trade critics have been briefed. We have sent packages to
members of Parliament. We have been answering on the floor of
the House in terms of the highest standards for both environment
and labour, and the other key issues in the MAI discussions.
The member also has to recognize and let Canadians know that
obviously, we as one of the 29 countries have to respect the
process as well as respect the fact that we are also consulting
with provincial governments who obviously share jurisdiction.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, other countries are on record as seeking binding,
enforceable labour and environmental standards at the
negotiations. Why is it that the Canadian government is unwilling
to join other governments, the government of the U.K. and social
democratic governments in Europe, in seeking these kinds of
binding and enforceable standards?
The minister talks about high standards and low standards. We
want to know if he is seeking binding and enforceable. Will he
use the words binding and enforceable, and whether he is against
them or for them? We want to know the answer to that question.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member says that the Government of
Canada's position is that it is unwilling to commit to the very
issues that he is talking about. That is the wrong assumption.
I said to the member there is no Canadian and no political party
in this House that wants a lower degradation for our environment
or lower standards of workers rights.
The question on the matter is that this is a negotiation with 29
countries. Canada is pushing for the highest standards. It is a
situation that is evolving and we have to rally a consensus. That
is exactly what we will do, despite how high he jumps or how
low—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Sherbrooke.
* * *
FISHERIES
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question to the government is on the Pacific salmon dispute
between Canada and the United States.
The government will know that the principle of equity in this
treaty is a key principle, as is the principle of conservation. I
would like to know from the government whether or not it will ask
envoys Ruckelshaus and Strangway to make recommendations to
governments on ways where they could include a dispute settlement
mechanism and also propose options for a binding mechanism as a
way of ending the impasse on the equity principle?
1130
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, under the terms of reference that we negotiated with
the Americans to establish the special envoy process, they can
recommend anything they want. If they, on the basis of their
consultations, are able to find the support for a variety of
measures, including dispute resolution, of course the governments
of both Canada and the United States would want to respond.
The mandate of the envoys is totally open to include anything
the hon. member wants to suggest to them.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, with
all respect, the minister's answer is a good indication of what
is wrong with the government's position on this. It does not
seem to want to give any political direction. In fact, yesterday
it met with the envoys and we learned nothing as a result of that
meeting. Nothing new is on the table.
I would like to know when this government is going to show some
backbone for the families on the west coast of British Columbia
suffering in this dispute. Will it, yes or no, ask the envoys for
an interim report when they will meet the prime minister and
President Clinton around the APEC meetings? When will the
government show some backbone on behalf of British Columbians and
not be like Reformers and not care?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the high state of agitation of the hon. member
simply shows a total misunderstanding of how to get a solution.
What we are working on is to be based on the agreement of those
directly affected. He has waved his arms about the need to
respond to the fishing communities on the west coast. That is
what we are doing. We are giving them the empowerment to help
make those solutions to come to those issues. We are working on
the grassroots, bottom up thing, not the top down elitist
approach the hon. leader of the Conservative Party wants.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this week the defence minister, in referring to a lack
of disclosure about a missile incident, said the following: “If
there was any injury to person or property then of course it
would be made public”. On September 7, 1995 Canadian Vandoos
in Croatia set fire to their own mess in an apparent attempt to
cover up a theft of some video equipment. Property was stolen
and damaged. Why was the public never informed?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 1995 is long before I became minister of
defence. I do not know about back then but nowadays we do
provide maximum amount of information to the public. There are
obviously a lot of incidents that occur in a military the size of
ours that are of no public interest.
However, where there is any damage to person or property
information is in fact provided.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the information and investigation in this particular incident
have been ongoing. There appears to be no total conclusion to
it. I think this minister, along with his predecessor, should be
very much aware of what has happened.
I have in my possession documents received through access to
information. They outline a series of events between September 7
and September 9 which indicates stolen property and certainly
reflects an aspect of arson taking place there.
I remind the minister again, property was stolen and damaged.
Why were no criminal charges laid? According to the minister—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Minister of
National Defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they are really scraping the bottom of
the barrel here. They are going back several years. If the hon.
member wants to provide the information I will be happy to have
it looked into and we will get him an answer.
* * *
[Translation]
CLOSING OF BC MINE
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Today is the last day of work at the BC mine in Thetford
Mines. Tomorrow morning, 300 workers will be without jobs. One
worker put it this way: “This evening, I'll be getting out my old
clothes. I don't even get severance pay or government
assistance”.
Can the minister give us an update on the situation since his
meeting with the workers last Wednesday?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are obviously very concerned
about the situation of these workers who, some of them after many,
many years with the mine, are losing their jobs now that it is
closing.
This is why my department met, at the end of September, with
both the employer and worker representatives, and quickly and
efficiently set up $2.5 to $3 million in active measures to help
them re-enter the job market.
I met with representatives of the workers last Wednesday and
they told me that the application under the POWA program being
requested by the Bloc Quebecois was not what they wanted.
1135
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we to
understand that the minister is abandoning these workers to their
fate, condemning them to poverty when their employment insurance
benefits run out?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have set up a certain number of
active measures to help them re-enter the job market and there is
a transitional job creation fund to help revitalize the job market.
We are going to do everything we can to allow these workers to
really give it their best, because we do not think we should
underestimate individuals who are still able to make a significant
contribution to the regional economy.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when this House opened the prime minister made a
commitment to Canadians that he would not rule out the
possibility of consulting with the people of Quebec on the
Calgary declaration.
Will the prime minister let Canadians know how the consultation
process is going in Quebec?
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government
of Canada considers the Calgary declaration to be a significant
step forward in dealing with the situation of Canadian unity. It
is a provincial initiative taken by the provinces. Each of the
provinces, save Quebec, has been working toward setting up
the consultation. With respect to Quebec the Government of
Canada has not taken a position on consulting the Quebec people,
but that is an option.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has made a commitment before this Parliament to
look at the possibility of submitting the Calgary declaration to
the people of Quebec.
He made that commitment more than a month ago. Does the Prime
Minister now have any concrete plans for consultations in Quebec?
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just said
that at this time the government, the Prime Minister has no
concrete plans, but that there are still possibilities.
* * *
ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of International Trade.
More than a month ago now, the Quebec government, the three
central labour bodies and the leaders of the asbestos industry
joined forces to call upon the federal government to file a
complaint with the WTO concerning the banning of asbestos in
France.
When does the minister intend to file a complaint with the
World Trade Organization in order to come to the assistance of the
2,000 workers in the asbestos industry?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will know the federal
government has taken a leadership role on the asbestos file. Not
only have we made representation to the French and British
governments as well as other European governments, we have also
organized the recent international conference, together with the
Government of Quebec as well as industry in the asbestos file.
As well, the member should know that before and after the
premier's trip to France his direction through his officials to
us was not to entertain the possibility of going to the WTO at
that time.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know
that there is a danger of England's following the example of France
in banning asbestos on its territory.
What does the minister intend to do to prevent England from
following France's example?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the prime minister during his trip to
Great Britain raised that issue in a forceful way with his
counterpart, Prime Minister Blair. I met with the high
commissioner for Great Britain in Canada a few weeks ago. We
have also sent technical information and invited representatives
of Great Britain and the secretary of state for health from
France to visit Canada to ascertain on an export basis the kinds
of information we have. We have been very forceful on this file.
At the same time, we always entertain the possibilities of going
to the World Trade Organization to make—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
* * *
TAIWAN
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, China is coming to the APEC summit meeting in Vancouver
next month.
1140
Taiwan, a democratic nation and a friend of Canada's, has been
refused by this government participation in the APEC summit in
Vancouver next month.
Why has Taiwan been refused participation in this important
economic summit?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the statement of the hon. member is not accurate.
Taiwan will be participating in the APEC conference.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this government is coddling China. It has not said
anything about the gross human rights abuses that are going on
there and it has repeatedly prevented Taiwan from integrating
with Canada.
I ask, once again, whether this government is getting its
marching orders from Beijing or whether we have an independent
foreign policy.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have both an independent and an effective foreign
policy. The key is to make it work.
I take some exception to the hon. member's premise. The fact of
the matter is we have raised human rights issues continually with
Chinese leaders and we have actually succeeded in getting an
agreement with the Chinese to have an ongoing annual dialogue on
human rights where we have an opportunity, unlike most countries,
to engage them directly on a number of human rights matters. I
believe we will achieve success in that dialogue.
* * *
[Translation]
DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
As it is not subject to import controls, the oil, sugar and
butter mixture is being imported in huge quantities. This will
mean losses in 1997-98 of $50 million for Canadian dairy producers,
and the figure is going to increase.
Could the Minister of Agriculture tell us when he will act to
put a quick stop to this situation, which is costing the Quebec and
Canadian dairy industry dearly?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there will be some action this afternoon
at 2 o'clock when I meet with the national executive of the Dairy
Farmers of Canada to discuss this issue. This is not the first
time that I will have met with it.
Discussions are being held on this matter with the finance
department, with international trade, with Revenue Canada and
with the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. We will work
to the best of our ability with the dairy industry on this
matter.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice.
Why is it that our courts do not accept the devastating and
traumatic impact of sexual assault and rape on the lives of young
victims?
Our Ontario community is outraged that such crimes can be
treated so leniently, as in the sentence in the recent Stuckless
case where he received two years for multiple child assaults.
How can such lightweight sentencing possibly protect our young
and provide deterrence and how will the Minister of Justice fix
this shortcoming in our sentencing system?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I, along with all members of this House, I am sure, would like to
extend my sympathies to the family and friends of Martin Kruze.
He led a very difficult life and he was a very brave man to bring
forth this issue.
At the moment the indictable offence of sexual assault has a
maximum sentence of 10 years and one of aggravated assault has a
maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
It is not the laws. The laws are there. It is the application
of the laws.
This matter is also the subject of an appeal at the moment.
* * *
CIDA
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
accountability and transparency are lacking in CIDA's policies
and performance.
In 1994 CIDA recommended that an aid effectiveness advisory
committee with members from inside and outside CIDA be set up.
That was over three years ago.
Can the government tell us why this committee has not been
established and how long this party will continue to take
political advantage of CIDA?
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
take the question under advisement, I will inform the minister of
it, and we will ensure that the question is answered.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians want accountability within the system. The Canadian
auditor general's office has trained over 120 auditors from 45
countries.
CIDA has never used them except once and it exposed that the
money was not used for the intended purpose.
1145
Could the minister tell Canadians why those auditors are not
being used by CIDA?
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure
the member that as soon as the minister is back on Monday morning
we will have an answer for him.
* * *
SENIORS BENEFITS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Canada pension plan is one important component of retirement
income. Others are the old age pension and the GIS. They are
both tied together and they are both scheduled for change.
In light of that, why has the government not tabled legislation
on the seniors benefit which will replace the old age pension so
that in fairness Canadians and Parliament can deal with the whole
package at the same time? Or, is the minister simply saying to
us that when seniors return from his house this Hallowe'en night
they had better check their apples for razor blades?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought the question was
directed to my colleague in the finance department.
