36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 85
CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 1, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GLENDALE COLLEGIATE
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAX FREEDOM DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDUSTRY CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CAMP IPPERWASH
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1405
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LÉVIS SHIPYARD
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ONTARIO CONSERVATIVES
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | XA:YTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER'S BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1410
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET OF QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD HEALTH DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1420
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET OF QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1425
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1430
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1435
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YEAR 2000 COMPUTER PROBLEM
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONE GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1450
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAIL TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1455
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA-QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON MANPOWER
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1500
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
1505
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice and Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1510
1515
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1530
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Goods and Services Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Seniors' Benefits
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1545
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Banks
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bioartificial Kidney Research Project
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Age of Consent
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1550
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1555
1600
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1615
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
1620
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1625
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1630
1635
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1650
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1655
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1700
1705
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1720
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1725
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1730
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-247. Second Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1735
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1820
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1825
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1830
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Organized Crime
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries
|
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1835
![V](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 85
![](/web/20061116193826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 1, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will
now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Dauphin—Swan River.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
GLENDALE COLLEGIATE
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Tillsonburg's Glendale Collegiate was recently profiled in the
Globe and Mail.
Glendale, under the leadership of Principal Martin Wylie, is
pursuing educational opportunities with local businesses. Using
funding from the federal and provincial governments and corporate
donors, Glendale has invested $200,000 in a makeover of its
machine shop. This makeover allows high school and college
students, as well as workers from corporate sponsors to retrain
and to learn on state of the art computer assisted design
machines.
Glendale has also used HRDC funding to set up a computer
facility in the guidance department which provides high speed
access to the Internet, not only for Glendale students but also
for all of Tillsonburg's elementary school students through
wireless links. Additional funding from private sources has been
the result of a partnership between the school, the community and
local businesses.
I congratulate all those in Tillsonburg, both at Glendale and in
the community.
* * *
TAX FREEDOM DAY
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, each
year Canadians across the country celebrate tax freedom day. This
is the day when an average wage earner has earned enough to pay
taxes for the year.
This year tax freedom day will occur in July and later than
ever.
By contrast, as a result of the efforts of Canadian farmers we
have a much more encouraging date to celebrate: food checkout
day. This is the day when the average wage earner has earned
enough to pay for food for the year.
Unlike tax freedom day which occurs in July, Canadians can
celebrate food checkout day in February. It takes less and less
of our income to pay for our food each and every year.
It is time the government learned a thing or two from farmers.
If farmers mismanaged food production the way the government
mismanages taxes, Canadians would all be starving.
* * *
INDUSTRY CANADA
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to report that next Saturday, April 4, my
riding, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, and the riding of Simcoe North
will host an Industry Canada information fair.
This is an excellent opportunity for Industry Canada to showcase
its impressive array of products and services. Even more
important, the fair offers one-stop shopping for small and medium
size businesses to meet with the consultants and experts from
Industry Canada. It is a good opportunity for them to check out
the programs in one of the many booths at the fair, pick up
program material and indeed discuss the issues with the Minister
of Industry himself who will be honoured to be in our riding this
weekend.
* * *
CAMP IPPERWASH
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a small piece of history was made in my riding yesterday
concerning Camp Ipperwash issues.
A milestone meeting of the round table was held at Stony Point
hosted by Kettle and Stony Point First Nation Chief Irvin George.
For the first time in decades the chief, the mayor of the town
of Bosanquet and myself sat down at the same table to discuss
mutual concerns with a spirit of trust, tolerance and
understanding.
With the support and strong leadership of our minister of Indian
affairs progress is being made at Ipperwash; progress through
partnership and discussion, not blockades and cynicism.
By working co-operatively, Chief George, Mayor Bill Graham,
myself and the federal government can achieve the future economic
prosperity and social well-being of the community as a whole.
My thanks to all participants for setting a new and positive
course.
* * *
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today marks the first day in the final leg of our long journey
toward the creation of Nunavut which began many years ago. The
dream of our people, through the tireless work and perseverance of
numerous dedicated Inuit politicians with the help of many
others, will soon become a reality.
We are now entering into the final stage of becoming an official
territory of Nunavut.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
[English]
One year from today an historic event for Canada will take place
and I hope all Canadians will help us to celebrate the long
awaited moment next April 1, 1999.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government needs to be condemned for its relentless
attack on the cornerstone of our society, Canadian families.
Our current tax system discriminates against families who choose
to have one parent stay at home.
1405
A one income family earning $60,000 pays $7,000 more in taxes
each year than a family with the same total income but both
parents in the workforce.
Despite the fact that the majority of parents prefer family care
to day care, one parent cannot stay at home because of the huge
tax hit they face.
My private member's motion, M-369, addresses this very issue and
calls for taxation fairness for families. Clearly, Liberals do
not understand taxation fairness. They have raised taxes 37
times and hiked payroll taxes, all contributing to a $3,000
annual pay cut for the average family.
By contrast, Reform policies are family friendly. Our priority
is the well-being of families, not larger tax grabs.
* * *
[Translation]
LÉVIS SHIPYARD
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an important
decision has been made by the Canadian government on the issue
of the shipyard in Lévis.
The dry docks in Lauzon are being sold to Davie Industries Inc.
as part of the government's strategy to transfer assets to the
private sector, which is in a better position to manage such
facilities.
In this case, the facilities include the land, two dry docks and
all the systems required to operate them.
The Canadian government will pay $20 million to cover the costs
of urgent repairs and the forecast net operating cost.
Members should note also that the repairs will have a direct
impact on job creation in this community. Payments for the dry
dock repairs will be made according to the terms and conditions
negotiated with Davie Industries, and the company is required to
operate the facilities for the next ten years.
This is a step in the right direction to boost the economy in
the city of Lévis and the Chaudière-Appalaches region.
* * *
[English]
ONTARIO CONSERVATIVES
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it must
be April Fool's Day. Today in the Toronto Star I read that
Mike Harris is telling members of his own Tory caucus to sign a
candidate's agreement for the next election.
Conservative members of the Ontario legislature are being told
they must sign or they cannot be a candidate for the next
provincial election.
If they do not affirm statements on family values, ethical and
accountable government and a commitment to not run if they lose a
nomination battle, the members of caucus will disqualify
themselves. Mike Harris and his cabinet must be paranoid.
I know the Tories do not trust the people of Ontario. I know
they do not trust the unions. I know they do not trust the
teachers and I know they do not trust the public service, but not
to trust their own members is unbelievable.
Mike Harris is now trying to keep his caucus in line by using
the same draconian, top down, heavy-handed measures that he used
against the people of Ontario.
The members of the Ontario Tory caucus and the people of Ontario
will not be fooled. They know—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.
* * *
XA:YTEM
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to recognize Xa:ytem in my hometown of Mission,
B.C., which is one of the oldest habitation sites in North
America. Xa:ytem is one of the first native spiritual sites in
Canada to be formally recognized as a national historic site.
Today Xa:ytem conducts numerous tours and programs, and as a
teacher I took my own classes to visit the site. This year over
12,000 school children are expected to visit Xa:ytem.
I would like to congratulate Linnea Battel, Gordon Mohs and the
Sto:lo people for working to preserve Xa:ytem. I applaud the
vision and drive of those who are developing the site with an eye
to the future by focusing on a private and public sector
partnership to develop the site.
Xa:ytem is an important spiritual and cultural landmark to the
Sto:lo people of the Fraser Valley. I ask all members to join
with me in congratulating the excellent work being done by the
board and staff of Xa:ytem.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER'S BUDGET
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in delivering his budget yesterday evening, the Quebec
finance minister chose to play petty politics. As a matter of
fact, it was like attending a meeting of sovereignist
supporters.
The minister talked about everything but the kitchen sink:
millennium scholarships, the health system, transfer payments
and what not. He poured his heart out, as in a therapy session,
to justify a dull budget, lacking in aggressive measures that
would reassure economic stakeholders. Quebeckers need more than
the Quebec finance minister's political therapy sessions.
They need lower taxes. They need economic conditions that are
not tied to the political will of a government whose sole
objective is to create insecurity. They need a government that
will guide them in making their collective decisions by
providing the optimum economic and political conditions to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
* * *
1410
BUDGET OF QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
Quebec finance minister Bernard Landry tabled an excellent
budget. With the little leeway available to him, he has shown
the transparency and ingenuousness his federal counterpart has
not.
The only fly in the ointment is that the President of Treasury
Board's testy reaction to it was to call Bernard Landry petty
and ungrateful. What next!
In 1996, the President of Treasury Board told us “When Bouchard
has to make cuts, those of us in Ottawa will be able to
demonstrate that we have the means to preserve the future of
social programs.” Then, a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister was
boasting that the federal government would be assuming 90% of
the costs of the ice storm, when in fact it will barely pay 40%.
Here we have a glowing example of the federal government's
cynicism, pettiness and ingratitude. The President of Treasury
Board had nothing to say about the Bernard Landry budget, and
preferred a personal attack over congratulations for his
excellent work under the circumstances. Now, that is pettiness—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.
* * *
[English]
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today representatives from the Canadian Council of
Professional Fish Harvesters are meeting with all political
parties to discuss the end of the Atlantic groundfish strategy in
August.
Close to 25,000 people will be affected and the greatest impact
will be on Newfoundland where two-thirds of the recipients
reside.
The government refuses to say what will happen when the program
ends in just four months.
With 3,000 people about to be taken off of TAGS in May and the
rest in August these people need an answer now.
The government has two reports in front of it that emphasize
support for early retirement and licence buy-out programs,
self-employment assistance for younger fisher people, community
economic development assistance and an extension of TAGS until at
least the end of May 1999.
We need a financial commitment from the government today.
This is Newfoundland's ice storm. The lights are still off and
the need is just as great.
* * *
WORLD HEALTH DAY
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, next Tuesday, April 7, is World Health Day. It is a day
that is observed by 191 member countries of the World Health
Organization, including Canada.
World Health Day aims to encourage everyone to think globally
and act locally on a specific issue of global importance for
public health.
This year's theme is “Safe Motherhood”. Around the world
every minute of every day a woman dies of pregnancy related
complications, nearly 600,000 each year. Every year nearly 3.4
million babies die within the first week of life. These women
and babies die for the same reasons, poor health and inadequate
care during pregnancy and childbirth.
As part of the campaign to build greater public awareness of
maternal mortality the Canadian Association of Parliamentarians
on Population and Development along with the Canadian Society for
International Health and CIDA will be commemorating World Health
Day with a forum on “Safe Motherhood” on Parliament Hill.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, as we
welcome in the spring season I think it is time we join the
government in celebrating this golden economic age.
Our unemployment figures are half those of the United States.
Our youth unemployment rate is at its lowest in years. Young
Americans are lining up at our borders to seek greater
opportunities in Canada. Our neighbours in other G-7 countries
are paying higher taxes than we are in Canada. Our hospitals are
being flooded by doctors who are coming here from the U.S.
seeking greater opportunities. Our Canadian dollar is trading at
record high levels. There are fewer people on welfare than ever
before.
This government should be commended on its stalwart economic
record. Never before have Canadians seen such a golden age.
Oh yes, happy April Fool's Day.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
February 5, the Bloc Quebecois has been trying in every way
possible to cast light on certain nebulous aspects of Bill C-28,
and on an apparent conflict of interest involving its sponsor,
the federal Minister of Finance.
As everyone knows, the Minister of Finance is actively involved
in this field, and owns an international shipping company which
could take advantage of certain tax advantages contained in this
new legislation.
In order to eliminate any doubts concerning the integrity of the
Minister of Finance, we are again asking the Prime Minister to
defer passage of Bill C-28 at third reading and to strike the
special board of inquiry all opposition parties have been
calling for.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, tens of thousands of innocent Canadians contracted
hepatitis C when they received transfusions from the government's
blood system. Many are slowly dying.
The Prime Minister has authorized the health minister to
compensate some of these victims but he has told the health
minister to abandon the rest. He has created a two tier system
for dealing with victims of government negligence.
Why will the Prime Minister not do the right thing and
compensate all victims of poisoned blood?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we said in the House, there was a period where the
responsibilities of the government were well established.
We have been dealing with the provincial governments. The
provincial governments of all political stripes and the federal
minister of health have agreed to a scheme to compensate the
victims of that period, as it is our obligation to do so.
The decision represents $800 million from the federal government
and $300 million from the provincial governments. I think it is
a very generous program.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is not an administrative issue. This is a moral
issue. It is morally wrong for the government to abandon these
victims of its own negligence.
The Prime Minister is concerned about his place in history. He
wants the millennium fund to be a monument to himself and to his
administration, but if he allows this decision to stand he will
have his monuments all right, 40,000 of them in the graveyards of
the country.
I ask him again. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and
compensate all the victims of poisoned blood?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this terribly difficult decision was made by 13 governments in
the country. All the provincial governments joined with the
federal government in coming to the conclusion that for the
period 1986 to 1990, when something could and should have been
done, government should accept responsibility to compensate.
As a result, as the Prime Minister has said $1.1 billion is
being offered as assistance to the victims who were infected
during that period, as well as those who were infected by those
people.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard this cold-hearted rationalization before.
It does not address the moral issue that is involved here.
There is no excuse for doing the wrong thing. There is no legal
excuse. There is no administrative excuse. There is no
accounting excuse. There is no political excuse.
I ask the Prime Minister again why he will not do the right
thing and compensate all the victims of this tragedy.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Leader of the Opposition uses high sounding phrases but he
does not come to grips with the dilemma facing governments in
this situation, a very difficult dilemma.
We are dealing with a medical and health system in which there
are sometimes risks. Before 1986 the risk of infections through
the blood system was well known. After 1986 it was known and
there was something that could have been done about it. That is
the difference.
Where do governments compensate? Do they compensate women who
have high risk deliveries and babies delivered with brain damage?
Do they compensate the people who have anesthetics and suffer
adverse reactions? Mr. Speaker, this is—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government used to use a high sounding phrase, that is it
talked about universality. The Prime Minister used to say that
he did not think it was right to have a two tier system in the
country, but it has all changed now.
He has told the health minister that there is just not enough
room in the lifeboats for everybody with hepatitis C. Only some
of those who were infected will get any sort of compensation. The
rest of them will suffer with nothing.
Why does the Prime Minister think there should be a two tier
system in this instance?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what all the governments of Canada have done, all governments of
all political affiliation, is apply a single principle. That
single principle is that public intervention to offer assistance
is appropriate when it can be identified that at a point during
the chronology something could have been done by those
responsible to change the outcome.
The hon. member should think through the implications for the
publicly funded health care system if we are to adopt the
principle that everyone who is harmed, regardless of any
circumstance, will be compensated.
1420
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think it might be wise for the health minister to think through
the implications for the victims who are suffering today.
For those who were infected it does not matter whether they were
infected in 1985 or 1986. All they know is that they have the
disease and that they are suffering. What difference does that
make? It is still wrong. These people are still suffering.
The Prime Minister is morally responsible because it was a
government regulated blood system that wrongfully infected all
these people, regardless of when it happened.
Why is the Prime Minister allowing his health minister to have a
two tier system set up for this problem?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member ignores distinctions that do not suit her
purpose. She is slipping away from the difficult dilemma in
confronting the difficult principle that has to be brought to
bear in cases like this one.
For those before 1986 thank God we have a health system in the
country that will care for them and a standard of excellence to
look after them in their illness. Thank God they will be
treated. Thank God they will be the beneficiaries of excellent
research in the country.
For those before 1986 we have a medicare and a health care
system to look after them in their illness. For those after
1986, in the period to 1990, we are acknowledging that—
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET OF QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Bernard Landry tabled his budget, a budget that came
very close to being balanced but that was very tight, a budget
that had no real room to manoeuvre because of the huge cuts
imposed by Ottawa on the provinces in the areas of health,
welfare and post-secondary education.
Is the Prime Minister not embarrassed that the federal
government is literally swimming in money, when the provincial
governments are too strapped to ensure adequate delivery of the
front-line services for which they are responsible?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are several provincial governments in Canada. The great
majority of them are able to balance their books. They were
treated exactly the same as Quebec, but if Quebec had started a
little earlier, it would have made it on time.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): The Prime
Minister is perfectly right. If the Liberals had not left a
deficit of $6 billion and had started to work on it earlier, we
would now have a budget surplus.
But the Prime Minister should remember that all the provinces
feel the way Quebec does about transfer payments.
Does the Prime Minister not find it abhorrent that the federal
government overestimated its deficit by $17 billion, and that it
is still going ahead and cutting billions from provincial
budgets, all the while creating new programs in jurisdictions
where it has no business, just for the visibility?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should perhaps ask the PQ government whether it
created a Quebec blood agency just for the visibility, thus
creating duplication in an area affecting the health of
Quebeckers.
I think that we have done our job well here in Ottawa. We have
balanced our books. If Quebec has taken a few years longer to
do so, it is because Mr. Parizeau wanted to spend the money
before the 1995 referendum.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if there is a
financial problem in Quebec, it is because Minister Bourbeau, a
former Liberal finance minister, left the largest deficit in the
history of our province. This is the reality.
The government can make all sorts of excuses, but one fact
remains: the federal government is literally rolling in dough,
while provincial governments, including those that have balanced
their budgets, have difficulties making ends meet.
Does the Prime Minister agree that it is unusual and unhealthy
to have in Canada a government—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The
Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member must know that the federal government achieved, with
the help of Canadians from across the country, an incredible
fiscal turnaround.
However, we still have a debt of $583 billion. We have a debt-GDP
ratio of 70%, compared to the provincial average of 30%. We
spend 30 cents of every dollar in interest, compared to the
provincial average of 14 cents.
That being said, I am very pleased—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the minister. The hon.
member for Roberval.
1425
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we can
certainly listen to the finance minister's explanations.
However, we cannot help but wonder about a federal government
that spends in order to increase its visibility, while the
provinces are having a hard time providing the basics to people.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since we took office, the value of tax points, for Quebec alone,
increased by $2.1 billion, while equalization payments went up
by $1 billion.
Lower interest rates in Quebec have also resulted in a windfall
of more than $1.4 billion over the past three years.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the health minister admitted to excluding 60,000
hepatitis C victims from compensation. That is like turning your
back on every man, woman and child in Antigonish and Moose Jaw
because it would cost money.
