(i) the delivery of a prize or other benefit to a participant in
the contest, lottery or game is, or is represented to be,
conditional on the prior payment of any amount by the
participant, or
(ii) adequate and fair disclosure is not made of the number and
approximate value of the prizes, of the area or areas to which
they relate and of any fact within the person's knowledge, that
affects materially the chances of winning;
We consider these important points. This clarifies much of the
bill which remains imprecise. I point out the particular
context of this bill, which will give greater powers to the
director of the competition bureau, to be known in future as the
commissioner. This individual will be able to make decisions
alone, whereas in the past there were other commissioners.
If these points are not spelled out, this person will have a
difficult task. More importantly, I think that the victims of
deceptive telemarketing should know when such action is
considered fraudulent so they may lodge a complaint.
Our aim in making these proposals is to improve the legislation.
As I indicated earlier when referring to the motions affecting a
general criminal provision in subsection 52(1) against misleading
representation, the wording of the proposed subclause 13(a) would
in most cases be broad enough to capture the matters specifically
detailed in the suggested paragraphs, namely: performance claims,
warranties and ordinary price claims.
I also note that the wording suggested by paragraph (a.3) of
this motion does not take account of the proposed new tests
dealing with ordinary price claims in section 74.01, which were
thoroughly canvassed, accepted and debated by the committee.
This motion stands alone in Group No. 3 and, if supported, would
expand the guidelines provided for telemarketers to include
fraudulent claims regarding warranties and the overall
performance and efficacy of a product.
My immediate concern is that this amendment would wrongly place
the onus on the telemarketer to ensure that the manufacturer's
product claims are accurate. While I strongly believe that
telemarketers must act with due diligence in their relationship
with manufacturers, the quality and efficacy of the product as
supported by the manufacturer's claim should be the
responsibility of the manufacturer. Furthermore, section 52 of
the act, as amended by Bill C-20, is sufficiently broad so as to
include false claims concerning warranties and the overall
quality of products.
For these two reasons I would recommend that Motion No. 6 be
opposed.
On a final note, it is not in the best interests of consumers to
create legislation that will be unduly costly and cumbersome for
business. My colleagues in the Reform Party have constantly
argued that we need to try to create opportunities by putting
less obstacles in the way of business. Being a small
businessman, I know that the biggest obstacles which are usually
faced are government red tape and bureaucracy. Let us look at
ways to try to eliminate that and make it easier.
Motion No. 6 unfortunately goes down the road of putting
obstacles in front of business. We need a balance between the
protection of consumers and the freedom of business. As I
mentioned earlier, I commend Industry Canada for this initiative.
We are starting to see more of a direction toward eliminating
bureaucracy and red tape for business. I wish that the
government would follow that direction and that we would see more
of this type of direction in legislation on other bills. We need
to try to create more opportunities in our economy and we should
all work together to try to do that.
As I mentioned, I believe it would be in the best interests of
the House to oppose Motion No. 6.
The warranty is a larger legal term than just the type of
guarantee you get from a manufacturer for a product that is being
sold, statements made about the efficacy of a product, about the
standard and quality of a product and indeed about the prices at
which products are traditionally being sold are not only made by
the person manufacturing the product, who in this day and age is
probably in another country altogether, but also by the importer,
the wholesaler and the retailer.
Therefore, it is important to include a provision of this sort
for greater specificity, for greater protection for consumers and
for greater protection for businesses which are honest and
forthright because they are being penalized by the deceptive
practices of other businesses.
It is important to add this kind of provision. It is a common
practice amongst most legislation of this sort. It would add
extra specificity to the section dealing with telemarketing
practices. It would provide an extra person, who might be
responsible, to be pursued legally for damages above and beyond
the manufacturer, the importer, the wholesaler and any other
retailer. It seems to widen the net a bit to bring in more
deceptive practices perpetrated by those businesses which are
dishonest and out to cheat Canadians.
I would like to emphasize a point made by last the speaker. It
is odd to suggest that a provision such as this, which would
prohibit misleading representations to the public concerning the
price at which things are sold, which would prohibit
representations which are untrue as to the performance, efficacy
or length of life of a product, with respect to a warranty or
guarantee of a product with regards to repair, replacement and so
on, could be damaging to business, at least damaging to
legitimate business. If the member wants to protect illegitimate
business that is another matter. It would be damaging to those
illegitimate businesses which are out to cheat consumers and
their competitors in the marketplace.
Surely we are here to present a level playing field for
businesses and protection for consumers. If the hon. member
looked back at other consumer protection legislation, not only in
other parts of the world but throughout Canada, he would have
seen that this is a very normal provision and one which would add
to the protection of consumers and to the protection of
legitimate businesses. It seems to me that it is in everyone's
interest.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-20, a
bill that we had hoped would be expedited so as to provide our
law enforcement officials with more tools in their ongoing battle
with telemarketing fraud.
Recent estimates have put telemarketing fraud figures at $50
billion annually in Canada and the U.S. A quick calculation
tells me that this equates to over $137 million each and every
day. I ask that members pardon my frustration, but I have to
wonder why we are allowing even one more day of delay on this
issue.
Perhaps these amendments are reasonable. However, I believe
that deceptive telemarketing provisions are already adequately
addressed by legislation.
I must add that perhaps if this motion, as well as the preceding
ones, had been introduced at the committee stage we would have
had the opportunity to study them in an in-depth fashion.
That is the purpose of our parliamentary committee work. Once
again I feel that we would be slipping into an indiscriminate
approach to legislation if we were to pass this motion. This
could only lead to shoddy legislation, and the PC Party will not
be supporting it.
Let us stop battling semantics and let us get on with the job
of battling crime.
What we have here is a series or a successive number of
governments, both federally and provincially, that have practised
intervention more and more over a long period of time. In Canada
we have as a result of this a distorted market at times, very
much distorted when we take into account the grants and subsidies
and other false inducements that government provides to the free
market to try to influence it to do one thing or the other, the
government's desire of the day, whatever that may be.
The other thing we see in this country is punitive taxation
rates. I recently did a comparison. Take a person working in
the United States and earning a salary of $60,000 a year. If that
same person were in Canada and had a comparable take home pay,
they would have to earn $134,000 a year when the difference in
the dollar and the difference in taxation rates are factored in.
It is easy to see that Canadians and Canadian businesses are
very much disadvantaged by that. The government's response
typically is not to go to the heart of the matter, which is
taxation and regulation. The government's response is regulate
it. If it moves, regulate it, then regulate the regulations and
then regulate the regulators. This seems to be the Canadian way,
regulate everything in sight.
I suggest what we need is less regulation. If hon. members do
not think government is intent on regulating, just consider what
we are doing here today. What are we talking about? We are
talking about regulating competition. While we are at it, why do
we not start regulating the laws of gravity? Why not repeal
Newton's laws? Why not repeal the laws of supply and demand?
Government can do it. Obviously it has the power to do it. That
is what the government is intent on doing.
Imagine if we tried to regulate Donovan Bailey or Wayne Gretzky
and said we want you to run fast but not too fast, we do not want
it to be unfair, we do not want your competition to be unduly
disadvantaged. We cannot do that. Competition is competition.
By the way, competition is good for the consumer. It is healthy.
It sparks innovation. It causes people to look for the best way
to accomplish something, whether it is building a house or a
ballpoint pen. It causes anybody who is in that market scenario
or that situation to look at the best way for them to participate
and to draw customers to them.
What we talked about here in the House is regulating
competition. I submit that the best thing this or any government
can do in terms of competition is reduce regulations, stop
interfering in the marketplace and abandon this punitive taxation
system we have in Canada so that Canadians and Canadian
businesses have more money to take home and more incentive to do
what we all know needs to be done, which is create a viable,
healthy economy.
There are four groups of amendments put forward by the hon.
member for Mercier. We already debated two groups of amendments
and in the third group of amendments we are talking about various
aspects of businesses, as the hon. member for Skeena has said.
In the third group, Motion No. 6 would include a prohibition
against offering a statement or a warranty or a guarantee for
performance or efficacy or the life of the product without
adequate and proper tests thereof.
This amendment would wrongly place the onus on the telemarketer
to ensure that the claims by manufacturers or service providers
are accurate. Telemarketers must act with due diligence in their
relationship with the manufacturer or the service provider
regarding the quality and efficacy of the product or service as
claimed by the manufacturer.
So it should be the responsibility of the manufacturer and not
that of the telemarketer. The legal framework in the bill offers
enforceable guidelines for professional conduct among
telemarketers. Furthermore section 52 of the act, as amended by
Bill C-20, is reasonably broad. It is sufficiently broad so as
to include false claims concerning the warranty.
As the hon. member for Skeena has mentioned, we are talking
about businesses. On the other side we are talking about
consumers. The official opposition supports small businesses. We
understand that small businesses need more opportunities because
they are the ones that create 96% of the jobs in the country.
But we know the red tape is too much for them. Government is
always on the back of small businesses. The cost of doing
business in this country is going up. Taxes are going up.
We have to create a balance between the protection of the
consumer and freedom of business. It is not in the best interest
of consumers to create legislation that will be unduly costly,
cumbersome for business and not be hurting the fraudulent
businesses.
I will be supporting Bill C-20 but opposing Motion No. 6 because
senior citizens, the most vulnerable in our society, are damaged
more and more by fraudulent telemarketing scams. We have to
protect them immediately against telemarketing fraud.
Why would our party support this bill? I am looking at some of
the statements we put together in recommending that our caucus
support this bill. With respect to this bill the industry staff
has made sure that telemarketers give fair and reasonable
disclosure of information at the beginning of each call. This is
an important point. It must include the identity of the company,
the purpose of the communication, the nature or product of the
business interests, price, material restrictions and any terms or
conditions that apply to delivery. Those are the kinds of things
my party and I support, fair and reasonable disclosure of
information and accountability throughout.
The one issue we have with this motion is that it places the
responsibility in the wrong place. It is calling for the
telemarketer to be responsible for the manufacturer's product
claims. We are suggesting that is going a little too far. The
responsibility should be in the correct place and left with the
manufacturer. If the manufacturer is giving certain guarantees
and warranties, that is where the responsibility should lie.
Along with this bill I encourage the House to consider some of
the principles behind it. It is the desire of my party that we
see the principles for the open, complete and reasonable
disclosure of information, as we see in the bill and as addressed
in Motion No. 6, exercised by the government.
There is an area where we have failed in reasonable disclosure
of information. For a fleeting instant there was a surplus at
the end of the last budget year. That surplus was applied
quickly and before anyone knew what had happened to a millennium
fund, billions of dollars. It is interesting that the auditor
general picked up that this was not in keeping with the kinds of
principles we see in this bill. The auditor general said that it
is not right to expense to a millennium fund in which you have
not actually spent the money but are going to spend it some years
hence so you will not have a surplus today. The thrust of his
comments was that it was not a fair and reasonable disclosure of
information.
This is doubly tragic when we look at some of the red book
promises of the Liberal Party. It said it would apply some of
the surplus to debt and tax relief. Yet it took that surplus and
expensed it for some future fund that is intruding on provincial
jurisdiction and is going to benefit only a very small number of
students. It did this so there would be no surplus and Canadians
would not see debt and taxes reduced as this party has long been
calling for. This debt is sucking the lifeblood out of our
country.
We see the Liberals talking a little about debt and tax relief.
Yet when I heard the throne speech and when I read the red book
there were between 25 and 30 new spending initiatives. It is
pretty hard to reduce debt and give Canadians the long needed tax
break they have been crying for. Canadian taxes are the highest
of the G-8 countries. In a comparison of Canada and the United
States, my hon. colleague from Skeena pointed out the gross
taxation in this country and what it is doing to us.
We may hear more in the House about some of the things that
happened at the APEC summit which I would say are not at all in
keeping with the principles in this bill. This bill tries to
make sure the purpose of communication is clear. There was a
situation at the APEC summit where it seemed the prime minister's
office was more concerned with protecting the rights of a known
harsh regime as far as human rights go. It was more concerned
with protecting him and putting some of our own quiet and
reasonable protesters under abuse.
These kinds of things fly directly in the face of the intent and
the kind of principles upheld by Bill C-20.
We see the good in this bill and that is why we support its
principles and precepts. Our hope would be that someday there
will be a government, and I suggest it would be a Reform
government, upholding these principles and precepts.
Once again for hon. members opposite, we would hope that there
be fair and reasonable disclosure of information, making sure
that the purpose of communication is clear, that the nature of
the product or business interests, the price and material
restrictions are there for all to see. That is what we call
accountable government and that is what we have been calling for.
Bill C-20 is an act to amend the Competition Act. The
Competition Act is an extremely important act in terms of
providing responsible regulation to business. Regulation is
needed.
We heard the member for Skeena talk about what an acceptable
role for government is in the marketplace. I certainly share his
concerns.
What happens with this Group No. 3 amendment, Motion No. 6 in
particular which was brought forth by the Bloc is that it really
confuses this legislation beyond what is necessary.
Already the Competition Act is complex. This legislation
amending the act is complex. Motion No. 6 not only would
complicate it more should it pass but it also really would make
it more confusing. That is the key here. It would provide
improper emphasis in the Competition Act.
This amendment would provide a prohibition against offering a
statement, warranty, guarantee of performance, efficacy of length
of life and that type of thing about a product unless there is
adequate testing done. Should this Bloc amendment pass, it would
put the onus on telemarketers to provide testing that of course
is the responsibility of the manufacturer. Putting this
amendment forth would provide the wrong direction for this
legislation.
As well, I would like to point out that section 52 of the act as
amended by Bill C-20 is sufficiently broad in order to deal with
and include false claims concerning warranties, et cetera. That
has been dealt with already.
I believe that this motion is out of place here. It is
important to consider the proper role of government. In many
cases governments over the past 30 years and probably longer have
tried to play an improper role and have become too involved in
the marketplace in trying to unreasonably protect consumers.
I have talked to several people who have been suckered in by
telemarketing fraud, in some cases by blatantly fraudulent
telemarketers. The RCMP in two cases I know of dealt with this.
Charges were pressed and the issue was cleared up as well as it
could be cleared up. I really feel for the people who have been
taken advantage of and I refer to the very elderly.
This is a concern. This is not the way to deal with it. That is
important to note.
I will close by saying that I certainly cannot support this
group. I believe that the Reform members by and large will not
support this amendment, but I would like to add that we will
support the bill itself.
He said: Madam Speaker, we brought in these motions because, as a result
of Bill C-20, in future no one but the new commissioner will be
able to ask the court whether someone's conduct is or has been
reviewable. This leaves a great deal of power in the hands of a
single person, a power that is far from commonplace, since it is
the ability to convene a court in order to determine whether
there has been deceptive telemarketing or advertising.
In the past, there were rules that allowed people who felt they
had been unfairly treated to call upon that court.
Too much power is entrusted to this commissioner, will report
only to the minister, we would remind members, and not to the
House of Commons, as the auditor general does. This person is
going to report only to the Minister of Industry.
The Reform members are saying that this is a complex bill and
that the proposals we have just made would complicate things
still further. They admit that this bill is a complex one,
When something is complex, it needs to be clarified. Some sense
must be made of it. Sufficient detail must be given to allow
the public to understand what it is all about, otherwise how can
they organize any defence?
We would like any individual who feels he has been harmed by
misleading advertising or telemarketing to be able to appeal to
a court. We do not wish this to be left up to the judgment of
one person who does not even report to the House of Commons, but
instead depends on the power of a single minister.
All this has been added. I think it is worthwhile quoting them:
—who is resident in Canada and at least 18 years of age, or a
group of persons, none of whom is a corporation, who are
resident in Canada and at least 18 years of age may address a
request to the Commissioner that the Commissioner make
application for an order under this Part.
(2) The request must be in a form approved by the Minister and
must include a solemn declaration containing
(a) the name and address of the person making the request;
(b) a statement that the person making the request is a
resident of Canada and at least 18 years of age and is not a
corporation;
(c) a statement of the nature of the reviewable conduct and
the name of each person alleged to be involved;
(d) a summary of the evidence supporting the allegations in
the request;
(e) the names and addresses of each person who might be
able to give evidence about the reviewable conduct, together
with a summary of the evidence that each such person might give,
to the extent that this information is available to the person
making the request; and
(f) a description of any document or other material that the
person making the request believes should be considered in the
application for an order and, if possible, a copy of the
document.
(3) The Commissioner shall acknowledge receipt of the
request and shall make application for an order under this
Part.
(4) The Commissioner shall not make application for an
order if the request is frivolous or vexatious.
If the chairman or the commissioner is of the opinion that it is
frivolous, this could be dropped.
(5) If the Commissioner decides not to apply for an order,
the Commissioner shall, within 60 days after the request is
received, give notice of that decision, including the reasons
for it, to
This is a clear and precise statement that ordinary citizens can
understand. This is the kind of legislation expected from any
government, including the federal government.
[English]
The Speaker: I see the hon. member for St.
Catharines on his feet. If this is to take part in the debate, I
recognize the hon. member but I also call upon him to perhaps
wait until after question period. We will go directly to
Statements by Members now but the member will have the floor when
we come back to debate.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
LOUIS RASMINSKY
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on September 14, 1998 Mr. Louis Rasminsky died. He was 91.
He will be remembered as a former governor of the Bank of Canada
who also became one of Canada's international economic statesmen.
He will also be remembered as one who helped articulate
government policy on several social issues.
Upon becoming governor in 1961 he undertook the delicate task of
drafting legislation that would clearly define the relationship
between the federal government and the governor of the Bank of
Canada. Eventually legislation established the principle that in
the event of a policy difference between the Minister of Finance
and the governor, the government has to instruct the bank and to
do so publicly. This requirement for transparency and
accountability in monetary policy has served Canadians well over
the years.
Mr. Rasminsky will always be remembered as a proud Canadian who
served his country to the best of his abilities. We offer our
condolences to his family and his friends.
* * *
JOEY HACHÉ
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
At age 15 for most Canadian teens
This summer was full of joy,
A swimming hole, a trip away
Brought smiles to girls and boys.
I can recall the laughter now
As my own kids, healthy and fair,
A summer filled with memories
Spent without a care.
But there is one young lad I know
Who rode his bicycle cross this nation,
He had a cause, a major task
For him no relaxation.
In cold and rain, in heat and wind
He pedalled day after day,
To keep his issue in our minds
He ended his ride today.
A giant of a lad is he
It couldn't be much clearer,
That Joey Haché with hepatitis C
Is a genuine Canadian hero.
* * *
1400
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations to Dr. Harold MacKay and members of the task
force for successfully completing the challenging task of
reporting on the future of Canadian financial institutions.
Congratulations to the Minister of Finance for insisting that
public discussion and full debate take place on the task force's
recommendations. Special hearings by the Standing Committee on
Finance will allow Canadians from coast to coast to coast to
share their views and their concerns on the two bank merger
proposals.
This government has clearly demonstrated that it has the best
interest of Canadians at heart.
Last September 10, Canadians learned that a merger between the
Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank would result in a boost in
small business lending. With one eyebrow raised my constituents
say “nice timing” and ask “Why put off until tomorrow what the
banks should be doing today?”
* * *
[Translation]
RADIO-NORD
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
several days ago, the unionized employees of Radio-Nord in the
Abitibi-Témiscamingue region began an indefinite general strike.
Since 1997, I made representations on a number of occasions to
ensure that Radio-Nord maintained adequate services for the
people back home. Radio-Nord provides only a minimum of local
information, leaving the public largely unaware of the
initiatives taken by its elected officials and leaders at the
municipal, school board, sports, federal, provincial and
regional levels.
The public is now asking for proactive radio and television
services that will truly reflect the reality of our local
communities. Radio-Nord is not fulfilling the commitments it
makes when it goes before the CRTC to renew its licences.
Therefore, the CRTC will have to discipline Radio-Nord, on behalf
of the residents of the riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik and of
the whole Témiscamingue region.
* * *
[English]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to congratulate the ministers of heritage, justice and the
treasury board who sponsored the recent National Symposium on
Canada's Official Languages.
This celebration and examination of Canada's Official Languages
Act assessed official bilingualism policies in Canada.
This year marks the 10 year anniversary of the 1988 Official
Languages Act legislation which recognized the equal
status of English and French in federal institutions.
Congratulations to all involved with this excellent initiative.
* * *
JEWISH NEW YEAR
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
each year at this time the arrival of the Jewish New Year is
welcomed. This time of reflection and renewal, starting with
Rosh Hashana and ending with Yom Kippur, is the highlight of the
Jewish calendar.
To my good friends in Edmonton, James and wife Ricki; to my good
friends in Montreal, Hilda and her late husband Richard, as well
as to Howard and his wife Ann; and to all the Jewish faith,
nationally and internationally, I say that these are important
days for them and their families, a time for reflection and
resolve.
With the opening of this session I ask members of this House to
recognize and embrace this spirit of reflection and annual
renewal. I am sure that the upcoming year will be enriched by
such resolve.
* * *
[Translation]
SWISSAIR CRASH
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on September 2, a terrible plane crash in Nova Scotia
killed 227 people, that is 213 passengers and 14 crew members.
Yves de Roussan, a Quebecker working for UNICEF, was among the
victims.
On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to extend my most heartfelt
sympathy to the families and friends of the victims. This
tragedy demands that we as a community take measures to provide
maximum safety to those who use the various modes of
transportation.
But for the time being, my thoughts are with those closest to
the victims. I share their overwhelming grief.
* * *
1405
[English]
ARMENIA
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today, September 21, marks the seventh anniversary of
political independence and the end of communist rule in Armenia.
Independence was first gained from the Ottoman Empire on May 28,
1918, following the tragic genocide of 1915. Unfortunately, the
communist takeover on December 2, 1920 was the beginning of 70
years of tyranny which thankfully ended with the collapse of the
U.S.S.R.
Today Armenia is a proud independent nation taking giant steps
toward democracy, free to control its own destiny on the world
stage and ready to do business with the world.
I am pleased to extend an invitation from the Armenian
ambassador to my fellow members of parliament to attend a
reception this evening from 6.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. in the Adam
Room of the Chateau Laurier to wish Armenia a happy anniversary.
* * *
[Translation]
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebeckers and Canadians are sick of a government and an
arrogant Prime Minister who makes light of a violent RCMP
intervention by talking about the pepper he puts on his food, a
Prime Minister who has already grabbed a demonstrator by the
throat, a Prime Minister who shows his disdain for provincially
elected politicians by saying that they would have to have been
elected Prime Minister of Canada to be entitled to comment on
Canada's future. And that is just too bad for Jean Charest.
These Liberals, who counted on the Conservative leader's absence
to win in Sherbrooke, got theirs. I would bet a golf ball that
the Prime Minister is too arrogant to understand why. The Bloc
Quebecois victory in Sherbrooke sends a clear message: the
public is sick to death of the arrogance of the Prime Minister
and his government.
* * *
PARTI QUEBECOIS
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here we go
again. The Parti Quebecois thinks democracy is fine as long as
it calls the shots.
In recent weeks, we have heard the Premier of Quebec say that
50% plus one is enough for a democratic victory.
But the premier pushed through a resolution to overturn a motion
adopted the previous day by his own rank and file regarding the
holding of a referendum during the Parti Québécois' next term of
office, if it is re-elected, something that does not bear
thinking about.
On Saturday, however, well over 50% of PQ members voted in
favour of the motion.
Long live the separatists' version of democracy. It suits us
just fine!
* * *
[English]
FOREST FIRES
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, lightening started more than 50 forest fires around my
riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.
One month ago a fire like one of these got whipped up by 90
kilometre winds into an inferno. It moved so fast that many
escaped with nothing but their lives and the clothes on their
backs.
The Salmon Arm fire caused the biggest evacuation in the history
of British Columbia, with more than 7,000 people moved on a 10
minute alert.
Today I want to say thank you to all the people from communities
near and far who took in the evacuees, who donated or
volunteered, who worked above and beyond the call of duty.
I also want to issue a solemn warning. Although 200 troops from
Edmonton came to B.C. to help, they had to travel and then get up
to two days of training before they could staff the fire lines.
It is totally irresponsible for this government to abandon
British Columbia with no land forces base since it closed
Chilliwack.
* * *
SUMMER RECESS
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many years ago in school we used to report to the class on what
we did during the summer break. Frankly, my summer was not half
as interesting as the Reform Party's, so I thought I would report
on its summer.
Reform's summer to remember began with their leader's disastrous
Asian vacation. The member for Calgary Southwest infuriated
Canadians by becoming the first leader of the opposition to go
overseas and criticize our economy in front of foreign investors.
Then, while some Reformers were recanting their previous attacks
on the MP pension plan, others began discussing what most
Canadians have known for some time, that Reform has no chance of
forming government with its current leader. What about the
so-called united alternative? Reform MPs are not united.
Canadians do not see them as being much of an alternative.
The summer was not all bad. They managed to recruit a high
profile Quebec separatist to their cause. I guess this means the
marriage between—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
SOS MONTFORT
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last weekend, under cover of an official languages
symposium, the official languages commissioner decided to defend
the anglophone minority in Quebec instead of denouncing the
unacceptable conditions faced by francophone communities in
English Canada.
It is unfortunate that the commissioner did not take the
opportunity to urge the federal government and the governments
of the English provinces to give francophone minorities the same
treatment as the Government of Quebec gives its anglophone
minority.
Regardless of our political stripe, however, we must support the
efforts of Franco-Ontarians to keep Ontario's only francophone
hospital alive.
The Bloc Quebecois urges all members of the House to give
generously to the SOS Montfort funding campaign, to obtain
campaign collection boxes and to set them out on their desks in
Ottawa or in their riding.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, as one can imagine, we in the NDP are anxious to get
right down to work and have parliament hold this Liberal
government accountable for acts of unprecedented arrogance.
This past summer should have been a summer of hope for
Canadians. Instead it was a summer of disappointment. We are
talking about Liberal disregard for human rights and revelations
about the handling of security at APEC. We are talking about a
deadbeat government when it comes to pay equity. We are talking
about Liberal inaction in the face of huge bank mergers. We are
talking about the cruel failure of Liberal leadership on health
care.
Here we are again, right where we left off in June, with the
government refusing to ensure fair compensation for all hepatitis
C victims. Believe it or not, the Minister of Health is offering
care that should be the right of every Canadian. He is offering
no compensation to those who have lost their homes, jobs or
businesses.
The summer of hope may be dead and gone, but the battle for
justice for hepatitis C victims and for all—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
* * *
1998 COMMONWEALTH GAMES
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to
take this opportunity to congratulate the 277 athletes who
represented Canada proudly at the 1998 Commonwealth Games in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
I know that all hon. members and Canadians everywhere join me in
applauding the 30 gold medals, 31 silver medals, 38 bronze medals
and all other exceptional performances that were witnessed over
the past 10 days.
In sport all Canadians come together and agree on the importance
of shared values such as excellence, dedication, discipline and
fair play. In international competitions such as the
Commonwealth Games we come together as a nation to celebrate
these values.
Like every other Canadian I want to see our athletes on the
podium. At the same time I want to recognize each and every one
of them for what they have already brought to us through their
commitment to their dreams and their courage in pursuing them.
I thank team Canada for the wonderful performances.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, while the Canadian dollar was taking a beating over the
summer our Prime Minister was safely bunkered away in his summer
fortress.
With his new $80,000, tax funded security system he was safe
from the tough questions Canadians wanted answered. Soon our
fearless Prime Minister will be able to enjoy the sanctity of
country living even faster with the completion of a new road.
