36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 95
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 11, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| HEALTH
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1010
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1015
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1020
1025
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1030
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1035
1040
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Transport
|
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1045
| PETITIONS
|
| Nuclear Disarmament
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Statutes of Canada
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Post-1901 Census
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Rights and Freedoms
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-16. Report stage
|
1050
| Mr. David Price |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1055
1100
| Division on Motion No. 6 deferred
|
1105
| Divisions deemed demanded and deferred
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1110
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1115
1120
| Mr. John Bryden |
1125
1130
| Mr. David Price |
1135
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1140
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1145
1150
| Division on motions in Group No. 4 deferred
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1155
1200
1205
| Amendment
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| Divisions on motions deferred
|
1210
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-18. Second reading
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1215
1220
1225
1230
| Motion
|
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1310
1315
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1335
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1340
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1345
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| LACHINE WHARF
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| NORTHWEST CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1400
| YOUTH
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| MANITOBA
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| SIERRA LEONE
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| CHILD SAFETY
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1405
| IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| BEN SOAVE
|
| Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
| CAMILLE MONTPETIT
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| WATERLOO REGIONAL CHILDREN'S MUSEUM
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1410
| TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| THE LATE ANDRÉ FORTIN
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| CYSTIC FIBROSIS
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| TEACHING EXCELLENCE
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| STUDENT EXCHANGE
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1420
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1425
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1430
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1435
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1440
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| GREENHOUSE GAS
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1445
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1450
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| ATHABASCA RIVER
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| PAROLE
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1455
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| CAMILLE MONTPETIT
|
1500
1510
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1515
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| THE CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-18. Second reading
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1520
| Mr. René Canuel |
1525
1530
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1535
1540
1545
1550
1555
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1600
| Mr. René Laurin |
1605
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1625
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1630
1635
1640
1645
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1650
1655
1700
1705
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1710
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Mr. René Laurin |
1715
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1720
1725
1730
| Division on motion deferred
|
1735
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-33. Second reading
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1740
1745
1750
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
| Bill C-206. Second reading
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1755
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1800
1805
| Mr. David Chatters |
1810
1815
| Mr. John Richardson |
1820
1825
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1830
| Mr. David Pratt |
1835
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1840
1845
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1850
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Gasoline Prices
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
1855
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Importation of Plutonium
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1900
| Mr. John Maloney |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 95
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 11, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (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 six petitions.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today in the House to make a statement on the Government
of Canada's position following the adoption yesterday in Alberta
of bill 11, legislation that provides for the expansion of the
role of private for profit facilities in delivering surgical
services in that province.
Let me first put this issue into a broader context. We all know
that the time has come to strengthen and renew Canadian medicare.
Indeed, governments across the country accept that the status
quo is no longer an option. The Government of Canada recognizes
that it must do its part and is prepared to commit to long term
stable increases in funding to support a common plan and set of
priorities.
The improvements and the changes required can and must occur
within the context of our public medicare system. The principles
of the Canada Health Act are broad and flexible enough to allow
for innovation while building on the strengths of our single
payer system. It is clear from the reaction of the majority of
Albertans to bill 11 that they strongly agree. They know that we
need not imperil our principles in order to improve our
practices.
For our part, the Government of Canada, has repeatedly expressed
the view that bill 11 is not the direction in which we should be
heading to strengthen our publicly funded health care system. We
have grave reservations about investing public funds in private
for profit facilities, particularly where they offer services
that involve overnight stays.
[Translation]
I would like to reiterate for the House the concerns that I have
outlined to the Government of Alberta and the steps we plan to
take to safeguard the interests of Albertans, and all Canadians,
with regard to the principles of the Canada Health Act.
[English]
First, we have already informed the Government of Alberta that
surgical facilities as defined in bill 11 will be considered for
our purposes to be hospitals within the meaning of that term in
the Canada Health Act. The practical effect of what that means
is that any charges to patients or insured health services in
these facilities will be considered a violation of the Canada
Health Act. I want to make it clear that should that happen I
have the power required to fulfil my responsibilities as Minister
of Health and enforce the Canada Health Act in that regard.
On a second matter, we suggested some weeks ago to the
Government of Alberta that bill 11 be amended to reflect
legislation in Saskatchewan and Ontario that prohibits charging
for enhanced services in private for profit facilities. To
permit for profit facilities to sell enhanced services in
combination with insured services may create a circumstance that
represents a serious concern in relation to the principle of
accessibility in our health care system.
1010
The Government of Alberta has chosen not to make such an
amendment. We are therefore serving notice today that we will
monitor closely what may happen on the ground in private for
profit facilities permitted under Bill 11 to ensure that queue
jumping and other accessibility issues do not arise.
We are not singling out Alberta, but we will ensure compliance
with the Canada Health Act in Alberta as in any other province.
If violations of the Canada Health Act occur we have the
authority to act and we will do so.
[Translation]
Let me say a word about the way in which the Government of
Canada is permitted to enforce the principles of the Canada
Health Act. We cannot withhold funds based only on a suspicion
that practices might develop under the bill that might
contravene the Canada Health Act.
The process to be followed is clearly outlined in the CHA. A
case must be built; concrete evidence must be collected and
shared with the province in question; efforts must be made to
resolve the conflict and, should that fail, then funds will be
withheld.
We will continue to work openly and transparently with all
provinces, in accordance with our social union framework
commitments.
[English]
On the subject of Canada Health Act compliance, the auditor
general has recently expressed his view that Health Canada does
not have the capacity to enforce its responsibilities under that
act. I am therefore immediately allocating an additional $4
million to an existing budget of $1.5 million annually to
monitor, assess and ensure compliance with the Canada Health Act.
As a result, Health Canada will have increased staff across the
country to monitor compliance with the act's principles and
conditions and to develop a capacity to investigate potential
non-compliance issues and to assess the facts.
The message of the Government of Canada today is clear. We
intend to meet our responsibilities to protect public medicare in
this country. The health care system does not belong to
governments or to political parties, it belongs to Canadians.
Parliament has given us the tools to enforce the Canada Health
Act. Canadians expect us to use those tools when necessary to
protect our principles. I will make certain that those
principles are respected in Alberta and throughout the country.
Let me close by saying that while we are prepared to act if
there are violations, I also hope that we do not reach that
point.
I began by saying that the time has come to renew and strengthen
public medicare in Canada. That is a process that will require
collaboration and co-operation among all governments. In the
last analysis, we will not preserve medicare simply by enforcing
rules. We will do so by renewing our common commitment toward
its principles and objectives. That involves, among other
things, the proper level of funding, including appropriate
funding from the Government of Canada.
I will devote my efforts in the weeks and months ahead toward
building a constructive working relationship with Alberta and
other provinces focusing on the creativity and innovation that
will be required if we are to preserve for all Canadians what
they cherish most, a strong public health care system.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with interest to the statement by the health minister.
His rhetoric was excellent. He talked about co-operation. He
talked about protecting the Canada Health Act. He has made the
statement over and over that the status quo is not good enough. I
would like to go over a few of the objective facts which I do not
think the minister mentioned. He probably would not like them
mentioned in this forum.
1015
In 1993 health and education transfers to the provinces were
$18.8 billion. That was when the Liberals took office. Today in
2000 they are $15.5 billion, and they went down to as low as
$12.5 billion. Most important are statistics regarding per
capita spending under health, which under the federal Liberals
has dropped. That comes directly from the health institute. We
have dropped from number two in health care spending in the
world. We are now number five and dropping. Those statistics
are not up to date. They are about three years old.
The private share of health in Canada when the Liberals took
power was 27%. It is now over 30%. Fewer procedures are covered
under medicare today compared to 1993. Public confidence in
health care today is at the lowest level in Canadian history. The
final and probably the worst issue is that the waiting lists in
Canada are longer today than they have ever been.
I am optimistic about health care because I do not believe
Canadians will let health care be lost. Even some high profile
Liberals have come out lately and said that the status quo was
not enough. They are not willing to leave it at a statement like
that. I do not agree with this, but Tom Kent said that user fees
might be necessary in Canada.
What is the Liberal response to the bill in Alberta, a place
where I practised medicine for 25 years? More health police,
that is the commitment. More threats, that is the commitment.
More protection of the system instead of the patient.
I should like to spend just a brief minute on bill 11. It is a
very tentative step toward innovation, a very modest step. I
believe that provinces which try to innovate, try to improve
waiting lines, and try to bring in fresh new thinking should be
rewarded rather than threatened.
What would I do if I were the health minister in this case? I
would say to Alberta, if I did not agree with bill 11, that it
has two years to prove that the bill will do something. Alberta
believes that this bill will shorten waiting lines. Can we
measure the waiting lines today and can we measure them in two
years? If bill 11 reduces waiting lines in Alberta, I would
reward the province. I would give it a big pat on the back.
The Liberal government will not be judged by its rhetoric. It
will be judged by its actions. What should the government do? I
should like to be constructive in this regard. Funding should
not be covered in a big Canada health and social transfer, but
federal funding should be specific for health so that every
Canadian could judge whether or not the funding was appropriate.
There should be a growth factor for inflation and for population
growth.
I said before that we should reward provinces that reduce waits.
Would I have health police to monitor how Alberta is doing? No,
I would let the citizens of Alberta decide whether or not their
provincial government was looking after medicare in the way they
felt was appropriate.
I direct this comment to the health minister. I would beg the
health minister to put the patient first rather than the system.
If he will do that, medicare will survive.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to begin by stating that the intervention by the Minister of
Health is, at the very least, paradoxical.
Here we have a minister proposing the addition of $4 million
extra to hire more staff for inspection and monitoring purposes
relating to the enforcement of the Canada Health Act. The five
principles set out in that act include universality,
portability, and public funding, as we are entitled to expect
for public services.
At the same time, the federal government is not fulfilling its
part of the contract as far as health is concerned. Take Quebec
for example.
As we speak, the federal government contributes a little over 20
cents, 22 to be exact, of every dollar invested in health.
1020
Yet when the public plans were set up in the 1960s, the federal
government committed to a 50% contribution. On a number of
occasions, all provincial premiers have demanded that this
government re-establish transfer payments to their 1993-94 level.
As a party, we do not subscribe to the reflex of privatization
of certain provinces. Thank heavens, the Government of Quebec
is very far removed from such a desire for privatization.
It is our profound belief that governments have the
responsibility to use public funds and public resources to put
into place a generous, universal, accessible health system, one
which meets the needs of our fellow citizens, particularly in
today's context, with not just the elderly but also another
group more advanced in age, the old elderly, and with people
wanting to remain in their natural communities as long as
possible.
We are forced to see a connection between the fact that this
government has cut transfer payments to the provinces and the
fact that that the provinces did not always get their share of
the resources they were entitled to expect from it in order to
keep the system viable.
How can the minister be surprised at this point? How can the
minister play wounded innocent? How can he be so hypocritical
today as to oppose this in the role of defender of the public
health system, when he himself is not fulfilling his part of the
contract?
I say to the minister that we are prepared to go along with him
in certain instances, such as the case of smoking, where we do
not want young people to be the primary victims of inadequate
information when their health is concerned. But we will go
after this minister to get him to assume his responsibilities
and reinstate the transfer payments at their 1993-94 level.
It is not surprising today, since the federal government has
failed to honour its part of the contract, that certain
provinces are tempted to privatize.
We might have wished that, in addition to announcing the
increase in staff for inspection work, what we might call the
health police, the government would assume its share of the
responsibility.
In terms of transfer payments, for Quebec alone, $1.4 billion has
been cut in health care. If the Minister of Health is serious
and concerned about the integrity of the public health care
systems, his first responsibility is to rise in this House and
say that he will lead the battle in Cabinet to have the transfer
payments returned and that he will deliver the money he owes the
provinces.
For Quebec alone, the figure of $500 million is at issue
annually, for health care alone. That is the equivalent of
Quebec's entire budget for home care, and about half the budget
for the CLSCs.
If the minister wants to have some credibility, if he wants
opposition parties to work with him, if he wants to be a
respected voice in the health sector, his number one
responsibility is to support the provinces, which are urging him
to be a strong voice within cabinet and demand that transfer
payments be restored. That is the minister's primary
responsibility, and I hope that he will work on that in the
coming days.
It is all too easy to be concerned about what is going on in the
provinces. It is all too easy to want to encroach.
The minister sent a letter to the Standing Committee on Health
asking us to set up a national mental health strategy. What
business does the federal government have with mental health?
Read the letter sent to us by the minister. He wants a national
mental health strategy. But this area does not come under his
jurisdiction. Let us not be hypocrites.
It is all too easy to be concerned about the provinces violating
the law, considering that in 1966 the government itself, as a
partner, pledged to contribute 50% to health care programs, but
does not do so. It is all too easy to be concerned like that.
1025
I do not expect this minister to be a tormented soul, but like
all my Bloc Quebecois colleagues and, I am sure, all the
opposition members, I do expect him to loosen the purse strings,
resist the temptation to set up new national programs, avoid any
future encroachment and assume his responsibilities, which are
to restore health transfer payments to their 1993-94 level.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
with a profound sense of sadness that I rise today to address the
remarks of the Minister of Health. It is ironic and
disappointing in the extreme that I am responding to remarks.
Since bill 11 was unveiled last fall on November 17, to be
exact, the Minister of Health has offered nothing but remarks on
how the bill is bad policy, remarks on how he wanted Ralph Klein
to withdraw the bill, and remarks on how important it is to
protect our public accessible health care system. Today, as the
biggest threat ever to medicare has now passed into law, what is
the government's response? More remarks.
On November 17, 1999, the NDP called for action. The minister's
response at the time was “The proposals that came from Alberta
arrived today. We are looking at them”. On December 13, 1999,
the NDP called for action. The minister's response was “We will
react to it as soon as we have completed our examination”. On
March 2 the NDP called for action. The minister's response was
“We are awaiting tabling of the legislation later today”. On
March 15 the NDP called for action. The minister's response was
“We have yet to see the regulations”. Again on Tuesday the NDP
called for action. The minister's response was “We will monitor
what happens”.
Today is an historic day, a sad day, a shameful day, a day when
Canada's health minister has said that a parallel for profit
health care system can proceed.
[Translation]
It is a day when the Minister of Health has said that a hospital
can exist and operate on a for-profit basis.
An hon. member: Unbelievable.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: He has said that our country is now one
where the wealthy can get health care ahead of the less wealthy.
[English]
He said that the content of bill 11 is not bad, not a problem,
but that there may be dangers in its implementation. This is
the minister's ticket into the history books because according to
his own words private for profit hospitals are not in and of
themselves bad.
Let us examine the facts. For months the minister said today
would be the day of action. Yet all we have is more talk, more
remarks about how he might act tomorrow. There is not a word on
his secret 12 point privatization deal with Alberta. There is
not a word on NAFTA's implication. There is not a word on his
own $24.7 billion in federal cuts that Ralph Klein uses as an
excuse. There is not one word on the fact that Ralph Klein
introduced bill 11 just two days after the federal Liberal budget
gave a mere two cents for health care for every dollar in tax
cuts.
It is clear the minister has dropped the ball, as my kids would
say, big time. We welcome today's long overdue announcement that
real enforcement of the Canada Health Act will finally begin, but
the fact is that on November 30, 1999, the NDP called for
enforcement of the Canada Health Act. The fact that the
government is finally paying for health care monitoring is not a
response to bill 11, because a real response to bill 11 would
take action. It would not just speak about the possibility of
taking action at some future date. A real response would be for
the minister not to be outsmarted by Ralph Klein.
If it is the minister's opinion that bill 11 complies with the
Canada Health Act, then amend the Canada Health Act to give it
the teeth needed to protect medicare.
1030
On April 12 the minister said that bill 11 imperils the
principle of accessibility. I would argue that it kills the
principles of accessibility but let us stick with the minister's
words. If it imperils medicare's foundation, then for heaven's
sake, take action. If the minister does not think he can take
action, then change the Canada Health Act to allow it.
[Translation]
This government has already amended the Canada Health Act. In
1995, section 6 was removed in order to allow greater
privatization. It could be amended again so as to prevent
greater privatization.
[English]
Instead the minister chooses to posture. It is posture because
the NDP raised existing violations of the Canada Health Act both
in Calgary and Montreal recently and the minister chose to do
nothing. It is posture because four years ago the last time a
Liberal health minister went to Alberta to supposedly save
medicare, we got a secret deal facilitating two tier and
privatization. It was a secret deal that paved the way for bill
11 today. If the minister had wanted to act, he could have
cancelled that secret deal.
It is astounding that the minister still has not tabled and
today did not even mention a single legal opinion on the NAFTA
implications of bill 11. He announced a medicare police force
but he ignored the fact that if NAFTA takes effect, the lawmaker
will not be him, the lawmaker will be an unelected, unaccountable
trade tribunal.
On November 26, 1999 the minister said “Bill 11 may run afoul
of provisions of NAFTA”. On April 12 the minister actually
boasted about raising with Alberta a definite problem with NAFTA.
On April 13 the minister said the situation was so serious that
two other ministries and their experts were studying the NAFTA
implications. We do not have these studies. The minister now
says that the Canadian right to regulate and protect our health
care system is not affected by NAFTA.
[Translation]
Where are the studies to support this brave statement? Where
are they?
[English]
Barry Appleton says that bill 11 loses our NAFTA exemption. His
study is public. The last time the Liberals said he was wrong,
they lost it at NAFTA. If the minister is saying Appleton is
wrong and he is right, where are the studies? Show us the
studies. If Appleton is right and the minister is wrong, he can
have a million cops to police medicare but a NAFTA tribunal can
overrule them all.
Today's statement by the minister does nothing to stop the
massive threat that bill 11 presents. It does nothing to stop
Mike Harris from doing his own bill 11, nothing to stop John Hamm
from doing the same, and nothing to stop Bernard Lord. Ralph
Klein's bill sadly is now law; it is unchanged, it will affect
Albertans and thanks to this minister, it will affect us all.
The minister's legacy and the Prime Minister's legacy will be the
destruction of medicare.
On behalf of the thousands of Albertans who bravely fought Ralph
Klein, I condemn the minister's cowardice. On behalf of millions
of Canadians, we will not forget.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, there is a crisis in health care and the blame for that
can be laid right at the door of the government and specifically
the health minister. The government has had seven years to do
something, seven years with not one single idea. If that is not
frightening in itself, just consider this. If the Liberals stay
in power until 2004, and hopefully they will not, but if they do,
the Liberal government will have surgically removed $30 billion
from health care alone.