What will it take for the Minister of Health to finally admit
that his decision to exclude so many victims was not based on
compassion or humanity? Why will he not admit this policy was
worked out with a calculator?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
thank goodness we live in a country in which the people who are
infected, no matter when they were infected, have a wonderful
health care system to rely upon.
For those who were infected during the period 1986 to 1990 all
governments have come to grips with the question of when
government should compensate those who are harmed by the system.
The hon. member knows that every day in every health care
facility there are procedures carried out that involve risk. Is
she saying that the public health care system should compensate
everybody?
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, even
Liberal caucus members are now indicating they cannot live with
the package. They know that it is not fair or just.
Since the leaders in waiting have botched this compensation
package, will the current Prime Minister now do the only just
thing and implement Justice Krever's recommendation to compensate
all victims with hepatitis C?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just said that it is a difficult decision. The
minister is explaining the situation very well.
We were not the government when that problem occurred. It was
before us but We take the responsibility that faces the
government.
I say to the leader of the NDP that the two provincial
governments that belong to the same party are in complete
agreement with what the Minister of Health has done.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health is caught between a rock and a hard place. The
hard place is sitting right over there. He is called the
Minister of Finance.
The government found $700 million for the botched Pearson
airport deal and $500 million for the botched helicopter deal.
Why can this minister not stand in cabinet and come up with some
money for these innocent victims, the 40,000 innocent victims of
hepatitis C? Why can he not get some answers out of his own
government and go in there and fight for these people?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should know that the governments of Canada are putting
together $1.1 billion in compensation for 22,000 people infected
between 1986 and 1990.
The member should also know that those who are responsible for
the health care system both federally and provincially spent
months considering this very difficult decision.
The conclusion to which we came was that we would not put the
public health care system at risk by putting in place a system
that compensates everyone for every harm regardless.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has the power to act unilaterally but he will not.
This question is for the Prime Minister. Last night the Liberal
caucus exercised some power over the backbenchers when they voted
on behalf of one of our motions. Now we are finding there are
some cracks in the armour in the backbenches on this issue. Some
of his own members are asking for a compensation package that
includes all victims.
Will the Prime Minister now listen to his own caucus and do the
right thing by exercising his moral leadership on this question?
Would the Prime Minister please get up and explain?
1430
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the hon. member should know is that this decision was a
government decision. It was a decision made by 13 governments.
It is a very unusual situation in Canada when our bipartisan
intergovernmental bases come to one conclusion, and it is the
responsible one.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
keeps saying that this decision was made by 13 governments. It
is still a wrong decision.
In 1977 Josephine Mahoney was infected with hepatitis C. Her
life in tatters, just two years ago she received a fair and just
compensation plan from her government. Luckily for her she does
not live in Canada. She lives in Ireland.
Why has the Irish government looked after every single victim of
hepatitis C when this Prime Minister is abandoning fully 50% of
our victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member as a physician should know that across this
country every day in clinics, in hospitals and in offices medical
procedures are undertaken that involve risk.
Is the hon. member suggesting that anyone who is harmed,
regardless of fault, as a result of the health care system should
be compensated? That is the principle at issue here. Thirteen
governments have made their decision and I say it is the right
one.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is not
about every harmful procedure. This is about a public system
failing and the victims getting hepatitis C.
New Zealand has a no fault compensation package. Italy has a
compensation package for every single victim of hepatitis C.
They know what is right. Why has this Prime Minister chosen to
do what is frankly wrong to those victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should take care with his examples. There is
not another country in the world that has the public health care
system of the quality—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
February 19, the Prime Minister said we could obtain all the
answers to our questions on the appearance of a conflict of
interest involving the Minister of Finance and Bill C-28 by
raising the issue in the Standing Committee on Finance. So far,
however, all our attempts to do so have not succeeded.
How can the Prime Minister explain the difference between his
statements in the House and the action taken by the members of
his party in committee? They have been doing everything, since
then, to prevent us from getting to the bottom of this issue
involving the shipowner-lawmaker.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.: Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member has been making these insinuations for two months
and he is getting nowhere, because the members of my party and I
have full confidence in the integrity of the Minister of
Finance.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
the sake of consistency and especially of transparency, would
the Prime Minister tell us if he intends to postpone passage of
Bill C-28 at third reading, and to refer the bill back to the
Standing Committee on Finance to have this matter cleared up? If
he has nothing to hide, he should let the committee do its job.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have had the opportunity to study this issue and, in my
opinion, the hon. member, as well as other members, have been
given a fully satisfactory explanation.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
health minister keeps talking about the excellent research we
have in this country. He should really acquaint himself with it.
I want to clear up a factual error the health minister keeps on
repeating. He says there was no way to detect hepatitis C in the
blood supply before 1986. So he will not compensate people who
contracted the disease before then. That is not the truth.
Justice Krever noted that Dr. Moore of the Canadian Red Cross
laboratory proposed a test as far back as May 1981. Shamefully,
no tests would be implemented for nine more years.
Enough phoney excuses.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in various places throughout the world various tests were
proposed. Those who understand the history of this chronology
recognize that it was in 1986 when Canada should have, indeed
practically could have, put a test in place. That was the year
when things changed internationally and the year accepted as the
turning point.
That is why it was chosen as a turning point by ministers of
health not just from this government but from provincial and
territorial governments that all looked at these facts and came
to the same conclusion.
1435
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is an unacceptable answer. It gives no help to all these
victims and it is still morally wrong to abandon them.
What is particularly painful is how the Prime Minister is
picking and choosing favourites. He will compensate only the top
tier of victims. Everyone who contacted hepatitis C before 1986
is being abandoned. This is a national disgrace.
Will the Prime Minister stand up and tell us that this is not a
two tier system of compensation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member speaks of victims being abandoned as though the
medicare system in Canada did not exist and is not available for
their benefit. Thank God we live in a country in which all those
people who contracted hepatitis C are able to rely on the
excellent public health system we have put in place.
As for those victims in the period 1986-1990, I have well
explained the rationale that all governments in this country
adopted in approaching this problem.
* * *
[Translation]
YEAR 2000 COMPUTER PROBLEM
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
In the Saturday issue of La Presse, the Minister of Industry was
quoted as saying “If the year 2000 problem is not sorted out in
time, it could trigger a recession”. But the best the minister
can come up with to encourage SMBs to tackle this major problem
is Business Development Bank of Canada loans.
When it is so vital to bring SMBs on side, does the minister
realize that suggesting they take out another loan may well
prove to be unpopular and an exercise in futility?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member raises a very important question. The year 2000 problem
is very serious, not just for the Canadian economy, but for all
economies in the world.
Not only have we suggested loans, but the Business Development
Bank of Canada has a 1-800 number that all businesses may call
for immediate information to help them find solutions to their
computer problems.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister is really interested in helping SMBs, and I certainly
hope he is, why does he not suggest a tax credit for businesses
that become year 2000 ready?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
budget gave an explanation of the rules for SMBs making the
investment, but we must remember that this is a problem that
businesses must sort out. Many have already done so. It is
necessary to have a system in which businesses that want to stay
in business take the decisions required to protect their
interests.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1989 the Liberals in opposition urged the Tory government of the
day to compensate thalidomide victims. The Liberal health critic
rejected arguments that compensating victims would set a legal
precedent: “I do not argue on the basis of legal precedent. I
argue on the basis of a moral responsibility that the government
must have toward its citizens”.
I ask the Prime Minister what has changed. What happened to
those moral principles and the willingness to face up to a
compelling responsibility?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we said earlier, this is an extremely difficult
problem. We have had discussions with the provincial authorities
who have responsibility in this matter. After studying the
problem we came to the conclusion that the period for which
government had a responsibility was between 1986 and 1990. All
governments agreed the program put forward by the Minister of
Health is the best program that can be offered under the
circumstances.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is not about legal culpability but about compassion and
moral responsibility.
The Tory health minister of the day followed through
subsequently and delivered for those victims of thalidomide.
Again, the Liberal health critic said: “I do not argue on the
basis of legal precedent. I argue on the basis of a moral
responsibility—”.
When did the Prime Minister lose that ability to tell right from
wrong?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health has explained very clearly what
the government's responsibilities are. A lot of people are
suffering in the health system and the government cannot take
responsibility outside the health care system in Canada for all
the victims of every type of problem of this nature.
1440
We had a responsibility starting in 1986, according to all the
ministers of health, and they have discharged their
responsibility in an effective way.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
Last week, the minister indicated that, in replacing the TAGS
program, it was his intention to implement new measures aimed at
getting a certain number of fishers out of the industry.
Can the minister explain to us what principles and criteria will
enable him to determine which people are to be deemed surplus to
the fishing industry
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of changes to
the overall number of people on TAGS over the last four years.
To go into all the various criteria used to put people on and
then later the reasons they fall off the TAGS system would
probably take much longer than I have to answer this question.
We will be bringing in, however, measures to deal with issues
following TAGS in due course. The Minister of Human Resources
Development is in charge of a cabinet committee to this effect.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Senate banking committee has just released a report on the
Canada pension plan investment board. What are the minister's
views on this and how does he intend to react?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Senate has produced a very good report. It is
largely supportive of the government's position.
Are there differences of opinion? Yes, there are. While there
is not unanimity I can assure the hon. member that the report
will be taken very seriously. I will be referring it to my
provincial colleagues and I will be reporting back to this House.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, maybe some
day we will get an answer to our questions too.
The way the minister of Indian affairs is handling the tragic
shooting of Connie and Ty Jacobs confirms all our fears. Instead
of listening to grassroots aboriginals, the minister only
consults the chiefs who have a vested interest in keeping things
just the way they are.
Connie's brother and sister want an independent inquiry into
conditions on the reserve but the minister is letting her friends
over at the Assembly of First Nations take over.
Why is the minister doing exactly what Connie's family asked her
not to do?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us remember what has
happened here. Two people are dead and a community is in
mourning.
In response to that there is a criminal investigation under way.
There is an inquiry under the fatalities act of the province in
which all parties, the federal government, the province and
aboriginal people, will have some input.
I find it appalling that the opposition continues to use this
tragedy to try to proceed with its agenda of undermining duly
elected chiefs and councils in this country.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, quite
frankly I find it appalling that this minister will not do what
Connie's family wants.
Grassroots aboriginals know what is going to happen if the
inquiry on the conditions on the Tsuu T'ina reserve is left to
the Assembly of First Nations. It will be a whitewash, a
glossing over of all the problems. The Assembly of First Nations
is not a court. It is not an impartial government agency. It is
a large organization, a political organization very close to the
Liberal Party.
Why does the minister always side with the chiefs and never with
the grassroots? When is she going to do what Connie's family has
asked her to do?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the chief of this first
nation has been in constant contact with the family of Connie
Jacobs. These people are duly elected, as we are in this House.
These people opposite continue to undermine the democratic
process that has built this great country and I find it an
outrage.
* * *
1445
FISHERIES
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Coho salmon have an importance to British Columbians which
extends far beyond their economic significance. The coho is a
powerful Canadian symbol as one can witness with the totem poles
nearby in the Museum of Civilization's Haida village. The coho
could soon be extinct due to Alaskan overfishing and federal
mismanagement.
Will the Prime Minister promise to reject any salmon treaty
which does not specifically restrict Alaskan overfishing of the
coho salmon?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the leader of the
fourth party's interest in this issue.
We have put out a number of papers recently containing
statistical and scientific information relating to the position
of coho salmon. There are a number of factors that are important,
the most important being the impact of El Nino. I trust the hon.
member will join with us on this side of the House in supporting
the tough measures that will be necessary to protect this species
in the years ahead.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
government is eroding the measures that are necessary to protect
the species. The coho salmon crisis is the focus of an open
letter to the Prime Minister in today's Globe and Mail. In
case he has not seen it, I have sent him a copy. This letter once
again illustrates the government's indifference to the hardship
its misguided policies have brought to B.C.'s coastal
communities.
Is this dismissal of the coho salmon crisis the next
installation of the Mifflin plan which has been so destructive to
British Columbians?
The Speaker: Colleagues I would urge you not to use each
other's name in question period.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem of coho salmon is extremely
difficult. I would point out that another issue has been raised
here and that is the fleet rationalization plan which has the
name of a former minister of fisheries, now the Minister of
Veterans Affairs. Were it not for that plan, the fishermen on
the coast of British Columbia would have had incomes one-third
less than had he not put that plan into effect.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
members may be aware that a multimillion dollar government
contract for CFB Goose Bay is being gift wrapped and presented by
the Minister of National Defence today to a British company
called Serco, a long shot bidder. In fact it is the only bidder
that promised to cut jobs and kill investment in Goose Bay.
Can the minister shed some light on this rather shady deal?
The Speaker: Once again colleagues we are getting a
little close.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member needs to be reminded that
we inherited from his party a $42 billion deficit. As a result of
that, we had to cut expenditures in all of our departments and
programs to get the budget in balance.
That meant a 23% reduction in the Department of National
Defence. We had to implement that by looking for more efficient
and effective ways of providing support services for the Canadian
forces. We have been very humane and fair in our treatment of
employees giving them incentive departure packages and finding
other employment opportunities for them.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
that is not really shedding light on the subject; rather it is
closing the blinds on it. I will try again.
What knowledge did the Minister of National Defence have of
Serco's multimillion dollar contract winning bid? Why did the
British company that promised to cut jobs, benefits and salaries
at Goose Bay beat out Canadian companies that promised not to cut
jobs and to invest millions at the base? I ask the minister, why
did Serco win the Liberal lottery?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a full and open transparent
process with guidelines that were published. Everyone was aware
of what the rules were for the bid. Nobody because they had
connections offshore were ruled out from bidding.
In fact the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs is going to have a full discussion this afternoon on the
issue of alternate service delivery. The hon. member will have
every opportunity to ask all sorts of detailed questions about
it.
* * *
FRANCOPHONE GAMES
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week my good friend Don Cherry commented on federal funding
arrangements for the 2001 Francophone Games.
Can the government house leader please tell this House if
contributions will indeed be made toward these games?
If so, will this money be used to bring foreign athletes to
Canada? Why do we not fund similar events in the same way?
1450
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon.
colleague for this question. I want all members of the House to
know that the Government of Canada has made no decision yet with
regard to the federal contribution toward the games.
In any case, if 100% of the amount sought was to be given, it
would still be a tiny fraction of what is contributed now toward
the Olympic games, the Commonwealth games or even the Pan
American games to be held elsewhere in Canada. A tiny fraction is
what it would be if that amount was given.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
the chief of the Tsuu T'ina reserve is allowed to conduct his own
investigation, we know we will not hear the full story. If the
Assembly of First Nations runs the investigation, we know it will
gloss over the problems as well. They will not answer the real
questions, like why Connie and her family lived in shantytown
conditions on one of Canada's richest reserves. The only way we
will ever know is for an independent inquiry to look into the
root causes of the tragedy.
What will the minister's response to these tragic deaths be? A
real independent inquiry or a series of cover-ups?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think these questions
clearly differentiate that side from this side of the House.
We look at this tragedy and we look at the approach of this side
of the House. We have government departments working side by
each with people in the First Nation and with the province to
find the solutions and answer the question.
What do those members do? They point fingers, create division,
incite doubt. They insist on finding blame. These approaches do
not work when what we are trying to do is to build strong
communities, to find the answers and to do it together.
* * *
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORT
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on February 20, the
Minister of Transport announced the planned closure of the Lévis
intermodal station, renovated in 1984 at a cost of $3 million.
We have recently learned that its replacement will be
constructed in the Saint-Nicolas industrial park, which is 30
kilometers from the Lévis ferry and 35 kilometers from downtown
Quebec City.
Does the minister really believe that construction of a new
station so distant from the downtown areas of Lévis and Quebec
City is going to do anything to help make VIA Rail operations
any more cost-effective?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has faced not only this
government but the previous government for a number of years.
After evaluating all the data and looking at all the costs, it
was judged that it was best to build a new station at a point
south of Lévis. When I discussed this with the hon. member, and I
know he has a great concern about it, he seemed to accept the
decision. He was glad that other alternatives imposed by VIA in
terms of reversing trains would not go into effect. I am rather
surprised that six weeks after we announced the decision, he has
come forward with this question.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
week the employees of CFB Gagetown met with various levels of
government to express their concern regarding the proposed
privatization of Gagetown base. Today at noon these employees had
a day of mourning to protest the privatization of Goose Bay base,
the job loss and the reduction of wages that came with it.
Will the Prime Minister stand up for the civilian workers of the
armed forces and stop this and any other further privatization
immediately?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we are in the
process of implementing the budget cuts that were announced two
or three years ago.
In fact over 40,000 people have left the public service as a
result of downsizing, but we did it with departure incentive
packages that gave them early retirement. It gave them departure
incentive. It gave them additional training. We are doing the
same thing in all these cases as well. Because we have fewer
resources, we need to keep them for the core functions of our
Canadian forces and thereby cut the costs of the support
services. However, we will do it in a fair and humane way.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, there was
a rally today at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick because the people
there know what is happening at CFB Goose Bay. They are
frightened.
It is hard enough to find a job today but if someone happens to
work at CFB Goose Bay, this government tells them that they can
take a pay cut, they can take a job outside their province or
they can take a hike.
1455
Will the minister of defence explain why he has given a contract
to the contractor with the worst bid but he happens to be the
best Liberal—
The Speaker: The hon. minister of defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I got the impression she was about to
give me a compliment when you cut her off.
There were no complaints about the companies that were bidding
on this until after the bids were opened and the award was
announced. Everybody understood the process and nobody complained
about it. They just did not like the results.
The result is that it is going to save the taxpayers some $20
million a year. Given that our department and armed forces have
fewer resources, we need that kind of savings.
Goose Bay is used by our allies in terms of air force training.
We would have lost this facility if we had not remained
competitive. That is the reason—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bourassa.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA-QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON MANPOWER
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada-Quebec agreement on manpower takes effect today.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development remind us of
the importance for Quebeckers of this historic accord the
government has signed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed effective today the
Government of Quebec takes over the responsibilities set out in
the Canada-Quebec agreement on manpower.