The Prime Minister can keep wasting tax dollars on his secret
summer hideout in the country or he can put his golf clubs away
and do something about the state of our Canadian dollar.
When can Canadians expect leadership from this government, or
can we expect to see the dollar remain as low as the Prime
Minister's golf score?
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
civilized world was fixated when Pakistan detonated the so-called
Islamic bomb. At the same time a number of MPs received letters
from the Religious Liberties Commission and the Ahmadi movement
in Islam.
The Ahmadi letter anticipates that changes will be made to the
constitution of Pakistan which would make it a violation for
Ahmadis to keep the holy Koran in their homes. These sanctions
could include capital punishment.
The religious liberties letter makes reference to a Christian
who was sentenced to death for blasphemy.
I believe that these two are linked, that the so-called Islamic
bomb and the widespread persecution of religious minorities in
groups in Pakistan are linked and prevent Pakistan from taking
its rightful place amongst civilized nations.
I would call upon the Government of Canada to express its
displeasure at this fundamental breach of human rights in the
same manner as it expressed its displeasure at the detonation of
the bomb.
1415
I would also call on my fellow MPs to demand that the Government
of Pakistan immediately repeal its—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, documents, memos and e-mails from the privy council
office, the prime minister's office and the RCMP indicate that
the Prime Minister was directly involved in the security
arrangements for the APEC summit in Vancouver.
Why has the Prime Minister been denying his involvement for
almost a year when all the evidence points to the fact that he
bent over backwards to protect an Asian dictator not from
violence but from political embarrassment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is an inquiry being held at the moment on this
matter. I do not want to comment on the incident.
During the APEC summit we received 19 leaders from countries
around the world. We had the president of the United States, the
president of China, the prime minister of Australia, the
president of the Philippines and many others. As the government
it was our duty to ensure their security in Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this story has been coming out in dribs and drabs. The
Indonesian bodyguards were given the right to shoot Canadian
demonstrators. Canadians were arrested for holding up signs
which stated such subversive things as democracy and human
rights. The protesters were pepper sprayed because they might
have been seen by APEC leaders.
The Prime Minister has a chance today to clear the air. Exactly
what did he direct his officials to do with respect to APEC
security?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was the responsibility of the RCMP to ensure the
security of all the leaders who came to Canada. There was an
incident and a committee is now reviewing the incident. It was
our responsibility to ensure that all the national leaders who
came to Canada would be received in a very safe way, which is
exactly what happened.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians want answers, not evasions.
According to an official in the privy council office working on
security arrangements for the APEC summit: “The Prime Minister
will want to be personally involved”. Canadians want to know
the extent therefore to which the Prime Minister was personally
involved in the security arrangements for APEC.
Why did the Prime Minister trample on the political rights of
Canadian citizens in order to protect an Asian dictator?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, arrangements were made by local authorities in Vancouver
to ensure order was maintained. Protesters were in areas where
everyone could see them. If the Leader of the Opposition had
been in Vancouver at that time he would have seen the protesters
that some of my ministers and all the members of the delegation
saw during their visit.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister deliberately ordered police to quash peaceful
protesters. Canadians want to know why and what it was he said.
Why was the Prime Minister more concerned about the feelings of
a foreign dictator than he was about protecting the rights of our
own Canadian citizens?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the public complaints commission is investigating the
incidents around the APEC meetings. I think that institution,
which has been in existence since 1986, has established a good
record and deserves the opportunity to get to the bottom of this.
That is how Canadians will find out the answers to the
questions.
1420
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians want to know what the Prime Minister will do about this
and where his fingerprints are all over this deal.
The RCMP had to stare down these bodyguards and Canadians want
to know why the Prime Minister gave in to a foreign dictator who
uses goons with guns. Why would that be?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the public complaints commission has existed for a long
time. It has done very good work. I think it has the confidence
of Canadians. It certainly has the confidence of the government.
Consequently I think members opposite should let the appropriate
tribunal, at arm's length from the government, do its job and get
to the bottom of this.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the ten
premiers reached a historic agreement in Saskatoon on social
union.
The Prime Minister's response to this consensus was disdain and
arrogance.
Will the Prime Minister recognize that, by so cavalierly
rejecting the consensus on social union, as Alain Dubuc, the
editorialist of La Presse pointed out, he is treating the
provinces with the arrogance and disdain of certain employers of
50 years ago?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when we met last December, it was the federal government and I
that had discussions with the premiers in order to hold the
meeting and progress in the social field so we could harmonize
our policies.
It was an initiative of the federal government. We are in the
process of negotiating. However, when people ask the Prime
Minister of Canada to change the five conditions of the Canada
Health Act, we will not change them, because Canadians want to
keep—
The Speaker: The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
was not one of the premiers' demands. The premiers asked him to
return the money he had taken out of the pockets of the poorest
provinces. That was what they asked.
With the Prime Minister's attitude to the unanimous position of
the provinces, we are entitled to ask questions.
Is it not his intention to try to hinder the Conservative
government of Mike Harris and the government of Lucien Boucher
in order to help docile individuals in Quebec and Ontario come
to power?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
provincial elections are going to be held soon. I can see the
PQ and their little brothers, the Bloc Quebecois, are nervous.
I want to say that we are asking no more of people than that
they be clear and honest with the people of Quebec and not twist
and turn like the Parti Quebecois did yesterday so as to muddle
Quebeckers even more.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the huge
cuts it has imposed on the provinces, the federal government has
exerted some very heavy pressure on health care across Canada.
All the provincial premiers are unanimous on this. The Prime
Minister is the only stubborn one.
Could the Prime Minister not learn something from the reception
the fishers and the unemployed have been giving his Minister of
Human Resources Development all summer, and become less arrogant
toward the people who are calling upon him to be more tuned in
to the public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to point out to the hon. member that the Minister of
Human Resources Development handled the cod fisher situation
very well this summer, that he made some significant offers,
that he allocated considerable funds, and that the situation is
pretty good under the circumstances, because the Minister of
Human Resources Development is really looking after the problems
of the disadvantaged, instead of making political hay from it.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have been
hearing this kind of thing for a long time, but the government
is disconnected from the people.
I am asking the Prime Minister: Is his current arrogance, his
concern for a high profile, his lack of compassion, his desire
to be the boss of Canada and to stick it to the Conservative
government of Mike Harris or the government of Lucien Bouchard,
not in the process of disconnecting him completely, utterly,
from what the people want, which is for Ottawa to return to the
provinces the money it took from them for health?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of new alliances, the Ontario ultra-right is becoming
the model for the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois.
* * *
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear that the Prime Minister and his staff made a decision to
sacrifice the democratic rights of Canadians in order to create a
comfort zone for a brutal foreign dictator. Today I ask the
Prime Minister one simple question. Was it worth it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the security rules applied in Vancouver were applied for
the protection of all the leaders of the 19 countries there on
that occasion. There were problems. Some people from other
delegations were not comfortable. Some even protested to me
because they saw some signs they did not like. I told them that
it is Canada, that I see protests all the time, that it is the
way Canada operates, that real democracy is applied here. It was
a good example to the others to see that people can protest—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians want their Prime Minister to be a statesman, not a
doormat for brutal foreign dictators. Will the Prime Minister
admit today that he was wrong to put the dictates and the demands
of a brutal foreign dictator ahead of the democratic rights and
civil liberties of Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, an inquiry has begun on that. I have to repeat that we
had 19 leaders in Canada. We had to offer them a secure place.
There was room for protesters. Perhaps there was some problem at
the last hour of the last day. The solicitor general has a
mechanism at arm's length from the government that is dealing
with that. It will conduct its inquiry. We will look at the
report and advise.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister said in January that RCMP investigations are not the
responsibility of political authorities, and I agree. Canadians
now know the RCMP believes the prime minister's office wanted the
RCMP to remove banners at the APEC summit. An RCMP memo states:
“Banners are not a security issue. They are a political
issue”.
Could the Prime Minister tell us who in his office made the
political decision to have the RCMP remove banners and signs at
the APEC meeting?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they do not know. When I was there I saw signs and
banners in protest against me and against others.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, this is
a government that does not believe in justice for all the
innocent victims of tainted blood. Should we wonder that it
would pepper spray Canadians?
The Prime Minister agreed with the solicitor general who said in
January that his role was “not to interfere with the operation
of the RCMP”. I ask the solicitor general, the minister
responsible for the RCMP, to tell us who ordered the political
interference, who gave the RCMP the order to tear down banners,
banners that were a political issue, not a security issue.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to be specific, I am also the minister responsible for
the public complaints commission which is why that organization
is getting to the bottom of this right now.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is about
the signs at APEC he has been talking about. On November 25,
1997 at the APEC conference, UBC law student Craig Jones was
arrested and jailed without charge after he refused to remove
signs that said free speech, democracy and human rights.
Does the Prime Minister not agree that this clear violation of
free speech and civil rights is contrary to the Canadian way?
Should those people not get an apology?
1430
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the subjects that are being asked about right now are
subjects that are being investigated by the appropriate
administrative tribunal. I think it is appropriate for
parliament to give it the opportunity to do its job.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, parliament does not need to wait for a Liberal
appointed commission to tell us that people's free rights, that
their freedom of speech is violated.
On November 21 at the APEC conference the RCMP told Karen
Pearlston that if she did not remove a sign from her home, she
would be arrested. When she asked why, they told her that the
Prime Minister did not want to embarrass our visitors.
This is a violation of her human rights, of her freedom of
speech. We do not need to wait for anybody to tell us that this
is wrong. Will this minister, the Prime Minister or this
government not apologize to those British Columbians whose human
rights and freedom of speech were violated?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in fact it was parliament that made the decision to
establish the public complaints commission in 1986. It
functioned for 12 years quite effectively and I am sure it will
do its job well again.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
The government is hiding behind the RCMP investigation to avoid
answering any question on the role played by the Prime Minister
in repressing the demonstration against dictator Suharto in
Vancouver.
Does the Prime Minister recognize having participated, either
directly or through his cabinet, in setting up the security
measures applied in Vancouver?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is important for everybody to understand
exactly the process at play here.
The public complaints commission is an institution that was
established by parliament specifically to deal with complaints
against the RCMP. That is why it is called the public complaints
commission.
I wish that the members opposite would give that organization
the opportunity to do its job as parliament would have it do it.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are not
asking for the videotape.
The former Indonesian ambassador to Canada said he had received
from the Prime Minister himself the assurance that all would be
done to avoid embarrassment for bloodthirsty dictator Suharto.
Does the Prime Minister confirm this statement?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the questions being raised are subject to this
inquiry. As I said, I think we should let that inquiry do its
job.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on today of all days the United States has spent $40 million and
seven months with the president prevaricating and trying to turn
away answers to the obvious questions.
We are asking the Prime Minister right now to save the money.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he was involved in this
process?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the members opposite are displaying a remarkable lack of
understanding as to how these processes work. The administrative
tribunal is available to the public to seek recourse when it
believes there has been a grievance. That is the process in
play. I have high regard for that process, as I believe most
Canadians do and I would ask the hon. member to join them.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we very clearly understand what the process is. The process is
called cover-up. That is exactly what is going on in this case.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to go to his question.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime
Minister one more time, will he do it here and do it now? Will
he admit that his fingerprints are all over this process, that he
is fully responsible for the fact that democratic rights of
Canadians were taken away as a public statement, a political
statement by him?
1435
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would appeal to the members opposite to recognize the
appropriate role for the public complaints commission that was
established by parliament. It deserves our support and I would
ask the members opposite to give it to the commission.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUSES
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a
statement to the House on February 19, the Prime Minister
reminded us of the promise he made during the last election
campaign to devote half of any budget surpluses to social
programs.
Last week, we learned that, so far, all the surpluses have gone
towards paying down the debt, and that nothing has been put
towards social programs or reducing taxes.
After going back on his promise to scrap the GST, after going
back on his promise to introduce pay equity, is the Prime
Minister not embarrassed to break his promise to use half of the
surplus to help the health sector?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
July 1 we introduced a new $850 million program to help poor
families. In addition, last spring the Minister of Human
Resources Development implemented a program to provide almost $1
billion in assistance over three years to fishers in
Newfoundland, Quebec and elsewhere.
We have put a great deal of money into social programs and we
have also paid down the debt, which means that we are a very
balanced government that is doing everything it can to meet both
its social and its financial responsibilities.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
$20 billion going towards the debt, the Prime Minister is
telling us that he accords greater importance to the
millionaires of Bay Street and Wall Street than to those who are
ill.
Does the Prime Minister not think that the economic slowdown and
the effects of the sharp decline in the value of the Canadian
dollar are sufficient reasons to bring down an emergency budget
regarding the use of budget surpluses and management of the
federal debt, not for millionaires but for those in this country
who are ill?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is up on the business of the House and knows
very well that we are now looking at a bill that sets payments
to the provinces at $12.5 billion, a $1.5 billion increase over
last year's forecast. This $1.5 billion federal contribution
will be paid directly for health services.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, young hep C
victim Joey Haché pedalled across the country this summer from
Halifax to Victoria. He met with the Prime Minister today. The
Prime Minister said “Sorry, Joey. You and the victims left out
are just going to have to go to court”. Why has the Prime
Minister left those poor victims to go to court for what is
proper and compassionate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I received Mr. Haché a few minutes ago and he gave me a
petition. I said that the position of the government was to
offer some compensation for those who were the victims between
1986 and 1990. For the others the Minister of Health in
collaboration with the majority of the provinces has a new
program that is being discussed at this time to help the other
victims.
We think we have seven provinces on side at this time. Most
probably almost everyone will sign the proposition made to the
provinces by the Minister of Health last week.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in France
the courts are not being used to batter the victims. In France
the prime minister and the health minister are both charged today
with manslaughter. Their tainted blood scandal has ended up with
charges of that magnitude. Is this Liberal government trying to
prevent similar charges against a previous Liberal government?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday as the Prime Minister mentioned, I put before
ministers of health a proposal that included steps and
suggestions that involve $525 million of federal money that will
make certain that anybody who got hepatitis C through the blood
system will have access to the needed medical services and drugs
for treatment and care without paying out of their own pockets.
We believe that when people in this country are sick, they
require treatment, not payment. We show our compassion through
care and not through cash.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
After agreeing in writing on June 11, 1993 to honour the
decision of the Human Rights Tribunal on pay equity, the
government is now not only not honouring its decision, it has
announced it will appeal it.
Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of once again going back on
his word?
1440
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is clearly in favour of pay equity, because we passed
the first piece of legislation and have already paid out over a
billion dollars for pay equity, in addition to putting another
$1.3 billion on the table.
Certain federal court decisions were contrary to the decisions
by the Human Rights Tribunal. We will have to leave it up to
the courts to decide which is the correct interpretation of the
law.
[English]
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The government has recently appealed the decision of the
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal regarding pay equity for federal
public servants. This has caused a great deal of frustration for
our employees and has raised many questions.
Does the government still believe in equal pay for work of equal
value? If so, can the minister tell us what actions are being
taken to achieve pay equity?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am glad to have the question because it permits me to restate
the issue.
The issue is very clear. The government believes in pay equity
but it does not believe in two standards of pay equity, one for
the private sector in the Bell Canada case and one for the public
sector in the case of the human rights tribunal. With two
different interpretations of the law by two different tribunals
it was clear that we had to go to the appeal court and ask them
to interpret the law in the same way for the private sector and
for the public sector.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are profoundly unhappy with the Prime Minister's
handling of the economy over the summer. While he was hitting
his three wood out on the golf course, our dollar hit 10 new lows
in the month of August alone. It is time for action. We want
action now, not six months from now.
When is the Prime Minister going to realize that we need lower
taxes and debt repayment now in a budget this fall? When is he
going to wake up and realize that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I suppose there is no better indication of the
intellectual bankruptcy of the Reform Party than once again they
come up with the same old refrain that we need a mini-budget in
the fall.
Throughout the whole last mandate we could count on it like
clockwork. Every single September the Leader of the Opposition
would stand up and say “You are not going to hit your deficit
targets. We need a mini-budget”.
They have no plans. They have no ideas. The only thing they
want to do is get together and talk.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
look who is here. We have not seen him all summer. We thought
he had resigned and had not told anybody. It is good to see him
back. Welcome.
We have documents from the finance minister's office indicating
that they have brought in $21 billion in income tax hikes since
he became finance minister. That is $1,500 per person, an
incredible amount.
Now that he has done so much damage to Canadian taxpayers, why
will he not bring in a budget now while the problems are
occurring instead of six months from now when it is too late?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I was not here in fact I did spend some time in the
member's riding. I want the member to know his constituents want
me to say hello to him.
* * *
BANKS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
There are indications that the minister is increasingly uneasy
about the proposed mega bank mergers that are coming up,
particularly in the consequence of a failure of a mega bank in
light of what has happened in Japan and elsewhere around the
world and he is now looking to the Competition Bureau to say no.
If that is the case, why does the minister not save us time,
save us money, end the uncertainty and say no now to the proposed
mergers?
1445
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that prudential matters of safety of
the Canadian banking system are uppermost in the government's
mind.
That is why following receipt of the MacKay report in which
there will be public hearings, and it has been referred to the
House of Commons finance committee, we have asked the office of
the superintendent of financial institutions and the Competition
Bureau to report on that matter.
We are dealing with one of the most fundamental changes in
Canadian financial institutions in history. It is important that
we have public debate. I thought the member would support that.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will take the minister up on his offer.
It is indeed one of the most fundamental changes we have
seen in Canadian financial history. In light of that I believe
the decision should be made by parliament on behalf of the people
of this country and not by the Minister of Finance.
Is the minister prepared to do something really radical, really
dramatic and really democratic and allow this House to make the
decision on behalf of the people of Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is democratic is to allow the House of Commons
finance committee to hold a series of hearings on the MacKay
report. Then if consideration were to be given to the mergers,
there would be further hearings on that.
What I do not understand is how the member can contradict
himself. He says let the House decide but in his first question
he said why do I not decide. There really is a contradiction in
the member's two questions.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should really learn from the
president of the United States, his golfing buddy, that the
longer he bobs and weaves to avoid public accountability on this
issue, the more he will undermine the integrity of his office and
his government.
There are numerous documents that indicate direct interference
of the Prime Minister and his office in the RCMP security of the
APEC summit.
Will the Prime Minister make a full ministerial statement in the
House, this public forum, on his role in the affair, or is he
going to persist with his slippery guy from Shawinigan routine?
The Speaker: Colleagues, I urge you to be very judicious
in your choice of words.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should know that documents he is
referring to, the allegations that have been made and the
questions that have been put are all subject to a public
complaints commission review. That review is being undertaken
right now.
It does a discredit to those Canadians who choose to serve their
country as members of that commission to suggest in any way that
their integrity should be in question. That does a disservice to
this exercise and to the truth.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, what does a discredit to this institution is the
fact that answers are given in this House.
The Prime Minister and the solicitor general know full well that
the RCMP public complaints commission is not holding a criminal
proceeding. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the
government from answering questions in the House. Instead, the
Prime Minister is hiding his role in oppressing innocent
Canadians to appease a foreign dictator.
Why is he afraid to talk about this issue in this House? When
can we expect the Prime Minister to show some integrity and
leadership on this issue?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it shocking that the member opposite as a critic
for the solicitor general would not be aware that it would be
completely inappropriate for the minister responsible for that
tribunal to speak to it in this House during the investigation.
* * *
LAND MINES
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canada has shown strong leadership in the international
community in the pursuit of a global ban on anti-personnel mines.
What is the significance of the 40th country's ratifying the
Ottawa convention? How will this important milestone make a
difference in the lives of people in mine affected countries?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday when the president of Burkina Faso
was here he announced that country had provided the 40th
ratification. What that means is that it turns the treaty into a
permanent part of international law and sets in motion the
conditions of the treaty. This means the destruction of the
stockpiles and the movement toward the reduction of land mines
within 10 years.
In other words, the land mine treaty has now become
international law.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
Trudeau gave the west the finger at least he had the courage to
do it in person.
When this Prime Minister gave Albertans the Trudeau salute by
appointing another unelected hack to the vacant Alberta Senate
seat, he did it from the golf course.
Why did the PM not have the courage to be in Alberta when he
sabotaged democracy instead of slapping us in the face from an
Ottawa golf course?
1450
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Saint-Maurice, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at one time we had a chance in the House and in the
nation to vote for an elected Senate. The people who opposed the
Charlottetown accord were those on the side of the House who
refused to support an election of the Senate. I have to respect
the constitution and I will not—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We want to listen to the questions and the
answers.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I named a
gentleman who, in the words of the premier of Alberta, Ralph
Klein, is a fine Canadian who has done a tremendous amount for
world peace and he is an impeccable parliamentarian.
I am very proud that Doug Roche will be in the other house.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after
permitting a glimmer of hope of a settlement of the hepatitis C
matter, last week the Minister of Health closed the door on any
further federal involvement in compensation.
How can the minister accept his government's coming up with $750
million for used submarines, nearly a billion dollars for
renovations to the Parliament buildings and not one cent for the
victims of hepatitis C?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is
not true. Last Friday, we proposed specific measures with $525
million of federal money to help people who contracted hepatitis
C from a blood transfusion.
This was the federal government's proposal to the provincial
ministers, and I am awaiting Mr. Rochon's response.
* * *
[English]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Prime Minister.
Last night talks with the public service alliance broke down
because the government demanded rollbacks and concessions in
return for pay equity.
Human rights are not negotiable. Pay equity is not a bargaining
chip, it is a legal right under the Human Rights Act.
When will the government stop violating the human rights of
Canadians?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the basis for the conciliation board was established
and negotiations on pay equity have not been interrupted.
Tomorrow there is a meeting between the union and the government
on pay equity.
I agree that a negotiated settlement would be the best way to
solve that problem. I ask my colleague to plead with the union
to offer to workers the offer we have left on the table.
The union has refused to propose to its employees—
* * *
[Translation]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
generally, when the Prime Minister sees fit, in a matter of
great importance, to become involved in an area that comes under
the responsibility of one of his ministers, he consults the
minister in question in order to determine the best way to
proceed.
My question is for the Solicitor General. Did the Prime
Minister consult him before ordering the RCMP to violate the
constitutional freedom of expression and assembly of a group of
students during the APEC summit last year?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again
the hon. member opposite shows a tremendous misunderstanding as
to how this works.
The reality is that the security questions are handled by the
RCMP specific to the kinds of questions that are being
investigated by the public complaints commission. The public
complaints commission is going to get to the bottom of this. That
is what parliament has mandated it to do and I have every
confidence it will do it well.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
I am sure the minister has heard through the media the American
allegation that the so-called subsidized Canadian grain has
flooded U.S. markets.
It is further alleged that this is disrupting American grain
prices and hurting American farmers.
1455
Is there a scintilla of truth to these allegations?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the allegations are not true. There has been no export
subsidy with respect to Canadian grain since the western grain
transportation act was repealed in 1995, and the volume flows are
completely normal, in the range of 1.6 million tonnes or so which
has been the long term average.
What is interesting and really intriguing in this cross-border
controversy is that both the governor of North Dakota and that
state's major farm organization have publicly applauded the
Canadian Wheat Board and are looking for ways to join forces with
the Canadian Wheat Board in tackling global markets.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians have just received some very alarming news.
The top independent watchdog for the Canada pension plan was
secretly fired just weeks before his major three year review of
the Canada pension plan is due.
Why did the government fire Canada's top CPP watchdog? What is
it afraid of?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, there was nothing secret about this. The
office of the superintendent of financial institutions has stated
that there were management differences between him and the chief
actuary. Those are matters internal to the public service and to
OSFI. That is what happened.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTREAL CONVENTION CENTRE
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Quebec, the City of Montreal and business
leaders agree: the Montreal Convention Centre needs to be
expanded and renovated. The project has been at a standstill
for nearly a year now, because a response from the federal
government is still not forthcoming.
Can the secretary of state responsible for regional development
in Quebec tell us what is keeping him from responding to the
consensus in Quebec?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously, the question of the Convention Centre is an important
one to the government.
The economic fallout from the Convention Centre is recognized by
this side of the House, where we are working like mad to make it
possible for some form of agreement to be reached on the matter
of the Convention Centre.
While addressing the question of the Montreal Convention Centre,
however, it must also be kept in mind that there are other
requests from pretty well all over Quebec and Canada. As a
result, this request has to be looked at from a national point
of view.
It is unfortunate that the Government of Quebec had a so-called
infrastructure program that they did not make use of for such an
important project.
* * *
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the
APEC summit.
According to a memo written by Canada's ambassador to Indonesia,
our Minister of Foreign Affairs apologized to Indonesia's foreign
minister for the anti-Suharto poster campaign in Canada, saying
that it was “outrageous, excessive and not the way Canadians
behave”.
Will the minister now apologize to Canadian students and indeed
to all Canadians—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one thing the hon. member conveniently forgets is
that during the APEC conference this government provided
substantial financial support for the people's summit where all
kinds of groups that had opposition to APEC had an opportunity to
come together to voice their concerns. Ministers met with that
group. They passed on the message to the leaders of APEC so that
full open discussion could take place.
It is about time the hon. member started recognizing the truth.
* * *
[Translation]
ASIA PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION SUMMIT
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
been a member of this House for one year now, and I am proud of
it.
Whenever we put a question to the solicitor general, we always
get one of three answers: either it is before a committee, under
investigation or before the courts.
My question is an easy one. Did the Prime Minister consult the
solicitor general before ordering the spraying of students with
pepper gas, or did he simply bypass him because he knew those
actions were illegal?
1500
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it would seem to me that members who are representative
of the political party that established the public complaints
commission should understand its purpose.
I think all of the questions being put are being put
specifically around this particular incident which is being
investigated right now. It would be completely inappropriate to
discuss any of the details around that investigation.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 29 petitions. >
* * *
[English]
SWISSAIR FLIGHT 111
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, words cannot capture the shock that all Canadians felt
when they learned that Swissair flight 111 had crashed into the
ocean near Peggy's Cove bringing a sudden tragic end to the lives
of over 200 people, including two of our fellow Canadians.
[Translation]
In one brief instant, a place known the world over for its great
beauty was transformed into the site of an unspeakable tragedy.
If words cannot express our emotions, they certainly cannot hope
to express the pain of families and relatives suffering the loss
of a son, daughter, father, mother, husband or wife.
[English]
We cannot bring them back to life, but I want the grieving to
know that the Government of Canada is doing all it can to get to
the bottom of this tragedy. We will spare no effort. We will
solve this mystery and put to rest their burning questions. We
cannot end their suffering. But I want to say how deeply proud
Canadians are regarding the way the people of Nova Scotia reached
out to them, the hard work put in by our incredible search and
rescue teams, and the way the people around Peggy's Cove without
hesitation got into their boats and went out to see if there was
anything they could do, hopeful at first, only to find out that
the victims were, in the end, in the hands of God.
We can be most proud of the comfort that Nova Scotians offered
to the suffering families when they came to Peggy's Cove to
mourn. They opened their hearts and their homes. They offered
helping hands and a friendly ear.
Mostly they were just there, perhaps feeling that what they could
not do for the victims they could do for the families.
1505
On behalf of the people of Canada I attended the memorial
service in Halifax. I saw firsthand how moved the families were
by this. One could tell even in their sadness that they knew
everything humanly possible had been done. They will take this
precious memory back to their homes.