1035
Given the fact that Ralph Klein and other premiers have had to
scramble, the question would be why not? They have had no
choice. Funding has been drastically reduced to the point where
the provinces are going to have to make up the shortfall. The
government has created this crisis.
The approach by the government has been ad hoc, making it up as
it goes along. The Liberal government has never had a plan and
it has been going on seven years without a plan. The health
minister should consider calling a national symposium on health
care with all of the stakeholders in one room. It should include
health care professionals, caregivers and doctors along with the
first ministers, the health ministers and most important, the
Prime Minister. Why has that not been done? The government has
conveniently blamed the provinces for the past seven years. That
approach is not going to work. It is going to cost the Liberal
Party its power. Canadians are not going to take any more. It
reminds me of the famous phrase, no ideas, no votes. The
government is devoid of ideas in the health care field.
The federal government has violated the five principles of the
Canada Health Act not to mention what the provincial governments
have done. Just to remind the health minister, the five
principles are a system that is accessible, universal,
comprehensive, portable and publicly funded. If the system is
not publicly funded as it has to be by the federal government,
what choice do the provinces have? The answer is simply no
choice.
I want to read into the record a couple of questions that my
leader, Joe Clark, had on this issue. These drive the point home
quite well. Why does the Liberal government not restore the
health care funding that was taken away without consultation
right now? Why does the Liberal government not restore the
stability of funding so that hospitals and health care
professionals and provinces can plan with some certainty?
Our party and our leader suggest that we need a sixth principle
in health care which would be stable, long term, sustainable
funding so the provinces know where they are going and what they
can do. Making it up as we go along is simply not good enough.
We are asking for leadership on this issue. We have had
absolutely no leadership from the minister or the government.
I read the minister's statement. What has he come up with? A
paltry $4 million for what is now called health care police. The
government is going to spend $4 million to peek around the
corners, lift up the carpets and find out what is going on within
the hospital system. Is that the best the government can do after
seven years? It is not good enough. I am suggesting that the
government immediately call together all the principal
stakeholders in the health care field and get to work to come up
with a long term sustainable plan.
The government has basically taken $30 billion out of the system
and downloaded it on the backs of the taxpayer. At the end of
the day where does that money go? What is done with it? Where
is the shortfall? Is it ever used? Does it show up? Of course
it does. The Liberals are bragging about balancing the books,
fiscal responsibility. It is fiscal responsibility on the backs
of the taxpayers. The government has no plan.
The U.S. system scares the heck out of Canadians and that system
is the way our system is headed if the Liberals stay in power.
The U.S. system is fueled by two things: litigation and insurance
companies. We do not want to see that happen here. Unfortunately
if the minister stays in his present job and the Liberal
government stays in power, that is exactly where we are headed.
1040
The provinces are scrambling to make up the difference. Examine
everything that has happened in Alberta and all the other
provinces. Incidentally, Alberta is not alone in this. In my
home province of New Brunswick, the private sector accounts for
about 35% of all spending. In Alberta it is slightly less than
that. The problem is not isolated in Alberta alone. It affects
all provinces and jurisdictions simply because the federal
government has refused to act on the number one issue or the
number one challenge in the minds of all Canadians. Young or
old, we are all suggesting that the federal government can do
more.
The underlying theme to our position is let us see the plan. The
Liberals have been here for seven years. The backbenchers love to
yak, but they are devoid of ideas themselves. They are nothing
more than lapdogs to the minister who has consistently done
nothing about this problem. If they have something constructive
to say, then they should get up on their hind legs and let us
hear them. They have not done a single thing. They are nothing
more than the peanut gallery. They are trained seals who prop up
the health minister whenever he needs it. Today is no exception.
Let them come across and we will give them some ideas. Let them
be brave enough to stand up on their hind legs and suggest what
some of those ideas might be.
We want leadership on this issue. Canadians are demanding
leadership. There has been no leadership. No ideas, no votes.
The jury is out. The Canadian public will decide whether the
Liberals have handled this file properly or not. I suggest they
have not.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Would there be a disposition in the House to return to tabling of
documents to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
for International Trade to table a government document?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to return
to tabling of documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 32(2) and 32(4), I would like to table in both official
languages the first ever trade report “Trade Update 2000”, the
annual report of Canada's state of trade.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour and duty to present in both official languages the
second report of the Standing Committee on Transport.
Pursuant to its order of reference of Tuesday, February 29,
2000, your committee has considered Bill C-26, an act to amend
the Canada Transportation Act, the Competition Act, the
Competition Tribunal Act and the Air Canada Public Participation
Act and to amend another act in consequence, and reports Bill
C-26 with amendments.
I would be remiss if I did not recognize the hard work of
certain people in the formulation of Bill C-26 and its
amendments. First, I would like to thank Guyanne Desforges, the
clerk of the Standing Committee on Transport and to John
Christopher and June Dewetering our researchers from the Library
of Parliament. I would also like to thank the Minister of
Transport, his staff and the officials of the Ministry of
Transport whose participation and co-operation with the committee
are greatly appreciated. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the
efforts of my colleagues from all parties in the House, the
members of the Standing Committee on Transport.
* * *
1045
PETITIONS
NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand on behalf
of my constituents today to present two petitions pursuant to
Standing Order 36.
The first petition is from a group of citizens in Macklin, which
is on the west side of my riding. They are quite concerned about
the nuclear capabilities of a lot of countries that really do not
seem to have the strength to handle that type of power in the
world. They, therefore, ask the Canadian government to look into
the situation.
STATUTES OF CANADA
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the
supremacy of God. The petitioners would like the supremacy of
God to remain in the statutes of Canada. They are very concerned
that the government is softening its stance in that regard.
POST-1901 CENSUS
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition not
signed by 100 Canadians, not signed by 3,000 Canadians, but
signed by 6,000 Canadians. The petitioners call for the release
of the post-1901 census records after a reasonable period of time
has passed.
The census records are a tremendous resource for more than 7.5
million citizens who are currently engaged in family research.
The post-1901 census records contain facts about the everyday
lives of average Canadians. They tell about Canada's collective
past, present and future. These records are not only the
reference point for descendants of many immigrants wishing to
trace their heritage, they are also an essential tool for
genealogists everywhere.
Therefore, the petitioners ask parliament to amend the
Statistics Act to allow for the public release of the post-1901
census records.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to present a petition on behalf of hundreds
of people from the Lakeland constituency, mostly from the Cold
Lake area.
The petitioners are extremely upset with the inaction of the
government regarding child pornography. They ask that parliament
deal with the issue of pornography by using section 33 of the
charter of rights and freedoms to invoke the notwithstanding
clause to override the B.C. court decision which legalized
pornography.
I fully support this petition.
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have about 750 signatures of individuals who call to
the attention of parliament the rights of freedom of religion and
freedom of conscience. They ask for protection for health care
workers, and those seeking training for careers in the health
care sector, who have been stripped of those rights.
They call upon parliament to enact legislation against such
violations of conscience rights by administrators in medical
facilities and educational institutions.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is related to Bill C-23. These
citizens of Canada lament its passage, but it is still not too
late as it is now being studied by the Senate.
The petitioners want us to affirm the opposite sex definition of
marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as
having been a unique institution of great good to society
historically. They want that to be recognized by the Parliament
of Canada to the good of our nation.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have a third petition. These petitioners ask for the
removal of the head tax. They say that it is a discriminatory
tax and should not be imposed. They want it to be withdrawn.
The petitioners think it is contradictory and does not protect
the rights of immigrants coming to our country, particularly
those who are destitute.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 102 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 102—Mr. Leon E. Benoit:
Which of the groups the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration consulted with during the
period from February 27, 1998, through March 11, 1998 inclusive
regarding the legislative review ministerial consultations, have
received government issued grants and/or subsidies, and of those:
(a) what was the total grant/subsidy; (b) the reason for the
grant/subsidy; and (c) which government department issued the
grant/subsidy?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): With regard to each of the groups consulted by the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration during the period from
February 27, 1998 through to March 11, 1998, the following
received contribution funds (Citizenship and Immigration Canada,
CIC, does not provide grants or subsidies to organizations) in
fiscal year 1997-98* under one or more of CIC's settlement
programs or services: Immigrant settlement and Adaptation
Program, ISAP, which provides a variety of settlement services to
immigrants, such as orientation, community information,
interpretation/translation, para-professional counseling,
employment-related services; Language Instruction for Newcomers
to Canada, LINC, which provides training in one of Canada's
official languages to adult immigrants; the Host Program which
matches immigrants to Canadians who help them with various
aspects of life in Canada; and Reception House, RH, which
provides temporary accomodation to government assisted refugees.
Organizations in Quebec do not receive contribution funds from
CIC. As per the Canada-Quebec accord, the province of Quebec
assumes responsibility for providing settlement services.
*Contribution agreements are signed for a total amount which
covers the duration of the agreement. As the period of time for
which the funding information was requested does not coincide
with the periods covered by the contribution agreements, we are
unable to give dollar figures for the exact period requested by
the hon. member.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that
because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be
extended by 36 minutes.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed from May 10 consideration of Bill C-16, an act
respecting Canadian citizenship, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee; and of Group No. 3.
1050
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the Group No. 3
amendments to Bill C-16, the citizenship bill.
Motion No. 6 refers to the review committee and the appointment
by the governor in council of retired judges. The amendment asks
that opposition parties have a real say. In other words, the
opposition parties should have the chance to consent, not simply
for the government to consult them, as happens most of the time.
We hear about what is going on, but in the end it ends up being a
partisan appointment, hopefully of a qualified person, but that
is not always the case.
Granted this position will be rarely used, since it would only
be in the case where the review committee cannot come to a
decision. I will be supporting this motion.
Motion No. 7, concerning clause 31, is an amendment that is
totally logical. It states:
“(1.1) The Governor in Council shall not appoint a person who
has been convicted of an offence under section 39 or 40 as a
Citizenship Commissioner.”
It seems so logical that I wonder why it has to be there.
However, with the cases we have seen in the past it is probably a
good idea.
Motion No. 8, referring to clause 32, is again an amendment that
would give some input to the Standing Committee on Citizenship
and Immigration. In a good democracy that is the way it should
be.
Motions Nos. 15 to 20, referring to clause 43, would bring the
work on regulations back to the committee and the House. I
agree, and that should be adopted also.
Motion No. 21 comes back to what all opposition parties have
been saying probably forever, that the committees concerned
should have a real and positive input, especially after all the
time that is spent in committees reviewing, interviewing
witnesses and doing their best to get the views of ordinary
Canadians. The committees have to be more involved.
I will be supporting all of the motions in Group No. 3.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to address the motions in Group No. 3, put forward by
various parties seeking to amend Bill C-16.
I think it is worthwhile to start by pointing out what a great
level of community interest there has been in Bill C-16 and the
issue of citizenship. When the bill was first introduced as Bill
C-63, over 37 groups and organizations made representations
before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I
would say there was an overwhelming amount of public interest
demonstrated by Canadians who feel very passionately about the
whole concept of citizenship.
I believe the reason these people were so motivated is because
the whole idea of being a citizen of Canada hearkens to the idea
of national pride, of being part of something great, like the
country of Canada, where the sum of the parts is greater than the
whole.
What we saw was a great outpouring of emotion. These people
said to the committee, to the House of Commons, that when we
amend the citizenship and immigration legislation we must ensure
that the changes reflect accurately how much we value our
citizenship, not just as a right, but also the duties,
obligations and responsibilities that come with citizenship.
1055
We found it necessary to move many amendments to Bill C-63, the
predecessor to Bill C-16, and we were pleased when most of the
recommendations, amendments and details that we found necessary
to raise were incorporated into Bill C-16. In fact, the NDP
caucus is now satisfied that Bill C-16 accurately reflects what
Canadians told us. The changes we asked for were incorporated
into the new bill, so we were quite pleased to see the new Bill
C-16 in its current form. It is something that we can support as
it goes through the House. In fact we hope for its speedy
passage.
I note, though, that many of my colleagues in opposition parties
and even some on the Liberal side are moving amendments. Group
No. 3 deals with six or seven different clusters of amendments.
I will comment on some of them and point out whether our caucus
will be able to support them.
Motion No. 6 we would support. It was put forward by the
immigration critic for the Canadian Alliance and it simply seeks
to have all appointments ratified by parliament. Appointments of
citizenship judges or any other type of appointment made by order
in council should really come to parliament or at least to the
standing committee where parliamentarians, elected officials, can
approve and ratify those appointments. It is something that most
Canadians would support and our party recommends supporting the
motion.
Motion No. 7 seeks to amend the legislation so that a person
cannot be a citizenship commissioner if that person has been
convicted of the crime of defrauding immigration or smuggling or
trafficking people, or any type of crime under the Citizenship
Act. This is only common sense. I would like to think that the
powers that be would have come to that conclusion already without
having it stated in legislation. I cannot imagine anyone
appointing a citizenship commissioner who had been convicted of
fraud under the Citizenship Act. We support that amendment put
forward by the Canadian Alliance as well.
Motion No. 8 states that the standing committee must approve the
appointment of citizenship commissioners. Again we support this
idea. We believe that there is a role for the standing committee
to ratify and approve appointments to ensure that these
appointments are not some kind of political patronage and to
ensure that the right people occupy these important positions.
Motion No. 15 is clustered into this group as well. We oppose
this motion put forward by the Canadian Alliance. We believe
that either there was a typographical error or it simply makes no
sense. The words “alternative” and “affirmative” seem to be
mixed up in the way it is written. It is absolute gibberish and
not worthy of anybody's support. It was either an error or the
drafters were deliberately putting it forward as some kind of
nuisance motion.
Motions Nos. 16, 17 and 18 are similar in nature.
We support Motion No. 20. I would rather dwell on the motions
that we see fit to support rather than oppose because I think
that warrants more comment. This motion, again put forward by
the Canadian Alliance, would allow the governor in council to
define public interest for the purposes of the act. It would
actually mandate the governor in council to define what is meant
by public interest. There is a whole section of articles
regarding public interest in the act and we believe that it does
need further clarification, for transparency if nothing else. It
could be that lawyers can glean from the current act what the
intent of the act is in terms of public interest, but we see no
harm in further clarifying that definition so that the general
public can also easily and readily see what is truly meant by
that term.
1100
We see that Motion No. 21 is also clustered into Group No. 3. We
support this motion. Some of the things raised by my colleague
in the Canadian Alliance are legitimate points of view that would
improve and enhance the act. This particular motion seeks to
make the standing committee responsible for the approving of any
regulations that pertain to fixing fees for any services offered
by the department, whether it is citizenship papers or whatever.
We believe the standing committee should have a role in setting
fees. It is the opinion of our party that the fees are far to
onerous currently.
We would like the opportunity to bring forward at the committee
level that the fees should be adjusted and adjusted down. It is
the same as the hated head tax. We should abolish the head tax
on all immigrants and refugees. We note that the government has
seen fit to listen to us and has recently abolished the head tax
on refugees. However it has not abolished the other service
charges associated with being a refugee. It has abolished the
$975 head tax but it has not abolished the many other fees which
add up to more than $500.
I think that Motion No. 21, which would give the standing
committee the opportunity to have some input into the fixing of
any fee schedule, would be very appropriate.
I want to raise a point that I think has not been raised enough
in the House of Commons. The whole concept of citizenship is
tied directly to the whole concept of the nation state obviously.
We are proud to be Canadian citizens because of the borders that
define our geographic country.
The whole concept of the nation state, democracy and citizenship
are intertwined in an inexorable way. We believe that all three
of those things are jeopardized by the globalization of capital
and the demise of the nation state in that free trade agreements
do not recognize borders. Capital does not recognize borders.
The free movement of goods, services and capital ignores borders
and often ignores freely elected governments.
I raise, as a cautionary note, that as we give more and more
international authority to the WTO, to the MAI, to NAFTA and to
liberalized trade agreements, we diminish the authority that
citizens enjoy in their democracy within their nation state. I
think there is a growing awareness of this issue. We saw the
battle in Seattle recently where young people were raising this
very point. They were sounding the alarm that they would not
tolerate this idea of diminishing democracy by diminishing the
nation state and the citizen's role in controlling their own
economic sovereignty.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 6. 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 Motion No. 6
stands deferred.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Discussions have taken place between all parties and I
think you will find agreement, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7),
to defer the recorded divisions if requested on report stage of
Bill C-16 until the end of Government Orders on Tuesday, May 16,
2000.
The Deputy Speaker: We have not reached the end of the
deferrals yet. That may or may not happen today. Does the hon.
member want to move her motion now or does she want to wait until
we have completed all the groups? We still have Groups Nos. 4
and 5 to do.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, a recorded division
has just been requested. I suppose we can do it en masse at the
end for any that are requested.
1105
The Deputy Speaker: As long as the hon. member is going
to be here, perhaps we could leave it until we have completed
Groups No. 4 and 5. Once the motions in those groups have been
deferred, I will be able to defer them further. This might be
more convenient.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, there may be a way to
speed things up on this bill. When no other member rises to
speak to any of these groups, the question would be deemed put
and a division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday at the
end of Government Orders.
If there is unanimous consent, we could speed through this
relatively quickly. We would not have to do the standing and the
yeaing and the naying. We could just assume they are all
deferred and divisions requested.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that divisions have been
deemed demanded and deferred on each of the motions in Group No.
3 and that the same will happen when we get to Groups No. 4 and
5?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Once we get to the end of Group No.
5, the recorded divisions will take place on Tuesday, May 16 at
the conclusion of Government Orders. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: We will now move to Group No. 4. I will
remind hon. members that the motions in Group No. 4 have already
been put to the House.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the member from Winnipeg for pointing
out a typographical error in one of the motions in the last
grouping. The word “alternative” appears in the phrase
“alternative resolution”. It should read “affirmative
resolution”. In all the similar resolutions it was written as
“affirmative”.