Before the finance committee the other day we had a long
discussion on the merits of CPP reform. We were looking into a
number of aspects. I think we are doing very well.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that
was the weakest answer I have heard in this Parliament.
When will the government table legislation on the seniors
benefit so we can deal with the whole package? The seniors
benefit and the CPP are interlinked. The CPP provides about 25%
of retirement income and is based on a universal old age pension.
The government wants to continue to try to abolish the universal
old age pension. Is it afraid to table legislation because it is
under pressure from senior citizens?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): It is absolutely to the
contrary, Mr. Speaker. We are very pleased with the package we
have been able to introduce because it will bring a benefit to
75% of seniors. Ninety per cent of single senior women will
benefit under the package. It is one we are proud of. It is one
that is sustainable.
We feel it is a fair package. We are looking forward to
bringing forth legislation in a timely manner so that all
Canadians can come to the same conclusion we have adopted.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government has allowed an interception salmon fishery on the east
and the west coasts of Canada. We are now facing an immediate
stock crisis on both coasts. At this time of crisis why is the
government following through with a divestiture of the Nova
Scotian salmon hatcheries?
These hatcheries support Nova Scotian salmon threatened by the
very interception fishery the government allows.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been well
known for some time that the Government of Canada would divest
the fish hatcheries. We have done that after talking with the
fishing communities.
In most cases fish hatcheries have been sustained by developing
a partnership in some cases with provincial government and in
some cases with fishery associations.
We are looking to the future in terms of continuing to utilize
hatcheries and keep them operating through those kinds of
partnership agreements.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, because
of acid rain many of the salmon rivers in southwestern Nova
Scotia no longer support a run of multi-sea winter salmon in Nova
Scotia.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has said many times in the
House that his department is responsible for conservation. Is
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans now denying that
responsibility?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the government
has moved forward in terms of getting its financial books in
order we have had to make cutbacks in certain areas.
Conservation does remain a priority of the federal government in
terms of the fishery. We have been able to do things in a
fiscally responsible manner, maintain conservation and ensure
that the hatcheries are there for the future because of the
arrangements we have been able to work out.
* * *
1150
CIDA
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for to the parliamentary secretary to the
minister responsible for CIDA.
Despite international humanitarian aid to North Korea, the North
Korean people are starving under the world's most repressive
regime.
Canadians want to know what the situation is in North Korea and
what steps Canada is taking to provide aid in keeping with its
tradition as a key supplier of humanitarian food aid.
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an
unfortunate situation. Canada has already provided over $10
million worth of Canadian wheat, lentils and fish to help feed
the people of North Korea.
However, the harvest in North Korea is likely to be very bad
again this year due to drought. The world food program is now
assessing the current harvest and the food needs of North Korea
for the coming year.
When the precise needs are known we will determine what further
contribution Canada should make to address this ongoing
humanitarian—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
West Nova.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the waiting
game continues for thousands of low paid female public servants
across the country. Despite the heavy handed tactics of the
chief negotiator, Mary Eberts, the Liberal government's high
priced hired gun, negotiations have apparently resumed between
the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Treasury Board.
In light of the government's so-called commitment to pay equity,
will the President of the Treasury Board clear the air and commit
to a negotiated settlement with public servants that is fair to
all parties?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this question has been addressed quite a number of times. I
think the position of the government is well known.
The government has increased its offer by $500 million in the
last eight months. We have demonstrated time and again that we
would like to have a negotiated settlement as soon as possible.
* * *
CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. Innovative centres of
excellence were designed to encourage co-operation among
industry, universities and colleges.
Could the minister advise the House whether these centres have
been successful at achieving their aims?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the network of centres of excellence is a unique
Canadian development. It has succeeded in creating in the 14
networks established across Canada networks of 1,000 researchers,
48 universities, 405 companies and 175 other organizations
including 1,400 students, 500 post doctoral fellows, 1,200
research and technical staff. It has generated spin-offs in a
variety of industrial sectors, as well as created an opportunity
to retain the best Canadian researchers in Canada.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68
is in a mess. Four provinces and two territories are challenging
it in court. Four provincial governments are refusing to
administer the firearms portion of it. They are saying that if
the federal government wants to charge and lock up farmers and
ranchers for failing to register their firearms, it can but they
will not do it. The costs are escalating and the government is
not meeting its deadline.
Will the justice minister simply withdraw the firearms portion
of the bill?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the position of the Reform Party and the position of the
government on this issue are very evident. The answer is no.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
At the Beijing Women's Conference, the Government of Canada
promised to provide funding for the APEC Women's Conference. With
less than three weeks remaining before the conference, no funds
have been provided by the government.
Will the minister agree to honour the commitment made and to
ensure the money will be there so that they do not have to cancel
as the aboriginal group had to withdraw from the conference for
lack of funding?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have provided funding for the people's summit.
How they distribute the money is totally within their mandate and
their jurisdiction.
* * *
1155
[Translation]
CLOSURE OF BC MINE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
The minister said this morning that the union did not want
POWA in the case of the asbestos mine.
In a letter sent yesterday, October 30, the president of the union
said, and I quote:
POWA in whatever form—amended, improved, destandardized—to
repeat various adjectives used by various people, would no doubt
meet our workers' expectations.
Is the minister prepared or is he not to act on what the
workers want?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I met workers' representatives on
Wednesday afternoon and they told me very clearly in my office,
looking me squarely in the eye, that POWA did not interest them.
So do not go asking me to give them something they have said
they do not want. I have not yet seen yesterday's letter. I will
consider it when I receive it. If the union prefers to deal with
the Bloc Quebecois rather than me, that is fine. They will see
what sort of service they get.
* * *
[English]
CUSTOMS ACT
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the solicitor general tabled a bill that will
give customs officers the power to detain and arrest persons for
Criminal Code offences.
In light of the fact that we have over 100 million border
crossings per year, does the Minister of National Revenue really
believe the bill will result in safer Canadian communities? If
so, how?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Bill C-18 was introduced in the
House. It will provide additional powers to our customs
officers.
I am confident the bill will be supported by all members of the
House because it provides powers to the customs officers to
detain and arrest people who may be involved in criminalities
such as impaired driving, child abduction, possession of stolen
goods, or people who may have arrests outstanding.
This is another important initiative for the government on
improving public safety and building safe homes and safe streets.
I am very proud of what the government has done.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development, who the other night
came before the Standing Committee on Finance with his colleague, the
Minister of Finance.
For the first time, the Minister of Finance admitted before the
committee that the government was using the EI fund to reduce the
Canadian government deficit. The minister has a responsibility regarding
this fund.
I would like to know why he lets his government use the employment
insurance money belonging to the workers to reduce the Canadian deficit.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Finance recognized the other
day is that we have a very responsible attitude toward the EI fund.
You will recall that, in the government of which the Conservative
leader was a member, a $2 billion surplus in the EI fund suddenly turned
into a $6 billion deficit. As a result, the government then in power had
to raise premiums by 30% at the height of the recession, thus creating
more unemployment.
We have a different and much more responsible approach.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Earlier this week the Chinese government eliminated Hong Kong
laws which guaranteed freedom of association for workers. While
Wei Jing Sheng remains in prison human rights are trampled in
Tibet and elsewhere and China continues its Neanderthal policies
on Taiwan.
I have a question for the minister. Especially given Canada's
shameful abstention on China at the UN Human Rights Commission,
will the minister condemn the recent suppression of workers
rights in Hong Kong? Will he ensure the House the Prime Minister
will raise with the President of China the appalling human rights
situation in China?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member's information is wrong.
We did not abstain. We in fact voted for the resolution on
China. He should correct his history.
As I explained earlier in the House, we have established a very
distinctive arrangement now with the Chinese to engage in an
ongoing dialogue on human rights on a regular basis. Through
that mechanism we have now been able to engage them on the
question of political prisoners.
1200
We have raised questions on Tibet in Hong Kong. In fact, we are
now investing directly in programs in China to improve the legal
system to help women and to try to improve the acceptance of the
NGOs—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On that note, we
will bring question period to a close.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I wish to draw
to members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Tom
Spencer, member of the European Parliament.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIVILEGE
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I seek
the unanimous consent of the House to table a letter addressed to the
Minister of Human Resources Development, because the minister misled the
House.
The Minister of Human Resources Development received a letter from
the union, which wants to put in writing the content of the discussions.
So as to avoid any misunderstanding, the union put in writing what was
discussed when they met with the minister. The two sides did talk about
an improved POWA. The letter was addressed to the minister, who misled
the House.
I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the letter
addressed to Mr. Pettigrew.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect to the hon. member opposite, I think first of all that accusing
the minister of misleading the House is unparliamentary—I see that
the Minister of Human Resources Development is in the House, so he may
want to take part in the debate.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is going too far. The member for
Rimouski—Mitis may very well have a letter dated October 30 and
addressed to me, but I can assure you that I never misled the House when
I said I had not yet read that letter.
There is a limit to making such claims. The member claims I misled
the House, but I want to make it clear that I did not do so in any way.
The member for Rimouski—Mitis should apologize for what she just
said.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I can
perhaps help shed some light on the debate, to move things ahead.
The member, on a question of privilege or a point of order, is
asking that a letter sent to the minister be tabled. I am certain
the minister has no objection whatsoever to the letter being made
public, in the interests of transparency for all members of the
House, which will help us to proceed with the debate.
An hon. member: That is another matter.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: No, it is not. The member is saying
that that is another matter, but it is the crux of the matter.
Unanimous consent is being sought. On behalf of the members
of my party, I offer that consent. That is the first question
asked of the House, the question to which we must reply.
After what the minister has just told us, I can hardly see him
objecting to tabling the letter after unanimous consent. That
would be a complete contradiction.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order. The hon.
member for Rimouski—Mitis is requesting unanimous consent to
table a letter. Does the member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member may
table the letter.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1205
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-269, an act to amend the Criminal Code (no
parole when imprisoned for life).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to reintroduce
this private member's bill. It amends certain provisions of the
Criminal Code relating to life imprisonment. It will eliminate
any provision for early parole, early release or parole
eligibility for a criminal who is sentenced to life.
For the families of victims, knowing that the offender will
never walk the streets again as a free person will bring a sense
of relief and an element of closure to a sad chapter in their
lives.
My bill sends a clear message to murders that if you take the
life of another, you will be locked away for the remainder of
your natural life. Life will mean life.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[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 suggest
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed consideration of the motion: That Bill C-16,
an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Interpretation Act
(powers to arrest and enter dwellings), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Charlesbourg has about 25 minutes left to finish his speech.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, don't
worry, I will not take anywhere near the 25 minutes I have left. I
will continue the debate from where I left off before the brief
interruption.
After a brief overview of the key clauses in the bill in
question, Bill C-16, it is now important to state that we have
certain reservations about the bill in question.