I would like all members to join me in saluting this heroic and
compassionate effort.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today as well to join
with the government in extending our heartfelt condolences to the
families and friends of those who perished on Swissair flight
111.
I think I echo the sentiments of all members that when these
tragedies occur what we are primarily conscious of is that there
simply are no words to say to people who have experienced that
kind of tragedy.
What we can do, as the Prime Minister has said, is try to
identify the cause of the accident so that perhaps similar
tragedies can be averted in the future.
We would like to express our gratitude also to everyone who was
involved in the search and rescue operations at Peggy's Cove. The
search and rescue teams showed extraordinary bravery, compassion
and professionalism that has made all of us and indeed all
Canadians proud of their efforts.
We all hoped on the night of September 2 that survivors would be
found. We now realize that the investigation and salvage will
continue for some time.
Our thoughts now turn to those conducting the investigative
aspects and operations and pray that they will have the strength
and courage to carry out a very difficult operation and that they
will find out exactly what happened to cause such a tragedy. We
admire the investigative people as well for the strength, caring
and compassion that they have shown, and not just toward the
victims of this tragedy but also toward each other.
I want to thank all the search and rescue and investigative
people on behalf of all Canadians but particularly on behalf of
the victims and their families whose lives have been so
tragically altered by this disaster.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like
all Quebeckers and Canadians, we were dismayed to hear of the
crash of Swissair Flight 111 on September 2.
The following day, on behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues and
all Quebeckers, I offered my deepest condolences to the families
of those who perished in the tragedy off Peggy's Cove in Nova
Scotia. Our heartfelt sympathy continues to go out to the
families of victims.
I wish to offer special condolences to the friends and relatives
of Yves de Roussan, a Quebecker working for UNICEF, who was
among the victims.
The loss of over 200 lives in such circumstances is a shock to
each and every one of us. It is a stroke of fate to which we
cannot remain indifferent.
The loss of a loved one creates a void that is difficult to fill
and reveals to us just how powerless we are in the face of such
extraordinary events.
I can still see the quiet ceremony during which tribute was paid
to the victims. Friends and relatives of these passengers on
what was to have been an uneventful flight gathered to express
their love for those who had perished. It was a very moving
moment.
I would also like to mention the hard work and compassion of
those who rushed to the scene of the accident in the hope of
rescuing survivors.
Their efforts were unfortunately in vain, but I think I can
safely say that their presence and their concern for the
families of victims were a great comfort. I would like to thank
all of them for their tremendous compassion.
1510
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
with both sadness and honour that I rise today in this House on
behalf of my caucus to express our feelings concerning the tragic
crash of Swissair flight 111.
Like many of you, the news of Swissair flight 111 came to me as
a shock, a shock that such a disaster could happen so close to
home, so close to the tranquillity of Peggy's Cove. Like many
others, as I stood on the rocks of Peggy's Cove that first
morning looking out at the ocean at the rescue scene, I was
filled with hopes and prayers that there would be survivors. It
was so hard for all of us to accept the fact that this hope was
to be in vain.
While the sadness persists, there is also an element of honour.
This country can be very proud of the professional and efficient
manner in which this disaster has been responded to by the many
volunteers and professionals who saw the need and reached out
quickly with compassion: the fisher people who on that fateful
night pulled on their boots and without thought of self rushed
out to sea to help; the Emergency Measures Organization; the
military and the Canadian Coast Guard; the RCMP; the volunteer
fire departments and rescue workers; the Transportation Safety
Board; the harbour master; the Red Cross and Salvation Army;
clergy and parishioners of all denominations; provincial and
federal fisheries officials; politicians; and especially all the
community residents from all walks of life.
Over these difficult days since the crash, my pride has been
reinforced over and over again as I have watched the people of my
riding and of the South Shore riding conduct themselves with
dignity and unselfishly offer their skills, provide meals, open
their homes and their hearts to help in any way they could. Even
a special memorial service originally planned by the community to
assist the area residents in dealing with their sorrow and grief
was unselfishly shared with the country and indeed with the
world.
When the media cameras were turned off and the rest of the
country went back to the daily routine, the residents in and
around Peggy's Cove were faced with a grim reality. Not only did
they have to deal with the aftermath of haunting images and raw
emotions, but also they were left with an economic crisis. Many
of these people rely on the ocean for their livelihood, a
livelihood that had been suspended. Everyone accepted that there
must be restrictions around the crash site. Efforts have been
made to resolve this very real problem. I on behalf of my
constituents will continue to work co-operatively in that regard.
I thank my constituents for all that they have done and given to
assist in this tragedy. Thank you also to the many other
Canadians who showed love, compassion and the common bond of
humanity in this time of great tragedy.
I extend on behalf of my caucus our sincere condolences to the
families and friends of the victims and to all who suffered and
continue to suffer as a result of this disaster. May God bless
and comfort all of us.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, a tragedy
of the magnitude of Swissair flight 111 is always difficult for
us to comprehend no matter what the explanation.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I
would like to extend our heartfelt condolences to the families of
the victims of Swissair flight 111.
We could never fully appreciate the depth of their pain and
grief, but our thoughts and our prayers are with each and
everyone of them. Efforts continue to be made in the search for
answers to this tragedy.
I would like to commend the actions of the Canadian forces, the
Canadian Coast Guard, the RCMP, the Nova Scotia emergency
services personnel, the Air Transportation Safety Board, local
fishermen and the people of the south shore of Nova Scotia for
the quality of their mercy, the professionalism and heroism shown
throughout the emergency response effort. I want to thank the
Prime Minister for attending the special service. We really
appreciate that, sir. To all of them, we say God bless them all.
The Speaker: Under extraordinary circumstances, my
colleagues, we sometimes take for us extraordinary measures. Will
you please stand and join with me in a moment of silence.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence]
1515
The Speaker: I hope that friends and relatives of the
deceased will be comforted, and may the victims rest in peace.
* * *
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-429, an act to amend the Canada
Labour Code (severance pay).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to remove an
anomaly from the Canada Labour Code which in certain cases makes
it impossible for older workers upon dismissal to claim severance
pay.
The problem is that under the Canada Labour Code if someone is
entitled to pension benefits, even if they are much reduced
pension benefits due to early retirement, that person is not
automatically able to claim the same benefits under severance pay
as younger employees. I believe that is wrong. That is the
object of the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-430, an act to amend the Canada
Transportation Act (discontinued railway lines).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill to amend the Canada
Transportation Act has as its purpose the declaration of a
moratorium of three years on the dismantlement of any abandoned
rail line.
The reason is that once a line is abandoned, if immediate
dismantlement is allowed, that line can never be put into
productive use. If there were a three year moratorium it would
give interested parties the opportunity to organize, raise
financing and potentially put these lines back into service as
privately owned short lines.
1520
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to
present a petition on behalf of a large group of petitioners from
throughout the province of British Columbia and on behalf of my
New Democrat colleagues in the House of Commons who support the
petition against the MAI in principle and in content.
They point out that the MAI is simply one more step in a series
of these agreements which, in the name of liberalizing trade and
investment, expands the power of multinational corporations at
the expense of the powers of governments to intervene in the
marketplace on behalf of our social, cultural, environmental and
health care goals.
The petition is too long to recite. It goes on to give hundreds
of reasons to oppose the MAI. It is an honour to present it
today, the first day back in this session of parliament.
[Translation]
REDUCTION OF GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed
by more than 500 of my constituents calling on Parliament to
strike a joint parliamentary committee whose specific mandate
would be to examine the ability of Canadian parliamentarians to
narrow the gap between the rich and the poor in the new context
created by market globalization and to propose concrete
solutions.
This petition stems from the initiative undertaken by the member
for Lac-Saint-Jean and strongly supported by all those who want to
see a narrowing of the gap between the rich and the poor in our
society.
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition on behalf of a number of citizens from
Peterborough who have discussed with me their concern about the
death benefit in the Canada pension plan.
The petitioners point out that the CPP is an integral part of
the retirement income of Canadians. The CPP death benefit plays
an important role for Canadians during a difficult and stressful
time. They suggest that adequate notice was not given prior to
the reduction of the death benefit.
Therefore these petitioners call upon parliament to address this
oversight by rescinding the reduction and to acknowledge that the
30% reduction in the death benefit creates additional hardship
for many Canadians.
SAGKEENG FIRST NATIONS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on behalf of members of the Sagkeeng First Nations who comment on
conditions in their community and call on parliament to put in
place a process that will assist them in improving the quality of
life in their community.
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as well
I have a petition on behalf of a number of citizens of Ontario.
They note the Treasury Board's bad faith in negotiating with
federal workers and ask parliament to enact legislation that
would broaden the scope of the Canada Labour Code to include all
federal workers.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition on behalf of ethnic Chinese
people from Indonesia.
The petition makes reference to human rights abuses and
describes in some detail how 1,300 people were killed. It states
that these human rights abuses cannot continue.
The petitioners ask that Canada, as a leader in human rights
areas, ethically and morally, not stand by and do nothing. They
call upon parliament to appeal to President Habibie of Indonesia
to protect the human rights of ethnic Chinese.
MARRIAGE
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a second petition to present with respect to Bill C-225, an
act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the
Interpretation Act, which would define in statute that a marriage
can only be entered into between a single male and a single
female.
CRTC
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today pursuant to
Standing Order 36.
1525
The first petition from the people of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough pertains to changes to the CRTC
act and calls upon the government to review the mandate of the
CRTC, specifically with respect to the licensing of sexually
explicit and violent programming.
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to present another two petitions, again from
the people of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
The petitioners call upon the government to review the Canada
Food and Drugs Act with respect to certain amendments that they
are calling for and, as well, they specifically ask the
government to review the introduction of health products into the
Canadian economy for freer introduction of those products.
BILL C-68
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, over the course of the summer recess I received seven
petitions bearing 883 signatures in total. The petitions come
from the constituencies of Battlefords—Lloydminster,
Regina—Qu'Appelle, Prince Albert, Churchill River and my own
constituency of Cypress Hills—Grasslands. The seven petitions
are similar in form and content. Therefore I will refer to only
one of them.
The petitioners point out that there is no evidence that the
registration of firearms will have any impeding effect on crime
in this country. The petitioners point out that Bill C-68 would
put an unnecessary burden on peace officers. The petitioners
state that the search and seizure provisions of Bill C-68 would
constitute a breach of traditional civil liberties.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon parliament
to repeal Bill C-68 and all associated regulations with respect
to firearms or ammunition and pass new legislation designed to
severely penalize the criminal use of any weapon.
This brings to 3,989 the number of signatures that I have
received on petitions of this nature in the last few months.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 14, 87, 95, 96,
97, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 112, 114 and 116.
.[Text]
Question No. 14—Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:
For the financial year 1997-98, how much money has the federal
government (a) spent before September 1, 1997 and (b) allocated
for the reduction of smoking in each of the following activity
areas; (i) anti-smoking programs aimed at youth and young
Canadians, (ii) research into tobacco use and its consequences,
(iii) enforcement of federal laws on tobacco use, (iv)
enforcement of laws against cigarette smuggling, (v) measurement
of the tobacco use by Canadians, (vi) development of regulations
under the new Tobacco Act, (vii) costs associated with the
tobacco industry challenge of the Tobacco Act, (viii) cessation
programs or other support for Canadians addicted to cigarettes,
and (ix) grants and/or contributions to health and community
organizations?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed as
follows:
Health Canada and Justice Canada
Before September 1, 1997, Health Canada and Justice Canada spent:
(a) (i) $17,000
(ii) $128,000
(iii) & (iv) $822,000
(v) $55,000
(vi) $75,000
(vii) $259,679.35
(viii) none
(ix) $350,000
For the financial year 1997-98, Health Canada and Justice Canada
allocated:
(b) (i) $200,000
(ii) $487,000
(iii) & (iv) $5.5 million
(v) $210,000
(vi) $285,000
(vii) $2.0 million
(viii) 0
(ix) $425,000
Revenue Canada
(a) & (b) (iii) The excise duty program is responsible for the
protection of revenues for excisable goods subject to the Excise
Act, including alcohol and beer, as well as tobacco products.
The enforcement of federal laws on tobacco use is an important
part of the department's global strategy. However, the amount
of money spent on enforcement is not broken down into specific
commodities.
(a) & (b) (iv) Revenue Canada's customs contraband resources are
dedicated to preventing not only tobacco but alcohol, drugs,
firearms and other types of smuggling. As such, it is impossible
to separate resources used solely for enforcing laws against
tobacco smugling.
In 1997-98 the department received $23 million to implement an
anti-smuggling initiative and allocated $19 million of the total
to the Customs and Trade Administration Branch. To fight
contraband smuggling, the department dedicated over 700 FTEs, full
time equivalents, to the program, of which about 300 have been
funded though the anti-smuggling initiative.
Apart from this special effort, the department also deploys over
3,500 uniformed customs officers across Canada to prevent
smuggling, not only of tobacco, but other products as well.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP,
(a) & (b) (iii) & (iv) It is impossible to detail the amount of
funding for enforcement of federal laws on tobacco use or
enforcement of laws against tobacco smuggling. The reason for
this is that the RCMP priority under the customs ans excise
program is the investigation of organized criminal groups
involved in smuggling. Although a criminal organization may be
involved in tobacco smuggling only, it is more often the
experience of the RCMP that organized criminal groups are
simultaneously involved in a variety of illegal activities. The
most common illicit products are tobacco, liquor, drugs and firearms.
Therefore, an investigation would overlap a number of illegal
activities and contraband goods at the same time.
In general terms, the following can be provided in relation to
customs and excise enforcement. The RCMP was provided with
$66,300,000 for customs and excise enforcement and related
statutes through the anti-smuggling initiative for the fiscal
year 1997-98. Of this amount, $18,104,000 was provided directly
to the integrated proceeds of crime initiative to support
human resources and to cover the costs related to investigations
of proceeds of crime activities related to the Customs and Excise
Acts.
The remaining $48,196,000 is used to support 332 regular members
and 25 public service support staff. In addition, there are 249
regular members and 33 public service support staff with the
customs and excise program. These resources are funded through
the “A” based RCMP budget. This would amount to approximately
$25,000,000 per year.
In addition to the above, the cost of support programs to customs
and excise enforcement would need to be included. There is,
however, no way of determining the direct cost of these resources
to tobacco related investigations.
Question No. 87—Mr. John Duncan:
What was the yearly amount paid for services rendered to the
federal government and its agencies, from 1990 to 1997, to the
following law firms; (a) Lang Michener; (b) Fraser Beattie;
(c) Gowling Strathy; and (d) Fasken Calvin?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by all
departments and agencies as follows:
(a) Lang Michener
1990-91—$63,903.59
1991-92—$221,093.25
1992-93—$86,811.00
1993-94—$265,675.89
1994-95—$89,474.07
1995-96—$149,977.36
1996-97—$202,782.82
1997-98—$285,442.99
(b) Fraser & Beattie
1990-91—$273,506.05
1991-92—$484,695.61
1992-93—$181,361.79
1993-94—$445,166.02
1994-95—$159,493.98
1995-96—$35,549.49
1996-97—$10,364.51
1997-98—$7,917.00
(c) Gowling Strathy & Henderson
1990-91—$224,127.90
1991-92—$300,291.64
1992-93—$628,233.88
1993-94—$537,508.49
1994-95—$480,180.21
1995-96—$777,425.29
1996-97—$705,233.32
1997-98—$1,077,602.76
(d) Fasken Calvin
1990-91—$6,152.00
1991-92—$2,236.00
1992-93—$18,895.00
1993-94—$46,080.06
1994-95—$6,761.00
1995-96—$27,626.91
1996-97—$48,410.36
1997-98—$10,153.00
Question No. 95—Mr. Grant McNally:
What studies has the Government of Canada commissioned
concerning the extent of potential financial liability to
taxpayers resulting from challenges by foreign investors against
allegedly non-conforming measures at the national and subnational
level under the investor-state dispute settlement processes of
(a) NAFTA and (b) the proposed MAI?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
The right of corporations to sue governments is not
unprecedented. Under Canadian law, both domestic and foreign
owned companies have the right to file claims in Canadian courts
if they believe that they have been treated unfairly by the
government. Investor-state arbitration ensures that Canadian
investors abroad have recourse to fair and transparent dispute
settlement, especially in countries which may not provide the
same legal and judicial protection that is guaranteed in Canada.
Recourse to investor-state arbitration is an important feature of
the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and of bilateral
investment treaties that Canada and many other countries have
concluded.
The government works continually to ensure that its measures
conform to its international legal obligations. Indeed, the
government consults broadly and assesses a variety of
implications in the development of policies and initiatives. The
government's potential financial liability pursuant to challenges
by foreign investors against allegedly non-conforming measures
under the investor-state dispute settlement procedures of the
NAFTA and a potential Multilateral Agreement on Investment, MAI,
would depend upon the number and nature of the disputes in
question.
Respecting subnational measures, Canada secured a grandfathering
of all existing non-conforming subnational measures in the NAFTA.
In the MAI negotiations, Canada has indicated clearly that the
application of the MAI to measures under the jurisdiction of
Canadian provinces cannot be assumed and would depend upon the
content of any potential deal. Should the negotiations result in
a satisfactory agreement for Canada, the coverage of provincial
investment measures would not exceed the NAFTA. Canada would
ensure that all existing non-conforming measures maintained by
provincial and local governments would be excluded from the
coverage of any agreement. As well, Canada would fully safeguard
our freedom of action at both the federal and provincial levels
in key areas, including health care, social programs, culture,
education, programs for aboriginal peoples and programs for
minorities.
Since the outset of the MAI negotiations in 1995, the government
has consulted the provinces on a frequent and consistent basis.
The provinces are debriefed after every negotiating session,
copied on all reports and have access to all negotiating
document. Numerous meetings between federal and provincial trade
officials have taken place over the past three years to address
issues related to the negotiations. The federal-provincial trade
ministerial meeting of February 19, 1998 allowed for a thorough
discussion of Canada's objectives and bottom lines.
The governement will continue to consult closely with Canadians
respecting the MAI negotiations. Consultations with provincial
and territorial governments, non-governmental organizations,
business and individual Canadians are vital to ensuring that all
our interests are properly reflected in Canada's negotiating
position.
Question No. 96—Mr. Eric Lowther:
With respect to the granting of pardons by the National Parole
Board during the 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 reporting years:
(a) how many decisions with respect to pardons did the National
Parole Board make during these years: (b) how many total
pardons were issued or granted during these years: (c) how many
pardons were revoked during these years: (d) how many
applications for pardons were denied during these years: (e)
how many pardons were issued or granted for sexual offences
during these years, including, but not limited to, the offences
listed in sections 151, 152, 153, 155, 159, 160, 170, 212, 271,
272 and 273 of the Criminal Code or any of the earlier provisions
of the Criminal Code which these sections replaced: (f) how
many of the pardons that were revoked during these years had
previously been granted for sexual offences: and (g) how many
of the applications for pardons that were denied during these
years were application to have one or more sexual offences
pardoned?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): With
respect to the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the answer is
as follows:
(a) The National Parole Board made the following number of
pardon decisions:
1994-95—25,502
1995-96—16,981
1996-97—19,269
(b) The National Parole Board granted the following number of
pardons:
1994-95—23,895
1995-96—15,401
1996-97—17,529
(c) The National Parole Board revoked the following of pardons:
1994-95—269
1995-96—416
1996-97—498
(d) The National Parole Board denied the following of pardon
applications:
1994-95—228
1995-96—172
1996-97—184
(e) There are no statistics available regarding the issue of
pardons by offence type.
(f) There are no statistics available regarding the revocation
of pardons by offence type.
(g) There are no statistics available regarding the denial of
pardons by offence type.
Question No. 97—Mr. Eric Lowther:
With respect to the child tax benefit, CTB during this and the
last fiscal year for this program: (a) how many cases have
there been where the same child was being claimed for the CTB by
more than one individual at the same time: (b) what percentage
are these cases of the total number of cases in the CTB program
over the same period of time: (c) what was the total amount of
overpayment for all of these double payment cases: (d) what was
the average dollar value per double payment case: (e) what was
the average length of time of such double payment: (f) how are
such cases handled after they are discovered: (g) how many
cases have there been of CTB payments being paid for an extended
period of time after the deth of a child: (h) what percentage
are these cases of the total number of cases in the CTB program
over the same period of time: (i) what percentage are these
cases of the total number of cases of child deaths where the
child had been in the CTB program: (j) what was the total
amount of overpayment for all of these cases: (k) what was the
average dollar value per overpayment case: (l) what was the
average length of time of overpayment: (m) how are such cases
handled after they are discovered: (n) what were the costs to
the department in discovering and correcting the above errors?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): (a) Revenue Canada has effective processes in place to
ensure that duplicate payments cannot be made in respect of a
child, for the same period. As a result, such cases are extremely
rare. A review of all compliance activities for the 1997-98
fiscal period, over 31,000 actions, revealed only one case of
duplicate payments being made in respect of a child. Data were
not kept at that level of detail prior to 1997-98.
(b) For statistical purposes, the percentage is effectively
“O”.
(c) The one case detected involved an overpayment of $1,574.
(d) Not applicable.
(e) For the case detected, overpayments continued for 17 months.
(f) The overpayment is being recovered from the client. In
general, overpayments are recovered by deducting 50% of the
amount of future benefits until the debt is repaid. However, a
lower rate will be accepted if the client demonstrates that the
50% withholding causes significant financial hardship.
(g) Each year, about 400 clients fail to report the death of a
CTB, child tax benefit, entitled child to Revenue Canada, and
continue to reveive benefits in respect of that child for an
extended period of time, i.e., more that a year following the
death of the child.
(h) This represents 0.007% i.e., about one child in 14,000, of
children in respect of whom CTB is being paid for the year.
(i) The annual total of 400 cases is about 18% of CTB entitled
children who die each year.
(j) Losses for the last and current fiscal years are estimated
to be less that $800,000 and $1,000,000 respectively, against
annual expenditures of $5.1 billion.
(k) The average annual overpayment per case is approximately
$510.
(l) If neither the client nor Revenue Canada take corrective
action in respect of a case, payments may continue for an average
of 9.6 years following the child's death. Using this as a worst
case scenario, Revenue Canada risks overpaying CTB by an average
of $4,900, over the duration of the case. It should be noted that
CTB is a relatively new program, with the first payments being
made in 1993.
In the near future, Revenue Canada hopes to obtain detailed
infromation on child deaths directly from the provinces, so that
the department can accurately and quickly take appropriate action
to prevent overpayments, without adding to ghe stress and duress
experienced by the grieving family.
(m) In most cases the parent contacts Revenue Canada when he or
she realizes that benefits are still being received in respect of
a deceased child. They may be detected during routine reviews of
the account, but the frequency of occurrence is too low for this
to happen more than a few times a year. In either case the
account is adjusted and any overpayment is recovered without
interest and penalities being charged, barring deliberate fraud.
(n) To date Revenue Canada has not undertaken any compliance
reviews that specifically target the failure to report the death
of a child. Revenue Canada has concentrated its efforts on
imforming the public of the need to advise the department
immediately of such an event. Assuming the required data will be
made available by the provinces, Revenue Canada will soon be able
to take prompt corrective action at a very modest cost.
Question No. 101—Mr. Jim Hart:
How many people were infected with Hepatitis C from tainted
blood before January 1, 1986 and what is the source of this
information?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Current estimates
place the number of people still living who were infected with
hepatitis C through Canada's blood system before January 1, 1986,
at somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000. This does not include the
10,000 and 18,000 people who were already infected with hepatitis
C before they used the blood system, but for a number of reasons
many if not most of these cases cannot be distinguished from the
others. Thus there are between 30,000 to 48,000 living people who
might be considered as having been infected with hepatitis C
through the blood system.
A working group of epidemiologists under contract to Health
Canada developed these estimates using the latest data and
information available. Health Canada invited key stakeholders to
participate on an expert panel that reviewed the working group's
findings. Participants included representatives from the
provinces and territories, and consumer groups such as the
Hepatitis C Society of Canada and the Canadian Hemophilia
Society. The expert panel endorsed the working group
methodologies and findings.
Question No. 102—Mr. Jim Hart:
Has the federal government provided the Nicola Indian Band
funding for a feasibility study to purchase the Douglas Lake
Ranch and, if so: (a) how much money did the government
provide; and (b) what are the terms of the agreement between
the government and the Nicola Indian Band?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): The federal government has not provided any
funding to the Nicola Band for it to undertake a feasibility
study to purchase the Douglas Lake Ranch.
Question No. 103—Mr. John Cummins:
With reference to infectious salmon anemia (ISA) and its
possible effect on salmon and other marine life on Canada's east
and west coasts: (a) where on the east coast has the disease been
found amongst farmed Atlantic salmon, how many pens have reported
the disease, how many farms, and how many bays; (b) what action
has been taken by aquaculture operators to control the disease on
the east coast, how many farmed Atlantic salmon have been
slaughtered, and what was their value; (c) what chemicals,
antibiotics or other medicines have the aquaculture operators on
the east coast used to prevent or control the disease, and which
of these products have been approved for use in the
marine environment; (d) what is the effect on wild salmon,
shellfish and other marine life of the chemicals, antibiotics or
other medicines used by aquaculture operators to prevent or
control the disease; (e) is it possible that local wild species
of salmon and other marine life on the east coast have been
affected by the strain of the disease found amongst farmed salmon,
if so which species of wild salmon and other marine life are most
susceptible to the disease, and which of these species would be
most threatened by the disease; (f) what is the responsibility
of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in regard to this
strain of the disease, more particularly what responsibility does
the department by statute have in dealing with this disease when
found in sea-base aquaculture operations; (g) what
responsibility does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have
to prevent the possible transmission of this strain of disease
from aquaculutre operations on the east coast to local wild fish
stocks; (h) what action has the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans taken to ensure that this strain of the disease is not
transmitted to wild fish stocks on the east coast; (i) has the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans succeeded in preventing the
transmission of this strain of the disease to wild stocks on the
east coast; (j) what research has the Department of Fisheries
undertaken on the possible spread of this strain of the disease
to wild stocks on the east coast, when will this research be
completed and when will it be made available to the public;
(k) what resources (money and personnel) has the Department of
Fisheries spent in the control and prevention of this disease;
(l) so as to prevent the transmission of this disease what
research has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertaken
into alternatives to net pen salmon aquaculture; (m) are farmed
Atlantic salmon on west coast susceptible to this disease; (n)
has this disease found on the east coast yet been found in farmed
Atlantic salmon stocks on the west coast; (o) what
responsibility does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have
to endure that the disease does not get tranferred to farmed
Atlantic salmon stocks on the west coast; (p) what action has
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans taken to ensure that the
disease is not transferred to farmed Atlantic salmon stocks on
the west coast; (q) what special precautions is the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans undertaking to prevent transfer of the
disease to the 214 wild coho runs on the west coast identified by
the American Fisheries Society as being at high risk of
extinction; and (r) is it possible to transfer the disease from
farmed Atlantic salmon stocks on the west coast to local wild
stocks and if so what wild salmon and other marine species are
susceptible to this disease?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
(a) Infectious salmon anaemia, ISA, has only been found in
Atlantic salmon marine farms in the Bay of Fundy along the south
west coast of New Brunswick. Twenty one farms have been infected
in three bays, Limekiln, Bliss Harbour ans Seal Cove.