The way this was organized by the government, report stage was
scheduled to come up next week. We found out on Tuesday
afternoon, a couple of hours before the deadline for submitting
resolutions, that the government had bumped report stage up to
Wednesday afternoon. At the same time, the Minister for
Citizenship and Immigration was in committee, where many of us
expected we could speak to the report stage motions. Because of
that rush, we did not see the error. I thank the member for
pointing it out. I hope the error can be corrected as it would
be consistent with the other motions presented.
We are dealing with only two motions in Group No. 4, Motion No.
9, presented by the Bloc critic, and Motion No. 23, presented by
a Liberal member.
The Bloc motion suggests that along with the citizenship
certificate given out at the ceremony, there would be some
information from the Government of Quebec given out as well. It
is really interesting that we have a party, which wants Quebec to
separate from Canada and wants more authority given to the Quebec
government, that is now asking the federal government to
intervene and ensure that it can hand out this information with
the certificates.
The province can decide in any way it wants and in any form it
wants to hand out this information if it feels it is something
its citizens need to have. It really does not make any sense at
all having that included in this bill. I know I certainly will
not be supporting this motion. It really does not make any
sense.
What we are talking about in this bill is Canadian citizenship,
something that most Canadians value very deeply. I would also
suggest that it is something most Canadians from Quebec value at
a very high level.
When we have a citizenship ceremony, we should be accepting
certificates that we can proudly display indicating that we are
citizens of Canada. I therefore cannot support the motion.
1110
Motion No. 23, which was presented by a Liberal MP, calls for a
change to the proposed new citizenship oath. I do not have any
particular disagreement with the oath that is in the bill. What
is really wrong is the process. How many Canadians were ever
asked to take part in developing the oath? The minister said
that there were some. I would like to ask Canadians if they were
asked to take part. I know I was not.
I do not believe the oath is the real issue. The member is
proposing an alternative oath but I do not think it is any
better. In fact, it is less acceptable and does not fix the
problem. The government thinks it can present an oath that has
had no support or input from Canadians. I think the member is
taking the same position. He, as a government member, seems to
think he knows better than Canadians what should be in the oath.
It really is the process that is at issue here. I certainly will
not be supporting this motion. I do not think it improves the
oath nor does it improve the process.
The Deputy Speaker: I apologize to the two members who
moved motions. I assumed there was a Reform motion in the group.
It was my mistake.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will, if I
may, read Motion No. 9 moved by the Bloc Quebecois. Perhaps the
Canadian Alliance member will really understand the impact and
the concept of citizenship that the Bloc Quebecois is trying to
defend.
(2.1) The Commissioner presiding over a citizenship ceremony
shall, during the ceremony and in the presence of a
representative of the Government of Quebec, give to every new
citizen residing in Quebec a copy of the following documents and
an explanation of their purpose:
(i) the Charter of the French Language (R.S.Q., c. C-11);
(ii) the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (R.S.Q., c. C-12);
(iii) the Election Act (R.S.Q., c. E-3.3); and
(iv) the Declaration by the Government of Quebec on Ethnic and
Race Relations, signed on December 10, 1986.
Why are we asking that new Canadian citizens be given these
documents?
There exists naturally, and we would agree with this, a
citizenship which, by definition, is a legal citizenship, one
which is granted to members of a political community, with
civic, political and social rights.
There is also a citizenship that is part of a political
community, with rights and obligations as well, which enables
citizens to establish relations with one another. We all agree
with this civic and legal definition of citizenship.
What we are proposing here is to extend this citizenship. We
fundamentally believe that citizenship can and should be based
on a collective identity that would not be built solely on
rights and responsibilities but could also incorporate concepts
such as the potential for citizens to exercise those rights and
responsibilities.
1115
This might involve giving people, through all sorts of tools and
documents that we have created, a chance to take part in Quebec
social and collective life. We also believe that this
citizenship should include the possibility for all citizens to
become fully integrated into a community.
What we are proposing is a new type of citizenship based on
notions of inclusion, pluralism and openness, and of course on
notions that would be unifying and open.
What we are calling for is for citizenship not to exist only in
legal terms, but to be more widely recognized and included in
the bill, through this clause and this amendment.
We believe that the amendment we are proposing today should gain
support from both those in favour of one big Canada and those
fighting for a sovereign Quebec, which would control its own
destiny. This amendment stems from a legacy, a consensus and a
recognition of the fact that there is a common public culture
particular to Quebec. This culture is the most important spur to
action at our disposal to take up the challenge of the
integration of new Quebecers. This common public culture defines
the way and the method by which the citizens who chose to settle
in Quebec can and must participate to the public life.
Personally, I do not think I am mistaken when I say this culture
is comprised of three major components, three major lines of
force at the heart of Quebec society. What are they? First, it
is a society where French is the common public language.
It is a democratic society where participation and contribution
of all people are expected and promoted. This democratic
participation is recognized and guaranteed by the Loi sur les
droits et libertés de la personne, which has the value of a
charter.
It is also a pluralistic society that, although having rejected
multiculturalism, remains definitely open to numerous
contributions from the outside, within limits imposed by the
respect of democratic values and the need for intercommunity
sharing.
In the name of this common public culture, which is exclusive to
Quebec, and the development of French society, whose destiny is
so special in America, we ask the federal government to agree to
this amendment, which is not only moved by the Bloc Quebecois,
but which also has been supported by a number of members of the
Quebec community and society.
This amendment has already received, in the context of
consideration of Bill C-63, the support of a number of
stakeholders. I am talking, among others, of the Haitian
Christian community of Quebec, which supported the Bloc
amendment during consideration of Bill C-63.
I believe this expresses the will of Quebecers to belong to a
society that is open to the world, pluralistic and able to
protect citizens' democratic freedoms and rights.
Our belief in this fundamental values is what prompted us to
create the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. It is
precisely our fundamental belief in democracy which moved us to
create the Quebec Election Act. It is our belief that pluralism
is one of the fundamental values to integration which led the
Government of Quebec to issue its declaration on interethnic
relations.
What we are calling for today is for the fundamental values of
Quebec society, which are characterized by and set out in
certain very specific documents, to be handed out to new
citizens.
1120
As for Motion No. 23, it is rather odd that my colleague from
Wentworth—Burlington would submit such a proposal. His motion
reads as follows:
In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among
Canadians, a people united in God—
I would remind hon. members of the basic values and concepts to
which I have already referred. These are values of openness and
pluralism. Nothing must be done that would exclude a group of
people who do not believe in God, who do not belong to that
community.
In my opinion, this is fundamental. And the notions of
inclusion, of pluralism must be included in this bill. I fear
that Motion No. 23 would really exclude a number of citizens who
do not have such belief in God.
My party will vote against Motion No. 23. Needless to say, my
colleagues will support Motion No. 9 proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois.
Regarding this motion, I thought it was important to recall the
fundamental values enshrined in official instruments passed by
Quebec's national assembly. This was done simply to inform new
Canadian citizens of the democratic, pluralistic values specific
to Quebec's society. These values were accepted unanimously by
Quebecers.
Let us inform new citizens of their democratic rights. Let us
inform them of their rights and freedoms.
Let us allow them to understand clearly that we belong to a
French speaking society established in America. The French
speaking community in Quebec accounts for 2% of the population
of the North American continent. We have expressed our desire to
develop and to prosper in French.
Quebec's charter of rights and freedoms shows that. We want new
Canadian citizens to know about it.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am speaking to Motion No. 23 which would change the
oath of citizenship as it is in the current bill to another
version.
I have to correct the member for Lakeland. The second version
that I will read presently is very much a version that was
created in this parliament in answer to the fact that after
extensive consultation with Canadians the government failed to
listen to what Canadians were saying about their oath of
citizenship and continued with an oath that is essentially the
very same British oath that has been with this country since the
expulsion of the Acadians in the mid-1750s.
I will read the oath that is in the bill now. Then I will read
the oath that I propose. The oath that is in the bill now says:
From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to
Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I
promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to uphold
our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil
my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.
To repeat, this is a direct descendant of the British oath that
began two centuries ago. This is in its tone and content an oath
that is not born in Canada.
After all the consultation that occurred—I was on the
citizenship committee in 1994-95—we received many, many
Canadians and many, many ethnic groups that spoke about the
current oath and made suggestions. The citizenship committee
cycled through this discussion yet again just a couple of years
ago and the government did extensive studies. All said that the
oath containing the allegiance to the Queen was no longer
something that resonated with current Canadians, much less with
those new Canadians who come to our country and have to take this
oath.
1125
When the citizenship bill was first presented to parliament last
year as Bill C-63, and we saw this oath that I just read, a
number of us on this side were scandalized. We were absolutely
scandalized. Right here the member from Brampton West on this
side and the member from Dufferin—Peel—Wellington, we put our
heads together and we wrote a new version of the oath based on
what we believe in our heart of hearts as parliamentarians is
what Canada is all about and based also on what we heard people
tell the citizenship committee over three years.
What we came up with is an oath that has three components. It
eliminates reference to the Queen. It restores reference to God
and it attempts to summarize the principles that are contained in
the charter of rights and freedoms which I believe are the
principles that motivate Canadians and describe our unique
identity. The oath that we came up with, and I will read it now,
is this:
In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among
Canadians, a people united by God whose sacred trust is to uphold
these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of
speech, democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of law.
I propose to deal with each of those three elements and first
the Queen. One of the themes that came out of the hearings on
citizenship that was absolutely consistent was that people come
from all over the world to Canada and when they come to swear an
oath of citizenship to Canada they cannot understand the
reference to the Queen. In fact the government's own opinion
polls find that most new Canadians coming to Canada cannot
understand the reference to the Queen.
The Queen is a foreign monarch. It is certainly true the
monarchy has a role in Canadian society in terms of our legal
entity and our functions as parliament and eliminating the
reference to the Queen, as the Australians did in 1993, in no way
affects our parliamentary traditions or the operation of this
parliament or the governor general or anything else.
The reality is, as we heard in testimony, that many people come
to Canada from other lands in which they associate the British
monarchy with slavery. Indeed I point out that the original oath
of allegiance that was required of francophones, of French
Canadians and of Acadians, was required in 1755 and when they
failed to swear allegiance to the monarchy of the time the
Acadians were expelled. They were taken out of Nova Scotia and
scattered down the coast of the United States.
[Translation]
I think most Acadians would now refuse to take an oath
containing a reference to the monarchy, because of this dark
period in our history.
[English]
What are we doing having the Queen, the monarchy, in an oath
that describes Canada when we are inviting these people to
Canada? I think what I am saying here is that the Queen no
longer captures the spirit of what it is to be Canadian. In fact
in the context of an oath of citizenship I wonder whether the
Queen ever did.
I do not think it is out of place to eliminate the Queen from
the oath of citizenship. I think when we do so we repatriate the
oath of citizenship, because new people coming to this land
realize that it is Canada that they are coming to, not Britain,
not to some foreign monarch, not to the British monarchy. They
are coming to Canada. That is the first point.
The second point is the oath I propose has the words that new
Canadians come and take their places among Canadians, a people
united by God. I was very careful in using this reference to
God.
I point out first that all the other major oaths of citizenships,
in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain
have a reference to God. What happened in Canada was when we
last went through the oath of citizenship we took the reference
to God out.
1130
In proposing to put the reference back in, all I am doing is
reflecting the fact that we have the reference to God in the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am not suggesting
that a new Canadian coming to Canada should feel that in taking
this oath that the person is indicating he or she believes in God
or the person is assigning an association with one religion or
another.
The reality about the Canadian history, our life, is that every
kind of Canadian has had an association with God. Whether we are
a Christian, or a Muslim, or an aboriginal, actually 80% of
Canadians believe that there is some sort of higher authority.
We as Canadians owe our good fortune of having one of the most
wonderful countries in the world to something more than just
NASDAQ, the stock exchange or our mining riches.
Canadians are more than meat and potatoes. This land is more
than fire and water. This land is something that is above our
human intellect. Generally speaking, Canadians as a society have
held that belief. What we do here is say that a new Canadian who
comes to this land is going to be a part of this tradition of a
faith in God. This is not an ideology. It is still open to
opportunity. The person does not have to believe in God because
this is a land where we accept people of all points of view.
That is one of the reasons why we can have a room of such
tolerance here. We can have separatists and people of different
ideologies. That is the genius of this country.
Finally, there are the five principles of equality of
opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and
the rule of law. These derive directly from our charter of
rights and liberties. This is what we are as Canadians. This is
the spirit of being Canadian. This is what defines our
tolerance. It is not just being equal, it is having equality of
opportuntiy. That is why we believe in medicare and why we
believe in universal education. Freedom of speech, democracy and
all these things are essential to the Canadian spirit.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, these are what define Canadians;
these are the principles that define Canadian. I urge all party
leaders to allow a free vote on this issue. I heard the member
for Rosemont and respect his point of view. But for heaven's
sake, this opportunity to repatriate the constitution, to
repatriate the oath of citizenship and to bring it back to Canada
should surely be a free vote allowed by all party leaders.
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Group No. 4 of amendments to
Bill C-16.
I will first talk about Motion No. 9 by the member for Rosemont.
He will perhaps find this a bit surprising, but I agree with
much of what he is proposing, although I think that the
citizenship ceremony is perhaps not the right time for these
documents to be given out. This should be done long before.
In his motion, the members asks to have new citizens given:
(i) the Charter of the French Language;
(ii) the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms;
(iii) the Election Act;
(iv) the Declaration by the Government of Quebec on Ethnic and
Race Relations...
These are documents it would be appropriate to give to people
coming to Quebec. I would go even further and say that this
would be useful for any province. However, we are talking about
Quebec here. I think that people arriving in Quebec as
immigrants should get all these documents. I think they already
do, but they should at least be aware of them and their content.
1135
From the time they applied for citizenship, seven years have
passed, on average. This is why I think it is a bit late for
them to be getting these documents at that point.
As a party, we must unfortunately vote against this motion.
The member for Rosemont also talks of having a representative of
the Province of Quebec at the swearing in ceremony, but his
presence must not be vital to the holding of the ceremony.
I know that a number of MPs do not attend swearing in
ceremonies.
I think that it should be important, even a duty. I attend
these ceremonies myself at least once a year, and I then send
letters of congratulations to all new citizens in my riding.
[English]
I would like to talk about Motion No. 23 presented by the hon.
member for Wentworth—Burlington. I definitely have a problem
with this motion. I cannot support it and our party will not
support it. It is certainly not because I am or am not a
monarchist, which is what I will touch on first.
If we were going to get into changing anything as significant as
this, we would have to change our constitution first. The Queen
is still in the constitution and until we make a major change in
it we cannot remove that from the oath. The member talked about
different oppressed countries where royalty is feared but it goes
a lot further than royalty. It can also extend to politicians
and people's fear of them. We have to be careful about how far
we go on that.
He referred to a people united by God. I have no problem saying
that I am a Christian and I strongly believe in God. But in this
day and age, with all the different religions in Canada, I feel
we are putting them totally aside by adding that type of phrase
to the oath. Because of that, there is no way I can support
that.
The other points the member made about the oath are very
interesting. I think they are nice, but we have to stick with
certain parts of this right now that are already there and a part
of a constitution. Therefore, we will be voting against this
motion.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak against both of the proposed amendments.
First, Motion No. 9 concerns the guidelines for ceremonies
celebrating passing the citizenship test. We have to remember
that is what these ceremonies are for, a celebration. The testing
has been completed. Participants at those ceremonies are there
to be celebrated and not to be politicized. They have passed a
test. They are there with their families. I have attended many
of these ceremonies. They are very joyous occasions particularly
for people who have come from countries where there has been
heavy persecution and they have had a very difficult time getting
here.
The materials for distribution go through the local offices and
they are very flexible. No one says that the Government of
Quebec cannot, particularly on application for the citizenship
test, be aware of this and make sure that the materials are
distributed. We do not have any objections to that.
The other thing I would point out is that residents have to live
in Quebec for three years before they are able to go through a
ceremony. Therefore, there are three full years to make sure
that they understand how valuable the French language is and how
valuable the culture of Quebec is, and I do not disagree with
that.
We cannot force the Quebec government, the Ontario government or
the Manitoba government through federal citizenship laws to make
sure they have an official at a ceremony that is strictly
federal.
1140
I do not think a ceremony of celebration is the place to bring
in political debate. I do not think it is the place to try to
force other levels of government to attend. We have a hard time
in many cases getting MPs to attend some of these ceremonies so
we are not in a position to order other governments around and I
do not believe the member opposite would want that.
As far as Motion No. 23 is concerned, I am sorry the member for
Wentworth—Burlington left because the third part of it is a very
interesting proposal. His amendment is much like a smorgasbord;
he has too much in there.
I agree with the member opposite that this is not the place or
the time to debate the relevance of the monarchy. Many of the
people who come to this country come from Commonwealth countries
and would not be the least bit surprised to pledge allegiance to
the Queen. She is still a very significant part of our Canadian
psyche. Regardless, as I said, this is not the appropriate place
to get into a debate on that.
Concerning the relevance of God, I also agree with the member
from the Tory party who suggested that people have a vastly
different image of God. There are many titles for a superior
being and 20% or 30% of people who come from other countries
actually do not believe in God. The concept that an oath can be
sworn to an individual's own God within his or her own heart is
very much a part of the ceremony. It is nothing to be excluded.
Both of these amendments will not be supported by the government
for very good reason.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill C-16, the Citizenship
of Canada Act, previously known as Bill C-63.
I want to take this opportunity to thank our young and dynamic
colleague for Outremont. Besides taking an interest in the issue
of violence on television and introducing an excellent bill—one I
am sure you will insist on supporting, Mr. Speaker, since you
have always been against violence—he is our critic for
citizenship and immigration.
I think it was very wise on his part to follow in the steps of
his predecessor and to revive an amendment which reminds us of
the importance of citizenship. Citizenship is important to a
society. It is, first, the conviction that we live together,
that our way of living together forms a common public culture.
In such a common public culture, there is a number of elements.
Members will understand that knowledge of history is important.
Otherwise, not only would nobody be able to understand Quebec
but nobody would understand why Quebecers aspire to a national
destiny. If you would be so good as to nod, Mr. Speaker, this
would greatly encourage me to continue.
When we talk about Quebec's national destiny, we are referring
to an unfulfilled, uninterrupted quest that will inevitably lead
it, in the coming years, to achieve sovereignty and, of course,
to create a country. The Premier of Quebec reminded us of that
when he said that this whole process was now back on the
political agenda.