The Government of Canada will pay the Government of Quebec more
than $2.4 billion over the next four years, enabling it to set
up the programs and services most appropriate to the realities
of the Quebec labour market.
The agreement is a specific and constructive response to
Quebec's manpower needs and it testifies to our government's
ability to modernize the Canadian federation.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will bet the minister of Indian affairs wishes someone would
plant a mushy question like that for her.
We know part of the problem on the Tsuu T'ina reserve is that
funding does not get to the grassroots. It does however end up
strangely enough in some of the Liberal coffers. Maybe it is
time for an audit.
Will the minister order a full independent investigation into
the root causes of the economic, social and democratic problems
that exist on this reserve?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the gall
to use the word democratic. When we listen to the questions that
are coming from them, they are undermining the fundamental
process of democracy. They are challenging duly elected chiefs
and councils. They are challenging men and women who come forward
to represent the interests of their people in the best way they
can.
I find this absolutely outrageous. They should do well to think
about what these issues are all about which are the deaths of two
people in the Tsuu T'ina First Nation.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
For a second time since 1996, the Liberal Party of Canada passed
a resolution at its convention in favour of abolishing the
landing fee charged immigrants wanting to enter settle in
Canada. I did say “a second time”, because the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration has chosen to ignore up to now the
similar resolution passed by her fellow Liberals in
October 1996.
Could the minister tell us when she intends to abolish this
hateful tax in order to comply with the wishes of her own party
and the repeated demands—
The Speaker: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said at
the convention, the Liberal Party of Canada has always been open
to immigration in the past and will continue to be so.
The landing fee charged to settle new arrivals is in keeping
with the financial efforts asked of all Canadians, including
newcomers, in order to achieve the balanced budget we have
today.
That said, we will look at what needs to be considered for the
next budget among the government's priorities.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it has been very difficult to understand this
government's refusal to implement the recommendations of the
Krever report.
Certainly to hide behind the liability and legal issues does not
make sense. It was very inhumane.
1500
My question for the minister is one I raised with him on Monday.
It is a very constructive suggestion. Will he at least show
compassion by compensating those who are sick today and will be
sick tomorrow as a result of hepatitis C?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have emphasized throughout this matter that the decision made
by governments was a very difficult one. We had to apply a
principle in distinguishing periods during this chronology,
during this tragedy.
I have made it clear that whether those governments were NDP,
Conservative or Liberal, we all thought that one principle should
apply. If we are going to have a health care system publicly
funded in which people are compensated regardless of fault,
simply because there was risk and there was harm, then we cannot
go on. That principle is terribly important and it is that
principle that we have applied together in this very difficult
circumstance.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments which were recently made by the
government.
Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to
the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is
attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House,
in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the
meeting of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development of
the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe with the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, held in
London, England, on February 23 and 24, 1998.
* * *
1505
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 25th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection
of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92.
This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 26th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages and, if the
House gives it consent, I should like to move concurrence at this
time.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
parliamentary secretary to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I move
that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, December 10, 1997, be
concurred in.
At the beginning let me indicate that I will be splitting my
time with my colleague from Yorkton—Melville.
I rise today to concur with the fourth report of the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights in as much as it attempts
to make the unacceptable firearms regulations somewhat more
palatable.
However I urge the House to vote against the fourth report of
the justice standing committee. Valuable and insightful
information regarding the legitimacy of the firearms statistics
used by the former justice minister to support the regulations
referenced in the committee's report have been called into
question.
The competency of the Department of Justice and the current
Minister of Justice to properly administer the firearms registry
has also been questioned.
The justice department's competency is being questioned by the
police experts the former justice minister repeatedly referred to
in the House to defend his ill-conceived firearms legislation.
1510
To demonstrate the full extent of the apprehension expressed by
the experts I would like to read directly from a letter addressed
to the Minister of Justice dated March 30, 1998, signed by Mr.
Scott Newark, executive director of the Canadian Police
Association regarding “accuracy of departmental information
concerning firearms related offences”. The letter reads:
Dear Minister:
Recently our office was supplied with a copy of correspondence
dated July 21, 1997 between Acting Commissioner Beaulac of the
RCMP and your deputy, Mr. Thompson, in relation to the above
noted subject.
As I am sure you can appreciate, the contents of the letter are
deeply disturbing to those persons or organizations involved in
the C-68 debate and far more importantly to all of us that
interact or work with the department of justice on an ongoing
basis.
It would appear that the most senior management of Canada's
national police force has found it necessary to urge correction
of grossly flawed and misleading firearms data prepared by the
justice department in relation to RCMP reported statistics
concerning firearms used in the commission of crimes.
What is worse, as the RCMP letter points out, when the error
became known to the RCMP following a request for an affidavit in
relation to the material in the C-68 reference before the Alberta
Court of Appeal and an attempt to meet with the Canadian firearms
centre of the department was suggested, the RCMP were rebuffed in
their efforts to correct the public record which they knew to be
false. So serious is their concern that the RCMP appears to have
taken the view that no such further data can be produced for use
by the justice department's firearms centre until such time as
this basic question of system integrity is resolved.
Assistant Commissioner Beaulac is also entirely correct to note
that the situation is severely aggravated by the fact that both
the previous minister and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police relied on and made public use of this false data during
the C-68 debate and subsequent discussion.
I must confess to wondering whether the Alberta Court of Appeal
was notified of the fact that it had inaccurate information
before it once that fact became known, which according to the
letter took place in February 1997. Failure to have done so
would of course be deeply problematic, especially for the
department of justice.
Our organization, as you know, is asked on a frequent basis to
comment on the Criminal Code and Firearms Act provisions
pertaining to the overall regulation of firearms in Canada. We
view it as nothing short of imperative that there be a source of
accurate, reliable information available to Canadians on crimes
involving firearms and that the two leading public institutions
in this area be in a position to guarantee that this is so.
Failure to meet these most basic requirements will result in a
justifiable lack of confidence among Canadians that our
government knows what it is doing when it purports to regulate
firearms in the fashion chosen.
Finally, and in our view equally seriously, an explanation from
departmental officials as to how this massive discrepancy
occurred is needed. Public policymakers have no choice at
present but to rely on representations made to them by your
departmental officials as accurate. In just the recent past our
organization has felt compelled to seek independent legal
opinions which were contrary to that put forward by the
department. In addition, our warnings concerning the inevitable
result of C-41's conditional sentencing provision and the victims
evidence at 745 hearings and C-45 were ignored, only to be proven
subsequently to be entirely accurate.
Both areas, as you recall, needed to be dealt with by amendments
to “correct” what had been identified as unintended defects in
the legislative intent of Parliament. This phenomena of
unreliability, while annoying for us, is, of course, especially
serious for the Minister(s) of the Crown who are called on for
leadership in matters of criminal justice reform and who depend
on the quality of information and advice given them by their
officials.
Indeed, in light of the refusal of your officials to provide the
legal basis for their position respecting the timing of taking of
DNA samples in C-3, (despite independent legal opinion that they
are wrong) and your apparent refusal to submit the question to
the Supreme Court of Canada for constitutional reference,
confidence in your department to properly design and administer a
firearms registration system may be called into question.
In light of all of the above, we would seriously appreciate
knowing what resolution, if any, has been reached concerning the
matters raised in the acting commissioner's letter. We ask this
as, like you, we are committed to ensuring that all of our
decisions are based on accurate information.
Sincerely yours,
Scott Newark
Executive Officer
1515
The contents of this are very serious. Its suggestion of the
consequences of proceeding and relying on information provided by
the justice department of Canada and its officials, when we are
not completely satisfied as to the accuracy of that information,
are a grave problem facing Parliament if not the people of this
country.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as my hon. colleague, the member for Crowfoot, has
pointed out, the premise on which these regulations are based is
false. They are before this House on false pretences.
Only recently we find out that the members of this House were
presented with false and misleading firearms statistics during
the debate of Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, by the Minister of
Justice and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
It is not the Reformers or the gun lobby saying this. It is the
commissioner of the RCMP saying this in a letter he wrote to the
Department of Justice on July 21, 1997.
So Members of Parliament know exactly what the facts are and so
there is no confusion from this day forward about firearms and
violent crime, I want to read the entire text of RCMP
Commissioner Murray's letter to the deputy minister of justice,
Mr. George Thomson:
Dear Mr. Thomson:
I am writing to request that the Department of Justice correct
its representation of the 1993 Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(RCMP) statistics on firearms involved in crime.
Around June 1994, the Firearms Control Task Group requested
information on all files investigated by the RCMP during 1993
where there was a firearm associated with it. Since the RCMP
does not collect statistics on firearms in this format, a special
software application was written to extract the data for the
Department of Justice. The data was provided in electronic
format with the coding information necessary to interpret the
date. The Firearms Control Task Group tabulated the data and
produced reports without consulting the RCMP staff on the
accuracy of their interpretation of our data.
The RCMP became aware that there was a problem with the
representation of the 1993 RCMP statistics on firearms involved
in crimes in February 1997, as a result of the correspondence
from Ms. Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control, in which
she requested an affidavit as to the accuracy of the data in
Appendix “A”, titled “RCMP (PIRS) Table 2. Firearms Involved
In Crime: Type of Firearm Recovered According to Offence”. Ms.
Cukier required the affidavit for use in the province of
Alberta's constitutional challenge respecting the Firearms Act.
The Firearms Control Task Group created Appendix “A” from the
statistics obtained from the RCMP in 1994.
Since the RCMP had not created Appendix “A”, we extracted the
1993 data again and tabulated the number of firearms involved in
a crime under the category of violent offences. We believe that
most people would interpret the Appendix “A” caption:
“Firearms involved in Crime: Type of Firearm Recovered According
to Offence” to mean a firearm used in the commission of an
offence. In some cases, without completing a more detailed review
of the file, it was impossible to make a definite determination;
therefore, we resolved some of the questionable decisions in
favour of the Department of Justice findings. We determined that
our statistics showed that there were 73 firearms involved in a
violent crime compared to the Department of Justice findings of
623 firearms involved in a violent crime. A further analysis of
the Department of Justice statistics had not been done due to the
volume of work involved. However, a cursory review of the
remaining 909 cases revealed that only a very small percentage of
these would meet the definition of a firearm involved in a crime.
In order to mitigate damages, the Firearms Research Unit, the
Department of Justice, and Ms. Cukier were notified that the RCMP
could not provide a affidavit on the accuracy of the 1993
firearms statistics presented by the Department of Justice.
At a subsequent meeting with the Firearms Research Unit staff to
discuss the release of similar 1995 RCMP statistics, they
presented a report entitled, “The Illegal Movement of Firearms
in Canada”. This report contains the same statistics as those
in Appendix “A”, however, the RCMP statistics are combined with
those of other major Canadian police forces. The Firearms
Research Unit representatives believed that the firearms
identified in Appendix “A” had actually been used in committing
a crime.
It is of particular concern that the Minister of Justice and the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police relied on these
statistics while Bill C-68 was being processed in Parliament as
evidenced by statements in the report “Illegal Firearm Use in
Canada”.
A quotation from page 2 of the report states that: “It can also
been seen that rifles and shotguns were involved in 51% of
violent firearm crimes, airguns were involved in 19%, and
handguns were involved in 17% of violent crimes. The Firearms
Smuggling Working Group was concerned with a significant number
of long guns involved in crime.” This statement is not
significant when we consider that in 1993, the RCMP investigated
333 actual homicide offences, including attempts, but only 6 of
these offences involved the use of firearms according to the
statistics provided to the Firearms Control Task Group.
Furthermore, the RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes
during 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08%, involved
the use of firearms. If we display the RCMP 73 offences in the
same manner as the Firearms Control Task Group, we would say that
rifles and shotguns were involved in 79.5% of violent firearm
crimes investigated by the RCMP. This is not surprising when we
recognize that rifles and shotguns represent 84.4% of all
firearms in Canada. The difference between 623 violent firearm
crimes credited to the RCMP, compared to the actual number of 73
is significant.
The Canadian Firearms Centre (CFC) staff were unwilling to meet
to confirm where the problem occurred with the interpretation of
the 1993 RCMP data. Their efforts were focused on producing a
report on the 1995 firearms data. The CFC offered to make
comparisons between the results of their current research project
and other similar research conducted in the past. This proposal
was not acceptable since there was no means to validate the 1993
data, only a possibility of some comments on differences between
the findings of the two years. This would leave the 1993 data in
circulation. The incorrect reporting of the RCMP statistics could
cause the wrong public policy or laws to be developed and cause
researchers to draw erroneous conclusions. Considering that the
data is clearly marked as belonging to the RCMP, we must accept
ownership and responsibility for the harm the data may cause. For
these reasons, something must be done to correct the data or
remove it from circulation.
Since the data in our Police Information Retrieval System (PIRS)
and Operational Statistics Reporting (OSR) special reports is
open to interpretation, it was necessary to suspend further
release of similar firearms data pending an agreement on
regulating this problem.
I am, therefore, requesting your assistance to resolve this
issue. In addition, you may wish to inform the Minister of
Justice about this issue to ensure that she does not refer to the
RCMP statistics quoted in the Department of Justice report.
Sincerely,
J.P.R. Murray.
1520
In light of that letter and the seriousness of it, and since the
RCMP commissioner's letter was released to us in an access to
information request, we have been made aware of the fact that
these misleading statistics were also introduced six times in the
Alberta Court of Appeal in affidavits filed by the federal
Department of Justice and interveners supporting the government's
position in the provincial court challenge of Bill C-68.
Mr. Speaker, do you realize the seriousness of what is
transpiring here? The RCMP's analysis of its own firearms data
was never introduced in the court by the federal government.
I urge you to ask them to correct this oversight before
alternative legal measures are considered.
1525
It is clear that the standing committee on justice should have
the opportunity to reconsider the regulations in light of this
new evidence and in the light of a letter written by a senior
research officer from the Canadian Firearms Centre. It is in the
Ottawa Citizen today. In this article he says the RCMP is
wrong.
We need to move the following motion and the hon. member from
Cypress Hills—Grasslands will be seconding this motion. The
motion reads:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor: the fourth
report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with instruction
that they amend the same so as to recommend the deletion of the
Firearms Registration Certificate Regulations.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will consider the admissibility
of the amendment.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me real pleasure to speak on this matter.
The motion put forward by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville
is a very important one and one that should cause a great deal of
concern on all sides of the House.
Obviously there is a great deal of information that has come to
light in recent days, the correspondence that has been read into
the record, the references to the fact that the RCMP commissioner
and members of the RCMP are questioning the validity and the
accuracy of the statistics, the very statistics used for the
justification of this bill.
This bill was contentious without any of this new information
that has suddenly come to light. Equally troubling is that
representations were made by the Department of Justice to the
Alberta Court of Appeal. Four provinces and two territories are
currently debating the constitutionality of Bill C-68.
I take the hon. member's reference to the six times these
statistics were referred to in the pleadings at the Alberta Court
of Appeal. The mere thought that members of the justice
department may have knowingly made reference to these statistics
alone is cause for us to slow down and take a second look before
this proceeds any further.
This is an incredible revelation to think that this could have
knowingly occurred. If the RCMP made reference back in July to
the department, the commissioner took the time and effort to
write to the minister or the deputy minister bringing this to
their attention, telling them that he in fact did not in essence
want the RCMP's name associated with these statistics.
1530
Let's face it, the RCMP's name being associated with these
statistics and the weight that was placed on that by the
Department of Justice in justifying its position on Bill C-68
could be one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on the Canadian
people.
This is a very serious allegation and we cannot go any further
until we get to the bottom of this.
The Minister of Justice has suggested that there is a
methodological approach that would explain this difference and
how these statistics were spun by the department and that this
would somehow counteract the RCMP's contention that there is a
real discrepancy here. It does not take a great deal of in-depth
knowledge of criminal law to see that the discrepancy here cannot
be accounted for by a minor methodological approach in the
explanation of the use of long guns in violent crime.
Statistics are available. The RCMP is questioning these
statistics. It is now saying that it accepts the process that
may have taken place, but the process is yet unknown. We have
not heard from the Department of Justice on what has transpired
specifically between the RCMP and its department to explain the
difference in the figures. I believe this is where we have to go
next before we proceed any further with this very contentious
piece of legislation.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, there was not a
question there, but I have to make another comment in regard to
this.
My colleague from Crowfoot has read a letter from Mr. Scott
Newark, the executive officer of the Canadian Police Association,
who has grave concerns in regard to this. We have the
commissioner of the RCMP who has stated in his letter that
incorrect reporting of the RCMP statistics could cause the wrong
public policy or laws to be developed.
Mr. Speaker, what else do we need? That should be enough to
cause unanimous consent in this House at this time to not concur
with the regulations that have been tabled in this House.
It is a very serious matter. I think every member sitting here
realizes that we have put into place some regulations that we
should not have done on the basis of incorrect information.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is of the view that the
amendment proposed by the hon. member is in fact in order.
Accordingly, I will put the motion to the House.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in this debate if only to say that I am
once again very disappointed that the opposition party
manipulates or uses the rules in order to start a debate of this
type. It is not only a waste of time of the House, it does a
disservice to the subject matter.
The members know that if it is introduced suddenly in this way
it is not possible for the other parties to participate properly
in a debate, no matter how important the subject matter is.
Therefore, I move:
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I realize you are going to
ask the question on this particular motion. I just want to make
the point that the assertion by the deputy House leader that
there is something wrong with what has gone on here today is
completely out of line—
1535
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I think hon. members
clearly disagree. The member who spoke was on debate. He moved
a motion which the Chair is under an obligation to put to the
House. We are not free to debate it. I am sorry for the whip,
but I think he knows that what he might want to say is something
he could argue on debate and not on a point of order.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1540
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think if you were to seek it you would find that the House would
give its unanimous consent to pass the motion, on division, and
then we could return to Routine Proceedings.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The
chief government whip proposes that we now return to Routine
Proceedings. Is that also agreed by the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
PETITIONS
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition
on behalf of 226 British Columbians. With the indulgence of the
Speaker I will read their petition.