(b) The aquaculture industry on the east coast has supported the
establishment of a comprehensive ISA control program. A series of
procedures have been or will soon be implemented including strict
site disinfection and disinfection of waste water from fish
processing plants. The industry has also relied on early harvest,
i.e. before there are signs of the disease, as a measure to
control ISA. It is estimated that approximately 1.5 million
Atlantic salmon have been, or are in the process of being,
eradicated in the three affected bays. The economic impact of ISA
is estimated to be as high as $25-30 million.
(c) Infectious salmon anaemia, ISA, is a viral disease with no
known treatment, so chemicals and antibiotics are not being used
to control this disease. There are also no vaccines available to
prevent infection of Atlatic salmon with the ISA virus. Instead,
the prevention and control of ISA are based on comprenhensive
management measures such as cleaning and disinfection of farm
premises and equipement, restricted movement of live adult fish,
disease surveillance, and disinfection of offal on waste from
fish slaughterhouses. Sanitary slaughtering of market fish, i.e.
slaughtering fish before there are disease signs, form farms
where ISA is present il also recommended.
(d) No chemicals antibiotics or other medicines have been used
to control this disease, so there is no impact on wild salmon,
shellfish and other marine life.
(e) It is always possible that local wild Atlantic slamon, the
same species as cultured Atlantic salmon, have been affected by
ISA. However, ISA was first recognized in Norway in 1984, and the
Norwegian authorities still consider ISA as a disease of farmed,
not wild, Atlantic salmon in marine cages or land based
facilities using seawater. The same situation is observed in New
Brunswick. ISA has only been found in cultured Atlantic salmon in
seawater, and testing of wild salmon and juvenile salmon in
freshwater hatcheries has been negative for ISA.
(f) In New Brunswick, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
DFO, has no direct responsibility for controlling ISA in marine
farms. The provincial department of fisheries and aquaculture has
the responsibility for controlling diseases in salmon farms under
the provincial aquaculture act. DFO's mandate in New Brunswick
relates only to protecting the health of wild fish.
However, DFO has provided considerable scientific support to the
province in terms of disease diagnostics, disease surveillance in
wild fish, and participating on committees established to advise
the New Brunswick government on ways to control ISA.
(g) ISA is not known to occur in wild fish, either in Canada or
Norway where the disease was first detected. ISA has also been
reported very recently in Scotland for the first time, again only
in farmed fish in coastal waters. So DFO has not taken any
specific action to date to control the spread of ISA to wild fish
in New Brunswick. DFO is represented on committees mandated to
control and manage the disease in aquaculture facilities and is
monitoring the situation closely.
(h) ISA is not believed to be transmitted from parents to
progeny via eggs. However, if transmission of ISA to ohter
provinces on the east coast is to occur, it would likely be
through the movement of live eggs and fish. Such transfers are
controlled under the fish health protection regulations or under
section 4 of the Fisheries Act. Live eggs or fish are only
tranferred to other provinces form New Brunswick if sources have
been inspected for and found to be free of the ISA virus.
(i) There is no historical evidence that ISA occurs in wild
fish; nor is there evidence that ISA has been transmitted to wild
populations of salmon in New Brunswick. In 1997, DFO tested more
than 100 wild salmonids for the presence of ISA and all fish were
negative. And additional 120 wild juvenile Atlantic salmon have
been tested by DFO in 1998, as well as samples from herring, cod,
pollock, mackerel and flounder. Furthermore, adult Atlantic
salmon returning to rivers draining into the inner Bay of Fundy
are being sampled, 30 adults so far, including some fish that
escaped from aquaculture cages. As in 1997 all tests to date are
negative for ISA.
(j) Research efforts in DFO Science has focused on comfirming
that ISA was the disease agent for the syndrome that was causing
high mortalities on salmon farms in south west New Brunswick, and
to assess the validity of cell culture to diagnose infectious
salmon anaemia. All the research results on transmission of the
disease are completed and were made public during scientific
conferences, workshops or meetings. The laboratory work on using
cell culture as a diagnotic tool has just been completed, and
results will be made available as described upon completion of
the data analysis. DFO is also paying for a contract to study the
epidemiology of ISA. The contract report will be a public
document.
(k) Work by DFO on ISA has been performed periodically by
several DFO scientific staff within the existing work-plans. No
additional money has been allocated, although it has necessitated
a rearragement of priorities in certain cases. DFO is also paying
$45,000 for a contract that is now in progress, to study the
epidemiology of ISA.
(l) ISA is considered a manageable disease in Norway if
management measures described in (c) are implemented. DFO has not
studied alternatives to net-pen culture.
(m) In North America, ISA has only been found in Atlantic salmon
reared in marine cages in the Bay of Fundy south west New
Brunswick. As the Atlantic salmon farmed on the west coast are
the same species they would be susceptible, but there is no
indication of the disease in British Columbia.
(n) No, ISA has not been detected on the west coast.
(o) The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for
protecting the health of fisheries resources in Canada. Any
interprovincial movement of live salmonid eggs and fish, e.g.
transfers from New Bruswick to British Columbia, is subject to
requirements of the fish health protection regualtions, or under
section of the Fisheries Act. Sources of eggs and live ish
originating from New Brunswick would have to be inspected and
certified free of ISA before and import permit was issued for the
importation to another province such as British Columbia. As an
added precaution because of the presence of ISA in New Brunswick,
local fish health officers who administer the fish health
protection regulations on the east coast have agreed not to
approve request to transfer live fish from marine cages located
in the Bay of Fundy to any other province.
(p) The measures described in (o) minimize the risk if ISA being
transferred to the west coast.
(q) The measures described in (o) minimize the risk of
transferring ISA to any salmonid stocks on the west coast. These
meaures are meant to protect wild coho salmon as well as farmed
salmon. It should be noted that Pacific salmon is a different
genus to Atlantic salmon, and the virus has not been found in
Pacific salmon species.
(r) This is a highly hypothetical question since ISA is not
present on the west coast and its distribution is limited to
farmed fish in south west New Brunswick. ISA is a disease
affecting only farmed Atlantic salmon. To our knowledge it has
never been found in wild Atlantic salmon populations. Atlantic
salmon is the only species that we know is susceptible to this
disease.
Question No. 104—Mr. John Duncan:
In the last three fiscal years (1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98),
on the west coast of Canada, how much money in total was spent
at the light stations known as Trial Island, Merry Island, Chrome
Island, Entrance Island, Cape Mudge, Scarlett Point, Pultney
Point, Boat Bluff, Green Island, Dryad Point, Pachena Point and
Carmanah Point on automation in preparation for destaffing for
alternative lighting, fog horns, power generation, alarm relay
systems, weather recording systems, recording buoys, cameras,
anemometers, security structures, technician transport and
adjustment costs for same, battery replacement costs, and on
satellite time costs for alternative weather data recording and
transmission?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
In order to make a decision on destaffing 12 light stations, in
the pacific region of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it
was necessary to obtain user input on the acceptability of
alternative services at modernized light stations. Therefore, the
coast guard spent money on various activities to provide the
necessary demonstration period at these site including aids to
navigation equipment, weather equipment, and transportation
costs. The light stations are: Trial Island, Merry Island, Chrome
Island, Entrance Island, Cape Mudge, Scarlett Point, Pulteney
Point, Boat Bluff, Green Island, Dryad Point, Pachena Point and
Carmanah Point.
Question No. 105—Mr. John Duncan:
In the last two fiscal years, 1996-97 and 1997-98, on the west
coast of Canada, how much money has been spent replacing or
fixing solar panels on beacons and buoys that were damaged
because of theft or vandalism?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
In the last two fiscal years $27,845, not including ship or
technician time, was spent in the Pacific region of the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans by the coast guard on
replacing or fixing solar panels on beacons and buoys that wwere
damaged because of theft or vandalilsm.
1996-97—$13,435.
1997-98—$14,410.
Question No. 106—Mr. Grant McNally:
Can the government provide the rationale and criteria used to
substantiate the October 21, 1994 declaration of the immigration
minister, pursuant to paragraph 19(1)(l) of the Immigration Act,
that in his opinion, the former Marxist regime of Afghanistan,
1978 to 1992, had been engaged in systemic or gross human rights
violations?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.):
Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC
The rationale and criteria used in designating
governments/regimes, including Afghanistan, under paragraph
19(1)(l) of the Immigration Act:
Under paragraph 19(1)(l) of the Immigration Act, senior members or
officials associated with regimes that, in the opinion of the
minister, committed gross human rights abuses or crimes against
humanity are considered inadmissible to Canada unless the
minister is of the opinion that their admission would not be
contrary to the national interest. These officials need not have
committed crimes against humanity themselves but, by virtue of
their position during the period when atrocities were committed,
likely agreed with or were able to influence the actions, laws
and policies of the government, in addition to benifiting from
the status brought about from being a part of that government.
Immigration headquarters has the responsability for researching
the human rights record of regimes in consultation with the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, DFAIT.
DFAIT plays an active role in this process by providing clear
departmental positions with respect to the human rights practices
of a specific regime and by providing an assessment of the
international impact. Where appropriate, immigration
headquarters recommends to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration whether a regime should be designated under paragraph
19(1)(l) of the Immigration Act.
In 1994, CIC requested the opinion of the minister regarding the
human rights record of the former Marxist regime in Afghanistan,
1978-1992, for the purposes of designating it under paragraph
19(1)(l). The Marxist regime was described as one which was
engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights
violations, war crimes or crimes against humanity within the
meaning of the Criminal Code of Canada. One of its leaders, Dr.
Najibullah, had formerly been head of the Afghani Information
Police, KHAD, whose agents routinely and savagely administered
torture during interrogations of prisoners. Officials from
Foreign Affairs were consulted and they concurred with the
recommendation to designate. The Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration subsequently designated the former Marxist regime in
Afghanistan under paragraph 19(1)(l).
Question No. 107—Mr. Peter MacKay:
Can the government provide information as to whether or not Mr.
David Pryce is working in the office of the Minister of Industry
or any other minister's office and, if so: (a) does he perform
duties that require security clearance and (b) can the
government provide information as to restrictions for ministers
and their staff who hold a criminal record, as it relates to
security clearance?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. David Pryce
is employed as a special assistant with responsibilities for
Ontario in the office of the Minister of Industry.
(a) All special assistants to ministers require “secret”
security clearance.
(b) Staff who have a criminal record are treated in the same way
as public servants to ensure that such cases are disposed of in a
satisfactory, fair and objective manner which respects the rights
of the individual. The existence of a criminal record need not be
sufficient grounds to deny a security screening status. The
procedures stipulated in the Treasury Board government security
policy are followed. This means that the individual is offered an
opportunity to explain the adverse information. The record is
considered in light of such matters as the duties to be
performed, the nature and frequency of the offence, the passage
of time, the individual's attitude toward the offence, the extent
to which the individual has changed behaviour and the likely
recurrence of similar offences and their potential impact.
Question No. 112—Mr. Chris Axworthy:
Is the Department of National Defence planning to change the
communications systems on the Sea King helicopters and, if so,
what is the cost?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
The following changes to the Sea King helicopters' communication
systems are underway to conform with NATO operation standards:
(a) The “Have Quick II” systems is being integrated into the AN
ARC 164 (V) UHF radios at a cost of $1 million; and
(b) The KY75 system is being replaced by the Advanced Narrow Band
Digital Voice Terminal, ANDVT, at a cost of $325,000.
Question No. 114—Mr. Philip Mayfield:
With regards to various developing countries involvement in the
Montreal protocol: (a) what role is Canada playing to ensure
these countries meet the specified standards; and (b) how much
money, including indirect as well as direct funding, has the
federal government allocated overall to help these developing
countries achieve compliance?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by the
Department of Environment and the Canadian International
Development Agency as follows:
With regard to various developing countries involvement in the
Montreal protocol:
(a) Canada has actively participated in the work of the
meetings of the parties and the meetings of the executive
committee of the multilateral fund to help ensure compliance of
developing countries with the control measures of the protocol.
More recently, Canada has presided over the work of the
implementation committee which is responsible for reviewing
situations of non-compliance with the Montreal protocol.
Finally, Canada has been an advocator of a strong and effective
non-compliance procedure and was the chief proponent of a newly
created working group, ad hoc working group of legal and
technical experts on non-compliance to the Montreal protocol,
which is mandated to review the non-compliance procedure with a
view to developing appropriate recommendations on the need and
conditions for the further elaboration and strenghtening of this
procedure.
(b) Regarding the issue of funding allocated by the federal
government to help developing countries achieve compliance,
Canada has, so far, contributed $25.3 million U.S. directly to
the multilateral fund of the Montreal protocol shared between the
Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, and Environment
Canada, of which $3.2 million U.S. was provided by Environment
Canada to the bilateral assistance fund. In addition,
Environment Canada has provided, so far, a total of $1.12 million U.S.
in financial support to house the multilateral fund
secretariat in Montreal. Canada's ongoing commitment to assist
developing countries under the Montreal protocol totals
approximately $8.2 million Canadian on a annual basis. Finally,
CIDA is making two contributions to the Ottawa-based ENGO,
Environment Non-Governmental Organization, Friends of the Earth,
for ozone related activities in developing countries: a $300,000
Canadian grant over the next three years to strengthen public
awareness about ozone issues, and to build national capacity to
accelerate the transition from methyl bromide to environmentally
benign alternatives in Chile, Ghana and Malaysia; and a grant of
$75,000 Canadian this year for an international youth internship
program which targets ozone depletion activities.
Question No. 116—Mr. Ken Epp:
With respect to the selection of the new information
commissioner, could the government specify: (a) how many
individuals applied for the position of information commissioner;
(b) what were the names of each of the candidates who applied;
and (c) what criterion was used to select the information
commissioner?
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Part (a)
The information commissioner is a special ombudsperson appointed
by parliament ot investigate complaints that the government has
denied rights under the Access to Information Act. The
commissioner is independent of government and has strong
investigative powers.
The position of information commissioner became vacant following
the expiration of Mr. John Grace's term of office on April 30,
1998.
Seven individuals expressed an interest in writing in being
considered for the position.
Part (b)
The selection process for the new information commissioner was
an informal one. Names were brought to the attention of the
government for consideration by many sources, including the
bureaucracy, the journalist community and members of parliament.
The names of those individuals who wrote in expressing an
interest in the position cannot be disclosed since this
information is considered personal information and is protected
under the Privacy Act.
However, the Honourable John Reid's name was put forward to the
government by opposition members of the House of Commons.
Under the Access to Information Act, the appointment of a new
information commissioner must be approved by motions in the
House of Commons and the Senate.
Following his testimony in committee, the House of Commons and
the Senate adopted such motion supporting the appointment of the
Honourable John Reid.
The appointment of Mr. Reid was subsequently announced by the
government on June 25, 1998.
Part (c)
Although the selection process was informal, the government at
all times sought to ensure that the new information commissioner
would be an individual possessing experience in managing at the
senior executive level, in innovating and leading in the
management of a multi-disciplinary team on sensitive issues in a
public environment, and with a thorough knowledge of the Access
to Information Act, as well as an understanding of the rules of
natural justice and fairness, and the principles of public
administration, current government structure, and government
decision making.
The government shares the view of all parties in the House of
Commons and the Senate that Mr. Reid meets these qualifications.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Questions Nos. 85 and 98 could be made orders for returns, these
returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 85—Mr. John Reynolds:
Can the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please provide a costing
of every one, of the 172 recommendations, contained in the
Legislative Review Advisory Group Report and any other pertinent
documentation or analysis?
Return tabled.
Question No. 98—Mr. Eric Lowther:
Could the government
provide a complete list of all the “rights” (political, social,
human) that Canada promotes through international organisations
or has formally recognised through international agreement
(including those through United Nations forums)?
Return tabled.
* * *
[English]
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 88, 99, 100, 113
and 115.
.[Text]
*Question No. 88—Mr. Ted White:
Could the government explain what ongoing action it is taking,
what progress has been made to date and when a final resolution
is expected, with respect to the present situation whereby
American shipbuilders have open access to the Canadian market,
yet Canadian commercial vessels are prohibited for sale in the
USA?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.:) A number of maritime
laws collectively known as the “Jones Act” impose a variety of
limits on foreign participation in the U.S. domestic maritime
industry. Under these laws, the carriage of cargo or passengers
between points in the United States is restricted to U.S. built
and U.S. documented vessels owned and operated by U.S. citizens.
Similar restrictions apply to dredging, salvage and other
commercial marine activities in U.S. waters. In international
shipping, there are limitations on foreign ownership of vessels
eligible for documentation in the United States. In addition,
several subsidies and other support measures are available to
operators of U.S. vessels: cargo preference laws restrict the
carriage of military cargo and limit the carriage of government
non-military cargo, aid cargo and certain agricultural
commodities to U.S. vessels. These and other restrictions coupled
with defence related prohibitions of the Byrnes/Tollefson
amendment limit Canadian participation in U.S. shipping
activities.
Although Canada has sought to enhance access to the U.S. market
in this sector through trade negotiations, the United States has
refused to negotiate improvements and has protected these
restrictions in both the North American Free Trade Agreement,
NAFTA, and the World Trade Organization, WTO, agreements. In the
NAFTA and the WTO, Canada protected our ability to utilize similar
measures wtih respect to imports from the United States. In
practical terms, imports of ships from the United States into
Canada have not been significant due to production and
competitive realities.
Canada will continue to use every appropriate opportunity to
encourage the liberalization of these restrictive provisions.
Although there have been renewed calls for reform, the cabotage
and cargo preference restrictions continue to enjoy significant
support in the United States, limiting the prospect of any major
change in the short term.
*Question No. 99—Mr. Jim Hart:
Has the federal government done an economic impact study on the
implications of the Delgamuuk decision on British Columbia and,
if so: (a) what are the results of this study; and (b) what
are the economic impacts of the Delgamuuk decision for the rest
of Canada?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): The federal
government has not conducted an economic impact study on the
implications of the Delgamuukw decision on British Columbia or
elsewhere in Canada. In its decision on the Delgamuukw case, the
Supreme Court of Canada did not rule on whether or not where
aboriginal title continues to exist in Canada. Accordingly, it
would be impossible to conduct an economic impact study on the
implications of the continued existence of aboriginal title.
*Question No. 100—Mr. Jim Hart:
What are the safety, health, disciplinary and morale reasons
behind dress regulations for the Canadian Armed Forces as the
exist right now?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Safety and Health Reasons
Items of clothing are designed to accommodate the varied
activities of Canadian Forces personnel in all climatic
environments in order to prevent injury and disease.
Adequate clothing, properly worn, is essential to welfare and
survival in harsh, cold environments. Clothing is designed to be
worn as an ensemble for protection of head, torso and
extremities. Failure to wear the total ensemble in accordance
with the layering principle to conserve body heat, influences
cold injuries such as chilblains, trench foot, hypothermia and
frostbite.
In hot climates, clothing is designed to help personnel avoid
the many problems associated with overheating like cramps,
syncope, exhaustion and stroke.
Special items of clothing are designed to protect personnel who
are occupationally exposed to environmental hazards like toxic
chemicals and radiation. Also, personnel serving onboard ship
must have clothing that minimizes injuries in the event of an
explosion or fire.
Disciplanary Reasons
High standards of dress, deportment, and grooming are
universally recognized as marks of a well trained, disciplined
and professional force. Commanders must maintain the standards at
all times to reinforce these characteristics for peace and war.
Modified or idiosyncratic dress demonstrates inefficient and
undisciplined training and a failure of those in command to focus
on the purpose of a uniformed armed force.
Morale Reasons
The uniforms of the Canadian Forces identify all personnel as
members of a cohesive, armed body in the service of the Canadian
people. The uniform is an outward symbol of the Canadian Forces'
commitment, identity and ethos. Coupled with overall appearance,
the uniform is the most powerful visual expression of pride by
the individual service member, and is the primary means by which
the public image of the Canadian Forces is fashioned.
Canadian Forces personnel take pride in their uniforms.
Ultimately, poor design or manufacture of these uniforms can
affect their morale.
*Question No. 113—Mr. Ted White:
Could the government please indicate: (a) whether
representatives of the Quebec government have been or will be,
accredited as diplomats within the Canadian embassy in Beijing;
(b) whether one of those representatives has been, or will be,
operating under the title of “chef de poste du Québec”; (c)
the names of those representatives; (d) whether Quebec has
representatives posted in other Canadian embassies; (e) whether
Quebec representatives operating from Canadian embassies are
permitted to distribute material promoting a separate Quebec and
if not, what steps have been take to prevent such distribution;
and (f) whether any provinces other than Quebec have provincial
employees working with diplomatic status in Canadian embassies?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (a) As of June 3,
1998, no representative of the Quebec government has been
accredited as a diplomat within the Canadian embassy in Beijing.
The federal government is currently negotiating with Quebec a
memorandum of understanding for the co-location of one Quebec
official, supported by one locally engaged program officer and
one locally engaged secretary, to perform what are to be
essentially trade development, investment promotion and
development assistance duties. Under current practice, provincial
governments may, with the approval of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, be permitted to co-locate within Canadian embassies
abroad on a full cost recovery basis and where space is
available.
(b) The title “chef de poste du Québec” is not an official
diplomatic designation and would not be authorized for use in the
official publication “Canadian Representatives Abroad” nor in
the diplomatic list provided to host country authorities. In
comparable situations, the senior Quebec government officer is
assigned the title of “First Secretary” followed by an
appropriate description of his area of responsibility, for
example, “Immigration—Quebec” or “Commercial and Development
Assistance—Quebec”.
(c) The negotiations of a co-location agreement are in progress.
The Quebec governement has not yet nominated an officer to send
to Beijing.
(d) Quebec government immigration officials are co-located
within the Canadian missions in Damascus, Vienna and Hong Kong. A
Quebec officer from the Ministry of International Relations
working in the field of educational and social affairs is
co-located within the Canadian embassy in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire.
(e) It would be inappropriate for Quebec officials located in
Canadian missions abroad to distribute material promoting an
independent Quebec. Under the terms of the co-location memoranda
of understanding with provincial governments, the provinces agree
that their provincial officials fall under the overall authority
of the Canadian head of mission. The head of mission has the
power to take appropriate disciplinary measures, including in the
final resort to request the return to Canada of members of staff.
(f) At present, only the province of Alberta has a co-located
employee with diplomatic status at the Canadian embassy in Seoul,
Korea. Several other provinces, including British Columbia,
Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland have
co-located employees within Canadian missions abroad in the past.
Experience to date has been that co-locating provincial staff
within Canadian missions abroad provides for a closer
co-ordination and a better sharing of the workload between
federal and provincial officials that is likely to occur between
a Canadian embassy and a separate provincial government office.
Co-locations make optimal use of scarce resources abroad reflect
the team Canada spirit.
*Question No. 115—Mr. Paul Forseth:
With regards to the weather-related “leaky condo” situation in
British Columbia, which has evolved into financial disaster
exceeding the Manitoba Flood and the Ontario-Quebec Ice Storm,
does the Government have a plan to assist condo owners repair
unforeseen damages by way of short-term emergency relief, and if
so, does it permit any or all of the following: a) RRSP funds
to be used without tax penalties: b) interest costs of repair
loans to be used as a deductible expense, as it is for landlords:
c) repairs to be GST-exempt: and d) expansion of the limits
of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
I am informed by the Department of Finance and Canada Mortgage
Housing Corporation as follows:
a), b) & c) With regard to the Barrett commission's
recommendations on using the tax system to deliver assistance in
this circumstance, a careful review has raised a number of policy
concerns. For example, since the federal tax system in nationally
based, it would be difficult to provide tax assistance to owners
of water damaged dwellings in B.C., while excluding individuals
in similar circumstances in other parts of the country. It would
also be difficult to provide a tax subsidy for unexpected repair
costs arising from a particular cause but not others such as
fires, floods, earthquakes, et cetera. Because of these policy
concerns, the tax system was not used to provide relief for those
affected by the recent natural disasters in Ontario, Quebec and
Manitoba.
d) On July 13, 1998, the Government of British Columbia
introduced legislation responding to 47 of the recommendations of
the Barrett commission. British Columbia noted that discussions
are underway with the federal government, local government,
financial institutions and building professions on another 26
recommendations, and the other 9 recommendations are subjects to
further analysis.
Two bills, the Homeowner Protection Act and the Strata Property
Act, were introduced on July 13, 1998, and will make warranty
protection in new homes mandatory; require residential builders
to be licensed and meet standards; establish an industry funded
home protection office; and, increase access to information and
ensure that owners and strata corporation can effectively respond
to construction problems if they should occur.
The Government of British Columbia will commit $75 million as
bridge financing for an industry funded reconstruction program
that will provide no interest loans to owners for repairs.
Priority will be given to those most in need who have exhausted
all other financing options. The provincial contribution will be
paid back over time through a special assessment on residential
builders.
On July 17, 1998. the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services of Canada advised the Honourable Jenny Kwan that Canada
Mortgage Housing Corporation, CMHC, has been authorized to enter
into negotiations with the B.C. government on the terms and
conditions for a matching mortgage insurance fund, MIF,
investment in the reconstruction program of up to $75 million
for bridge financing. The minister also confirmed that CMHC
mortgage loan insurance is available to enable owners of water
damaged homes to fund repairs by way of existing, refinanced or
second mortgages. Within its responsibility to manage the MIF in
a prudent manner, CMHC will encourage early discussion and
flexibility in applying CMHC mortgage options. CMHC will also
continue to work with the industry and others to undertake
research and transfer information of use to housing
professionals. Since 1996 CMHC has committed approximately $1
million to this area.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services of Canada
advised the provincial minister that the delivery of assistance
ot condominium owners through the tax system raises a number of
public policy concerns. Since the federal tax system is national
in scope it would be difficult to limit assistance to owners of
water damaged homes in B.C.. It would also be difficult to
provide tax subsidies for unexpected repairs arising from one
cause, i.e. poor design and construction of homes, but not others
such as floods and earthquakes.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services of Canada
noted that it would not be possible to increase British
Columbia's share of the national budget for the residential
rehabilitation assistance program, RRAP, because it would require
funding to other jurisdictions to be reduced. Federal RRAP
funding is allocated on a fair share basis among the provinces
and territories.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Due to the number of responses, I ask
that they be printed in Hansard as if read, and I ask that
the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of
the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
13 minutes.
1530
I have three requests for emergency debates.
I will deal with them in the following order. I will recognize
the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the hon. member for
Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.
I have received letters from all three members and all three
members are present. I will hear them one at a time.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
as you have indicated, I did write to you pursuant to Standing
Order 52(2) to tell you that I would be rising in my place today
to seek leave to propose an emergency debate concerning the
actions of the officials of the Prime Minister and of the Prime
Minister himself in relation to actions taken by the RCMP during
the APEC summit in Vancouver.
Documents have been released to the RCMP public complaints
commission inquiry that lend credence to concerns that have
previously been raised about the direct intervention of the Prime
Minister's office with the RCMP concerning security arrangements
at the summit. There is now documentary evidence that officials
with the PMO and perhaps the Prime Minister himself requested
that actions be taken against peaceful demonstrators exercising
their democratic rights.
Any political interference in policing is highly improper, but
when there is documentary evidence that the Prime Minister
intervened with the RCMP to take actions against demonstrators so
he could retain cordial relations with Mr. Suharto, the former
authoritarian leader of Indonesia, and that such political
interference resulted in the use of pepper spray and of physical
force to arrest peaceful demonstrators, we know there is a real
possibility that Canadian democracy has suffered a deep wound.