It will, first of all, be necessary to discuss the
“discretionary” powers assigned to peace officers in relation to
the reasonable and probable grounds to believe.
There is a need for a thorough discussion of this aspect.
We also want to listen—we do not want to be rushed by the
government—and we want to give both sides a chance to be heard.
As I said a while ago, but it bears repeating now, this is a
fundamental debate on the balance between individual rights and
freedoms on the one hand and the powers of the state on the other.
It is a debate that needs to be carried out in a leisurely and
thorough manner. We want to hear the proponents of both sides,
those in favour of this bill and those opposed to it, with the
reasons for their positions. It will also be very important to hear
from the men and women who will have to put this bill into
application, or in other words from the police officers across
Canada.
Given the respect the Bloc Quebecois holds for privacy, given
the duty the state has to respond to situations that require it to
intervene in the private sphere of individuals in order to protect
the public interest, and given as well that the action of the state
is subordinate to the rules set out in the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, and more specifically section 8 in this case, given the
importance of the amendments proposed to improve the administration
of justice, given the Supreme Court judgment in the Feeney case,
and the examination of precedents in the matter, and given that the
amendments proposed seem—I use that word advisedly, as this will
need verifying—to respond to the requirements of the
jurisprudence, we in the Bloc Quebecois declare that we are in
favour of Bill C-16. That is the end of my statement.
1210
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to discuss Bill C-16 and to
express the views of the New Democratic Party.
I would like to echo some of the comments which have been made
to date about the haste with which this bill is being pushed
through the House of Commons. I will speak to some specific
concerns about that in a moment, but this is not a very effective
way to achieve law reform and, in particular, criminal law reform
because of the concerns Canadians have, quite rightly, of their
sense of security in their homes and in their communities.
I want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary for setting
out clearly the provisions of Bill C-16. Those who were watching
and those who will read the proceedings will not be left in any
doubt exactly what the government is attempting to do.
The bill is a response to the ruling of the Supreme Court of
Canada in the Feeney case. The proposed amendments to the
Criminal Code would enable the police to obtain a warrant from a
judge to enter a private home to arrest or apprehend a person.
Also the legislation is intended to clarify that authorization
from a judge is not needed in urgent circumstances where it is
not practical to obtain a warrant.
In the Feeney case the Supreme Court ruled that in order to
protect the privacy rights of Canadians under the charter, police
must obtain a warrant before they enter a private home to arrest
or apprehend someone. Of course, the ruling caused concern among
the police across Canada and victims' organizations, concerns
that perhaps public safety was being put at risk in certain
circumstances as a consequence of the delay which was being
suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada in order to obtain a
warrant to enter the premises.
Considerable concerns were voiced in the law enforcement
community across Canada, as well as by the many Canadians who are
concerned about their security.
Generally, police officers obtain a warrant authorizing entry
before they enter a private home to arrest someone. This
legislation is intended to provide procedures to obtain such a
warrant. It also allows the police to obtain a warrant by
telephone or by any other means of telecommunication where
presenting themselves to a judge is simply not possible.
It also makes the obtaining of warrants more straightforward,
somewhat easier, and will be particularly useful, the government
contends, for those working in remote locations or when it would
not be possible to both monitor a suspect and appear before a
judge to apply for the warrant to enter.
It will not have any effect on the common law which permits
police and other peace officers to enter private homes to arrest
a suspect when they are in hot pursuit of that suspect.
The question that arises is whether this legislation strikes a
reasonable balance between the powers available to the police to
protect our safety and the privacy rights of Canadians. The
government, of course, contends that it does. We will have to
wait to see what the Supreme Court of Canada decides on that
particular matter.
It does pose another problem, which is generated by rushing this
legislation through the House with insufficient time to consider
these provisions.
I was interested to hear the Reform Party praise the attorney
general of British Columbia who led the way in successfully
applying to the Supreme Court of Canada to suspend its judgment
for six months so that Parliament could respond and so that the
uncertainty within the law enforcement community could be
addressed. It is a rare day indeed when the Reform Party commends
the attorney general of British Columbia for anything. I want to
note the Reform Party did that.
1215
This legislation is before us as a result of the Feeney case. It
is close to the deadline. I believe November 22 is the deadline
for this legislation to be implemented in accordance with the
recommendation of the Supreme Court of Canada. As has been said
many times, it does not give members very much time or
opportunity to look into the specific provisions to see whether
the legislation answers the concerns raised by the Supreme Court
of Canada. It gives little time to look into whether this
legislation is a response which will enable the police forces
across Canada to do their jobs effectively.
We know that from time to time the Supreme Court of Canada has
taken the point that the old way of doing things prior to the
charter is no longer appropriate, bearing in mind the contents of
the charter. This is one of those examples. It serves to remind
us that it would be better if the government took a more holistic
and complete approach to criminal law reform. It could look
through a number of the issues which the supreme court and other
courts have raised with regard to the application of criminal law
in the light of the charter of rights and freedoms.
The police association has raised some concerns about this
legislation, among others. These concerns could have been dealt
with had we had more time to consider the provisions of the
legislation in depth. The police have concerns with regard to
the statutory authorization of entry at the time of the warrant
issue. As we know, it is not always possible to be fully
cognizant of where somebody who has escaped from prison or a
halfway house might be. Yet it is clearly in the public interest
that such persons be apprehended as quickly as possible. It
deserves to be considered in more detail how this legislation
affects that possibility.
We also know there is some concern about failure in the
legislation to define exigent circumstances. When is it
appropriate for the police to respond in the old way based upon
an urgent situation in which they have no choice but to go and
apprehend immediately? With uncertainty, the police will not
always know what their responsibilities are or how best to
protect the public safety in certain circumstances.
It might also have been better to have included in the preamble
provisions which would make it clear the government's response
should there be a section 1 argument under the charter presented
to the legislation.
There are some other provisions that could have been addressed
in a more comprehensive review of the legislation in committee if
this bill had been put forward a little earlier than it has been.
Clearly we have to respond to the Feeney case and the Supreme
Court of Canada's suggestions that Parliament act. The
government has acted with Bill C-16. As has been mentioned,
there is all party support for this response to the supreme
court.
I merely want to point out that if we had this legislation in a
more timely way, we could have had more opportunity to resolve
whatever potential difficulties there might be. Those concerns
have been voiced by police associations across the country which
have the responsibility for enforcing this legislation and for
protecting Canadians in their homes and in their communities.
There are aspects of criminal law reform that can only be done
in a piecemeal way.
We do not have a full view of the future. We cannot guess what
the Supreme Court of Canada might consider needs to be addressed
as a result of the charter affecting our criminal law.
1220
As Canadians we deserve a more cohesive, more fully informed,
more forward looking approach to criminal law reform than we have
had in
either this or the last Parliament. It is possible to predict in
many respects, and it is possible to see what the Supreme Court
of Canada has said we should do.
It would be better for all of us if the government took criminal
law reform more seriously and did it in a more complete way.
That being said, we will support this legislation.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative
Party to speak to a bill introduced in the House to amend the
Criminal Code and the Interpretation Act, specifically referring
to the powers of arrest to enter into a dwelling house.
A key objective of Bill C-16 is to provide police across the
country with the power to enter a home and effect an arrest of an
individual. This came about as a result of The Queen v. Feeney
case in the Supreme Court of Canada on May 22, 1997. In the
delivery of the decision in The Queen v. Feeney the court ruled
that as a general rule police require a warrant to enter a
private dwelling to effect an arrest.
This decision overturned a longstanding existing string of case
law that did not require police to obtain a warrant to enter a
home in arresting an individual if that police officer had
reasonable and probable grounds to effect that arrest or, prior
to entering the home, indicated in the presence of the accused
that the authority and reason for entry was part of the normal
process.
The Supreme Court of Canada found that in this situation the
privacy of Canadians under the charter was not adequately
protected.
The charter has been given broad interpretation by our courts
and in this instance the police have been curtailed in their
ability to carry out their duties as it refers to arrest. No
doubt this ruling causes great concern among the police community
and victims' organizations that public safety may be put at risk
in certain circumstances as a consequence of the delay required
to obtain a warrant.
Many members have spoken concerning this bill. I listened with
great interest to the comments of the opposition parties as well
as the government. There are various perspectives that have
significant bearing on the issue.
One of the concerns I have is the issue of hot pursuit in a
situation where a person suspected of a serious criminal offence
is being pursued into a residence or business and the ability of
police officers to carry out their duties by effecting an arrest.
There are also concerns that tie into that with respect to the
preservation of evidence and the overall issue of protection of
the public through preventive measures that police officers are
charged with in their daily duties.
The attorney general of British Columbia joined with other
provinces and the federal government and successfully applied to
the Supreme Court of Canada to suspend the judgment that was
issued in Feeney for a period of six months to give Parliament
the time needed to address the effects of this ruling and to fill
the void left by The Queen v. Feeney.
In the meantime, police feel they are in limbo on this issue and
are anxiously awaiting definitive direction and action to be
taken by the government.
Today we are looking at the government's response to the supreme
court decision. I acknowledge in essence—and I want to put this
clearly on the record—that it is a positive position the
government has taken on this decision. It is the government's
attempt to fill the gap left by The Queen v. Feeney case.
However I want to put comments forward with respect to the bill
and I say again that I support it in principle.
1225
The Feeney decision could not be left to stand, lest effective
law enforcement, including the arresting of individuals
committing crimes would be jeopardized with the existing
situation were it left as it is.
Before going into the substantive effect of the bill, I would
point out to the House and to the government, with the greatest
respect, one of my concerns. The government's response was
somewhat slow to the situation and the timeframe that was
allotted by the supreme court. Six months is certainly
sufficient time to respond. Obviously the country went through a
federal election in that time but the business of the day has to
be carried out regardless of the fact that the country is going
through an election. I would suggest that a matter that is
certainly of significant importance to the law enforcement
community could be addressed within that time period.
In a press release dated October 30, 1997, the Minister of
Justice is quoted as saying that the bill “strikes a reasonable
balance between the powers available to the police to protect
their safety and the privacy rights of Canadians”.
I am pleased to hear this pronouncement and this assessment by
the minister regarding the legislation. However considering the
fundamental implications of Bill C-16, and those implications on
the rights of individual Canadians, I hope that the minister will
take into account the need for the justice committee to properly
and openly discuss the impact of the bill. All indications are
that this will be moving to the justice committee this week. I
am encouraged by that.
To be quite frank, I am unsure that this House has enough time
left, with 11 sitting days, both to pass the legislation and
fulfil the commitment to Canadians to act thoughtfully and
responsibly with their best interests in mind. However, we are
used to working under pressure in trying to respond quickly and I
am pleased to say that we are going to endeavour to do this with
the time allotment we have.
It is my position that this bill should be carefully studied at
the committee level. That is why I raise the issue of delay. I
know that the minister and her officials are prepared to hear the
response of the opposition parties as well as witnesses at the
justice committee level.