Our common public culture is our history. It is also our
language. No one can ignore that by choosing to live in Quebec,
they are also choosing to speak a vernacular language, a
language that is not the language spoken by North America's
majority, but by a minority, the French minority. There can be
no common public culture without participation through a common
language. I will get back to this issue, which is rather central
to today's proposal before the House.
When it comes to Quebec citizenship, another component of a
common public culture that is just as essential as the language
is a commitment to democracy. I hope Canadian Alliance members,
government members and Progressive Conservative members—who
will hold their convention this weekend—are well aware that
there is a deep, fundamental attachment to democracy in Quebec.
1145
We hope that all citizens will participate in our institutions
and we say that democracy is a very real and dynamic component
of the concept of citizenship.
How is that citizenship exercised? If I asked that question to
hon. members, they would tell me that citizenship is exercised
through the right to vote, through the choice that we make to
have elected representatives speak on our behalf on major public
issues and voice our concerns in the various assemblies.
We know that the National Assembly is among the most important
assemblies in North America.
My colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, knows
about this issue better than I do, because he is a member of the
world interparliamentary association. I think I can say that
the National Assembly is among the oldest parliaments of North
America. Parliamentarism was born with the Constitutional Act,
1791. Back then, there were few parliaments in North America.
Therefore, Quebec can pride itself upon a long and deep rooted
tradition of democracy.
Another element of our public culture is intercommunity
relationships. We do not see Quebec as an homogenous mass where
there is no place for input from other communities. Quebec is a
land of immigration for various reasons.
Of course, there is the inherent attraction of Quebec because it
is at the crossroads of several major cultures, including the
United States and France. Our francophile and francophone roots
are of course very much present in our heritage and our society,
because we still speak French, but also because this language is
the expression of our culture. Quebec is a point of contact
with North American society. It is no small matter to be the
neighbour of the first economic power of the world.
Let us remember what Kennedy said. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that
when you were a child, a long time ago, you were an admirer of
John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
What did he say? Here is what he said about the relations
between Canada and U.S. “Geography made us neighbours, and
history made us friends”.
This is an elegant way of saying that we did not choose to be
the neighbours of the most powerful nation in the world. This
has its advantages and its disadvantages. This was a
disadvantage as far as foreign investment is concerned, but it
was also an advantage in terms of sharing a common market that
has a potential to be expanded, a potential that has always been
recognized by sovereignists. This is why, early in the process,
sovereignists supported the previous government in the free
trade initiative.
Having said that, I want to discuss our perception of
citizenship in terms of the contribution of various cultural
communities.
For instance, a member representing a Montreal riding—I am a
member from Montreal as are my colleague, the hon. member for
Rosemont, and those from greater Montreal, though I will leave
it to Mrs. Harel to define its boundaries—cannot do his or her
work without acknowledging the presence of cultural communities
that are very dynamic in everyday life.
For example, in the northern part of my riding, there is a
Haitian community. I think there is a large Ukrainian community
in the riding of Rosemont. In the eastern part of my riding, in
Bourget, there is also a small Portuguese community. What does
this mean?
I have to make a fundamental distinction here. We are
sovereignists who believe in the existence of a political
citizenship in Quebec that has to be recognized. I will get back
to this later. However, we also believe that Quebec society
should benefit from the contribution of various communities.
1150
Unlike multiculturalism, we do not define society as the
co-existence of several cultures without a common thread. We
believe that, for instance, Haitians who immigrate to Quebec,
Portuguese who settle in Montreal or Ukrainians who live in
Rosemont may have strong feelings about their culture, but we
nevertheless expect them to adhere to a public common culture.
The best proof of adhesion to this public culture is, of course,
making the effort to master the language sufficiently to be able
to communicate in daily life.
Multiculturalism allows for the co-existence of several cultures
and for everyone to continue to master their own culture while
considering themselves Canadians. We do not share this vision.
It is not the vision of the Government of Quebec and, of course,
we do not believe it is not the vision that is most promising
for Quebecers.
The proposal of our colleague from Rosemont is extremely
reasonable and I cannot imagine that anyone would oppose it. The
amendment proposes that, during swearing in ceremonies, the four
main symbolic documents underlying the common public culture of
Quebec, namely the Charter of the French Language of Quebec, the
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Elections Act and the
Declaration by the Government of Quebec on Ethnic and Race
Relations, be distributed. An official of the Government of
Quebec would be there to explain their importance.
Again, Quebec is an land of immigration. Montreal, Toronto and
Vancouver are three major centres of immigration. This means
there are three provinces where there is a major centre of
immigration. Quebec is one of them. We hope that immigrants will
come to Quebec in large numbers and will take an active part in
this common public culture.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: A division on the motions in Group No. 4 is
deemed to have been demanded. The recorded division stands
deferred until the end of the period allotted for consideration
of Government Orders on Tuesday, May 16, 2000.
[English]
Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 10, the motions in
Group No. 5 have been previously moved, seconded and are now
before the House. Motions Nos. 10 to 14 are now available for
debate.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to these motions, all of which
have been presented by the Canadian Alliance party. They deal
with the issue of appropriate punishment for dealing with crimes
committed under the citizenship act.
My general feeling is that the penalties are extremely weak,
particularly in a situation where a citizenship official breaks
the law, takes bribes and so on under the citizenship act. I
will speak a bit more about that later but that is the general
problem.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration says often that
citizenship is something to be valued, but she does not have
penalties which reflect this when it comes to people who
fraudulently trade in citizenship and that type of thing. That
is regrettable.
The chair of the committee and other government members told me
to bring my amendments to the bill forward at committee rather
than at report stage. I did that with this group of motions.
They did even not listen. They shot them down automatically. So
much for committee functioning. I brought them back at report
stage to show the Canadian public what was rejected by the
Liberal members at committee.
It is important that they know. It demonstrates to the Canadian
public just how the government views breaches which allow people
to become Canadian citizens through fraud and how weak the
punishment is that it puts in place in that regard. That is what
this whole group of motions is about, but they are dealing with
slightly different things.
1155
First, Motions Nos. 10 and 11 deal with clause 39 which deals
with various offences regarding the obtaining of citizenship.
They include making false representation, committing fraud or
knowingly concealing material circumstances. They include
obtaining or using another person's certificate. They include
knowingly permitting one's certificate to be used by someone else
so the person will be identified as a Canadian citizen. We can
all understand the kinds of problems that would cause. They
include offences of trafficking and offering to traffic in
citizenship documents.
These are extremely serious offences. Yet what types of
punishment has the government put forth in its legislation to
deal with these offences? It has put in place fines of not more
than $10,000 and/or five years in jail. Hon. members will know
that the maximum penalty is five years in jail. We can certainly
see with sentences handed out under the immigration act and under
the citizenship act that the penalty which is usually imposed by
the courts is very weak and often includes no prison time and a
very minor fine.
It is extremely important to increase the penalties which could
be imposed to demonstrate clearly that it is a serious offence
when one traffics in documents, falsifies documents or gets into
the country fraudulently in some way and is recognized as a
citizen of Canada fraudulently. Yet the government does not take
it seriously enough to put in place appropriate punishments.
One area in particular that I find really offensive is the area
of citizenship officials, people who are put into a position of
trust in the citizenship department and break citizenship laws by
doing things like issuing false documents or false statements
that apply to citizenship issues, or commit offences like
accepting bribes or encouraging someone else to accept a bribe so
that citizenship can be obtained falsely and fraudulently.
Offences such as contravening various provisions of the act by
dealing with people who try to bribe citizenship officials and
those who impersonate citizenship officials are dealt with in
Motions Nos. 13 and 14. I find it surprising that under the
bill, the way the government has presented it, that it would
impose exactly the same penalty, no more, for departmental
officials in that position of trust who break the law as it does
for anyone else who is not in a position of trust and is breaking
the law. I cannot understand the reasoning of a government that
thinks like that. It is completely beyond me.
If we want to deter people who are in a position which lends
itself to making a lot of money accepting bribes and handing out
citizenship falsely and fraudulently, we have to put in place
very serious penalties. They certainly should be more serious
than the penalties given to anyone else for the same type of
activity. Yet that is not what has happened. I believe what is
proposed in here is unacceptable.
Let us think of this in terms of the way the real world is
operating right now and in terms of people wanting to enter
Canada illegally. If people wanting to enter our country
illegally pay to obtain the services of a people smuggler or a
people trafficker, they will have to pay between $20,000 and
$70,000 to do that. It is a lot of money. That is the going
rate for people, depending from which country they are coming, to
come into our country illegally with the help of people smugglers
or people traffickers.
Yet because of the way the government has dealt with that in this
law, for a few thousand dollars a person can bribe an official,
get a false citizenship document and not only be allowed to come
into the country, but become a citizen of the country in the eyes
of the officials, if it is done properly, because the person will
have the appropriate citizenship documents to be recognized as a
citizen.
1200
In any government department, in any business, there will be
those people who, for some reason or another, are willing to
break the law to make money. There are usually not very many. I
would suggest that in the citizenship and immigration departments
there would be very few people who would be willing to do that,
but they are there.
If given the opportunity, and if the penalties are weak, then
the temptation increases. For people so inclined, I believe that
a weak penalty would encourage them to become involved in this
illicit activity whereby people would become recognized as
Canadian citizens by obtaining false documents.
For that reason my motion calls for increasing the fines. The
government is proposing a maximum fine of $10,000 and/or not more
than five years in jail. What a joke that is. A person could
make $10,000 in a good day's work of issuing a couple of false
documents.
We know how these things work in the immigration department, and
I assume it would be the same in the citizenship department.
When cases like this come up they are swept under the rug. The
person may or may not be dismissed. Seldom will people ever
actually end up in court, but when they do the courts view these
things lightly. They look at a five year maximum jail sentence
and they do not think it really means that. The courts seem to
think that means maybe a suspended sentence or some type of
probation.
I think it is important, because of all these factors, that the
maximum penalty be increased substantially. We are proposing
that when it comes to citizenship officials there should be a
maximum fine of $150,000, which is a real threat, a maximum jail
sentence of 10 years and/or both.
I think a higher maximum penalty would cause officials working
in the department to think twice. Of course, that in itself
would not solve the problem. I recognize that, but we have to
have a department which is administered and managed properly.
That is up to the minister to ensure. The minister has failed
miserably, as did the previous minister, as did the one before.
The three Liberal ministers of immigration have failed miserably
in terms of improving management and administration in the
departments. It is not me saying that; it is the auditor
general.
The auditor general issued, just a couple of weeks ago, the most
damning report he has ever issued, to the immigration department.
He said that management was absolutely in shambles, that
administration was not working and that enforcement was weak.
Many people have said it is the most damning report the auditor
general has ever issued.
Putting these more serious penalties in place may cause people
to think twice about committing the very serious offence of
allowing people to become Canadian citizens when the law would
not allow it.
It is shameful that the government is so weak in terms of
protecting the security of our country.
How do organized crime figures get into this country? They are
the first ones who would be willing to bribe officials. They
have done it and they will do it again. They are the first ones
who would use people smugglers to get into the country. The top
individuals of course have other ways to get in, but certainly
they would not hesitate to bribe officials. It happens all the
time. It is a sad commentary on the government that it takes this
issue so lightly.
Through these weak penalties that the government has put in the
bill, it is accommodating organized crime and terrorists, and in
a way encouraging them to bribe officials to become citizens of
our country completely fraudulently.
1205
Before I end my remarks I want to mention that the member for
Wentworth—Burlington spoke to his proposal for a new citizenship
oath, and although I did speak out against his oath, there is one
aspect of the oath that I really did appreciate, and that is
including the reference to God in the oath. God of course is the
term that many religions, in fact I would suggest all religions,
could consider to be pretty much a generic term. Recognizing
that supreme being is extremely important. I think that should
be in the oath.
I regret that I did not put an amendment forward myself to do
that. I talked about this and I have proposed this several times
throughout this two year process which the bill has gone through.
It is something that I would like to see changed.
I have talked to members from all parties in the House and I
would ask for unanimous consent to make a very minor change. I
believe it is a typographical error either on my part or on the
part of the clerks. I wish to amend Motion No. 15, which now
reads:
I wish to change “alternative” to “affirmative”. Therefore,
I move:
That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 40 on
page 21 with the following:
That is completely consistent with the other motions. Clearly
it is a little typographical error. I think, Mr. Speaker, you
would find unanimous consent to make that change.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Lakeland has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to move
the amendment. Does the hon. member have consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this series of amendments would considerably increase fines and
penalties for citizenship related offences. They are very
consistent. They would all do the same thing.
Bill C-16 already increases the penalties rather appreciatively.
The new penalties are also in line with penalties proposed for
existing offences within other federal legislation, including the
criminal code.
I am going to resist the urge to editorialize on the propensity
for the party opposite to look for incarceration as its
punishment of choice. Filling our jails and building new ones
would probably be very good for the economy, but not particularly
good for the people involved.
Therefore, I would suggest that the government oppose this
series of amendments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order
made earlier today the questions on Motions Nos. 10 to 14 in
Group No. 5 are deemed put and recorded divisions deemed demanded
and deferred to Tuesday, May 16, 2000, at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
* * *
1210
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from December 3, 1999 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-18, an act to amend the criminal code
(impaired driving causing death and other matters), be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it has been a long and
arduous road to reach this stage of Bill C-18. This provision
was part of a private member's bill that I submitted a couple of
years ago. However, the bill was lost due to the 1997 election.
The official opposition brought the bill back to the Parliament
of Canada in the form of a votable supply day motion, which
motion was carried unanimously in the House.
We then had a delay getting the original bill to committee. We
finally dealt with it last year, just prior to the summer recess
of 1999. Indeed, we were able to put through this House about
98% of the original supply day motion dealing with impaired
driving. I believe at that time we made a giant leap forward in
taking leadership in addressing the issue of impaired driving in
Canada.
We were seeking unanimous consent so that we would not lose the
previous bill to the summer recess and more delays. We were able
to put it through, for the most part. However, members of the
Bloc were not prepared to accept the provision in the original
bill which provided judges with the discretionary power to
deliver a sentence of life imprisonment for someone convicted of
impaired driving causing death where aggravating factors were
present.
This bill is designed to address simply that, impaired drivers
who have multiple convictions, who have refused treatment, who
have spent time in prison, who have perhaps driven while their
drivers' licences were under suspension, who perhaps have been in
an accident causing bodily injury, leading up to the point where
they were once again impaired on the road. With all of these
aggravating factors behind them, perhaps they then took the life
of someone through their criminal act.
This is the tool that we have sought for three or four years to
send a clear message to society that the federal government does
not regard the incidence of impaired driving as simply another
social ill. Rather, it is regarded as a very serious crime, and
the crime of impaired driving causing death is the most serious
crime of all. We read in our newspapers, we see on our
televisions and through the electronic media every day it seems
that some innocent life or lives have been taken because of the
stupid and criminal act of driving while impaired.
To review, Bill C-18 would amend the criminal code with respect
to impaired driving causing death and other matters. The bill
would make impaired driving causing death subject to a maximum
sentence of life imprisonment.
At the present time the latitude a judge has is a sentence of
imprisonment of zero to 14 years. Unfortunately the precedents
that have been set by judges in this country in dealing with
impaired driving causing death have most often been at the very
low end of that scale, anywhere from six months to two and a half
or three years.
1215
There is one case on record where an impaired driver got eight
years. Unfortunately that precedent has not been followed as
often as it should have been.
This would increase the latitude of judges from zero to a life
imprisonment sentence. When there were some extreme aggravating
factors, a judge could say to the person upon whom he was to
deliver a sentence, “You are a menace to society. You have
taken a life through your criminal act. You have taken a life
through your stupidity. You have taken a life because you have
refused treatment. You have taken a life because you have not
learned through the consequences of your previous actions that it
is not acceptable in our society to behave in the manner that you
you have been. Therefore, I will give you a sentence of life
imprisonment”.
I want to relate some numbers in case anyone may have forgotten
the human cost of impaired driving in our country. In 1996 3,420
people were killed in automobile crashes. Where the drivers were
tested, nearly 40% had alcohol in their blood for an estimation
of about 1,360 fatalities. That means that Canadians are more
than twice as likely to die in an accident involving alcohol than
they are to be murdered.
The monetary cost for motor vehicle incidents is $390,000 per
fatal crash and about $12,000 per injury. Considering the
incredibly dire straits of our health care system, would it not
be something if we could put forward yet another deterrent
against impaired driving that would save lives and prevent the
injuries caused by impaired driving. It would also save a lot of
money that could be put into health care services.
Let me read another statistic. It is important that we have
these numbers to recognize the frequency of impaired driving. In
1998 over 70,000 Canadians were charged with impaired driving.
Statistics also show that it takes a repetition of about 20
incidents of impaired driving before there may be a chance of
getting caught. These numbers really do not tell us how many
people are actually driving while impaired. The numbers are only
the people who got caught. It is pretty scary when driving down
the street with our families to imagine there could be in any
given block at least one and maybe two people who are driving
having consumed alcohol.
The alliance party strongly supports this bill. We believe that
if ever there was a solid case for deterrence in the criminal
code, it is on the issue of impaired driving.
The penalties that we have been able to put forward in the
criminal code and the amendments we have made coupled with this
final part of this bill which was put forward and part of it
passed, would be a wonderful first step. It would send the
strongest possible message out to Canadians that if they intend
to drive after they have been drinking and they are caught, we
intend to deal with that crime in the strongest possible terms.
This will give the judges yet another very heavy tool in the
fight against impaired driving.
1220
Bill C-82 was the original bill on which we made some serious
progress. I want to go over some of the provisions. It is
important that Canadians know there have been some changes made.
The federal government through the insistence of the alliance
party has worked very well to ensure that parts of Bill C-82 went
through.
At the federal criminal code level, the mandatory minimum fine
for a first offence was been doubled from $300 to $600. Driving
prohibitions for a second offence have been increased from two to
five years imprisonment and from six months to three years for a
third offence. For impaired driving causing death, the sentence
has been changed in Bill C-18 from one year to three years, to
three years to life.