Standing Order 52(5) states that in deciding upon an application
for an emergency debate, the Speaker shall consider “the
probability of the matter being brought before the House within a
reasonable time by other means”.
The Prime Minister has clearly stated that he will make no
statement in the House of Commons concerning the matter so there
is no likelihood that the House of Commons will have an
opportunity to address this grave and urgent matter. An
emergency debate is therefore the only way for members of this
House to address threats that have possibly been made to two of
the foundation stones of democratic governance: freedom of
expression and the political independence of the police.
An emergency debate in the House of Commons would in no way
interfere with the RCMP inquiry. The public complaints
commission has a specific mandate under the RCMP Act to conduct
investigations. The House of Commons is a body with its own
constitutional duties and obligations to hold the government
publicly accountable for its actions. Surely it is appropriate
that members of the House should have an opportunity to perform
those democratic duties during the week that Nelson Mandela will
address the House.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to consider favourably this request. It
would give an opportunity not just to us but to the Prime
Minister to give an account of himself and perhaps to refute
convincingly the allegations that have been made against him.
Nevertheless, in the interest of the public and of democracy that
kind of debate should occur and occur soon in this Chamber.
The Speaker: I thank my colleague from
Winnipeg—Transcona. I received his letter about an hour and a
half ago. I have had occasion to consider both the letter and
what he has said here in the House of Commons.
In my view the hon. member's application does not meet the
requirements of Standing Order 52 at this time. Therefore I
would rule that there will not be a standing debate on this issue
today.
I will now listen to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 52, I ask that the House hold an
emergency debate on the use made of budget surpluses and the
management of the federal debt. Several economic indicators are
disturbing and lead me to believe such a debate is really
necessary.
Since August 4, the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding that the
Minister of Finance table a special budget to deal with the
various problems the Canadian economy has been confronted to in
recent months.
First, the recent hike in interest rates by the Bank of Canada,
following the ups and downs of the Canadian dollar on
international markets, is a key factor that may have a very
significant effect on this country's economy and consumer habits
if we are not more careful and if expansionist economic policies
are not promptly put forward by the federal finance minister in
a special budget.
Second, the drop in the Canadian GDP over the past three months,
together with an inflation rate that remains below the targeted
range, clearly show that the Canadian economy is facing serious
difficulties, which have led all analysts to a downward revision
of the 1999 growth forecast.
This alarm bell calls, in our opinion, for vigorous and
immediate action, if we do not want to find ourselves in a
recession within a few months.
For all these reasons, I believe an emergency debate is
required. The government must explain and justify its choices,
which are contrary to the priorities of the people of Quebec and
Canada as well as to the commitments made during the 1997
election campaign and in the budget tabled in February 1998.
1535
The situation is deteriorating a little more every day, and that
is why the government must immediately account for its
management and take the urgent actions required.
I therefore ask that you give favourable consideration to my
request for an emergency debate.
The Speaker: I received the hon. member's letter this
morning, read it and gave it due consideration. I have concluded
that his request does not meet the requirements of Standing
Order 52 at this time.
[English]
I will now hear from the hon. member for
Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.
BILL C-68
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I seek to present a motion under Standing Order 52(1)
and 52(2) for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of
discussing a specific and important matter that requires the
consideration of all hon. members. It is the anticipated
decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal regarding Bill C-68, an
act respecting firearms and other weapons.
The court decision on the challenge of Bill C-68 is due any day
and it is widely expected that it will rule in favour of the
province. The decision will likely read that the federal
government does not have the right to regulate private property.
This will not only strike down the government's plans to force
the registration of sporting rifles and shotguns. It will also
strike down the registration of handguns as well.
A great number of Canadians, including many who are opposed to
the registration of hunting rifles and shotguns, would be
extremely concerned about the loss of the handgun registry.
I propose we examine an alternative to the court ruling by
debating the feasibility of the government repealing Bill C-68
before the court decision is rendered and then petitioning the
court to dismiss the action as having been settled. I believe
this is in the best interest of all Canadians and in the best
interest of the government. Someone does have to look out for
them.
An hon. member: A point of order.
The Speaker: On the point of order, I wonder if the
hon. member would permit me to give my response first. I just
want to check on one thing here.
I address myself to the hon. member for
Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan. I have the letter in front of me
and have of course listened very attentively. At this time it
does not seem that the application meets the requirements under
Standing Order 52. I would therefore rule at this time that he
will not have an emergency debate on the motion he brought
forward.
Now I will deal with the point of order.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the point I wanted to raise was in anticipation of what you said
about the timing not being right. I believe that the timing is
crucial because if the Alberta Court of Appeal brings its ruling
down—
The Speaker: The member's point of order is out of order
and I say that in the gentlest way possible.
The hon. member put his case to me and I have made my decision.
Therefore my decision will stand at this time, notwithstanding
the fact that no doubt the hon. member would have other advice to
give me. I would ask him to give it to me perhaps in my chambers
a little later on.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1540
[English]
COMPETITION ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-20, an act to amend
the Competition Act and to make consequential and related
amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee; and of Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to
talk about the fourth grouping on the various motions brought
forward this morning and this afternoon.
I cannot support Motion No. 9 or its short form version, Motion
No. 10. It would in effect require the director or the
commissioner, as proposed in the new Bill C-20, to take a
reviewable matter to the competition tribunal in situations where
there was a complaint by just one person, without any opportunity
to investigate the basis of the complaint or consider its merits.
This raises concerns of fairness and could lead to abuse of
process and a potential for waste of time, money and needless
damage to reputation.
I hasten to note that the director gives serious consideration
to all complaints which are made to him and takes action as he
deems appropriate in various circumstances. In addition, the
Competition Act currently provides for what is known as the six
resident complaint which requires the director to open an
inquiry.
The six resident complaint process is adequate to do the job of
compelling the director to inquire into an alleged breach of the
act. It also provides some assurance that there is some
seriousness to the complaint about a practice that is distorting
what should be a level playing field in the market and that the
director's time and resources are not being wasted.
As I mentioned this motion would open up the door to potential
abuse of process, raises concern about fairness and could result
in time, energy and resources being squandered on groundless
complaints.
With respect to Motion No. 11, which is part of the fourth
grouping, a private party access to the courts is an important
issue that was considered by the bureau. The consultative panel
reported that the matter is extremely complex and requires more
detailed analysis and meaningful public consultation. The
director has already clearly stated that he would consult on this
issue in the context of the next round of possible amendments to
the Competition Act.
I would like to rebut some of the items the member from Lévis
mentioned earlier. The director of the Competition Act, soon to
be called the commissioner, reports to parliament although policy
and policy changes comes through the Minister of Industry. The
amount of discretion the minister has with the director is very
little, being able to ask him to review a specific complaint or
have another review of it.
I agree with the director and consultative panel that further
analysis and consultation is required on Motion No. 11. I thank
the member from Lévis for his comments but I cannot support
Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to address the final grouping of Motions Nos.
9, 10 and 11. When looking at Group No. 4 amendments I would
like to address the motions independently.
As many members of the House are aware all complaints that fall
under the Competition Act are investigated by the commissioner
and where deemed appropriate are then placed before the tribunal.
Motion Nos. 9 and 10 would allow a single private individual over
the age of 18 years to bring a case to the commissioner for
investigation. The current procedure, however, is to insist that
at least six individuals submit a complaint. This is a mechanism
intended to help ensure against frivolous and vexatious
submissions to the commissioner.
If a consumer has a complaint that he or she believes involves a
violation of the Competition Act, he or she must find five other
individuals who share the opinion that a violation of the
Competition Act has occurred.
This is not an unreasonable demand to place on the Canadian
consumer. In fact by insisting that six individuals be part of
the application process to the commissioner, we can work to
ensure that Canadian businesses are not subject to a barrage of
frivolous complaints. For this reason I would recommend that
Motions Nos. 9 and 10 of Group No. 4 be opposed.
1545
Motion No. 11 is one that I strongly considered supporting. I
think the intent of the motion was to give Canadians direct
access to the tribunal, thereby removing a barrier to
communicating the needs of consumers. This motion would allow a
single individual to bring a matter directly before the tribunal,
removing the direct involvement of the commissioner.
While I would normally support an initiative that would allow
citizens direct access to this court, this motion unfortunately
maintains the insistence that a single individual can bring a
case to the tribunal instead of six individuals currently
required.
Competition legislation around the world has achieved mixed
results. It is needed to ensure competitive practices. However
we must not create legislation that entangles honest
entrepreneurs in a regulatory mess. Consumers never benefit from
creating a regulatory environment. That drives up the cost of
business and places those costs on the consumer.
For the same reasons that I oppose Motions Nos. 9 and 10, I must
also oppose Motion No. 11.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
address Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11. These motions as they pertain
to Bill C-20 deal with the director of the competition bureau and
what constitutes a reviewable matter.
At present we have a system in Canada whereby any six Canadians
can petition the director of the competition bureau to begin an
inquiry that he can then forward to the competition tribunal.
These motions would effectively change this provision to allow
any one Canadian to petition the director and force him to begin
an inquiry.
I fail to see how this can in any way be perceived as fair or
reasonable. The opportunity for abuse by a corporation with an
axe to grind is brazenly apparent. The present provision
requiring six signatories is a reasonable approach designed to
avoid such abuse. If the potential for abuse does not scare us
off, the potential backlog that this would create within the
director's office should.
The hon. member seems to be aware of the need to guard against
such abuses when she includes the wording “frivolous or
vexatious”. If this is the case, then it should be self-evident
that the present provisions need not to be tampered with.
As for Motion No. 11, this deals with private access to the
tribunal resolution process. In the early rounds of public input
on Bill C-20, in fact while it was still known as Bill C-67, it
was decided that this issue should be put off until the next
round of public consultations.
There are many submissions that lead to this decision and as a
result different parties with vested interests in such a move
have acted accordingly. To change this now would be the
equivalent of the unseemly marketing practice known as bait and
switch. As law makers we need to be setting an example here.
Toward that end the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting
no to these motions.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we have already debated the first eight motions of Bill C-20
which were divided into three groups. Finally we are debating
Group No. 4. There are three motions in this group, Motions Nos.
9, 10 and 11.
Motions Nos. 9 and 10 ask that a single private individual, an
adult over the age of 18, be allowed to bring a case to the
commissioner for investigation. The procedure now requires at
least six individuals to lodge a complaint before it can be
brought forward before the commissioner. This is a mechanism to
help to ensure against frivolous and vexatious submissions to the
commissioner.
1550
The purpose is to avoid any abuse of the system or abuse of the
liberty given to the individual to bring forward the complaint.
On the other hand all complaints that fall under the Competition
Act are investigated by the commissioner and where deemed
appropriate would be placed before the competition tribunal.
Motion No. 11 requests that a single individual be allowed to
bring a matter directly before the tribunal, removing any direct
involvement of the commissioner. This will have potential for
abuse again incurring unnecessary additional costs and creating
unnecessary additional math for the small businessman. It is more
desirable to have all complaints that fall under the Competition
Act investigated first by the commissioner and then where deemed
appropriate placed before the tribunal. Let us not put a small
business or any business for that matter into an unwanted
regulatory mess.
To summarize I remind the House that when the bill was
introduced in the House the Reform Party put forward certain
amendments to the bill so that we could support it. The
government has accepted all those amendments. Therefore we
approve of the effort by the government to modernize the
Competition Act.
The Reform Party supports vigorous measures to ensure the
successful operation of the marketplace. This includes promoting
competition and competitive pricing and strengthening and
vigorously enforcing competition and anti-combines legislation.
We support severe penalties for collusion or price fixing in a
competitive marketplace that serves the consumer well. It is
reasonable to expect freedom from deception or collusion or any
other anti-competitive practice that will inhibit the successful
operation of the marketplace.
I am glad to support Bill C-20 on behalf of the citizens of
Surrey Central who are citizens of this great country and senior
citizens who are more vulnerable to fraud by telemarketers. We
will be more than happy to support the bill but not at any cost.
At this time we cannot support the amendments in Group No. 4, and
as I mentioned earlier in the other three groups as well.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
one of the final speakers to Bill C-20 I want to approach this
from a different perspective.
I appreciate the intent of the amendment put forward by the hon.
member from the Bloc. As I understand it his intent is to make
it easier for people to bring their concerns and complaints
before the commissioner and the competition bureau. We have to
look at this in a larger context to really understand the impact
and to see if that is really achieving the goal that we were
trying to do in the first place with this bill.
If we look at the thrust of the bill we can see that the key
things this bill is trying to do is to make sure that
telemarketers give fair and reasonable disclosure of information
at the beginning of each call, including the identity of the
company, the purpose of the communication, the nature of the
product, business or interest, the price, material restrictions
and any terms and conditions applicable to delivery. The key
thing in summary is that those who are involved in this kind of
business are forthright, totally honest, provide all the
information to the consumer and that there is no
misrepresentation.
That is what the bill is trying to do. It is trying to protect
those who have been abused by those who have not followed the
rules in the past. If that is what we are trying to do, then
maybe it is good that we have it clearly laid out in the
legislation. For those who violate those criteria or cross the
line, perhaps it is better that we have the tools in place to
bring swift conviction and have appropriate penalties to serve as
a deterrent.
1555
The goal here is to have people adhere to the principles of
honest business. The answer, I propose, is not to make it easier
to complain and grow the regulatory quagmire and cost all
Canadians more, including the consumers, to deal with all these
complaints. Instead, the more cost-effective answer would be to
have clear guidelines with a clear process for penalties for
those who breach the guidelines and when warranted, significant
penalties that serve as a deterrent.
This kind of approach results in less abuses and a lower cost to
the consumer and the marketplace in general. I think it is
prudent upon all of us here as we face the debt we have and the
taxes we have not just to cut taxes and not just to pay down the
debt, but even before all that to ask ourselves in every piece of
legislation that comes before the House, are we doing it in the
most cost-effective manner? Are we approaching it in a way that
achieves the results with the minimal regulatory and bureaucratic
quagmire that can result? Are we driving it home and achieving
the results in the most cost-effective manner?
That is what we have to be asking ourselves today with the state
of our national economy and the taxes that Canadians are paying.
That is what they are expecting us to be asking here and that is
the reflective position the Reform Party is taking on these
particular amendments. We do not think it is a move in the right
direction. It is not serving the Canadian taxpayer. Let us make
sure the rules are clear and that if the rules are broken there
is a significant enough penalty to serve as a deterrent.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
[English]
The recorded division on this motion will also apply to Motion
No. 11.
[Translation]
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
1600
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief
government whip, the votes on the deferred divisions at the
report stage of this bill have been deferred until tomorrow at
the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders.
* * *
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make
consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts, be
read the third time and passed.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is committed to restoring
confidence in our justice system and providing Canadians with
true security. This means providing our law enforcement agencies
with the latest technological tools to detect and apprehend the
perpetrators of violent crime. DNA identification is that type
of tool.
If used to its full potential, the DNA databank could be the
single most important development in fighting crime since
fingerprinting. It is time that we move from early 1900
technology to 21st century tools.
In its current form Bill C-3 is reprehensible and unacceptable
because it maintains an unnecessary level of risk to the lives
and safety of Canadians. Bill C-3 gives Canadians a false sense
of security. The Reform Party cannot support the bill in its
current form. We support the creation of a DNA databank, but the
current scope of the bill is too limited.
The Liberals have taken what should be a relatively simple issue
and have complicated it. This bill will provide lawyers with
more business, but will solve very little crime.
The civil libertarians may be concerned, but in reality the
databank is to be exclusively restricted to criminal detection
and crime solving. Any abuse is subject to criminal penalty.
DNA databanks are currently in use in the United States, Great
Britain and New Zealand. DNA forensic analyses have been
instrumental in securing convictions in hundreds of cases in
Canada and have helped the release of wrongly convicted persons,
for instance, Guy Paul Morin to name but one.
The Liberals have been dragging their feet on DNA despite
co-operation by the Reform Party going back to 1995 when we
assisted the government in passing Bill C-104 which enabled
police to obtain a warrant to seize bodily substances for DNA
purposes.
As Bill C-3 now reads it would not have assisted in the
investigation of Paul Bernardo, as he had never been convicted of
a listed offence to tie him to the DNA profiles left at the scene
of his criminal activities.
Bill C-3 gives our police the full use of DNA technology, but
Bill C-3 does not allow the taking of a DNA sample at the time of
charge. It does not allow samples to be taken from incarcerated
criminals, other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple
sex offenders and multiple murderers.
If the multiple murderer commits the murders on the same night
we cannot take a sample from him. The murders must be committed
separately. This is totally unacceptable.
Bill C-3 provides a dangerous and unnecessary exemption. It
authorizes judges not to issue warrants for the taking of samples
if they believe that in doing so the impact on the individual's
privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the
public interest and the protection of society.
In committee the Reform Party asked for an example of such an
instance. Nothing was forthcoming. The government it seems
would rather protect the interests of criminals who would commit
heinous crimes over those of law-abiding citizens.
The government cites finances as one reason why it is not
willing to expand the DNA databank and allow for samples to be
taken at the time of charge rather than conviction.
The Reform Party proposed that samples be taken at the time of
charge and not be analysed until conviction. This would have
satisfied the Canadian police associations and their concerns
regarding offenders who are released on bail pending trial and
skipping out.
During committee hearings on March 10, 1998, Dr. Ron Fourney, a
research scientist in charge of the RCMP's forensic crime
laboratory, said that the cost of a DNA case is about $4,500, but
the cost of getting one's sample into the database is between $50
and $60.
1605
At that cost it is justifiable to take a DNA sample from all
persons charged with indictable offences, just like those who are
fingerprinted.
We are told that the total cost of the DNA bank will be between
$15 million and $18 million. The conclusive nature of DNA
evidence often results in substantial savings for police and the
courts since an investigation can be narrowed down and a trial
very much simplified.
In the long term this is a cost effective tool and a great
protection to society. By analyzing the DNA of all persons
charged with violent offences other than common assault we could
have 57,000 samples in the databank. Think of the added security
that this would mean to all Canadians.
Let us look at the Clifford Robert Olson case and what Inspector
Gary Bass, officer in charge of E Division of the British
Columbia major crimes section had to say in committee and how
essential it is to broaden the terms of Bill C-3.
He said:
I believe for a number of reasons the case of Clifford Robert
Olson provides useful insight into various aspects of the
currently proposed legislation. Not only is it a case that many
Canadians have some knowledge of, but his earlier criminal
history is not dissimilar to that of many of our most violent
offenders. His criminal convictions date back to July of 1957
for break, entry, and theft.
Under the proposed legislation this would be a secondary
designated offence under section 487.04. Pursuant to proposed
paragraph 487.05(1)(b), application in theory could have been
made at that time to take a sample for DNA analysis and entry
into the DNA data bank.
By 1960 Olson had added convictions involving 19 offences of
theft, break and entry. Through the 1960s he was convicted of a
further 43 offences, which included break and entries, armed
robbery, false pretences, and escapes. Through the 1970s he was
convicted of another 25 offences involving similar crimes.
Between 1961 and 1982, 16 offences were either stayed or
dismissed. One of these was robbery with violence in 1978. In
April of 1981 stays were entered on indecent assault, buggery,
rape, and gross indecency charges. By this time Olson had
already killed his first known victim.
Given this backdrop, it's useful to examine what may have
happened in Olson's case had we had DNA technology and the
legislation proposed in Bill C-3.
There were several occasions during Olson's criminal career when
DNA may have been taken pursuant to a secondary designated
offence having been committed. It is unlikely that authorization
would have been sought in the first instance. However, many more
opportunities presented themselves over the following years.
Until 1980 there had been no primary designated offence for
which he had been charged. In November of 1980 he was charged
with buggery in relation to a 15-year old male. Olson's first
known murder victim died November 19, 1980. Just six weeks
later, on January 2, 1981, Olson was charged with rape, buggery,
and other sexual offences and weapons offences in relation to an
offence that undoubtedly would have ended in murder had the
victim not escaped. In April 1981 these charges were all stayed
by the crown.
On April 16 Olson's second victim was murdered, and five days
later his third. The murders continued into August. Twice
through that summer he was arrested and charged for sex-related
offences and released again on bail. On July 2, a warrant for
Olson's arrest for sexual assault was issued in relation to an
offence committed two weeks earlier.
We will never know how many sex-related offences Olson committed
before and during the time he was committing the murders.
However, there were many; by some accounts in excess of 100. We
learned of previously unknown victims as recently as last summer.
Under the currently proposed legislation, Olson's DNA profile
would not have made its way into the DNA data bank for the rape,
buggery, and indecent assault charges, which were later stayed.
This is very important. This is a policeman telling us what the
concerns are for a very serious offender.
He continued before the committee:
There is absolutely no doubt that Olson had committed numerous
other sexual offences prior to 1980.
There's a strong possibility he had committed murder before 1980.
Given today's technology and appropriate legislation, another
Clifford Olson could be apprehended much sooner in his criminal
career.
In Olson's particular case and with today's technology, he would
have been apprehended after the first murder, if his DNA had been
banked pursuant to the long history of secondary designated
offences or if legislation permitted the taking and banking of
DNA upon arrest and charge.
I've used the Olson case as an example because it clearly
illustrates the points I'm trying to make. One is that violent
sexual offenders progress through a pattern of other criminal
activity. Two, once they become involved in sexual offences,
there is a predictable pattern of increasing violence and shorter
intervals between the offences.
Having said this, I do not want to leave the impression that
this case is in any way unique in terms of the value of the DNA
data bank to police investigations. Unfortunately, there are all
too many criminals with characteristics similar to Olson's. The
large number of homicides involved is unique; however, the
frequent sexual attacks are not.
It is this category of offenders for which DNA data banking has
the greatest potential in terms of gross numbers of criminal
offences. The ability to data bank the DNA profiles at the time
of the first offence charge provides the best chance to interrupt
criminal careers.
It is highly unlikely that a serious sexual offender will be
arrested for their first offence. Most first-time offenders will
be granted bail, so it is important any previous similar activity
be identified at that time. Linkage to other cases at this stage
would provide stronger evidence through which bail could be
opposed. Submissions of the DNA profile upon charge affords the
opportunity to address these concerns.
The gross numbers of DNA profiles, which will be contained in
the proposed DNA data bank, will be relatively small compared
with our fingerprint files. Searching and cross-referencing,
once the infrastructure is in place, will be relatively fast.
There is no reason the DNA data bank should not work as well or
better than the automated fingerprint identification section.
The value of the proposed DNA bank cannot be overstated, if used
to full potential. There is indeed a valid public interest in
the early detection, arrest, and conviction of offenders. In the
class of offenders that we are discussing, early detection often
means the prevention of further serious harm or loss of life—.
The DNA data bank has the potential literally to end an
investigation after weeks as opposed to years.
From the police investigator's perspective, in the investigation
of serious criminal offences—in particular primary designated
offences such as sexual offences and homicides—there would be
significant benefit in entering suspect DNA into the data bank at
the time the suspect is charged. I believe this would be a
reasonable and fair approach that would balance the legitimate
privacy concerns of individuals against the public interest in
the detection and prevention of serious criminal activity and in
effective law enforcement.
1610
If that is not reason enough to broaden Bill C-3, I do not know
what is.
We on this side of the House have debated this issue at second
reading and at committee. Now we are at third reading. Yet we
heard even in question period today the minister talking about
listening to what is going on and having commissions.
The police in our land are asking for help. They are telling us
how we can save money, how we can process criminals more quickly
so they cannot commit crimes again, but they are being ignored.
It is really said.
There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides
where DNA evidence has been left at the scene. DNA
identification now offers unparalleled opportunity to solve many
of these cases.
The government has this thing about the rights of the
perpetrators. It has a real opportunity to turn the tables on
our weak justice system and it refuses to budge. For a moment it
can forget about the supreme court and the preoccupation with the
charter of rights and freedoms. People's lives are at stake.
I reiterate what I said during the second reading debate on this
bill on May 4, on which I spent a lot of time, as did other
members of this party. The public wants DNA testing. The public
wants protection against these types of criminals and the public
deserves this kind of protection from this government. It would
save us literally millions of dollars if we could catch some of
these people quickly, put them in jail and get them out of
society's hands so they can be rehabilitated, if that is
possible.
In the meantime they are not going to commit more crimes against
humanity. We do not understand why the government is not
prepared to put in proper DNA testing.
1615
It is interesting to note that the taking of a blood sample in
the case of a suspected impaired driver does not raise too much
concern. In fact society applauds this. Somebody gets stops and
you can take a blood sample. No problem. Why is it different in
the case of DNA samples left at the scene of a crime? We take
blood samples for the purpose of determining impairment. There
is no difference. The invasion of privacy has already taken
place in the Criminal Code. It looks after that. Is there any
difference at all? I do not see any difference. We take
fingerprints. We take blood samples. What is wrong with DNA? It
would help the police.
The authority to take samples is already there and overrules the
privacy issue in this case. If the fear is over the databank and
the keeping of blood samples we just have to look at the
thousands of blood samples taken by doctors and nurses each day
and kept in some sort of bank. These blood bank files are not
being exploited. Why would a DNA bank be any different?
Everybody in the House has probably had at least one medical and
had some blood taken. Somewhere that blood is in a bank. If
somebody wanted for whatever reason they could find it, but it
has not been exploited. For some strange reason the government
wants to set up a difference between fingerprinting, blood
samples and DNA.
Listen to the experts who came to a committee before the House.
They all are in favour of this. Why is the government afraid to
take the next step? It will do it sooner or later. Do it now.
The Canadian Police Association prepared and submitted a legal
opinion and concluded there would be no constitutional concern
with taking samples at the time of being charged. As we said
before, we can take the samples and they can be held until a
conviction if that is what we want. Why wait when there is so
much that could be done?
I go back to the Clifford Olson case. We could have saved some
people from being murdered if this was in process then. It was
not but we can stop other crimes from happening in the country.
Why is the government so bent out of shape on this issue and so
intransigent? We all want to fight to reduce crime. We all want
to solve crimes. My party does not understand why the government
is so upset with this.
I have a letter signed by the Canadian Police Association, Neal
Jessop, president. He is offering help by saying let us come to
help you make the legislation better. That is why we are here as
legislators. We want to make better legislation. This piece of
legislation is flawed and it needs some improving.
I move, seconded by the member for Medicine Hat:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following:
“Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make
consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts, be
not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this
day six months hence”.
The Deputy Speaker: The debate is on the amendment.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I know
most of the members from the other side of the House would agree
that we want to solve crime.
I also know members would want to make sure innocent people are
not convicted of a crime for which they are not guilty. I know
they have said that on a number of occasions. I have also heard
them say on a number of occasions how important it is to get
preventive measures into place to better protect Canadians.
1620
If the amendments we proposed and which have been proposed by
the Canadian Police Association were adhered to by the government
and were adopted by the House, would that make it a very
preventive tool?
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that
if the government had listened to the amendments in committee and
instituted them into this bill we would have a bill that would be
supported by every party in the House, every police association
and, more important, the majority of Canadians who would like to
have this protection. It is necessary and parliament is making a
big mistake if the bill is passed the way it is.
Associations are writing and faxing us today saying hoist this
bill for six months so they have a chance to tell the government
to take this extra step. We have to give the police the tools to
work with. We know that Canadians want this and we in parliament
have to try to make that happen. We hope the government will
really listen and hoist it for six months. Let us listen to
Canadians, the police association and others and bring in a bill
that will be good for all Canadians.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have not had the opportunity to be that close to debate on the
bill, although I have certainly been aware of it. For those
who are watching I ask the hon. member for West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast to explain.
