36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 114
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 3, 1998
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH AND MACHINERY SHOW
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| TEACHING EXCELLENCE
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| ENVIRONMENT WEEK
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| SENATE
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1405
| REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| MEMBER FOR TÉMISCAMINGUE
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| TIANANMEN SQUARE
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1410
| BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. David Price |
| BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1430
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TOBACCO ACT
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| AIR TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
1440
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| THE SENATE
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1445
| ASBESTOS
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| CRIME PREVENTION
|
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| VETERANS
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| TOBACCO PUBLICITY
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1450
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| CRIME PREVENTION
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
1455
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| JOB CREATION
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| MAPLE SYRUP INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1500
| JUSTICE
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments during Question Period
|
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1505
| The Speaker |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| TOBACCO ACT
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. George S. Baker |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1510
| TOBACCO ACT
|
| Bill C-42. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| LOUIS RIEL ACT
|
| Bill C-417. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
| Bill S-16. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1515
| PETITIONS
|
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Canada Labour Code
|
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Seniors Benefit
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1520
| Tobacco
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Osteoporosis
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Seniors Benefits
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Income Tax
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Transferred for debate
|
1525
| Mr. Randy White |
| Transferred for debate
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Transferred for debate
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Transferred for debate
|
| Transferred for debate
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Transferred for debate
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Transferred for debate
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Transferred for debate
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| JUDGES ACT
|
| Bill C-37. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
1530
| Motions in Amendment
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 1
|
1535
1540
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1545
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1550
1555
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1600
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1605
1610
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1615
1620
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1625
1630
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1635
| Mr. Dick Harris |
1640
1645
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1650
1655
| Mr. René Canuel |
1700
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1705
1710
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1715
1720
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-366. Second reading
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1750
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1755
1800
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1805
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1810
1815
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1820
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1825
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1830
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Transferred for debate
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1835
| Mr. Robert D. Nault |
| North American Free Trade Agreement
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1840
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| Varennes Tokamak
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1845
| Mr. Robert D. Nault |
| Hepatitis C
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1850
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1855
| The Environment
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1900
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 114
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 3, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Saint
John.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH AND MACHINERY SHOW
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year the 85th
International Plowing Match and Machinery Show, IPM '98, will
be held in Sunbury near Kingston in my riding of
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington from September 15 to
September 19.
This is the largest outdoor agricultural exhibition in North
America. The theme for the five day event is “Quality Living, a
partnership” which points to the interdependence between urban
and rural communities.
More than 125,000 people are expected to view the approximately
1,000 exhibits ranging from farm, gardening and recreational
equipment to antiques, educational displays, crafts, magnificent
farm animals, demonstrations, and live country music.
Plowers from age 7 to 70 will take part. In addition to the
regular classes, this match will also feature the Canadian
Plowing Championship. I particularly like the
federal-provincial plowing competition for elected officials.
Mr. Speaker and honoured colleagues, I throw down the gauntlet
and challenge you to pit yourselves and your furrows against me
in September and help make IPM '98 a great success.
* * *
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today the Reform Party of Canada begins its second year as Her
Majesty's loyal official opposition. We will continue to hold
the Liberals accountable for their mismanagement. The Liberals
use closure to debate and prevent free votes. Many MPs only look
through the lens of political stripes, not the lens of issues.
Partisan politics is applied to compensation for hep C victims,
Senate reform, rebalancing Confederation, the CPP and the YOA.
Debate is about sharing and listening to different viewpoints.
Yet the official opposition has to regularly call for quorum
forcing Liberal members to participate in debate.
Canadians are getting value for money from Reform MPs because
our performance springs from true grassroots democracy as
demonstrated at our London assembly.
Let us work together and make Canada a better place.
* * *
TEACHING EXCELLENCE
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's awards for teaching excellence
began five years ago to honour science, technology and
mathematics teachers.
The award recipients come from all parts of Canada. I am
delighted that one of our own teachers in Guelph—Wellington is
an award winner.
I would like to extend special congratulations to Ms. Patricia
Bell who was awarded a certificate of excellence by our Prime
Minister for her teaching excellence. Ms. Bell is a Latin teacher
at Centennial Collegiate and Vocational Institute in Guelph. A
sign on her classroom wall reads “Latin is more than a
language”. She encourages activities that highlight the
relevance of Latin today.
Guelph—Wellington is the best place to live in Canada because
of teachers like Ms. Bell. Ms. Bell, your contributions are
truly appreciated. Guelph—Wellington is really proud of you.
* * *
[Translation]
ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Environment Week in Canada, I wish to acknowledge
the work of environmental groups and the contribution of
pollution control industries.
Environmental groups have remarkable expertise and offer very
relevant suggestions, which may be useful to governments,
industry and the public in making decisions.
In addition, tens of thousands of people in the environmental
industry work on a daily basis to clean up our environment and
to develop strategies and technologies aimed at cleaning up the
mess or, better yet, at preventing pollution and protecting our
biodiversity.
Since this week is Environment Week—and tomorrow UN World
Environment Day—I as a parliamentarian would like to commend
all the people who, as volunteers or employees, make every week
Environment Week and every day Environment Day.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
entrepreneurship is growing. It is flourishing among Canada's
youth. During the past week there were two events involving
Kitchener Centre which demonstrated this fact.
Team 5 founded by Kitchener residents Abhi Ahluwalia, Arvinder
Ahluwalia and Way Tang received the Students In Free Enterprise
of Canada first prize for the wholesale distribution category in
the 1997-98 National Business Plan Competition for Young
Entrepreneurs, as well as the Spirit of Entrepreneurship award at
a ceremony here in Ottawa last Thursday.
Team 5 creates and distributes a unique line of message clothing
and accessories promoting equality, justice, respect and
wellness.
In addition to receiving a number of noteworthy awards, their
innovative idea has also provided them with the opportunity to
meet Her Majesty the Queen.
In Kitchener this past weekend I along with the hon. Ethel
Blondin-Andrew had the opportunity to participate—
The Speaker: Colleagues I would just remind you that we
should not use each other's names while we are in the House. The
hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
* * *
SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
once again our upper chamber has made a case for Senate reform.
Yesterday the supreme court convicted a Tory senator for
influence peddling. Next week this Mulroney appointee will be
sentenced and faces up to five years in prison.
The Constitution Act, 1867 lays the foundation for the
resignation of this senator. The Criminal Code calls for
resignation if he is convicted for more than two years in prison.
1405
We should take note it took the supreme court to hold this
wayward senator accountable. Now it is up to the Senate or the
senator himself to act responsibly and do the honourable thing
which is to resign.
Should the senator not resign, the Senate has only one option
and that is to deal with the senator's criminal conviction.
Canadians do not want a senator from prison any more than they
want a senator from Mexico. So resign, Senator Cogger, and
resign now.
* * *
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party is worried about its dropping membership numbers
and the impact it will have on its ability to fundraise. This is
at a time when it is supposed to be attracting busloads of new
members to its so-called united alternative campaign.
But fear not. At its convention last week the party announced a
bold new strategy to address this problem. Just like K-Tel
records, Reform is offering free giveaways to entice Canadians to
join the party.
Buy three memberships and get an additional one absolutely free.
Even better, Reform says “Act now and we will give you discounts
for a stay at the Travelodge or a free trial subscription to an
open-minded publication like Alberta Report”.
I can only imagine what is next. Buy a Reform membership and
get a free Ginsu steak knife or a can of spray-on hair, or maybe
a copy of the Reform Party platform entitled “Hits of the
Fifties”.
The Reform Party will soon realize that gimmicks do not sell—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Abitibi.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR TÉMISCAMINGUE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for months now,
the Bloc Quebecois member for Témiscamingue has been secretly
touring the Canadian provinces with Reform members. The Bloc
Quebecois member for Témiscamingue is in favour of bringing
their two parties closer together.
Today, the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue are starting to
realize that there is a double agent in the Bloc Quebecois.
It seems to me that this member is trying to follow in the
footsteps of former agent Claude Morin.
* * *
[English]
TIANANMEN SQUARE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow marks the ninth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square
massacre.
On the night of June 3, 1989 the Communist People's Liberation
Army surrounded students and workers rallying peacefully for
democracy in Tiananmen Square. In the early hours of June 4,
troops and police opened fire. Tanks rolled in. Armour-piercing
bullets tore through human flesh.
Three thousand died that morning. Hundreds of young people who
were arrested are still being held in Beijing's brutal prisons
today.
On this anniversary the Chinese people demand a new China, a
democratic China with a free press, a China that respects human
dignity. But their voice is stifled as more dissidents are
arrested every week.
Pathetically the Chinese communist government said today that
the massacre of pro-democracy students at Tiananmen was a correct
conclusion and that there is no need to reassess the issue.
Let us never forget the brave young people and workers who died
and those who are still in prison for no crime except for
expressing their belief in democracy.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more than
225 workers in the Mauricie region have forwarded a petition to
me in which they call for the federal government, which is
acting in a manner prejudicial to them, to increase the maximum
insurable earnings for EI to $49,750.
These same workers describe as discriminatory the provisions in
the bill concerning the number of weeks of regular benefits
accumulated since June 30, 1996 as well as those imposing a 1%
penalty each time they reapply.
In the text accompanying the petition, they state as follows:
“We do not go on employment insurance by choice—we do not
choose to lose our jobs, yet you penalize us still further—as
if we had a choice— You are committing genocide on the
middle classes, and taking away from others any hope of
improving their lot”.
The petitioners rightly point out as well that there is a whole
family behind every signature.
* * *
[English]
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform-separatist alliance seems to be moving ahead now. The
meetings between the Bloc and Reform MPs have been officially
endorsed by Lucien Bouchard. Who knows, if this courtship period
is successful, we might see the creation of a brand new party.
The Re-Bloc comes to mind.
What is entirely clear is that if this is the Reform's idea of
how a united alternative will work, then it already appears to be
falling apart.
1410
As one commentator put it “It is extremely unwise for a
federalist party to say it wants to attract separatists or
sovereigntists whether they are called hard or soft”. This
comment was made by none other than Stephen Harper who used to be
a Reform MP. Perhaps he foresaw the desperate lengths that his
former leader would go to to try to become Prime Minister.
Canadians rejected this scheme when Brian Mulroney and the
Progressive Conservatives tried it and they will reject the
Reform-Bloc coalition just as quickly.
* * *
[Translation]
BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last May I
took part in the 55th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic,
accompanied by other parliamentarians and Canadian navy and air
force veterans.
The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest and most important
naval campaign of the entire war. Great Britain's survival and
the liberation of Europe depended on the supply convoys of the
merchant marine, protected from marauding enemy submarines by
the Canadian navy.
This battle was costly in Canadian lives: 2,024 lives lost,
including 752 Royal Canadian Air Force members and 1,200
merchant mariners.
I salute the courage and determination of these veterans and
thank them on behalf of us all. We shall always remember them.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the National Forum on Climate Change reports many immediate steps
can and should be taken to respond to the Kyoto commitment and to
address the issue of climate change.
The contribution of these distinguished Canadians, Order of
Canada recipients, are to be congratulated. They have studied
the issue and reached a decision: act now.
The commissioner for the environment's annual report described
the Liberal government's failing grade on the environment and
especially in the climate change commitments. The report included
references to a lack of leadership and political will. The lack
of action on climate change could be disastrous.
The finance minister stated yesterday that the environment is
very important. As the environment commissioner said, lots of
talk, but little action.
Canadians are fed up with the Liberal environment failures on
CEPA enforcement, climate change, harmonization, pesticides,
POPs. As Canada's distinguished citizens stated today, enough
talk, more action, act now.
* * *
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party has finally come out of the closet. It wants
Quebec out of Canada.
Canadians knew that Reform's leader could never be Prime
Minister of a Canada that included Quebec. He does not have the
support. Now by working with the separatists he has made it
clear. Becoming Prime Minister of a rump Canada that has no
Quebec is more important to Reform's leader than taking measures
to keep Canada whole.
To be sure, Reform's leader has the approval of none other than
Lucien Bouchard who called Reform's plans one of the most
positive proposals in years. When Bouchard says an idea is
positive, we know what he means: a step closer to an independent
Quebec.
When Reform has allies like Bouchard, it is clear they are
working together to break up Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is now official: Lucien Bouchard has approved a
Reform-Sovereignist alliance.
Here is the constitutional menu for this evening.
The appetizer will be Sovereign-Reform membership cards; the main
dish, constitutional cookies with green and blue chips, in which
not even Mr. Christie would be interested; a salad with Reform
vinegar dressing; but no meat to sink your teeth into, because
the plan lacks any content.
And the masters of ceremony are none other than the
internationally renowned comedians Preston Duceppe and Gilles
Manning.
1415
The Speaker: Once again, I would ask all my colleagues not to
use members' names in the House.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the largest service contract ever awarded by the
Canadian government was given to the Prime Minister's favourite
company, then the government's contracting guidelines should have
been followed to the letter, but they were not. There were no
competitive bids, there was no public notice and the government
refuses to answer access to information requests.
My question for Bombardier's favourite relative is this. If the
deal was so good on its own merits, why did the government find
it necessary to bend the contracting rules?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this contract had been discussed and everyone had
knowledge of it.
In fact, yesterday Don Chynoweth, the director of business
affairs of Frontec Corporation of Edmonton, said “We have kept
the Reform Party informed of this for three and a half years. The
former Reform member of parliament responsible for Moose Jaw up
until the last election”, who is presently the member of
parliament for Blackstrap, “was more than involved in it and
more than encouraging to us, as we were keeping him briefed”.
For years they were informed and now they are complaining.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is the taxpayer who has the right to see the
information exchanged between the government and Bombardier that
led to an unsolicited, untendered and unadvertised $2.85 billion
contract.
It has been seven months since the official opposition formally
requested the government to disclose how this contract was
arrived at. We have repeated this request every month since then
and all we got was a worthless verbal briefing from the
government.
If this deal is really as clean as the Prime Minister says it
is, why has he been suppressing the relevant documentation on
this deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have absolutely nothing to hide. Perhaps I will keep
reading from this well informed person.
He said “By Reform putting forward the notion that it should
have been tendered, I guess what they are saying is perhaps they
wanted it in a foreign company's hands because there was no other
Canadian consortium or company that was interested or capable of
pulling this together”.
This is a western company which wanted to work with the Canadian
government to make sure the Moose Jaw base was kept open.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if what the Prime Minister says is true, if this deal is
really that beneficial to Canadians, then the Prime Minister
should have no difficulty at all in proving that point to the
House. All he has to do is lay before the House the documents
that show how this contract was arrived at and how it led to this
$2.85 billion deal.
Why does the Prime Minister not back up his claims that this is
a great thing by tabling in the House the documents, not excuses,
that will prove his point?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the Minister of National Defence and the Minister
of Public Works and Government Services are willing to give all
of the information that they should already know because they
were part of the deal, through their members of parliament.
I know the problem of the Leader of the Opposition. He wants to
talk about something else because he has had quite a year.
1420
First he moved to Stornoway. Then he jumped into bed with
Lucien Bouchard. Now we should check his feet to see if he is
wearing Guccis.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would urge all hon. members
to please stick to the issues as much as they can.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
with that kind of rhetoric coming from the Prime Minister,
obviously they do have something to hide.
Bombardier got an untendered, unadvertised, non-competitive
contract amounting to $2.85 billion. The government says that it
did not have the time to make this contract competitive.
However, Public Works' documents show that it took three years to
close the deal.
My question to the Prime Minister is: Three years? Why no
competition?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department wrote to the Reform Party
on March 24 of this year and offered it access to every document
involved in this whole endeavour. What was its response?
Silence. Absolute silence. Reform members were not interested
at all in looking at the details of this arrangement, which will
create jobs in western Canada, jobs which they are now willing to
give up. There are over 5,000 person years in jobs. Ninety per
cent of them will be in western Canada. The base in Moose Jaw
will be saved.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we still do not have any foreign NATO customers using
Bombardier's training school. It is obvious, too, that NATO was
willing to extend any deadline before this process was finished.
Obviously NATO was in no rush.
Again I ask the Prime Minister: Three years? Why no
competition?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact NATO extended the deadline. But
NATO clearly indicated that it would have to know from us by June
1996 whether or not we were going to be in a position to provide
this training facility. Otherwise it would have looked at
alternatives. We had to move very quickly to make sure that we
could provide this service.
Are there foreign customers? At this point in time none have
signed. However, a lot of interest has been expressed.
Let me tell members that all of the risk will be in the private
sector. All of the risk will be borne by the consortium.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health intimated yesterday that the discussions in
Edmonton would lead to a definitive settlement of the hepatitis
C issue.
However, at that moment, the representatives of the victims were
slamming the door as they left the meeting, exasperated by the
federal government's refusal to compensate all victims.
How does the Prime Minister explain the optimism of his Minister
of Health, when the victims' representatives are saying that the
discussions in Edmonton have gone nowhere because of a lack of
clear commitment by the federal government to compensate all
victims?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
everyone knows, we had an agreement in this matter, signed by
all the provinces, the territories and the federal government.
Two governments broke the agreement and want another proposal.
At the moment, the provincial representatives are meeting to
find out what can be done in the matter as it stands. People
should not jump to conclusions before the negotiations are over.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government is saying it has shown leadership in this matter.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, if he wants to show
leadership, he must make his intention to compensate all victims
clear from the start, as the governments of Quebec and Ontario
have done?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Quebec offered nothing. It said “We will send
the bill to the federal government”. That was how they
co-operated. It is easy to say “You will be compensated; someone
else is going to pay”. That is Mr. Bouchard's type of courage.
Again, I think those people have a problem with their marriage.
They want to arrange a marriage between the Reform Party and the
Bloc Quebecois, but the bride wants to talk about separation
even before the wedding.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in Edmonton
yesterday, a representative for hepatitis C victims said that
the working group cannot improve the compensation options
because the federal government has not yet agreed to provide
compensation.
What guarantee is there that the federal government truly wants
to see the hepatitis C compensation issue move forward, when it
had to be prodded into sitting down with the provinces to
discuss the issue and its officials lacked any mandate?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is patently untrue. The
mere fact that there were discussions over the course of the last
couple of days in Edmonton is a clear indication of the federal
government's commitment to listen to everybody and to bring all
the parties together to arrive at a solution.
The fact that the working group has received several submissions
and has now got them on the table, is working on them and
considering them with all the deliberation that they merit is an
indication of leadership that is functioning.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we think the
discussions have gone on long enough; it has been two months.
Can the Prime Minister at least give us an official assurance
that his government's strategy is not to drag out the
negotiations until the summer and then quietly wrap things up
after the House has recessed for the summer?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no strategy to prejudge
anything and there is no strategy to thwart anything.
The member opposite will recognize that the process has been
extremely open and it includes, as well, the victims and their
representatives.
Once the working group is in place it will come forward with a
presentation which will be the presentation that will be acted
on. I know she wants to make the process work and I think she
should allow that to happen.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Tens of thousands of women in Canada and the United States are
suffering severe health problems from breast implants. Yesterday
in this House the health minister made it clear that he is
totally unconcerned, so unconcerned that he authorized his own
officials to go to the United States to serve as expert witnesses
in the courts, defending the manufacturers of these hazardous
devices.
What is the Prime Minister prepared to do about those
irresponsible actions of the health minister?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member would get away from
bombast for a moment and listen to some of the facts she would
understand that there has been responsibility all the way
through.
The minister of health of the day, a Conservative minister,
conducted two audits of the department and its methods and
approaches to the regulatory process. The first audit, an
internal audit, indicated that the department was following the
regulatory process to the letter.
The second audit, which was conducted by Peat Marwick Thorne,
gave an indication that there was an assiduous following of the
rules and regulations—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
unbelievably these saline breast implants about which this member
does not want to talk are in widespread use in Canada today. To
quote one expert “All such devices have the same leaky valves
that don't hold water. They grow algae and fungi like a dirty
aquarium”.
Why does this government continue to allow this threat to
women's health?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fear that the member is more
interested in fearmongering than in the facts. Since this party
came to government there has been no sale allowed in Canada of
silicone gel-filled implants at all.
In fact, if credit must be given, there has not been any such
sale permitted in Canada since 1991.