It states: “Taxing reading is unfair and wrong. Literacy and
reading are crucial to Canada's future. Removing the GST from
reading material will help promote literacy in Canada. `Applying
tax to books and periodicals discourages reading. The Liberal
Party has passed a resolution calling for the removal of the GST
on books and periodicals and that's what I will do'. Prime
Minister Jean Chrétien, September—”
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that she cannot
refer to members by name and she knows too that she cannot read
from a petition, so she is really treading on very thin ice. That
is one of the difficulties with reading from petitions. I invite
her to summarize the petition and get to the point of it promptly.
Ms. Val Meredith: The petitioners urge Parliament to
remove the GST from books, magazines and newspapers and I concur
with this request.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has gone through the
ice. She knows that she is not to express her assent or dissent
from the opinions expressed in a petition. I invite her to
comply with the rules in every respect when she presents
petitions.
SENIORS' BENEFITS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order 36 I have the honour
to present the following petition signed by 44 individuals.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that
they are calling upon parliament to encourage the government to
maintain the pension and old age deduction or credit and to
ensure that the seniors' benefit is based on individual spouse's
income.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present the following
petition which comes from concerned citizens in my riding of
Lethbridge, Alberta and contains 68 signatures.
My constituents are very concerned that negotiations for the MAI
have been conducted behind closed doors and that Canadians have
been kept in the dark about the MAI, even though it will have a
major impact on many areas of Canadian life.
1545
The petitioners call upon Parliament to impose a moratorium on
Canadian participation in the MAI negotiations until a full
public debate on the proposed treaty has taken place across this
country, so that all Canadians may have an opportunity to express
their opinions and decide on the advisability of proceeding with
the MAI.
BANKS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition signed by hundreds of people who live in rural parts
of the riding of Peterborough, particularly people of Keene who
have recently lost their only bank.
They point out that rural Canada contributes substantially to
the national economy. The Canadian agriculture and agri-food
industry is the third largest employer in Canada. The tourism
industry is also a large employer in many areas of rural Canada.
Residents of rural areas often have difficulty in finding any
incentive to support local initiatives and businesses due to the
lack of banking facilities.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to work toward ensuring
that the needs and concerns of residents of rural Canada are
addressed and that their access to local banking facilities is
maintained, thus encouraging businesses to remain a viable part
of rural Canada.
BIOARTIFICIAL KIDNEY RESEARCH PROJECT
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another in a series of petitions signed by thousands of people in
support of the bioartificial kidney research project. They hope
that this project will eventually replace dialysis and
transplantation as a cure for kidney disease.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to work and support the
bioartificial kidney which will eventually eliminate the need for
dialysis or transplantation for those suffering from kidney
disease.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the first petition is being presented by approximately 50 of my
constituents on the MAI, the multilateral agreement on
investment. They petition Parliament to impose a moratorium on
ratifications and conduct full public hearings so that Canadians
can have an opportunity to express their opinions about it.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a second petition from approximately 60 of my
constituents. They are petitioning Parliament to support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention which will set out a binding timetable
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
AGE OF CONSENT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a third petition with signatures from over 200 of my
constituents. They ask that Parliament amend the Criminal Code of
Canada to raise the age of consent for sexual activity between a
young person and an adult from 14 years to 16 years.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition on behalf of my constituents in Wallaceburg, Paincourt,
Dresden and Bothwell. They urge Parliament to impose a
moratorium on ratification of the MAI until full public hearings
are held across the country.
* * *
[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 Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all notices of motion for the production of papers
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among
representatives of all the parties and I believe you would find
consent for the following motion. I move:
That in the event a recorded division is requested later this
day on the motion for second reading of Bill C-37, the said
division shall be deemed deferred to the end of Government Orders
on Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give consent that the
chief government whip may put this motion to the House at this
time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1550
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to stand before the House and speak to Bill C-37
which is known as the Judges Act. Among other things this bill
increases the number of appeal court judges from 10 to 13. It
increases the number of unified family court judges from 12 to
36. It also increases judges' salaries retroactively from April
1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 by 4.1% and by an additional 4.1% the
following year. That makes it 8.2%.
I am going to take a different approach in speaking to this bill
today. I want to talk about some of the judges in our country
who are basically making really stupid decisions. This motivates
me to say that anybody in this day and age who is picking up 8.1%
should really be doing a good job at all times and should be
deserved of an 8.1% raise. I do not think anyone in private
industry is getting that, so there must be something
extraordinary about the judges in our land.
I want to talk about some of these stupid decisions. As well, I
want to talk about the Canadian judicial council which makes
recommendations about judges and things that should happen in
judge land. Quite frankly, Bill C-37 does not address any of
that.
I am very disappointed that the government tabled Bill C-37 and
did not address some of the things that some judicial councils
were asking for. It is typical of our country. We give a raise
but we do not ask whether it is deserved.
I want to talk about three issues in my riding. I could name
more from some of these witty judges. I first want to talk about
Judge Harry Boyle. I have taken Harry Boyle's name and I have
plastered it across the country because Judge Harry Boyle has
made a dreadful mistake in my riding.
A young lady by the name of Diane was violently raped by a
fellow by the name of Darren Ursel in my riding. As Darren Ursel
went through the court system he went before Harry Boyle. He said
“Judge, I am sorry for what I have done. I have been tender at
times. Gee whiz, you know it is only the first time I have got
caught”. Judge Harry Boyle said “Son, that sounds like a pretty
good reason to me”. He gave Darren Ursel a conditional
sentence, not one scrapping day in jail.
Members on the other side might say “Here comes that Reformer.
He picked an isolated case in trying to justify his position and
that is a terrible thing”. I am going to go through a number of
cases in my riding alone. I could talk here all day about
hundreds of judicial decisions all across this land that are not
only irresponsible but are absolutely preposterous.
I know Diane quite well. We fought together to try to get
appeals. We tried to coerce the legal industry into
acknowledging that this was such a terrible mistake. We profiled
the issue. We profiled and profiled it again until we did get an
appeal. The appeal worked. Under pressure this creep got two
years in jail, minus I believe the time that he was running
around in our community.
What do we say about Judge Harry Boyle? Judge Harry Boyle, do
not come to me and ask for an 8.2% increase. I would have you
off the bench, quite frankly.
Let us talk about Judge T. D. Devitt in Abbotsford, my hometown.
There is a fellow by the name of William Gibson Brown who did a
lot of time for violently raping a woman.
He did about seven years out of the eleven he was supposed to
serve. In this day and age I suppose that is a lot of time.
1555
He got out into my community and was charged for molesting five
young people. The lawyers got together and tried to do a little
plea bargaining. They got it down to molesting a couple of
children. The lawyers went before Judge T. D. Devitt and Judge
Devitt said “It does not sound like you are all that bad. I am
going to give you a conditional sentence”, and so he did.
The man got no time in jail. The man walked away from molesting
children in my community after he violently raped a woman. The
judge said that he must be an okay guy, so he got no time in
jail.
Very shortly after he walked out of the courtroom on his
conditional sentence, he molested a five year old in my
community. I talked to the mother. She does not believe in the
justice system. She does not believe in judges. Quite frankly,
I believe in her judgment that she should not believe in judges.
It is hard to understand a judge's decision on something like
this.
Let me read some statements about William Gibson Brown. This
comes from the parole board. Although Brown presented a
willingness to take counselling, prior parole board records show
that Brown “appears totally normal, he remains a very cynical,
angry man. He cannot or will not accept that he needs help. He
would not guarantee that he would not offend again. Clearly the
man is deteriorating and is more dangerous now than when I saw
him two years ago”. That is a man who got a conditional sentence
from a judge and has now molested another child.
The 1994 National Parole Board report said that the risk to
reoffend was very high and release would only put a community at
risk. The board member was of the view that detention until
warrant expiry was confirmed. And a five year old boy and a
mother are wondering what the heck is wrong with this justice
system.
For Judge Devitt in my riding who might some day come to me and
ask for an 8.4% raise, I would say absolutely not. He does not
even deserve to be on the bench. That is what I would say.
Let us look at Howie Slaunwhite. I talked to Howie the other
day. Most of us in this country would say that if some criminal
were to walk through our doors and molest our children or our
wives, we would beat them or take a gun to them. Today, most of
us say that we would protect our own land, our own families, our
own rights and our own turf. That is what we would say. That is
what Howie said.
What happened is that the perpetrator in Port Alberni molested
Howie's 15-year old daughter. Howie took a bat to him and I am
glad he did because the justice system does not work well. So
Howie is guilty of assault. Bad guy, Howie. That is not right.
I would admit that. So the man would go before a judge and in my
mind the judge would say “That is wrong, we will give you a
suspended sentence, perhaps”. What actually happened was that
the molester, Stephen Mack, was convicted and jailed for 10
months.
1600
While in prison this molestor took out a civil case and went to
another judge, Judge Lathleen Downes. Judge Downes awarded the
perpetrator, while in prison, $42,000 out of Howie's pocket.
Howie had to get a lawyer who of course whips out his own wallet
and says it will cost him $15,000. Now Howie is up to close to
$60,000 which he cannot afford.
I have to wonder in this land what is wrong with this system
when the father of a molested child is treated worse than the
criminal. Today he will very likely not spend 10 months, like
the perpetrator, but 10 years trying to pay the bill.
If anyone asks me whether I would give Judge Kathleen Downes an
8.4% increase I would say absolutely not. I would debench her.
That is what I would do.
Let me give a couple of other minor issues to what these
Liberals have often said to me in this House, like Judge Peter
Vanderhoof, while he described a three year old girl after
sentencing her attacker to 18 months probation for sexual
interference. Judge Vanderhoof called this three year old girl
sexually aggressive in his defence of the criminal.
For these people on the other side, if Judge Vanderhoof asked
for an 8.4% increase, the answer in Bill C-37 should be
absolutely not. He should be debenched for such stupidity.
I have so many issues I do not know where to start. Here is a
fellow who likes to tape me on the radio so that someday he might
like to sue me. I welcome him because not being a lawyer I would
love to defend my own case against this fellow. Would he ever
have the spotlight on him. Port Hardy, B.C. provincial court
Judge Brian Sanderson gave 57 year old Vernon Logan “an absolute
discharge” even though Logan pleaded guilty to possessing child
pornography. The judge said: “The law banning child pornography
violates the charter of rights because it is an infringement of
one's freedom of thought, belief or opinion, as unfettered access
to reading material is necessary to exercise those freedoms”.
This is a judge who makes a decision that child pornography is
okay.
I hope you are watching, Brian, because he listens to me enough.
If Brian Sanderson comes to me and asks for an 8.4% increase I
would say absolutely not. You, sir, are a disgrace and should be
debenched.
David Snow was charged in Vancouver with kidnapping two women
and trying to strangle a third. “I cannot conclude”, says the
judge, “that the placing of the wire around the neck of the
victim and the placing of the plastic over her head are
sufficient to establish intent to kill”.
If this government has any idea of what a bill about judges
should be all about, it only has to listen to this kind of
stupidity. To insult the rest of us in Canada with an 8.4% raise
for this fellow, the answer should be absolutely not. He should
not be sitting on the bench.
1605
These are disgraceful and I have piles of them mounting every
day. It is sick. We cannot forget Howard Wetson, the judge in
Manitoba. He is a federal court judge. A year ago he decided in
another ridiculous ruling that federal prisoners have the right
to vote under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Prisoners having the right to vote is absurd. If Howard Wetson
would like a raise please, Howard, apply to me for your 8.4%. I
would say, sir, you do not deserve a raise and you should not be
sitting on the bench.
Let us look at what the judges of Canadian judicial
organizations say. What should happen to the judicial system?
They made a recommendation for open disciplinary hearings against
judges to the public. Is that in Bill C-37? Absolutely not.
Another recommendation is to limit the terms of chief justices in
most courts to seven years. That came from the justice system
itself. Is that in Bill C-37? Absolutely not.
There is something wrong with the mentality of this House today.
There is a head in the sand approach. We want to disregard the
obvious that the once proud justice system of Canada has
deteriorated into a legal industry. Many judges are put in their
position because it is who they know and who they work for. It
is not necessarily for their relevance, decision making or their
knowledge of the law. It is not about their integrity. It is
all about this system of patronage which has become a national
disgrace.
If this government really wants to do something useful why not
take Bill C-37 and stick it on the desk of a bunch of lawyers and
keep it there. Take it to the people and ask them what is wrong
with the Canadian judicial system today. Ask them if they like
the decisions of Howard Wetson. Ask them if they like Harry
Boyle's decision and ask them what they would like to do with
judges and how to react to a system that no longer works.
Why we do not examine lawyers before appointment to the bench,
why we do not disclose their qualifications, skills and abilities
to the public before they are appointed I do not know. I do not
understand why we do not end political appointments. I do not
know why we do not have more predictability in sentencing. Why we
do not continuously test and time limited appointments I do not
know. Why we do not have a national code of conduct for conflict
of interest rules for judges as the Canadian Judicial Council
recommended I do not know.
Bill C-37 is all about more bureaucracy and money in the pockets
of judges. I would not give one scrapping cent to the judicial
system until I was satisfied if worked properly.
Psychotic killer Michael Kueger was awarded $2,250 for being
inconvenienced during a labour dispute at Oakridge prison. He
killed someone in 1991. The judge said: “He was inconvenienced
for denial of showers, therapy and swimming pool”. That is
after he gave a class action suit award of $45,000 to 11
prisoners. Just ask me if that judge would get one red cent out
of my pocket. I would have him debenched like the others I spoke
about.
1610
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is a long held
tradition, cited many times in Beauchesne's and other references,
that when we as members of Parliament speak of others in high
office, particularly when they are not in a position to defend
themselves, we exercise extreme caution in doing so.
This is not a ruling I am making. This is a longstanding
tradition in our Parliament that we be cautious when we attack
individuals or groups, particularly in the judiciary, and those
who are unable to come in here and have the same right of free
expression as we enjoy with impunity here. I make that as a point
of interest to all hon. members.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I do not want to get into a row with
the Chair but the fact of the matter is Bill C-37 is about
judges.
If I come to the House of Commons with my colleagues to talk
about issues that are relevant to a bill called the Judges Act,
by the way, then we should have every right to stand in this
House and talk about the real problems and not about the
irrelevance put in the nature of that bill by the other side.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is precisely
the reason the member was not interrupted in debate.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
a little puzzled. There was no point of order raised. There was
no one questioning the speech of the member for
Langley—Abbotsford. There was no interruption. There was no
point of privilege, order or anything else. I do not understand
why Mr. Speaker chose to read to us from Beauchesne's when no one
has protested or found anything wrong with the speech just made.
I do not think it is a good precedent for the Chair to be
instructing members when no one in this place has found anything
wrong with the speech was just made. I urge the Speaker to
remember that he can rule on points of order. He can interpret
precedents for us. But to try to instruct members of the House
and members of the opposition on what kind of speeches to make or
when to make them, I think Mr. Speaker should be very careful
about setting that kind of precedent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I take the hon.
member's point under advisement.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened attentively to the intervention from the official
opposition and the House leader. I know from time to time
Speakers have traditionally advised the House wisely in such
matters and I certainly do not concur or agree for one moment
with my respected colleague opposite, the whip of the—
An hon. member: You were not even in here.
Mr. Bob Kilger: The member is correct in reminding the
House that I was here. I was sensitive to the approach taken in
the speech by his hon. colleague who I know has very strong views
and feelings on this issue. His commitment to judicial issues
and his passion to the topic is well documented.
Notwithstanding the strong feelings any of us might have on an
issue such as this, when we are dealing with other people of
integrity and people in offices such as the judiciary, I believe
we are well to be reminded by the Chair to respect the traditions
of this House.
While I did not rise during his speech in the same fashion as
the Chair chose to act, I was certainly as sensitive to the
issue. I am pleased that the Chair did raise this to remind us.
We should keep this in mind when dealing with an issue such as
this.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if you could perhaps provide a little further
advice because I am slated on the Speaker's list to speak next to
this bill and I am fairly concerned.
Obviously I do not want to run afoul of your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
I want to be very cautious in my approach.
1615
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Let us just take it
from here then. It is understood that because of the nature of
the debate and the topic that is being debated, in general terms,
it is fair ball. If members refer to a specific individual who
does not have the same privilege to defend himself or herself
with the same impunity in the Chamber, that is where we get into
the problem.
In general terms it is quite appropriate because what we are
talking about is the remuneration of the judiciary. What we are
not talking about is the individual conduct of a particular
member of the bench.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two quick
points on this. One is that Reformers were sent here to try to
set some traditions of their own. How are traditions set?
Second, when we came here we could not even refer to the other
place. There have been a lot of issues raised about a certain
senator, Mr. Andrew Thompson, who has been mentioned by name
here. I do not recall the Speaker shutting down the official
opposition when we were questioning—
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I can speak to the point of order or I can go on to
questions and comments, whatever you choose.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and
comments, the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest and then we
will go to the hon. member for Charleswood—Assiniboine.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just for the benefit of Canadians who might be watching,
in terms of my comments and my question to the hon. member, he
mentioned at the tail end of his last remarks what in fact we are
debating.
We are not debating a revamping of the Judges Act. We are
debating amendments to the Judges Act. The summary of those
amendments is as follows: to provide changes to salaries and in
respect of eligibility for an annuity; to make additional changes
to the judicial annuity scheme; to establish a Judicial Benefits
and Compensation Commission; and to provide authority to pay
additional appeal court and unified family court judges.
We are talking about compensation for judges. In this bill we
are not talking about the removal of judges. We are not talking
about conditional sentencing under the Criminal Code. That has
nothing to do with Bill C-37.
I want to make a couple of comments to the hon. member and then
ask him a couple of specific questions.
First I want to say that, as usual, his speeches are
entertaining and easy to listen to. He makes good points. He is
also perhaps a little bit loose with the facts.
He mentioned a number of judges. I was wondering how many of
those judges are provincial court judges, appointed by various
provincial governments across the country. The reason I am
wondering this is because after each of the horror stories that
the hon. member mentioned he blamed the people on this side of
the House.
He answered his own question when he referred to Brian
Sanderson. He indeed is a provincial court judge. That has
nothing to do with the federal government. It has nothing to do
with Bill C-37. It has absolutely nothing to do with an 8.5% pay
increase.
Are all of the judges that were mentioned by the hon. member
federal appointments? If they are—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, we have
to keep going. The member for Langley—Abbotsford.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I can read a list of
hundreds of decisions like this from federal court judges. There
is no question about that.