As he has articulated today, with the way the bill is structured
right now the DNA sample is taken after conviction. It is like
shutting the door after the horse is already out of the barn.
There is not much point in doing it. Whereas if a DNA sample
could be taken at the time of indictment the benefit of this
would be greatly increased. The current state of the bill almost
makes it ineffective and not that beneficial. The change the
hon. member is calling for makes it worthwhile and effective. Is
it really even of much benefit the way it is compared to the
amendment we have been calling for?
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is what
the police testified before the committee. I use the Olson case
as an example because it clearly illustrates the points I am
trying to make. One is that violent sexual offenders progress to
a pattern of other criminal activity. If we can take the sample
when people are charged, at least somebody like Olson would have
come up on the screen. It would have matched itself right away.
The government talked about a cost of $4,500 to process all this
stuff. I quote Dr. Ron Fourney: “When the database gets
established, we fully intend to use a control standard by way of
collecting. I showed you some bloodstained cards. We can put
blood on that card, do a one millimetre punch off the card and
process the DNA in about 15 or 20 minutes. Having it ready for
CPR and running it through the entire test it is estimated that
one sample will cost $50 to $60”. Here is a case of 15 to 20
minutes.
If we could all buy life insurance for that same price would we
not all buy it? That is what this is. DNA is life insurance for
Canadian citizens.
1625
It is insurance to make sure that one does not get raped or
robbed by somebody who is a continuous offender. It allows
society to know that the minute they are arrested and charged
they can be checked in the databank. If they have committed
rapes in Ontario and they are in British Columbia they are not
going to escape.
I had an interesting case today about people going through the
system. I just received a report a few minutes ago about a man
in British Columbia who was charged and convicted for the rape of
a young British Columbian woman with cerebral palsy a number of
years ago. He was ordered deported with his conviction. He
served his time, got one-third off for good behaviour and is on
the streets today. The young woman who was raped and her mother
are terrified that he is going to come back and go after them.
I phoned the immigration department and was told that he was
ordered deported and that the department should find him. The
system is failing. I use that as an example to match against the
DNA. In this case we have a convicted rapist now wandering the
streets of Vancouver. If we do not use DNA we are going to have
convicted criminals coming in, getting out and then we go after
them later. They know how to disappear very fast. That is why it
is so important that we get this bill improved before it gets
third reading.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the
House today on Bill C-3, the purpose of which is to create a
national DNA data bank.
This bill will create a tool accessible to all the police forces
in Canada. As well, this innovative approach will enable Canada
to be one of the first countries to make use of cutting edge
technology for the identification of genetic fingerprints in
order to create a national DNA bank.
[English]
The government proceeded cautiously with this legislation in
order to have a full examination and public debate on privacy
issues, among others. Because DNA has the potential to reveal
much more about the person than the breath sample, fingerprinting
or even routine blood tests, we have had to examine individual
privacy rights of today and also look beyond to consider how this
legislation might affect those rights in the future.
[Translation]
Right from the start, the Solicitor General carried out an in
depth examination of the issues involved. The government
drafted the bill that was tabled last year after consulting
groups and individuals across the country. The bill was
subsequently submitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights prior to second reading. The committee, which
heard over 30 witnesses, did a remarkable job of examining the
bill in record time.
Since its presentation, the bill has been subjected to an open
and transparent examination. I must also give tribute to the
Solicitor General, who took the necessary steps to focus the
process on consultation and to maintain its transparency.
Since the protection of privacy constitutes an important element
in this bill, I would like to share with you the government's
point of view on these matters and to show you how Bill C-3 is
rooted in a solid and balanced approach.
First of all, I would like to address the question of sample
retention. Scientists have brought out solid arguments
demonstrating that it is essential to retain biological samples
for the DNA data bank in order to be able to benefit from future
technological progress.
Last March, an RCMP expert in criminalistics told the committee
that major progress has been made in recent years in the area of
using DNA fingerprints for identification. Now it is possible
to examine smaller samples, including ones from decomposed
material.
This technological progress indicates that DNA analysis is one
of the most active and rapidly evolving areas of technology.
As the technology evolves, today's gains from DNA identification
could easily become obsolete.
1630
Bill C-3 provides for the storage of samples of bodily
substances. This means that Canada's first national DNA data
bank will keep pace with the technological progress and will be
able to communicate with the other laboratories and data banks
in the world. The main concern may have to do with access to
these samples and DNA profiles.
Bill C-3 is patterned on a bill passed in July 1995 that dealt
with warrants—and members of the opposition should listen to
this most important part—authorizing the collection of samples
for forensic DNA analysis. Bill C-3 includes similar protective
measures and provisions regarding the collection of samples for
forensic DNA analysis.
So far, these legislative provisions on warrants have survived
all the legal challenges made under the charter, and they have
served as a sound basis for the establishment of the DNA data
bank.
Therefore, Bill C-3 includes strict rules governing the
collection of bodily substances and DNA identification, as well
as the storage of DNA profiles, so as to protect people's
privacy.
For example, the RCMP will be responsible for the safe storage
of all bodily substances. Moreover, under the act, only those
responsible for operating and maintaining the data bank will
have access to the profiles and samples. To ensure that the
information is used properly, the act explicitly provides that
only the name indicated in the profile will be transmitted to
police authorities in the course of criminal investigations.
The bill also provides a maximum sanction of two years less a
day for all those not abiding by these provisions. Offences
involving misuse of the data bank will be included in the
Criminal Code and in the DNA Identification Act.
To ensure that the data bank respects the right to privacy of
all innocent individuals found at the scene of a crime or law
abiding citizens who volunteer to provide samples for genetic
analysis, the bill contains provisions to permanently deny
access to information in a criminal case pertaining to a victim
or an individual no longer considered a suspect in a police
investigation.
The aim of this important protective measure is to exclude DNA
profiles of innocent individuals from the data bank.
[English]
Bill C-3 also provides an opportunity for persons required to
provide DNA samples to express their preference as to the type of
sample they would like to give. The police are then required to
take that preference into account but are in no way obligated to
take the sample specified by the person. This is because the
police must take other considerations into account.
For example, a judge from the Ontario court of justice recently
ruled that the taking of hair samples was unconstitutional. In
addition, forensic scientists have advised that blood provides
the best sample for successful DNA typing.
Bearing all this in mind, Bill C-3 allows the police to make the
final decision on the sample to be taken.
[Translation]
In addition to the protective measures and sanctions provided in
Bill C-3, other mechanisms exist to ensure that the bill will be
applied in such a way as to maintain a balance between the
protection of privacy and the protection of the public.
Once the data bank is in operation, the Privacy Commissioner
will be able to verify this at any time. The Privacy Act
permits him already to oversee the use of personal information
in the hands of the federal government.
In addition, Canada's forensic laboratories are currently
developing regulatory standards.
Once these standards are in effect, the forensic labs may be
studied by an independent body to ensure they meet international
quality assurance standards.
Provisions already exist, like the one in the Privacy Act,
providing that information, including genetic information, may
not be transmitted to another country unless an agreement exists
with it.
1635
In addition, under the Privacy Act, information may be disclosed
to a foreign state only for the purpose of administering or
enforcing a law or carrying out an investigation.
Since the RCMP will be responsible for the DNA data bank, all
functions must be consistent with that organization's internal
standards, which are among the most rigorous in the world.
The RCMP also works closely with a number of international
groups and committees in this area, including the technical
working group on DNA analysis sponsored by the FBI, which keeps
Canada up to date on the most recent technology and helps us
ensure that our standards correspond to those in effect
internationally.
I would now like to explain why the bill provides for samples to
be taken at the time of sentencing, and not when an arrest is
made or a charge laid, as certain colleagues are proposing.
Throughout the consultations held on the bill and committee
hearings, many individuals and groups told the government that
taking samples at the time of arrest would present difficulties.
Rarely is someone convicted on the strength of DNA evidence
alone.
In fact, DNA evidence is not always available at the crime
scene. Various factors, such as alibis, motives, fingerprints,
evidence of eyewitnesses, and so forth, are taken into
consideration in a criminal proceeding.
There has been considerable discussion to determine whether
taking samples when an arrest is made or a charge laid without
first obtaining a warrant is consistent with the provisions of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Three eminent former appeal court judges from Quebec, Ontario
and British Columbia examined the issue as part of an
independent review. Their findings clearly confirm the
government position that taking samples when a charge is laid
would be contrary to the provisions of the charter.
Let us be quite clear on this point. The government must
continue to act carefully, responsibly and thoughtfully in this
respect. We want to take the approach that is in the best
interest of Canadians. Therefore, we must ask ourselves the
following questions.
First, is it justified to collect bodily substances every time
someone is arrested, when DNA data may not even be relevant?
Second, how would the criminal justice system benefit since
judicial experts have told us time and time again that the risk
of a charter challenge was much too high?
Third and last, why jeopardize the establishment of a DNA data
bank designed to better protect all Canadians by going too far?
[English]
Taking samples at the time of conviction is the approach that
ensures both effective law enforcement and protection of
individual rights during the course of a criminal investigation.
As the Privacy Commissioner of Canada told the Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights, intelligent privacy protection is
compatible with effective law enforcement. Let us give both a
chance.
The police know all too well how easy it is for a case to be
thrown out on a constitutional basis. In light of this, it is
the responsibility of every member of this House to play a
constructive role in creating a DNA data bank that will balance
public protection with the charter and individual privacy rights.
[Translation]
I think such a balance has been struck by the government in
Bill C-3. That is why I support it wholeheartedly and urge all my
colleagues to do the same.
The Deputy Speaker: Before allowing questions and comments, 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 Acadie-Bathurst,
National Defence; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment
insurance.
[English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
found two things interesting in my colleague's remarks with
respect to Bill C-3 on the DNA data bank. First is the opinions
of judges on what is constitutionally or lawfully allowed to be
taken in terms of samples by any police force or judicial system.
1640
The last time I checked, this was the building and we were the
people who were supposed to be the law makers. The judges who
are appointed in this country were supposed to be the group of
people who uphold those decisions. I think it is another
indication of where this government has gone, putting far more
responsibility in allowing the courts, including the supreme
court, to make the decisions that need to be made and enforced
from within this House.
The question I have for my colleague concerns the innocent
person. He talks about protecting the rights of innocent people.
I know a lot of police officers in police forces across this
country. They do not go around arresting innocent people because
they have nothing else to do on a Saturday night. They obviously
have some strong evidence in order for them to make that arrest
initially.
Under our recommendations, the bill would make it so that it is
a guarantee that anybody who was arrested by mistake would be
found innocent. It is almost an ironclad guarantee with the use
of DNA evidence.
I would ask my colleague that very simple question. If he is so
interested in protecting the rights of innocent people, why would
he not be in favour of using DNA evidence at the point of arrest?
If that person is found innocent, then that DNA evidence or
report would not go into the DNA bank. It is very, very simple.
To me it makes no sense that we would not be looking at that kind
of system.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised
frankly that a member would say that we can change the
constitution in this House alone when we know full well that the
constitution of the country can be amended only with certain
provisions having to do with the involvement of provinces, unless
we want to refuse to recognize the prerogative of provinces to
interfere.
Regarding the question of using DNA at the time of arrest, I
would like to remind my hon. colleague that this can be done. The
only condition that there must be to fulfil it is to get a
warrant.
The protection of civil liberties is guaranteed by the fact that
the judge has to order the taking of DNA samples. It can be done
but it cannot be done randomly. It cannot be done without any
form of protection.
We are a society where we want to balance our fight for civil
liberties with the requirements for tools for our justice system
to be executed in a most secure way for Canadians. That is a
fundamental philosophy.
I would accept that the hon. member does not share this
philosophy or that anybody else does. You may also differ with
me, Mr. Speaker.
My point is that our fundamental philosophy is preservation of
civil liberties at the same time as the absolute fight against
crime.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to have the member respond to the letter from the
Canadian Police Association. I know he has received a copy of it
as all members have.
Regarding the getting of samples at the time of arrest, the
letter states that this issue is paramount to Canadian police
officers. By virtue of the CPA they have obtained an
independent, and mark that word independent. Unlike the picked
judges who wrote decisions supporting the government's position,
they have an independent legal decision stating that their
position on this issue is constitutionally sound.
The letter states “We attempted to work with the Department of
Justice and they were unable to understand the significance of
our position, perhaps because they never had to look in the eyes
of a sexual assault victim or a grieving family member. We now
turn to you our elected representatives to do what is right for
Canadians. If you choose not to, we police officers will be
forced to explain to that grieving family member that his or her
government had the information and the ability to prevent such an
act of violence but they chose not to”.
1645
There should be a response for the police officers all over this
land who support our stand on this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I find that interesting, and I
am going to respond in my mother tongue in order to express
myself a little more easily.
There is one thing that strikes me, although it ought not to
surprise me. Members of the Reform Party attach more importance
to the statements made by the Canadian Police Association than
to three eminent judges from three different provinces, more
than they do to representatives of the Ontario Ministry of
Justice, or to representatives of the Quebec Ministry of
Justice. None of these comments hold any importance for them,
compared to those reported here from the Canadian Police
Association.
This, I believe, reveals the fundamental difference in
philosophy between wanting to turn up criminals everywhere, at
any price and with absolutely no respect for the basic freedoms,
and really finding the criminals as part of an organized process
that respects people's rights.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I just have one question for my colleague across the
way.
We pay attention to the police association because we know the
police are out there dealing with criminals every day. I do not
believe judges should be making political statements either. They
are supposed to be judges and should not be commenting on this
type of thing.
Let me ask about the charter of rights because the member talks
about that. The charter of rights allows us to fingerprint
people. If people get arrested their fingerprints are taken. The
charter of rights allows blood to be taken from people if the
police think they are impaired.
Why does the member think this would be any different? DNA is
as simple as putting some saliva on a piece of card and taking a
blood sample. It is a very simple thing to do. It does not
affect anyone's rights. We have to be charged and arrested to
get it done. It certainly will save a lot more people. We can
put protections in there to make sure that if one is acquitted it
can be eliminated. There can be a lot of ways to remove this, if
there is concern about that.
It is interesting. Our fingerprints are taken for a passport.
That is now in the system so if people commit a crime they can be
picked up right away. They have done it for a simple reason, to
get a visa to go to the United States or somewhere.
We do a lot of things in life. Those of us who are not involved
in criminal activity do not mind our blood being taken and do not
mind fingerprints being taken for travel documents. I would not
mind having my DNA somewhere either.
It seems we are more concerned about protecting criminals than
we are about people.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I
would like to understand.
These questions raised by my hon. colleague have been answered
time and again before the committee that he claimed he attended
so assiduously over the deliberations. The answers were given so
I am going to repeat them for him in case he missed that point.
When we take fingerprints we take a picture of a finger. It
does not reveal anything else but identity based on a picture.
DNA is much more revealing than simply a picture.
An hon. member: Like what?
Mr. Jacques Saada: The likelihood of the occurrence of a
genetic sickness, for example. I do not want to get into a
debate on that. It is much more revealing. If the member does
not know what it is, he should consult scientists and they will
tell him how much more revealing a DNA sample is compared to a
fingerprint.
My colleague is right. We can at the present time take a blood
test for purposes of conduite avec facultés affaiblies par les
effets de l'alcool. The reasoning which was given by the courts
in this regard is very clear: if we do not do it then the
evidence will disappear. That is the basis on which it was
allowed, not because it was an infringement upon any right of
anybody else but because the evidence would disappear if we did
not do it.
This balanced approach and interpretation of the charter must be
maintained. That is how our rights will be preserved and
criminal activity will be fought against at the same time.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the amendment put
forward by my hon. friend from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast. I
am pleased as well, Mr. Speaker, to see you back in the chair.
Bill C-3 is obviously one of great importance to not only police
officers and the judicial system but to all Canadians.
Unfortunately, however, the government's reluctance to accept
substantial amendments to Bill C-3 will seriously undermine this
law's effectiveness. An unfortunate opportunity is being missed
here.
1650
I reiterate my thanks and appreciation for the many individuals
and organizations that testified before the justice committee on
this legislation. The committee stage reviews were truly an
exhibition of the legislative process at its best in that a huge
diverse range of opinions and suggestions was brought forward by
those who testified at committee.
Although the member's amendment and the amendments by other
members to this legislation were not accepted, the process has
continued along. It did not get mired down in partisan politics.
Yet we find ourselves at the brink of this legislation coming
into being, I would suggest, in a very flawed and unfortunately
damaged fashion.
I do not intend to review the entire substance of the
legislation as many of my colleagues and I have spoken to the
bill on previous readings. I intend, however, to highlight the
sad and unfortunate situation in which members of the opposition
find themselves.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the hon.
member for interrupting his speech. I wish to designate tomorrow
as an opposition day.
* * *
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, an
act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed; and
of the amendment.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time I have been interrupted on
this bill. I have no difficulty with that.
I find myself as do other opposition members in the unfortunate
situation that we, along with members of the policing community
and other Canadians, are anxious to see the legislation come to
fruition. We want to see it before the Canadian people and
entrenched in our criminal law in a way that the police can use
it effectively.
As I indicated before we are in support of the bill in
principle. It is fair to see that almost everyone without
exception is supportive of the bill, but there are serious
problems with the legislation that we in the House have the
golden opportunity to fix. Yet the government has chosen to
refuse pleas from a non-partisan group as the Canadian Police
Association.
If the government proceeds with the legislation in its present
form it will lose a significant and real opportunity to put into
the hands of the law enforcement community the ability to fight
crime, which is ultimately the task with which it has been
charged, a tool that would give it the ability to effectively
investigate and would assist it in its ability to combat serious
crime.
It is not political posturing, I would suggest, by any
opposition member who states this is the case. Everyone agrees
the Canadian Police Association is an excellent organization that
represents the concerns of frontline police officers, those
individuals who form the thin line between the criminal element
in society which exists, a rust and a cancer in our communities,
and those individuals who are day to day out there risking their
lives and putting themselves in harm's way to combat crime.
I quote from the Canadian Police Association's most recent
publication in the context of the legislation: “Getting this
bill straightened out should be the government's priority when
parliament returns unless the Liberals yearn for more
embarrassment in the criminal justice field”.
This opportunity is being put forward to get it right and to get
it right the first time. The Solicitor General and Minister of
Justice have talked incessantly about the importance of crime
prevention and about it being a priority of government. Yet by
refusing to amend the bill to allow the use of DNA at the time of
charge, the Liberals are removing a key tool to help law
enforcement officers and their communities to prevent crime.
If a DNA sample could be collected at that point in time and
used in the same investigation in which the police were involved,
it would be a very important way to match a DNA crime scene
sample to the DNA crime bank that would be in existence.
The evidence of that investigation could be used to see if there
was a match with unsolved crime or crime scenes from other
unsolved matters.
1655
It goes without saying that this would be very useful in the
approach to ongoing or unsolved crimes. Again I would suggest
that the emphasis here is on serious serial rapists, murderers,
crime at the very high end, at the very top echelon of the
Criminal Code.
For example, a DNA sample that was taken from an individual
charged with an armed robbery or a break and enter could be
cross-referenced with the data in the databank that would be in
existence to see if there had been a match and consequently
uncover an individual in question who may have left a DNA sample
at a previous crime scene. It would be a preventive method, a
proactive ability by the police to prevent further crime and in
essence hold a person in custody and hold a person later
accountable if that match proved consistent with other evidence.
We should consider the high frequency of flight of individuals
on bail. A person who is being held on evidence in relation to a
particular offence goes through a process of judicial interim
release or a bail hearing and is released from custody after an
analysis has taken place. Having that DNA sample and the ability
to make a match, in a very straightforward and simple process
which I hope to address later in my remarks, between the offender
being held in custody and the DNA bank that exists for
outstanding criminal offences might be the pivotal piece of
evidence to prevent the person's release.
I would adamantly reiterate to the House the experience of the
courts, police officers and prosecutors throughout the land. If
individuals being held in custody for relatively minor
offences—and I say relative when we are talking about crimes of
violence, invasion of a person's bodily integrity, rape, murder
or such offences—were to be released and a DNA sample could be
taken at that time to see if they were involved in more serious
unsolved or outstanding offences about which there is crime scene
analysis evidence available through the DNA bank, if we have the
physical ability to make those matches, why would the government
not take that opportunity? It seems absolutely asinine that we
would pass up this opportunity. This is the position that the
CPA and other law enforcement agencies have been seriously and
adamantly suggesting to the government.
As I was suggesting, when one considers the frequency of
individuals who flee when out on bail, it becomes a penetrating
statement of the obvious to say that this is an opportunity to
prevent crime and to prevent a person fleeing not only the
jurisdiction but possibly the country. Unfortunately in this
country there is a very low frequency of jurisdictions that will
then return a person to face prosecution in a jurisdiction.
Without the provision in this legislation to collect at the time
of charge, Bill C-3 is seriously flawed and will create a
databank that fails to meet the full potential in the prevention
of crime.
Is that not what it is all about? Is that not something all of
us in the Chamber as Canadians should be concerned about in our
justice system? Should we not be doing everything in our power
to try to prevent crime?
There has been mention by other members, and other members in
opposition in particular, of the exculpatory nature of this type
of evidence. As other hon. members would agree from a defence
perspective exculpatory evidence is that again which has an
immense purpose and an immense importance in our justice system.
One only has to conger up the names of Milgaard, Morin and
Donald Marshall in my home province of Nova Scotia to recall that
if the ability to take a DNA sample and if the ability to use
that type of technology existed, perhaps these abominations of
justice where individuals were wrongly accused, wrongly convicted
and spent a good part of their young lives behind bars for crimes
they did not commit could have been avoided.
1700
There are strong arguments to be made on both sides of our
justice system which is often very adversarial in nature, but
from a defence perspective as well. We are talking about the use
of exculpatory evidence.
I would suggest that if a person found himself in the
unfortunate position of being charged with an offence that he did
not commit that individual would be rushing to come forward and
give a sample of his DNA. If the person has nothing to hide, by
all means he would want to clear himself of that cloud of doubt
and that criminal charge. He would by all means ask to have his
blood taken or a sample of his hair or saliva taken because he
would want to prove his innocence. Why would we want to
discourage that from happening?
Certainly the solicitor general and this Liberal government
should be able to recognize that. Certainly the Department of
Justice should be able to recognize that in its drafting of this
bill. Then again the solicitor general has displayed here today
in question period that he does not necessarily recognize the
difference between a criminal investigation and a judicial
proceeding in relation to the hearings that the RCMP Public
Complaints Commission is going through. I realize I digress but
there appears to be an apparent contradiction in the approach.
The Liberals as well as my hon. colleagues in the Bloc and the
NDP have expressed their concern with the standard for the
collecting of DNA samples at the time of charge. They feel, and
perhaps fairly, that there needs to be a very high standard
applied. I would like to address that momentarily.
As a former crown attorney I would like to echo the assertion of
many, including a noted criminal defence lawyer, Tim Danson, that
at the time of charge there must be a certain standard. However,
that standard must be based on reasonable and probable grounds to
hold a person in custody. This is the standard that is applied
universally in our justice system. There has to be enough
evidence coupled with the appearance of DNA at the scene before a
person would be held. Surely that standard is not going to be
subverted by the additional use of DNA in any judicial hearing.
I understand the trepidation and perhaps some reluctance on the
part of the NDP to have full use of DNA at the time of charge.
But I again suggest that it is not only for the use of the state
in the prosecution of offences. It would surely be of great
significance and assistance in the defence of those who are
wrongly accused.
I want to further refer to the comments of Mr. Danson who was
solicited by the Canadian Police Association to give an
independent opinion with respect to the use of DNA and the fear,
and I would even suggest constitutional constipation, that this
government has repeatedly displayed when it comes to the use of
DNA. Mr. Danson stated that if Bill C-3 were amended to allow for
the collection of DNA samples at the time of charge, it would
withstand a constitutional challenge under the charter of rights
and freedoms.
During justice committee hearings on this bill the government
was urged to provide its legal opinions that collecting DNA
samples at the time of charge would endanger the legislation,
endanger meaning that it might result in the legislation or parts
thereof being struck. The Liberal government refused to do that.
The Liberal government chose, after the committee had completed
its hearings and deliberations, to then go out and seek a legal
opinion from three retired—and to quote the government
speaker—eminent jurists in this country, who gave a contrary
opinion to Mr. Danson's. I am not going to cast aspersions on
that opinion. Suffice it to say that within our justice system
time and time again we have seen differences of opinion not only
from other lawyers but certainly from the judiciary itself
otherwise we would not have a court of appeal, we would not have
the Supreme Court of Canada. Time and time again we have seen
differences of opinion with respect to this piece of legislation.
I ask rhetorically whether we in this House and the government
should be curtailed in our passage of laws that would apparently
be of benefit to the law enforcement community in their combating
of serious crime and of great benefit to all Canadians. Should
we be curtailed, so paranoid as to what the courts might or might
not do?
I challenge the government to give us a substantial example of
where that abuse of DNA is going to take place.
Its drafters of this legislation have within its body included
serious ramifications for any sort of misuse or misappropriation
of DNA evidence. There are safeguards in place. There are very
definite and very serious ramifications for the misuse of this
type of DNA technology.
1705
I would emphatically suggest that we have to move forward. We
have to move into the 21st century with the technology that is
available to us. Why on earth would we hesitate to do so when it
comes to such a critical issue as the use of DNA in the combating
of serious crime.
Although the timing of the release of the opinion is suspect,
that is the contrary opinion to Mr. Danson's, I do not intend to
delve into why that contrary opinion came back from the jurists.
It would not surprise me if the opinion had come back the other
way. A difference of opinion in our justice system, which is an
adversarial system, is healthy. It is to be expected. However,
juxtaposed positions taken by those involved in our justice
system is the way that things currently work. This is part of
the process. It is part of a healthy debate and part of the
practice of law as you well know, Mr. Speaker.
The government should not hide behind the fears about a
potential charter challenge especially in light of the considered
opinions submitted by other legal minds, like Mr. Danson. The
government should not hide behind legal opinions submitted by
retired jurists who, though well-intended no doubt, I would
suggest have been given an incomplete and inaccurate term of
reference by the Department of Justice. It was also a rather
rushed opinion given the amount of debate and the amount of
in-depth analysis that took place at the justice committee.
At the risk of being redundant, I repeat that Bill C-3 is a
golden opportunity to optimize the use of this new technology.
The Liberal government has done a disservice to the law
enforcement community and to all Canadians by holding back on the
use of this type of legislation. It treads with caution and
tables legislation which hampers the ability of law enforcement
agencies to effectively do their jobs.
Let us let parliament act in the name of public safety and not
out of constant fear of judicial intervention. We have an
opportunity to use legislation to the full degree of the law, not
treading on the rights of innocent individuals, not crossing the
line when it comes to civil liberties. There are safeguards in
place within this piece of legislation.
As I said earlier, I am fully in support of this initiative
taken by the government. I commend it for its decision to
introduce DNA. I do not want to over emphasize it, but in my
former life as a crown attorney I was involved in cases that
involved DNA evidence. It is extremely useful. It is absolutely
vital to furthering the cause of justice in this country.
This legislation in its current form does not go far enough. It
is an opportunity that we have now to right a wrong and to make a
relatively minor adjustment as to the timing of the taking of the
sample and the use thereafter.