1430
I do not know whereof the hon. member speaks. We are conducting
ourselves in a most responsible fashion. We are requiring all
manufacturers to meet the safety and quality standards required
by health protection—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would encourage members that if the
question is asked they have the courtesy to listen to the
response.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
federal government offices in Newfoundland and Labrador from Port
au Bras to St. Anthony are shut down today by protesting
fishermen and fish plant workers.
In 1995 fishing industry stakeholders in Quebec and Newfoundland
negotiated a sharing arrangement for turbot, 82% for Quebec and
18% for Newfoundland.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Why has the federal
government discriminated against Newfoundland and Labrador turbot
fishermen by taking fish from them and giving them to Quebec? Why
has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans arbitrarily changed a
successful negotiated sharing arrangement?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been no
such decision made on the basis of being discriminatory. In fact
the 1995 sharing arrangement was a temporary arrangement.
Despite efforts by the department to work with both sides and
facilitate a long term agreement, the minister had to make a
decision because the parties were unable to agree. That decision
has been made.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr.
Speaker, let me say to the parliamentary secretary that this
agreement has worked successfully for three years. It is only
now that the minister has arbitrarily broken this negotiated
sharing agreement that we have protests in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Will the Prime Minister intercede with the federal Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans to restore the sharing arrangement agreement
to 82% for Quebec and 18% for Newfoundland and everyone will be
happy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will certainly look into the request of the member.
There must be a very good reason. I have not had a chance to
talk with the minister of fisheries because he is not able to
work today.
I will talk with him. Probably he has a very good reason, but I
will transmit to him the representation of the hon. member and
the member of my caucus from Newfoundland who raised the problem
this morning.
* * *
TOBACCO ACT
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
government promised us real good, tough tobacco ad legislation
back in October. Now we find that the legislation will not kick
in until the year 2003.
The Prime Minister broke his first promise. Why should we
believe that this promise will be kept?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister will make an announcement at 3.15 and give
the details.
The bill will be before the House very soon. If members want
the bill to pass they should vote for it very rapidly.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it would
not make very much difference how rapidly we voted for it. It
will be five years before the ad ban comes in, five years of
negotiating and fighting in courts by the tobacco companies, five
years of big money finding solutions so that they can get around
it, and five years of kids smoking who should not have to smoke
because the government is too week.
Why should every Canadian not say that the Prime Minister has
nicotine stains on his hands?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member's silliness is getting
away from him.
One of the things the member wants to do is to wait until House
procedures allow for the tabling of the legislation. Then he
will be satisfied, as he was with the last one, with the very
vigorous approach to dealing with a serious health issue.
He will find that he should be applauding the total ban when it
is brought forward if that is in fact what he will find. I am
confident that he will be happy the minister will have shown such
vigour.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, even the Montreal Gazette, not exactly a
separatist publication, has just come out in support of what the
students of Quebec think, what the educators think, and what the
Bloc Quebecois thinks, which is that the government ought to
give up on its millennium scholarships.
1435
When will the federal government finally admit that it is
barking up the wrong tree with this, by insisting on ramming
this project through regardless?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have set aside $2.5 billion, thanks to the government's good
financial performance up to the end of the fiscal year on March
31.
This we put in trust so that it would be administered by people
totally independent of the government, with only one objective,
namely to give all Canadian students the chance to have a
millennium scholarship.
Every year for 10 years, 100,000 students, even those from
Quebec, will be able to benefit from the federal government's
good management.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, after telling us with a straight face that the
employment insurance program is a good one, even if 60% of the
unemployed are no longer eligible, after telling us that
unemployed young people should be glad that three-quarters of
them are no longer eligible, now he wants to shove his
millennium scholarships down our throats, even if nobody wants
them.
By refusing to heed the wishes of the public, is the Prime
Minister himself not proving that he is unable to respect
Quebec's wishes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
must tell you that, when I am travelling around Quebec, young
Quebeckers tell me they want to have the same advantages as
others, and they are totally determined to get the education
they need to be competitive in the 21st century.
They are very glad to have a government that has their interests
at heart and is not just using their future as an excuse for
petty politics.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister and his health minister have been telling us
for some days now to wait for the results of this week's
hepatitis C working group in Edmonton.
The meeting is over and the hepatitis C representatives describe
it as a huge disappointment and as a bureaucratic runaround.
Those are their words.
Is it not true that all along this Prime Minister wanted these
talks to fail?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess it must be a day for
being down and being a bit of a fearmonger.
We said that we were to receive all submissions, consider all
ideas, bring all the partners together and try to fashion a
consensus because that is the only way things can work. We have
received those. We also invited the representatives of the
hepatitis C victims groups who made their submissions.
Now it is time for us to let the working group digest that
material and fashion something that can be worked out to the
satisfaction of all concerned.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the parliamentary secretary knows that it was a stall tactic,
pure and simple.
These victims will not be playing golf this summer because they
will be waiting for them to come back with some supposed answer
in the fall and stall it further.
The Prime Minister is holding on to the no new money option,
which is why the representatives walked out yesterday. The Prime
Minister can hardly be proud of himself. What will he do now to
honour the commitment he made in a vote in the House on May 5 to
“address the financial needs of all those hepatitis C victims?”
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government has not
entered into any discussions with any preconceived or
predetermined notions.
The mere fact we are there is an indication that we take our
commitment seriously. I repeat for members on both sides of the
House that we brought all the partners together so we could
consider all the options people brought to the table to give the
working group something to work with.
After the working group deliberates and digests all the
suggestions—and there have been many—and completes its study
there will be something for implementation. Why not let the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
This morning's edition of Le Devoir reported that the way the
transport minister decided to carve up air routes had Air Canada
dismayed, while Canadian was jubilant.
How can the minister justify his department's attitude on the
air route issue, when Air Canada, headquartered in Montreal, is
always losing out to Canadian, which is using the government's
generosity to expand its operations?
1440
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that for the last nine months my
officials have been working with Air Canada and with Canadian
Airlines to strike a balance on new international air routes.
Those discussions were quite fruitful in some cases such as the
trade-off for Canadian to serve Osaka from Vancouver and for
daily service to Hong Kong by Air Canada from Toronto. On other
issues there was disagreement.
The government believes that Canada needs a competitive airline
industry. We believe in the viability of two air companies. We
want to make sure that any new routes are fair and equitable to
both companies.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how can the minister say he is being fair to Air
Canada, when the Hong Kong market, which is estimated at 500,000
passengers, is still hard for it to access fully, with the
number of passengers required for a second designation set at
300,000?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we brought in a policy three or four years ago in
terms of when a market reaches 300,000. Then we designate a
second carrier.
In some cases such as with Taiwan, which Air Canada wants to
serve, we just do not have the figures to confirm that the
300,000 passenger mark has been reached. I expect that will be
reached this year and therefore Air Canada will probably be
allowed to service Taiwan as of next year.
This is an evolving file. We want to make sure that each
company has access to the international routes, but we believe
that Canadian Airlines has to be allowed the time for its
restructuring plan to bear fruit.
* * *
THE SENATE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Michel Cogger is a convicted criminal who spends part of his time
being a senator. Yesterday he was convicted of bribes of more
than $200,000 to influence Senate decision making. Mr. Speaker,
do you know what his defence was? He said “Nobody told me it
was wrong”.
Legally his salary is guaranteed and his seat is secured. The
Prime Minister wrote a letter to Andy Thompson asking him to
resign. When will he do the same for Michel Cogger?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in relation to members of the other house, they have
rules and regulations there. We have a system of law in Canada
and we do not know if he will decide to appeal or not.
We have to respect the system and the other house is in charge
of its own procedure. We will see what the end result is of
these proceedings which have not been completed at this time.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister did not hesitate at all to write a letter to
the upper house about Andy Thompson. There are some amazing
similarities between the upper house and the big house.
Here are a few of them. It costs about the same to house a
prisoner as it does a senator. Both are full of colourful
characters who are serving a life term and do you know what, Mr.
Speaker—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: You have to give the Chair a little room in
the preamble. I ask the hon. member to go directly to her
question.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I will. Thank you very
much. Canadians will get an elected Senate sooner or later, by
hook or by crook. When will it be?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when there will be an elected Senate there will be an
elected Senate for all Canadians at the same time.
If we were to elect the Senate today, it would be ensuring
forever that there will be only six senators in Alberta. I do
not understand why those who have 30 seats in the east would want
to let that power go. They received it at the time of
Confederation.
If we want reform of the Senate we need a complete one with
equality and effectiveness. I do not think a little scheme to
score political points is in the best interest of the people of
Alberta or Canada.
* * *
1445
[Translation]
ASBESTOS
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Yesterday, as a result of a Bloc Quebecois initiative, diplomats
visited the Lac d'Amiante mine in Thetford and had an
opportunity to learn about the product and its safe use.
Why does the federal government not follow the Bloc Quebecois'
lead and also take the offensive in order to reassure countries—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for International Trade.
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the member that he and
his party are actually late, because my colleague, the Minister
of Natural Resources, has already implemented the safe principle
plan.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to
the separatists there are no minority francophone communities.
Would the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us about the state
of the French language in the rest of the country and especially
in the west?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure all members will join me in celebrating the
fact that, in recent years, the number of French speaking
Manitobans has grown to over 100,000.
It is unfortunate, however, that the Bloc Quebecois is joining
with the Reform Party in a Pontius Pilate type policy to isolate
and assimilate all minority languages outside Quebec, because
they do not want French spoken in Canada.
* * *
[English]
CRIME PREVENTION
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that was
not a bad question from that Liberal backbencher, but it
certainly was a pathetic answer.
The Speaker: Colleagues, please, you are pushing it now.
I want the hon. member to give us his own question.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
justice minister.
The official opposition is very supportive of crime prevention
programs, in particular for our youth. However, 50% of the $32
million earmarked for the minister's crime prevention program is
going to administration.
Why is the minister giving this money to bureaucrats rather than
spending it on children in need?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no idea where the hon.
member got that information. In fact, over 90% of the $32
million my colleague, the solicitor general, and I announced
yesterday will go directly to communities to ensure they have
safe streets and safe homes.
* * *
VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
secret documents just released by War Amps Association prove that
the Liberal government of 1955 was involved in a cover-up of Hong
Kong war veterans' claim rights. Forty-three years later another
Liberal government is continuing this injustice.
Will the veterans affairs minister apologize for the 1955
cover-up of Hong Kong veterans' rights and get on with the task
of getting compensation for slavery by Japan in World War II?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised the same question yesterday.
A treaty was signed between two countries. Compensation was
given at that time.
If the hon. member has any other information to pass on, we are
quite prepared to look at it and investigate. Once again, by
making this kind of assertion and allegation he does dishonour to
the people who gave their lives in Hong Kong.
* * *
[Translation]
TOBACCO PUBLICITY
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The health of Canadians warrants an immediate ban on tobacco
company sponsorships.
1450
The Minister of Health is today proposing a five year
postponement. Why wait? So that young people can take up
smoking?
What is the government's intention—preventing or promoting the
use of tobacco?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister will table the
legislation before the House in about 25 minutes and I am sure
the member opposite will be anxious to examine that legislation
and see whether her allegations would withstand a test of ink on
paper.
I dare say she may find herself in total surprise because the
interests of this government are, have been and will continue
to be the health of all Canadians, nothing else.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is pretty clear that what the government
plans to do today and what we are dealing with is the sad truth
of a cave-in to the tobacco industry and a cop-out to the health
and well-being of Canada's youth. Why are we dealing today with
giving more time to the tobacco lobbyists, giving more time for
kids to get hooked on cigarettes?
If a ban on tobacco sponsored advertising is a good idea five
years from now, why is it not the right thing to do today?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member in her research will
probably have come across a supreme court decision that reversed
the situation as it was a few years ago.
Our government, since we were elected in 1993, has been
addressing these issues. In the last parliament just before the
session ended we presented legislation that addressed
specifically the health of young people and smoking habits. It
dealt with promotion. It dealt with sponsorship and we are
continuing in a balanced approach that will withstand the
scrutiny of the courts as well as the scrutiny of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
CRIME PREVENTION
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice will spend $133.9 million
this year launching the unworkable long gun registration system,
an outrageous sum when compared with the scraps allocated by the
Minister of Justice in her crime prevention strategy announced
yesterday.
The minister said in Calgary on May 20 we should be embarrassed
by this announcement. Can the minister tell the House now if the
$32 million announced yesterday is new money or part of the same
embarrassing crime prevention announced in the youth justice
strategy two weeks ago?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the hon.
member that what I said was that as a society we should all be
concerned about the fact that we spend over, conservatively
estimated, $32 billion a year on the back end of the justice
system to investigate crime, to prosecute it and to keep people
in jail. My point was that we as a society need to take
leadership in preventing crime, and that is exactly what this
government did yesterday.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of
Canada chose to hide from parliament once again by making their
crime prevention announcement outside the House.
Once again the Liberal government has put its own political spin
doctoring ahead of presenting substantive policy here in this
House. Members of parliament have to cool their heels until
tomorrow or read it in the paper to find out what this is all
about.
Will the Minister of Justice commit today to stop treating
members of parliament and the public like nobodies and present
substantive policies here in the House of Commons?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no one, including the
solicitor general and I, has hidden this policy. We have been
talking about this for months.
Yesterday we made that announcement at a youth centre in this
city where an entire community has turned itself around because
of that youth centre. That is why we were there. That is an
example of what this government stands for.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
A constituent of mine, Mr. Patrick Jay Green, has served over
half his sentence in a Costa Rican prison. Under terms of
agreement with the host country Patrick, who is ill, should have
been in Canada already.
What assurances can the minister give my constituent and his
family that he will soon be transferred to Canada?
1455
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to compliment the hon. member for
the active work he has undertaken on behalf of this case.
I am pleased to report that the authorities we met with in Costa
Rica have now agreed to the approval of the transfer and Mr.
Green will be back in Canada shortly.
* * *
JOB CREATION
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for the
last 10 days the minister of human resources has been asked to
account for the scandals with his transitional jobs fund.
Millions of dollars of job creation money has been wasted for
politics. One hundred and twenty-four jobs have been lost, one
million dollars has been lost on BPS, one-third of a million
dollars has been lost on Cape Shore Sea Foods. Ten days have
come and gone. Pleading ignorance will not do. What is the
minister's excuse?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no
scandal. The member has been making false statements in the
House all the time saying that the Cape Shore people had not been
paid a cent. They have been paid for seven months by our
program.
The vast exaggerations the member is bringing to the House are
not going to change our mind. We have gone through serious
assessments of the transitional job fund and we are very proud
that out of 700 projects there were perhaps problems in 6 or 7 of
them that did not work.
* * *
[Translation]
MAPLE SYRUP INDUSTRY
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
February 16, the Minister of Human Resources Development
announced the creation of a $40 million fund for special
employment measures, in response to the consequences of the ice
storm.
At this time, the fund has been exhausted and not all maple
syrup producers have received the announced assistance, despite
the government's commitments.
When and how does the minister intend to come to the assistance
of the 600 maple syrup producers in the Montérégie and central
Quebec regions whose trees are endangered by his inaction?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as soon as the ice storm was
over, everyone commented on how extremely efficient and prompt
our government was in implementing a $40 million emergency fund,
to which we added subsequently and which was intended
particularly to assist maple syrup producers and others in
difficulty because of the ice storm.
The fund was so popular that, in Quebec, we exceeded the
envelope that we had in mind when the fund was announced. This
shows how well the program worked.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
Liberal government has yet to take action and seek reparations
for the 26 RCAF officers condemned by the Nazis to Buchenwald
concentration camp.
Governments of 19 other countries have taken action, yet this
Liberal government sits alone and silent still, assessing after
so many years.
My question is to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Will this
government take action now on behalf of these men who served
Canada, yes or no? Justice delayed is justice denied.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I know he has
taken this on as an issue for veterans.
We were made aware of this fairly recently. I think we are all
appalled by the idea that this has not been addressed until
recently although it dates back over 50 years.
As the advocate for veterans, I will work very closely with my
colleagues to get all the information and do the proper research
so that appropriate action will be taken in a timely manner.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The last two plane crashes in Canada occurred at Fredericton and
Clarenville, Newfoundland and neither plane was equipped with an
emergency locator transmitter, one because it was not required to
in the first place and the other because it was removed for
service.
Now that several weeks have passed since the last crash will the
minister tell the House what new regulations he has introduced
regarding emergency locator transmitters, and will he give his
assurance that all scheduled passenger flights in Canada will
have emergency locator transmitters, which I understand cost
approximately $500?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate accident in Fredericton did give
witness to the fact that there were some improvements needed to
aviation safety. That is why I appointed Dr. Vervon Grose, an
expert from the United States, who will be reporting to me within
the next week on various aspects of airline safety.
On the specific question with respect to the transmitters, the
hon. member is right. There will be regulatory changes put in
place very shortly that will make it compulsory on all planes.
* * *
1500
JUSTICE
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in recent years many disturbing property crimes occurred in B.C.
such as home invasion, mugging and robbing of homeowners.
Yesterday the government announced our crime prevention
initiative. Could the Minister of Justice inform the House how
this initiative will assist our communities to prevent such
crimes?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a government that puts
the protection of society first. It is also a government that
believes the prevention of crime in the first place is the best
way to protect society.
That is why my colleague, the solicitor general, and I announced
the government's new crime prevention initiative yesterday. It
involves 32 million new dollars to work with local communities to
get at the root causes of crime—
Some hon. members: Order.
The Speaker: The minister still has some time if she
wants to use it.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members
of the House to take this opportunity to work with their local
communities to develop grassroots crime prevention strategies.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of the Honourable Sergio Luis Henriquez
Diaz, Minister for Housing and Urban Development of Chile.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
During the heat of debate and my answer I confused the name of
two companies. I meant to say that it was BPS Imaging that has
been paying its 121 workers for seven months, not Cape Shore.
I want to correct the record. The TJF is a very successful
program for which we have leveraged a lot of private—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern
Shore.
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland is now in possession of
the government's post-TAG policy even though this policy has not
been presented in the House.
There has been no tabling of a document and no ministerial
statement.
1505
The government has broken an important convention of the House
that any policy involving public expenditures must be presented
in the House first. It breaks with the specific pledge by the
Minister of Human Resources Development to develop the post-TAGS
policy in the House.
The Speaker: As I have on many occasions, I encourage
all hon. members that if they are to make reports they should be
done in the House if at all possible.
I do not know of the circumstances but once again I urge all
hon. members, if they have reports or statements to make which
are germane to the House, to do them here.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of
order. The government has not made an announcement in that
regard.
Any consultations the federal government may have or has had
with its provincial counterparts to elaborate a policy is
strictly that if in fact the provinces have in their possession
such a document.
I would hope that all parties in the House would support the
government in attempting to negotiate and to co-operate with
provincial counterparts. Heaven forbid that one of us in the
House would think the opposite.
The Speaker: I think we are getting a bit into debate
here. We have heard from two interveners. I would find that it
is not a point of order.
I have reiterated what I would hope would happen in the House. I
would like to let it sit at this point.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
TOBACCO ACT
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, copies of proposed tobacco regulations
concerning seizure and restoration and copies of proposed tobacco
access regulations.
* * *
[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
very pleased to table in the House today, 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 19 petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, 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 Canadian section of the International
Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians, as well as the
financial report of the meeting of the IAFSP political and
administrative committee, held in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso,
April 16 and 17, 1998.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans.
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 34th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the allowances
of members of the House.
I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
* * *
1510
TOBACCO ACT
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
LOUIS RIEL ACT
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-417, an act respecting Louis Riel.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill is the result of many years of
hard work by dozens and dozens of people: representatives of the
Riel family, Metis leaders from across Canada, members of the
House, lawyers, historians, and even a former chief justice of
Manitoba.
The bill will not bring Louis Riel back to life. Nor does it
change our history. What it will do is change our heritage,
change what we learn from our history. It will do this by
removing the stain of treason from Louis Riel's name.
At this time I ask for unanimous consent of the House, because
of the unique nature of the bill, to broaden the names of the
list of members supporting the bill.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The hon. member will now read the names and
then we will take it from there.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I served notice to all the
House leaders and I appreciate their agreement.
Because of the unique nature of private members' bills in that
they stand in one person's name, I would like to add the names of
Mr. Denis Coderre, the member for Bourassa; Val Meredith, the
member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley; Suzanne Tremblay,
the member for Rimouski—Mitis; Lorne Nystrom, the member for
Qu'Appelle; and Rick Borotsik, the member for Brandon—Souris.