What I tried to express to the member and to all of those
listening is that the issue of judges and their decisions is
important in our society today. I am really not interested in
which court they are. Some of them are federal, yes. They may
even be supreme.
Here is the real issue. I think the member missed the whole
point. There were numerous recommendations made by the Canadian
Judicial Council to change the system that has gone astray.
1620
Those recommendations were made after numerous studies and yet
this government tables a bill called Bill C-37, the Judges Act,
which will give judges an 8%-plus increase. My message,
therefore, is if we cannot get the judicial system corrected, why
on earth would this government bring in a raise for judges? There
is something wrong with the mentality of this thought. This is
not brain surgery, it is reality.
I started my debate off by expressing some serious concerns
about judicial decisions in my riding. These decisions, whether
they are provincial, municipal, supreme court or federal court,
are just plain stupid. Judges should beware. There are hundreds
of thousands of people today who are concerned.
People are appalled to hear that this government has brought in
a bill concerning a pay raise for judges.
For somebody to tell me, quite frankly, that I cannot refer to
judges in my riding, I do not accept that. I am here to
represent the people of my community. They know what and who I
am talking about. That is the bottom line here, is it not?
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member just said that the people listening to him right now know
who he is talking about. The problem is that they do not know.
He is singling out criminal court judges, yet there are all kinds
of judges in this country who work not only in criminal courts
but in civil courts. This hon. member smears all of them with
his irresponsible remarks.
He says that the work of the judges is important. He then turns
around and sullies every single judge, whether provincially
appointed or federally appointed in this country. I would expect
a lot more responsibility from a member of the Reform Party who
is constantly talking about responsibility.
The comments he has made in the last few minutes absolutely
leave me abhorred.
The member said that he would not give any judge one red cent
until he knows that the system is working properly. Based on
what this gentleman says, does anyone really think that the
judicial system will ever work well in his eyes?
Let me just say a couple of things—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, if this member does not
like what I say, that is just too darn bad, is it not?
The fact is, I made it abundantly clear in each and every case
that if that specific judge asked me for an increase the answer
would be no.
This thick Liberal mind over here says I smeared every judge. He
does not understand. I can appreciate that because it is his
party and probably a lot of work from himself which has put this
bill in front of us rather than a bill to change the judiciary as
even the judicial council would like it to be changed.
If the members on the other side do not like what is happening
in the judicial system, then they should change it. If they are
not going to listen to the judicial council in this country, then
I guess they should go on their merry way and allow stupid
decisions like this to continue. After all, this is a Liberal
government, is it not?
I will say once again that the bottom line is that they may not
like what I have to say, but one day they are going to darn well
listen.
1625
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we were elected by the
people of Canada, who are the rightful employers of civil
servants in the country.
Judges are civil servants. What other recourse do the people of
Canada have to hold the judiciary accountable except through
their elected representatives? If we in this House do not have
the freedom to be able to criticize the judiciary of this
country, then who does?
I would like—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford has a minute to respond to a question that
may or may not have been directed to the member for
Langley—Abbotsford.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad we did not
allow that fellow over there to speak again because I would like
to have at him for a couple more.
We know the Liberal government does not understand where we come
from because it is out of touch with some of these issues.
I have read about some very profound issues that are happening
in or near my riding. They are happening in every riding, except
his of course, every day, all day long and people are just darn
sick of it.
I have one piece of advice to give this government. Do not
bring in bills like Bill C-37, the Judges Act, to give judges a
raise until the system is fixed. What is so hard about that?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, Organized
Crime; the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond, Fisheries.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, you would think the number of times I rise to speak in
the House, and the number of times you happen to be the Speaker
in the chair, that we would be working a little bit closer
together on my riding, and some other issues of course.
It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill C-37,
despite the acrimony we have just witnessed in the Chamber. It
is a piece of legislation that certainly needs to have a number
of points of view brought forward on it. It is an act to amend
the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts.
I would like to refer to some remarks that were directed at my
colleague for Langley—Abbotsford during the question and comment
period following his presentation. In speaking to this bill or
any justice bill we have to address the issue of accountability.
I believe the question was asked by the representative for
Nanaimo—Cowichan that if we cannot raise these specific cases in
the Chamber where we have immunity from prosecution, as sensitive
as they are and perhaps as insensitive as it appears we are in
raising them, then where can we raise them? I think that is a
valid question to ask.
What I think my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford was referring
to is the growing resentment across this nation. It is
frightening, quite frankly. There is a growing resentment on the
part of grassroots Canadians toward our legal system.
1630
Part of it is the issue of decisions made by judges. If we are
doing our job properly as representatives of the people, we have
to raise these issues on behalf of Canadians who are crying out
for justice, those thousands of Canadians who appear every day in
court perhaps as victims or perhaps as family or friends of
victims and fail to see justice done in the decisions made by
judges.
A couple of nights ago in our shadow cabinet we had the
advantage of having a police chief from one of the larger
communities in Canada appear before us to speak about some of
these issues.
One point came home to me as I listened to this police chief who
has been involved for a number of years, far too many years, in
trying to raise the issues of gang related violence, youth crime
and the drug problem in Canada today. I could sense his
frustration as a chief of police.
I could speak about members of the police force in my riding of
Prince George—Peace River who have conveyed that same
frustration to me which they face on a daily basis, not only as
they go about doing their job but when they appear in court
before the judges to whom Bill C-37 is to give a raise. We are
to reward them and give them a raise. That frustration is
growing not only on the part of police officers and crown
prosecutors who work diligently every day to try to put some of
these horrendous criminals behind bars but on the part of the
average citizen.
One of my colleagues said “and keep them there”, a very
important point. It is not enough to go through the process of
the police doing their job collecting evidence, catching the
criminal and bringing him before the judge and of crown
prosecutors doing their job if it means nothing in the end, if
the person either walks scot-free because of a technicality or
because a judge for whatever reason decides to hand down some
lenient sentence and the victim sitting in the court that day
does not see justice done.
Some of these decisions cannot be defended. I believe that is
what my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford was trying to show.
Despite the intervention of the member opposite, I do not believe
the member in his speech was trying to smear all judges.
Certainly that is not what I got from the speech. Maybe the
member opposite heard a different speech from what I heard.
It is terribly important that we as representatives of the
people raise these issues in doing our job. How can we do this
if we have to talk about them as was said by the hon. government
whip, in generalities and not cite some specific examples?
How do we make the case for the viewing audience at home that we
understand and have seen the reports in newspapers about a
decision that was rendered but we as the official opposition, as
Reformers, do not agree with those decisions and think they are
bad decisions? They are not only bad decisions for us as
official opposition but they are bad decisions, more important,
for the Canadian people and for the justice system.
That is what brings all judges and all justices into disrepute,
not something my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford could
possibly say in the Chamber. It is the stupid decisions, to use
his term, that have been made from coast to coast about which the
average citizen reads in his daily newspaper. Those are the
things that bring the justice system into the greatest disrepute,
not what we say here.
1635
One of the gravest injustices would be if we as Reformers and as
the official opposition ever felt muzzled to the point where we
could not raise such issues in the Chamber. It would be a grave
injustice for every single victim that every felt betrayed by the
system.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will grant me a bit of leniency; I
seem to have strayed a bit from Bill C-37, as did my colleague.
Justice issues are near and dear to the heart of not only members
of the official opposition but I am sure to ever member of
Parliament on all sides of the House. I believe all members in
the House care very deeply about justice or injustice in our
country. Although we obviously do not share the same points of
view on how to fix the system, there is an awareness that
something needs to be done.
It is our view that to bring forward Bill C-37 at this time to
give judges raises—and we can argue on a individual basis
whether or not it is deserved—is an insult to Canadians when so
much needs to be fixed in the justice system. It is not just our
saying it. We hear it every time we go back to our ridings.
The current justice minister has been talking about making
changes, for example, to the Young Offenders Act ever since she
was given that portfolio. We have yet to see legislation tabled
in the House dealing with the very serious problems of youth
crime in Canada. This was another one of the other issues the
police chief discussed with the official opposition shadow
cabinet the other night.
What is Bill C-37 all about? It increases the number of appeal
court judges from 10 to 13. It increases the number of unified
family court judges from 12 to 36. I do not have a problem with
that. There is certainly a case to made for more resources in
certain areas. The official opposition has noted that there is a
need for more resources in the system.
I will get back to the point by one of my colleagues during
questions and answers on the issue of accountability. I raised
the question with the police chief the other night. Referring to
the issue of organized crime, he said that they had the people to
do the job but did not have enough resources. It costs a lot of
money to investigate criminal activity.
Some of these investigations take years.
1640
I asked him what good it did. I am not opposed to seeing more
judges in certain areas because there is a need. What good does
it do in the case of organized crime if we allocate more
resources, spend more money, get more investigators, go after
them, get them in court and a judge rules on a technicality and
they walk? What message does that send?
It is worse than doing nothing. It is incredibly frustrating to
police, prosecutors and everyone involved in the case. Why I say
it is worse than doing nothing is that once again it sends the
wrong message. It sends a message to the criminals that they can
get away with it, that crime does pay.
A criminal can do some of the most horrendous things and be
hauled into court perhaps after years of intense investigation by
the police or special investigators who have done a superb job on
a case put together over months by a prosecutor. The criminal
goes before a judge and the judge rules on a technicality or on
precedent and gives a slap on the wrist. A drug dealer who makes
hundreds of thousands of dollars gets a fine of a few thousand
dollars, walks out of the court and laughs in the policeman's
face. What message is that sending?
I am referring to accountability. By all means more resources
should be put into it, but let us ensure that judges themselves
are held accountable for the decisions rendered. There has to be
some way in which they can be held accountable.
Right now the only way to hold them accountable is in the court
of public opinion. If enough people from coast to coast get fed
up with the system and hold rallies, including tens of thousands
of people on Parliament Hill, then maybe the government will wake
up and bring in the necessary changes instead of bringing forward
Bill C-37 to increase judges' salaries retroactively.
Several members have used various figures: 8.2% combined over
two years and 8.4% or 8.5%. I am not a mathematician but I am
told it would be about 8.3%. I will take the middle ground. I
want to compare it to the RCMP officers on the ground who are
doing a real tough job. On Friday, March 27, 1998, RCMP officers
secured a pay raise of 2% retroactive to January 1. They will
receive a second increment of 1% on April 1, 1998 and an
additional .75% on October 1.
Something is wrong with this picture. Currently judges on
average are making about $140,000 a year and are to get 4.1%
retroactive to last April and another 4.1% for April 1, 1998 to
March 31, 1999. From talking to members of the RCMP in my riding
I find that many of them are moonlighting right now. I do not
know if members across the way are aware of this fact.
They are finding it really tough to raise their families and make
a go of it on an RCMP constable's wage.
1645
People might ask what this has to do with the judges bill. We
are talking about one segment of the justice system, the judges,
getting a substantial increase to what I would consider to be a
pretty fair wage now of $140,000 on average, whereas the starting
salary for a third year constable is going to go from $50,508 to
$52,423, about a $1,500 increase. Under this government's tax
policy, I would question how much of that is actually going to
remain in their pockets to help them feed their wife or husband
as the case may be, and their families.
I know of a female RCMP officer in my hometown who is
waitressing on the side to try to make a few extra bucks. I know
of another one who lives just down the block from me who runs a
bulldozer in the oilfield on his days off to try to make enough
money. Yet we are giving judges an 8.3% increase.
What I am saying about this bill is not so much whether the bill
is good or bad but that we have to address the issue of
accountability. I want to make it perfectly clear for the
members across the way I am not saying that all judges should be
tarred with the same brush. There are some excellent judges. I
believe the vast majority are excellent judges, doing a fine job
and working long hours. It is those other judges. It is just
like people in this Chamber. It is the same old story. It is
the few bad apples who spoil the reputation of all. We can
certainly use that same analogy when it comes to politicians, can
we not?
The real failing here is not this legislation but the fact that
it has been brought forward instead of a victims bill of rights,
instead of amendments to the Young Offenders Act and instead of
changing the fact that conditional sentencing is still being used
by some judges to release violent offenders into our communities
after they have been found guilty and have served no jail time.
Those are the types of laws the official opposition is looking
for from this government.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to say to the hon. member that we on this side do not want to
muzzle him or members of the Reform Party when it comes to
talking about judges or any other particular issue. We just want
to have them show some responsibility.
The hon. member suggested that judges across the country should
be made more accountable. It sounds good. I think we are all in
favour of accountability but what does that really mean? For
example, if a judge renders a sentence that is unpopular to the
hon. member from Prince George or anybody from the Reform Party,
does that mean the judge should be fired? We have to think this
through. If we say that to judges, it is a measure of
intimidation. Are we going to get the kind of independence from
judges if that is the kind of accountability the hon. member is
suggesting?
Let me make one other point. The hon. member from Prince George
stumbled upon what I think is a very good question. He asked
what is justice. It is a pretty profound question. I would like
to ask a question in return. Does the Reform Party suggest that
unless we have the death penalty we cannot have justice? Does
the Reform Party suggest that if we do not abolish the parole
system we cannot have justice? Does the Reform Party suggest
that if we do not put people away in jail and throw away the key
that we cannot have justice? Is that what the members of the
Reform Party are saying?
The question of what is justice is very profound.
However at the end of the day we need a justice system that
serves the entire populace. All of us. The entire community. It
includes those who have been victimized and those who are
responsible for protecting our society. And yes, it includes
even those who commit a crime. If they are young, 9 or 10 years
of age, it is not in the interests of the population to put them
away for 30 or 40 years. We want them changed so they will lead a
productive life eventually.
1650
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, that was quite a rant. I will
try to respond to some of the issues the hon. member raised.
At the outset when he rose to speak in response to the speech
made by my hon. colleague from Langley—Abbotsford, he suggested
that my colleague was smearing all judges. I think I dealt with
that fairly extensively in my presentation.
The hon. member indicated what he was getting at was that the
official opposition, the Reform Party, should show some
responsibility. I would contend that we are being responsible for
the reasons I gave in my speech.
If we cannot raise these types of issues here, what does he
want? Does he want us to sweep it under the carpet? That is
what the Liberals have been doing for many years. They have been
turning a blind eye to these things. They say “We cannot raise
that. We cannot criticize judges. Who are we to criticize the
decisions made by judges?” Well, if not us, then who?
The hon. member said I stumbled upon the issue of justice during
my speech. I think I laid it out quite clearly.
My colleague talked about the death penalty. Obviously that does
not sit well with the hon. member. We Reformers have
communicated our position on the death penalty very well, ever
since the party was formed. We believe, unlike the government,
in bottom up democracy. We believe there should be a national
referendum held at the time of a national election so there would
be a very small cost to it. Then we would have the will of the
people on the issue of the return of capital punishment. I
personally support that. Ever since I have been an MP I have
brought forth private members' legislation to reinstate capital
punishment. The Reform Party's official position is that the
people should make decisions on moral issues such as this, not
the politicians.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member mentioned that he believes all members in this House
are in favour of justice. I would concur that all members indeed
should be in favour of justice. It is for this very reason that I
have difficulty supporting Bill C-37. There is a very serious
injustice being discussed here.
We are discussing a bill which would in effect give to judges
raises of approximately 8.4%. With no disrespect to any judges or
any group of people which the government might consider giving a
raise to, I find it difficult to consider giving a raise to
people when the government has failed and continues to fail to
settle the pay equity concerns of over 200,000 current and former
employees of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
There are numerous people to whom the government owes money, yet
the government fails to come to grips with this. It is the result
of a law that was introduced by the same Liberals 20 years ago.
We have a complaint that has been outstanding for about 14 years
and today we are debating a bill that would give others a raise.
People in my constituency question me daily regarding what we
are doing about their pay equity. They want to know when the
government will pay them what they are due. And then I am
expected to support the government giving an increase to another
group when it fails to look after people to whom money is already
owed. I see that as a very serious injustice, one which I think
should be addressed. Until that kind of justice prevails, it
will be very hard to support a bill which gives a raise to any
group of people.
1655
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question in
my hon. colleague's remarks. He raises a valid point, although
his remarks about pay equity I do not think apply specifically to
Bill C-37 which we are debating today.
The member has raised the issue of equity. I tried to deal in a
small way with that issue as well in my presentation. I referred
to the fact that why have we singled out the judges and said that
they deserve an 8.3% increase compounded over two years but not
the RCMP officers or that the RCMP officers get a fraction of
that amount. What about the crown prosecutors? What about the
people who are in the trenches slogging it out trying to make
this justice system work?
I said in my presentation that a lot of judges are trying hard
to make the system work. Despite the comments made by myself and
others, there are judges who have made a lot of good decisions.
We could run through a list of them and name them too. But when
we want to raise the issue of what is wrong with the system, we
want to raise the decisions that do not garner the support in the
real world.
In this Chamber what we are supposed to talk about when we are
debating legislation is how it impacts in the real world outside
these walls, this hallowed hall of Parliament. That is what we
are supposed to be talking about. That is what my colleagues and
I when we are talking about Bill C-37 are going to be trying to
bring to the attention of the government and of the viewers
watching in the real world. It is, what are the failings of this
legislation?
As my colleague from the NDP remarked, he sees the failings as
the mere fact that the government is bringing forward this
legislation instead of addressing issues he feels are vitally
important. I respect that, as I respect what Reformers are
trying to bring forward, the long list of changes to the criminal
justice system that we have been pushing ever since we formed the
party back in 1987.
Yes, I recognize that the police, the prison guards, the crown
prosecutors, every single person involved in our justice system
is frustrated. We are frustrated here too. Reformers are
frustrated. We have been beating on the doors of government for
10 long years and we do not have the changes that people are
crying out for in Canada. Are they awake over there?
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as I rise
to address Bill C-37 I assume that the debate will end on this
bill sometime today. The bill will then go to committee where we
will be able to examine it through the eyes of those with vested
interests and concerns in this area.
As I listened to the debate today in the House and I listened to
hon. members from both sides raising concerns and answering
questions put to them by one another, the first point which came
to my mind and which I think should be addressed is to whom
should judges be accountable. We talk about accountability. To
whom are they accountable?