I suggest that we in this chamber and we as members of
parliament should not be held back. If we pass this legislation
with this fear, this somewhat unrealistic and perhaps paranoid
fear that the legislation would not survive judicial scrutiny, we
are doing a tremendous disservice and we are holding back at a
time when we should be moving forward.
This is not a rational fear that exists on the part of
government. It is certainly something worth deliberating. It is
something worth discussing in this chamber, in this public forum.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, that is why we
are supportive of this motion. If it means delaying the passage
of this legislation by a relatively short time, by six months as
suggested by the hon. member, I am in support of that. I would
suggest that all law enforcement officers and all Canadians would
want to get it right in the first analysis, in the first
instance.
On behalf of our party, we support this amendment. We suggest
that the government and this House be provided with another six
months to examine this piece of legislation and make sure that we
provide a piece of legislation that is going to best serve
Canadians and best serve our judicial process.
1710
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
very important debate that we are having today. I listened with
great interest to the intervention made by the member from the
Conservative Party. It was a very, very thoughtful approach, one
which we would all do well as parliamentarians to listen to.
I would like the member to comment, if at all possible, on one
question. It has to do with the process.
Obviously, the committee has heard all of the different
witnesses. They have come forward. Undoubtedly they have heard
arguments on both sides. It seems to me from what he was saying
that the overwhelming amount of evidence in committee was to
support the conjecture that the testing should be done at the
time of arrest, that it should be strengthened. That is what I
have been gathering here. I would like him to clarify that.
Beyond that, I would like to give him the opportunity with this
question to respond to the process in this House. I am going to
be as judicious as I can because I do not want to be accused of
any unparliamentary procedure. I would like him to comment on the
level of interest among the members on the government side.
This is a justice issue and it would be wonderful to see the
justice minister rise in her seat and ask questions of him to see
whether or not there would be a possibility of a change. What he
has said has been so utterly reasonable that I do not think even
an unreasonable Liberal would want to refuse to listen to the
argument.
However the level of interest here is so low that it must be a
little frustrating. I think it is time to shake up and wake up
this Liberal government to respond to these very, very serious
justice issues in the way we on this side of the House are trying
to promote.
Perhaps I can have the member respond to those two questions.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his questions. Perhaps I will respond to the last one first.
As the hon. member is aware and I as a new member of this House
was made aware very early on, it is not appropriate to comment
specifically with respect to the appearance in the House or
absence from the chamber of certain individuals. However I
certainly echo his remarks when he suggests that there is an
apparent—I would not go so far as to say lack of interest—but
an apparent presence with respect to this government on
particular justice issues in a public forum.
I have always been of the mind and I would like to make the
statement that this of all places is the most public forum I know
of to have these types of discussions, to bring forward these
important issues, justice issues, health issues and issues of the
economy.
I may be wrong in my interpretation of the words of the House
leader when he held a press conference last week in anticipation
of this opening. There was a suggestion that there was going to
be greater emphasis from this government to have members of the
government side, particularly ministers, present in the chamber
when these discussions were to take place.
We have seen many examples in the last year where important
government announcements were made at the press gallery across
Wellington Street as opposed to here in the chamber.
We have given the Prime Minister an opportunity to stand today
in his place to make a prime ministerial pronouncement clarifying
his role in what took place in Vancouver and the RCMP's handling
of the security at that time.
I would hope that this government's constant repeating of the
mantra of transparency and accountability and openness is
something that is going to be demonstrated in this chamber as
opposed to simply lip service done through the press.
With respect to the first comment made by my hon. friend
regarding the deliberations and the debate that took place at the
justice committee, I had the honour of being a member of that
committee. I did attend faithfully those committee hearings when
this discussion took place.
1715
The hon. member is correct to suggest that a good number of the
witnesses who appeared at that time were very supportive of the
contention that we should be allowing police officers to take DNA
sampling, not necessarily at the time of charge which some police
officers suggest, but at the very least at the time that a charge
has been laid.
That threshold of reasonable and probable grounds and evidence
has then been met. There is sufficient evidence to lay a charge.
That is the standard which all peace officers in this country
must meet. Having a DNA sample only furthers that. A DNA sample
is perhaps the most decisive piece of evidence that can be found
at a crime scene.
Again we are seeing this government put the reins and blinders
on police officers and not allow them to go far enough in the
pursuit of justice.
I again call on this government, I beg it, to permit this debate
to continue and let us get this piece of legislation in a form
that is going to do the most to ensure justice in Canada.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is
almost embarrassing because I think the government should be
asking these questions. When it speaks we ask questions to
expand on its views and to better understand where it is coming
from.
When we on this side speak, if members opposite have any
comments or questions, they should be up there speaking. I am
publicly here chastising them. Why are they sitting on their
duffs? This is an important issue. Let us get with it here. Let
us do something about it. Let us make sure this bill is handled
correctly.
There is an amendment on the floor right now to slow this thing
down. One might ask is that intended to kill it. No, it is just
the opposite. It is intended to make sure that when this bill is
passed into law that it is a good law instead of a mediocre one
as it is in its present form.
The reason for the six month delay in the vote and the reading
is to allow time for the public to get involved and for the
Liberal government to rethink its position, its position of
stubbornness and of saying we have this thing down, this is how
we are going to do it and you guys better just accept that.
It is true the Liberals have a majority. It is a small one. It
slipped by 20 or thereabouts from 1993 to 1997 because they are
being unresponsive to what Canadians are saying, particularly in
the areas of economics and justice.
Over and over we hear from Canadians that they want the justice
to protect law abiding citizens. Over and over we hear they want
the justice system to work correctly in identifying people who
are guilty and in exonerating those who are not guilty. They
want a smaller level of error in those things.
Here is an opportunity to make a quantum leap in the ability of
the government, our justice officials and police departments to
work correctly to find those people guilty who in fact are and to
prevent crime from happening, something the Liberals over and
over say they want to do. Let us prevent the crime. Here is a
case where it can be prevented but not in this present form.
I would like my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party to
again comment on this and to maybe join me in chastising the
government for being so flaccid in this particular case.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comments. I think he has made a very eloquent and
pointed plea to the government side and has emphasized quite
clearly the need for some interaction, some debate.
It does appear that at this very instance there is a deafening
silence that has fallen over the government benches. I am not
going to say that definitely indicates a lack of interest. I do
not think it does but it is somewhat disappointing. This is an
opportunity to engage in debate and exchange of ideas and that is
not what is happening.
1720
The other point the hon. member has made which I think is also a
very important one is the use of this type of technology. The use
of this type of evidence can be used to close the margin of
error. To use this type of evidence in an effective way is
something we should all be striving for. There is an old legal
maxim that the law is an ass if it is administered by an ass.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the
fact that many in this House, I am sure, would like to listen to
me talk for hours on end, I have decided, unlike many of my
colleagues, not to speak for the sake of speaking.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I
am a member, has studied Bill C-3 in depth. I was present along
with my colleagues from all the other parties, a number of whom
have spoken just before me.
During these discussions, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a number
of amendments, which, unfortunately, because of the government's
hard head syndrome, as I would call it, were rejected.
That said, the Bloc Quebecois remains convinced, and so
indicated in votes in the House at previous stages, that the
bill should be passed quickly.
In committee, and in this House even, we have listened,
discussed, spoken and “parliamented” and it is time now to act.
Clearly the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this amendment. It
would like the motion defeated, the bill passed as quickly as
possible and an end put to this waste of time and these
fruitless discussions.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was listening to the remarks of the member for Elk
Island. He suggested that members on this side of the House are
not sufficiently concerned about this debate to participate as
actively as perhaps we should.
I did intend to make some remarks at a later time but I want
members to know that I have difficulties with this question of
allowing DNA sampling upon charge or immediately after a person
has been charged.
I am afraid it will be an invitation to the police to arrest
people and to charge them in order to get this type of DNA sample
in order to pursue criminals and to hopefully lead to further
convictions.
We have to remember that DNA sampling is an invasive technique
and that one superior element with respect to how we treat other
human beings is to remember the dignity of the human person and
to remember that even in the pursuit of crime and apprehension of
criminals, we must remember we are dealing with human beings
first.
In my riding which is rural the holstein industry is very
active. There is a lot of genetic research, samples taken of
various animals, not only cattle, and it is all part of today's
modern animal husbandry. I would not want to see a situation
where we forget that human beings are human beings. They are not
to be treated like cattle even when they are capable of
committing the worst possible crimes.
I do support the government's reluctance to move too fast on
this issue despite the fact that we are coming under all kinds of
pressure from the police associations to agree that crime
prevention should be uppermost in our minds.
There is something more than crime prevention here. We must not
rush into the new age of technology when human beings are reduced
to ciphers in the sense of the communication technology or on the
Internet or reduced to animals in the sense of how we pursue
issues of justice.
To the member opposite I plead with him to give us time to
examine the implications of DNA sampling which is an invasive
technique. Let us think about it. Let us pass the legislation
as it is, see what happens and give time for a meaningful public
debate. Let us not be stampeded into doing something because the
police are putting pressure on us.
1725
I have serious reservations about the police actually lobbying
and threatening politicians with political action in order to get
their way on this issue. This is something that I hope to
address in my own remarks. We on this side are seriously
concerned about this issue. We welcome the debate.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad
that finally we woke up one Liberal over there. It is good to
hear his comments, but I cannot believe that he is saying what he
said. DNA is an invasive technique.
We already have the great invasion of poking a person with a
needle to draw a blood sample when we suspect him or her of
drunken driving. That is a much greater invasion. One can give
a DNA sample by very simple means compared to that. It is
incredible that he should make that excuse.
I wish the Liberals would stop making excuses in trying to
justify their limp attempts at legislation which are going to—
An hon. member: Flaccid.
Mr. Ken Epp: I thought maybe none of the Liberals
understood the word flaccid and that is why I used limp this
time, so I could catch more of them in understanding what I am
saying.
It is incredible that the hon. member, whom I respect, falls
into line to defend what is an inadequacy in the legislation. I
would be much more pleased if the member said what the members in
opposition, not only the Reform members but also members from the
other parties, are saying about the legislation is important. We
had better listen to it. Perhaps we ought to pass the amendment
to hold the process for another six months so that we can have
another look at it.
Instead we have an instant and automatic defence mode. Let us
defend what we are doing because it cannot possibly be wrong in
even the smallest regard so we will just keep on defending it.
As long as that attitude persists we are not going to have proper
adjustments and amendments to the bills so that the laws which
result from them are truly effective. That is what we are seeking
in the DNA act legislation. We want this to fly but we want it
to be an effective system.
I also would like to say something regarding the concerns with
respect to the invasion of the privacy of the criminal. Maybe we
should start abridging their rights. Certainly an accused person
has a right to a fair and speedy trial. A person charged has
that right. We should as a society not feel hesitant at all to
require a person so charged to co-operate fully with the judicial
process by providing a DNA sample for not only the case that is
the result of the charge but in order to link that individual
with other possible crimes both past and future. It would be a
valid part of reducing crime. I cannot understand why the
government would be opposed to it, especially a government which
has absolutely no qualms about trampling on human rights when it
comes to confiscating property without compensation. It has no
qualms at all marching into every household in the country to
confiscate by the coercion of taxation half of their earnings
every year. That is major intrusion. No qualms about that.
I beg the government to be a little more consistent in how
vigorously it claims to be defending rights of citizens and
freedoms of individuals in the country.
1730
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Elk Island for his indirect compliment that he was not
completely offended by what I had to say.
I do wish to add that I would be very disappointed if as a
result of my remarks I were to be painted as somebody who
sympathizes with criminals and will give the benefit of the doubt
to criminals before the victims. We always must remember that no
one is a criminal until he or she is convicted.
One of the difficulties with this debate in the whole pursuit to
try to bring people to justice and to spare victims injury from
the acts of criminals is that we must always bear in mind that
people are innocent until proven guilty before the courts. There
is no question if somebody is convicted that all the DNA sampling
in the world ought to be available to the police authorities.
My reservation is before a conviction. This is where I have
difficulties with the position taken by some members of the
opposition. This is something we have to give second thought to.
The member for Elk Island drew the analogy with blood samples in
drunk driving cases, when there is a possibility of charges being
laid in the case of drunk driving. I suggest to him that in the
very analogy he brings forth there is still some doubt about
whether or not this is an infringement of a person's individual
rights. We do believe in this country, or we used to believe, as
far as I know, that we were not to be required to testify against
ourselves. There always has been a problem even with respect to
the breathalyzer and whether the breathalyzer takes it too far
when it comes to getting the evidence from a person as a result
of charges being laid.
I will make one final comment. DNA sampling is a far more
invasive and intrusive process than a blood sample or a
breathalyzer in that it actually gets genetic information. This
is big brother. This is the new world order. We have to be
cautious as a government and a parliament when we debate these
issues.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-3 today and officially register my
opposition to this bill.
My opposition is based on the Liberal government's refusal to
allow police officers the power to collect DNA samples at the
time of arrest. I feel that is simply a major step backward in
the fight against crime.
I listened to the arguments by the member for
Wentworth—Burlington. I listened to the arguments by the
parliamentary secretary. Once again what I am hearing from the
other side is all the things that can be put into place which
speak on behalf of the criminals of Canada but there is not a
whole lot speaking on behalf of the victims.
I believe the suggestions that we had about the DNA data samples
being taken at the time of arrest would be a tremendous victory
for the victims of this land.
The Reform Party and the police association called for several
amendments to Bill C-3 before third reading in the House of
Commons. Since these amendments were not forthcoming, both
parties cannot support the bill.
I am looking at a letter that was received on September 16, 1998
from the Canadian Police Association. It was sent to every
member of parliament. When we first started talking about DNA
there was some action taken back in 1995.
The last paragraph of this letter states “Please accept our
offer to work with you to develop legislation that would enhance
public safety and still remain constitutionally valid. Despite
contradictory rhetoric from the Department of Justice, it is an
achievable goal. As an MP we urge you to take this opportunity
and come to your own conclusion, not that as dictated by the
Prime Minister”.
1735
That is the kind of appeal I would like to make as a member of
the official opposition. I would like to say to the people that
the police commission is saying it is an achievable goal that is
constitutionally valid, that it is sure it can work with us to
come up with the legislation that would accomplish that.
Why is it that since 1995 we have not involved the experts in
helping us to come up with the proper legislation? Why do we
always think we are the big shots, that we know all the answers,
that we can come up with the legislation because we have a law
degree, or this degree or that degree?
Here we are talking about the crime fighters of the land whose
number one goal is to protect the lives and the property of the
citizens of this great country. That is just an elementary goal.
That is something elemental about the whole justice system. It
is supposed to be something that does exactly that.
It is ridiculous when the government rejects certain ideas of
those who have the expertise, when it does not even involve them
in the process. It reminds me of when I was the principal of a
high school, that I should tell all the grade one teachers who
they should pass and who they should fail after they had worked
with the students all year. It would make about as much sense.
It reminds me of bringing into the school a bunch of farmers who
had worked on the crops all summer and getting them to determine
who should go on to the next grade and who should not because
they may have been elected to a school board. Even elected
officials of a school board know of their own abilities and
authorities.
When we get to this place it is strange. Everything seems to be
settled on that front row. Then all the little boys and girls in
the back rows do exactly as they are told time and time again.
Here are people who are representing I do not know how many
thousands of police officers. They are begging parliament to
give them the opportunity to help in the development of
legislation that will be constitutionally sound and extremely
effective in protecting the lives of the victims of this land.
And we are hesitating. It is now 1998 and we have not even
involved them. I think the police officers were referred to as
an interest group. You bet they are an interest group. They
have a lot of interest in doing their work and in doing it well
and they want the tools to do it.
My Reform colleague who moved the motion to delay any decision
on this bill and to speak to it six months down the road had a
tremendous idea. I suggest that during that six months the
justice committee and any other members of this House could
invite the police commission to come with its expertise to help.
We should ask it to help us develop that which would be good for
all Canadians instead of letting the Prime Minister's Office and
the justice minister, who is another I do not know what, make the
decisions while everyone in the back row waits to see what they
are supposed to do.
That is going on too much in this country. It could stop and
does not need to happen but it will, mark my words. That is
enough of this. I can hear the words now. “We have to cut the
debate on this bill. We have to cut it out because it is going
on too far. We have to make a decision. Here is what you will
do”. They will pull the string and they will vote the way they
are told. Thank goodness there are a few I know on those
backbenches who would not necessarily do that. There are not
many but there are a few and I thank them for that.
Look at another paragraph from this letter. It states “This
issue is paramount to Canadian police officers and by virtue the
CPA. We have obtained an independent”—I want to repeat
that—“we have obtained an independent legal decision that
states our position on this issue is constitutionally sound”.
Why do we not investigate that to see if there is some truth in
it? No, we have our justice system made up of all our little
lawyer buddies and we go to a selected handful of judges who have
not done a great deal about fighting crime.
They do not really know what it is like to face a criminal on the
streets and they are making all the decisions. They give no
credit at all to the people who are genuinely on the streets
fighting crime.
1740
I would encourage everybody in this place to stop and think
about it. We are going to run through a piece of legislation
that according to all the feelings of the experts who fight crime
is seriously flawed. It will cost extra billions of dollars to
put into place. I do not know if that is necessarily true. I
know my friend over there from Renfrew and Pembroke does not know
if it is true but he ought to be willing to bring in the experts
to find out if it is. Let us do the right thing.
Just because this legislation came out of the justice department
does not make it the greatest thing that ever happened.
I had the pleasure of playing an instrumental role back in 1995
when the first phase of the government's DNA testing plan was
passed. Bill C-104 allowed the police to take samples without
consent from individuals suspected of criminal offences,
generally those involving serious violence. The sample taken
from the suspect would be matched to samples from the crime scene
to determine whether the suspect had committed the specific
offence being investigated.
The legislation did not deal with the storage of the information
or the samples derived from its testing. It provided a
reasonable scheme to ensure that DNA samples were not taken from
suspects unnecessarily.
I know the results that the first phase of the legislation had
for Tara Manning's family. I am not sure if members remember her
but many do. I will never forget June 20, 1995 when the justice
minister said that he was prepared to introduce legislation by
the end of the week for the purpose of adding DNA testing to the
Criminal Code. That brought out quite a cheer from a lot of
people. I know it meant a lot to the Manning family.
It was a great day for victims because it provided a mechanism
to answer many questions and for the police to solve crimes. The
mechanisms were there.
We now have the police association writing to us on September
16, 1998, over three years later, informing us that what we are
trying to do now is seriously flawed. However, we are not
willing to pay attention. We are going to get this through third
reading and vote on it all because the frontline people here have
decided that it is great stuff and should be done.
I encourage everyone to at least think about the amendment my
colleague made. We must give this more time and bring in the
people who say they are willing to help us develop legislation
that will enhance public safety and will be constitutionally
sound. Let us not judge too quickly that that will not be the
case.
We are working on phase two of this legislation. We hear
arguments that a DNA sample is unduly intrusive compared to
fingerprinting. I have to agree with the words of Tim Danson who
said in the Globe and Mail “The high court has ruled that
taking DNA samples as already allowed by law is not unduly
intrusive. The method of sampling consists of cutting off a
piece of the person's hair, rubbing a Q-tip swab inside the mouth
or taking blood by a simple pin device similar to that used by
diabetics”.
Further, the court has made it clear that privacy is far more
affected when an individual is arrested, taken to court and
forced to face the public and personal shame and humiliation that
follows all of this. Privacy interests protected by the charter
of rights and freedoms relate to a reasonable expectation of
privacy and not privacy at large. I want to repeat that. It is a
reasonable expectation of privacy and not privacy at large.
1745
People who engage in criminal activity should expect some loss
of privacy. Their victims certainly have. They have lost a lot
of privacy. Perhaps the armchair, constitutional academics
sitting over there should join us in the real world.
When we want to solve problems we should go to the people who
have the expertise. We should go to the people who do the real
work in trying to protect the lives of Canadians. We should talk
to the police and give them the opportunity to help develop
legislation. We do not always have to listen to the lawyers and
the judges. They are not the only smart people in Canada. There
are a few more around. I hope they take the time to check who
they might be. We would be glad to give them a hand in
developing proper legislation.
Let us please not pass this bill at third reading. It is
premature. We can come up with better things than what we have
in this flawed material that is before us today. I encourage
hon. members to think about it.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have been involved in the debate on Bill C-3 since its inception
about a year ago. I would like to ask the opinion of the member
for Wild Rose on this. The thing that bothers me more than
anything, as far as the government's position on the bill, is
that it has thrown out, it has ruled out, it has given no
credibility to probably the two most important groups in this
country on this issue. One of those groups is the people who
serve us on a daily basis, the front line police officers who,
right across this country, have given overwhelming support to the
idea of taking samples at point of arrest.
The Liberal members have put far more credence into the opinions
of their appointed pals, the judges, on this issue rather than
listening to the front line people, the police officers of this
country and the victims' associations of Canada, the two groups
who have far more to say, in my opinion, on making changes to the
justice system in order to make it work better and to make it
more effective.
I want to know from my colleague from Wild Rose if that is his
opinion. Does he think, as I do, that the Liberals put far more
credence into those elected judges rather than the people whom I
believe are the most important in this country, police officers
and victims' associations?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, I certainly do agree
with that. There is no doubt about it, there has been no effort
made on the part of the committee or anyone else dealing with
Bill C-3 to get an independent legal opinion on this particular
issue.
There is a group of people who did get an independent legal
position and that was the police association. Now they are
prepared to say to the people in parliament that they have this
statement clearly made by an independent body that the change
that we are suggesting, that the police commission is suggesting,
can be done and can be constitutionally allowed. It would be
extremely effective in saving the lives of numerous Canadians
from violent criminals. It would be extremely effective.
That is our plight. That is what we are supposed to do, create
legislation that will do some of these things.
I was at a rally where people asked questions at a microphone.
Before they asked their questions they were to say what kind of
Canada they would like to see in the year 2000. A statement was
wanted before they asked their question.
1750
There were people who talked about good job situations, money,
prosperity, economics. They talked about the health care system.
But one person nearly stopped the whole rally when he asked “Do
you know what I want? I want to live in a country where my wife
can leave this hotel, walk two blocks to the parking lot where we
have parked our car and come back without the fear of being
mugged, attacked, assaulted, murdered or raped”.
“I want to live in a country” this man went on to say “where
the authorities, the politicians and the elected officials do
their darndest to meet the most elemental duty that we have. That
duty is to protect the lives and the property of Canadians”.
That is an elemental duty and we have that duty.
When we are willing to pass legislation that the experts say is
flawed, then we are not responding to that duty. If members
cannot respond to that duty, they should not be here, they should
be at home. Someone who is willing to do it should be sent here
instead.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I want to say to my hon. friends opposite that I have been one of
the people who has been sitting here flaccid, and any other word
that the hon. member for Elk Island has said. I have been
listening to the debate and it is certainly food for thought.
I want to make one comment and it speaks to the intervention
that was just made. I also think it is odd. We are trying to
balance various rights and privileges here.
The CPA is also a proponent of gun registration, as is CAVEAT
and hundreds of other groups. How can we decide when the CPA is
right? Is there a quick way of determining that?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, I am not so sure that
there is a quick way of determining that, but there is one thing
I can assure the hon. member of. If there is a rash that breaks
out on someone's body or if some kind of illness overtakes them,
please go to a doctor and not a politician. If someone's child
is having a learning problem, please go to a school teacher and
stay away from the judge around the corner.
There are experts out there. We do not know what all the
answers are. Sometimes even the experts foul up. They certainly
have fouled up if they support the idea of registering shotguns
and rifles. There is no doubt in my mind.
Let us throw it out there and give them the opportunity. Why
should they not have an opportunity to show us legislators that
they can produce legislation that will not be flawed, that will
be constitutionally sound, that will be balanced and provide a
good law for the safety of Canadians?
I appreciate the member listening seriously to the debates.
Most of the time that does not happen and I applaud him for that.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I again feel privileged to take part in this
debate. I listened very intently to the comments made by the
hon. member for Wild Rose.
The hon. member has articulated some very important points. He
has placed some of the emphasis where it needs to be placed, and
that is on the rights of victims. I received a comment in that
vein very recently. This is something, again, that has to be
taken into consideration.
The other comment I would make was raised by the member on the
government side, and that is the speed with which we can make
this decision based on the conflicting expert opinions and
evidence that appears to exist in the context of this debate.
I think that is an important backdrop here. It is exactly what
this motion, brought forward by the official opposition, is
about. This is too important an issue to rush headlong into,
resulting in flawed legislation that might very well wind up back
here on the floor of the House of Commons.
1755
There is no guarantee that will happen. Anything that comes out
of this legislature is subject to judicial interpretation. But
we cannot be curtailed or hobbled in our work with that paranoia
in mind.
With those comments, I reiterate that this is an opportunity for
us to get it right. This is an opportunity for us to use what
can only be called cutting-edge technology.
Another example that I discussed recently with the member
opposite is the use of DNA in retrieving the bodies in the recent
air crash at Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia, and allowing those
families to have closure on the issue. It puts emphasis on how
important this is and how important it is for victims to have
closure on some of the terrible unsolved crimes. In British
Columbia alone there are over 600 unsolved murders. The use of
technology to have closure on those matters is extremely
important.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, the very quick
response is that the hon. member is exactly right. He said what
needs to be said.
The important thing about this debate is: Are they listening?
It is so important and the listening part has to happen.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am delighted to speak on this particular amendment to the bill.
Before I start I would like to commend my colleague, the hon.
member for Wild Rose, who put forward the official opposition's
position on this bill very eloquently.
On behalf of the people of Surrey Central, I rise to express our
opposition to Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification
which would make amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts.
My colleagues in the official opposition, Canadians concerned
about victims of crime, my constituents and a host of others
inside and outside of the law enforcement community are very
disappointed with what the Liberals have done with this bill.
The Reform Party is firmly committed to restoring confidence in
our justice system and providing Canadians with a true sense of
security. This includes strengthening our law enforcement
agencies by providing them with the latest effective
technological tools to quickly detect and apprehend the
perpetrators of the worst violent crimes in society. DNA
identification is that kind of tool.
If used to its fullest potential, the DNA databank could be the
single most important development in fighting crime since the
introduction of fingerprints. The technology available through
DNA identification would make our society safer. It would
protect our homes, our families and our lives from criminal
activity and, in particular, violent crime. It is my
understanding that DNA capability will greatly enhance the work
of our law enforcement community.
Over the next few years and perhaps decades this technology will
virtually change the world in terms of crime solving, crime
detection and the positive identification of criminals.
If passed unamended, Bill C-3 will provide Canadians with a
false sense of security. Therefore, the Reform Party cannot
support this inadequate and incomplete piece of legislation. The
Reform Party fully supports the creation of the DNA databank.
However, we do not support the limited scope of Bill C-3.
Why do I oppose this bill? Bill C-3 does not grant our police
forces full use of DNA technology. Bill C-3 does not allow for
the taking of the DNA sample at the time of the criminal charge
being laid.
1800
This is where fingerprints are taken. This is exactly the time
to take DNA samples. How can the Liberals fail to provide our
law enforcement agencies with the opportunity to get a DNA sample
at the time of the arrest?
Bill C-3 does not permit samples to be taken from incarcerated
criminals other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex
offenders and multiple murderers.