Those witnesses I would suggest will include the Canadian Police
Association, bar associations throughout the country and crown
prosecutors who will be given an opportunity to testify and give
their very important and insightful views on the bill and their
suggestions on how this bill might be further tightened up.
This is the time and the place to fix this bill and draft
legislation that is going to effectively fill the gap left by
Feeney and we should try to get it right the first time.
In order for the standing committee on justice to do all of
this, the time issue is a factor and I hope we will be successful
in our efforts to respond before the deadline of November 22.
By having tabled the bill today and with the debate on second
reading, it would be easy to demonstrate to the supreme court
that Parliament has already started serious study with respect to
the work that has to be done. A suspension could be requested if
required and there is precedent for this. It has happened in the
past. We may have to make this request should the justice
committee have insufficient time or the witnesses not be
permitted sufficient time to speak to this issue.
I want to turn briefly to the bill and its objectives. What does
this bill do and what should it do? Without any doubt, and I
think it is common ground, the first objective should be to help
to protect and serve the community. We also have to recognize
that the police officers, the rank and file, the individuals with
the badges that are on the beat, have to be given assistance when
it comes to effecting arrest and carrying out their duties.
Does Bill C-16 do all this? Does it accomplish this and can it
be improved? Again, these are questions that members of the
justice committee and hopefully those bringing forward testimony
are going to help us answer.
1230
I had an opportunity to be involved in a number of cases that
included search warrants and individual rights, and the balance
that must be struck between the protection of the public and
those individual rights was always at issue. Certainly any piece
of legislation that addresses issues of arrest where police
officers are entering into private dwellings or places of
business to effect arrest has to be viewed in a very, very
serious light.
Businesses of course enjoy a different degree of privacy than a
private dwelling. Certainly the police, as in many of the
situations they face on a daily basis, have to be entrusted with
the greatest of discretion. We can never ever ignore the fact
that police officers are looking for direction from the Criminal
Code of Canada and those legislators who have input into the
process.
The specific concerns I raised at the outset surrounding hot
pursuit are issues which I hope will be the subject of lively
discussion at the committee level.
Domestic violence and the need for all police agencies to
address this will be better served when the issue is completely
ironed out. Police officers are called upon daily to intervene
in issues of domestic violence. They must be given the utmost
support and assistance if they are to effectively combat this
very, very serious problem in our country.
Drug searches are another area where the bill will have an
impact. Police officers are facing an epidemic of rampant drug
use throughout the country. They must be given the discretion to
enter into a dwelling house or areas where drugs are suspected to
be housed.
Police are always working in a pressure filled environment and
there is more and more attention drawn to police and the job they
are entrusted with. In my experience I have seen police exercise
very good judgment and act responsibly and lawfully in the
majority of instances.
Having said that, the principles that underscore the bill are
sound. At present, police officers throughout the country are
working under a system which is somewhat cumbersome and
ineffective without a substantive position being put forward in
the Criminal Code. Some of the proposals in this bill would
certainly clarify it and would help the police do their job more
expeditiously and would give them the knowledge that they are
acting on solid ground.
I would suggest however that the bill needs to be amended or at
least tinkered with in some areas. This would include when
police officers are seeking an arrest warrant and the
authorization to enter into a dwelling house and their ability to
tell a judge about a specific residence they want to enter to
effect an arrest. This information is not always available.
Again it ties into the immediacy of the situation where they may
be in pursuit or they may be faced with an emergency situation
where they have to act immediately to prevent further injury, to
prevent hiding or disposing of evidence. This is something the
bill does not address effectively.
True, I certainly acknowledge that it is possible at times to
speculate where a suspect may be, but this information is not
always predictable. Surely in the public interest the
apprehension of a suspected criminal where the police have
reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has
been committed outweighs the concerns about entering a hideout or
a safe house where the criminal may be harbouring the proceeds of
crime, drugs or weapons that may have been involved in the
offence of which he is accused.
Another concern I have is with respect to the resources
available to police officers when it comes to effecting a search
warrant. There is really no mention whatsoever in the bill about
the availability of justices of the peace or judges with respect
to the issuance of such warrants. This I would suggest is a
glaring omission. Without the resources it is really nothing more
than lip service.
If we have a very specific procedure in place as to how a search
warrant can be obtained but we do not have the justices or the
judges available to sign those warrants and allow the police
officers to carry them out, then all is for nought.
1235
Another concern that does arise from the decision itself, and an
attempt has been made by Bill C-16 to address it, is the further
definition of exigent circumstances which is the language that is
used in the majority decision of Feeney. It is not clear, I
would suggest, to this point what those exigent circumstances
would include. The police I think are looking for further
clarification on this.
True to form as in all legislation there are going to be
challenges. Certainly the government cannot simply be responsive
to the fact that this is going to be challenged and therefore try
to anticipate every single charter challenge that may arise but
clarification is needed on that definition.
Another point with respect to the listing of multiple dwellings
within a search warrant and entry authorizations, the
Interpretation Act seems to infer that singular means plural and
vice versa within that act as the wording is set out in the
current bill. I would suggest that there is still some vagueness
surrounding the language as it pertains to multiple listings for
residences or hideouts where a suspected criminal may be staking
out.
In conclusion, I do want to say that we in the Conservative
Party are supportive of this bill. I would also like to indicate
that the Minister of Justice has done the right thing in
responding in a timely fashion in this sitting of the House,
keeping in mind my earlier remarks with respect to the work that
has been done thus far to see that the bill is brought to
fruition in the House. There is some concern I have in that
regard.
The federal government obviously has a huge obligation when it
comes to the Criminal Code of Canada. The Minister of Justice is
certainly the top dog when it comes to effecting change within
the Criminal Code.
I look forward to the opportunity of having a direct impact on
the final draft of this bill. I look forward to working with my
colleagues in the House to seeing Bill C-16 through to its final
conclusion which will hopefully be put forward in a way that it
is going to be very effective in ensuring that police officers
are permitted to do their job and to help keep the streets in
this country safe and sound.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette.
I have been in this place a short while and in that time I am
amazed at how it operates. Yesterday the minister tabled
legislation in response to a supreme court decision of last May.
It took the Department of Justice with all of its resources over
five months to prepare a response. Members of Parliament are
then provided a day in order to review that response, comprehend
the ramifications and attempt a rational comment. No wonder the
Canadian public often question proceedings in this place. It may
also explain why the courts have been so eager to challenge our
legislative power in this country.
Just a few short years ago the courts limited themselves to
interpreting the law and they now seem to be making it. It used
to be that this placed made the law.
During the last Parliament the former Minister of Justice was
known for legislating by panic. He often left mere days to pass
essential legislation. I expected more, and Canadians expected
more from our present Minister of Justice. As many members of
the Liberal backbench have been quoted as saying, the unelected
bureaucrats from the PMO really make all the decisions.
Perhaps the Minister of Justice does not control her own agenda
and she has been forced to play these political games whereby
legislation is introduced with unreasonable timeframes resulting
in inadequate review and consultation. We can only hope this
government has at least the decency to refer this legislation to
committee and then provide sufficient opportunity for proper
review and presentation of all concerns.
With respect to the bill, I appreciate that it is almost
entirely a reaction to the Feeney case, but I question whether
this legislation will address the next case like Feeney. The
majority decision of Feeney held that the police did not have
reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Mr. Feeney prior to
entry into his abode.
1240
So I ask this question. How will a formal process of obtaining
a warrant to enter a dwelling make an arrest be obtainable if
there are not the grounds to make that arrest? Many critics have
sided with the minority position but the fact remains that the
majority decided it was wrong for the police to gain entry to the
dwelling without a warrant in those circumstances.
The second point concerns the bureaucracy we are placing upon
police officers. I have had reason to spend much time with the
police in my community over the past few years. I make it a
point every few months to ride along with them for a full weekend
night shift. If citizens only knew what goes on in their streets
while they are snuggled away in their beds.
Perhaps more judges and legislators should do the same before
rendering bonehead decisions or penning ill-conceived
legislation. Maybe they would come to appreciate the situations
faced by these men and women, the ever present threats and the
instantaneous decisions required to keep our streets safe.
This legislation at least makes provisions for telewarrants. Not
all police officers will be smothered by paperwork. Hopefully in
those remote locations and in those circumstances where time is
important, the advantages of the telephone will assist our
already overworked and understaffed enforcement personnel.
I have not had any experience with telewarrants but I hope they
will work as well as anticipated. I cannot help but wonder
whether justices of the peace would not be more hesitant to
authorize warrants over the telephone rather than when a police
officer with proper documentation appears personally.
We should also wonder just how available justices of the peace
will be in the wee hours of the morning when our police are out
protecting the public and require these dwelling arrest warrants.
I would like to hear more evidence of how telewarrants work in
practice.
In any case, as a result of this legislation the police now have
to be concerned about obtaining proper authorization to enter a
dwelling to make an arrest. They quite likely may also have to
obtain separate authorization to search those premises. They
could well have previously been required to obtain a basic arrest
warrant. Is this not something, perhaps up to three warrants
just to get an individual into our justice system. After
spending all the time and effort to get the individual before the
legal process, the police and our communities will continue to be
astonished at how quickly the accused will be entitled to bail
and release.
I also wonder whether the police will actually utilize these
warrant provisions. When they obtain a warrant and enter a
dwelling house there is no guarantee the individual will be
there. Executing the warrant will likely provide notice of police
interest toward that individual. It will provide notice that the
accused should attempt to disappear in many cases. In some cases
the police will be endangered as desperate accused prepare to
protect themselves against arrest.
I am further concerned that in many situations the police may
decide to wait to apprehend to when the individual is outside the
dwelling house. Of course such a delay in apprehension could
result in more occurrences of crime by the individual. We can
certainly see how our interest in protecting the rights of our
criminals results in added responsibilities to our police and
added attacks to our security.
Another issue to be raised concerns the status of other cases
before the courts. We know that Feeney is the law as of the date
of its decision. It is not clear whether other cases before the
courts prior to Feeney will be ruled illegal arrests and evidence
ruled inadmissible. It is not even clear whether cases since
Feeney will be protected by this legislation.
For some reason I fully expect our present justice system will
be just as eager to treat other offenders in the same way as Mr.
Feeney, at least those who have committed their crimes and who
have been dealt with by the police prior to the passing of this
legislation. Otherwise the bleeding hearts will cry that it is
not fair that only Mr. Feeney obtained these lenient and
controversial allowances.
As members of this place can appreciate, the supreme court
raised some interesting new developments in our law. This bill
is an attempt to react to those developments. They must be
thoroughly and properly addressed. With respect, I wish to
remind those listening that the Feeney case involved a vicious
beating and death of an 85-year old man. The offender could well
go free for this horrendous crime.
Any failures to properly address the inadequacies of our law
could result in additional travesties of justice. It places a
heavy burden on all of us in this place.