The Speaker: Does the House agree to proceed in such a
way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I want to make clear that this is in no way an agreement by all
parties. It is just the individuals who are referred to on that
bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Finance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill S-16, an act to implement an
agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,
an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Croatia and a
convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile for the
avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion
with respect to taxes on income, be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
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
understand that you would find consent in the House to concur
without debate in the 34th Report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs.
1515
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have hundreds of petitions to present on behalf of my
constituents. The petitioners want to draw the following to the
attention of the House: That the visa requirement between Canada
and Poland is becoming a barrier in furthering economic and
social development between the two countries; that the visa
requirement hinders potential growth in business for about
500,000 Canadians of Polish origin living in Canada; and that
there would be vast improvement in economic, political and social
relations between Canada and Poland if legislative measures were
taken.
Therefore, the petitioners ask that parliament take action in
the near future to eliminate the visa requirement between Canada
and Poland.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition from a number of
people from my riding of Battlefords—Lloydminster who wish
parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act
and the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a
marriage can only be entered into between a single man and a
single female.
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a
petition that calls upon parliament to amend the Canada Labour
Code, Part I, to prevent any disruptions in essential services to
the gulf ferry service as a result of strikes or lockouts and to
ask Transport Canada for an increase in the federal funding
available to Marine Atlantic for this essential service.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of 49 constituents
of the riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands. The petitioners request
that parliament 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.
SENIORS BENEFIT
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
this petition which was given to me by a seniors group at Royal
Leigh in Wyoming. The petition is signed by the citizens of
Petrolia, Sarnia, Wyoming, Kitchener and Cambridge. The
petitioners call upon parliament to change the seniors benefit so
as not to remove incentives such as RRSPs which encourage
Canadians to save for their retirement.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to present this petition on behalf of my
constituents. The petitioners call upon parliament to 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
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a second petition which calls upon parliament to impose a
moratorium on Canadian participation in the MAI negotiation until
a full public debate on the proposed treaty has taken place
across the country so that all Canadians may have the opportunity
to express their opinions and to decide on the advisability of
proceeding with the multilateral agreement on investment.
MARRIAGE
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to
present a petition from people in Wilberforce, Highland Grove and
Tory Hill. The petitioners call upon parliament to support Bill
C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation
Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be
entered into between a single male and a single female.
1520
TOBACCO
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to
Standing Order 36. The petition is presented on behalf of
Canadians from all across this country.
The petitioners point out that tobacco products cause addiction,
cancer, emphysema, heart disease and early death. They show that
the World Health Organization recommends a total ban on tobacco
sponsorship advertising and refer to a number of countries where
laws have been passed banning all sponsorship advertising. They
show that tobacco sponsorship advertising is a way for tobacco
companies to associate a positive lifestyle image with a deadly
product.
They call upon this parliament to reject any bill which would
weaken the sponsorship provisions in the Tobacco Act.
OSTEOPOROSIS
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions
from over 60 residents of the riding of St. Paul's and the
greater Toronto area.
The petitioners call upon the government to enhance funding for
the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study through the Medical
Research Council.
It is important that this study receive adequate funding, as
health care restructuring has limited access to care providers
and rehabilitation programs for those injured or debilitated by
osteoporosis.
The petitioners believe that it is important that everyone be
protected from the effects of broken bones and the crippling
effects of osteoporosis.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36,
which is signed by a group of constituents from British Columbia
who are deeply troubled by the government's plans to continue
with the MAI negotiations in October. They point out a vast
number of reasons for which they think the MAI is not in the best
interests of Canada and Canadian sovereignty.
The petitioners ask parliament to reject the current framework
of the MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek an
entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve a
rules based global economic regime for trading that protects
workers, the environment and the ability of governments to act in
the public interest.
SENIORS BENEFITS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition which I wish to present is signed by constituents who
are deeply concerned with and indeed very troubled by the
government's intention to change the retirement system even
further. The petitioners are concerned about all of the rumours
and speculation floating around about these draconian changes and
simply ask that the government not proceed until full and
complete public hearings are held so that seniors from across the
country and others have a chance for full input into this
decision.
INCOME TAX
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
third petition which I wish to present to the House today.
The petitioners say that they have just filled out their tax
returns and feel that the tax system is basically rotten. They
want the government to undertake complete tax reform.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have oodles of petitions from hundreds of Canadians who are
protesting the stance that the Canadian government has taken with
respect to the multilateral agreement on investment. The
petitioners are opposed to the MAI.
They celebrate the fact that the MAI has been stalled, but
through these petitions and others they urge the government to
reconsider its position on the MAI. They call upon parliament to
reject the current framework of MAI negotiations and to instruct
the government to seek an entirely different agreement by which
the world might achieve a rules based global trading regime that
protects workers, the environment and the ability of governments
to act in the public interest.
* * *
[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 Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise with respect to the delay of the government in answering
Motion No. P-8.
Motion No. P-8 deals with the Bombardier NATO pilot training
contract. I have raised this request on the Order Paper for the
last seven months and I have raised four previous points of order
on the matter.
I sincerely hope that the auditor general's investigation is not
going to be stonewalled like I have been. I demand that Motion
No. P-8 be called.
That a
Humble Address be presented to His
Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies
of all documentation related to the awarding
of a 20-year deal with Bombardier Inc. to train Canadian and allied
fighter pilots in the NATO Flying Training in
Canada program.
The Deputy Speaker: Notice of Motion for the Production
of Papers No. P-8, in the name of the hon. member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt, will be transferred for debate pursuant to
Standing Order 97(1).
1525
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like Motion No. P-19 to be called.
That an Order of
the House do issue for copies of a poll
referred to by the Prime Minister during question period on May 5, 1998 in
which he stated that “Only 10% of
Canadians think the Reform Party members are doing this because they are
compassionate but 75% of Canadians
think they are doing it for politics.”
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this
Motion for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla, I would
like Motion No. P-18 to be called.
That an Order of
the House do issue for copies of the
Corrections Canada report into the 24-hour delay by Corrections Canada
officials in reporting the disappearance of
Kevin Machell from day parole on September 6, 1997.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this
Motion for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like Motion No. P-25 to be called.
That a
Humble Address be presented to His
Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy
of all correspondence, notes, minutes of
meetings, and briefings between the Government of Canada and SNC-Lavalin,
Bombardier Inc., AGRA Moneco Inc.,
GEC Alsthom Canada, Axor and Ellis-Don concerning a potential high
speed-rail service in the Toronto-Quebec City
corridor.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this
Motion for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, would it not be easier if
they just answered our questions?
I would like Motion No. P-26 to be called.
That an Order
of the House do issue for copies of all
documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, correspondence and
invoices relating to the request for
approval of constuction made for a golf driving range made by the warden
of the Ferndale Penitentiary.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this
Motion for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like Motions Nos. P-21 and P-22 to be called.
That a Humble Address
be presented to His Excellency
praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all
documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes,
memos, correspondence relating to the Privy Council-led group entitled
“Option Canada” from 1994 onwards.
That a Humble Address
be presented to His Excellency
praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all
documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes,
memos, polls and correspondence relating to the Calgary Declaration.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that these
Motions for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
The Deputy Speaker: These motions are transferred for
debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like Motion No. P-27 to be called on behalf of the
residents of Langley—Abbotsford, British Columbia.
That an Order
of the House do issue for copies of all
documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, correspondence and
invoices relating to the constuction of a
golf driving range at the Ferndale Penitentiary.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this
Motion for the Productions of Papers be transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like Motion No. P-28 to be called.
That an Order
of the House do issue for copies of all
documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, correspondence and
invoices relating to senior citizen access
to the nine-hole golf course at the Ferndale Penitentiary.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this
Motion for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Is it agreed that the remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
JUDGES ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-37, an act to
amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are two motions in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-37,
an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
[Translation]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
I am now going to put Motion No. 1 to the House.
1530
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-37 is to amend the
Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
The Bloc Quebecois is generally in favour of this bill, but has
many reservations about certain aspects of it.
The motion I am moving calls for the deletion of clause 5 which,
in my view and in the view of the Bloc Quebecois, gives
unreasonable salary increases to judges, in light of the
financial situation and the cutbacks that have taken place in
various departments and sectors in Canada and Quebec.
I see no need for a 40-minute speech about this. It is very
easily understood and I will give figures to make it clear.
My motion reads as follows:
If members examine the bill, they will see that clause 5 deals
with the determination of judges' salaries after June 1, 1997.
In committee, an attempt was made to convince me that Bill C-37
is not a retroactive bill. An attempt was made to convince me
that judges in courts under federal jurisdiction, that is the
Quebec Superior Court, the Ontario Supreme Court, appeal courts,
as well as the Supreme Court of Canada, were not being given a
retroactive increase.
If members read clause 5, however, they will clearly see that
the period used to determine the salary goes back to April 1,
1997. The government should be aware that it is now June 3,
1998 and that this bill has not yet been passed. In other
words, when it is passed, judges' salaries will be determined
retroactive to April 1, 1997.
The poor judges did not have a big enough increase. Under the
Judges Act, they received an increase of 2.08% on April 1, 1997
and of 2.08% on April 1, 1998. However, the government in its
great wisdom thought it a good idea to ask a committee to look
into judges salaries.
A report was released—the Scott report. From it and its study
the government is proposing, in addition to the 2.08% for two
years, an additional increase for the judges of 4.1% as of April
1, 1997 and 4.1% as of April 1, 1998. Thus, once parliament
passes Bill C-37—today or in a week from now, it does not much
matter—the judges will have a retroactive salary increase of
some 13.8%, if we add up all the percentages.
For someone earning $25,000, 13.8% is not a whole lot. But
federal judges currently earn, before the increase, between
$165,000 and $210,000. That means that the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of Canada, because he earns the most and it is the
highest court as well, earns about $210,000 today. The 13.8%
increase amounts to between $25,000 and $27,000—I do not have
the calculations here—in retroactive increases as of April 1, 1998.
1535
I do not think such increases are justified at the moment. Do
not get me wrong. I am not saying that the judges of the
Supreme Court of Canada, the Superior Court, the Court of Appeal
or whatever do not deserve a salary increase. That is not what
I am saying. I am saying that, right now, with the state of
public finances and the terrible cuts the government opposite is
imposing on the most disadvantaged, a salary increase of about
13% for people earning $165,000 to $210,000 is indecent.
While the government will have cut over $30 billion in transfer
payments by 2003, it is considering increasing the salary of the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada by $25,000 to
$27,000.
While the government is pocketing approximately $700,000 an hour
with the employment insurance plan we discussed last week and
again this week, accumulating a surplus in excess of $19 billion—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: That it will pocket.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That it will pocket. A 13.8% wage
increase is contemplated for judges.
On the one hand, cuts are made in health and in transfer
payments to the provinces for education, but on the other hand,
a 13.8% wage increase is contemplated for judges.
Frankly, I think this is not the right time to give them a
raise, the same way it is not the right time to give one to
government employees. In the committee, judges were compared to
senior government officials for the purpose of increasing their
wages.
In a few weeks or months, senior government officials will
compare themselves to judges to get a raise. Where will this all
end?
At present, we have good, well paid judges, earning between
$165,000 and $210,000, plus a number of paid expenses like the
ones the members of this House and the Prime Minister get.
Perhaps the Prime Minister is not paid well enough, but we must
also look at who is paid for the zero deficit the government has
been so eager to achieve and rightly so.
Each of us must do our part. I do not think that it is
appropriate to give the judges a raise on top of the one already
provided for, because the existing legislation does provide for
a raise for them, while many people have not had any raise in
recent years.
Under the Judges Act, they already have a 2.08% increase. I
believe 2% is within the normal range, and reasonable.
But to add onto that, under the bill we have before us, 4.1%
effective April 1, 1997 and another 4.1% effective April 1,
1998, is unreasonable in my opinion.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: That is four times the inflation rate.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot
tells me it is four times the inflation rate. I think this
should be taken into consideration, given his expertise in the
matter. I am sure the government did not take it into
consideration and, since we now say this is four times
inflation, I think this is one more argument in support of my
calling it unreasonable.
Since I have only one minute left, I would like to make it clear
that, if we are to have quality judges, they must be paid
accordingly. But I believe that a salary of $165,00 to $210,000
is plenty to ensure that we get judges of the quality we have at
present. I have practiced law and I am the justice critic. I am
very attentive to their rulings and I believe that, at the
present time, the salary judges get is sufficient to get quality
judges.
1540
I am sure that members discuss these appointments within the
Liberal Party. We know how appointments work in the judiciary,
they are political appointments. If members look at the list of
people waiting to be judges, they will agree with me that all of
them feel that a salary of $165,000 to $210,000 is sufficient.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member is well aware, since he sits on the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights, this issue was discussed
on a number of occasions when we reviewed the bill.
The government is following up on the recommendation made by an
independent commission appointed by Parliament, the Scott
commission. Such commissions play an important role, that is to
preserve public confidence in the independence of the courts.
This is a role to which the Supreme Court of Canada gave
constitutional stature in a recent decision.
We took a very close look at the recommendations of the Scott
commission, and we decided to follow up on the ones we felt were
legitimate, which include raising the salaries of judges.
Judges are not considered public servants, even though they are
paid by the Treasury Board.
Canadian judges must receive an adequate salary that reflects
the importance of their role in our society and the constraints
related to their responsibilities.
In determining whether the recommendation was reasonable, the
Scott commission—which, again, was an independent
commission—took into consideration the specific constitutional
role of the judiciary and other factors, such as the need to
attract and to keep the best qualified candidates to carry out
the responsibilities of a judge.
I want the House to know that there is a procedure in place, but
it is not political one, contrary to what the hon. member
suggested. Indeed, there is an independent commission which
submits to the minister the names of the best qualified people.
Judges also made a contribution to the reduction of the
government deficit, since their salaries have been frozen since
1992.
The increase provided in Bill C-37 only applies in the future. I
repeat. judges should be recruited from various groups,
including lawyers in private practice.
Considering the salaries paid to lawyers in private practice, we
have to be able to attract the best lawyers. We want our courts
to be run by the most qualified people in Canada. The salaries
paid to judges simply do not compare with those paid to lawyers.
Still, we will have to offer salaries that will not deter the
best candidates from applying. The proposed raise, recommended
by the Scott commission, will bring judges' salaries in line
with those of senior deputy ministers. For example, on April 1,
1997, a deputy minister at the DM3 equivalent level was paid
between $140,000 and $170,000.
The lowest salary a judge could earn is $165,500. As of April
1, 1998, public servants received a 5% salary increase. Their
salaries are now between $173,000 and $203,000. For judges, it
amounts to almost $176,000. This compares reasonably, given
their level of responsibility.
We could talk a little about salary increases approved in some
provinces. I will give a few examples.
For Newfoundland, the rate of increase is 13%. For Saskatchewan,
it is 16%; for Nova Scotia, it is 25%. For Newfoundland, as I
said, it is 13%. I must add that for Newfoundland—
1545
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: And Quebec?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I am coming to Quebec.
For Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, this
increase is retroactive. For the other two it is not.
As for Quebec, if my information is correct, a committee is now
looking at judges' salaries. There has been no increase since
1992.
The salary of the chief justice of the Court of Quebec is
$132,786, and that of the associate chief justice $130,516. As
I said, there has been no increase yet because it is before a
parliamentary committee. We do not know the percentage
increase.
I would once again like to emphasize that the government looked
carefully at the recommendations of the Scott commission and
that it was guided by them in its recommendations to committee
members. If we wish to attract the best candidates to
judgeships, and I repeat that we want the judiciary to be
independent, I think that these recommendations are very
reasonable.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
motivation for this bill is very unusual. I want to speak to
this bill and to this particular amendment.
I begin by pointing out to the House that when this bill was
before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights only
two witnesses appeared. We had Mr. David W. Scott, the author of
the Scott report which had the recommendations that my hon.
colleague across the way referred to, and we had the commissioner
for federal judicial affairs. Only two witnesses.
We had asked for other witnesses. We asked for two
constitutional lawyers who would have been able to answer some of
the questions I had concerning the contents of the bill and the
motivation for the bill. Even though the committee had time we
were denied that. It had originally scheduled time to hear 10
witnesses. It appears that at least six refused to appear to
give testimony to the committee on this bill. The witnesses we
had asked for were not asked to attend. This was a decision made
by the Liberal majority on the committee.
What do we have in this bill? I support my hon. colleague's
motion. I will not spend as much time as my colleagues and others
in this House will on the raises the judges will be receiving if
this bill is passed without this particular amendment.
Over the next two years, the Chief Justice of Canada will
receive a $17,000 increase in pay. The other justices will
receive the same. The chief justice and associate chief justice
of the Federal Court and Tax Court of Canada will receive a
$15,000 increase in pay. Justices of the federal court will
receive $13,000. When we get to the superior courts, the chief
justice and associate chief justice will receive a $15,000
increase in pay over the next two years. Justices of the
superior court will receive a $13,000 increase.
I agree with my hon. colleague that that is quite a raise in
pay, considering that at this particular time there are families
with children who are struggling to make ends meet. They are
making $35,000 and less. The chief justices now make $208,200.
Other justices of the Supreme Court of Canada make $192,000.
I think a lot of Canadians would agree that that is a pretty
comfortable salary.
1550
Yes we have to attract top qualified people to the courts but
nevertheless this is a subject that should be discussed in this
House. I think my hon. colleague brought forward this amendment
for that very purpose, to enable this matter to be looked at and
debated and not rushed through this House unexamined as the bill
was rushed through the justice committee.
I want to touch for a moment on the motivation for this bill in
the first place. It was motivated by a ruling of the Supreme
Court of Canada on the P.E.I. and Alberta cases where it was
determined that a commission must be set up by all provincial
governments as well as the federal government to examine the
benefits and pay of judges. Recommendations must go to the
government.
The problem with this is that it has been determined, if I
understand correctly and I believe that I do, that if the
government of a province or the federal government does not
follow through with the recommendation, it can be taken to court.
It can go to the Supreme Court of Canada. If the decision of the
supreme court indicates that the decision of that government is
not reasonable and that the raise or other benefits should be
provided, that can be construed as interference by the Government
of Canada or the government of a province into the judicial
independence of the courts.
When I read Justice LaForest's dissenting opinion he said
clearly what I think the common sense of this country would
support. He indicated that any interference in any decision by
any government, whether federal or provincial, that deals with
judges pay or benefits that is not satisfactory to a court,
including the supreme court of this country, ought not to be
considered as an interference with the judicial independence of
the court.
There is another area of grave concern which this bill raises.
If the Parliament of Canada goes along with the decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada, there is also an interference, an
abridgement or an encroachment upon the supremacy of parliament
to tax because the pay of judges comes from the public purse.
Suppose that the economic conditions of this country are such
that everyone must take a pay reduction and the courts feel that
that pay reduction is unacceptable or unfair, their subjective
assessment is that it is not fair. According to that decision if
the governments of this land do not want to face the consequences
of the inference that that decision to reduce their pay
interferes with the judicial independence of the court, then they
are going to have to be guided by a decision of the court to tax
the people in order to pay their salaries and benefits.
This is wrong. I agree with the dissenting opinion of Judge
LaForest in this particular area. For the House of Commons to
bring in this kind of bill in response to that decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada is wrong as well.
When they do that and refuse to bring in witnesses who could
address some of the concerns that I and other members of the
committee and perhaps this House have on that issue, this is
wrong again.
1555
What we are seeing is an encroachment by the powers of the
judiciary into the supremacy of parliament not only to pass laws
but also in the area of taxation. This is very serious. This is
why I cannot support this bill.
My recommendation to members of the House, certainly my caucus
but the rest of the members of this House is that we had better
examine this very carefully because of the consequences of moving
in concert with that judgment. If it is not challenged, where is
it going to end?
I see that my time is up. I appreciate the indulgence of the
Chair and the House. I will continue my debate when we arrive at
the next amendment to this bill.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I too rise to address the motion before the House. I indicate to
the House that we will be supporting the motion from my colleague
from the Bloc Quebecois.
I listened carefully when the member was presenting his
arguments for this motion. He argued against an increase at this
point in time for the members of the judiciary which this act to
amend the Judges Act provides for. I concur with him on all of
those remarks.