In the hands of the Liberals Bill C-3 is actually a hindrance
to more effective law enforcement and a safer society. This is a
needlessly restrictive use of DNA in Bill C-3. The official
opposition is holding the Liberals responsible for denying our
police the use of DNA which they have been asking for for quite
some time.
The Liberals are so arrogant that they are attempting to fool
Canadians about what the bill does and
does not do. It does not go far enough and we must not be fooled.
It is an inadequate piece of legislation and we cannot support
it.
I would like to quote from a September 16, 1998 letter addressed
to me by the president of the Canadian Police Association. I am
sure that other members in this House may have also received
similar letters. This letter which I am going to quote from is a
scathing indictment of the Liberal government. On the first page
it reads:
The Canadian Police Association represents approximately 35,000
front line police officers across Canada.... Bill C-3, as
currently drafted, is seriously flawed, and will needlessly allow
Canadians to be put at risk.
The CPA has lobbied for the creation of a DNA databank for many
years. Since the beginning, we stressed the important impact a
bank could have on public safety, a goal that we work towards
everyday whether it be on the streets or on Parliament Hill. We
said then, as we say now, that for this initiative to work
samples must be taken from suspects when arrested. By doing so,
we will maximize the potential crime prevention aspects of the
bill which is a goal we all share.
Do not underestimate the importance of this issue to the CPA. We
are not, and never have been, averse to take every public
opportunity to inform the public when the government creates and
passes flawed legislation. We will do that again regarding Bill
C-3. We will make sure that Canadians understand that their
government is risking their lives. We will make sure that if one
of your constituents is harmed because of this flawed
legislation, that they will know who to ask for an explanation.
The Liberals should be ashamed that 35,000 Canadian police
officers on the front lines have been seriously disappointed by
this Liberal government's legislation.
Canadians want our police officers to be protected and do the
best job they can. The Liberals are not allowing our police
officers the use of DNA identification that they are asking for
and our police officers deserve more support from us, from our
government, than that which this Liberal government is giving
them.
The Liberals are choosing to slow down this process of the
advent of DNA identification into our crime fighting efforts. The
Liberals are crippling the ability of our law enforcement
agencies to use this technology.
This government has refused to allow the amendments to this bill
that have been put forward by the official opposition.
1805
This is not an issue to play politics with. These amendments
would put teeth into Bill C-3. But it is as if the Liberals do
not want that.
The Liberals are afraid to unleash this powerful crime fighting
tool because they are more concerned about the criminals and the
rights of the accused than they are about the victims of crime.
Our law enforcement agencies should have been given the go ahead
to use DNA identification tools ever since the technology was
first invented. For example, it would just be like forcing people
to use candles or kerosene lanterns instead of electric light
bulbs. We ask our police forces to use fingerprints but not DNA
identification.
The Liberal government is supposed to be responsible for shaping
our justice system. This is the government of the day. Canadians
are relying on the government but the government is just sitting
on its hands.
The Prime Minister continues to show his willingness to place
the lives and safety of innocent people in jeopardy, whether by
allowing the parole of violent offenders who go on to rape and
murder again or by allowing freedom of convicted violent
offenders through conditional sentencing or by tying our police
officers' hands through Bill C-3. The safety of our society is a
secondary issue for this Liberal government.
Bill C-3 provides a dangerous and unnecessary exemption
authorizing judges not to issue warrants for the taking of a
sample if they believe in doing so the impact of the individual's
privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the
public interest and the protection of society. It seems to me
that if DNA identification were positive and unequivocal proof
then the rights of an individual would be best served by that
person providing a DNA sample. DNA samples are conclusive if
processed carefully and correctly. A DNA sample can disprove as
well as prove whether an accused person was involved in a crime.
The Liberal's argument in support of allowing the judge not to
issue a warrant for the taking of a DNA sample fails.
Because of the government's irrational fear of violating the
privacy rights of a person accused of heinous crimes, the
Liberals are restricting the use of this very important
technology by our law enforcement agencies.
Once again we are watching the Liberals use cold hearted legal
talk to deny giving our law enforcement agencies what they need.
The Liberals used cold legal arguments and some kind of numbers
to deny help to all of the victims of tainted blood, so probably
they are used to it.
Canadians are devastated when innocent victims fall prey to
violence, whether the motivation is drugs, theft, greed or hate.
My community wants to know how many more innocent people will
lose their lives before changes are made in our criminal justice
system.
This government is failing our youth, our seniors, our
communities and our society because it lacks the moral strength
to deal with violent crime and repeat offenders.
During the summer I did some door knocking in my constituency.
People were amazed and surprised by why a politician would do
door knocking between elections.
1810
While knocking on these doors I noticed that almost second home
in my constituency had a sticker on their door or window warning
that the home was armed with an alarm system. It gives me the
signal that people are not feeling safe on the streets, as we
know, but are also not feeling safe in their own homes.
A few months ago a senior was brutally beaten to death in his
own home in my constituency. The constituents I represent in
Surrey Central are living in the wake of the arrest of five young
men for the brutal beating and murder of a temple caretaker.
This Liberal government is spineless, heartless, gutless, deaf
and blind. Everyone knows that the government is not getting
tough on crime.
My constituents and I are warning this government to get tough
on crime. We want it to do the work that is necessary to protect
our society. That is why we are not supporting Bill C-3. It
does not do the work necessary to give our police what they want
in terms of using DNA identification tools.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I just
want to make a quick comment and ask a question of my hon.
colleague who just made his remarks with regard to Bill C-3.
He talked about his door knocking this summer and noticed that a
good number of houses in his riding were equipped with security
systems. When I campaigned in 1997 that was one thing I took
note of in Saskatoon. At least half the houses in supposedly
small town Saskatoon were equipped with alarm systems as well.
Saskatoon is number three on the crime list in Canada. Regina is
number one and Vancouver is number two in the number of crimes
committed per capita.
From my colleague's perspective why does he think that the crime
rate is increasing not only in my province but in his as well?
What steps could the Liberal government take in order to get
tough on crime?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for asking this question.
Canadians will recall that when Clifford Olson made an attempt
at the faint hope clause his hearing took place in my
constituency. If when that violent criminal committed the crime
the DNA sampling was there and the law enforcement agencies had
that tool they could have solved so many other murders years
before. They probably could have put a stop to the murders
before more were committed. He was on the loose and we could not
convict him. If we had had this particular tool we may have been
able to save many more lives.
When we see the alarm signs on the doors and windows of homes in
our constituencies it gives us an indication that Canadians do
not have faith in this Liberal government. It gives us the
message that something needs to be done but the government is
sitting on its hands. Why are we not giving such an innovative
and modern tool to police forces? Who are we afraid of? Are we
afraid of the violent criminal?
Do we not want to protect the rights of the victims?
1815
Crime is on the rise simply because there is no one to put a
stop to the criminals. I think the government should do
something, do the honourable thing and accept the amendments from
the official opposition and give a tool with teeth to law
enforcement agencies.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the PC
Party, as my colleague for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has so
eloquently said, believes that recording of DNA is good but it
does not go far enough as it is in its present state. Basically
it curtails the ability of police to do their job effectively. It
can lead to the flight of criminals who have not gone to trial.
Unlike the registration of long guns imposed by the
ill-conceived Bill C-68, the registry of criminals through DNA
databanking is something we applaud.
I would like to ask my colleague for his comments about the bill
not permitting retroactive testing of DNA for convicted criminals
such as Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I may not answer the
question very satisfactorily because I do not know the background
details of this bill. I want to be honest and straightforward.
However, I believe if the amendments proposed by the official
opposition are accepted this will be a very effective tool. It
will be much more effective than the fingerprints which we allow
the RCMP or law enforcement agencies to use.
Let me give an example. Let us say we sent a soldier to war and
we give him a gun but we do not give him any ammunition. What
good is the gun?
We have given the fingerprint tool but why not DNA
identification? The Canadian Police Association is asking for
it. There are 35,000 members who have to deal with crime who are
asking for this technology. They are on the frontlines defending
us, making our streets free from crime and making our homes and
streets safe. They are the ones who are pleading in strong
language to the government to make DNA identification an
effective tool.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
sat here for the last couple of hours listening to the debate on
Bill C-3. A couple of concerns that initially come to my mind is
that it seems as though all the debate is taking place from this
side of the House.
Reform members have spoken about it and a number of Progressive
Conservative have spoken about it obviously showing concern for
the bill, but I have heard very little, in fact nothing, from the
government, the Bloc Quebecois or the New Democrats on an issue
which I would think should be one of the prime issues in this
fall's session with today being day one in parliament. It should
be an issue of great importance and yet the government seems to
be sitting back thinking one of two things. It will either let
the Reformers and the Tories rant on a little bit about it and
ram the thing through, which is all too common in the House over
the past number of years, or it does not care about the bill. I
am not sure which one of those answers would be accurate, but I
have a notion it is probably a bit of both.
I want to make my comments on third reading of the bill. I have
spoken on it at least once before, if not twice, if my memory
serves me correct. I want to go back a year. A good friend of
mine who is a police officer in the Saskatoon police service,
Sergeant Jim Bracken, and I spent a week in Washington, D.C..
last October. We went down there for what I think is a very
important reason.
Jim is as interested in reforming the criminal justice system as
I am. When I was appointed deputy critic for the solicitor
general I wanted to learn more about the American system. It is
not that I think we should go to the American system of justice,
but it is always important to study the differences in another
country that is our closest neighbour.
1820
We spent a week in Washington talking to people from the
attorney general's office, parole board, victims groups and so
on. One afternoon we had a meeting in a government building with
an expert on DNA evidence. As a bit of an aside, it took us 25
to 30 minutes to get through security. We had to go through a
number of x-ray machines and empty our pockets. We just about
had DNA testing done on us before we were allowed into the
building. From that perspective I am glad we live in Canada.
We had an appointment with an academic in his office. He was
the stereotypical academic, a short skinny little guy with big
glasses and a bow tie, somebody I would think would be in movies
as a scientist. That is what he was. When I first looked at him
I expected he would give me a very dry rendition or account of
what they had done with DNA evidence there.
As soon as I introduced myself as a member of parliament from
Canada and my colleague, a sergeant from the police service in
Saskatoon, and told him that we would like to learn about DNA
evidence his face lit up like a Christmas tree. We could tell he
had something to say. He was absolutely thrilled that somebody
would come from another country to listen to him on what he had
found and on how the DNA testing system was being implemented in
the United States. We spent about two hours in his office. We
had not originally scheduled a meeting for that long but we
wanted to learn everything we could in that short time.
The Americans are much further ahead with respect to DNA
evidence, sampling and databanks. I obtained a book down there
of case studies from both sides of the coin. There were cases of
people who were wrongfully convicted being later exonerated
through the use of DNA evidencing. There were case studies of
people already in prison who were convicted of other crimes and
who were found through the use of DNA evidence to have committed
other violent acts. The more I read from this book, the more I
was convinced we were on the right track.
I applaud the government for bringing this issue to the House of
Commons. I applaud it for taking upon itself to talk about the
idea of DNA bank. However that is as far as I can applaud the
government. We are taking what is probably the best, most useful
and effective tool that has ever come down the pike for solving
crime and we are throwing it away.
Let me use the example of a carpenter to show what we are doing
with the bill the way it is. It is like saying to the carpenter
that we will let him have a hammer but he is only allowed to
pound nails from the outside of the house. It will look good on
the outside, but we all know what will happen when we get to the
inside.
It would be like saying a doctor may use an x-ray machine but
only in certain cases because it may infringe upon the rights of
someone. If we take a dental x-ray we might find out that the
patient has some other disease we are not prepared to find out
about and do not think we should know about because it would
intrude upon the rights of the person and his privacy.
When we look into the eyes of a victim of crime—over the past
five years since I have become a member of parliament I have had
the opportunity to do so—we realize it is incumbent upon us as
lawmakers, as the people who really make the legislation and
implement it, to do absolutely everything within our power to
solve crime.
1825
I want to use a good example that is very well known in Canada.
It is a case that happened in Saskatchewan in my city of
Saskatoon, the case of David Milgaard. Through the use of DNA
evidence we now know for sure that David Milgaard did not commit
that murder. We now have another person who is to stand trial
for that murder.
Obviously we did not have the use of DNA evidence at the time
Milgaard was first tried. I will not argue that. Had we the
proper use of this tool, cases like the Milgaard case would be
very unlikely to ever happen again because we would be able to
ascertain guilt or innocence almost for certain.
I do not want to see anybody else having to spend any time in
prison for a crime that they did not commit, just as I want to
see crime solved through the use of this tool. We will solve
crimes through the use of this tool. It is a given. No one
would argue with that except lawyers and the odd Liberal.
We could use DNA evidence for people who have been convicted of
other crimes while they are in prison for another crime. The
failure to do that is abdicating responsibility as a government
to the people of the country. As someone else said previously,
if we cannot provide security and safety and the feeling of
security for Canadian people then what have we accomplished as a
government or as an MP?
I believe, as I have said before many times, that the first and
most important role of any government is to provide for the
safety and security of people who live in our country.
This coming weekend right behind this building there will be a
police memorial service. Many of us have been around to the back
of the building and have seen the police memorial located there.
I have been a strong supporter of the Police Association of
Canada since day one and I continue to be.
I think about those officers who gave their lives in the line of
duty protecting every one of us in the country. I think about
the fact that we will not give the colleagues they left behind
the opportunity to solve crime with the use of this tool. Frankly
I am embarrassed to say that we have let down those men and women
who have given their lives to protect us on the streets of our
communities. That is a sad thing because if we cannot honour the
lives of those people then we have done nothing in this area as
members of parliament.
Why is it in a country like Canada that in 1998, nearing the
year 2000, we are in a situation where we would not pay attention
to the most important people in the country, the people who live
and work in our justice system on a day to day basis and the
people who are victims of violent crimes? Far too often even in
our little city of Saskatoon, what normally would be thought of
as a very nice peaceful little city, I run across cases of
violent crime. I have spoken with the victims. I do not
understand why and it is amazing to me the government of the day
that sits across the way would not put more credence into what
they tell it.
I was at the committee meetings that were held on this bill.
Steve Sullivan appeared before the committee on the particular
day I recall offhand and spoke on behalf of a number of victims.
They want to see all steps taken that are possible and reasonable
to prevent crime.
1830
As was mentioned before, the police association, some 35,000
strong, completely support the idea of DNA sampling taken at the
point of arrest, yet the government fails to listen to them. The
government fails to listen to the opposition members here today
who I think have made some very, very strong points. I do not
see anyone who really seems to care.
I have a notion that this bill will be rammed through and that
we will see closure invoked on this bill because it is an
emotional issue to a great many people.
I will not stand here today and say that the opposition parties
are always right. We are not perfect. I do not pretend to be a
perfect member of parliament just as the government is not
perfect. However when the huge outcry of emotion on this issue is
heard, just like on other issues such as Bill C-68, where the
government refuses to listen to the vast majority of the people,
we have a democratic problem in this country.
My colleague from Wild Rose mentioned in his remarks that there
are members opposite who would support our way of thinking but
unfortunately the way party discipline works in this place they
will not perhaps get the opportunity to vote the wishes of their
constituents. That is a systematic problem and one that needs to
be changed very quickly.
One of the big arguments from the government about why it would
cut this bill off at the knees and reduce its effectiveness is
the fear of invasion of privacy or the intrusion into private
lives.
I think about this in the same way I think about a breathalyzer
test. Obviously we use blood samples. They can be obtained and
used for driving under the influence tests. There are also
breathalyzers where someone would be required to give a sample of
breath which is no different in my opinion than plucking a single
hair from one's head to provide DNA evidence. If I had the
choice, and thankfully I have never had to have a sample of any
sort taken to this point, I would rather have somebody pull a
hair out of my head.
Therefore that argument does not wash with me. That is a no
brainer, a non-starter in my opinion because it is non-intrusive.
The other thing which is very important and critical to this
whole issue is what we will do as a government to prevent the
abuse, the misuse of DNA evidence. I think the government is on
track on that part of the bill. I do not argue with that.
Strict, harsh penalties will be imposed for anyone who abuses or
misuses that DNA information. That is great and so it should be.
No one in this House I believe would ever argue that point. If
samples are taken for some cases and not others, then the
opportunity still exists for the abuse or the misuse of DNA
evidence. Therefore that argument does not wash.
The argument that does wash with me is the protection of people.
Just a few minutes ago my colleague spoke about the number of
houses with security systems in his riding. He thinks as do some
others here that we could improve the safety and security of
Canadians with the use of DNA evidence, DNA data banks.
I do not think it will happen overnight. If the bill were to go
through according to our recommendations, I do not think
Canadians would feel safe overnight but they would over time.
It is the right step to take at this point in time because as we
move into the next century, I do not see any drop in the number
of violent crimes. Our social system is in such a state that it
could perhaps get worse. We have to take every step in order to
protect people down the road.
The key thing is that if a known criminal knows that DNA
sampling and evidence are available, they are more likely to
think twice before they enter someone's house or commit a violent
crime.
They know that DNA evidence and the use of it is available. That
also makes them a little bit more concerned if they have
committed other violent crimes in the past. Over the long term I
believe that we will make Canada a much more safe and secure
place in which to live.
1835
Perhaps the biggest group of people who would be opposed to the
use of a data bank as we would like to see it is the legal
profession. If I am a lawyer anywhere in Canada and DNA evidence
sampling is available, it is going to be pretty hard to defend
someone who we know almost for sure is guilty. Far too often in
my life I have seen the legal profession make a living out of
other people's misfortune. That is a sad thing.
I did not stand up here today to take a round at the legal
profession because I know that we need them. Everybody should
have a token lawyer. They are necessary. There is no question
about that. What I am saying is that we must take every step
that we can to ensure and assure people that their best interests
are looked after.
I want to sum up what I have said. The two most important
groups to me on this issue are the men and women who serve us,
who defend our property and defend our safety and security on a
day to day basis, the police officers of this country. We would
do a terrible disservice to those people if we did not listen and
heed their words of advice on this bill. A more important group,
and the group I will leave to the last is the victims of violent
crime in this country. I have looked, and I would ask my Liberal
colleagues from the other side to go home this weekend and look
deep into the eyes of a victim of violent crime. Then come back
next week and tell me that they do not think that the DNA data
bank that is effective is worth talking about.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for the opportunity to bring out an aspect of this bill
that I think we have missed, even though we have heard a lot of
speakers and we have had a lot of things brought forward.
The key part of this bill we need to focus on is the fact that
the resistance we are running into on this bill relates exactly
to the privacy issue, personal privacy. Whose privacy are we
actually talking about? We are talking about the privacy of
people who have been indicted. The police do not indict someone
without good cause. What we are really looking to protect is the
privacy of an individual who may have committed a heinous crime
as opposed to the security and safety of Canadian citizens. We
heard some of the heinous crimes that have been committed against
women and children and if we can do anything to stop those
heinous crimes. We are trading off the privacy issue and the
safety of Canadians.
I have a bill on the same issue and which is going to be voted
on next week, Bill C-284. It has to do with allowing parents and
those who hire people to look after children to know whether or
not the person has a history of being a paedophile. In that
situation they would know if he has ever received a pardon. They
would not put those children at risk again.
1840
When we debated that bill in the House it was the same kind of
thing. Everybody on this side was supportive of the bill, but
what came from that side was “We have to protect the privacy of
the convicted paedophile more than we need to protect the
children who could be exposed to this kind of risk”.
This is the key difference. Are we going to protect citizens as
we have been elected to do? Many of us are here because of our
frustration with the justice system being too much concerned and
overly focused on protecting the rights of criminals or those who
are indicted, putting that at a higher level than the victims in
our society.
The Liberal approach is just not working. This loose approach
to the justice issue not only puts law-abiding citizens at risk,
but it makes those who are contemplating criminal activity more
likely to step into that kind of activity because the barriers
are just not there. They are not seeing it as a deterrent. It
has become a laughing stock.
We can talk about Bill C-3 which is the DNA bill, my Bill C-284
and we can talk about the Young Offenders Act. This theme is
pervasive across all the justice issues: the protection of
privacy, protection of the criminal and protection of those who
have been charged.
When do we ever hear from the other side of the House about the
protection of the victim, victims rights, the protection of those
who may be harmed or who have been attacked and the protection of
law-abiding citizens? That is what is at the heart of justice,
law and order and peace in our society. That is what was at the
heart of many of the election campaigns we fought only a little
over a year ago and why many of us are here.
This particular bill points out a fundamental difference between
the members on this side of the House and those on that side of
the House. It is a fundamental difference that says they are
going to protect criminals over the rights of law-abiding
citizens and we are focusing on making sure that Canadians are
not put at risk.
The police are the people who are closest to the action, closest
to the issue. In so many cases businesses realize that if they
want to know where the waste is they go to the front lines. They
have implemented empowering people at the front lines because
they have had to live with the waste and the issues. But the
government is still stuck in a top down way of thinking that says
that judges and those who live behind brick walls will decide for
those who do not. The police know. They are on the front lines.
They hear the stories. They see the broken lives. They have to
live with the tragedies. They have to pick up the pieces.
It is interesting that the police tell us “Come on, let us get
some things in place so our job has meaning again, so we can
actually do the job we are paid to do, protect our communities
and do something to serve as a deterrent”.
Mr. Speaker, may I just ask at this point how much time I have
left?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has 14
minutes remaining in his remarks, but I am afraid that the time
for the consideration of Government Orders has come to an end for
today. When debate resumes on this bill he will be able to carry
on at some length.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
April 1, I rose during question period to ask the minister of
defence whether he would put an end to the privatization of
non-core activities in several Canadian forces bases.
The privatization of CFB Goose Bay has caused considerable
hardship. Close to 200 workers were not rehired by SERCO. Wages
have been cut dramatically and the low morale of the base
employees has plunged to new depths.
1845
The transitional allowance to compensation workers who had their
wages slashed will end April 1, 1999, leaving the affected
employees with reduced wages. Just like with the pay equity
issue, the government chooses to turn its back on its former
employees.
Now the new service provider SERCO is eligible to receive a
performance bonus for the next five years if it meets certain
criteria. This once again demonstrates that this government is
more concerned with lining the pockets of foreign companies than
protecting the interests of Canadian workers.
If these bonuses are to occur, the wages and benefits that SERCO
employees now receive should be one of the evaluation criteria
used in determining whether bonuses should be given. Those
employees who are now working for SERCO should receive equitable
wages and benefits comparable to what they were receiving as
public servants.
The government is willing to give SERCO $875,000 for its
performance in the period from August 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999.
These bonuses should not be earned on the backs of hardworking
employees.
Furthermore there is still great concern that these
privatization efforts will be extended to other bases. Six
additional sites have been designated to go through the
alternate service delivery process.
The communities of Gagetown, Kingston, Shilo, Suffield,
Wainwright and Edmonton have a right to know on what basis they
are being evaluated.
It is known that these sites will have an opportunity to reach
the status of most efficient organization. If these sites are
successful in doing so, the ASD process will stop.
How committed is the government to this process? Would further
cutbacks in the department impede the MEO process? What is the
percentage in savings each site has to achieve to be considered a
most efficient organization?
The workers of these bases have a right to know what their goal
is. The financial security of entire families hangs in the
balance. The experience of CFB Goose Bay has shown us that
privatization hurts workers and their families.
Let us hope that the Minister of National Defence has learned
his lesson and will put a stop to any further privatization
efforts.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of
National Defence stated in the House previously, the Department
of National Defence has an obligation to meet budget reduction
targets.
The Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence must
deliver the missions defined by the government in the defence
policy in the most cost effective way possible within the
constraints of the budget available. Achieving cost savings in
support activities is something that can be done with the
alternative service delivery program.
At the same time, however, this government has had an obligation
and the desire to make sure that employees are treated fairly. We
have demonstrated that with the way we have gone about downsizing
the public service. We will demonstrate it again in terms of how
we treat employees affected by the ASD program.
[Translation]
The options being considered include alternate service delivery
such as competitive contracting, which includes internal
submissions and the taking over of services by government
employees, partnership agreements between the government and the
private sector and, finally, privatization.
However, the Minister of National Defence has ordered the
department to ensure that the six locations chosen in the spring
for a study on alternate service delivery have an opportunity to
show that savings may be made through internal work
restructuring before a decision to award contracts by
competition is reached.
The alternate service delivery program provides means for
consultation and the fair participation of all stakeholders,
including management, employees, unions, industry, local
communities and other federal departments.
In the case of initiatives that could lead to staff reductions,
the Department of National Defence and the Canadian armed forces
will discuss the potential impact of the reductions planned with
union leaders and the employees affected.
In such cases, arrangements will be made to ensure that the new
employer hires department employees preferentially, and
employees not offered jobs will be offered separation packages
or a new position within the public service under the workforce
adjustment directive.
1850
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March 26, 1998, here in the House, I asked
why the federal government did not put additional money into the
transitional jobs fund in order to put more money into the
resource regions.
In the three months that followed, that is April, May and June
1998, $100 million less was paid out in employment insurance in
the Lower St. Lawrence region than in the same months of 1992.
It was as if a decision had been made to break the agreement
that had more or less been in place in Canada, that the resource
regions would produce and manage the natural resources and ship
them out to the major centres, where industry would process
them. The people in the resource regions would get financial
compensation, such as employment insurance, to allow them to
have a decent standard of living.
Since the employment insurance reforms, that compensation has
been taken away from those working in primary sector industries,
without giving them the possibility of diversifying their
regional economy.
Our question addressed this, and is still pertinent today. Is
the government going to decide to put more money into the
transitional jobs fund, which is financed from the government's
day-to-day funds and not from the employment insurance fund?
That money could be used to implement projects in our regional
economies. For example, those who work in seasonal industries
such as tourism, logging and agriculture, would then have an
opportunity to develop projects and businesses, to promote
winter tourism, to process wood or to expand the milk processing
industry in their own communities. In other words, they could
benefit from the annual surplus collected by the government as a
result of the reduction in EI benefits. With revenues totalling
some $19 billion and $12 billion being paid in benefits, the
government ends up with a $7 billion surplus.
Would it not be possible for the federal government to find some
way to put money back into the transitional job creation fund,
so as to allow our regions to benefit from that fund, to
diversify their regional economies and to reduce their
dependency on employment insurance?
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have stated over and over
again, the central pillar of this government's mandate is
employment growth. In the last four years, over one million full
time jobs have been created in the private sector with more than
370,000 being created in 1997 alone. The unemployment rate is
lower than it has been since 1991 and our commitment is not about
to change now.
The transitional jobs fund was introduced in 1996 to help
individuals and communities of high unemployment areas adjust to
EI reform. Projects approved to date are expected to create over
31,000 sustainable jobs. However, a transitional program cannot
be extended indefinitely, especially without a thorough
evaluation which is currently underway.
In the meantime, through labour market development agreements
with the provinces employment insurance continues to offer active
measures to help the unemployed re-enter the workforce. Examples
include targeted wage subsidies, earning supplements, employment
assistance services as well as other benefits and support
measures. The 1998 budget also sets aside money to promote
employment for young Canadians as well as youth at risk through
EI premium holidays and the youth services Canada program.
I take the hon. member's comment and I reiterate that this
government is committed to employment growth. The transitional
jobs fund is under review. After that review is completed a
decision will surely be made.
Since the hon. member talked about the surplus in the EI
account, I reiterate that back in 1986 the auditor general
required the government of the time to consolidate the EI account
into general revenues. So those moneys are going directly into
consolidated revenues and are certainly being used for what are
Canadian priorities.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.)