One part of the bill said that the judge may impose a sentence
of from three years up to life driving prohibition for an offence
where there was no injury or fatality involved. We should be
prepared to look at this and say that is a serious penalty the
judges have been given to use. In the event where there has been
a death as a result of impaired driving by a person who has
simply disregarded the laws of our society, the judge should have
the discretion to impose a sentence of life imprisonment.
In Bill C-82 we also passed a provision for the use of an
alcohol ignition interlock system. The Canadian public is
becoming more aware of this device. It provides that someone may
not operate a motor vehicle without giving a breath sample into
the device. If alcohol is present in the person's breath sample,
the vehicle will not start.
In Bill C-82 the penalty for leaving the scene of an accident
that caused bodily harm was also increased. The maximum was
increased to 10 years from the previous five years. We in the
alliance party were happy about that. We also increased the time
limit for law enforcement officers to demand a breath sample.
That was increased from two hours to three hours. Many times
because of the shortage of officers and the logistics, it has not
been possible within the two hour limit to get a breath sample.
There is now another hour to work with.
Something I am very happy about is the penalty for driving while
disqualified was increased from two years to five years. For so
many years all over the country people have lost their licences
due to impaired driving. For whatever reason so many of these
people have disregarded the fact that they have been prohibited
from driving and have chosen to drive anyway. Instead of a two
year sentence, which seems a long time to me but maybe to some
people they do not think it is too long, it was increased to five
years. That was an important change.
A number of changes that we wanted did not make it to Bill C-82.
I will go through some of them before I wrap up by addressing the
urgency of Bill C-18.
Bill C-82 was a good first step to take. It sent a stronger
message to impaired drivers. While we would have wanted to go
further in many cases, I think we are going to see some results
of the amendments to the criminal code.
1225
Before Bill C-82 got to committee it had been 13 years since the
federal government had reviewed the criminal code as it applied
to impaired driving. Given the human cost and the monetary cost
that impaired driving causes year after year, it was very much
overdue but finally it got there after 13 years.
We would have wanted to increase at the federal level the
mandatory minimum fine for an impaired driving first offence to
$1,000 up from $300. We did not quite make it. We made $600 but
we would have liked to have seen it at $1,000.
Another thing we wanted to pursue was to change the criminal
code so that only evidence that the breathalyzer was
malfunctioning would be permitted as a defence against a charge
for a reading of over .08. This would be to eliminate the
so-called two beers defence. Too often in the courts judges
accept this defence, notwithstanding that the crown has put
forward certificate evidence of the breathalyzer results,
notwithstanding the report of the arresting officer who clearly
gave testimony that the person arrested seemed to be incapable of
performing some simple required tests, notwithstanding evidence
which the average person would think was enough to convict.
Defence lawyers have been putting forward witnesses for their
clients who have said that they were with old George or Jane the
whole evening and all he or she had was two beers. In the face
of certificate evidence which showed a 0.15 breathalyzer test,
judges have been saying “Two beers, are you sure?” “Yes your
honour, two beers”. Believe it or not, in far more cases than
we can possibly imagine, judges have been accepting the two beers
defence. This is absolutely irresponsible on the part of many
judges. They simply have not gotten the message.
We had hoped we would also get the BAC, the blood alcohol
content limit lowered from .08 to .05. The reason is that while
evidence shows clearly that at .08 the person was indeed
impaired, there is a built-in margin of error used by defence
that has been set by precedence over the years. Judges have
accepted a margin of error to the effect that no one, unless he
or she blows .1 or more, ever much ends up with a criminal
conviction. Had we lowered the BAC to .05 and left a margin of
error that would have taken it up to .08, that would have looked
after the problem. Unfortunately far too many lawyers were
present at the standing committee when we examined this. They
rolled their eyes and said that this could be a legal nightmare
so we did not proceed in that way.
Bill C-18 is a major step for the Parliament of Canada. It
gives notice to Canadians, victims of impaired driving and their
families who are left to mourn the loss of their children or
other loved ones that this parliament has taken some leadership.
1230
If there ever was a time to address a criminal problem, it is
through the passing of Bill C-18, and we support it
whole-heartedly.
In closing, I would like to move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion is in
order. The routine is that we would go right back to debate and
that there be no amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-18, concerning
impaired driving causing death.
First, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my
colleague from Berthier—Montcalm for his work as justice critic
for the Bloc. He works tirelessly on this issue, and I thank him
very much.
I want to state clearly that the Bloc is against Bill C-18.
I want our position to be very clear. I would like the House to
know, from the outset, that the Bloc does not in any way condone
driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or any
other substance.
I can already imagine the big guns from the right, not to say
big guns at my right, that is to say some members of the
Canadian Alliance, getting themselves in a state and crying
“This does not make sense. The Bloc should not be against this
bill. Drunk driving is a scourge in society. There are
organizations like MADD”.
Hon. members receive many documents from MADD, Mothers Against
Drunk Driving.
A women who lost her son and her husband in road accidents
caused by drunk drivers founded the association.
I want to stress that the Bloc does not encourage drunk driving.
However, we think that the proposed sentence for impaired
driving causing death is unrealistic and unenforceable. It is
one thing to have a sentence in the Criminal Code, but if it
does not mean anything, if judges find it is unenforceable, why
bother amending the code?
1235
Members may be surprised to see a transport critic speak to this
issue, but there is a connection between driving and road
transportation, by car or truck.
I must also specify that my training and my experience as a
lawyer before I got involved in politics made me realize that it
is important that lawmakers make changes to the Criminal Code or
any other law that are enforceable. This holds true for Bill
C-18. What the government proposes is impossible to enforce and
is also incompatible with other types of sentences provided for
in the Criminal Code, and I will come back to this later.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that impaired driving causing death
is a very serious offence. Nevertheless, if we were to pass Bill
C-18, we would be denying the specific nature of this offence and
creating a profound imbalance in our penal system. We will prove
this later.
Statistics show that the courts still have lots of room to
manoeuvre with the provisions of the Criminal Code. The longest
sentence imposed by courts for impaired driving causing death
is, currently, 10 years.
The courts, which are in the best position to analyze the
characteristics of every delinquent, have not exhausted the
resources of the Criminal Code, which sets at 14 years the
maximum sentence for impaired driving causing death.
The percentage of people sentenced to jail upon conviction, by
the courts, for impaired driving decreased from 22% to 19%
between 1994-95 and 1997-98. The terms of imprisonment imposed in
the majority of these cases were less than two years.
There is a provision in the law providing for a much higher
maximum penalty, but in all logic and in all justice most of our
magistrates and our courts impose penalties of less than two
years.
Let us not forget the deterrent effect of the penalty. Let us
not forget society's repulsion for offences it punishes. That is
why people who do wrong must be punished by having the courts
impose penalties on them. That is why we have a penal code, the
Criminal Code.
Taking into account what I was saying earlier, namely that most
judges impose sentences of less than two years of imprisonment,
why should we, as parliamentarians, legislate to allow life
imprisonment when the courts are not inclined to fully use the
tools currently at their disposal?
Although impaired driving causing death is a very serious
offence, it is wrong to suggest that we are now faced with a
criminal outburst in that area.
In 1998 in Canada, 103 people were charged with impaired driving
causing death, which is the fewest since 1989. I understand that
103 convicted offenders is still too many and that we should aim
for zero. But do 103 convicted offenders really represent a
problematic situation in Canada, although it is still too many?
There had not been this few since 1989.
1240
With the wind from the right wing, the Canadian Alliance,
blowing on our Liberal colleagues opposite, we get the
impression they feel bound to react with much stronger
legislation.
We may only be 12 to 15 months away from a general election in
Canada, and we know the Liberals feel threatened by the rise of
the Canadian Alliance in western Canada. They feel they have to
use the same language, the same words, but with different
actors.
With this wind from the right wing blowing ever stronger in
Canada, this country has become a champion of incarceration.
It ranks second for the rate of incarceration. Behind which
country? Which country ranks first? Is this a model of social
peace and tranquillity, with safe neighbourhoods, and kids in
high school packing guns and killing people?
I am talking about murder, but I could also be talking about all
violent crimes. The country in the world that puts the most
people behind bars is the United States, and Canada ranks
second. We have to wonder what this means.
Let us compare Canada with European countries. As far as I know,
it is not the law of the jungle in European countries like
France, England, Germany and Italy. They do not play havoc with
the legal system. They are not in a state of anarchy.
I think that there is a reasonable societal balance in Europe.
In Canada, nowadays, our incarceration rate is twice the rate in
most European countries.
Even the Supreme Court justice condemn the fact that federal
lawmakers are too ready to resort to incarceration in order to
resolve delinquency problems. Even the Supreme Court justices,
appointed by the federal government on the recommendation of the
Minister of Justice who wants to amend the Criminal Code in this
way, condemn the increased reliance on incarceration.
This is what the Justices Cory and Iacobucci of the Supreme
Court said in the Gladue ruling:
Canada is a world leader in many fields, particularly in the
areas of progressive social policy and human rights.
Unfortunately, our country is also distinguished as being a
world leader in putting people in prison. Although the United
States has by far the highest rate of incarceration among
industrialized democracies, at over 600 inmates per 100,000
population—
In the United States, there are 600 inmates per 100,000
inhabitants. They put plenty of the people in prison. Is
everything going well in the United States, when we see what
happens every day at McDonald's, where lunatics who are able to
easily obtain weapons shoot people who were quietly eating their
hamburgers or what happens to people going for a walk in a
shopping mall? Such things are happening more and more
frequently in the United States.
That is not to mention the 10, 12 and 14 year olds who commit
crimes with firearms. In the United States, however, there are
600 inmates per 100,000 population.
1245
The supreme court judges go on to say:
Although the United States have by far the highest rate of
incarceration among industrialised democracies, at over 600
inmates per 100,000 population, Canada's rate of approximately
130 inmates per 100,000 population places it second or third
highest...
Moreover, the rate at which Canadian courts have
been imprisoning offenders as risen sharply in recent years,
although there has been a slight decline of late...
In the same vein, the Canadian Sentencing Commission, in its
1987 report entitled “Sentencing Reform: A Canadian approach”,
says the following:
Canada does not imprison as high a portion of its population as
do the United States. However we do imprison more people than
most other western democracies.
The Canadian Sentencing Commission Report states further:
In the past few decades, many groups and federally appointed
committees and commissions given the responsibility of studying
various aspects of the criminal justice system have argued that
imprisonment should be used only as a last resort and should be
limited to the most serious offenders.
These words are important because they set the tone for the next
part of my speech, where I will compare this type of offence to
other types of offences.
If we consider it a serious offence, then we must look at the
way the Criminal Code deals with other serious offences.
The Canadian Sentencing Commission goes on:
However, in spite of the number of times this recommendation was
made, very few steps have been made in this direction.
As I was saying earlier, by proposing life imprisonment for
those who are convicted of impaired driving causing death, the
Minister of Justice is ignoring the comments of her own supreme
court.
The only solution is prevention. Incarceration should be a last
resort.
However, the Minister of Justice has not shown that she has used
up all the tools at her disposal to fight impaired driving and
to protect the public. She has opted for the easy way out by
increasing prison sentences. She has opted for the line of least
resistance suggested by the Canadian Alliance, when she could
have acted otherwise.
There are effective ways other than imprisonment to lower the
number of offences related to impaired driving. For instance,
there is the ignition interlock device, greater use of which we
support.
Alberta and Quebec are currently the only provinces to impose
the use of an interlock device as a condition for a restricted
licence for drivers who have had their licence suspended by the
province.
An ignition interlock device—we remind our listeners—is a
device that determines the blood alcohol level by a simple
breath sample from the driver. This system prevents the vehicle
from starting if the alcohol level exceeds a certain level.
Currently, only people accused of a first impaired driving
offence can have the period during which their licence is
suspended shortened by court order if an ignition interlock
system is installed.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that the
Criminal Code should be amended to make it mandatory to install
an ignition interlock system on all repeat offenders' vehicles.
The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, the Bloc critic for
justice, will soon introduce a bill to this effect.
This type of program would be much more effective than
imprisonment.
Not only does this system prevent the offender from committing
an offence, but it also allows for consciousness-raising
activities. Imposing life imprisonment for impaired driving
could generate nonsensical situations.
1250
For instance, an impaired driver, who is undoubtedly negligent—
we agree on this—could be sentenced more severely than a hired
killer who, having skilfully planned a murder, would be given a
reduced sentence by becoming an informer.
Should someone who has celebrated a bit too much on New Year's
Eve be treated the same way as a member of organized crime?
Granted, both individuals have acted wrongfully but it must be
recognized that they have very different profiles, a reality
which is denied by Bill C-18.
Furthermore, one must take into consideration certain types of
sentences related to other offences with characteristics similar
to those of impaired driving causing death. In the case of
dangerous driving causing death, a prison sentence of 14 years
is prescribed by section 249(4) of the Criminal Code.
Other types of offences could be mentioned.
For instance, an individual who commits attempted murder is
liable to a 14 year sentence; the offence of accessory after the
fact may result in a maximum sentence of 14 years; participation
in a criminal organization—involving hardened criminals—may result
in a 14 year sentence; a person committing aggravated assault is
also liable to a 14 year sentence.
The federal government knows only one way to do things about
criminal justice, and that is to overdo things. Whether it is
about young offenders or impaired driving, the Minister of
Justice has once more shown her incapacity to deal with complex
problems without using dangerously repressive measures.
This approach is totally unjustified, since criminality has been
on the decline in Canada over the last few years. Furthermore,
no study proves the effectiveness of such an approach.
In conclusion, we know that a law and order policy yields lots
of good results, politically speaking, something the Minister of
Justice is very aware of.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am not sure if it is a pleasure to rise on this issue, but it
is certainly one we should all be involved in. I feel it is
important for our party and all members to take interest in this
issue. It is a very serious issue that involves fatalities and
injuries to human beings and accidents that just should not
happen.
I am certainly pleased to rise on Bill C-18 and to speak
strongly in support of all its aspects. Bill C-18 amends the
criminal code by increasing the maximum penalty for impaired
driving causing death to life imprisonment. It also provides for
the taking of blood samples for the purpose of testing for the
presence of a drug. The amendment gives police the power to take
a sample from the person in question even if this person is
incapable of giving consent.
I was a car dealer for 18 years and even before that I was
involved in the car business. Part of our business was
accidents. Part of our business was wrecks. Many of those
wrecks were as a result of drunk driving and most of them
involved fatalities. I still remember each one of them. I still
remember every day that they came in on the back end of a tow
truck, smashed to smithereens and reflecting the injuries and
even the fatalities of the people who were involved in the
accidents. The losses of life were not necessary.
1255
I think of the young people especially that were involved in
many accidents. I think of all those lives that were lost. I
think of some of the young people whom I knew well that are gone.
They should be here, those tremendous young people, but they are
gone and never will be.
In my view there should be zero tolerance for this offence. I
totally support the increase in penalties proposed in Bill C-18.
We were anxious to see the bill come forth earlier, but even with
this delay we are pleased that it is now here. We are pleased to
return to the debate on this bill.
It was last debated in December 1999. At that time the party
pushed for the government to come forth with legislation that
introduces the life imprisonment clause for impaired driving
causing death. Since then one year has almost passed and
parliament has yet to make much headway.
We are pleased to be back here, but we are worried about the
delay and wonder about the priorities of the government. We
understand now that it is anxious to bring in Bill C-17
respecting cruelty to animals. Meanwhile this bill, which is
such an important one in my view and in the view of my party,
lies dormant. It is difficult to justify how the bill on cruelty
to animals is more important and should take priority over this
one, although cruelty to animals is certainly an important issue
that should be addressed.
Yesterday the government raised the question of providing $175
million for road work in western Canada to accommodate the grain
industry when in fact provinces all across the country have been
asking for money for road work, for highway improvements and
reconstruction from one end of the country to the other to help
save lives.
The best example is Highway 101 in Nova Scotia where over 50
people have been killed in just six or seven years. Most of
those people were in their twenties or younger. Again the
government has chosen not to do anything for those highway
problems, even though they involved fatalities, and instead put
its priority on moving grain. It is putting money in highway
improvement for grain but it continues to refuse to put money
into highway improvement to avoid deaths and injuries. That
points to the government's priority in bills. It is difficult to
justify or to figure out what thought pattern it uses when it
comes up with priorities.
Another one that often concerns me is that there are 3,400
deaths per year on highways in Canada. There is no federal input
or direct investigation into these accidents to find out what
caused them. Yet we have the Transportation Safety Board of
Canada that investigates every train crash, every plane crash,
whether there is death or injury. Even at that there were on
average for the last five years approximately 100 deaths per year
in plane crashes whereas there were 3,400 on highways. There is
no focus on those accidents. Perhaps there should be. I feel
strongly there should be more attention on the highway aspects of
fatalities than on transportation.
Bill C-18 which will increase the penalties for impaired driving
should be a top priority. It should go through the House very
quickly. It deals with the life imprisonment provision, which
was originally part of Bill C-82, an act to amend the criminal
code for impaired driving. That became law in the last
parliament. Bill C-18 will allow a judge leeway to invoke life
sentences. It does not impose the life sentence, but it gives
the judge, after reviewing all the circumstances of the case, the
leeway to invoke a life sentence for impaired driving causing
death, and we totally support it.
We were disappointed when all parties softened their position in
the original debate on Bill C-82 and dropped the life
imprisonment provisions in exchange for speedy passage. It was a
mistake in my view and in the view of our party, and that is why
we support Bill C-18. We hope that it goes through.
We supported Bill C-82 but we wanted it improved. We were
disappointed to see it watered down. We wanted the current
outdated legislation improved upon by including tougher
sanctions, fines and suspensions. The bill did not give police
enough power to protect society from hard core drinkers who are
resistant to change. When we look at the statistics, it is not
the younger people now who are the repeat offenders. It is the
older drivers who are into a lifestyle and a habit that are
finding it difficult to change.
Young people are benefiting from the education programs on
impaired driving that the government, the provinces and the
education system provides. However it is the older repeat
offenders who are causing the problems.
1300
High school proms and summer vacation are quickly approaching.
Statistics from MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, show that
one in every eight deaths and injuries in road crashes is a
teenager. In my former occupation in the car business and now in
my position as transport critic, it seems to me that the
statistics are worse than that. I refer to Highway 101 in Nova
Scotia where more than 50% of the people killed on that highway
were in their twenties or younger. It does seem to affect
younger drivers more than any other. MADD feels that alcohol
plays a key role in a great many of these accidents.