When this bill was first introduced in the House, I spoke
against the bill. I said that at this point in time it was
essential that moneys be returned to the provinces for support
for those who are working in the courts.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice stood up
and quoted statistics from other provinces. She said that there
has been an increase in judicial salaries, and quoted my home
province of Nova Scotia and said some 20% or 25%. She is right.
On Monday of this week I walked the picket lines with the crown
attorneys for the province of Nova Scotia. They did not want to
stop working but after four years of negotiations with the
provincial government they could get nowhere in terms of talking
about support services. They took the extraordinary step of work
stoppage, of not attending court on Monday and Tuesday of this
week. That is an extraordinary event in the history of my
province.
On my way here today to speak to this bill, in fact walking
across the street I was speaking on a cellphone with a lawyer in
the Nova Scotia legal aid system. That lawyer has not been in
court the last three days. It is because the judges have just
received their 25% increase in salary and are on a judges
conference. That lawyer cannot deal with the crushing caseload
that has ended up on his desk in the last few days. It is to the
point where they are spending their time answering complaints
that have been written to their superiors. They do not have time
to return calls. They do not have time to answer letters. They
do not have the resources to cope with the crushing burden that
the courts are faced with.
One of the examples that the crown prosecutors used is that they
are still keeping file stats on those they are prosecuting on
recipe cards. They do not have access to the Internet. They do
not have up to date computers on their desks.
I know these matters all fall under provincial jurisdiction.
An hon. member: Right.
Mr. Peter Mancini: The hon. member from the government
says right.
But the reality is that the reason these dedicated public
servants cannot access money from their provincial governments is
that her government has cut the payments to the provinces for the
last four years. This government has cut and cut and downloaded
on the provinces. She sits there proud of that, laughs and takes
pleasure in it.
These people cannot perform their functions but the money can be
found to provide substantial increases for the federally
appointed judges to the extent of over 8%.
It is a substantial increase given the crushing burden that those
who serve the public in the provinces are facing.
1600
The parliamentary secretary talked a little about the
appointment process which she defended. I questioned the
Minister of Justice on this issue when she was before the
standing committee on justice. She said there are committees in
place and there is wide consultation. She is right that there
are committees in place. It has been some time since I looked at
the last committee in my own province. When I looked that
committee was composed of a former campaign manager for the
individual who had been the Liberal cabinet minister from my
province.
I come from a small community where people wear their political
affiliations on there sleeves so I knew who sat on that
committee, I knew who was likely to get appointed. The last
federally appointed justice was a good friend of mine and a good
fellow. He had also been the collector of campaign contributions
for the same cabinet minister.
That is not to say there are not good judges. I do not want to
mislead the House or anyone who reads this. There are some very
good judges who work long hours and deal with difficult cases and
make good law. But there are some other judges. Part of the
problem in the Judges Act is that there is no mechanism to keep
in check or to make accountable or to separate the good judges
from the bad or to separate those who are political appointees
who do not perform their functions well from those appointees who
go above and beyond their necessary work.
I thank the hon. member from the Bloc for bringing forward his
amendment. I will be supporting it, because I think at this
point it sends the wrong message. If the courts are struggling,
as they are, with a backlog of cases and if the individuals going
before the courts have not had increases, the lawyers I have
mentioned, the crown attorneys and the legal aid lawyers, have
had their wages either frozen or rolled back for nine years. At
this point to suggest the judiciary ought to receive this salary
increase is difficult for the morale of those who work in the
courts and it sends the wrong message. And so I will be
supporting my colleague's amendment.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Motion No. 1 which would amend Bill C-37 by
deleting clause 5, a clause that outlines the calculation of a
judge's salary for the 12 months commencing April 1, 1997 and
April 1, 1998. Not only should this clause be deleted but the
whole bill should be deleted.
This is the third time the Liberals have amended the all
important Judges Act. During the last parliament in 1996 they
introduced Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, both which were
inconsequential pieces of legislation of little significance to
Canadians who were more concerned about their safety.
Here we are again spending precious time on judges' salaries and
benefits when this Liberal government has failed to introduce
anything that addresses the victims bill of right or the Young
Offenders Act. They failed to limit the use of conditional
sentences for violent offenders. They have failed in so much and
here we are debating this kind of bill regarding judges'
salaries.
It occupies the justice committee's valuable time with these
administrative matters at the expense of more important issues
like amending laws on drinking and driving or a lot of things
that would so much more protect society. That whole thing has to
change. At the heart of this legislation is that it increases
judges' salaries retroactively from April 1, 1997 to March 31,
1998 by 4.1% and by an additional 4.1% from April 1 1998 to March
31, 1999.
In other words they will get an 8.2% increase over two years. I
understand the average salary of a judge is approximately
$140,000. This will mean the average will go up to in excess of
$151,000. That is a substantial increase. The salaries are
$208,200, $192,900, $177,700, $162,300, another $177,700.
1605
Those wages are going to go up in the amounts that were
described by my colleague from Crowfoot. They are going to end
up really making big bucks.
The whole thing that is really perturbing about this is that we
have people called public servants who have not received a pay
raise for a long time, certainly not a pay raise of 8.2%.
This government continually awards judges and senior
bureaucrats, including its own ministers, with large pay raises
and bonuses while frontline police officers and low level public
servants receive little to nothing. This government does not
care about frontline peace officers who risk their lives every
day to protect Canadians. It does not care about the lowly
prison guards who put their lives on the line constantly, every
time they show up and go to work in these penitentiaries. They
are at high risk and we do not talk about a retroactive pay raise
for them. That would be the wildest of dreams to these people.
These frontline workers have not had a pay raise for many years
and here we are talking about the elite once again getting more
money.
I have seen Liberals in this House, including the two who are
here now, at one time or another every week since 1993, through a
member's statement or through some kind of process, bringing
forth the topic about the millions of children, thousands and
thousands of families suffering in this country,
living below the poverty line, having a tough time making ends
meet. Some of these raises are $17,000 or $15,000. I know
people with families of two or three children trying to
get by on a salary that big, let alone an increase.
These members keep talking about what a shame it is and that we
have to do something about it. Here it is 1998 and they have
done diddly squat. They have not done one thing to help the
people who are living in poverty. Those same numbers are still
out there. People are still suffering. Young families are still
being evicted from their homes because they cannot meet the high
rents now or they cannot meet the mortgage payments. People are
eating meals that would not even compare to half as good as what
prisoners in penitentiaries get. People are not able to play in a
big park or shoot pool or take in any movies because they cannot
afford to go out.
We spend time with legislation that says to people who are
drawing anywhere from $170,000 to $200,000 and down to $130,000
that we have to do something for them, we have to get them a
raise. What kind of hypocrisy is that?
I will almost guarantee that before we leave here some Liberal
member will stand and boldly say we must do something about the
poverty in our land and help these people who are suffering.
I am really getting tired of their constantly making those kinds
of statements and then turning around and taking $25 million to
give away free flags and saying “aren't I a nice girl?” or boy,
or whatever.
In the meantime, imagine what $25 million would do for children
on the streets of Ottawa and how people who work in child
services and in child poverty situations would love to have a
little teeny chunk of that $25 million. I do not understand where
they are coming from. The last thing we should ever talk about is
how much more money we should make in a raise without addressing
the problems that face this country because of poverty stricken
people.
1610
For that reason alone it is a really sad day. It is of extreme
importance, though, that judges' needs be met. We have to address
this issue immediately. I do not know what their needs are. I
would like to have a little problem with some of those needs. I
do not understand.
We hear about all these difficulties. Why are we not addressing
that? Why are we not standing to talk about those who are
genuinely suffering out there instead of talking about things
like this? It is because we have a greedy Liberal government in
charge. It is all yap, yap, yap. It talks but does not act.
It acts all right. It acts on giving judges raises. I know
some fine judges, people who work hard in their profession and
they deserve to be paid for what they are worth. But I also know
what some of these fine judges would say, “why do we not try to
help out some of these people who are standing in my court every
day because poverty sent a lot of them there?”. Why do we not
do that? Because it is not in the Liberal philosophy. They all
went to university. Most of them are lawyers. They majored in
bleeding heart 101 and tear drop 102 and they do not think of
anything but themselves, so it is difficult for them to
understand.
The Minister of Justice is able to table a copy of the
commission report but parliament is given no opportunity to
respond. This is the reason for my honourable colleague from
Crowfoot's motion that is coming up next to rectify this
situation.
The creation of this commission also provides the federal
government with, guess what, more opportunities for good old fat
cat patronage appointments, making more positions available to
those little boys and girls out there in our wide country who
have been good little Liberals. What a sick way to run things.
It is absolutely pathetic.
That member over there talking now and heckling would stand on
her feet and say is it not a shame we have all these starving
children. If it is a shame, she should get up and say cancel
these things and let us look after the real needs of people
instead of heckling over whether judges should get pay raises.
Here we go again, patronage heaven coming back.
Liberal philosophy has to go, and the sooner the better.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to speak on this motion from my colleagues
from the Bloc, which I will be supporting.
My colleague from Wild Rose just asked what are the needs of
these judges. One judge in Alberta said he should be able to go
on holiday every year. That is their need.
When I ran in the election to represent the people of Calgary
East they told me I was the custodian of tax dollars. “Remember
we elected you, we who every day go to work and come home and who
have not seen a pay raise for a long time, who have a hard time
putting food on the table”. They represent small business.
They represent workers. The average earnings in my riding are
not more than $30,000. Lots will do with less than $17,000.
I am here representing them and therefore I cannot agree to this
substantial increase that would be granted to judges. The money
being granted here, as many colleagues of mine have pointed out,
a $17,000 increase over two years, would feed a lot of families
in my riding. A lot of families earn less than that.
Here we are giving a substantial increase to judges who, by all
standards, are earning a reasonable and fair wage.
1615
The parliamentary secretary said it was the right time for such
an increase. Is it really the right time for such an increase
when increases have been frozen and workers have received an
average increase of 2%? Here we are proposing increases of 4.1%
for one year and 4.1% for the second year, which will be
retroactive. Nobody is offering retroactive pay to the workers
who are fighting for an increase. Why are the judges being
offered this?
In all aspects, morally and everything else, this substantial
increase is not, in my view, an acceptable situation.
As my colleague from Wild Rose said, I have a lot of friends who
are judges. They do a tremendous job. My speech is not an
attack on judges. What I am talking about here today is this
reprehensible increase that has been given to judges in such a
short time. It is a huge amount of money which will be spent at
a time when we could better utilize the money for other causes
which need urgent attention, as my colleague has suggested.
The member is right to ask why we are debating this issue. Why
are we debating in the House of Commons a bill which will give
Canada's elite, who are already earning a reasonable and fair sum
of money, an increase that under any normal Canadian circumstance
is way out of line.
The bill also recommends the creation of a judicial compensation
and benefits commission. If we are to rely on anything that the
government has done in the past, we can bet there will be some
Liberal appointees on that commission. This is just another
patronage appointment commission being formed by this government.
This increase, averaging $13,000, within such a short period of
time is not a reasonable increase. It is actually an
unreasonable increase. I find it extremely hard to swallow. If
I went back to my riding and told working Canadians that I
approved an increase of $13,000 for judges, they would look at me
and ask “Where do you live? Do you live in Canada? Do you live
in this riding? Why are you supporting the elite receiving such
a substantial sum of money?”
We all recognize the job the judiciary is doing and the fine
work the judges are doing and we agree that they should be
compensated fairly. Nobody has a quarrel or an argument with
that, but we certainly do have a major difficulty when it comes
to such a substantial increase in such a short period of time.
It should not surprise me that this is coming from a government
that knows how to compensate its friends and the elite in this
country.
1620
The Reform Party would like to reform the appointment process
for judges by removing the patronage appointment process. Of
course the parliamentary secretary, who is sitting over there,
would not agree with that because she is one of the people who
proposed these increases for her friends.
The Reform Party would like to reform the patronage appointment
process by making it more transparent and publicly accountable.
If we did that, fair compensation for judges would also become
transparent. That is the key. The most important aspect is that
compensation for judges should become more transparent.
Therefore, I will wholeheartedly support Motion No. 1, put
forward by my colleague from the Bloc, to amend the bill by
deleting clause 5.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I wish I could say that it is a pleasure for me to rise
today to address the report stage of Bill C-37, but I must
confess that following my comments and the comments of others
when it was before the House for second reading, I had hoped the
government might rethink this legislation instead of bringing it
back.
Today I am here to speak to Motion No. 1, which was put forward
by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. The motion would amend
Bill C-37 by deleting clause 5. We have heard previous speakers
address this particular clause because it is controversial. I
certainly feel that it is controversial insofar as it deals
specifically with an increase in judges' salaries. It is duly
noted that judges, on average, make about $140,000 a year. This
will amount to an 8.3% increase over the next couple of years.
When I rose to speak to Bill C-37 the last time it was before
the House I noted that it was April 1. I thought it was perhaps
a cruel April Fool's joke which had been foisted upon the
Canadian public by the government of this country at a time when
Canadians were increasingly concerned about judgments that were
being brought down by the justices of Canada. Rather than
debating some of the judgments, which I feel quite confident do
not carry the judgment of the Canadian people, we find ourselves
today, as we did on April 1, discussing a very substantial salary
increase, amongst other things, in Bill C-37.
As other speakers from the opposition have noted, I support the
motion put forward by the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois to
entirely delete clause 5, which would increase judges' salaries,
at least at this particular time. As I did at second reading, I
would draw the comparison for the viewing public at home between
the salary increases for judges and the more recent salary
increases that were granted to our RCMP officers. Those
increases amounted to a mere 2%, which was retroactive to January
1, and a subsequent 1% increase on April 1, which, ironically,
was the day we were debating the second reading stage of this
bill. Another .75% will become due to the Mounties on October 1.
The starting salary for a third year constable will go from
$50,500 to a little better than $52,000. These are the people
who every day put their lives on the line to protect society, yet
we find that in the eyes of this particular government they only
warrant a small increase.
The judges, who increasingly are returning violent convicted
criminals back to the streets, will enjoy this 8.3% increase over
the next two years.
1625
As a number of my colleagues have indicated, I want to put it on
the record that I am not casting aspersions upon all justices.
That is not the case. We had somewhat of a heated debate on
April 1 when certain members of the government felt that the
official opposition, the Reform Party, in citing certain examples
of judgements that have come down were doing exactly that. I
want to say at the outset that is not the case.
It has been indicated by a number of my colleagues in the Reform
Party that many of the judges in Canada today, both at the
provincial and federal level, do great work. They bring down
many judgments which carry the confidence of the Canadian people.
However, unfortunately, a lot of them do not.
In referring to this issue today I would like to mention three
cases that happened either in my riding of Prince George—Peace
River or very near to it.
The first case I would like to cite is what has become known as
the Feeney case. Michael Feeney was convicted of second degree
murder in the bludgeoning death of 85 year old Frank Boyle in his
home in Likely, B.C. in June of 1991. Likely is a small
community just outside Williams Lake, which is outside my riding.
Ironically, the lawyer who took the case to the supreme court is
a lawyer from Prince George, which is in my riding, so I am
fairly familiar with the case.
This unfortunate victim was smashed in the head five times with
a crowbar and his truck and $400 in cash was missing. RCMP
officers, following up on a tip that Feeney had been seen near
the victim's stolen truck, went to Feeney's trailer to
investigate. They entered his trailer and found his shirt
splattered with blood. Subsequently they arrested Mr. Feeney.
However, the supreme court judges ruled that the police did not
have reasonable grounds to arrest Feeney when they entered the
trailer without a warrant. All evidence gained as a result of
the arrest and the subsequent search which was conducted with a
warrant were ruled inadmissible. It was a majority decision. It
was not unanimous. The evidence included the bloodied shirt and
his fingerprints, matching prints which were found on the
victim's refrigerator, money hidden under a mattress and
cigarettes similar to those found in the victim's house. I would
suggest that it is going to very difficult for the crown counsel
to obtain a conviction, if it ever goes to retrial, without the
use of this evidence.
I will draw to the House's attention another case which was
known as the Sullivan case. This happened in the city of Prince
George. Wayne Richard Sullivan of Prince George was found
non-criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder in the
January 1992 shooting death of his wife and the sexual assault at
gunpoint of another woman. After a night of drinking, Sullivan
proposed a threesome between himself, his wife and the other
woman. His proposal was rejected. He then shot his wife in the
temple, pointed the gun at the second woman and ordered her to
remove her clothing.
The trial judge instructed the jury on the law relating to
mental illness and criminal responsibility. The B.C. court of
appeal judges ruled that the judge was correct in his
instruction. The verdict of December 11, 1993 meant that
Sullivan was confined in a secure mental facility, but
subsequently would be released once it was determined he was no
longer mentally disordered. Sullivan's punishment was a
conditional release.
That judgment has raised a lot of concern not only in the
community of Prince George, but in communities across our
country. I raise it today as another example of how the
judgments brought down by our justices certainly do not at all
relate to what average citizens in our communities would feel is
right, fair and just.
1630
The last case I would bring forward today is the Baldwin murder.
Here we have a case of an elderly gent in the city of Dawson
Creek located in the southern end of my riding of Prince
George—Peace River. The elderly gentleman was set upon in a
park by six local teenagers and kicked and beaten to death. Six
local teenagers were charged in the murder of James Baldwin. Mr.
Baldwin, a homeless person, had set up camp in the park less than
a dozen metres from where his body was found.
I guess I am already out of time, unfortunately. The point I am
trying to make is that all of these judgments reinforce the view
of the general public that there is something seriously wrong
with our justice system. In fact they do not even refer to it as
a justice system any more, but a legal system.
It is pretty hard to defend an 8.3% increase when people see
these types of judgments coming down.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): 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 Halifax West, Aboriginal affairs;
the hon. member for Verchères, Varennes Tokamak; the hon. member
for Sarnia—Lambton, the North American Free Trade Agreement; the
hon. member for Charlotte, Hepatitis C; and the hon. member for
Churchill River, the Environment.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to comment on remarks made earlier by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and member
for Ahuntsic, which did not sound right to me.
For instance, she said that, at the federal level, judicial
appointments were not political appointments. I will remind her
that these appointments are made by a committee of seven
members, four of whom are appointed by the Minister of Justice,
and that the majority prevails.
So the minister can make appointments with the support of four
out of seven committee members, which form a majority since all
it takes is 50% plus one—as members need to be reminded once in
a while. Therefore, judicial appointments are political
appointments.
In addition, the parliamentary secretary cited some figures on
Quebec which are not quite accurate. With respect to judges'
salaries, I will remind her that, when he was elected premier of
Quebec in 1995, Lucien Bouchard ordered a 6% salary reduction
for all government employees, including judges. This means that
judges' salaries have been reduced by 6%.
Contrary to what the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice said, and this is my third point, the fact
that a huge increase—a 13.8% compounded increase over two years—is
recommended in a report does not means that it must
automatically be approved.
The Blais report recommended that the salaries of members of
Parliament be raised, but everyone on this side of the House
said no. That is what the report recommended, but we said no.
Why?
Because we find it indecent to be talking about raising judges'
salaries by 13.8% over two years, retroactive to April 1, 1997,
when, on the other side of the House, since the Minister of
Finance tabled his second budget, in 1995, there is a plan under
way to cut back transfer payments to the provinces for welfare,
post-secondary education and health.
By 2003, $30 billion will have been taken away from the
recipients of social assistance, the sick and the students in
higher education.
1635
Furthermore, those on the other side of the House are happy to
steal an accumulated surplus in the employment insurance fund,
which will reach $25 billion by the end of next year and which
comes from the excessive contributions of employers and
employees. The Minister of Finance is blithely dipping into it.
He will continue to take up to $25 billion by the end of fiscal
year 1998-99.
After all the sacrifices required from the population, all the
theft from funds that do not belong to the federal government, it
now wants us to agree to compound salary increases for judges of
13.8%.
I find the way the parliamentary secretary put it to us
indecent, saying that such a monumental increase in judges'
salary was needed to ensure quality candidates. With their
annual salaries between $170,000 and $230,000, I imagine people
are knocking the doors down in an effort to get a judge's
position.
I would remind the House that salary increases are awarded in
large measure to reflect changes in the cost of living. The
cost of living is reflected in the consumer price index, and in
the past three years the rate of inflation has moved between 2%
and 1%.
This means that the 13.8% salary increase given to judges over
the next two years is 13 times greater than the current
inflation rate of about 1%.