As I stated earlier I hope the government begins to see the
light and provides proper opportunity to adequately address these
shortcomings. This minister has gotten off to a poor start by
leaving the bill to this late date and then starting to rush it
through Parliament. We have three weeks until the date set by the
supreme court to provide legislation and one of those weeks is a
scheduled break week. I do not know if the public will ever
understand this place and that is most unfortunate.
In conclusion, I have met with family members of the victim in
the Feeney case. I doubt if there is anybody in this place who
can even begin to comprehend how this decision has impacted on
them.
Just think of it, a convicted killer found covered in the blood
of your loved one may walk away unpunished because the police
were unable to wake him from a drunken stupor before entering his
premises to make an arrest.
1245
It is another classic example of how our justice system
continues to revictimize. It is another example of how our
justice system has been hijacked by those who view life from
ivory towers, far above the realities of everyday Canadian life.
Is it any wonder that the majority of Canadians have lost faith
in our courts?
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we will support Bill C-16. However, the fact that this bill must
be brought forward is a symptom of bigger problems with the
entire justice system, as my hon. colleague just mentioned.
We often hear the government saying that things are going well,
that crime is down and that things are looking better. That is
simply not the case.
In my previous capacity as a teacher, we had an acid test for
the sign of a good teacher which was whether we would be willing
to put our own child in a classroom with a particular teacher. If
we were, then we knew that teacher was a good teacher.
The acid test for Canadians is the effectiveness of the justice
system. Is this a case about which Canadians are going to say
that is a fine finding and they can live with it? In the Feeney
case it is obvious that is not the case.
I do not think that Canadians are feeling any safer today than
in the past. There is a great deal of trouble with our justice
system and Canadians are telling us that.
The travesty here is that Feeney will walk in this case. As my
colleague from Crowfoot mentioned earlier, the community in which
Feeney lives is certainly not feeling safer. Those people
certainly do not feel that the justice system is working well in
their area.
What is troubling in this case is the larger problem of the
entire justice system. Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, in her
dissenting opinion in the Feeney case, stated that the
warrantless arrest was justified given that a very violent murder
had occurred, that the arrest was made in a field and that it was
extremely impractical to obtain an arrest or search warrant. The
arrest was in the midst of a fresh pursuit, which was continuous
and direct, and there was reasonable fear that the killer would
commit further violence. We believe this test should be
applicable in all cases.
I would like to tell two short stories about some of my
constituents who have told me about the problems they are
encountering with the justice system.
One of the stories is about a man whose son, unfortunately, was
one of the victims of Clifford Olson. He lives in my community
of Maple Ridge, which is the largest city in my riding.
As a young man of 18 I lived in the community in which Olson
prowled. That community was Coquitlam. In fact, that very
summer I taught a Bible club in the apartment complex where Olson
lived. One of Olson's victims was a young man of 18. I was 18.
I know the fear that gripped my community when that man committed
those heinous acts. It affected not only my community but the
surrounding communities and our country as a whole.
I saw the pain and the anguish on a man's face whose life had
been changed forever. Mr. Ray King talked to me just before the
farcical trial which took place in Vancouver. He told me about
all he had been through. His son had been lost. His son had
been taken from him. It has ruined his entire life. For 15
years he has remained rather silent but now is starting to speak
out for the victims of crime. He is asking for changes to be
made to the justice system.
We cannot lose sight of victims. If we do we lose sight of what
our justice system is about. It is about the protection of our
society. It is about the protection of Canadians.
1250
We saw the lack of foresight and vision when Bill C-45 was
introduced by the government in 1996, only eight days before the
end of the summer sitting. With further vision and further
foresight in correcting the problems of the justice system this
could have been brought forward sooner so that Mr. King and the
other victims would not have had to go through what happened in
Vancouver. They would not have to relive that pain and anguish.
It certainly is a sign that there is some trouble with our
system.
We support Bill C-16. We support our police. We support their
being able to do their job, to have the tools to be able to do
their job, to arrest criminals, to protect our society.
I will relate one more short story about one of my constituents
who came to tell me his story about the problems he has
encountered with the justice system. His father was brutally
murdered by his own step-brother in the early 1980s. It was a
terrible act, a heinous crime. The individual was convicted of
first degree murder. This criminal has been streamed from
maximum to medium to minimum security, and now Mr. McGillvary is
faced with the fact that the person who committed this crime has
been placed in an institution just 20 minutes away from his own
home. This inmate, this criminal who committed this act, who had
taken Mr. McGillvary's father from him, also threatened Mr.
McGillvary's life. Yet now he is placed in an institution just
20 minutes away from his own home in a minimum security
institution where there is a great chance he could get away.
There was a case in another minimum security institution setting
five minutes from my house a few years back. Inmates left and
committed a murder in Seattle. We would hope this is not a place
people are going to leave from daily but the fear is there for
Mr. McGillvary. He has been through the system to ask for
changes. Understandably he is fearful, yet he has been offered
counselling services to deal with his irrational fear. I do not
see this as irrational. Not at all.
We apply the acid test to that case. What would we do if we
were in Mr. McGillvary's case? We would be just as fearful. We
ask who holds the keys to the criminal justice system. In Mr.
McGillvary's case, he has been told that it would be a problem to
transfer this inmate because the inmate could bring a court case
against correctional services, a case which he would likely win.
Who holds the keys for where he is going to be? The justice
system should have the opportunity to put an inmate where he is
deemed to be best placed. We need a balance and the victims need
to be remembered. While we support this bill, we point out that
the government needs to listen to Canadians and their cries for a
substantive overhaul of the criminal justice system, to provide a
balance, to provide truth in sentencing, and to restore
Canadians' faith in the criminal justice system.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. member. I appreciated his remarks. It is
important to remember that what precipitated the current debate
and this legislation is a decision of the Supreme Court of
Canada.
Canadians need to ask the question of who holds the keys to the
criminal justice system in this country. I submit that
Parliament is the right institution to hold those keys and not
the supreme court. While we respect the supreme court, its
current method for appointing judges leaves the public no way of
holding any of those justices accountable for the decisions they
make.
We know that at times there is the appearance that appointments
are made on a political basis.
1255
We certainly understand that we as elected parliamentarians are
responsible and accountable to the people who send us here. We
ultimately are the ones who make and pass the laws and we are,
therefore, accountable to the people for the laws that we make,
change or amend.
Does the member not agree that a big part of the problem with
the Feeney decision is that of a situation where the public is
going to have to live with the results of this absolutely
unacceptable decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and yet the
supreme court is not accountable?
Is there not something wrong with this picture and does it not
need to be changed?
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
colleague for Skeena for the question.
Yes, I would say that there is a definite problem with the
system. We are charged by our electorate to make laws in this
place. We are accountable to our constituents. However, when we
see the application of law such as in this case, there is a
imbalance. There should have been a common sense finding, but
there was not. More and more Canadians are wondering why such an
obvious case was found the way it was.
There is a body of unelected officials interpreting the law and
making decisions on the law which more and more seem to be
getting away from what the majority of Canadians would find to be
reasonable answers. We need to overhaul the system and look at
more accountable ways of appointing judges so that they would be
held accountable for their decisions. We respect the supreme
court, but in cases such as this we have to question the findings
of such a decision.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the record is fairly complete here today in describing
the background of the legislation. I want to acknowledge the
anticipated co-operation of colleagues on all sides of the House
to dispose of the issue today and allow the matter to go to a
committee where it can be treated with a bit more introspection.
However, I do want to address a particular issue. As a bit of a
preamble, lot of MPs are curious about why from time to time we
in the House have to revisit legislative areas because of
decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. It should not be a
surprise. Since the charter was adopted as part of our
Constitution we have had to adapt some of our laws to the
guidance and interpretation of that court. It was inevitable
that some of this was going to happen.
As one legislator, I wish that when the court deals with these
things it would assess the impact of its decisions on criminal
procedures on Canadian life. In this case, I gather it did not
want to make the decision and then the government lawyers had to
go back and ask for a stay of six months. We are now at the end
of that six month window and we are attempting to correct that
area of law.
I regret that the paradigms within which we must work to do this
are set by the courts. I would rather we go back to square one
and design a procedure that we all believed was appropriate and
in compliance with the charter and fair to Canadians. We will
probably have a chance to address some of those issues at the
committee stage.
In the interests of brevity, I will get to the issue I want to
discuss. As a result of this decision there is a gaping hole in
the criminal procedure which applies to police entering private
dwelling homes for the purpose of arresting someone or securing
evidence.
1300
Prior to this decision, before entering a dwelling home without
a warrant for the purpose of executing an arrest peace officers
had to have reasonable grounds to believe they could arrest
someone in the home, someone they had the right to arrest. The
person must have been guilty or believed to be guilty of an
indictable offence.
In addition to the reasonable grounds peace officers would have
to announce their entry: something equivalent to a knock on the
door and a statement as to whom they were, followed by the entry.
That was the way it was for almost 100 years based on what is
called the Landry test. It seems to have worked relatively well.
I am wondering if the following scenario is proper. Let us say
an individual is suspected of either a rape or a bank robbery.
Three weeks later the victim spots the perpetrator. The person
does not know his or her name but the perpetrator is spotted. The
victim then goes to the police and says “I have seen the person
who raped me” or “I have seen the person who robbed the bank”.
The police officer under the old rules would have said “Let's
go and get him” and if he is in a dwelling house he would have
made entry. In this case the peace officer has to obtain a
warrant if the accused happens to be in a dwelling house even if
it is not his own dwelling house.
The only difficulty is the warrant procedure we have just
designed in the bill requires that the accused be identified by
name. In my scenario we do not have a name. We have an
identification. We know he is there but we do not know his name.
Therefore we cannot get a warrant with the bill and the peace
officer cannot go into the house. In theory the accused can sit
there for 30 years while we figure out how we can get into the
house.
It may be a problem with the legislation. We will have a chance
to address it in due course. I am sure colleagues will
co-operate as we address it. I will leave my further remarks on
the legislation for committee stage.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Frank Boyle was murdered at Likely which is about one
hour's drive, if one drives like heck and does not hit a deer,
from Williams Lake where I live. It is on the Quesnel River
flowing out of Quesnel Lake. It is an isolated community.
One of the large tasks I have as the member serving
Cariboo—Chilcotin is initial telephone hookups, lines to where
residents live so they can get on the telephone system.
The question I want to ask is about the telewarrants. I am glad
the member raised the question of warrants. The legislation
would probably work well in a city where the streets are laid out
and the houses are identified. However, how would they work in
areas where there are shacks, trailers and accommodations in the
bush? People have lived for a long time in these areas. People
in isolated circumstances are encouraged not to take the law into
their own hands as they have had to do in the past because there
have not been police resources or a means of communicating with
the police.
How are telewarrants supposed to work when the police
undertaking a legitimate investigation are unable to communicate
with the justice of the peace, the judge or even their own
headquarters in many instances because of isolation?
This seems to be another instance where the laws of our land are
dividing rural and urban people. Does the member have a comment
to make about telewarrants and their effectiveness in the type of
circumstance that happened in Likely?