In 1997, the most recent year for which statistics are
available, 404 youths aged 15 to 19 were killed and another
28,780 were injured in road crashes. The troubling statistic is
that 40% of the teenage drivers killed had been drinking.
Three-quarters of them had alcohol levels in excess of the legal
limit, in excess of 150 milligrams. Dangerous habits developed
at an early age become a chronic problem. It is not the younger
drivers who are the repeat offenders, it is the older drivers.
Groups like MADD are working hard to deal with this problem at
an early age with some success. They are trying to raise the
minimum age for drinking. They are trying to raise the minimum
age for driving. Many provinces have instituted systems where
young drivers get conditional licences and are only approved
after a certain period of time when they have proven they can
handle the responsibility of a driver's licence. Some provinces
have introduced smart card technology to verify the age of an
individual trying to buy alcohol.
MADD is not getting enough attention nor enough co-operation
from the federal government even though this organization is
extremely well-respected and appreciated for the good work it
does. Its only purpose is to prevent drunk drivers from killing
more people.
MADD is working hard to stop impaired driving among all ages of
the population. However, it will not be effective if it does not
get the legislation to back up its position and if the police do
not get the tools to work with. It appears that the provinces
are leading the battle with innovative approaches to drunk
driving and impaired driving.
The Nova Scotia government recently passed a tough impaired
driving legislation under the Motor Vehicle Act which came into
effect on December 1 last year. In Nova Scotia, any driver
pulled over with a blood alcohol level between .05 and .08
receives a 24-hour licence suspension. That is not an infraction
or an offence. Infractions start at .08, but even before that,
Nova Scotia has a new stage where licences are immediately
suspended for a 24 hour period. There is no charge laid but it
is a good solid warning and gets the attention of drivers. In
Halifax last Christmas, the police did 8,000 roadside checks and
no one was charged with impaired driving. That was a quite a
successful approach for the Halifax police.
Continuing with the get tough approach, the Nova Scotia
Conservative government is considering whether it can charge room
and board at $100 a day to incarcerate drunk drivers. This idea
is only in the initial stages, but putting the extra burden on
the impaired driver is seriously being considered. Impaired
drivers should be responsible for their actions.
Ontario is another province that is leading the way. It grew
tired of waiting for the feds to act so in 1997, with the
province's statistics showing more than 300 people killed in
drunk driving related accidents, it took action. As a result, in
Ontario, if drivers are caught three times for impaired driving,
they will get a lifetime licence suspension. It will be lifted
after 12 years if the driver installs an ignition interlock. A
lifetime suspension takes drivers off the road forever. It has
also increased fines to at least $2,000 from $300. This gives
judges the leeway to decide what the appropriate penalty will be
for the individual and it gives them the tools to work with. The
federal government is not giving the judges and the police the
tools they need.
It is time the federal government followed the leads of these
two provinces. It is time to deal with the issue, to get tough
and to took a stand.
This is such an important thing because it involves fatalities
and injuries, and mostly to young people.
1305
The federal government had an opportunity to send the message
that drinking and driving will no longer be tolerated but it has
not done it. Every one of these accidents can either take a
human life or cause terrible injuries. People who choose to
drink and drive and cause an accident or death should be treated
the same as if someone took a life in any other fashion. To take
a life is to take a life. There should be no excuse and they
should be treated the same.
However, the Liberals continue to delay Bill C-18. They show
their reluctance to take action on this. They drag their feet.
We say that we should not let up on our efforts in the House
until the drinking and driving statistics are brought down to
zero.
There are positives in Bill C-18 that we endorse and support.
Increasing the time limit for the breathalyzer and the ASD
testing to three hours, and strictly enforcing the .08 blood
alcohol concentration limit are effective amendments that will
help police in performing their duties.
Early education is the only way to really begin this process. We
support the education aspect. We also support the education of
older drivers, those between 35 and 45, who are currently the
most frequently charged re-offenders for this charge. It is not
the 16 to 21 year old drivers who are causing most of the
problem, but the drivers between 35 and 45 remain a startling
problem for driving while impaired.
There are also financial consequences that are becoming more
substantial all the time. Over a two year period an impaired
driving conviction costs at least $5,000 extra in premiums for
insurance to any consumer involved. Yet, with all the financial
hardship, embarrassment and everything else, it is still not
getting through to those drivers 35 to 45 who should know better.
The police have many problems dealing with this issue. It is one
of the issues they find most difficult to deal with. It takes a
police officer an average of two hours and 48 minutes to process
a criminal code charge. They also need the use of mobile
breathalysers, physical sobriety testing and passive alcohol
sensors to make their jobs more efficient and effective. They do
the best they can with the tools they have to work with but
presently they just do not have enough to do the job.
Even in light of the one year delay, I would like to thank the
Minister of Justice for keeping her promise and reintroducing the
life imprisonment provision through Bill C-18. We can only hope
that all parties will see the importance of this legislation and
give the bill swift passage through the House. Speaking on
behalf of the Conservative Party, we certainly will support it.
Bill C-18 amends the criminal code by increasing the maximum
penalty for impaired driving causing death to life imprisonment.
It also provides for the taking of blood samples for the purpose
of testing for the presence of a drug. The amendment gives
police the power to take a sample from the person in question,
even if that person is incapable of giving consent.
In closing, I want to say that these are all necessary tools
which we must put into the hands of the police. The whole goal
is to stop fatalities and injuries. The whole goal is to stop
impaired driving and make our highways safer.
In the words of MADD president, Carolyn Swinson, in her
correspondence to my colleague's office dated March 31, 2000, she
summed up the public sentiment with regard to Bill C-18. She
states that her:
I and my party concurs with MADD's position on this.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
always a pleasure to speak when you are in the Chair. It seems
to me that you are doing a lot of overtime there these days.
Before I get into the substance of the bill before us, I would
like to remind hon. members that on May 13, this coming
Saturday, I will be turning 38. I would like to thank all of my
colleagues who have sent me birthday wishes.
1310
The Chair has been so kind as to send me a little greeting. I
want to remind those who have not already done so that there is
only one day left. It is always a great pleasure to know that
people are thinking of us on the very personal occasion of a
birthday. I have not yet had many cards from the NDP, but there
is still time to remedy that. I would therefore like to issue a
reminder to them. On the government side, things have also been
pretty quiet, but anyway they have one more day. Since I have a
twin brother, I will share your wishes with him as well.
Now, getting down to business.
Sadly, I must inform the House that, despite the traditional
co-operation the Bloc Quebecois has always shown when bills were
reasonable, we will not be able to support Bill C-18.
A few weeks ago, I shared my concerns about the Criminal Code
with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. As she knows,
I even went so far as to register for a course in criminal law
given by Mrs. Grondin, at the University of Ottawa. She is an
excellent professor.
The exam was really a tough one, I must
admit, but a person cannot have too much knowledge when he has
to reach decisions here as a legislator. I can say that readily
because I know that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine
herself studied law at UQAM in the early 1980.
Those were the days when the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine was not only Liberal, but perhaps
even a little Bolshevik at times. That being said, she has always
had social concerns, which is, I must say, to her credit.
We cannot support Bill C-18, because it is unreasonable. A bill
requires a degree of measure, flexibility, rigour and balance.
Before getting to the core of the issue, I want to say how much
the Bloc Quebecois caucus benefited from the expertise of the
hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who is himself a great legal
expert, one of the brightest of his generation, even though he
can sometimes be stubborn. Still, I think he is one of the most
brilliant legal experts in the House.
I express, on behalf of us all, the hope that the hon. member
for Berthier—Montcalm will seek a third mandate. I know that he
can count on the support of the president of the Liberal
association in his riding, who had extremely harsh words for the
Prime Minister. The riding of Berthier—Montcalm is a breeding
ground for dissenters, a riding where critics are very vocal. I
would not be surprised to learn that, in that school where
criticism is a requirement, the member for Berthier—Montcalm
taught a few classes.
I salute the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, whom I would ask
to send me his wishes for a happy birthday on May 13, since he is
no doubt the member of this House to whom I am closest.
Coming back to the substance, Bill C-18 goes too far. How can
the government ask us, parliamentarians, to impose life
imprisonment—these words have a meaning after all—for impaired
driving causing death or bodily harm resulting in death? We must
set things back in their proper context.
1315
Let us examine what the Criminal Code is all about. The
Criminal Code is a law. Some might think it is not a law, but
it is. It is a law containing several hundred sections—on
procuring, on criminal interest rates, on property given as
security, on homicide, on defamatory libel, section 347 on
criminal interest rates. It is a key piece of legislation. But
in a society that wants criminal law to be taken seriously,
there must be a balance between the sentences proposed to us as
lawmakers and the offences committed.
We know that our justice system is an adversarial system, with
the crown, represented by those defending the government, on one
side, and the defence on the other.
Even though lawmakers have suggested a number of sentences
within the Criminal Code, these are always discretionary.
I would like to interrupt my speech to read a message which I
will not hesitate to make public, with the kind permission of
the House. I am touched. It reads: “Happy birthday, love and
kisses, Svend Robinson”.
I would like a round of applause because May 13 will be my
birthday. Thank you to all those who remembered to send their
good wishes to me and my twin brother. It is this sort of
thoughtfulness that makes it all the nicer to work together. I
thank all my colleagues. I will be 38, and 40 is just around
the corner, but I must say that I think I am in rather good
shape for my age. Once again, I thank our colleague, Svend
Robinson.
The Criminal Code must therefore reflect what we see as
effective sentences. The House will remember how, a few years
back, we amended the Criminal Code. I must pause again for all
the congratulations.
A man much liked by the House, one of the most brilliant
defenders of the working class, has sent me another birthday
telegram “Happy birthday, and many more, Yvon Godin,
Acadie—Bathurst”. I thank my colleague, and on behalf of—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows very
well that we cannot read out the names of members, only their
ridings. Everyone knows that, and the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst may be cited without the need to mention his
name. I hope the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will
comply with the Standing Orders.
Mr. Réal Ménard: You are right, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that,
in this special moment of celebration as we focus a bit on our
private lives, you might be a bit more indulgent. I want to
thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who, as we know, has been
an outspoken advocate of workers in the House. I think he
deserves our recognition. That, I think, closes the birthday
period.
I want to return to the extremely important Bill C-18, in which
there has to be a balance between sentencing and the offence
being considered. This is so true that, a few years ago, we
amended the Criminal Code to provide that in social terms there
were certain circumstances and certain offences that would
result in a harsher sentence.
We adopted provisions on crimes of hatred, for example.
We agreed as a society and as parliamentarians that in certain
instances, such as when people beat others up because of their
sexual orientation, the judiciary would have no choice but to
mete out a harsher sentence to those doing so.
The question today is whether it might be a bit excessive to
want to put a person in prison for life for impaired driving
causing the death of another.
1320
Obviously we must take every measure available to us to prevent
people from driving under the influence. The Bloc Quebecois
supports measures that are along the lines of education
campaigns.
We remember the education campaigns aimed at drinking
and driving carried out in co-operation with a number of cable
companies. We all recall the campaign “Drinking and driving is a
crime”. I believe we are right not to tolerate this kind of
behaviour. But it seems to me that between trying to deter
people from driving under the influence and sentencing them to
life in prison, there is quite a step that we as
parliamentarians should not take.
The member for Berthier—Montcalm, whose huge talent we all
appreciate, did tell us in caucus that it was extremely
important.
I must stop once again to bring to the attention of the House
that I have received a gift of flowers, little red roses from an
anonymous donor. As we are all a little bit on the socialist
side in this House, I wish to thank the anonymous source, it
gives me a great pleasure nonetheless.
I resume by saying that the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree with the
government members who want us to allow the judges to sentence
to life in prison individuals guilty of impaired driving causing
death.
In spite of the deep emotions I am feeling right now, allow me
to share with the House an editorial from La Presse.
This is really unbelievable. I hardly know how to react, but I
will share this message with those listening “Happy birthday to
a brilliant and charming colleague. Vive le Québec libre”. And
it is signed “the premier”. Well, really, my life is complete.
And I have the piece of paper to prove it. But, moving on.
Journalist Pierre Gravel, who is not on the payroll of the Bloc
Quebecois and who is known for his seriousness, integrity and
analytical mind, wrote the following editorial a while back, on
June 3, 1999. It is therefore fairly recent. He said:
The Bloc Quebecois has often been criticized for systematically
blocking Ottawa's every move just to prove that the federal
system cannot work.
But this is a charge that will not stick in the case of its
stand in the debate on sentences for impaired drivers.
On the contrary, in this debate, it is the Bloc Quebecois' firm stand
that has been largely responsible for tempering the excessive
zeal—
I repeat:
With the number of
serious accidents due to impaired driving climbing year after
year until there is now a crisis, federal authorities have been
concerned about this problem for some time now. In 1997 alone,
there were no fewer than 193 accidents in Canada related to
alcohol consumption that resulted in the death of at least one
person.
The publication of statistics like this would have been a
signal to any responsible government to review the preventive and
punitive measures that might stop the slaughter.
1325
The article also says:
This was in fact the mandate of a Commons committee on justice,
which, in recent months, applied itself reviewing all laws that
might have an effect on this so as to make recommendations to
Minister Anne McLellan in preparation for the tabling of a
proposal to change existing legislation.
But, when the government—
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to be especially attentive, along with my
colleagues in government. I will not read too quickly so it will
not be too difficult for the interpreters. I will table this
document so it will be easier for debates.
It says:
But when the government, as is the case at the moment, runs
headlong into an ultraconservative and populist opposition such
as the Reform Party—
Members will understand that this was before the day the right
united in the hope of one day forming the government. All this,
members will understand, is just wishful thinking, but this is
not what the author was getting at.
But when the government, as is the case at the moment, runs
headlong into an ultraconservative and populist opposition such
as the Reform Party, which always advocates stiffer sentences to
ensure that law and order prevail everywhere, we run the risk
inevitably of having—
This is the heart of the author's argument.
The expression does not come from the Bloc Quebecois, I remind
members, but from journalist Pierre Gravel.
When, moreover, the party in power—
I am talking about Liberals, including you, Mr. Speaker.
I hope the members of the government have understood.
[English]
I wish members on the government side would open their ears
and hear correctly.
[Translation]
I have said it in English to make sure the Liberals get it.
Continuing, then:
Here then we have a tribute to the lucidity of the Bloc
Quebecois being made by La Presse, a paper that cannot of course
be suspected of any sympathy for the sovereignty cause.
Continuing to quote the editorial:
It must have been obvious to those drafting it that, regardless
of the opinion of the supporters of unqualified severity, it was
total madness to call for life imprisonment for impaired drivers
involved in a fatal accident. All one needs to do to convince
oneself of this is to look at how any murderer or hit man can
reach deals with the authorities, plea bargaining for a lesser
sentence in exchange for some co-operation, or some more or less
spontaneous admission. As the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has
in fact pointed out, it is a kind of aberration to insist on a
life sentence for a driver who has done something stupid,
something of enormity but nevertheless unpremeditated, while a
criminal who has carefully planned someone's death can get off
with fourteen years in the penitentiary.
This is the most basic of inconsistencies. Continuing to quote
Mr. Gravel:
Undeniably, a clear message must be sent to all those who are
irresponsible enough to drive when they are drunk. But if
wisdom starts with fear, we ought perhaps to start out by
letting them know that judges will have more leeway in future
for imposing more severe sentences. They also need to know,
however, that these sentences will really have to be served.
I will stop for another brief aside, as I have received another
message of good wishes. I shall make it public because we are
paid to make our points of view public:
I thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine on your
behalf. It is always nice to enjoy an atmosphere of open
camaraderie.
1330
We will, therefore, not be in a position to support this bill.
We hope that the government will rediscover the character of
reasonableness the taxpayers expect from the party in power. I
thank all those who have made this speech possible.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I listened carefully to the speech made by my colleague, who
lost his concentration a few times because of his birthday, but
who made serious remarks about this issue, since we must also
think about the victims who die in accidents caused by impaired
drivers.
As my colleague mentioned, we must avoid going too far because
sentences that are too harsh may have a negative effect. I was
at the committee last year because there were cases that had to
be mentioned, in my riding as well as elsewhere.
If the sentence is too harsh, it will encourage what is called
hit and runs. Imagine someone who causes such an accident. If
the sentence is too harsh, such as life in prison, that person
will be inclined not to face up to his or her responsibilities,
to flee the scene of the accident without trying to come to the
victim's aid, even if it is just by calling for help as soon as
possible.
In applying such a harsh sentence, I think we must look at the
negative effect it can have. I would like my colleague to
comment on that.
Last year, the House rectified one situation, and we all agreed
that people involved in hit and run incidents had to be dealt
with as harshly as those who caused death, involuntarily of
course, because they were driving while impaired. There is a new
balance. It was something that had to be changed.
It seems to me that if a life sentence is maintained in such
cases, it will encourage people to flee the scene of an
accident. I would like my colleague to comment on that.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I fully endorse the very qualified
and judicious comments of the hon. member for
Lévis-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, whose pragmatism has always benefited
this House.
My colleague reflects the view of our caucus when he says that
there is a point beyond which sentencing, because of its
excessive nature, becomes counterproductive. I also heard the
hon. member for Chambly, who is also a legal expert, and whose
comments were just as judicious. He reminded us that the
practical consequence of a bill like this one, if it is passed,
is to authorize and encourage hit and run offences.
Is this what we, as parliamentarians, want? As I remember, the
Criminal Code includes a provision requiring people to provide
assistance when a person's life is in danger, although I cannot
tell members which section it is.
We are acutely aware of the fact that we must deter people from
driving under the influence. We do not believe that, from a
social perspective, that objective can be achieved through
excessive sentencing. We must think about it: life imprisonment.
The sentence is of course imposed by the bench, but the
practical consequence of the proposed legislation is to allow a
judge to impose life imprisonment on a person who drove under
the influence, when those who commit the most serious crimes—
those who terrorize us—can get away with a 14 year sentence.
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand.
It seems to me that the point of view defended by the Bloc
Quebecois is a balanced, reasonable and rational one that calls
for a fair trade-off between what the Criminal Code allows and
the integrity to which we must aspire as individuals.