This makes no sense at all. How can we justify such a decision
to people who have been subjected to indirect tax increases
totalling $23 billion over the last three years? How can we
explain to them that, with all the sacrifices they made in the
areas of social welfare, post-secondary education and health
care, with the minister having failed to index the tax tables—there
was an increase in tax receipts, and that is an indirect
form of tax increase—judges will now be getting a 13.8%
increase? How can we justify maintaining the status quo while
judges' salaries will be increased prodigiously, at a compound
rate?
It is totally unacceptable. I add my voice to that of my
distinguished colleague from Berthier—Montcalm, who did the right
thing in bringing this scandal to light.
It makes absolutely no sense to present things in this fashion,
especially with the kind of arguments we just heard.
Lucien Bouchard, Premier of Quebec and leader of the Parti
Quebecois, has understood that. That is why, two or three years
ago, Quebec ordered a salary decrease rather than a freeze or an
increase. It is only logical.
When one asks people to make sacrifices and makes budget cuts to
reduce the deficit and create annual surpluses, as the finance
minister did on the back of the poor, one does not give judges a
13.8% salary increase. It is totally unacceptable, and we will
all fight against that.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-37. I would like
to say right off the bat that I am in absolute opposition to this
bill as are my colleagues but perhaps for different reasons.
My reasoning is that nowhere in this government's philosophy,
nowhere in any type of justice legislation it has brought down
pertaining to judges and the judiciary have I ever seen the word
accountability. The fact is there is zero accountability for
judges in this country. There is no effective mechanism that
this government or the previous Tory government have put in or
would be prepared to use to remove judges from the bench.
In many cases in their fuzzy logic they have let violent
criminals walk out of the courtroom with little or no penalty.
Judges have used the conditional sentencing law that the Liberal
government brought down in the most insane ways we could possibly
imagine. Judges have continually bewildered our society with
some of the decisions that have been made in this country.
1640
I can give the example of something which is near and dear to my
heart, the issue of people who choose to drink and then to get
into their cars, drive and kill people. Judges have a latitude
of sentencing from zero to 14 years. Historically the sentences
have been on the low side of three and a half years.
There is no way to hold these judges accountable for the insane
decisions they make. Now this government has the audacity to
bring in Bill C-37 to give them more money. The insane
legislation in Bill C-37 takes no back seat to some of the insane
decisions that are made by the judges in this country. They do it
and there is no accountability. Before this House begins to even
consider any type of salary increase or a compensation increase
for judges, the government had better darn well do what it should
do. It should bring in some legislation that will make judges
accountable before it even considers giving them a single cent
more.
Then they have the audacity to suggest an 8.3% increase over two
years plus they want to talk about annuities, payments and
survivor benefits. It is very clear these are the very people
who are setting the bad guys free after the RCMP have worked
their butts off to get them to court. The RCMP are getting
little or nothing by way of salary increases, the ones who do all
the work, only to see all their work for naught because the bad
guys are set free by some judge with some fuzzy logic in his head
about what his or her definition of justice is.
Never in my lifetime would I ever support this package on Bill
C-37 until there was an ounce of accountability brought in by
this Liberal government. Never.
I want to get off judges for a minute and talk about the way
this Liberal government deals with the justice system or, as my
colleague from Prince George—Peace River said quite
appropriately, the legal system in this country.
All over this country people are upset about the legal system
and is it any wonder when we look at the Liberals in government
and the Tories before them. A good percentage of them were
lawyers anyway in their past life. Not their real life; they say
their past life. Why would they do anything else but support
their friends who are still in the system out there? That is
what they have done.
The legal system, the so-called justice system we have in this
country is not doing what it is supposed to do. It is not
protecting society. It is not punishing the bad guys. It is
feeding the coffers of the legal people who make a very good
living defending the scoundrels who come before the judges. They
are very good at it and they charge lots of money. Why would a
government want to do anything to hurt its buddies out there in
the legal business?
This government should be making the number one priority in the
criminal justice system the protection of law-abiding citizens
and the protection of society. That is what it should be doing.
The former Minister of Justice, now the disgraced Minister of
Health, said in this House last year that the number one criteria
in the justice system is the rehabilitation and reintegration of
criminals back into society.
That made us all sleep well that night. It made Canadians feel
really good that the Liberal government was looking after the
safety of their homes, the safety of their streets, the safety of
their families, the safety of their wives and their husbands. It
gave them a really empty feeling inside that they were not living
in a safe society and they had little hope of it because the
Liberal government under the former Minister of Justice had no
concern about the safety of their streets and their families.
1645
Government members would do well to listen to Canadian people
instead of their lawyer friends out there in legal land. They
would do well to get out in the street and talk to the people
instead of drinking cappuccino with their lawyer buddies in the
restaurants beside the law courts. They would do well to listen
to the real people out there. If they did they would start to
address some issues where there is a huge void.
Let us talk about our prison system. In case anybody does not
know, a prison is a place where bad guys go when they are
incarcerated to pay a penalty for committing crimes. That is
what prisons are supposed to be for. Prisons are not supposed to
be places where there are prisoners' unions which tell the warden
what kind of meals or what kind of recreation prisoners should
have.
I understand that people are not supposed to have drugs in
prisons. Safeguards are supposed to be in place to make sure
drugs do not get into prisons. Canadians know that many times it
was the drugs they obtained outside prison that got them into
prison in the first place.
Logic would tell us that if there were no drugs inside the
prisons people might get better. They might be rehabilitated so
they could somehow go back into society. Drugs put them there.
Liberals have a hard time making that connection: drugs put them
there so let us give them more drugs so that when they get out
they will be better citizens. They do not stop the flow of
drugs. They say they will give the poor guys in there clean
needles so they can use their drugs in a safer fashion and
condoms so they can have sex—
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I fail to see what jails, penitentiaries and everything
else the hon. member has referred to in the debate have to do
with the motion before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member has the
floor.
Mr. Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, the Liberals hate to hear
the truth. I was talking about things that go on in the prisons
which tie into the judicial system. Pornography is rampant in
prisons but according to the Liberals that is okay because
prisoners need some form of entertainment within the prison
system.
We could never support the bill until the Liberal government put
some form of accountability into the legislation to deal with the
insane decisions of some judges. If the Liberals are serious
about fixing things in the justice system, why do they not fix
the things that are wrong and not give the judges more money?
I will not support the bill. My colleagues will not support it.
No one in their right mind—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The
hon. member for Thornhill.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in today's debate. Quite honestly I did not plan
to speak but I was provoked. I felt it was important not only
for the constituents in my riding of Thornhill but for people
across the country listening to the debate to understand what the
legislation is all about. We need someone who will speak on the
topic of the bill and explain to people why the government is
taking the action it is taking.
The independence of our judiciary is important. As a matter of
principle I believe judges must be independent of political
interference, and they are. Those who call for accountability of
judges should know that accountability is through judicial
councils which review the work of judges.
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot support the
principle of judicial independence and at the same time use the
word accountability in anything other than judicial review of
judges' decisions.
1650
I stand in my place today to say that I stand for the principle
of judicial independence. I believe that judges should be
accountable through the judiciary. Those who have complaints can
go to the judicial council to ask for a review.
I have to further say that as a second principle I want leaders
in the legal profession to come forward and apply to be judges. I
do not want us to have people other than those who have years of
experience and respect within the profession to have the
opportunity to apply. I do not believe there should be a
financial penalty for people who choose to serve. Being on the
bench is a form of public service and I believe they should be
well paid. If we want to attract those who are in leadership
position among the profession, we have to make sure there is no
deterrent to those who wish to serve.
I would also like to comment on the issue of courts
administration. For the people who are watching and for my
colleague across the House in the New Democratic Party who spoke
at length about courts administration I point out that this is
entirely a provincial jurisdiction. Courts administration is a
responsibility of the provinces. They determine what resources
they wish to put into courts administration. Anyone who has
concerns about that should address their concerns to the attorney
general of the province they live in or to their premier.
Since we see many provinces such as my home province of Ontario
reducing their revenues through tax decreases of some 30%.
costing in excess of $5 billion, anyone who wants to know where
the money has gone that could have gone to courts administration,
improved health care or improved education must look at the
policy of tax cuts. Since that is the policy of the Reform Party
opposite I find it heckles interesting on this matter. The
responsibility for courts administration is entirely a provincial
jurisdiction. It is inappropriate for us to take time of the
House discussing matters that are clearly a provincial
jurisdiction.
Regarding Bill C-37, the facts are that federal judges have not
received a pay increase since 1992. They contributed to the
deficit reduction plan which resulted in the first balanced
budget in 30 years being tabled this year by the finance
minister. That is something I am very proud of.
We also know that there are provincial judges across the country
and there were remarks raised about what was happening on the
provincial scene. While that is a matter of provincial
jurisdiction, many of the provinces are adopting the same method
the federal government has adopted, the establishment of an
independent commission. For example, the Province of Quebec at
the present time has a commission studying judges' salaries.
My assumption is that if a government establishes a commission
it will look very carefully at the recommendations of the
commission. That is exactly what the federal government did. We
established an independent commission to make recommendations to
the government so that we could ensure we were attracting the
very best and the brightest, the leaders of the profession, to
sit on the bench. They make very important and difficult
decisions which affect not only public policy but public life.
The commission was called the Scott commission. The government
accepted its recommendations on pay increases for federally
appointed judges. I believe that is appropriate. It reinforces
the notion of independence of the judiciary, which was my very
first point.
If we are to determine salaries it is a very good process to
engage people who are expert in understanding the role and ask
them to advise the government.
They did that and the government took that advice. While some
may believe that number is too high, I am sure others believe
that number is too low. The government has made the decision to
accept the compensation recommendations of the Scott commission
and I believe that is appropriate.
1655
I also believe that the process for the selection of judges is a
good one. We have public representatives on the committees who
review the applications. There are also consultations with the
law societies. Just for the record, I think people watching this
debate should know that Bill C-37 is supported by the Canadian
Bar Association.
We have those who are aware of the role of judges, how hard
judges work, not only from the Canadian Bar Association but also
from an independent commission established to review the matter
agreeing that the government's action is appropriate.
I ask those in opposition to think about the implications of
arbitrarily making decisions without seeking advice from those
who know like the Canadian Bar Association or an independent
commission that would review the workload and so forth.
My view is that there will always be debate. Salary issues are
always contentious. There are always different points of view,
but it is a responsibility of government, a responsibility the
government takes very seriously. Bill C-37 reflects the
appropriate balance between judicial independence and the
obligation of government to set a salary level which will attract
the very best, the very brightest and leaders in the profession
to sit on the highest courts of the land.
The actions taken by the Minister of Justice are appropriate.
The legislation deserves support. Our process in coming to this
conclusion has been one that has been filled with integrity. As
the member for Thornhill I feel it is not only in the public
interest but in the interest of my constituents in Thornhill.
I am pleased to support the legislation because it responds not
only to the principles I have articulated but to the needs of the
judiciary and the judicial system. That is good public policy.
For those who stand in this place and use this opportunity to
vent, I think it is completely inappropriate on this type of
legislation. We should be talking about how we reward through
compensation and remuneration those people who sit in judgment on
the most difficult of subjects frequently and mete out justice in
a way which is impartial and which should be wise and thoughtful.
How do we say to federally appointed judges that we appreciate
what they do? On behalf of my constituents of Thornhill I say to
them that we believe they provide a very important service to the
people of Canada. We thank them. I believe the debate, much of
what I have heard, is an insult to the judges of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I want to
congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm. He is a lawyer
himself and could become a great judge. However, he is an MP
today and represents his fellow citizens as I do mine, and he is
totally convinced that clause 5 should be deleted. And that is
what he is proposing.
Earlier it was said that the chief justice of the supreme court
could have a retroactive increase of $25,000. Most of the
people in my riding do not earn $25,000.
1700
When we put poverty insurance on trial here. the members
opposite laughed. Today these same people are prepared to give
judges increases. We are not criticizing judges. We all know
that judges, some of them at least, are fine judges. They work
very hard. That is a fact, and everyone is aware of it,
including us. But that is not what we are talking about today.
We are saying that, in a society where people suffer, where
children in certain schools do not eat enough, where parents
suffer from depression because they run out of money for food at
the end of the month, everyone should be treated fairly.
When a person earns $150,000 a year, I think he or she can
manage to buy groceries, to go to hospital, to buy prescription
drugs.
When a person earns $15,000 or $20,000, that is something
different. In my riding I have seen many forestry workers who
start work at 5 a.m. and finish at 5 p.m.; they work for four or
five months a year and, even with poverty insurance, do not
manage to earn more than $25,000 or $28,000. They have
children, and it is hard for them to manage their budget and
meet the needs of every family member.
Now they are proposing to raise judges' salaries by an average
of $17,000. Tell that to the people in my riding of
Matapédia—Matane. This is unacceptable. A little raise, fine, but
this one makes no sense. I am therefore asking my colleagues on
the other side of this House to reflect on this and to accept
deletion of clause 5. I think everyone stands to gain as a
result.
I am sure that the judges themselves, those who are really not
in it for the money, but to serve their fellow citizens, will
understand that the House is not giving them the increase
recommended by the commission.
On the other hand, it must be realized that a lot of lawyers put
their names on the waiting list. They know what their salaries
will be and what conditions they will be working in. If they
really need more money, let them stay in private practice and
leave room for others, for there are many interested in the
position. Money must always be secondary, it must never come
first.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise today to say that I will be voting against Bill C-37 and
that I will be supporting this amendment from my Bloc colleague.
I do not think the government is in touch with the average
Canadian. It is not listening to what Canadians feel about this
issue. If it were it would not bring in a bill like this.
I want to share this afternoon three reasons why the government
is out of touch with the Canadian public and three reasons why
the Canadian public does not support this kind of wage increase
at this time.
If Liberals were truly in touch with the grassroots of this
country they would be hearing what we are hearing when we go back
to our ridings about the desperate needs of Canadians in the
areas of health care, education and crime prevention. These are
all very serious issues and priority issues that face Canadians
today.
1705
Canadians are telling us as parliamentarians that we have to get
back in touch with the priorities, the most important things that
concern them.
They see the federal government, as it has over the past number
of years, continuing to cut back on the amount of money going to
the provinces. In turn, the provinces have a smaller amount of
money to put into important areas like health care.
Members should talk to a person who has stood in line for over a
year for an operation, or talk to parents who need to have bingos
to raise funds for things in the classrooms, or talk to victims
who have been caught in some of these consequences of serious
crimes being committed. Those are the Canadians who are asking
why in the world we would give money to judges who are making
$177,000 a year already when we do not have money to put into
those priority concerns that certainly all Canadians are worried
about across this nation. It does not make sense.
Canadians are angry about this. We as parliamentarians need to
remember that it does not really matter what we think about these
issues here in the House. This is not the court that settles the
issue. It is the court of public opinion that settles the issue.
Come election time they will let us know how they feel about
this and other issues.
Canadians have another concern about something like this. The
government is sending the wrong message to law enforcement
officers, the men and women on the frontlines defending us
against the criminal element every day. They are the ones who
have to do the dirty work for us. They are the ones who have to
clean up the messes that are made by crime and criminals.
There are a lot of angry police officers out there who are
looking at the 8.3% wage increase for judges while members of the
RCMP have had a five year moratorium on their wages. When they
finally got the government to act on it what did they get? They
got a pittance. These are the people who are actually out there
on the firing line.
If this government wants to continue to drive the wedge between
those who are actually law enforcement and those who are sitting
on the benches meting out the law, then this kind of legislation
does that even more. It makes law enforcement officers angry. It
increases their frustration of the inability of judges in many
cases to actually bring the full extent of the law against the
criminals these law enforcement agents are working so hard to
apprehend and bring to court.
During the election and after I have had law enforcement
officers tell me about their frustration of working so hard to
bring the criminals to the courts and then the criminals get off
on a technicality or are given a soft sentence. That is not
right and Canadians know that is not right. There is a
frustration and anger against some judges who do this sort of
thing.
We now come to this House to give those judges a raise. The
Canadian people are not happy with our giving them that kind of
raise.
RCMP officers finally received a 2% raise retroactive to January
1, 1998. They will receive a second increment of 1% on April 1,
1998 and an additional .75% in October 1998. What does that add
up? If my math is correct, it will be 3.5% over two years.
1710
What are the judges going to receive? A supreme court justice's
salary will go from $208,200 a year to $225,700 by April 1, 1998.
I do not think the Canadian people think that is just.
Before anyone on the other side says I am against judges, that
is not the case at all. We know there are many good judges who
do fine work and work long hours to do their work well. We
commend them for the work they do. But in this present economic
climate when most Canadians are not receiving an increase at all
in their wages or at the most the wage increase is indexed to
inflation, this kind of obscene raise does not sit well with
Canadians.
It does not sit well with us in the Reform Party. It obviously
does not sit well with my colleagues in the Bloc. I am happy our
Bloc colleague brought this motion to the floor because it needs
to be debated. The government's legislation needs to be
challenged and I want to serve notice that I will be voting with
my Bloc colleagues in support of this motion.
I think that when we do this there will be a chorus of Canadians
across the country saying we voiced their concerns in the House
of Commons today and they will be supportive of where we as
opposition members stand.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
a privilege for me to enter the debate on this Bloc motion to
delete from the proposed bill clause 5. I will be supporting
this motion.
I want to address a couple of the points made by one of my
Liberal colleagues opposite. She made the point that we want
judicial independence so that it stands clear and will interpret
and apply the law in the way that the legislators of this country
both federal and provincial intended it to be enforced.
I could not agree more. I think we all agree on the independence
of the judiciary. I think we want to commend those people. I
think we want to recognize them for what they are. In order for
them to do that and to have the kind of respect we want them to
enjoy, they must be competent and able and must demonstrate solid
judgment.
A lot of judges fit into that category. Not all of them do.
But the important thing to recognize is that we want competence.
We want to trust our judges. We want to depend on them. We want
them to interpret the law as it ought to be interpreted. Where we
have difficulty is when judges decide that what they think about
the law is more important than what the House thinks the law is
to be. We have difficulty when judges think they can write the
law for Canadians, when they can reinterpret what the House of
Commons said and when they can tell the House of Commons this is
what we should be doing.
That is when the judges have stepped outside their independence.
They have now taken over a position they had no business taking
over. Let us never forget that a judge is a servant of the people
to preserve the justice of the nation, to ensure the laws are
applied fairly and with the intention and the spirit within which
legislation was passed. Judges should not tamper with the sacred
right of the people and the responsibility the people have given
to them to represent their interests, to make sure the safety and
the justice of the people are preserved. That is a point we must
underline.
This raises the point of how a judge is appointed. The process
of appointing a judge in Canada today leaves a lot to be desired.
We want to appoint people who have demonstrated that they can be
wise in their judgement, who have the courage to take on very
difficult situations and ensure the principles of justice,
fairness and righteousness apply in the administration of that
justice.
To do that means we have to step completely outside of patronage
appointments. We must have a process that guarantees that.
Unfortunately the process we have today does not guarantee this
kind of independence. How can we expect to have an independent
judiciary if the process itself is not one that guarantees or at
least has the potential of bringing forward those people who are
competent and who have demonstrated they can be trusted?
1715
That bring us into the actual provision of this motion, the
elimination of clause 5, which means to give to the judges a
retroactive pay raise of 4.1% and another in the year following
of 4.1%, a total of about 8.3% from the salary base from which
they have come today.
My concern is not that judges are going to get a raise. They
deserve to be adequately compensated. But it has to take place
in the context of what else is happening in our society.
I draw attention to the context within which this proposal is
being brought forward. My hon. colleague has just talked about
the RCMP having received a pittance. Perhaps it is a pittance
but it is what it is. Let me refresh our memories as to what it
is. On March 27, 1998 RCMP officers secured a pay raise of 2%
retroactive to January 1998. They received a second increment on
April 1 of another 1% and an additional .75% in October 1998.
That is not exactly a pittance but it does not even come close to
what is being proposed for the judges.
Let us look at what the officers do for us. They are the ones
who are at the front line, who are there to detect the criminal
and try to find out who committed the crime and to do what is
necessary to bring that criminal to justice. Those officers did
not get the kind of raise they deserve. If they did, the judges
should receive something similar.