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good
question. Obviously members at the committee stage will have to
make sure the design and procedure work. The committee and the
stakeholders will be consulting with the police community.
Whether we are talking about telephone authorizations or
telewarrants or whatever, we have to make sure when the bill
leaves committee and comes back to the House we have a procedure
or a mechanism that works and addresses the hon. member's
question.
I am ready to go to work on it and I hope he is too.
1305
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise
today to speak in support of Bill C-16.
Before doing so I would like to thank the Minister of Justice
and the officials in her department for their swift and
comprehensive leadership on this issue. I also thank the
previous minister of justice for the bold leadership he
demonstrated during our first mandate.
Our safe homes and safe streets agenda has been a tremendous
success. Our accomplishments include sentencing reform, a new
national system of screening child sex abusers, amendments to the
Young Offenders Act and tighter controls on guns.
The approach of the Liberal government to justice issues has
emphasized prevention. Prevention is the underlying philosophy.
That is why we established the National Crime Prevention Council
which continues to study what leads children into a life of crime
and how to stop that pattern.
We have funded a national campaign against family violence. We
have also improved peace bonds to make them more effective in
keeping abusers away from women and children. To protect
children from sexual exploitation we have brought in legislation
to get tough on pimps and customers who prey on child prostitutes
and prosecute Canadians who exploit child prostitutes in other
countries.
Crime is not a simple issue. The Liberal approach avoids fear
mongering and the kind of simplistic solutions we often hear in
the House such as flogging petty criminals and throwing more and
more people into expensive prisons for longer and longer
sentences. That is why that policy is doomed to fail.
Let us move to why we are here today. The bill was introduced
to correct a procedural flaw in our judicial system, a flaw that
has been chipping away at section 8 of the charter. The section
is one of the fundamental legal rights Canadians share that many
people in other countries are still fighting for. It is the same
right many people undertake when they wish to make their points.
I remind hon. members that the section reads “Everyone has the
right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure”.
The Feeney case presented the problem of whether Canadian police
officers should have complete discretion to enter a premises
simply because they are investigating an incident and then upon
stumbling across incriminating evidence should be allowed to
ignore section 8 of the charter and proceed with an arrest. The
officer in the case did not believe he had reasonable and
probable grounds for the forcible entry. Therefore the court
found the law inadequate to allow the police to do their job and
to protect citizens privacy rights. I think there is a general
consensus in the House on that background.
Our opponents may feel these claims are not strongly founded.
However the bill will neither add to nor subtract from the powers
of the police. The bill is designed to clarify the process so
that the legal rights our opponents take for granted are
protected.
Procedures will now be clear. A peace officer will be able to
apply in person or by phone to a judge or justice for a warrant
authorizing the peace officer to enter a private dwelling to
arrest a person, if the judge or justice is satisfied that a
warrant of arrest for that person exists and there are reasonable
grounds to believe a person is in the dwelling, or authorizing
the peace officer to enter a private dwelling to arrest a person
whose identity is known or can be identified, if the judge or
justice is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for an arrest
and to believe the person is in the dwelling.
The proposed legislation would also allow the judge when issuing
an arrest warrant to authorize entry into a specific dwelling if
the judge is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the person subject to the arrest warrant is or will be
inside.
After explaining this some people will say there will be
instances when peace officers will not have enough time to get
the warrant. We have provided for that. The bill will allow
police officers to enter the private dwelling without a warrant
in exigent or pressing circumstances where it is not feasible to
obtain one. These would include but would not be limited to
situations where there is a reasonable suspicion that entry is
necessary to prevent bodily harm or death to anyone, or there are
reasonable grounds to believe that entry is necessary to prevent
imminent loss or destruction of evidence.
In total the bill strikes the right balance between empowering
police to do their jobs and protecting the fundamental right of
the charter.
1310
The government has consulted with provincial attorneys general,
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Association of
Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Association of Police and the
Canadian Bar Association to prepare this legislation. I am
pleased to see a broad consensus within the House to support the
bill. For that I am truly thankful.
The government has been working tirelessly for safe homes and
safe streets. We will continue to fight to preserve the rights
of Canadians and to maintain the best justice system in the
world.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments. I
have a question that relates directly to Mr. Feeney and the
evidence.
Will the legislation provide for Mr. Feeney to be retried using
the evidence that the supreme court has already thrown out, or
will he go free because the evidence is not admissible in court?
There is no question in anybody's mind, particularly and likely,
that Mr. Feeney is guilty as hell. The blood is on his hands. If
that blood cannot be used in the subsequent court appearance,
what good is it? Justice is being denied. Justice is not being
served. The law must serve justice and not simply the legal
system.
Will the government build in retroactive provisions so that Mr.
Feeney can be tried, using the evidence that the police have
already collected to convict him?
Mr. John Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the questions brought
forward by the hon. member are sound. The place for him and
members of his party to ask those questions is in debate in
committee to see if those kinds of things can be worked through
and a consensus can be brought forward. I think the
recommendations are worth while.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. member.
As I have talked with Canadians over the past little while, it
seems to me they have some sense there are three untouchables in
our society over which they have very little control. Perhaps
one would be the media. The second would be the banking system.
The third would be the judiciary.
Does the hon. member have any thoughts on how we might be able
to bring some kind of real reform to the judiciary that would
make it more accountable to the people in general and somehow
accountable to enforcing the law as passed in this Chamber?
The particular case that prompted this legislation is a case in
point. It seems that somehow the judiciary has taken precedence
over the laws of the land and Canadians do not have faith in it
any more. We need to reverse that. Does the hon. member have
any suggestions on how we might change that?
Mr. John Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the process has been so
long established that it would require some deep and serious
thought about approaching such amendments or changes in the
judiciary.
Obviously I am not a lawyer and I am not legally trained. I
think there could be a process if some members of Parliament come
up with ideas substantiated with solid logic and support for
change and have the support of the public of Canada.
At the moment I have no instant answers for the member.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I only have a few minutes to debate the
issue. I want to make a few comments and will debate it more
fully at third reading if I am given the opportunity.
1315
I want to address a couple of the issues that have been brought
before us on the amendment to the Criminal Code with respect to
powers of arrest, to arrest and enter dwelling houses. I also
want to comment on some of the statements made by members
opposite.
One thing that has to be clear is that we are not talking about
legalese and how it should be, we are talking about a law that
affects the rights and protection of the citizens of Canada.
When we in the House start putting laws in place which will not
withstand an interpretation by the courts, then we have a
problem. The responsibility is not the courts. It is the
responsibility of members of Parliament to make sure that we are
very clear in how we put words into legislation, to make sure
that we word legislation so it is not open to misinterpretation
of our intent by the courts. Therefore, the onus is on this House
to make sure that Bill C-16 is very clear in its intent to
protect the Canadian public and not to allow the accused criminal
to escape justice.
I heard the hon. member opposite say it is in committee that we
should make sure that these changes, these rural versus urban
concerns, are addressed. It is in committee that we have to
address these other issues.
My experience is that committees are not always open to
suggestions. They are not always open to suggestions saying we
have to be clear, we have to precise, we have to make sure that
what we are saying is what the people of Canada are expecting to
have written into the legislation. The onus is on us to go into
these committees with an open mind, not based on party politics,
to make sure that the end product is very clear.
We have seen it in other legislation that has come from this
House in the previous Parliament. I use as an example
alternative sentencing. Because we were not specific, although
some wanted to be, for who these alternative sentences could be
used, we see dangerous and serious offenders being released into
society without any incarceration because we were not definite
and clear in our intent.
I have great expectations that the 36th Parliament will be
different, that it will allow real changes to legislation in
committee to make sure that the end product is the best product.
We have to make sure that the end product is not going to be
questioned and challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada and sent
back to us to correct matters that should have been changed first
time around.
I am hopeful that the evidence which was decided was illegally
gained can be used in the next court case. I am hopeful that the
committee will ensure that the protection is there for the
Canadian public. I am hopeful that the hon. members concerned
about rural people not having the same ability to have telephone
warrants issued will be addressed in a meaningful and real way so
that no Canadian citizen is denied the opportunity of the good
that can come from this change in Bill C-16.
I want to impress on all members from all parties that
Parliament should show a willingness in committee to have open
and honest debate and be receptive to things which will improve
legislation.
1320
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to say a few things in general on this bill. It is very
important to us as Canadians and as Reformers that our justice
system do its work, that we have availability of evidence which I
believe is the underlying premise of this bill, that evidence
which is factual is admissible and that a member of the police
force has the ability to do his work.
It is true that when we have an alleged offence we do not want
to incorrectly incarcerate a person who is innocent. But at the
same time we also want to make sure the person who is guilty is
found guilty, is sentenced and is punished so that society is
protected. It is very important for our courts to be correct,
for our justice system to be correct: to vindicate the innocent,
to most certainly convict the guilty. It is very important that
we have a justice system that responds to that need.
We very strongly urge the government to take action. We
sincerely hope the committee will do its work so the justice
system our people are so concerned about can do its work and so
we can restore a trust in it which people are now lacking.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say a few words. I want to say them
because I know how concerned are the people of Likely about what
has happened to one of their neighbours, Mr. Boyle. There has
been a travesty of justice. A man has been caught literally with
blood on his hands and he has been freed. There is more than
indignation in Likely and in the Cariboo—Chilcotin over what has
happened.
A long time ago a lawyer told me that the legal system has
nothing to do with justice, it has to do with keeping a refined
set of rules. In this instance the rules have not served
justice. It does not take a genius to know when justice has been
denied. In this instance it has been. I call on this Parliament
to consider the needs of justice and the needs of Canadians
rather than to put the whole emphasis on the legal system and
those who support it and operate it. Until we do this the legal
system will be held in contempt and often the contempt which it
deserves.
I call on Parliament and the justice committee that will be
reviewing this legislation to keep in mind that our laws are
there to protect the Canadian people. They are there to provide
the tools to the police who give us that protection, to call
people to account who have broken the law, who have done unjust
deeds, who have hurt their fellow men, who have denied their
fellow men the justice they have a right to expect. We have to
go beyond keeping rules. We have to keep in mind what is right.
Justice must be served. I would call on the government for the
sake of Likely, for the sake of Mr. Boyle who lost his life, I
call on Parliament to consider first of all the needs of
Canadians as they seek justice and to seek to live their lives by
a system that provides justice.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1325
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe if you were to seek the consent of the House that there
would be unanimous consent to see the clock as being 1.30 p.m.
and the House could proceed to Private Members' Business, as the
member is present and ready to begin.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 1.30 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]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.) moved that Bill C-217, an
act to amend the Access to Information Act (disclosure of results
of public opinion polls), be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians believe that this is the
best country in the world in which to live. They are proud of
the country in which we live. However, most of them would agree
that the status quo is not acceptable. We cannot keep on doing
things the way we have always done them. Now there is a demand
across Canada for more open and accountable government.