1335
What I am asking the government to do—and I do not think it
excessive—is to recall the bill, not to put it on the Order
Paper for consideration by members of the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights.
We are not in any way minimizing its
importance. I would not like it myself if my sister, my brother
or my little nephew were killed in a collision with a drunk
driver. As parliamentarians, we do not wish to experience this
in our personal lives, but I think that we must not go to
extremes and pass bills as radically unreasonable as this.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice is with us today. I say to him, as we have always
done—we are a responsible opposition—that when the government
introduces balanced bills, bills that are in the best interests
of Quebec, we vote in favour. The list of bills that we have
supported is a long one. We have always done so with this same
sense of proportion and responsibility that must transcend
political differences.
I repeat: this bill cannot be supported because, as the member
for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has said, it goes too far.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I cannot ask my
question without first wishing my colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve happy birthday.
I would like to know if my learned colleague, who knows and
studies every single piece of legislation introduced in the
House, would agree that, in the responsibility placed on
citizens and in the degree of criminality assigned to the
actions of citizens, there should be some kind of gradation
whereby sentences should also take criminal intent into account?
I totally agree that nobody should drive while impaired. Only a
fool would say that it is acceptable, except that in Quebec—and
the same thing must be happening throughout Canada—there is an
increase in hit and run incidents.
Will the harsher sentences provided for in this bill cause a
further increase in hit and run incidents? For example, when the
person who inadvertently exceeds the speed limit has to pay a
heavier fine than the man who assaulted his neighbour with a
baseball bat, there must be something wrong.
I would like the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to tell us if
it is fair to say that the penalty imposed for a reprehensible
act must be proportionate not only to the act itself but also to
the intent of committing that act? The mens rea, or guilty
intent, principle seems to be totally ignored in this bill. We
know that there is no crime without the two main elements,
namely actus reus and mens rea, the act and the intent.
Here is an example I studied in law school. Someone breaks into
a residence, stabs the occupant in the back—and it has happened
—and the occupant panics and jumps from the second floor to
escape the aggressor and dies from the fall.
The courts said that the actus reus, or the act of stabbing the
person, was not the cause of death. Some will say that this is
an aberration. The bill before us must not lead to similar
aberrations. Perhaps the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who is
celebrating his birthday today—time flies—could tell us if this is
one of his concerns. Could our brilliant colleague, who is also
a legal expert, tell us that?
1340
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member
for Chambly for his erudition. We all know that he is one of the
few people in this House who can talk about the history of France
and the last referendum and quote from the criminal code from
memory.
I think his is one of the most brilliant minds in this House,
are there are not too many of them. However, we can say there are
quite a few on this side.
In conclusion, I must say that the member for Chambly has
understood the main part of the Bloc Quebecois position. He
touched the essential of our preoccupations. We believe that
there is a huge gap between the objectives of the bill and the
means used to achieve them.
I do not know if I have enough time left to explain briefly the
notions of actus reus and mens rea.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: For the benefit of this House.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Having heard all the birthday wishes that were made to the member
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I wonder if we could offer him a
gift. With the unanimous consent of the House, we could perhaps
allow him five more minutes to explain those notions.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps, but he can always do so at
another time. As we all know, his time is now over.
Is there unanimous consent to authorize the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to continue for a minute?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on debate,
but I wanted to take a quick opportunity to wish the brilliant
and charming member opposite a happy birthday from this side of
the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, it is important to discuss
Bill C-18, a bill dealing with impaired driving causing death.
This bill introduced by the federal government goes too far. It
provides for life imprisonment for an offender who is condemned
for impaired driving causing death. I think this is going beyond
the objectives we should have in the criminal code.
The Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-18, even if it considers
impaired driving a very serious offence. We think that, by
passing Bill C-18, we would negate the specific nature of this
offence, and create a serious imbalance in our criminal justice
system.
Sentences already provided for are said to be underused by the
courts. Statistics show that the courts have not used, far from
it, the full range of the sentences provided for in the criminal
code.
The most severe sentence ever imposed by the courts for impaired
driving causing death is ten years. The judges are in the best
position to analyse the specific case of each offender, because
it is their responsibility to do so, and they have not used the
full range of what is already provided for in the criminal code,
which sets at 14 years the maximum sentence for impaired driving
causing death. In other words, there is a gap between what is
actually being done and what is allowed in the code. Right now,
the average sentence is 10 years, but sentences could go up to 14
years.
On top of that, the ratio of offenders sentenced to prison for
impaired driving has dropped from 22% in 1994-95 to 19% in
1997-98. Most prison sentences are less than two years.
1345
Why should we pass legislation to allow life imprisonment
sentences when the courts are not fully using the tools they
already have?
In Canada, partly because of the practice in the United States
and partly under the influence of the right wing movement
represented here by the Canadian Alliance, we have often believed
that we would solve problems by imposing harsher sentences under
the Code. Each time we have a problem with the behaviour of
offenders in our society, we think the best way to deal with the
problem is to amend the criminal code and increase the sentence.
The legislation before us today is a case in point, and so was
the bill on young offenders; the Liberal government was somehow
intoxicated by this right-wing approach according to which it is
absolutely necessary to strengthen discipline, make it very
harsh, and offenders will only change their behaviour if we
strike them hard.
Today's case is a perfect example of this new philosophy which
is influencing law in Canada. I think we can safely say that
this approach is more widespread in the provinces with a majority
of English-speaking people and much less so in Quebec.
We have shown that showing compassion and openness, by giving
young offenders a chance to rehabilitate themselves for instance,
often produces better results in the end.
It actually allows us to have a more just society, which is
always the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law is not just
to punish as much as possible.
The purpose is to create a just and balanced society and, in
this case, the Liberal government's attitude appears to be based
much more on its desire to please people, namely the right wing
in Canada, who are asking for stiffer sentences. This does not
seem to be an interesting solution.
The number of offences involving impaired driving causing death
is not rising. No one denies the fact that impaired driving
causing death is a very serious offence. We must judge these
situations very carefully and make sure we find the right
solutions.
However, it is false to claim that we are facing a rash of
crimes in that area. In 1998, 103 individuals were charged with
impaired driving causing death, and this is the lowest number of
cases since 1989.
We have a situation where rumour has it that things are
terrible. Rumour is often magnified by the media and by the focus
which is put on events. However, statistics based on a 10 year
period show a situation which does not correspond to the isolated
events reported on TV. From that perspective, the current
situation in Canada does not justify such a serious measure to
deal with the issue.
I referred earlier to the right wing. It appears that Canada is
becoming a champion of incarceration, second only to the United
States.
Canada incarcerates twice as many people as most European
countries.
Besides, in the Gladue case, the supreme court justices
condemned the federal lawmakers' excessive reliance on prison
sentences to deal with delinquency problems.
This is yet another example of our need to be responsible in
this parliament. We are not here only to ride social trends. We
are here also to legislate and make decisions that reflect
reality.
We have realize that, under this legislation, we would treat a
drunk driver like a hitman. We have a double standard, here.
Members who spoke before me have made it clear that for a crime
to be committed, there must be an act and an intent. A hitman,
for example, has clear intent from the beginning and his act is
deliberate. On the other hand, in the case of the person who
commits the crime of impaired driving causing death, something
horrible that must be punished, motivation and full knowledge are
not as obvious.
1350
I believe it would be a mistake to give, under the criminal
code, equal importance to these two things. This could lead to
discrepancies. For instance, a drunk driver, who has undeniably
been negligent, could receive a harsher sentence that a hired
killer who, after skilfully plotting the death of his victim, can
be given a reduced sentence as an informer.
Members can imagine this: an individual is given life for
impaired driving causing death, and even though it is his first
offence, he receives a very harsh sentence for an offence which
is certainly serious but which, in our opinion, does not warrant
such a sentence, whereas a hired killer would be sentenced to
less time in prison because of his being an informer. This is a
double standard and it is unacceptable.
Both individuals committed very reprehensible acts. However,
their profiles are quite different, a fact Bill C-18 does not
recognize. This is why the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the
bill.
Moreover, one must take into account other sentences related to
offences the characteristics of which are comparable to impaired
driving causing death. For instance, under the criminal code,
dangerous driving causing death is punishable by a 14 year
sentence. Since 1985, for this kind of offence, the average
sentence handed down by appeal courts in Canada has been 19
months.
How can the minister justify sentencing an offender who killed
someone in cold blood and in full possession of his faculties to
a shorter prison term than a driver whose faculties were
diminished by alcohol? Again, this is not consistent with the
rules on which our laws are based.
Here are further examples of serious offences, the perpetrators
of which are fully aware of what they are doing, leading to
lesser sentences than impaired driving should Bill C-18 become
law.
First, let us look at attempted murder.
An individual who has attempted, without success, to murder
someone would get a lighter sentence than someone convicted of
impaired driving causing death. Pursuant to section 463(a) of
the criminal code, this individual would be liable to
imprisonment for a term of 14 years. As members can see, an
individual who attempted knowingly to murder someone would face a
lighter sentence than someone convicted of impaired driving
causing death. There is a double standard here, and it is
unacceptable.
Another example is the case of accessories after the fact.
Someone who has helped a murderer to elude the authorities would
face a lighter sentence than someone convicted of impaired
driving causing death. Pursuant to section 463(a) of the
criminal code, this person is now liable to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 14 years.
Another type of crime is participation in a criminal
organization. As everyone knows, the issue of organized crime is
dramatic and terrible nowadays. A confirmed criminal who is part
of a criminal organization and who participates in its illegal
activities is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14
years, pursuant to section 467.1(2) of the criminal code.
These are three examples of a double standard in comparison with
what is proposed in Bill C-18: attempted murder, accessory after
the fact and participation in a criminal organization.
I will add a fourth one: aggravated assault. An individual who
wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of someone
commits an aggravated assault. Pursuant to section 268 of the
criminal code, an individual who commits such an offence is
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
This bill would impose a life sentence on a person who causes
death in an accident because of impaired driving, while a person
who assaults, injures, maims or disfigures someone or puts their
life in danger gets a maximum of 14 years.
There is a clear lack of logic in the current position. The
reason for that is that this position is not based on legal
considerations, but rather on political considerations, in that
the Liberal government wants to please the right wing, which is
found mainly in English Canada.
Like the person accused of impaired driving causing death, the
person accused of causing bodily harm did not foresee the
consequences of the offence. Yet, one is given a much harsher
sentence than the other: ten years for the one who caused bodily
harm and life for the one who caused death.
1355
What makes impaired driving causing death more negligent than
impaired driving causing bodily harm? Both offences are identical
in terms of intent, with regard to the consequences of the
offence.
Even though the Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that the
sentences for both offences must remain different, it does not
want that difference to be disproportionate. In maintaining the
sentence at 14 years imprisonment, as is the case now, for
impaired driving causing death, we would make a distinction that
is proportionate to the consequences of both offences, while
recognizing their similarity in terms of intent.
All that, when we already have in Quebec and Alberta the
possibility of using far less drastic means that would produce
equally satisfactory results: the ignition interlock system.
Alberta and Quebec are currently the only provinces to impose
ignition interlock systems as a condition for the issue of a
restricted driver's license for drivers whose driver's license
has been suspended. In other words, someone whose license is
suspended, known to be a repeat offender is obliged to use an
ignition interlock system, and the problem is solved at source
in most cases.
Rather than send someone to prison for life for something he did
not intend to do—it is a serious act and should be punished—it
might be a good idea to try to prevent the recurrence of this
act by applying practical solutions such as the ignition
interlock.
This system determines blood alcohol level from a sample of the
driver's breath. It prevents the vehicle from starting if the
driver's alcohol level is higher than a set level.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that the criminal code should be
amended to make it mandatory to install these interlock systems
in the case of a repeat offender. I think this is a practical
solution that could be implemented. It is a preventive measure
that eliminates the problem at source and limits potentially
tragic mistakes as well.
People who are very responsible citizens could do something
unacceptable in a given situation, such as driving while
intoxicated and by doing so have caused a death.
The situation is not necessarily the result of a life of crime.
It is not the result of continual delinquency, but a situation
that occurred once in a person's life. Few people in this House
could say that they might not do the same thing.
The practical solution proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, and I
hope the government agrees to it, is the alcohol ignition
interlock system, to put a stop to these situations at the
source. In ten years, we will see, if the Bloc proposal is
chosen, fewer and fewer sentences and fewer and fewer deaths
caused by the irresponsibility of a drunken driver.
The Speaker: The hon. member still has five minutes left. If he
wishes, he may conclude his remarks after Oral Question Period.
We will now proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
LACHINE WHARF
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Thursday, May 4, I made an announcement on behalf
of the Minister of Transport on the transfer of the ownership of
the Lachine wharf from Transport Canada to the City of Lachine.
Under the terms of this transfer, Transport Canada will make a
$250,000 financial contribution, which represents the costs of
repairs slated for completion within the next year.
Under the national marine policy announced in December 1995,
regional/local port sites, 37 of which are in the Quebec Region,
are being transferred to other interests over a six-year period
ending on March 31, 2002. In some cases, ports are being
transferred as operating ports; in other cases, for other uses.
The Lachine wharf is used regularly for sport fishing and other
leisure activities. This infrastructure is used as an extension
of the municipal park facilities. It also serves as a sheltering
structure for a pleasure boat ramp.
The transfer of the Lachine wharf to the City—
The Hon. the Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George—Peace
River.
* * *
[English]
NORTHWEST CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the hard
work and vision of the Northwest Corridor Development Corporation
headquartered in Prince George, B.C.
The NCDC was established in 1998 as a self-sustaining
organization aimed at promoting Canadian trade to and from Asia
Pacific markets through this capable route.
1400
The northwest transportation and trade corridor spans four
western provinces providing an existing system of northern road,
rail, air, pipeline, marine and telecommunications from the
prairies to the Pacific. Currently the corridor services Canada's
major resource sectors yet it is severely underutilized.
Western Canadians have always been at the cutting edge of
political and commercial innovation. The northwest corridor is a
shining example of public and private sector partnership.
I want to congratulate Jeff Burghardt, chair of NCDC, and his
team for taking routes travelled in the 19th century and turning
them into economic arteries for the 21st.
* * *
YOUTH
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
recently attended a seminar entitled “There's Something About
Money”. Two schools in my riding, Lisgar Collegiate and Nepean
High School, hosted sessions. The seminars drew on the talents of
community volunteers like Tammy Drapeau from Scotiabank.
I compliment the Canadian Bankers Association for developing
this timely seminar series. This partnership between business and
the community is helping young people make wise decisions about
their financial future.
During National Youth Week, this is one more example of youth
getting involved in preparing themselves for the future. I
encourage organizers and participants to keep up the great work.
* * *
MANITOBA
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the 130th anniversary of
the creation of my province of Manitoba. Thanks to the efforts
of Louis Riel and his provisional government, the province was
carved out of what was then the North-West Territories.
Since May 12, 1870 Manitoba has grown and prospered. Its
ethnically diverse population comes from every corner of the
world, a fact celebrated in Winnipeg's annual Folklorama
festival.
As the gateway to the west, Manitoba has grown from its early
dependence on agriculture to one of the most diversified
economies in the country with strong manufacturing,
transportation, financial and high tech sectors. Despite the
growth, Manitoba remains a land of unspoiled natural beauty. It
is a land where the lakes and forests of the Canadian shield meet
the tall grass and wheat fields of the prairies. It is a land
that truly bridges east and west.
Please join me in congratulating Manitoba on its 130th birthday.
* * *
SIERRA LEONE
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
tragedy unfolding yet again in Sierra Leone is an outrage as the
Minister of Foreign Affairs has said. It is also an
international scandal having regard to the inaction of the
international community undermining the integrity and efficacy of
the United Nations and the doctrine of human security.
The minister has said “This is where we must take a stand”. I
urge the government to take the lead in organizing a human
security package for Sierra Leone including buttressing the
mandate, the numbers and resources of the UN peacekeeping force
and establishing a rapid action force with our participation.
After the tragedy of our inaction in Rwanda we said never again.
The time to act is now. Qui s'excuse, s'accuse.
* * *
FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
a pregnant woman who drinks alcohol to excess can permanently
harm her baby. Fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect
today are well understood by scientists and health care workers.
Learning is blunted. Many youth so afflicted are antisocial. A
significant number of people who commit crimes are FAS youth.
Many women have no idea about the difficulties alcohol can cause
to infants in the womb. One way to educate the public would be
to label alcoholic beverages. A graphic label showing a pregnant
woman in profile with an x across her would be a warning
even for illiterate Canadians to be cautious.
The recent murder of little Jessica Russell in B.C. by an
alleged FAS victim should be a clear reminder to all brewers and
distillers that they have a responsibility to act voluntarily to
educate and prevent fetal alcohol syndrome.
* * *
CHILD SAFETY
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I stand to offer condolences to two families in my
riding of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford who are undergoing the
horrific tragedy of the suffocation deaths of their small
children in a trunk in the attic of one of the family homes.
These little playmates were inseparable and during a game of hide
and seek clambered into an old trunk with a hasp that locked and
thus sealed their fate.
In spite of their heartache, these families have indicated their
wish to heighten awareness of the potential dangers posed by
common household items.
1405
A trust fund has been set up and proceeds will go to Codrington
Public School, where two of the children attended, to educate
children about safety issues.
No parent, grandparent or guardian can afford not to be
continuously on guard in their homes, cottages, garages and sheds
to ensure that there are no potential risks to the health and
safety of our children.
* * *
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
no secret that the Liberal government's environmental management
is insufficient in a number of ways. The importing of MOX is a
good example.
After last-minute changes relating to Atomic Energy of Canada
Ltd's shipping plan, the federal government imported 120 grams of
plutonium by plane, a procedure that is illegal in the United
States.
Yet shipping by air had been judged far too dangerous last fall
during consultations with Atomic Energy of Canada.
Russia is now preparing to ship 600 grams of plutonium over
here, which is five times more than initially planned. The
federal government has a duty to consult people on the principle
of importing plutonium.
To date, 152 municipalities and regional municipalities in
Quebec have passed resolutions in opposition to this. I would
invite the public to come and sign petitions available in all
riding offices of the Bloc Quebecois members.