Judges are supposed to be accountable to the law that we pass
here on behalf of the people of Canada. As representatives of
the people, we are supposed to listen to what they are saying,
bring their concerns here and pass legislation that will address
those concerns. Then we appoint judges, and we pay them pretty
well but apparently not well enough, to do what? To interpret
that law.
We tell the judges what to do by the law we pass in this place.
The problem is that certainly since I have been in this House and
for far too long before that, the legislators of Parliament have
failed to tell the judges clearly what the people are telling
them they want done.
1700
We see open ended legislation where judges are allowed to
decide. Judges do not like minimum sentences. Why? It tells
them they must at least give a minimum sentence if a person is
convicted of an offence carrying a minimum sentence.
We are told that judges do not like this. They want greater
flexibility and I understand their rationale.
We look at the minimum sentence that we have prescribed by law
in Bill C-68. If anyone is convicted of a criminal offence
wherein they used a firearm, they are sentenced to jail for four
years. We hear the rationale that there are some circumstances
where that would be cruel and unusual punishment. We look at
that. I am sure the government, the elected representatives of
the people, has to weigh that. How serious is it for someone to
use a firearm in the commission of a criminal offence? Should it
carry a minimum four year sentence?
If we look at the offender from the viewpoint that the offender
is a victim of society, a victim of his upbringing, a victim of
whatever, and not accountable for his actions, then of course we
will feel sorry and say that it is not fair, that it is not just.
On the other hand, if we look only at the victim and at what has
happened to the victim, we will say that four years perhaps is a
fair and just minimum sentence.
What we have to do is draw a balance. Legislators should be
doing that. We should not be allowing judges to tell us what to
do. Yet that is what is happening.
The greatest reason for this, of course, is charter of rights
and freedoms that came into effect in 1982. The courts now have
the right to weigh all legislation against whether it violates
the charter rights of an individual.
We could talk for hours about charter rights. People arriving in
Canada illegally immediately have the protection of the charter,
criminals fleeing another country. Murderers like Mr. Ng appeared
in Canada and immediately received the protection of the charter
of rights and freedoms.
It took our justice system almost six years to get him out of
the country and back to where he would be able to face the
charges of murder levied against him in the United States.
When we look at the proper manner in which to hold judges
accountable, we have to look at a number of things including
judicial independence.
My hon. friend opposite spoke about intimidation and said that
it is a measure of intimidation. Again, we look for a balance.
If we look at what happened in Alberta when Premier Ralph Klein,
in an attempt to get spending under control, asked all civil
servants including teachers and so on to take a 5% rollback, he
also asked the judges to do that.
My goodness, we saw what happened there. Judges took that to
themselves by way of a case. It was ruled that would be
considered interference into their judicial independence.
What do we have here? There is a supposed a raise in pay
involved in this statute to the courts. Are we to assume that if
federal court judges across the country make a request to
Parliament for a raise and that raise is denied, it could be
construed as an interference into their judicial independence?
1705
Can defence counsels walk into their court room and ask the
judge to dismiss the case because their independence has been
interfered with by the state? Is that what we are getting to? Is
that what we are arriving at? When this bill comes before the
committee we are going to be calling witnesses. I eagerly await
their answers to those kinds of questions.
That is the direction it appears we are going in. If a benefit
or a remuneration is demanded or requested by the judges and it
is turned down by the government of the land, provincial or
federal, it could be construed as violation of their judicial
independence. We have to weigh that.
We look at the fairness of the 8.5% increase or whatever it is.
We had the Kim Hicks family in Parliament before Christmas. This
is a family of six, a man, a wife and four young children living
on $30,000 a year. Judges are making approximately $140,000 a
year now. If this raise goes through some judges will be making
$150,000 or more. That is the income that five families in the
position of the Hicks family would have to live on. Is it fair?
I hear people say we have to provide a good salary, otherwise we
will not attract competent judges because they can make much more
in the private sector. Is greed really the motivation to accept
an appointment to the bench? Is $140,000 not reasonable for a
man or a woman, a family, a head of a household? Is that not
reasonable? Ask Kim Hicks that question, if $140,000 is not
reasonable and we should be going to the lengths we have to in
order to grant federal court judges greater benefit and
remuneration.
The question of fairness and balance must enter into this. We
know that many civil servants, including RCMP members my
colleague spoke of, have had their salaries frozen for years.
What about them? Why are we making an exception in this case?
Do we start at the top when it comes to responding to salary
demands? We have some of our grassroots military people living
on $17,000 or $18,000 a year. What about them? I have often
wondered what judges do when they have people appear before them
accused of crimes of theft or whatever who are destitute. How do
they feel when they look at the economic conditions, some of
which produce crime? How do they feel? They want another 8%.
One of the judges from the Supreme Court of Canada made
reference to the greed that is all too evident in our legal
system. Should we not look for those individuals who are
competent, who understand and know the law and who have an
aptitude and a willingness to serve on the bench, to serve Canada
without the thought of remuneration beyond which many people can
only dream?
Should we not be looking for men and women of such calibre where
they are prepared with their skills and abilities to serve
Canadians? They have a lifetime job. Their remuneration is
guaranteed.
1710
Mr. Speaker, it is not like you or I where we might be bumped
off at the next election. Their employment is guaranteed,
assured. Their remuneration as well is guaranteed, assured. Is
it fair what they are asking for and what this bill is designed
to give them?
I want to see what the witnesses have to say when they appear
before the committee and we ask them some of these questions. We
do have a degree of responsibility. We do have a sense of
responsibility in this area. We must guard the independence of
our judiciary. We must do that.
Case after case we can recite in the House leaves the Canadian
people dissatisfied with the decisions of some courts. Over 50%
in an Angus Reid poll last July indicated that they have little
faith not in our justice system but in our courts.
Chief Justice Lamer appeared before a group of lawyers
requesting them—to me it was a plea—to defend the court system.
The defence of the court system should come from the people as a
result of feeling well served. The honour we bestow on the
courts should come as a result of the people feeling well served,
that the laws are there to protect them and their protection is
derived from the interpretation of the law from judges who have a
keen sense of what their duties and responsibilities are not only
to the law but to society at large.
I will look forward to the further examination of the bill.
There are many elements of the bill that must be brought forward
and fleshed out so that we have a clear understanding of what we
are doing.
The bill does not provide for the appointment of additional
judges. Why? Because we have a court system that is clogged.
Why do we have a court system that is clogged? We are not
intending to increase the judges in the area of criminal law,
from my understanding. If we look at the criminal justice system
it is being clogged. There are 40,000 cases backlogged in B.C.
alone.
Members should ask themselves why and what is the judges' role
in this at those levels, those provincial court judges. Perhaps
in most cases as they go up the line to the levels of appeal it
is federal court judges who deal with that. Why do we have a
backlog? Because in legislation after legislation that we have
examined just since I have been here, which is only four and a
half years, we see where there are additional levels of appeal
being instituted into the system.
The only amendment that was brought to the Young Offenders Act
was Bill C-37 under the former justice minister and we introduced
another level of appeal there. Now young offenders can be
transferred automatically to adult court but they have a level of
appeal where they can appeal to have their hearing held in youth
court.
We saw 745, the faint hope clause. What did we have there?
Instituted another level of appeal. So there are levels and
levels of appeal and what do they do? They slow down the court
cases.
1715
I have a newspaper article on my desk about cases on the east
coast. It is now being questioned as to whether or not the cases
will make it through court because of the longevity of the cases,
and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision that if a case drags
on too long it is an injustice to the accused. Cases are being
thrown out. One case was thrown out recently in British Columbia.
Why? Because this government has been bringing in pieces of
legislation that simply create a traffic jam by allowing more and
more time to be wasted or used up by appeal after appeal. That is
wrong.
I want all members to take a very close look at this bill. The
honouring of our judges should be automatic. It should come as a
result of our being well served. We should always seek out the
wisdom of our judges to interpret the law that is in the best
interest of society. But when our provincial court judges across
the land allow convicted rapists and other violent offenders to
walk free through conditional sentencing, a piece of legislation
never intended to be used in that manner, then we had better
believe we have reason to be concerned and we have reason to
question the judgment.
We cannot expect that the honour we should bestow upon judges
will come forth as a result of decisions like that.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
actually thrilled by the kinds of comments my colleague made.
There is one area I would like him to address.
The member talked about the judges' responsibility to interpret
the law, the judges' responsibility to apply the law fairly and
with equity and that the punishment somehow be related to the
crime, all of these kinds of things. They are very significant
and important matters.
I wonder whether my hon. colleague could say not only is that
the case but judges, in rendering honest, righteous, fair and
equitable decisions, inherently have a leadership role that will
tell the community and young people there is a way to prevent
further involvement. There is the role of leadership to society.
Does our society not look toward the judges who interpret the law
and who are upholders of righteousness, that they will in fact
provide some leadership to our community? Would he comment on
that?
Mr. Jack Ramsay: I want to thank my colleague for his
question.
Back in the days when I was a youngster we looked with awe and
respect to our judges. They were bestowed with a wisdom we
thought few people had. As a result of that wisdom and their
common sense, knowledge and skills, we relied upon them. We
placed our trust in them to not only understand the law but to
understand procedure so that when an accused appeared before
them, a fair trial for that individual was assured. We looked
upon judges for that.
It is a special quality of leadership which we have in this
country. We have had it in the past. That kind of leadership
has helped build this great nation. When we find that more than
50% of Canadians are beginning to lose faith in that kind of
leadership, then we have to look at why.
I heard the debate earlier on and it was rankled and so on. It
is unfortunate but we do have to maintain the right as elected
representatives. Why do we have immunity in this place? Why? It
is so that we can examine those sensitive issues without fear or
apprehension.
When something is going wrong in a former hallowed area of our
system, we can examine it on behalf of the people. We can
examine it openly, fairly and honestly in order to arrive at a
balanced judgment as to what should be done.
1720
I am hoping that we do arrive at a balanced judgment in terms of
this bill and whether or not someone making $140,000 deserves a
raise today when so many people are struggling to keep body and
soul together on a salary that is a lot lower than $140,000. I
hope we can strike that balance.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if
this is another case of legislation from the government side that
has some aspects in it which might be acceptable and could be
supported, but also includes other things which make it difficult
for us to give the government our support on in its efforts to
amend the justice system.
Is this again one of those situations where there is some good
but there is a lot of stuff in it that is not acceptable?
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, yes, this is another one of
those bills where we can put one foot on one side and the other
foot on the other side. It gives rise for concern. On the
addition of the judges, we must support that. If I could put it
this way, it is supportable.
However there are aspects to this bill which suggest that if the
judges do not receive this remuneration, it could be considered
as improper interference in the judicial independence of our
judges. If that is true, we will find out when this bill is sent
to committee. There is the example in Alberta. It is a reverse
example because they wanted to reduce by 5% the pay of all civil
servants, including judges. It was ruled that it appeared to
constitute a political interference into the judicial
independence of our judges.
If that is a part of this bill, then what does it ultimately
mean? It means that our federal judges, with respect to them, can
make a demand upon the public purse. Even if it is considered to
be unreasonable, it is almost like a gun is being held to the
heads of the elected representatives of the country. If they
deny it, they will then be in a position where they can be
accused of interfering with the judicial independence of the
courts. Any defence counsel can then come into court and say “My
Lord, I want you to dismiss the case because your judicial
independence has been interfered with and you cannot render a
fair and just hearing to my client”.
We as a committee want to look at that. I will certainly be
asking questions about it.
Yes, this bill contains aspects I can personally support but it
contains aspects that I have real concerns about as well.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. He alluded
to his background. I too in various capacities served in this
area. I served for 25 years as a justice of the peace in
different areas of the province of Saskatchewan.
At one time, if the judge was not travelling, he would actually
have me conduct court and so on. I am quite used to that
procedure.
1725
Is it not true in the member's opinion that in recent years not
only the public but those who would like to bring charges are
afraid to bring charges on any given case because they feel there
is no hope of getting a verdict? Is that—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Crowfoot has 30 seconds for a response.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, just at the time the member
was posing his question he was interrupted. I do not know if I
can address his specific question.
My view is that generally speaking our judges, including our JPs
and everyone who is called upon to interpret the law and render a
decision in a situation such as in the courts must have the
support of the people—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member's time
has expired.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I see by the
clock that I will not have time to complete my intervention
today, but I would like to say a few words about the judicial
system in this country. I am going to cater my remarks to the
supreme court.
I want to give an example of how our judicial system has a
profound influence not only in criminal matters but in civil
matters and in civil matters that have widespread consequences to
Canadians and, in this particular case, to British Columbians.
I am going to talk about the Delgamuukw case in British
Columbia. It was a case where an Indian band, the Gitksan and
Wet'suwet'en decided some 13 years ago that it was going to lay
legal claim to about 58,000 square kilometres of land in the
north central part of the province.
In the initial case that was heard by Justice McEachern, the
learned justice heard over 378 days of testimony. This is a
judge from the Supreme Court of British Columbia. He heard
arguments put forward by the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en people, by
the province of British Columbia and by Canada.
Incidentally, the justice for much of this sitting was actually
in Smithers, British Columbia, in my riding, where the Gitksan
and Wet'suwet'en people live. This was so that he could better
understand them, their claim, the other non-aboriginal people and
the other aboriginal people for that matter in the area.
In his reasons for judgment, the learned judge pointed out that
he not only sat on the bench in Smithers to hear arguments, but
he also took the time in the evenings and on weekends, rented a
car and drove around visiting many of the communities. He
visited the Gitksan communities and the non-aboriginal
communities so that he would understand to the best that he
possibly could what the case was all about.
After more than two years, after more than 375 days on the
bench, he rendered a decision. The learned justice's decision
was overturned after the supreme court heard arguments for a day
and a half. This case now throws a cloud of uncertainty over
whether British Columbia as a province has the right to assert
sovereignty and has control over the crown lands of that
province.
This case has profound implications. It is a good thing I have
parliamentary immunity because I am going to say something harsh
about the court. Nine justices from the supreme court,
politically appointed, largely from Quebec and Ontario, decided
British Columbia's future. This is unacceptable.
1730
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Skeena will have approximately 16 minutes remaining in his time
when the bill comes back to the House again.
It being 5.30 p.m. the House will proceed to the consideration
of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic
manipulation), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
particularly pleased to speak today in connection with Bill
C-247, because my hon. colleague for Drummond is its sponsor, and
also because I am a member of the Standing Committee on Health.
Public awareness was suddenly aroused around the world when the
news was released that an adult ewe had been cloned by a team in
Scotland.
I would like to start with a definition of the word “clone”. The
popular definition is that it is an organism, a person, an
animal or a plant that is a completely identical or nearly
identical copy of another organism in terms of appearance or
function.
On the biological level, it refers to a population of organisms,
cells or genetically identical DNA molecules resulting from the
asexual reproduction of a single organism.
The concerns world-wide about cloning human beings are justified.
First a brief historical overview is necessary.
The first government inquiry into the new reproductive
technologies was the 1989 Baird Commission. Its mandate was “to
look into current and foreseeable progress in science and
medicine relating to reproductive techniques, their
repercussions on health and research, their moral, social,
economic and legal consequences, and their impact on the general
public, and to recommend policies and protective measures to be
adopted”.
The Baird Commission tabled its report only in November 1993.
The main conclusions and recommendations were broadly similar to
the foreign studies on this topic.
So the federal government announced in January 1996 the creation
of an interim advisory committee with a mandate to put the
moratorium into effect, to follow developments in new
reproduction technologies and to advise the minister.
So, on June 14, 1996, the federal Minister of Health at the
time, David Dingwall, introduced Bill C-47. There was no
provision for the application of the Criminal Code.
The federal government's proposed second stage involved amending
Bill C-47 to include a regulatory framework for all reproduction
and manipulation technologies.
Despite its approval in principle of Bill C-47, the Bloc
vigorously opposed the establishment of a new national agency
and deplored the fact that the Criminal Code was not applied.
During the hearings of the Standing Committee on Health,
witnesses expressed a number of reservations about the content
of this bill.
Clearly, at this point in time, there is no justification for
cloning human beings, regardless of the process used.
I should mention that one of the clauses in Bill C-47 prohibited
human cloning. This clause is found in Bill C-247. It
criminalizes human cloning, without prohibiting scientific
research in genetics, which may be beneficial at several levels.
Clauses 2 and 3 of this bill also make liable to punishment
anyone who deliberately offers to carry out or requests
experiments in human cloning.
The Bloc has repeatedly called for government intervention to
prevent practices related to new reproduction technologies.
1735
The Bloc Quebecois called for criminalization of the sale of
ova, embryos and foetal tissue. In May 1994, the then Minister
of Justice stated that the bill was slated for introduction in
the fall of 1994. The moratorium followed only in 1995, and Bill
C-47, which merely makes the moratorium law, was introduced in
June 1996.
It is clear that the use of these technologies challenges our
values, because it involves the very definition of the
foundations of our society, our descendants. Limits must be
set, but what should those limits be? We see that the entire
world is concerned by this problem.
In March 1997, the following comment by Dr. Joseph Ayoub
appeared in La Presse “France has thus played a role by
creating, in 1983, a national advisory committee on ethics in
the life sciences and health. It advises on the ethical
problems raised by the progress of knowledge in the fields of
biology, medicine and health, and publishes recommendations on
these topics”.
After 10 years of work, the parliamentary assembly of the
Council of Europe recently approved a draft agreement on human
rights and biomedicine. The approved document allows research
on in vitro embryos under two conditions: if it is in the
interest of their development or if it is related to the
diagnosis of serious diseases.
But any creation of embryos for research continues to be
prohibited.
Now, what remains to be done is to obtain an international
consensus on the human genome and human rights from the UNESCO
international bioethics committee.
The British parliamentary inquiry on science and technology
called for international regulation of cloning, in order to
prevent any deviation into eugenics.
As far back as March 1996, the Collège des médecins du Québec
launched a commission to examine the practice of medicine in the
year 2000. Its mandate was to examine the future prospects of
medicine, the changes it will have to face, and the steps to be
taken to deal with these new realities in relation to the major
ethical issues of the day, which mainly affect the beginning and
end of human life.
One of the commission's recommendations to the Collège des
médecins was to ensure that human integrity and dignity takes
precedence over technical progress.