More important is a totally different issue. The government has
decided in Bill C-3 to deny the police officers who are to
enforce the law one of the basic fundamental tools in order to
detect who actually committed the crime, to make sure the
identification is accurate. We are talking about DNA samples.
They ought to be given that kind of authority, the tool that
allows them to unequivocally determine who was at the scene of
the crime. That is one area of the context, but there is another
one.
Recently the Minister of Justice provided a fund of $32 million
for crime prevention. It is a wonderful, noble idea to prevent
crime. It is excellent. But what happened? Did any
municipality, any province receive any additional fund so that it
could apply and get the people out there to enforce the law? No.
Should we prevent crime as much as possible? Yes we should, but
we are not enforcing the law as well as we could and the police
are not able to do their job simply because in many instances
there are not enough of them.
Let me tell the House why there are not enough of them. Even if
we could use all the RCMP officers for crime detection, that
would be one thing, but the government in its wisdom passed Bill
C-68 which establishes a firearm registration. Who has to
administer the registration of all these firearms? The police.
Is that their primary function? Will that help them detect
crime? Will that help them to make our society safer? Will that
help them to bring to justice the people who have killed others,
who have committed violent crimes?
It is not a small amount of money, $133.7 million per year
estimated by the director of the new firearms registration unit.
Where is the logic in all this? That is our context.
We can go one step further. We can go to the Young Offenders
Act. We have been told for almost two years now there will be
new legislation. What did we get? A proposal. Put that in
context. It begins to look a little strange.
1720
We have the RCMP officers getting a raise. We have civil
servants getting a raise. We have other people in our private
sector getting a raise. None of them are getting a raise
anywhere close to what is being proposed for the judges.
These are the people we want to administer the law, to enforce
the law, to pass judgment on criminals that is fair, just and
righteous. Then we turn around and say they are in a special
class and deserve more money than anyone else. If we really want
to listen to the people, we should be doing things that are fair
and equitable.
We have created a special class of people who deserve a raise
over and above what anyone else is getting. I want to raise a
point that has to do with the definition of spouse.
It is very interesting that this legislation says a surviving
spouse in relation to a judge includes a person of the opposite
sex who has co-habited with a judge in a conjugal relationship
for at least one year immediately before the judge's death.
It is very interesting that this definition is different from
the one that recently came out of the appeals court defining
spouse. For judges a spouse is a partner of the opposite sex.
It is interesting that we have that kind of definition here and
we have another definition for the rest of Canadians.
What will happen now? Is an appeals court going to say this act
is ultra vires or are we going to change the other legislation?
It is fascinating that we have these kinds of things in
legislation.
I propose to the government that it take this bill back, rethink
the whole thing and figure out something that makes sense to
Canadians.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak on Bill C-37. I think
the public would find it very interesting to know that this is
not the first time, not the second time but the third time that
the government has revisited the Judges Act.
When we have issues such as victim rights, health care,
aboriginal issues, economic issues to deal with, this government
has tied up this House for the third time through committees to
deal with the Judges Act. Why?
It is costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars to deal
with this act when we have people out there, as my colleague from
Nanaimo—Cowichan mentioned, who cannot even get health care,
when we have a judicial system that is clogged up, that denies
justice to people, where justice has been absent for too long.
The government has failed to take the bull by the horns and
address these issues in a substantive and meaningful way.
Even with the Judges Act it had an opportunity to get it right.
Instead of dealing with the substantive issue of putting
accountability back in the system, transparency, scrutiny, we
have the same old system where the prime minister appoints the
people he or she sees fit to the Supreme Court of Canada.
That is not what we want. That is not what the public wants. It
can be done. It is possible to enter accountability into the
judicial system.
We can look at California. California has introduced elected
judges. Judges can be elected. They run every six years. They
do not run in the traditional sense as we run but they run on
their record. They are forbidden to actually campaign. The
purity of the system is that the judges are judged by their
peers, by the public, on their record alone.
In this way judicial independence can continue. It is very
important in a democracy. I would ask that if the government is
going to revisit the Judges Act again, heaven forbid, that it
consider this a substantive and positive issue rather than
tinkering around with issues that have very little meaning or
impact on the Canadian people.
There are other things we could have done.
It has been intelligently proposed that lower court judges come
under scrutiny in provincial or federal legislatures by the
judicial justice committee. This would provide some element of
scrutiny as to the qualifications of the individuals concerned.
This would be a reasonable and cost effective way of ensuring
that judges are the best we can attain and are not merely
buddy-buddy with the political elites.
1725
There are other issues that can be dealt with and should be
dealt with and the government has failed to do this with our
justice system. I will present some of the challenges and some
of the solutions the government can tear apart and make better
for the benefit of all Canadians.
The first thing is to streamline the judicial system which is
getting clogged up. We have a system right now where there are
ways in which a person can go through the courts for an
extraordinarily long period of time while the victims wait in
earnest to try to find some end to the situation they are in,
some end to their victimization. This could be done if a
committee were formed to find effective ways to expedite the
judicial system from arrest to conviction.
A DNA databank should be put forth that is effective, cost
effective and based on the good science we have which would
enable the police force to have the tools and power to arrest and
convict those who are guilty in an expeditious way but also
enable them to exonerate those individuals who are innocent. The
DNA databank cuts both ways. It will be a good decider in trying
to differentiate between those individuals who are guilty and
those individuals who are innocent.
We have to put justice back in the justice system. Justice
delayed is justice denied. Now we have a system where we have
enormous delays and procedural influences that can be put forward
by clever lawyers who can clog the system for the benefit of
their client. The judicial system today and the wars that take
place within our courts have little to do with justice and
everything to do with how clever and able lawyers are to
manipulate a legal system that has more to do with how you can
manipulate the system than whether justice is truly being served.
Sometimes I wish I were a lawyer so I could put forth some
suggestions. I would implore those who are in the judicial
system today who feel frustrated about the system they labour
under and who want the best for their clients and the Canadian
people to present those solutions to members from all party lines
in this House so they can work to develop better solutions so
that those individuals who are working in the courts are able to
work more effectively.
Give the tools to the police. They are hamstrung in so many
ways and they are getting increasingly frustrated as they put
their lives on the line to make our streets safe.
I applaud the minister for putting forth her suggestions on
crime prevention. A Reform motion was passed in the House of
Commons that called for a national headstart program. That was
supported by everybody but the Bloc. The minister could use her
resources and power and call together in Ottawa her provincial
counterparts in human resources, justice and health. The minister
could put on the table all the programs today, take out what is
not working and keep what is working.
This could be integrated with the medical community, train
mentor volunteers in the middle, as was done effectively in
Hawaii. Child abuse was reduced by 99%. We could use schools and
the educational system for children between the ages of four and
eight, use the parents and integrate them into the system. We
would have a headstart crime prevention package that would be the
most effective way to decrease crime.
We know criminal behaviour in many cases results from a
fractured psyche that is a result of situations of child abuse,
violence, sexual abuse, improper parenting, absence of proper
parenting, and improper nutrition. A combination of all these
during that sensitive first eight years of life fractures the
development of the psyche and causes future problems, everything
from personality disorders to conduct disorders and sometimes
criminal behaviour.
The legal aid situation is getting out of hand.
It is far too expensive. The system right now is untenable. A
creative solution would be to go to a public defender system.
1730
California developed a public defender system where individual
lawyers were on salary. The question one had to ask was did this
provide the defendants with an adequate defence as compared to
the previous legal aid system. This has been analysed and the
answer is very conclusive. It demonstrated that those
individuals who were being defended under a public defender
system had as good or better defence as they had before.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-366, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
mechanics' tool expenses), be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am absolutely delighted today to have
the opportunity to speak on behalf of the 100,000 or so Canadian
mechanics who pretty much keep our world turning.
Most little children by the time they are two or three years old
have figured out that wheels make the world go round. Wheels get
things moving and keep them moving. Anyone who has watched a
child grow up would realize that at a very early age they figure
out that engines make cars, trucks and airplanes move.
The private members' bill which I have prepared and presented
and on which I speak today is about keeping engines on which we
depend so much moving. More specifically Bill C-366 is dedicated
to the mechanics or technicians who assemble, maintain and repair
the cars, trucks, heavy equipment, recreation equipment,
airplanes, trains and items of convenience which add so much to
enriching our lives every day. If anyone has any doubt about that
they should just ask their 16-year old son or daughter who has
just received their driver's licence what their wheels mean to
them.
Every one of us depends on the work mechanics do every day of
our lives. We depend on them to keep the wheels turning so that
we can go to and from work. We depend on their work to keep the
wheels turning so that we can get our groceries delivered from
the supermarket, go to the hospital, bring our families together,
grow our food and so much more. Now because of unfair tax
treatment we may well face a shortage of mechanics which may keep
us waiting for all of these things. The passage of legislation as
outlined in Bill C-366, an act to amend the Income Tax Act,
deduction of mechanics' tool expenses, could help to ensure that
this does not happen.
Since introducing Bill C-366 in March I have received over 6,000
letters of support for this bill. I am sure many members of the
House have received letters of support as well. The letters are
from mechanics, from various types of motor vehicle dealers and
from many other companies and organizations involved in the
automotive industry, with heavy equipment, any kind of equipment
that requires mechanics to maintain and repair to keep them on
the road or in the air.
I have received many thousands of letters from mechanics from
every province, from British Columbia to Newfoundland. These
people are frustrated that even though mechanics are required to
spend huge amounts on purchasing tools to get and keep a job,
they are not receiving a tax deduction for these costs.
As a result there is a growing shortage of mechanics, a problem
that will increasingly affect all Canadians who own or lease
vehicles or any equipment for that matter.
1735
I will explain what this bill does. Bill C-366 amends the
Income Tax Act to allow mechanics to deduct the cost of providing
the tools for their employment if they are required as a
condition of employment. The deduction encompasses maintenance,
rental and insurance costs, the full cost of tools purchased for
under $200, inflation adjusted, and the capital cost allowance
for tools over $200.
During my presentation I will explain what my bill would do if
implemented. I will demonstrate the broad support for this
change. I will explain how this more than anything else is an
issue of tax fairness.
This bill is necessary for several reasons. First there is the
investment needed to get and keep a job. To get and keep a job,
mechanics must invest an average of $15,000 in tools. Some may
invest as much as $40,000. We have heard from some of these
people. They must make annual replacement purchases of up to
$1,000. For example, the purchase of diagnostic hand tools which
are required to work on anything newer than a mid-1980s vehicle
would cost between $1,000 to $1,500. Regular upgrading of
software for these tools alone may cost $300 a year. This amount
is disproportionate in comparison with amounts in other employee
groups that are required to provide their tools as a condition of
employment.
The extent of this expense is exacerbated by the relatively
modest wage level of mechanics. The average income for mechanics
in Canada today is $29,000 a year. Clearly this kind of extra
expense without the corresponding tax deduction is a great
burden. If anyone needs convincing of this I will quote from a
few of the letters I have received from mechanics.
Blair McKinnon, a mechanic from Lloydminster, Alberta said “A
mechanic without tools is like a secretary without computer
skills. Presently, I have about $7,000 in tools. To move up in
my career, in two years the amount would double. As technology
changes, tools change at my expense. The tool becomes a special
tool and the price goes up”.
Eddie Sagal, president of Sagal Brothers Sales Limited, Moose
Jaw, Saskatchewan said “I am the New Holland dealer in Moose
Jaw, Saskatchewan. I employ about 10 service technicians,
depending on the vagaries of business. These technicians have a
great deal of money tied up in their tools. They can easily have
$10,000 invested in a starter kit, while most have $15,000 to
$20,000 worth of tools. They have to buy these tools themselves
and they need them for their employment.
Jay Sinclair of Clandonald, Alberta said “I have been in the
automotive trade for seven years now and plan to continue for
several more. I have purchased approximately $8,000 in new
tools, not including replacements. Due to the rise of
electronics in newer vehicles, not only is there a call for more
specialized tools but also more costs in the necessary tools. I
feel it is unfair that the trade that requires the most tools
purchased to stay employed is not considered as an expense on an
income tax form. I know my employer does not adjust my wage or
any others due to the purchasing of tools”.
We clearly have a problem: low wages combined with the high
cost of purchasing tools which is not deductible.
This is a tax fairness issue. In its prebudget report in
December 1997 the House of Commons finance committee stated:
The Committee believes that all Canadian employees should be
allowed to deduct from their income the cost of large mandatory
employment expenses. Special provisions in the Income Tax Act
already apply to artists, chain saw operators and musicians.
To deny this tax treatment to apprentices and technicians in the
automotive industry is not only unfair, it also imposes an
impediment to employment, especially for the young who might
choose to work as apprentices. Revising the tax treatment of
such expenses would remove the impediment that exists under the
present tax rules.
1740
That is from the finance committee. It fully supports this
move.
As well, this legislation is also completely consistent with the
treatment of others, for example, small business people,
including farmers and other independent business people. Farmers
can claim for maintenance, rental, insurance and the full cost of
tools under $200 and a capital cost allowance of tools over $200.
That is what I used as the model for this bill. The mechanism
for handling this is already in the tax system. This change will
clearly make the system more fair.
Is it not funny, is it not interesting that with this government
and with this finance minister tax fairness always means an
increase in taxation. Tax fairness always seems to mean a tax
hike. This is one case where tax fairness should mean less taxes
for mechanics who need to have this tax deduction available to
them.
Again, referring to some of these letters that I received on the
issue of tax fairness, I will quote Richard Gauthier, president
of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association “The Canadian
Automobile Dealers Association was disappointed that the 1998
federal budget did not provide technicians with the tax changes
that they deserve. We will continue to work with all
stakeholders to ensure that equity and fairness is restored to
the Income Tax Act by providing technicians the ability to deduct
the cost of their tools as an employment expense”.
Ross Ulmer, the general manager of Ulmer Chev Olds in
Lloydminster said “Every journeyman mechanic is required to have
from $8,000 to $15,000 of owned tools in order to continue their
trade. Most other professions, from musicians through plumbers
and doctors, which require this amount of investment to continue
their profession have tax incentives to allow them to deduct
capital cost allowance on those items that are essential to the
employment in their profession. These men and women are not
asking for a break to take advantage of the tax system; they are
simply asking for fair consideration given most other Canadians
in similar circumstances”.
I have a whole stack of other people I could refer to, but
obviously I do not have time.
The third issue is the shortage of skilled mechanics. The
automotive industry is predicting that the lower enrolment rates
in apprenticeship programs combined with high attrition rates in
the existing workforce will soon place the industry in a severe
shortage of skilled labour. Because employers require mechanics
to supply their tools and because of the size of the required
investment, it is difficult for young graduate mechanics to enter
the labour market.
Can we really take a chance on allowing the wheels to stop? Many
say no, including the House of Commons finance committee. The
finance committee has stated that allowing mechanics to deduct
the costs of their tools would increase enrolment rates in
apprenticeship programs and would reduce what the industry
considers to be a severe shortage of skilled labour.
With youth unemployment as high as it is and the fact that there
is a real shortage of skilled mechanics, talented young Canadians
should be able to see a career in the automotive industry. It is
unfortunate a change which could be made by this government will
not be put in place to ensure that this can happen.
I will quote from a letter I received from Ken Myhre, president
of the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology.
He says that students who enter the automotive programs at the
Southern Alberta Institute of Technology and other technical
institutes in Canada face a significant outlay in tool costs as a
part of their training program. Only when fairness is restored
to these new entrants in the workforce will we see the
technicians needed to meet Canada's workforce in the automotive
sector.
1745
Farmers and other businessmen and workers employed as artists,
musicians and chainsaw operators can claim their tools. They are
deductible. Obviously mechanics should be able to do so. The
frustration felt by mechanics across the country is highlighted
by the fact that I have received well over 6,000 letters in
support of the bill in about two months.
Bill C-366 gives mechanics fair tax treatment and in so doing
helps to reverse the shortage of skilled labour in the automotive
industry and other industries requiring mechanics.
I conclude with a quote from a letter by Sandy Warrington of
Paradise Valley, Alberta, who is writing on behalf of her son
Scott who has just completed his apprentice motor mechanic papers
after four years. Four years ago when she and her son went to
the office in Vermilion they were warned that as a parent she
would have to help support Scott since as a starting mechanic he
could not afford to buy his tools. No kidding. That was the
understatement of the year.
I will get five minutes at the end of this hour to wrap u[. I
am looking forward to hearing the members who will speak on the
bill.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lakeland
for providing an opportunity to address the issue of making
mechanics tools deductible.
On a personal level I inform the member that I am certainly
quite familiar with the issue. I have met on several occasions
with the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association that has
consistently raised concern regarding deductibility of tools as
well as with individuals in my own constituency who own
dealerships and employ mechanics that find themselves in this
situation. They have also been very effective in advocating the
case for the deductibility of tools.
I also assure my hon. colleagues that the government has been
working on this issue and has found the interventions made by
mechanics, their related associations and members of parliament
to be quite helpful.
Having expressed our willingness to find solutions that will
assist mechanics with regard to this issue, I want to spend a few
moments outlining where some of the difficulties need to be
addressed with respect to Bill C-366.
Tax recognition generally is not available for work related
employee expenses because employers normally provide the items
required for employees to perform their duties. While this is
true as a general rule, individuals in some occupations including
mechanics incur substantial expenses as a condition of
employment.
However, mechanics are not the only occupation that incurs
substantial expenses as a requirement of employment. Other
expenditures for which tax recognition might be sought include
personal computers purchased by employees, reading material,
professional journals, business clothing, uniforms and
construction safety clothing, home office expenses, and tools for
employee trades persons, just to name a few.
Due to these realities we must look at adopting a more all
encompassing approach than is proposed by the bill if we are to
be able to be justified in providing the requested tax relief for
mechanics. Any change in the tax treatment of employee equipment
expenses would need to address all employee expenses incurred as
a requirement of employment in a fair and consistent manner.
This private member's bill would also provide tax relief to all
mechanics irrespective of the size of their expenditures instead
of targeting relief to those incurring extraordinary expenses.
There are also a number of other issues which this private
member's bill fails to consider that must be addressed before
such a measure could actually be implemented. For example,
provisions would need to be developed to ensure that tax relief
is provided only for those items genuinely required as a
condition of employment and not for those purchased for personal
use. I am sure all members of the House would agree a tax
deductibility or tax expenditure for personal use items would not
be something they would support.
1750
Given this consideration, providing full tax recognition as
proposed by the bill would be unwarranted. The provisions needed
to address these issues would inevitably be complex as they would
need to account for a large variety of items for which tax
recognition may be claimed and the different work situations in
which such items are used.
To put the problem in context, consider the expensive provisions
needed to ensure the equitable recognition of automobile
expenses. Provisions governing the deductibility of employee
equipment expenditures would apply to hundreds of disparate items
and numerous occupations.
We need to take the appropriate amount of time and consultation.
Some of that consultation has taken place with respect to the
prebudget consultations in the finance committee which, as the
hon. member so rightly pointed out, recommended this item be
consider. We need consultation with respect to the affected
sectors and to work through how such a tax deduction might work,
minimizing its complexity while providing effective relief.
In light of what I have discussed it is clear that the
government is serious about undertaking further studies on this
matter so that a just and workable solution can be found for
mechanics, taxpayers and the government.
I want to restate that the intent is one that would provide tax
recognition not only for mechanics but for all those occupations
that may find themselves in the same situation as the situation
of mechanics described by my colleague across the way that have
to make substantial expenditures and are not able to deduct them
because they are employees and are not incorporated
organizations.
The issue is one that the government will continue to work on.
The interventions today by the hon. member are helpful in
assisting the government to continue to pursue the issue. We
will continue to speak with associations like the Canadian
Automobile Dealers Association which has made numerous
interventions, which I am sure has consulted with the hon. member
across the way, and which has spoken with the department and
myself in particular.
We are continuing to work on the issue. I thank the member
opposite for bringing this important issue to the floor of the
House for debate. I also thank him for the work he has done on
the bill so far. I assure him and other members of the House
that we will continue to work together to address the issue in a
meaningful way. I say this in a non-partisan fashion.
I noticed in his opening remarks the hon. member was somewhat
partisan, but I assure him we want to ensure the issue is dealt
with in the most effective way, one that would reduce complexity,
ensure efficiency and be in the best interest of the taxpayers,
the government and the particular sectors that may be affected by
it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am speaking today to the bill of the Reform member
for Lakeland, Alberta, which is aimed at allowing mechanics to
deduct the cost of tools they have to buy for their work from
their taxable income.