Open government means a free flow of information between
government and its citizens. It means government informs the
public, rather than manipulating them. Open government means
that when tax dollars are used to commission polls about the
thoughts and opinions of Canadians, then everyone has the right
to access that information in a timely manner.
Canadians want to be able to access to these poll results in an
easy manner, not in a manner in which they have to jump through a
whole bunch of bureaucratic hoops and satisfy a whole bunch of
requirements before accessing the information. If that is what
has to happen, people will be discouraged from accessing poll
results.
Unlike the Parliament of the Conservative Party which was very
secretive, this Parliament has shown itself to be more willing to
open up the process. This government believes there should be
changes and that things will have to be changed to satisfy
Canadians. As well, this government believes that Canadians
should never have to face the situation, as happened in the
Mulroney years, when the information commissioner had to take the
prime minister to court in order to release information from
publicly funded polls.
It will take a long time for Canadians to forget the reign of
terror brought on by the Mulroney government and the secretive
administration which existed then. I am sure this government
does not want to have a repeat of that sort of regime. Of
course, it does not want to leave those kinds of memories in the
minds of Canadians.
There is no doubt in my mind that this kind of backroom
government that was so common before must be changed and it must
be changed quickly. The Canadian public will not accept any more
of this sort of blind faith in politicians. Canadians have
learned from experience that they cannot trust politicians who
tell them “trust me”.
Politicians who selectively release important information to
manipulate the public, particularly when the public paid for
those polls, is just not acceptable. To simply advance the ideas
of the government through polling is just not acceptable.
1330
We recently witnessed a perfect example of this sort of
behaviour. On October 29 a Globe and Mail article by Hugh
Windsor is an example of what Canadians will not accept.
I am going to quote from the article and talk about it because
it was so timely that it was published just a couple of days ago.
It really points to exactly what the bill is all about.
I will give a bit of background. This is with regard to the
finance minister who we all know hates to be criticized and we
know that he will go a long way in order to prevent criticism.
This issue relates to the harmonization of the GST and
provincial taxes. He would not make any moves without conducting
massive numbers of polls and many focus group studies. This was
paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. Then, of course, a number of
people wanted to see the results of the polling and focus groups.
Another issue which arises from this is the fact that the
minister also chose his political friends for this hundreds of
thousands of dollars in polling that was done. David Herke, a
former member of his leadership team, did most of the polling
along with Elly Alboim, a former CBC journalist. After the
polling and focus groups were finished, the minister said this
cannot be made public.
The question Mr. Windsor asked very clearly in his article was
how we can the opinions of the Canadian people on the topic of
taxation and say that they should be state secrets. The minister
is quoted as saying that this would be deemed injurious to
conducting the Government of Canada and injurious to federal and
provincial affairs. He also said that it would be materially
injurious to financial interests, and he went on. Those were the
grounds on which he said these polls could not be published.
The access to information commissioner said it was not a
national threat to the country or to provincial relations. The
minister then requested that the information be made public.
Just to show how far the finance minister would go, he hired his
own lawyer to challenge the information commissioner on releasing
polls that were paid for by the Canadian public. This blockage
continued for 18 months. Finally, after his own lawyer advised
him he cannot block these anymore, that if this goes to court he
would lose, his lawyer advised him to release the information.
Now, 18 months after the polls which were paid for by the
Canadian taxpayer were done, they were released. What did they
contain that was so injurious? I will quote from the
actual poll results:
[They] will be seen as a bribe and a waste of taxpayer's money
if the reform is seen to be a political exercise unrelated to
improving the tax system; the issue is political, not
substantive; no evidence that people think the GST is in need of
reform; the GST reform has no relief for consumers, it has a
patchwork look and the appearance of more confusion for business
and more bureaucracy; the GST commitment needs to be dealt with
politically rather than substantively; the most effective method
is likely to come clean now about the promise and the inability
to fulfil it rather than pretend to have fulfilled it.
1335
These are the claims that were made by the opposition parties in
this House about the harmonized GST. Yet this minister took 18
months to hold this public polling in secret just because it was
politically against what he was trying to do. Obviously if the
taxpayer is going to pay for it then the taxpayer has the right
to know about it. If a political party wants to do polling it
certainly can keep it secret because it paid the bill.
Certainly the current government, as I have said, has not been
as secretive as the previous one, but the whole red book concept
of open government obviously is really being held to question now
when we examine the actual facts.
I know we are going to hear from members across the way that
there is no need for Bill C-217, that they really are not
interested in blocking any poll results. However, what we are
saying is that when any federal departments, boards or agencies
commission polls paid for by the House they should be made
public.
I have a lot of arguments that I think we will hear against the
need for this bill. I do not think I have to go through all of
them other than to simply say that many Liberal members in the
House have stood up and said that results should be open and that
the justice minister is going to fix the access to information.
We have been promised since 1994 that there will be substantive
changes to the access to information. Those have just not
happened.
When we see a minister, as the example I have just described,
doing that we can see just how old-fashioned and unwilling to
change this government may have become.
Let us examine the Treasury Board changes which I can go through
item by item. There are seven major items. I can provide that
information to anyone who wants it. The key thing is that the
headlines probably say it all, “Liberal poll rules are much like
the Tories. Liberals will still allow polls to be kept secret”.
That does not go with the promise by the Liberals of an open
government.
I am standing here today pleading with this government to allow
these polls to be subject to access claims, that it be done in a
reasonable manner, not 90 days but 15 days from the time the poll
is commissioned if it is paid for by the public, that these polls
then be presented to the Speaker of the House, that he then has
the authority to release that information in due course, and then
the public has the right to know what those results are.
That is the major part of the bill. Those are the reasons
behind it. I think the government will be hard pressed to
justify to those Canadians who are asking for accountability that
a poll paid for by them should be kept secret.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you
caught me somewhat off guard, because I was expecting my Liberal
colleague to speak. I am pleased to start.
The motion before the House today is quite interesting. It
concerns one of Canada's principles, namely, democracy. A simple
principle of democracy provides that the electorate through its
elected representatives must control the expenditures of the
government. This is fundamental to democracy.
1340
In the same vein, if taxpayers' money is spent, taxpayers are
entitled to know how it was spent. This too is part of democratic
control of government. It is a very simple matter, it is a matter
of transparency.
We all know the role opinion polls play in our society. They
play an important, some say too important, role. The fact is,
their role is important because they provide not only qualitative
information but quantitative information on very specific subjects.
The government uses them to direct its policy, because all
governments are influenced by opinion polls.
If what the government is trying to achieve through these polls is
to give direction to this policy, the information collected should be
shared with all elected representatives, who need to be
“enlightened”
too, because while the government must do a good job, the elected
members of this House must be as “enlightened” as the government team
across the way in order to perform their duties as parliamentarians.
This issue ties in with the problem of national unity, for we know
what this government does with the polls it commissions in Quebec. It
uses them to identify the fears and concerns of Quebeckers. Not only was
Quebec taxpayers' money used to identify their fears, but it was also
used to develop Plan B and to turn the information gathered against the
same Quebeckers whose money was used to pay for these polls.
That is utterly unacceptable.>These poll results are used to add fuel to
the scare campaign and pervert the democratic process.
We will recall that, two years ago yesterday, a referendum was held
in Quebec. There were passionate, serious, yet healthy discussions
around the issue. I think that, with a 93% rate of participation in this
referendum, we were a model of democracy to the world. We are proud of
this. We are often accused of acting outraged. Well, we are boasting
now, and with good reason.
What has happened since the Quebec referendum? There was the
federal government's scare campaign and Plan B. There was the diversion
of democracy toward unelected officials. They said the sky was going to
fall if Quebeckers ever took their destiny into their own hands.
It is perfectly normal for Quebeckers to know what they are paying
for.
Quebeckers ought to know that the taxes they pay are used against their
best interests. In a democracy, elected representatives should, as a
minimum, monitor government expenditures and know what the government
does with public funds.
If the government decides to spend millions of dollars on polls
which are sometimes totally ludicrous, it should be pointed out in the
House to show that, fortunately, ridicule never killed anyone, otherwise
there would not be many government members left.
The bottom line is that the government is using Quebeckers' own
money to finance its fearmongering campaigns.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois will strongly and passionately
support the motion tabled by the Reform member.
1345
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to take part in the debate this afternoon. I begin by
acknowledging the hon. member from the government party who
allowed me an opportunity to speak in order that I can return to
my constituency this afternoon.
This is an interesting debate. There is absolutely no question
that the government should and could do a lot more to let the sun
shine in on the release of polling data that is paid for by the
public. As the hon. member of the official opposition noted in
his speech earlier, the Minister of Finance went to great lengths
to hide the poll results on the goods and services tax of 1996,
including the retention of a private lawyer to try to keep that
information out of the public view. Clearly that kind of
behaviour in a free and democratic society is totally
unacceptable.
Our caucus is certainly supportive of change in this area. We
also recognize and realize that we live in the real world. This
private members' bill seems pretty utopian in its outlook. That
is not surprising as it comes from a political party that is 10
years and one day old as I have read in the paper, but a party
which is much older in terms of some of its views and attitudes.
It is also a party that has consistently refused to run
provincially.
In my home province of Saskatchewan, the Reform Party is cosying
up to the Saskatchewan party, that ridiculous blend of
Conservatives and Liberals. We see evidence of similar activity
in the province of British Columbia. There is recognition and
realization of why this is so.
The leader of the official opposition is clearly a student of
political history. He knows what happened to his father's party,
the Social Credit Party of Alberta. He knows what happened to
the Social Credit Party of British Columbia and he knows what
ultimately happened as a result of that to the federal Social
Credit Party. When Peter Lougheed came into Alberta, the Social
Credit Party disappeared. In this decade we have seen the demise
of the B.C. Social Credit Party. I stand to be corrected but I
believe there has not been a Social Credit member in this
legislature since 1979.
The member from Stornoway does not want to see history repeat
itself so he is not going to run the risk of having the Reform
Party elected at the provincial or territorial level, thereby
attempting to remain as pure as the driven snow. That is not the
way we do it in our caucus and our party. I am very proud to
represent a party which runs candidates federally, provincially
and sometimes municipally. As our party constitution states, if
you are a member of the provincial or territorial New Democratic
Party, you are automatically considered to be a member of the
federal New Democratic Party.
I will refer to what we do in Saskatchewan. I will take a
minute to set the scene. There is no question that in the 1980s
the Devine government, probably the worst government in the
history of our province if not Canada, had flagrantly abused the
public polling situation, as the member noted about the Mulroney
government.
In 1993 the Government of Saskatchewan introduced some
significant reforms. I want to go through them because they are
legitimate. I hope the members on the government benches are
listening because these are reasonable.
1350
In Saskatchewan four times per year, once per quarter, the
Government of Saskatchewan releases all polling information which
has been completed for it during the previous quarter. The
government has been doing this for the last four years. The
information released includes all reports from polling companies,
including both the questions asked and the responses made.