It also recommended that surveillance systems be put into place
in order to avoid any deviations, and to create a standing
committee on ethical issues.
Obviously, cloning raises a number of ethical and legal
problems. Cloning does not seem to be a solution for ensuring
the survival of our planet. Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois
supports Bill C-247 introduced by the hon. member for Drummond.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member for Drummond
for introducing this bill to ban human cloning. It is
unfortunate, is it not, that a private member has to be
introducing this important and urgent initiative when in fact the
government should be making it one of its highest legislative
priorities?
How come the government thinks the Judges Act, raising the pay
of judges, is more important than this? Give me a break, Mr.
Speaker. I cannot see how that can be.
Despite the qualified support and several requests for
amendments made by various members during the first hour of
debate, I will be voting in favour of this bill.
If an omnibus bill like Bill C-47 which was introduced in the
last Parliament is not introduced soon then it will be up to
individual members of this House to take legislative action, even
if it is in a step by step fashion. We should not wait any
longer for the government to implement a ban on human cloning.
1740
Considering the morale and ethical questions involved with each
and every aspect of prohibiting and regulating reproductive
technologies, I think it may be better to debate each and every
issue separately in this House. That is how important this is.
For example, the vast majority would probably support a ban on
human cloning, but to prohibit or restrict the use of technology
to help an infertile couple conceive a child of their own would
probably seem unreasonable to most. The question is where to
draw the line. The line is right here before us today: ban human
cloning.
During the last hour of debate on February 17, the member for
Drummond explained the purpose of her bill and how it would work.
I agree with her approach, making human cloning a criminal
offence, although I think a lengthy jail term should be a
sentencing option for the courts.
Bill C-47, the government bill on reproductive technologies from
the last parliament which died on the order paper last year when
the election was called, called for a maximum penalty of a
$500,000 fine and 10 years' imprisonment.
For everyone's information, here is a list of practices that
were prohibited in Bill C-47:
Sex selection for non-medical purposes.
Buying and selling of eggs, sperm and embryos, including their
exchange for goods, services or other benefits, but excluding the
recovery of expenses incurred in the collection, storage and
distribution of sperm, ova and embryos for persons other than a
donor.
Germ-line genetic alteration: Manipulation of the genetic
material contained within the eggs, sperm or embryo. Any changes
to the germ-line which may be passed on to the next generation.
Ectogenesis: Maintaining an embryo in an artificial womb.
The cloning of human embryos.
The creation of animal-human hybrids.
Retrieval of sperm or eggs from cadavers or fetuses for
fertilization and implantation, or research involving the
maturation of sperm or ova outside the human body.
Commercial pre-conception or surrogacy arrangements.
Transfer of embryos between humans and other species.
The use of human sperm, eggs or embryos for assisted human
reproduction procedures or for medical research without the
informed consent of the donors.
Research on human embryos later than 14 days after conception.
Creation of embryos for research purposes only.
The offer to provide or offer to pay for prohibited services.
I was impressed when I read the member for Drummond's words
“new reproductive technologies raise an extremely serious and
worrisome problem for the very future of our society as we know
it”. She went on “the use of these technologies challenges our
values because it involves the very definition of the foundations
of our society, our descendants”.
Her warning about the scientist who said “cloning and
reprogramming DNA is the first real step toward taking his place
beside God” was particularly alarming for me. When scientists
start playing God, everyone ought to be alarmed. Parliamentarians
should be doing something about it now.
In November 1993 the Royal Commission on New Reproductive
Technologies released its final report. I do not think it was an
accident that the report was titled “Proceed with Care”.
The hon. member for Thornhill spoke on behalf of the government
during the last hour debate. She informed the House that the
Minister of Health was in fact planning to table legislation that
would address many of the issues regarding reproductive
technologies, including the issue of cloning.
I suggest the government proceed with care and not try to lump
issues that have widespread public support with ones that are
highly controversial. This is a trick that has been used in the
past and we should not tolerate it.
I disagree with her contention that the banning of human cloning
should be in health legislation and not in the Criminal Code.
Failing to register a firearm, which is regulation of private
property, is a Criminal Code offence punishable by up to 10 years
in jail. Why cannot something far more serious like cloning of
human beings not be in the Criminal Code?
This is another example of the misplaced priorities of the
government.
1745
I disagree that we should wait for the government to introduce
comprehensive legislation. I think we should pass this bill and
immediately move amendments to strengthen it as suggested by
members during debate.
My hon. colleague from Wanuskewin spoke in favour of this bill.
He outlined a number of dangers associated with the cloning of
human beings, including unknown health risks, considerable
psychological and emotional risks and the moral and ethical
dilemmas that would inevitably flow from it.
I suggest that these are dangers our society cannot control by a
voluntary moratorium. They are dangers that require a clear and
unequivocal statement by Parliament that in Canada human
cloning will be a criminal offence. If scientists want to play
God, they will have to play it in another country.
As I mentioned, I agree with my hon. friend's position that
fines are not a sufficient deterrent to rich multinational
companies. Prison terms for owners, officers and directors of
these companies will be a deterrent.
It was also mentioned that 19 countries in the European Union
have moved to officially ban human cloning. I suggest this is a
list to which Canada should be proud to add its name.
I read with interest the comments of the hon. member for
Charlotte on this issue. I plan to talk to him to learn more
about the prior political experience he had and the discussions
in the House in 1989 surrounding the creation of the royal
commission new reproductive technologies.
I have noted my reservations about this omnibus bill and others,
how members are often forced to accept some bad in order to get
something good. Why should this be? Why can the government not
just introduce a bill which, with open and honest debate, will
eventually gain the support of the majority of the public and the
majority of parliamentarians? These omnibus bills should not be
brought to Parliament. I think the bill before us today would be
supported by the public and by members of the House.
Finally, I wish to comment on the statement made by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health in response to
this bill.
Rather than issue platitudes to the hon. member who introduced
the bill and rather than just make vague promises of some bill
the government will be introducing in the future, he should be
supporting this bill now.
The government needs to send a clear message that, regardless of
the bill to be introduced in the future to deal with a myriad of
issues, in Canada human cloning will be a criminal offence right
now.
This is the message Canadians want to hear from their
government. I encourage the government to support this bill.
Further, when it is passed, the government should propose
amendments to strengthen it. When this is done, the government
should communicate to everyone in Canada that human cloning and
playing God is banned in Canada.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to speak to the issue of the criminal law power in
prohibiting reproductive and genetic technology such as human
cloning because it is very important.
Bill C-247 proposed by the hon. member from Drummond, Quebec
proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada to add after
section 286 a section that would prohibit genetic manipulation
leading to human cloning.
The two practices covered in proposed Bill C-247 were prohibited
in Bill C-47 which was tabled in this House in June 1996 and
which passed second reading in November 1996.
In March 1997 the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on
Health approved the bill with minor technical amendments.
Unfortunately the call for the federal election came on April 27
and Bill C-47 died on the order paper.
It is interesting to note that the wording used in Bill C-247 is
exactly the same as that used in Bill C-47 pertaining to human
cloning. One major difference is that the hon. member proposes
Bill C-247 as an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada.
The 1996 proposal by the federal government was for health
legislation which relied on the criminal law power to protect
Canadians' health and safety and to uphold our common values.
This government does not take the use of criminal law power
lightly as its means of prohibiting certain uses of technology.
1750
Our Constitution divides jurisdiction over health matters
between federal and provincial governments. The federal
government has the power to make laws when issues relating to
public health and safety are at stake or to maintain peace,
order, security and morality.
This legislation lies squarely within the Canadian tradition of
using criminal law to protect Canadians' health, safety and
values. Most federal health law is based on the use of this
criminal law power and the courts have recognized this as a valid
exercise of the federal government's authority.
In the case of human reproductive and genetic technologies
legislative action by the federal government is not only valid,
it is necessary. The federal government has a duty to establish
the basic perimeters of public health, safety and morality on
which Canadians may rely.
To ensure adequate protection for all Canadians in the area of
reproductive and genetic technologies there must be uniformity
across the country with respect to what practices are prohibited,
what practices are allowed and what safeguards apply. As with all
criminal legislation provinces would be free to take as active a
role as they choose in prosecuting the offences which were set
out in Bill C-47.
Parallel provincial legislation in the field of reproductive and
genetic technologies is welcome. Even if several provinces were
to enact such legislation this would not diminish the need for a
federal law to ensure that no region of Canada becomes a haven
for unregulated practice of these technologies. To date no
province has comprehensive legislation dealing with reproductive
and genetic technologies.
The courts have traditionally recognized the protection of
public health and safety and the maintenance of peace, order,
security and morality as valid exercises of Parliament's
exclusive authority over substantive criminal law. Most federal
health legislation relies on the criminal law to protect
Canadians' health and safety and to uphold our common societal
values, for example the Tobacco Products Control Act, the
Narcotics Control Act, the Food and Drugs Act and the Hazardous
Products Act.
It is a constitutionally valid exercise of the criminal law
power to define a crime not only by defining what acts are
prohibited but also by exempting from criminal sanction certain
acts when they are not carried out under prescribed conditions.
The government has already recognized the need for some form of
regulatory regime for reproductive and genetic technologies, to
regulate those practices which are considered acceptable to
Canadians. In one respect, the hon. member's bill is admirable.
However, Bill C-247 covers only two specific procedures out of
the 13 which Bill C-47 would have prohibited and does not address
the need for regulation of acceptable practices.
While the hon. member's bill does address one of the major areas
of concern with reproductive and genetic technologies, we would
like to reiterate that human cloning is indeed only one of the
issues. There are many other aspects of equal concern which must
be addressed which include sex selection for non-medical
purposes, the buying and selling of eggs, sperm and embryos, germ
line and genetic alteration, maintaining an embryo in an
artificial womb, the creation of animal-human hybrids, the
retrieval of sperm or eggs from corpses or fetuses and commercial
surrogacy arrangements.
The final report of the royal commission on new reproductive and
genetic technologies in November 1993 recommended both
prohibitions of certain practices and a regulatory component to
the legislation to manage those reproductive and genetic
technologies which are considered acceptable.
The hon. member's proposed amendment to the Criminal Code would
deny the possibility of regulations which would make certain
technologies available to Canadians under certain and carefully
monitored standards.
Bill C-47 dealt exclusively with absolute prohibitions but it
was always intended that the regulatory component or conditional
prohibitions would be added. Indeed much of the support from key
stakeholder groups was premised on the understanding that this
would be so.
The Minister of Health is sensitive to the concerns of Canadians
regarding the need for comprehensive legislation. The minister
remains committed to introducing a bill which will accommodate
the reasonable concerns that are and have been expressed. The
overwhelming response to Bill C-47 from virtually all quarters
was for the addition of a regulatory regime to absolute
prohibitions to form comprehensive legislation. The proposed
additional components outlined in the white paper include the
establishment of a regulatory agency and its powers of operation,
licensing to permit acceptable practices, information registry
and equivalency agreements with the provinces.
1755
These proposals would ensure that acceptable technologies and
practices are delivered in an ethical and socially responsible
fashion and in a way that solicits the input of all sectors of
society concerned with the issues raised by reproductive and
genetic technologies.
This government intends to introduce in the near future
legislation which will enhance Canadians' well-being by
permitting them to make choices about their involvement with
reproductive and genetic technologies, secure in the knowledge
that their choices do not include any that are unethical or
harmful to their health or to that of the children they bear.
It will balance the need to protect the interests of vulnerable
women and children with the aspirations of individuals to become
parents and the need of the research that will help them attain
that goal. It will set the boundaries within which reproductive
and genetic technologies can be regulated for the good of all
Canadians.
Bill C-247 proposed by the hon. member is likely to draw
criticism from many quarters. Canadians have clearly shown us
during the consultations following the royal commission's report
that there are many issues involved in reproductive and genetic
technologies which require control, and not just human cloning.
Health Canada's overriding goal is to protect the health and
safety of Canadians. We also seek to ensure the appropriate
treatment of human reproductive materials and to protect the
dignity and security of all persons, especially women and
children.
Canadians have told Health Canada, as they told the royal
commission, they want the federal government to act to manage
reproductive and genetic technologies in a way that protects
those most affected and which reflects our collective values.
Canadians want unethical practices prohibited by law, and so does
this government.
In an environment such as this Canadians would criticize passage
of an amendment to the Criminal Code which merely prohibits human
cloning. They have a concern to be answered about the total
spectrum of reproductive and genetic technologies, and this
government is committed to such legislation.
I believe it is necessary to wait for the introduction of new
legislation by this government to encompass all the aspects of
reproductive and genetic technologies which we have seen through
the consultation process. They are of great concern to all
Canadians.
I also believe proposed Bill C-247, an amendment to the Criminal
Code, is premature and would be viewed as being heavy handed and
failing to address the greater part of concerns of Canadians on
this matter.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last February,
my colleague, the member for Drummond, introduced Bill C-247, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation).
This bill builds on the report tabled by the Royal Commission on
New Reproductive Technologies created in March 1989, commonly
known as the Baird commission. The primary purpose of this
commission was to analyze the impact on our society of genetic
manipulation, pre-selection of sex, the phenomenon of surrogate
mothers and artificial insemination. This study had long been
demanded by a Canadian coalition of feminist groups.
It was another four years, and millions of dollars, before the
commission tabled its report, and then only after going through
some rough patches, as the House will recall. The government
then imposed a voluntary moratorium in July 1995 and
subsequently introduced Bill C-47, which died on the Order Paper
when the election was called.
That government bill contained an important flaw, however. It
did not criminalize human cloning. Today, we therefore find
ourselves in a legal vacuum where only the voluntary moratorium
applies.
The bill now before us deals with a very important issue,
because its purpose is to prohibit human cloning, that is to
say, the replication of human beings, in Canada. The chair of
the royal commission, Mrs. Baird, also called on the federal
government to bring in legislation in this regard. However,
since the election, the government has been slow to take action.
It is therefore urgent, and if it is the pleasure of the House
to pass this bill, Canada will follow the example of many
countries, including the United States, Italy, Norway, Australia
and France, which have already passed legislation prohibiting
human cloning.
1800
Many international bodies have passed similar resolutions. They
include the Council of Europe, the British parliamentary
commission on science and technology and UNESCO's Universal
Declaration on the Human Genome.
Finally, the World Health Organization has declared that the
techniques that produced Dolly the sheep cannot be used on
humans.
It is interesting to note that the World Health Organization did
not want to prohibit commercial ownership of cloning techniques.
It protested only against the use of cloning in human
reproduction.
In Quebec, consideration of the subject continued too. The
commission set up for the task by the college of physicians
proposed respect for the absolute precedence of human integrity
and dignity over technical success, especially at the beginning
and the end of life.
As you can see, the various experiments at the frontiers of
science and life have given rise to a major ethics debate.
Recently, the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep by a group
of Scottish researchers has revived the debate. What makes
Dolly the sheep such a special case and why has it attracted so
much attention?
Dolly is not the result of traditional fertilization involving
the combination of the genetic material of two creatures of
opposite sex. Rather, Dolly is the result of asexual laboratory
reproduction of a single parent. In other words, Dolly was
created from a single cell, that of the mother.
We have to admit that, from a purely scientific standpoint, this
discovery is quite extraordinary. Professor Charles Thibault, a
French specialist in biological reproduction, said that
understanding nuclear fission and then fusion meant a better
understanding of matter. Mastering cell division meant better
understanding the living, in his opinion.
Great scientific discoveries have improved the lives of men and
women. They have also enabled us to kill one another. Does the
new race to clone mean progress for humanity by separating it
into two species—the natural and the reproduced, the real and
the false, the weak and the strong? This is what the bill
introduced by my colleague from Drummond is attempting to
answer.
It has the advantage of making cloning a criminal act, without
prohibiting scientific research in genetics, which must also be
closely monitored.
For some researchers, for instance, animal cloning and its
application to human beings is of particular interest to the
pharmaceutical companies, needless to say, for the manufacture
of drugs, organ transplants, and research into hereditary
diseases and cancer.
Animal application of cloning would make it possible to rear
perfect animals or to save endangered species. To quote
Libération, “the race to clone all species is on. Now it is
international, with the British and Americans in the lead, and
commercial, of course. What is involved now is improving
techniques for fast and efficient transgenic cloning—in order to
provide humanized organs and drug-proteins. A major industrial
and medical undertaking”.
There is no denying it, successful cloning is now part of our
reality.
Yet it is opening the door to the cloning of all superior
animals, up to and including man. This is where the bill of my
hon. colleague for Drummond fits in, and this is where the
question arises: are they going to be cloning men, women and
children?
According to the French publication Libération, American clinics
already have in hand “catalogues of sperm donors and egg donors,
with the physical and intellectual characteristics of each , so
that a genetic cocktail may be concocted which will come as
close as possible to producing the ideal baby”.
1805
The same newspaper also reported the implantation of frozen
embryos and the “terrifying image of supermarkets where one
would go and choose one's ready-to-wear baby like a frozen
hamburger”.
We must not fall into the trap of considering human beings
merely based on their genomes.
Are we prepared to live in a society in which it would be
possible to create armies of identical individuals, for a
specific purpose, such as to ensure a stock of livers, hearts or
lungs to be transplanted into other individuals born as a result
of true fecundation?
The newspaper goes on to say that this would lead to “a society
in which the most incredible scenarios would become reality: a
dictator duplicates himself ad vitam aeternam, a dead child is
reborn in her mother's womb, a woman delivers a baby that is her
husband, her father, even herself”, and so on.
We are fascinated by science and technology, by irresistible
challenges and incredible achievements. But there is also a
human being, with a body and a mind, whose genes are only the
foundations.
This major debate has to do with ethics, with the reversal of
the natural order, with individual freedom and with values.
While all major discoveries bring about significant benefits,
they also present potential dangers. According to the same
newspaper, there is already a disturbing split. “The rich
already send their children to the best schools. Tomorrow, they
will want genetic improvement, better health and more advantages
to help their children succeed”. Yet, democratic societies have
always used science and technology to try to reduce the perverse
effects of these inequalities.
Is this the type of society we want? I do not think so. We must
reflect on this. Where do science and medicine stop? Where does
the temptation to legitimize a eugenist project begin? It is a
fine line.