I am pleased to speak to this bill, which affects one of the
most important industrial sectors of our economy, the automotive
industry. As we all know, the automotive industry is constantly
evolving, in order to meet new challenges and to keep its
dominant position in our economy, which is of considerable
advantage to all Canadians and all Quebeckers.
In this sector, independent business alone employs more than
150,000 automotive maintenance and repair professionals. There
has been much debate about some major issues in the automotive
industry, and now it is time to address the matter of the
automotive maintenance and repair professionals, who are
required as a condition of employment to purchase their tools
and to maintain them in perfect condition, not to mention that
they need to insure them as well.
1755
This is a heavy financial burden because, on top of the normal
wear and tear, technological progress also forces these
technicians to continually update their equipment.
An apprentice automotive technician who is starting out must
spend between $2,000 and $5,000 to purchase the tools he needs
for his trade. That same technician, who could not start work
without a set of up to date and well maintained tools, will have to
spend over $15,000 on tools in his first 5 to 10 years. If he
specializes this could be as huge a sum as $30,000 to $40,000.
This is far from peanuts, and justifies a tax deduction.
At that level of work related expenses, there is no risk of
creating a precedent, since this tax treatment is already
applied to farm producers, forestry workers, artists and
musicians.
Needless to say that the high cost of this kind of equipment
accounts for the current shortfall in automotive service
technicians, which is a major impediment to young people
entering that field. That is not right.
The Minister of Finance is aware of the problem, since he
recently wrote to me, saying “While some workers do incur
extraordinary expenses in their jobs, finding a solution remains
difficult”.
Since he recognizes that these are extraordinary expenses, the
logical next step is to apply extraordinary deductions. That is
the only solution.
Moreover, there is food for thought for our finance and revenue
ministers here.
Here is an field of work which must not be overlooked for our
young people, especially knowing how high youth unemployment is.
The government must look at this problem very seriously. It must
not argue that granting this deduction to mechanics would lead
other trades to demand similar deductions. As I said, mechanics
incur enormous costs buying tools.
Work tools are works tools, be they the virtuoso's violin, the
lumberman's chainsaw or the mechanic's numerous tools.
Let me reiterate at this time the purpose of Bill C-366. First
of all, the bill seeks to ensure that mechanics benefit from the
same fair tax treatment as farm producers, one in line with the
treatment of chainsaw operators, artists and musicians.
Second, it seeks to relieve mechanics of the financial burden
that is imposed upon them since they are required to buy their
own tools under their terms of employment.
Third, the bill seeks to alleviate the serious shortage of
labour in automotive trades: enrolments in apprenticeship
programs will be on the rise and an increasing number of
mechanics will be able to continue working in this field.
Fourth, it seeks to create jobs for young unemployed Canadians
and Quebeckers, since talented young people will become aware of
the fact that a career in automotive trades is affordable.
Fifth, it is intended to allow mechanics to continue to provide
the usual level and quality of vehicle maintenance and repair
services, which will benefit all car owners.
For all these reasons, I think this bill is good for the economy
and for the creation of jobs.
The Bloc Quebecois and myself support the measures proposed in
this bill.
1800
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too am
pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-366, an act to amend
the Income Tax Act to provide a deduction for mechanics' tool
expenses. I want to congratulate the member for Lakeland for
bringing this legislation forward and to tell him and members of
the House that the New Democratic Party caucus fully supports
this concept and we will be supporting this bill.
I agree, for the most part, with the parliamentary secretary
that this is a non-partisan issue and to that effect note that
this is not the first time such a bill has been presented in this
Chamber. On many occasions, in fact, members of parliament have
proposed amending the act in this regard.
Joy Langan, a former distinguished member of this caucus from
British Columbia, who we talked about earlier today with respect
to the breast implant issue, had a private member's bill back in
1992 which dealt with this topic and proposed the same amendments
to the act. In addition, in 1992 the member from Manitoba, who
I believe is currently the parliamentary secretary responsible
for western diversification, among other things, put this issue
before the House. The last attempt was made in 1996.
It is also interesting to note that my colleague, the member for
Qu'Appelle, back in February tabled a similar piece of
legislation to allow workers to deduct the cost of providing
tools for their employment. That particular bill addressed the
unfairness and injustice inflicted by the current tax system on
workers required to provide tools as a condition of employment.
In the case of mechanics, for example, the current tax system
does not take into account that just to get into the trade, as
has been noted by others, a mechanic needs $5,000, $15,000 or
$30,000 worth of tools.
The member for Qu'Appelle noted that we have seen the benefits
of allowing artists, musicians and others to deduct the cost of
supplies and equipment and it is high time that we extend similar
tax treatment to include the tools of all trades persons.
I listened intently to the parliamentary secretary. I heard him
say that there are some difficulties. Tax recognition is not
generally available for specific groups. We need an
all-encompassing approach. He noted that he and his government
would be seriously undertaking further studies.
I sincerely hope that is the case. It is high time that we did
something about this issue. It is a non-partisan approach,
although I am reminded of the old Irish proverb “You can vote
for whomever you like, but the government always gets elected”.
I hope this government will act seriously on this particular
bill. To that end, I remind the House and anyone who happens to
be listening that government members opposite are taking a lot of
credit for having balanced the books and working on debt
reduction. But on whose backs were those books balanced? I
would suggest that it was not on the backs of the captains of
industry or the big banks. It was on the backs of ordinary
Canadians who got hit with higher taxes, surtaxes and higher user
fees. I think it is time to acknowledge the debt that is owed to
those people and to repay them.
One of the ways that the government could accomplish that is by
look seriously at helping ordinary folks who incur heavy costs to
go to work every day and, as the member for Lakeland noted, make
the wheels of this country turn.
Under the present tax system the favourable treatment of tools
and supplies is subject to two conditions.
First, tools supplied must be a prerequisite of employment.
Second, supplies must be unusable after they have been used in
the work for which they were purchased. For example, explosives
supplied by a miner or gasoline supplied by a chainsaw operator
are currently deductible.
1805
Let us consider the various advantages of such an amendment to
the act for the 150,000 mechanics and apprentices who are subject
to the present tax system.
First, as I noted before, mechanics must invest between $15,000
and $30,000 in tools, an amount disproportionate in comparison
with amounts invested by other employee groups who provide their
own tools and equipment. Given the size of this investment,
mechanics consider more favourable tax treatment entirely fair
and reasonable.
Second, as noted, mechanics consider that they should be given
the same tax treatment as musicians, artists, painters and the
aforementioned chainsaw operators. More favourable tax treatment
for mechanics' tools would eliminate a situation that mechanics
perceive to be unfair.
Third, more favourable tax treatment would allow mechanics to
purchase better equipment and provide better service.
Fourth, more favourable tax treatment would encourage more young
people to become mechanics and trades persons, as has been noted.
Finally, more favourable tax treatment would facilitate the
mechanics transition from school to work. Because employers
require mechanics to supply their tools and because the size of
the required investment is considerable, few young graduate
mechanics can enter the labour market. Based on this argument,
as was noted earlier, the House of Commons finance committee
recommended in its last pre-budget consultation report that the
tax treatment of mechanics' tool expenses be reviewed.
The government ignored this recommendation when delivering the
1998 budget, but we feel that now is the time to act.
I also want to note that I have received some correspondence on
this from Sagal Brothers in Moose Jaw and the good folks who work
at Nelson Motors in Avonlea at the John Deere dealership. There
is a lot of interest on this particular topic. I sincerely hope
that the government takes this bill seriously, does the necessary
work and brings in something meaningful very quickly.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is nice that you could join us this evening, and myself
particularly, because I know that you will be hanging on every
word I am about to utter, as you like to listen very closely to
what is being said.
I would like to pass on my thanks to the member for Lakeland who
has once again brought forward a private member's bill to deal
with what I consider to be an injustice and an inequity that has
been around for too long.
I find it very interesting that the issue that is being debated
tonight is so very logical. So logical, in fact, that I would
have thought the government would have been able to deal with
this change to the tax legislation itself without continually
having private members bring forward this particular issue.
I certainly wish that the government would listen to what is
being said and, if not pass this private member's bill, at some
point in the not too distant future, because the issue is a very
important one, change the legislation itself.
As has been mentioned before, this is not the first time this
issue has been before the House. It is definitely non-partisan.
This does not have anything to do with party politics. It simply
has to do with logic and correcting an injustice.
In 1992 an NDP member brought forward a private member's bill to
deal with the issue. As a member of the government in 1992, a
Liberal brought forward legislation to deal with it. In fact, a
Bloc member brought forward a piece of legislation in 1996 which
unfortunately was not dealt with.
It is a very simple situation. One sector of our society, a
very important sector, those mechanics and technicians who look
after everything from our automobiles to very heavy duty
equipment which is necessary for industrial development in this
country, are being mistreated.
Because it seems so logical, I am sorry to say that we have to
stand here constantly to try to convince the government to make
these changes.
1810
What is actually happening is that a mechanic or a service
technician is required by their employer to invest capital
contributions of anywhere from $5,000 to $40,000. These are not
pliers or simple screwdrivers. This is mechanical equipment that
is very sophisticated. The automobiles and the heavy duty
equipment that is available right now to industry is very
sophisticated equipment.
A mechanic, whether a journeyman, an apprentice or a
full-fledged mechanic, is required to have the proper tools to
fix those pieces of equipment. These tools can cost upwards of
$40,000.
We have heard that certain pieces of technical, computerized
equipment can cost anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000. The problem
is that when the mechanic goes out to buy the equipment, he does
so and does not have the opportunity to deduct it from his
taxable income. That in itself is an injustice.
When a business buys a piece of equipment, whether it is
computer equipment or any other type of mechanical equipment, the
business can write it off. It gets what is known as a CCA, a
capital cost allowance. The business can write it off, but the
individual mechanic cannot do so.
If members of government have ever walked through a mechanical
bay, they would have seen the service technicians and the
mechanics along with their tool bins. I am sure government
members would be very surprised to see the type of sophisticated
tools that are required to become a mechanic or a service
technician in today's society.
In a previous life I was with a municipal government, which
supplied certain tools, but each individual mechanic was
required, as a requirement of employment, to bring with them
their own tools and equipment. Those tools and equipment,
unfortunately, are not at this point in time tax deductible.
We heard the parliamentary secretary say that the government, he
and his department were somewhat concerned about this issue. He
said that, in fact, there was an inequity and that the government
would continue to look at the possibility of change.
He also mentioned two reasons we should be very careful when
discussing this piece of legislation and supporting it. First, he
said that if we do it for the mechanics we may well have to do
it for other employees who are required to have some piece of
equipment in order to perform their job.
If there is a possibility of correcting other inequities and
injustices, that does not mean this one should be continued.
If there are other inequities and injustices they should all be
dealt with.
Second, the parliamentary secretary said that we have to be very
careful because we have to make sure that these mechanical tools
and pieces of equipment cannot and should not be used for
personal use.
We talked about the farm equipment that can be deducted as a
capital cost allowance. We talked about musicians who can deduct
the purchase of a very expensive piece of musical equipment. We
talked about chainsaw operators. They have already been dealt
with by legislation and can write off their equipment.
I ask the parliamentary secretary “Do you not think that maybe
a chainsaw operator will use his chainsaw once for personal
use?” Perhaps a musician who has a very expensive French horn,
who uses it to generate revenue, will sit down some evening to
play it for guests.
An hon. member: Or the bagpipes.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I appreciate that, but I would prefer
the French horn as opposed to the bagpipes. It can be done in a
much smaller location with the French horn.
Does the parliamentary secretary not think that perhaps these
musicians do not use their musical equipment for some personal
use? They still have the right to deduct this from their taxable
income because it is necessary for their employment.
Those two excuses do not really cut a lot of ice. They certainly
do not have enough behind them to refuse this request to make
mechanical tools a tax deduction.
1815
We also talked about what would happen if tax deductibility were
allowed by government. The first and foremost issue is that it
will develop additional employment. It will allow people to
enter into a workforce where there is a desperate need for
people. We are not just talking about automotive service
technicians, although they are very important. As other speakers
have indicated, I have received substantial support from
automobile dealers who suggest the inequity should be corrected.
We can also look at heavy duty mechanics. In my area, in
particular in the farm industry, we are getting much more
sophisticated and larger equipment that requires people who have
been properly trained and who have the proper tools to fix the
equipment. We have a shortage in this industry. Why does the
government think we have a shortage in this industry although
jobs in this industry are very good? There is a good wage base,
a lot of job security and a lot of opportunity.
Why would young people coming out of high school not want to go
to a tech school to take heavy duty mechanics or automobile
mechanics and servicing? Because in order to get a job they have
to invest $15,000 to $40,000 for equipment and tools. That is
the same amount that cannot be written off on a capital cost
allowance, a CCA, as one would normally deduct in a business.
That would allow them to afford to go into that industry which is
a very good industry. Maybe if we did that we would encourage
people to get into the industry and we would not have a shortage
of mechanics and technicians.
We have a community college in my community which has some very
good programs with respect to mechanics. It has difficulty
filling those programs, not because there are not competent
people who would like to do it but because they cannot afford to
do it. This is one of those areas in which the government could
look to help the unemployed.
The government says it is looking at it. However, it has been
looked at for many years even with previous governments. When
members of this government were in opposition, they would have
liked to see some changes but now that they form the government
it seems that changes move very slowly.
The one thing that moves very slowly in this government is tax
relief to Canadians in general. We could get into the very
excessive payroll taxes in place now, the increased CPP which we
have talked about ad nauseam in this House, the increased EI
premiums and EI surpluses which have not been given back. So
maybe we could start with one very small opportunity to have
government support this private member's legislation so that one
inequity and one injustice would be corrected.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to speak today on behalf of the many
mechanics and technicians of Battlefords—Lloydminster in support
of my esteemed colleague's private member's Bill C-366, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act to allow for the deduction of mechanics'
tools.
It is only fair that young men and women working to advance
their careers in this growing field should be treated the same
way by the tax code. There is quite an inequity here. We see no
logic or common sense in denying these young people that tax
deductibility. The only thing we can see holding this up is that
there is no desire from the government at this time to implement
any kind of tax relief for their situation.
As the parliamentary secretary said so eloquently a short time
ago, there have been interventions on this issue. I was at the
finance committee with him during those interventions. It has
been done for the past number of years and no one has really
taken the bull by the horns and made it happen. I am wondering
with such logic and common sense in place to put this tax code in
place, why are we waiting. We talk about complexity of the act,
that this cannot happen. The Liberal government says don't
worry, be happy, we are studying it, something is going to happen
somewhere down the road.
I wish to tell young mechanics and technicians not to hold their
breath. Their tools are going to be old and rusty before the
government ever gets off its duff to make this happen.
1820
My son is a mechanic. He is 19. Already he has over $6,000
worth of tools and it is a prerequisite of the job. The total is
well over $6,000 which is a big chunk of change for a young guy
starting his career in the workforce. If that were tax
deductible there would certainly be an incentive to expand what
he has and to work a little harder at the job.
There is a tremendous pride in the ownership of the tools. It
is very self-evident in the workplace that they do. They keep
the workplace neat and tidy because of that, because they own the
equipment. My son has a little sticker on the side of his tool
box that really says it all, “Don't ask to borrow my tools. The
only thing we loan out belongs to the old tomcat and he always
brings it back”. That is kind of evident of the way these kids
feel about these tools. They worked hard to own them, so there
is a pride of ownership. Why can we not extend that to being tax
deductible as we do for all the other instances that were
presented with here today?
There are differences in mechanic and technician tools
deductibility. It is a growth industry. There is a tremendous
demand for young apprentices. Exceptional expenses are involved.
As opposed to a pair of shoes to feel better when you are working
in a store, we are talking right off the bat of thousands of
dollars of input.
Also we are looking at programs in our community colleges to get
the young people into the workforce. A two year program puts
them into a mechanic or body shop situation. They are earning
money and paying taxes. It is only fair that there is an
incentive to make that happen.
There is a shortfall in the job sector for youth employment that
the government is so intent on addressing. There is a tremendous
opportunity out there and making a deductibility for mechanics'
tools and technicians' tools would certainly add to that. We
would see many jobs filled in that sector. We have seen numbers
as high from some interveners as 100,000 positions could be
filled. It may take just this little incentive to make it
happen.
The objective of the bill is fairness in taxation. I applaud my
colleague's desire to see this done. He is the latest in a long
list of people from all political parties who have tried to put
this act before parliament and have it acted on. I have to
stress the youth employment potential. It is economically
positive. It is an excellent bill and I urge the government to
act accordingly and have it implemented immediately.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted for the opportunity to add to the debate today since I
too have had representations from people not only in my riding
but from other areas around the country on this issue.
It is an issue of fairness. Professionals, even lawyers, are
able to deduct the cost of office equipment which he or she needs
in order to do their business. A doctor, a dentist or any
professional is able to deduct the cost of equipment or have it
apply in capital cost allowance schedules on income tax.
Why do we discriminate against certain groups of people like
mechanics? That is the topic we are dealing with today, although
I hasten to add there are others who are discriminated against in
this way. It is a matter of great urgency that we actually get
the government to move on this.
My colleague who just spoke was too negative. He said the tools
will be all be rusty before the government will move on it. I
take this occasion to appeal to the Liberal members on the other
side who right now are in a majority. I beg them to act on this.
It is so obvious and self-evident. The previous speakers have
all spoken about this. All the different groups from the finance
committee to others have heard presentations. It is a solid
argument. There is no reason to hesitate on it.
In my riding there is a major shop and a number of other jobs
that work on car repairs. The one I am thinking of is Peterson
Pontiac in Sherwood Park in my riding. I had a letter from those
people saying they need all this investment and they are among
the only ones who cannot reduce their income tax payable by the
amount of those tools. They actually have to buy those tools
with after tax income. This for most of them effectively
increases the cost by about 50% to 80% depending on how much
money they are making.
1825
To buy a $50 tool they have to earn $80 or $90 so that after
they pay the tax on it they have enough money left.
I urge this government to do something about this. It is time
to stop sitting on our duffs. We cannot do that anymore. We
must get moving. We must do what is right. We must give
fairness in taxation to mechanics.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
sincerely thank the members from all political parties who have
spoken in support of this bill. I thank the parliamentary
secretary who gave general support and some good reasons to
support the bill but who also unfortunately came up with a few
excuses as to why it has not happened, one being that other
technicians should be included.
I agree with that but the government has had five years to make
that happen. The parliamentary secretary also showed a concern
regarding personal use of tools. That is an issue regarding any
item that is allowed for deduction under tax regulations, so it
just does not wash at all.
I thank the member from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke on this,
gave his full support and made some very good comments. The
member from the New Democratic Party said this is not a partisan
issue, that it has been brought up before, which is the case. I
thank the member for that.
I thank the member from the Conservative Party who gave full
support and hit on several of the key issues. This member also
pointed out that the government has been very tardy on this. I
thank them all for their comments.
Our finance critic, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, a
member of the finance committee, pointed out reasons employers
require mechanics to own tools, which I think is a very important
point. Anyone who has employed mechanics or who has worked with
tools knows that tools tend to walk. This is not only because
people steal them but tools get left on a piece of equipment, the
equipment gets driven away and the tools disappear. Certainly
they would pay extra attention if they were their own tools. I
thank the member for making that important point and the member
for Elk Island who showed his support for this bill.
We have what appears to be unanimous consent from the people who
presented on this bill. I cannot understand why it has not
happened before now. This is not a new issue. This issue has
come up from MPs from all parties in the past, MPs such as Joy
Langan, NDP, in 1992 and the Liberal member for Saint-Boniface.
A Bloc MP in 1996 put forth a bill that would at least do some of
these things.
This is not a new issue. This government has had five years to
act on it. It has not acted and it is too bad. It is very
unfortunate, particularly for the mechanics who really need this
piece of legislation. I do not think we can wait any longer.
This is clearly a tax fairness issue. I find it surprising that
just because it is a tax fairness issue that actually requires a
reduction in taxation, it is not going to be acted on, at least
through this bill.
I want to tell mechanics this issue is not dead. I have the
6,000 to 7,000 letters. I have the lists of groups and
businesses that have supported this. I am going to keep going
with this.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to make Bill C-366
votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
1830
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the item is
dropped from the order paper.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
May I ask the unanimous consent of the House to briefly revert
to Routine Proceedings and Notices of Motions for the Production
of Papers.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its unanimous
consent to revert to Notices of Motions for the Production of
Papers?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like Motion P-24 to be called.