The material is released by the government and provided free of
charge to the media and opposition parties, and I assume as well
to the speaker of the legislature. The same information is
available at a modest charge to other users, including interested
individuals and corporations. The only material which is not
released by the Government of Saskatchewan on its polling data
includes that which refers to questions of market research,
commercially and prices, in the case of crown corporations for
example.
There is a lot more the federal government should be doing in
the area of opening up the process and letting the sun shine in.
There are some legitimate reasons why an appropriate or
reasonable amount of time, 90 days, should exist before
government polling is made public.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak on Bill C-217 which would amend the Access to
Information Act in relation to disclosure of the results of
public opinion polls.
I take offence to the hon. Reform member's contention that the
PM's so-called friends are getting these contracts. Once again
the Reform Party has proven its non-partisan and different way of
doing things in this House.
I wish to make a general comment immediately which is that I
firmly believe the Canadian people should be able to get easy
access to government information with few limited and specific
exemptions. In my opinion easy access to most government
information is a cornerstone of democracy.
The government supports the rights that Canadians have to access
information about their government, except in certain specific
cases where it is required for reasons of security intelligence,
law enforcement and confidential commercial information received
by the government from companies.
Indeed Canadians would not tolerate a government that did not
give them easy access to most of its information. I believe an
open government is essential to the trust that Canadians place in
their government and to the preservation of the respect which
members of the public give us as politicians representing them in
this House.
I would like to talk about specific amendments to the Access to
Information Act proposed in this bill. I will explain my concerns
and my reservations regarding the bill.
[Translation]
In order to explain the concerns and reservations I have about
this bill, I must describe the amendments being proposed to the
Access to Information Act.
The amended act would require any department, branch, office,
board, agency, commission, corporation or other body established by
or pursuant to any Act of Parliament or established by or pursuant
to any proclamation, order in council or other instrument made or
issued by the Governor in Council or by those under his authority
that commissioned a public opinion poll, to give notice thereof
forthwith to the designated minister and to the Speaker of the
House of Commons.
It seems to me that the amendment would apply to crown
corporations, the Canada Labour Relations Board, the Canadian Human
Rights Commission and various agencies of the federal government.
But I could well be mistaken and that is precisely what worries me.
By defining the institutions affected by the proposed
amendment as it does, this bill completely departs from the
structure of the Access to Information Act.
This act applies to the 140 odd government institutions listed in
the schedule.
The purpose of this list is to identify clearly the agencies
or bodies to which the act applies and thus exclude the others.
Departing from this kind of designation risks creating uncertainty
about whether the act applies to a given institution and opening
the way for legal challenges to settle the matter.
1355
The result of Bill C-217 could be that institutions that were not
covered by the act until now, such as Canada Post, would now be included
because of this particular amendment adding section 5.1. In short, I
find it inappropriate to include in the same law two procedures to
determine to which institutions it applies, even if they are in two
different parts.
[English]
There is another aspect of Bill C-217 which strikes me as
problematic also from the legal point of view. The Access to
Information Act currently creates a legislative scheme whereby a
person can make a formal request for government information
specified in the request and pay a small application fee. The
information is then provided within a period of time specified in
the act unless one or more of the limited and specific exemptions
applies and the requester is denied access to some of the
requested information.
My point in describing the process is to illustrate that the act
does not oblige any department or minister to provide information
to the public unless an access request has been received. This is
because the act is not meant to replace existing ways of
obtaining government information as specified in section 2 of the
act. The act is an additional way of obtaining government
information by means of a formal request.
Now, what would be the effect of Bill C-217? It would create an
anomaly in the Access to Information Act creating an obligation
for ministers to report to the House on results of public opinion
polls, thereby doing away with the formal request for information
scheme.
[Translation]
Even if we admit there is a case for creating a new system
different from the one currently found in the Access to Information Act,
I believe the proposed legislation could create another problem. The
bill requires the minister to provide a report of the results of public
opinion polls to the House of Commons or to the commissioner no later
than 15 days after their completion. I think it can easily take longer
than 15 days to analyze the results of a large scale public opinion
poll.
[English]
I also have a problem with the requirement that every public
opinion research contract be reported to the minister and to the
Speaker of the House of Commons, and that reports be tabled in
Parliament or with the information commissioner and published in
The Canada Gazette. This would appear, in my opinion, to
be overkill.
I am concerned with the definition of public opinion poll which
I find extremely broad in the bill. It would include quantitative
and qualitative research conducted among members of the public
using a prepared questionnaire or interview schedule. A good
proportion of this research would be very limited public
interest.
Looking at the bill from a different point of view, my general
position is that an existing piece of legislation should only be
amended if there is a problem that needs to be fixed, and I
stress that. I would even go further and say that the problem
should be a significant one if there is to be a bill containing
just one amendment. If the problem is not particularly
significant, although still valid, then I think the fixing of it
should wait for a larger comprehensive review of the act. I am
not sure that this amendment would fix a significant problem.
It is my understanding that the act already provides for access
to public opinion polls. Section 4 of the act in fact provides
that everyone has a right of access to any record under a
government institution. In so far as opinion polls constitute
such records, they are covered by the act.
If specific poll results are not disclosed to the public, it is
because in specific circumstances a legitimate interest that
competes with a presumption of access is invoked. It should be
noted that the act performs a careful and complex balancing
between a variety of interests and I am concerned that amending
the act to address a specific and limited aspect of the act would
disturb the various balances within the act at the moment.
[Translation]
It should be noted also that the courts have already ruled on the
application of the Access to Information Act to public opinion polls.
The Trial Division of the Federal Court has in fact made a ruling on the
issue of disclosure of results of public opinion research in the case of
the Information Commissioner v the Prime Minister, that dealt with a
public opinion poll requested in relation to previous constitutional
negotiations. The Court ordered disclosure of the information to the
person who requested the documents, because it was not convinced that
disclosure of the poll results would be prejudicial to the government.
In addition to section 4 of the act and the Federal Court decision,
there is a third reason why I would ask what great problem this bill
could help solve.
1400
The Secretariat of the Treasury Board has issued guidelines for the
disclosure of poll results by federal institutions. Broadly speaking,
all departments are requested to make every effort to disclose the
results of public opinion polls outside the formal framework of the
Access to Information Act and its mechanisms.
[English]
That is not to say that the issue does not require examination.
Indeed, the disclosure of public opinion polls is one of the
issues being monitored by the Department of Justice at this
moment in assessing the need for a review of the act.
I do not believe there is a need for Bill C-217. There is
already a right of access to public opinion poll research under
the current Access to Information Act. There is case law which
provides guidance to the government on disclosing such polls.
There is a government policy on disclosing poll results.
In addition, this issue is being examined together with other
issues related to the whole act.
Given all of this, I do not think it is appropriate or necessary
to proceed with an ad hoc amendment on the specific issue of
public opinion polls. In addition, I have problems with the fact
that the bill would introduce significant new bureaucratic
reporting requirements, deviating from the way the rest of the
act defines government institutions, which potentially could
apply to research of a very limited public interest.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to speak to my colleague's bill on
access to information regarding polls.
It boils down to a very basic premise. If a poll is
commissioned by public money, then there should be public access.
It is very simple.
My colleague has also made the good point that if a political
party commissions a poll, that is private. If private money is
being used, then there should not be access to the poll. However,
when taxpayer money is being used to commission a poll, then
surely the public has the right to ask for the results.
We often hear about accountable government. We hear it
particularly during election time. This government, which is
supposedly accountable, is doing all that it can to suppress not
only access to information regarding polling but also access to
information in many other areas.
The key issue here is manipulation. When the finance minister
can stall for months and months and suppress information obtained
from a poll, that is manipulation. That is what we are trying to
avoid.
Members of this House, regardless of their political stripe,
must agree that this is wrong. We want to have free access right
across the board. There is nothing clandestine about it. We are
asking for open government.
This type of thing is creating cynicism among Canadians. They
do not hold this place in esteem. We as politicians,
collectively, are on the scale somewhere down below snake oil
salesman because of public cynicism, and rightfully so in many
cases.
Canadians pay their taxes. They do not mind paying taxes if
they know the money is being spent well and if they can find out
how the money is being spent. However, we are not allowed to
discover that.
This government is unwilling to change. We often hear the prime
minister talk about moving into the next millennium. Let us do
that. Let us move this House ahead, and the other house for that
matter, so that we can have a system of government that works for
Canadians. It does not work for Canadians when they have one
hand tied behind their backs.
This is not the only private member's bill respecting access to
information. At the latest count there are four. My colleague
has presented this bill today. I have a bill respecting crown
corporations. The government also has two bills relating to this
subject. On both sides of the House there are concerns regarding
access to information.
1405
I was pleased to hear the comment from the member opposite
saying that there may be a review. I think a review of the
access act is long overdue.
The member also said that access to information is a cornerstone
of democracy. If she really believes that, I hope we will open
it up, not close it down.
I believe this to be a very good bill. As such, I would ask for
the unanimous consent of the House that this bill be deemed
votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member from
Nanaimo—Alberni has asked for unanimous consent to have this
bill made votable. Is there unanimous consent?
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
It is customary that the member who moved the bill have a
further five minutes of debate.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, to sum up what we have heard,
and it is a rather ominous thing that we have heard, we have
deteriorated even further than we did in the last session into
looking at the past, thinking we need more big government, more
government control, less accessibility for the public, less
accountability.
In 1994 on a similar type of bill a government member stood up
and said “We are going to open up access to information and we
are going to reform it and make it better. It is under review
within the next 12 months and the justice minister will be coming
up with new legislation within 12 months”. That was in 1994.
Now the government members have the audacity to stand up and say
“Some of these things are good and we have to open up
government. However, it is under review so we will not support
anything like this”.
How long can they keep saying that? Going into the 21st century
it is still going to be under review. I trust the Canadian
public will put them under review very carefully in the year 2001
or before.
The government talks the talk. Some of the opposition parties
talk the talk. It is very interesting that some of the
opposition parties talk about changes and being accountable to
people and yet most of their speeches sound like they come out of
the 1960s.
I do not feel we have moved very far. We have a finance
minister who conducts a poll, who has his former leadership
member conduct that poll, a former membership of his team in
1990, for which hundreds of thousands of dollars of Canadian
taxpayer money is paid. There is nothing wrong with that. He
then proceeds to keep it secret for 18 months because it was
politically unwise to put it forward. There were political
reasons. He decides to make it public after his own lawyer said
he could never win in court. Mulroney challenged the court and
lost, and he even had some reasons. He said the minister is
going to challenge it and but does not have any reasons at all
other than political.
I see this as a very negative point. Obviously the government
is not interested in accessibility and accountability in letting
the taxpayers know what they are getting for their money.
In conclusion, that is the reason we came down here. We came
here because we felt the status quo must be changed. The
Canadian people feel it must be changed and the debate today has
further confirmed why we have to change the way this place
operates.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
1410
It being 2.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.10 p.m.)