To adopt this bill is to refuse to cross that line, which is so
fine but which can have huge consequences for our own mutation
and that of human beings in general.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is obviously a fascinating and interesting subject.
One of the members of the Bloc said that party is not in support
of one of the proposals that was in the government's Bill C-47
which would establish a new national agency. I understand why
they would not be in support of a national agency. They are not
in support of the national government. They would like to do
away with it all. If the bill had included a suggestion that a
provincial agency be established perhaps there would have been
more acceptance.
It is fascinating. This bill is almost an anomaly. It is a
private member's bill based somewhat on the model of a government
bill that was introduced in the last parliament. Basically the
same government is now in power and is saying that it is prepared
to bring forward a government bill that will address more of the
issues of concern that are talked about by members opposite. Yet
they want to ignore that and go ahead with this particular bill
which seems to be a halfway solution to the concern.
The member for Waterloo—Wellington made a very good point that
this bill only deals with two issues of concern that were
addressed in Bill C-47. It does not go nearly far enough.
1810
There is an opportunity, if members opposite would just have a
little patience, to have a government bill which would have
substantially more significance. It could go to committee. We
need to hear from Canadians, rather than just presume they are
going to accept the changes that exist in a bill. The way to do
that is to have the Minister of Health, not the Minister of
Justice, bring in a full, properly researched bill that would
deal with all areas of the selling of sperm, eggs and embryos,
and the reproductive processes that are being discovered through
science. Let us do our homework on this.
It is interesting. Normally we would have the reverse scenario
where opposition members would be demanding that the government
bring forward a bill. Instead they are saying we should support
this particular bill, even though it does not go far enough. It
is just opposition politics.
I have not heard anyone in this place say they support the
cloning of human beings. Everyone is basically saying that the
member's bill is the right way to go, but it does not go far
enough. We think it should go further.
I quite agree with members opposite that the voluntary
moratorium is not sufficient. It does not go nearly far enough.
This bill would indeed amend the Criminal Code. That is really
the crux of the problem and the concern that we have on this
side.
Rather than deal with the merits of the proposed prohibitions in
the bill, I want to compare this bill to Bill C-47.
Similar prohibitions were contained in separate legislation, as
was mentioned by other members, back in 1996. If it was not for
the fact that the election came about that bill likely would be
in place today. It was a dramatically more comprehensive bill
than the one that is before us.
The Criminal Code contains provisions for general application.
They apply to everyone and are aimed at keeping the peace and
ensuring individual conduct is not a threat to the maintenance of
a civilized society. However, what we are trying to do here is
use the Criminal Code in an inappropriate way.
From the perspective that I have outlined, the code is not the
appropriate vehicle for the prohibitions component of a
comprehensive management regime in the complex area of scientific
and medical procedures and research. The proper place, in my
submission, is for all of this to be wrapped up and put into a
principal piece of legislation that could then go to the health
committee. It would then be taken across the country for input,
for discussion, and parliament could then enact the bill.
Perhaps some of the amendments I have heard other members talk
about should be in the bill. Perhaps there should be a way of
addressing those concerns. But by simply passing a half-baked
private member's bill that does not go far enough we will lose
the opportunity that is before parliament.
The real opportunity here is to set the direction for the moral
infrastructure of our society. Do we really want to cross that
line that I have heard other members mention? Everyone says no,
but let us make sure that no means no, that in this particular
case we are indeed dotting the i's, crossing the t's
and going far enough to ensure that we have covered all areas of
the human reproductive system and all areas of scientific study
of the human reproductive system.
When separate legislation containing these prohibitions against
certain practices related to the new reproductive and genetic
technologies was introduced in this place the intention was
expressed to introduce further legislation to add to the
regulatory controls.
I would suggest that is very critical. The bill does not deal
with the regulatory controls that I think will be so necessary to
make this effective.
1815
Those controls would provide a comprehensive management regime
for many years for NRGTs. That made it clear at that time that
it was not an appropriate subject for a Criminal Code amendment.
I have to ask hon. members opposite why the push all of a
sudden. Is it just because it happens to have wound its way back
to the surplus of the legislative agenda that they see fit to
push this through? Or, would they not agree that it would be
more appropriate to take a step back, to make sure that we are
indeed dotting the i's and crossing the t's.
I would suggest that this ongoing management regime is a
critical issue for the future of all Canadians. A major
component of that regime was to be the issuance of licences for
acceptable practices when it came to these reproductive
technologies.
There are also health and safety issues which were to be
prominent in the principles guiding the issuance of those
licences. I think all Canadians would understand it is important
that the scientific community has an opportunity to have input in
a direct way with the parliamentary community through the health
committee to deal with the issues of health and safety. It is
absolutely critical that takes place. Under the bill that would
not occur.
We believe this regulatory structure would also maintain
information registries and help surveillance systems on various
aspects. The bottom line, from what I can see and what I have
said here, it seems clear to me, is that any proposed prohibition
would find its proper place in the integrated structure of
separate principal legislation sponsored by the government and
containing a comprehensive management regime for the NRGTs rather
than being put inappropriately in the Criminal Code.
For that reason I will be opposing the bill and hopefully
looking forward to the government introducing a bill that we will
all be able to support.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that is part of a much
larger body of interrelated questions pertaining to new
reproductive technologies.
In examining the question surrounding medically assisted
reproductive technologies, we start to see how complex the whole
body of issues really is. Questions of human dignity, rights and
freedoms, genetic engineering and make-up, in vitro
fertilization, consent for medical research, profiting from
financial gain of the use of the human body and organ
transplants, rights to private life and information, and the need
for public debate and consultation are only some of the issues on
the table.
As we know many of these issues were touched on and analysed
through the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies
which reported in November 1993.
My colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, introduced
legislation that specifically addresses one aspect of the realm
of complex questions, that of cloning and genetic manipulation.
The Liberal government claims that it will introduce its own
legislation on reproductive technology, but it has also indicated
that the government's legislation will not amend the Criminal
Code. In a debate in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Health indicated that the government would treat
reproductive technologies as a health issue and just a health
issue.
However, a consideration of some of the complex issues that I
just listed reveals that increasingly the domains of health and
medicine, science, law, ethics, safety, human rights and privacy
are all interwoven. We cannot easily distinguish how these
issues are connected to the realms of business, society and
government as the lines blur and the relative roles of the
players constantly adapt and change.
There are social, legal, economic and human rights and
scientific and medical interests at stake when we start talking
about new reproductive technologies. It is naive to think that a
clear distinction can be made so that these questions could only
be classified as being health related.
Thus we cannot hope to adequately address the risks and concerns
related to human cloning without also addressing the need to
amend the Criminal Code to explicitly prohibit a practice which
cannot be justified by any ethically acceptable motive.
1820
In 1996 the government introduced Bill C-47, the Human
Reproductive and Genetic Technologies Act, which did not make
practices or techniques an offence under the Criminal Code. Bill
C-47 was also to include a regulatory framework on all techniques
of reproduction and genetic manipulation.
We have waited long enough for the Liberal government to act.
Voluntary co-operation is simply not enough in an area that so
drastically affects the life, security and safety of Canadians
and the integrity of the value of health and justice that we hold
dear.
My colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga West, asked
members in opposition to wait. He wants members to wait. I ask
him how long he wants Canadians to wait for legislation in this
area. Does he want us to wait until after human cloning has
begun?
I commend my hon. colleague from Drummond for taking action, for
she has seen something that needs to be addressed. She has gone
ahead with the bill and has asked other members to support it.
She has seen inaction on the government side, and we in
opposition are taking action in this area. That is why we are
addressing this concern today.
The whole issue of timing is important. How present is the
danger and fear about the possibility of cloning humans? In
Nature, the scientific journal published the Dolly paper to
which we are all now referring, indicated that “cloning humans
from adult tissues is likely to be achievable any time from one
to ten years from now”. That is why my hon. colleague is
bringing the bill forward. There needs to be action on this
issue and we do not see any action coming from the government.
While there have been many concerns and risks raised related to
the cloning of humans from adult cells, none has been able to
offer any ethically acceptable reason for cloning humans. The
suggestion that humans might be cloned to provide spare parts for
their progenitors has been widely condemned by individuals and
groups all around the world.
It is interesting to note the premise of convention considering
what we are debating today. The convention that is happening in
Europe around this same topic starts from the premise the
interests of human beings come before those of science or
society.
I conclude by saying that in Canada we take pride in being an
international leader in areas of health, safety and quality of
human life. It is important that we take action on this issue
and set the ethical basis for further biological and medical
developments both now and in the future.
Certainly questions of this nature will continue to permeate our
social, legal, ethical and medical institutions. It is critical
to address the issue now. As we see in the European example,
criminal penalties are included as stipulation for state
legislation. This same logic should be applied to our own
consideration as we face larger issues in bioethics and law.
In its final report the Royal Commission on Reproductive
Technologies concluded:
We have judged that certain activities conflict so sharply with
the values espoused by Canadians and by this commission and are
still potentially harmful to the interests of individuals and of
society that they must be prohibited by the federal government
under threat of criminal sanction.
The list of activities specifically mentions cloning. It is
time that we in Canada follow suit with the initiatives of other
members of the international community and explicitly prohibit
this practice. That is why I will be supporting the bill and
encouraging all other members of the House to do so.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I do not support the
bill, in case you did not know.
[Translation]
This private member's bill amends the Criminal Code to prohibit
the manipulation of a human ovum, zygote or embryo at various
stages of the development of a fertilized ovum for the purpose
of producing a cloned zygote or embryo. It will also prohibit
altering the genetic structure of an ovum, sperm, zygote or
embryo if the altered structure is likely to be transmitted to
subsequent generations, which is commonly known as germ-line
genetic alteration.
1825
These prohibitions come straight out of a Health Canada bill on
the new reproductive and genetic technologies, which contained
other prohibitions and which died on the Order Paper during the
last Parliament.
[English]
There has been evidence that cloning of human embryos is
technically possible. However, there is no evidence that
germ-line genetic alteration is being carried out.
The Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies
recommended that cloning of human embryos be illegal. The royal
commission did not support the practice of germ-line genetic
alteration since it was at odds with the commission's guiding
ethical principles.
Before the Health Canada bill was introduced in the last House,
a member asked that prohibitions dealing with new reproductive
and genetic technologies take the form of amendments to the
Criminal Code. She considered that a separate federal statute on
new reproductive and genetic technologies would be invasion of
the provincial jurisdiction over health.
An official of the health legal services met with this member
and explained that the relevant prohibitions were properly the
subject of separate federal legislation and that there was no
intention to amend the Criminal Code for this purpose. This is
still justice's position and that of the government.
[Translation]
In introducing the bill on the new reproductive and genetic
technologies, the then Minister of Health indicated it was the
government's intention to bring in a second bill setting out a
regulatory framework, which would affect the first one, dealing
with prohibitions. The purpose was to establish a comprehensive
management regime for new reproductive and genetic technologies.
However, the second bill was never introduced.
I will not discuss the merits of the proposed prohibitions. I
understand that there were similar prohibitions in a separate
bill introduced in this House in 1996. The document entitled New
Reproductive Technologies: Setting Boundaries, Enhancing Health,
published under the authority of the Minister of Health,
outlines the government's intentions at the time.
[English]
The Criminal Code contains provisions of general application,
that is they apply to everyone and are aimed at keeping the peace
and ensuring that individual conduct is not a threat to the
maintenance of a civilized society. From this perspective the
code is not an appropriate vehicle for the prohibition component
of a comprehensive management regime in a complex area of
scientific and medical procedures and research. The proper place
for such prohibitions is in the principal legislation.
When separate legislation containing prohibitions against
certain practices related to new reproductive and genetic
technologies was introduced in the House, the intention was
expressly to introduce further legislation to add the regulatory
controls that would provide a comprehensive management regime for
new reproductive and genetic technology. That made clear that
this was not an appropriate subject for a Criminal Code
amendment.
[Translation]
Licensing should be a major part of the management regime for
new reproductive technologies—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the hon.
member at this time, but when the bill returns to the House, she
will have approximately five minutes to conclude her speech if
she so desires.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1830
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, as the former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police,
I was disturbed by recent reports which suggested that some
police officers and prosecutors have backed away from
investigating motorcycle members fearing for the safety of their
families. I do not know if this is accurate or not. What I do
know is that threats, harassment and intimidation have long been
used as favourite weapons of bikers.
It is understandable how this can have an impact and a chilling
effect on police officers and prosecutors. It is especially
understandable because of the pressure it places on their spouses
and their children.
There is a lot at stake here. This is not about bikers riding
around on their motorcycles. This is about money. This is about
big business which is illegal. This is about the sale of illicit
drugs.
As a society and as a country we need to ensure that our police
officers and our prosecutors can continue to carry out their
duties without fear of threats, harassment or intimidation.
I again ask the solicitor general to fully outline what exactly
the federal government is doing to protect our police officers
and our prosecutors from these kinds of threats, harassment and
intimidation by motorcycle gang members. We owe them our full
protection.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to
thank the member for Waterloo—Wellington for his question. I
praise him for the interest he has shown in the field of
organized crime and protection of Canadian citizens.
The government has done numerous things. In 1996 we implemented
the Witness Protection Act. In 1997 we implemented the Criminal
Law Improvement Act. The most recent thing we did was implement
the anti-gang legislation.
These are tools that we feel have gone a long way to help police
attack gang activity and criminal activity. The RCMP as well as
all the other law enforcement agencies throughout the country
have one goal and that is a unified approach with a national
strategy to combat outlaw and motorcycle gangs. However the
responsibility and the jurisdiction for enforcement falls with
the local authorities.
We consider all threats to the safety of police officers a very
serious matter. I can assure the hon. member that all threats,
whether made to the police or to a prison guard for example, are
investigated fully and acted upon fully.
We need to deal with the problem of motorcycle gangs and more
specifically with organized crime in a very organized way. I
would like to inform the hon. member that to that end the
Ministry of the Solicitor General on April 24, 1998 will be
bringing together all law enforcement agencies from across Canada
to assist in developing a national strategy against organized
crime.
We have done some good work. There is still some work to do.
I want to thank the hon. member again for his question.
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, on February 9 I questioned the minister of fisheries on
his response to a British Columbia provincial court decision
which ruled that aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations
were invalid.
In granting me an absolute discharge for participating in a
protest fishery that challenged the legality of the minister's
regulations, Judge Thomas noted that I had acted in good faith
and served notice that the courts of British Columbia will not
enforce the minister's program of racially based commercial
fisheries.
Judge Thomas' words are clear and unambiguous. The regulations
allowing for an aboriginal commercial fishery “have no legal
validity and are therefore null and void”. Judge Thomas stated
“the fishery was not lawfully open to anyone”.
Once the courts have ruled a set of regulations to be invalid,
it is not open to the minister to say the regulations are valid.
Yet the minister has done just that. Within an hour of the
conclusion of my sentencing hearing, the minister issued a
statement saying “I appreciate the views of the judge in this
case. However, opinions are opinions. Such opinions are not
binding on superior courts of British Columbia”.
1835
The minister stated further that this decision does not suspend
or nullify the aboriginal communal fishing licensing regulations.
He noted that it does not preclude the department from
authorizing aboriginal commercial fishing under the existing
regulatory regime.
The minister is right when he says that the decision does not
bind the Supreme Court of British Columbia. But it does bind the
minister. The Supreme Court of British Columbia can overturn a
lower court decision, but the minister of fisheries cannot. That
is the rule of law.
It is up to the courts to decide if regulations established by
the government are consistent with an authorization given by
Parliament. When the court decides that regulations were not
authorized by Parliament, it is not open to the minister or the
government to ignore the clear and unambiguous words of the
court. The government may write regulations, but it does not have
the last word on their validity or legality.
Judge Thomas challenged the government on February 6 stating
that if it was not happy with his decision, then it must appeal
it to a higher court. Judge Thomas concluded his remarks to the
court on February 6 with the following admonition. He said “It
is, I think, appropriate to note that the rule of law does exist,
not just for individuals but also for the government”.
This country and this Parliament is founded on the rule of law.
The crown made much of that at my sentencing hearing on February
6.
On February 23, 1998 the minister was quoted in the Hill
Times as saying “it would be a strange impression for a
minister to give, to break the law”. On March 6, 1998 the
minister was quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying “but
you have to recognize that everyone has to obey the law, or the
law breaks down”.
I challenge the minister to live up to his words, to obey the
law and respect the decisions of our courts.
If the minister believes that the judge has erred in law, then
he must find a way to take the matter to a higher court for a
ruling on the issue. Until that is done, the law in British
Columbia is clear. The aboriginal communal fishing licences
regulations are invalid and have no legal authority.
It is now time that the minister acknowledged that the
government is not exempt from the rule of law. It is now time for
the minister to stop using the courts to harass fishermen who
protest fisheries regulations already found to be invalid by the
courts.
Currently 30 fishermen are before the courts on trumped up
charges. Such a flagrant abuse of power smacks of jackboots and
the KGB, not the fisheries minister in a democratic society.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order. The time has
expired.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member
alleges that the minister is defying the courts and that the
policy of pilot sales should be dropped.
DFO is not defying the court. The judge offered opinions, only
opinions, on the validity of the aboriginal communal fishing
licensing regulations. Those comments were made in obiter, in
passing so to speak, and had nothing to do with the case before
him, which was the hon. member's prosecution for illegal fishing.
This decision does not cancel the aboriginal fisheries strategy.
It does not nullify the aboriginal communal fishing licensing
regulations. It does not preclude DFO from authorizing aboriginal
commercial fishing, including pilot sales arrangements under the
existing regulatory regime.
In short, there is nothing in Judge Thomas' decision that alters
the minister's authority to allocate and manage fisheries
resources in the interests of all Canadians.
The judge's comments were taken seriously by the minister. He
asked for a review of the regulations and the legal basis for
pilot sales.
During the week of February 2, 1998, based on expert advice, he
concluded that the current regulations provide a sound legal
basis for the pilot sales fisheries.
The minister intends to continue with the pilot sales program in
1998. Pursuant to this decision, DFO officials are currently
discussing with all affected parties how to refine and make
improvements to the fisheries that will be acceptable to all
parties in the fishing community.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.39 p.m.)