That a Humble
Address be presented to His Excellency
praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all
documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes,
correspondence relating, prosecutions and issues related to extradition
concerning the bombing of Air-India 182 in
1995.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under
Standing Order 97(1), I would suggest that this Notice of Motion
for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Is it agreed that the remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on May
1 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development responded to my question on the New
Brunswick forestry crisis. He said “We are working with New
Brunswick”. Well, nice words but empty words it seems.
Early last month the minister said “We have always said we will
assist the province and the First Nations”. The truth of the
matter is that the active federal government involvement should
have happened a long time ago. Just like other actions taken on
aboriginal issues by this Liberal government, it is a matter of
too little way too late.
Does the minister expect First Nations peoples of New Brunswick
will easily leave the forest and reduce their logging ambitions?
Does she expect that they will easily part with productive jobs
and incomes to return to social assistance in many cases? I
expect not.
Why then has the minister abjectly refused to issue a reply to
the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples tabled over 600 days
ago? This report outlined a number of initiatives in forestry
which may have helped prevent the current crisis. However, this
government continues to hide its head in the sand when it comes
to aboriginal forestry.
When issuing the landmark Delgamuukw decision last December,
Chief Justice Antonio Lamer stated “Let us face it, we are all
here to stay”. By refusing to provide leadership, this Liberal
government appears to be hoping the aboriginal people will simply
go away.
Early last month Elizabeth Weir was quoted as saying “The
province should be using this time to actively request the
federal government get involved”. She is right. But this
government should have been actively involved long ago. It
appears that this government is so deep in the pockets of the
Irvings and the other logging mega corporations that it refuses
to act on the recommendations of the aboriginal peoples
commission.
Six years ago the national forestry strategy called to increase
“the involvement of aboriginal peoples in forest land
management”. Six years later there is precious little except
maybe a real crisis in the forests of New Brunswick to show for
this government's efforts.
The government has a responsibility to explain what it has done
on each of the following 10 points, or why it has consistently
refused to act. These 10 points are based on the report of the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
This federal government should already have taken steps to:
one, work with other governments and aboriginal communities to
improve aboriginal access to forest resources on crown lands;
two, promote aboriginal involvement in provincial forest
management; three, give continuing support to aboriginal peoples
forest resource associations; four, encourage the provinces to
work with their large timber licensees, like the Irvings, to
promote forest management partnerships with aboriginal firms;
five, encourage joint ventures between aboriginal forest
operating companies and other firms with wood processing
facilities; six, promote less intensive aboriginal forest
management practices and traditional land use activities; seven,
work to provide for special roles for aboriginal governments in
reviewing forest management and operating plans within their
traditional territories; eight, work toward ensuring that
aboriginal land use studies are a requirement for all forest
management plans; nine, ensure that forest management expertise
is available to First Nations; and ten, consult with aboriginal
governments to develop a joint policy statement delineating their
respective responsibilities in relation to Indian forest
reserves.
1835
Each and every day that this government refuses to actively
pursue these recommendations of its own royal commission it
shoulders a greater part of the responsibility for the current
logging crisis in New Brunswick and for other crises that might
develop elsewhere.
Just this morning there was news about a potential crisis
brewing in B.C. Maybe now this government—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development has the
floor.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to respond to the hon. member for Halifax West concerning
aboriginal access to forest resources on crown lands.
The key issue in this matter is the involvement of New Brunswick
aboriginal people in the forestry industry in New Brunswick. The
New Brunswick appeal court found that there was not sufficient
evidence in the case concerning Mr. Peter Paul to support a
treaty or aboriginal right to commercial use of the forests. In
any event, court decisions in this case will not close the door
forever on the question of aboriginal or treaty rights in the
maritimes.
Including aboriginal people in economic activities throughout
Canada can go a long way toward promoting economic development in
aboriginal communities. This will help raise the standard of
living and hope for the future among a group of people who remain
the most disadvantaged in Canadian society.
The Government of Canada recognizes that this case deals with an
issue that falls under provincial jurisdiction. The government
is pleased to see that the Government of New Brunswick is
amenable to negotiating immediately interim arrangements that
would enable First Nation communities to participate more fully
in the province's forestry industry.
The province's initial proposal is being reviewed by a coalition
of aboriginal leadership and loggers. It is our understanding
that a counterproposal will be submitted to the province shortly.
In addition, the province launched a task force led by former
chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Gerard La Forest.
The mandate of this task force is to consider the immediate
issues related to forestry, but also a broader agenda of concerns
to the province's First Nations such as education and economic
development.
We believe that this task force will help bring all parties
together to support peaceful resolutions to this issue. While
respecting the primary responsibility of First Nations leadership
and the province to resolve these issues, the federal government
is open to considering how it could assist the parties to
facilitate a resolution. The Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and her departmental officials will continue
to discuss this with First Nations and the province of New
Brunswick.
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on May 5 I raised a question in this House concerning foreign
workers entering Canada under articles 1601 and 1701 of the North
American Free Trade Agreement, known as the NAFTA. The reason for
raising this was a result of complaints I was receiving,
complaints of abuse of the NAFTA provisions, complaints of
blatant stretching of the rules, all of this to the detriment of
Canadian workers.
The application of articles 1601 and 1701 is reasonable and
straightforward. It recognizes that sometimes citizens of the
U.S. and Mexico may want to enter Canada to sell products, or to
service products, or to install products manufactured in one of
those countries. In doing so it is quite a reasonable and simple
idea.
Suppose an American company sells an automated painting machine
to a Canadian company that manufactures something like wooden
doors. When the equipment is delivered the American manufacturer
may, pursuant to articles 1601 and 1701 of NAFTA, send a person
knowledgeable in the installation and startup of that machine to
supervise its installation. What is presumed and expected is
that Canadian electricians and millwrights will move the machine
into place and hook up the electrical service but the technical
expert is simply there to direct and supervise the work.
What appears to be happening, or what is being suggested to me,
is that this is being abused. It is being abused by the
Americans who become more than technical supervisors, but who in
fact become tradesmen. They start doing the work of people such
as electricians, pipe fitters and millwrights. They pick up the
tools of these trades and in doing so they put Canadians out of
work. They take Canadian jobs from Canadian trades. This cannot
be tolerated. The department of immigration must be vigilant.
My concern involving this arose from a series of complaints I
received in my office. Quite simply, a number of tradespeople
came to me and told me that there were at least 25 Americans
posing as technical consultants on a job site in southwestern
Ontario. The complaints were the same. These outsiders were
working as tradespeople. They were doing whatever was required.
1840
Subsequently the regional immigration office in London advised
me there were 40 Americans on the site, 40 so-called technical
consultants. When I asked whether immigration had investigated, I
was advised no. To date it has not done so and the complaint was
first laid on December 9 of last year.
This in my opinion is a sad commentary on the state of the
immigration department. In fact the reason given was
unbelievably weak. The department did not intervene because it
did not have hard hats or safety boots for its employees to enter
the worksite.
In her response to me on May 5 the minister stated “I would
encourage any member who is aware of a situation to refer it to
my department”. I hope that the minister today is re-evaluating
the resources of her department. I hope that all of these
potential abuses are being dealt with immediately.
In this case four months after the initial complaint nothing was
done and to date nothing has been done. This is a tragic and sad
commentary on how Immigration Canada protects Canadian jobs for
Canadians.
I hope the minister will move more decisively and quickly to
change this. On behalf of Canadian workers I hope that the
minister will enforce the true spirit and intent of the NAFTA.
Finally, I hope the minister will stand up for Canadians.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Sarnia—Lambton for his question. It reflects the commitment and
concern he has for his constituents.
First let me state that in our increasingly global economy the
need to knock down trade barriers assumes greater importance.
That is why the North American Free Trade Agreement in addition
to other international agreements are crucial to the government's
agenda for creating jobs and growth.
NAFTA commits Canada to work together with our U.S. and Mexico
partners to expand trade and investment and to facilitate the
movement of legitimate business persons.
Success in the new economy increasingly relies not only on the
ability to move products but also to move people across borders
quickly and efficiently. This is not to say we are throwing the
door open to all workers from the United States and Mexico. We
are not. The categories of certain business persons permitted by
the agreement from the three countries to have access to each
other's countries to conduct certain types of business activities
are strictly regulated.
Unfortunately, we may at times encounter those who try to bypass
the regular system and attempt to abuse our programs as the
member had raised. I want to make it clear that this government
will not tolerate this type of behaviour.
In fact the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said on
several occasions that anyone who has information regarding
potential abuses of the provisions of NAFTA and/or the
Immigration Act is encouraged to contact the department. Hence,
on hearing the question on this issue let me assure the member
that again this matter will be brought to the attention of the
department so that the member may be posted as to developments to
ensure that indeed the problem raised has been solved
definitively.
[Translation]
VARENNES TOKAMAK
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in adjournment proceedings.
On May 12, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources why the
federal government was withdrawing its financial support from
the Varennes Tokamak. I denounce the inconsistency of the
government's decision, and its lack of vision.
The end of this major project is a considerable loss not only
for Quebec, but also for Canada, in terms of developing an
expertise in the high technology sector.
The Varennes Tokamak, Quebec's number one R and D project in the
energy sector, will shut down for good in a few days. The
precarious state of public finances when the decision was
originally made was used as an excuse for rationalizing.
Today, the Minister of Finance boasts about having put the
country's fiscal house in order and having managed to eliminate
the deficit. However, the argument of rationalization is no
longer valid, now that we have a budget surplus that was created
essentially because of the efforts of the provinces and the most
disadvantaged. The government can no longer invoke this
fallacious argument to justify such an illogical and regressive
decision.
The Liberal government now has the means to continue its modest
annual contribution of $7.2 million to the Varennes Tokamak.
In its last budget speech, the Minister of Finance said, and I
quote “the more R and D that is done in Canada, the more jobs
that will be created for Canadians”.
How can this statement be reconciled with a decision so
disconnected from Canada's future needs in the energy and
technology sectors, for which we must prepare right now?
1845
The research on nuclear fusion in the Tokamak project in
Varennes is part of a concerted international effort. Four of
the major partners in this international project, namely, the
United States, Japan, Russia and the European Union, invest
nearly $2 billion in research on nuclear fusion.
A full member of the select club working to develop a renewable,
clean and safe form of energy, the federal government spent only
$7.2 million annually on research, while enjoying all the
benefits of the knowledge and technical and scientific expertise
in the field of nuclear fusion.
With the closure of the Tokamak project in Varennes, Canada will
now be deprived of the scientific and technological benefits.
Not only will it lose its internationally recognized expertise
in microwaves to achieve a modest saving of $7.2 million, but it
will destroy the links it had with an international network of
contacts in cutting edge scientific research.
In an article in La Presse on May 11, Tom Dolan, the co-ordinator
of the world fusion research program with the UN International
Atomic Energy Agency, said he was very disappointed to see
Canada drop its nuclear fusion research program.
How can such a project be shut down, when the minister was
recently claiming to be concerned about the development of clean
and renewable energies, and when this objective is part of his
strategy for managing climate change?
But since the phenomenon of climate change will have very
long-term effects, something the Minister of Natural Resources
has just begun to admit, furthermore, research and development
of forms of energy such as the one the Tokamak team was working
on helps prevent the emission of greenhouse gases and avoid the
risk of nuclear accidents presented by the Candu reactors, for
instance.
Why would Canada no longer participate in the development of a
source of energy such as nuclear fusion? We are told it is a
question of priorities.
Is it not a priority for Canada to be among world leaders in the
research and development of clean and safe renewable energies,
rather than limiting its role to that of a passive spectator?
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but
the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources
Development has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for raising this important issue and I welcome the
opportunity to speak to the matter.
The federal government has provided $90 million to Tokamak de
Varennes from 1981 to 1997. The government chose, however, not
to terminate funding abruptly. This would have been unfair to
the scientists and researchers.
When the government decided to terminate its support for fusion
at the end of March 1997 it provided a lump sum payment of $19
million to Hydro Quebec thereby absolving the government of any
future liabilities for this project. Hydro Quebec agreed to
operate the facility for an additional three years, complete the
experiments in progress and allow for an orderly shutdown of the
facilities.
Hydro Quebec announced in May that it would be shutting down
this facility earlier than anticipated because of budgetary
pressures. It seems that Hydro Quebec has decided, like the
federal government, that fusion cannot be a priority at this
time.
Federal funding of fusion research has been a difficult issue
over the years as the funding requirements kept escalating.
Fusion research is expensive and equipment had to be kept up to
date with advances in fusion science to be able to make
meaningful contributions to the knowledge base. Although the
science was very good the technology was very expensive and has a
payback that is at least 30 to 40 years in the future. It is not
certain the technology could be successfully developed.
Natural Resources Canada decided that fusion could not be a
priority given the spending cuts that had to be made and the
limited resources at our disposal. In energy R and D the
government is focusing on those areas that have the greatest
promise for reducing greenhouse gases and for helping to meet our
commitment to the Kyoto protocol.
Many accomplished dedicated scientists were associated with this
project. They are to be commended for their contribution to this
field of research. The Government of Canada has a responsibility
to Canadians, however, to manage public investments prudently and
to establish strategic priorities in energy research. It simply
does not have the means to fund all research, as worthy as it may
be.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I wanted
to have an opportunity to put some more comments on the record
with regard to hepatitis C. There have been numerous questions
to the minister over the past few weeks.
1850
The parliamentary secretary is here tonight. I guess maybe in
an unusual sense we will have a little debate here if it is
allowed. I will put a question or two to the parliamentary
secretary which perhaps he could answer. I do not think that is
breaching the rules too much.
My last question to the minister on this issue had to do with
the working group established after the breakdown in talks
between the federal health minister and the provinces regarding
compensation for all victims outside the 1986 to 1990 package. No
one would argue with that package in and of itself, but obviously
the problem is that we have many victims prior to 1986 who were
not compensated. Therein lies the problem.
We want to see this issue resolved. We want to see all pre-1986
innocent victims of the tainted blood supply compensated. It is
as simple as that. Some provinces have indicated since the
breakdown of the federal-provincial negotiations that they would
compensate. They are on record and have obviously dedicated some
funding to it.
I am hoping to get tonight basically a sense of what is
happening at the meetings in Edmonton which are presently
ongoing. We have heard everything from a complete breakdown in
the negotiations to things are moving on, they are still talking
and meeting and so on. We are hoping the latter is the case and
that negotiations are continuing. I have to refrain from using
the word negotiations because the minister says they are meeting
and discussing. At the end of the day we are hoping that
something will happen.
I hope the parliamentary secretary can bring us up to date on
this issue because it is an issue that will not go away. I do
not think Canadians will be satisfied until there is a
compensation package that includes all the victims prior to 1986,
some of whom contracted hepatitis C since 1990. Possibly the
parliamentary secretary could bring us up to date.
In a country as generous as Canada and in a country which as I
told the Canadian public time and time again in the House is
rated No. 1 in the world we are seeking fairness for all victims.
Maybe the parliamentary secretary could deviate from the script
a bit tonight and bring us up to date.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased my colleague
opposite has at least recognized the compensation package that
was fashioned thanks to the leadership of the Minister of Health
for Canada together with his colleagues at the provincial and
territorial level. It has finally been acknowledged as something
that in and of itself is very good. In fact I think he said
unquestionably acceptable.
We all know what has transpired since the package which deserves
all those adjectives was placed before the House and before the
Canadian public. To be more specific, to get to a resolution of
some of the things that have transpired in the last couple of
months, as the member has indicated the federal authorities
together with the provincial and territorial counterparts met in
Edmonton for two days.
I remind members in the House and those watching the proceedings
that the victims were also present through their representatives.
Some positions have been floated through the press. Some have
come before the House and others have been addressed by
interested parties with respect to how to deal with those who
fall outside the package that we placed before the House and the
Canadian public some two months ago.
1855
Those positions were discussed. They were evaluated. I dare
say they were probably placed in some kind of balance so the
working group could consider substantive issues and deal with
short term and long term implications, cost implications, health
delivery system implications and jurisdictional implications.
That is where the working group is now. We hope it will
conclude its study in short order.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on March 12, I asked the Minister of the Environment if
Environment Canada had sufficient resources to fulfil legal
responsibilities and to enforce regulations contained in the
current Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The minister replied that his department had sufficient
resources to deal with every element of environmental protection
under the current act. The standing committee was contrary in
its findings. On February 26 Environment Canada's deputy
minister responded to committee questions by indicating that the
environment enforcement program lacked adequate human and
financial resources.
The standing committee report entitled “Enforcing Canada's
Pollution Laws: The Public Interest Must Come First” raises
concern that crown liability for failure to enforce environmental
legislation may lead to actions against Environment Canada for
regulatory negligence. It also highlights the need for more
human and financial resources.
The environment minister stated on national television that
there had not been recent cuts to the environment enforcement
program. Following the interview Canadians could read the
figures for themselves.
In 1995 there were 28 investigators to protect Canada's
environment from pollution and assorted environmental impacts and
infractions. Today there are 17 investigators or a loss of 11
investigators.
The environment minister stated time and time again that the
Liberal government provided the highest environmental standards
for Canadians. It is a convenient answer when opposition members
call the government to account for the deterioration of
environmental standards across the country.
The Canadian public does not know the critical state of Canada's
environment. Most Canadians would be shocked to learn that
entire sections of CEPA are not enforced in some provinces.
The minister re-signed an agreement with Quebec to monitor pulp
and paper effluents. The next day it was reported that at least
20 infractions were not being enforced in that province.
Most Canadians would be shocked to know that the entire CEPA
budget for Atlantic Canada above salaries and operating expenses
is $150,000 for the region.
The Pacific-Yukon region where 16 people are expected by the
government to cover an approximate 17,200 possible sites where
federal regulations may apply will lose a third of its budget
this year.
The government has more parking enforcement officers on
Parliament Hill than there are six field inspectors for the
entire prairie and northern region, an area larger than Europe.
Before the program reviews which slashed an estimated 40% from
Environment Canada's budgets since the Liberal took office, an
internal Environment Canada report recommended 300 enforcement
personnel would be needed to protect our environment. In reality
today there are fewer than 70 people.
The environment minister stated the benefits of voluntary
compliance and reporting programs. Canadians should know that
report after report has stated otherwise. Voluntary alone does
not work. Industry complies when federal regulations are
applied.
We are not saying there is a lot of bad apples but there are a
few that require monitoring. For instance in this wonderful land
we call home, Canada, the harsh climate does not allow us to
leave any window or door open without compromising everybody's
comfort or safety.
The standing committee received numerous presentations from
Canada's environment community which concur that voluntary
programs are insufficient for environmental protection. Why
would the minister continue to pursue a policy that people in her
own department stated does not work? Who is the government
trying to protect?
A lack of leadership and political will was highlighted—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Prime Minister has the floor.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are committed to a
clean environment in its many dimensions, knowing that a clean
environment is one determinant of good health of the citizenry.
That is why Canadians want strong and effective environmental
laws to ensure a clean environment for Canada.
That is why on March 12 the Minister of the Environment
introduced Bill C-32 to renew the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act. The bill represents a shift from expensive
efforts to try to clean up pollution after the fact to preventing
it from occurring in the first place.
1900
In the bill all substances used in Canada will be screened for
their effects on the environment and therefore human health.
Strict deadlines for action will be in place. The government is
committed to putting the most dangerous toxic substances on the
path to virtual elimination. One of the innovative features of
this bill is the authority to require pollution prevention plans
for toxic substances, a first for Canada.
Pollution prevention is good for both environment and business.
Companies that have voluntarily adopted a pollution prevention
approach have found it improves the bottom line. At the same
time, sound enforcement of the law is essential to creating a
level playing field that supports environmental leaders while
penalizing polluters.
The renewed act will improve enforcement by expanding inspector
powers, including the authority to issue on the spot orders and
ensuring that the financial and human resources needed are in
place.
The new act is founded on the principle of partnership, not on
devolution of federal powers to the provinces and territories but
on close co-operative work with them. The federal government
remains firmly committed to safeguarding the health of Canadians
from the threat of pollution by strengthening environmental
protection in Canada.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is 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 7.00 p.m.)