* * *
[English]
BEN SOAVE
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on May 6, Superintendent Ben Soave, who has had a long and
brilliant career with the RCMP, was awarded the Order of the
Italian Republic and named a Knight Officer of the Order of
Merit, an order similar to the Order of Canada, by the Consul
General of Italy.
Superintendent Ben Soave heads the Toronto based Combined Forces
Special Enforcement Unit. This unit is made up of provincial and
federal police forces, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the
Criminal Intelligence Service of Ontario.
Under Superintendent Soave's leadership, this unit was
responsible for the arrest of some of the world's most notorious
criminals. In June 1998 project Omertà dealt a significant blow
to one of the largest and most established drug smuggling and
money laundering organizations in the world.
Today the government is honoured to recognize the award bestowed
upon Superintendent Soave.
* * *
CAMILLE MONTPETIT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, today the House pays tribute to one of its dedicated and
loyal servants, Camille Montpetit, senior adviser to the Clerk of
the House of Commons, who has decided to take on the challenge of
retirement. His new status will dovetail well with his new title
of grandfather. This title was recently bestowed upon him by
Chloe Montpetit who was born on April 8.
Chloe is very proud of her grandfather's parliamentary record.
She cooed when she discovered that he joined the Committee
Reporting Service in 1968, and she burbled to find out that he
was head of the transcription section from 1971 to 1975. She
almost spit up though when she learned he became a committee
clerk and later was appointed deputy principal clerk in June
1983. When she heard that in 1986 he became a table officer and
a principal clerk, only to move on in 1994 to clerk assistant and
later deputy clerk of the House of Commons in 1998, she could not
hold back her tears.
When her dear mother told Chloe of her grandfather's role as
co-editor of the new procedural book House of Commons
Procedure and Practice, well, it was more than just tears that
Chloe failed to hold back.
Not to worry. Camille has guided many of us members of
parliament through our parliamentary problems and that experience
will help him assist little Chloe with her Pamper problems in the
future.
All of us in the House wish Camille Montpetit the very best in
his retirement. On behalf of all MPs, I thank him for his many
years of service to the House and to Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
WATERLOO REGIONAL CHILDREN'S MUSEUM
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to congratulate the Waterloo Regional
Children's Museum.
Through the local labour market partnerships program of Human
Resources Development, the museum will receive $36,000 to help
establish a workshop which will be used for carpentry, metal
working and graphics development.
The workshop will be occupied by artists and technologists. They
will build the many diverse and educational exhibits on display
at the museum. The government's funding will help create five
permanent jobs for the workshop.
The museum will provide interactive, creative and technological
activities and exhibits for children and their families. They
will have the opportunity to explore and learn in a dynamic and
safe environment.
This is an ambitious project. I would like to commend all of
those individuals, and specifically Rosemary Aicher, for their
dedication in providing this facility which encourages learning
and invests in our children.
* * *
1410
TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Trans-Canada Highway once proudly symbolized the
national yearning to unite our country from coast to coast.
Sadly in Maple Creek, Saskatchewan it symbolizes injury, death
and the indifference of the federal Liberal government. On this
one stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway alone there have been 900
accidents in the last 12 years resulting in 26 deaths and 356
serious injuries. In fact some 40 people have died on this one
stretch of highway since 1979.
On Thursday, April 13 Saskatchewan highways minister Maynard
Sonntag demanded again that the Liberals participate in the
twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway. Tragically the next day
there was another accident killing three people and closing the
highway for over 12 hours.
The province of Saskatchewan carries 96% of highway spending.
Canada is the only industrialized country with no national
highways program.
Saskatchewan can finish the twinning on its own by 2012 or it
can finish it much sooner with federal money. We need the
Liberals' urgent help to save lives now.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE ANDRÉ FORTIN
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning,
Quebec was plunged into a state of mourning. One of the greatest
innovators on Quebec's musical scene in the past ten years has
left us at the age of 38.
Singer and leader of the Colocs, affectionately known as Dédé by
those close to him and by a Quebec that has included “La p'tite
Julie” in all its celebrations since 1993, André Fortin passed
away yesterday.
Born in Saint-Thomas-Didyme, in my riding, the tenth of a
musical family of 11 children, Dédé literally burst onto the
Quebec musical scene in the summer of 1993. The young and the not
so young all over Quebec have shared with him since then the
images in “Rue principale”, “Magasin général” and “Passe de
puck”.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to express our
solidarity at this time of great sadness with his family and
friends.
Dédé, you may have left us, but we will keep on saying “maudit
que le monde est beau” in your honour.
* * *
[English]
CYSTIC FIBROSIS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform members of the House and all Canadians
that May is Cystic Fibrosis Month.
Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease affecting primarily the
respiratory and digestive systems. As yet there is no cure for
it.
Approximately one in 25 Canadians carries the gene which causes
this disease and approximately one in every 2,500 children born
in Canada has the disease. Cystic fibrosis is one of the most
deadly inherited diseases affecting Canadian children and young
adults.
The Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation supports clinical
services for persons with this disease and supports scientific
research to find a cure or control for the condition. Volunteers
and supporters in communities across the country conduct public
awareness and fundraising activities.
I want to congratulate all those associated with the foundation
for their many achievements. I wish them the very best not only
during this month but throughout the year.
* * *
TEACHING EXCELLENCE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased and proud to congratulate Mr. Paul Barrett, a
teacher at the Cobequid Educational Centre in Truro, Nova Scotia,
who last night was the recipient of the Prime Minister's
Certificate for Teaching Excellence.
Mr. Barrett is a music teacher who is very active in his
community and volunteers his time and services to help others.
He is devoted to his students, his school and his music. I have
had the very good fortune of being in the audience when his
students play. I can attest to their professionalism, excellence
and enthusiasm.
Another teacher from my riding received the Prime Minister's
Certificate of Achievement. Louise Cloutier from Pugwash
District High teaches French and Art. Through her enthusiastic
efforts and encouragement, 60% of students participate in the
arts program at Pugwash District High. The students learn more
about themselves and their world and how to express themselves in
a variety of ways because of the good efforts of Louise Cloutier.
Congratulations to Paul Barrett and Louise Cloutier, two of
Canada's finest teachers. Congratulations also to the Prime
Minister for his participation in this worthy program.
* * *
STUDENT EXCHANGE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
summer once again a group of students from Peterborough will
exchange homes and summer jobs with students from Quebec.
Last year in Peterborough, Quebec students worked for five
different employers, gaining useful work experience while getting
to know their host families and our community. I want to thank
the Canadian Canoe Museum, the Otonabee Region Conservation
Foundation, Lang Village, Trent University and Warsaw Caves as
well as the host families and HRDC staff for their help with this
program.
Programs like this and the regular high school SEVEC exchange
enrich the lives of young people and their families and make
Canada even stronger.
My best wishes to all participants in this program this summer.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the junior HRDC minister
raised the spectre of McCarthyism. A billion dollars was bungled
and friends of the reds benefited. Questionable grants were
handed out and friends of the reds lined their pockets.
Questionable donations were encouraged and friends of the reds
cashed in.
I would like to ask the red menace, is she now or has she ever
been a member of that bungling—
The Speaker: I would remind members that we address each
other by our proper titles rather than give each other nicknames.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member is willing to admit by
her question that she is a member of the bungling, boondoggling
party originally known as C-C-R-A-P.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask my colleagues
once again to please tone down the rhetoric. We are getting a
bit off track.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Modes Conili got nearly three
quarters of a million dollars in a job grant, even though no jobs
were going to be created. Pierre Côté, the head of the
commission governing working conditions in the ladies clothing
industry, confirmed yesterday that the jobs were transferred, not
created, and he had assured Quebec regulators that no jobs would
be lost.
He told the Montreal Gazette:
If Mr. Côté knew it and the Quebec regulators knew it, why did
HRDC cut them a cheque?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said
repeatedly that if new information were to come to this House we
would investigate it. We received new information on Tuesday, we
reviewed it yesterday and, therefore, we have passed this new
information to the RCMP.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it took three years. Let us look at
the chronology.
The member for Ahuntsic lobbies the HRDC minister for a job
grant for the newly incorporated Modes Conili. The department
then cuts a cheque for three quarters of a million dollars.
Modes Conili then finances 10% of the election campaign for the
member for Ahuntsic. The HRDC minister gets 160 new jobs
transferred to his riding just in time for the federal election.
Could it be that these are the facts that kept HRDC from blowing
the whistle on this scam three years ago?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's question is based on faulty premises,
the kinds of insinuations and innuendoes that led to the very
valid point made yesterday by the parliamentary secretary.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, HRDC supposedly looked into the Modes
Conili allegations back in 1997. A cross-check of social
insurance numbers had shown that workers hired by this newly
created Conili were simply transfers from a former company. A
reporter made a few phone calls last week, three years later, and
quickly uncovered even more evidence that the whole exercise was
a scam designed to scoop up three quarters of a million taxpayer
dollars.
Why is the minister hiding the report that she claims showed no
wrongdoing?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not
hiding anything. As I said yesterday, there was a review of this
file. Our officials expressed some concern about it. A person
from the fraud and investigation branch looked at it. At that
time he could find no evidence of wrongdoing and the file was
closed.
It was upon receipt of the new evidence provided by the Bloc
that we were able to move and refer this to the police, which is
the appropriate action.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, then it is very simple. If the
department in fact found no evidence of wrongdoing, why will it
not simply table the report that it claims shows it had no reason
to interfere before? If nothing is wrong, let us see the
evidence. Come clean, be transparent and show us the documents.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the same
theme is re-stated over and over about transparency. This is the
department that the Reform's own researcher said was the best for
access to information requests.
1420
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the Conili matter, there was no problem Monday, and today
there is an investigation by the RCMP, the mounted police, as the
Prime Minister calls them.
However, the government had all the documents. What we raised
came from an investigation done by officials in their department.
There was another report to contradict, to mask what was
revealed.
I would like to propose a few questions to the parliamentary
secretary to pass on to the RCMP.
What happened, and, more importantly, what led to the jobs being
taken from my riding—
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the new
information that came to light on Monday in the House, which we
received on Tuesday, is the information that has been given to
the RCMP.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is a good thing we introduced new information; now there is an
RCMP investigation underway. I have more to introduce today.
Is there not some concern about the letter of agreement by the
former Minister of Human Resources Development, who took jobs
away from my riding and moved them to the riding of Ahuntsic and
now to his own—all that in exchange for a $7,000 contribution to
the Liberal Party coffers just before the election?
Could she ask the RCMP to investigate that gentlemen who is the
minister there and who still holds sway in other files?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am unaware
of any such agreement. If they have any evidence of wrongdoing,
I have told them time and time again to bring it forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the police investigation in no way diminishes
ministerial accountability.
Let us not forget that Pierre Côté, head of the clothing
industry joint committee, had previously received assurances
from Modes Conili Star that the jobs would only be transferred.
In other words, everyone knew, except the government.
If the joint committee received early notice, then how and why
would the minister have us believe that the government did not
know anything about this?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have done
something about it. Once we found out about these letters, which
the Bloc was waving in the House on Monday, we moved and referred
all of this to the RCMP, which is the appropriate response.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister tells us that she did not know.
Is it normal that those who give the money, who have thousands
of public servants working for them, who have the required
investigators, are not aware of obvious facts, such as the
squandering of $700,000 in public money, just before an
election?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the
moneys that are given out by HRDC are of serious concern to us.
That is why we act when we get facts and evidence of wrongdoing,
which is what we have done in this case.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
the Minister of Health tells us that private for profit hospitals
comply with the Canada Health Act. Today the Minister of Health
tells us that NAFTA is not a worry. Today the Minister of Health
tells us he will do nothing to stop bill 11, a spectacular
surrender to the biggest threat ever posed to medicare.
Will the minister do the one thing he can now do to help the
cause of medicare and resign?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today in the statement to the House I made clear this
government's position and its grave concern. We do not agree
with the policy behind bill 11. We share the concerns of many
Albertans about what might happen. We will watch to see if there
are contraventions of any of the principles of the Canada Health
Act. We are beefing up Health Canada's ability to do that across
the country. We will be on guard for the principles of the
Canada Health Act. We will exercise the authority we have to
make sure those principles are respected.
1425
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians want more than expressions of grave concern from the
health minister. He insults the seniors who stood on the steps
of the Alberta legislature in the bitter cold to fight for
medicare. He makes a mockery of Canadians' passion for medicare.
He denies that it is his inaction that has put medicare at risk.
Will the health minister take some responsibility for this
fiasco? Will the health minister do the one thing that remains
to him to do, the honourable thing, and tender his resignation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the NDP members claim the bill should be stopped, but they have
no idea how they would do that. They claim that bill 11 is a
contravention of the Canada Health Act. They have no idea what
kind of contravention it is. They claim that there are things
wrong with medicare, but they have no idea what solutions to
propose.
The member is making it up as she goes along. She has no
concept of what to do. It is no wonder that the public in Canada
pays no attention to the NDP.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government is clearly starting to panic over the press it is
getting over the state of our Sea King fleet. Yesterday, in
answer to a question in the other chamber, we were informed that
the leader of the government in the other place has stated that
he will be climbing on board a Sea King for a joy ride along Nova
Scotia's coast.
Since it has been some time since the minister has been on board
a Sea King, will he and the Prime Minister be joining their
Senate colleague on that joy ride, and will the minister assure
us that a copy of the flight and maintenance logs of the aircraft
involved will be tabled in the House prior to the flight?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not take any of our aircraft up for
joy rides.
I have no problem flying in a Sea King. As the Senator has
indicated, he has no problem doing that either. We all know that
they only fly when they are safe to fly. We have a very rigorous
safety regime. These aircraft are well maintained. They are
currently being upgraded and $50 million is being invested to
overhaul them to make sure they will continue to operate,
continue to function and will be safe to fly.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1993
the Prime Minister stated that he would not lose any sleep over
the cancellation of the helicopter program. But, Mr. Speaker,
you know and I know that other Canadians are losing sleep out of
concern for our Sea King pilots and crews.
Will the minister give us a date today on which he will announce
the new maritime helicopter program, yes or no?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said on a number of occasions that
the file is moving forward toward the replacement of the Sea
Kings. It is our number one procurement priority. We will
continue to develop the procurement strategy and they will be
replaced well within the limits of their capability.
The Speaker: It would seem that when members ask a
question we should at least hear the answer. I would encourage
hon. members to stop the bantering that goes on when we are
trying to listen both to the questions and to the answers.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, just before the 1997 general election Modes Conili
received a $720,000 TJF grant to create new jobs. Yesterday the
parliamentary secretary said that 162 people were working at the
firm and they had applied for the jobs. That is simply false.
Nobody applied for anything. The Quebec government has
contradicted the parliamentary secretary, saying that it had been
advised by Modes Conili that it was just a transfer of existing
jobs. In other words, it was all a shell game.
Why is the parliamentary secretary telling the House that new
jobs were created when she had to have known they were not?
1430
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if it were
simply a transfer, why were those same people on employment
insurance between the two sets of jobs?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is a great question. It is another case of
taxpayer money being used to fund people who seem to be very
supportive of the government and are rewarded accordingly.
Modes Conili used the same people with the same salaries and the
same seniority. That is not new job creation. That is a scam,
and the government should have known that since it claims to have
fully investigated this case three years ago and at that time had
given it a clean bill of health.
Was the bungled investigation of this case yet another example
of the minister's incompetence, or are we just now starting to
see the unravelling of the cover-up of the government and this
scam through HRDC?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
unbelievable to me how they can take a set of circumstances and
weave such a tale. It goes on and on and it always seems to have
a negative implication on an individual member of the House, one
of their colleagues. People who say those kinds of things often
find they come back to haunt them.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs wrote to the
Minister of Justice and held a press conference to reaffirm its
complete opposition to Bill C-3 and its amendments.
Will the minister listen to reason once and for all and withdraw
her bill, as asked by the coalition?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said many times before
in the House that Bill C-3 is flexible legislation that respects
the approach of the province of Quebec.
As I have also indicated, I have asked the hon. member on a
number of occasions for an indication of what programs or
initiatives presently carried on in Quebec could not continue to
be carried on under the new legislation. So far I have not
received any such list.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one
only has to read the briefs. The briefs we submitted to the
minister contained many examples. I gave her one today.
When will the minister realize that she cannot claim to offer
positive perspectives to young people and, at the same time,
broaden the imposition of adult penalties to 14 and 15 year old
children? It does not make sense. To pretend the contrary would
be dishonest.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Justice.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know
since he serves on the justice committee, one of the important
goals of Bill C-3 is to ensure that fewer young people go to
jail. Unfortunately this country has one of the highest
incarceration rates for young people. One of the important new
goals of Bill C-3 is to keep young people out of jail.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when the Competition Bureau and Air
Canada reached an agreement last December, one of the conditions
was that Canadian Regional Airlines was to be put up for sale.
The agreement called for Canadian Regional Airlines to be put on
the block within 45 days of the transaction. We are now
approaching 145 days since the transaction, and Air Canada has
yet to put Canadian Regional up for sale. Could the minister
please explain why this condition of agreement has yet to be
honoured?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question. The fact is
that it has been very difficult to evaluate the true value of
Canadian Regional because of the way it was inextricably linked
to Canadian Airlines in terms of overlap of marketing,
maintenance and all other functions.
However I am pleased that the Competition Bureau and Air Canada
have agreed on a third party to evaluate the cost. I believe
that process is just about nearing completion and Canadian
Regional will be put on the market within a matter of weeks.
1435
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for
that, but the employees of the airline, the 2,100 employees who
are waiting in limbo to know what will happen to their jobs, want
to know exactly how long it will be before they know what their
future holds, whether or not they will have jobs. Could you let
them know how many weeks—
The Speaker: I ask all members to speak through the Chair
as opposed to each other.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate it has been unsettling not just for the
employees of Canadian Regional but for all the employees at
Canadian Airlines and at Air Canada during this very difficult
period.
Under the terms of the deal of December 21, if Canadian Regional
is sold all the service obligations, all the communities as of
December 21 that Canadian Regional served, must be maintained for
three years. One assumes therefore that all the employees will
have to be retained to provide those services. Therefore if this
sale goes through those jobs will be guaranteed.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
week, we heard on the news about the terrible situation on the
Island Lake reserve, where aboriginals have no health care
services at all, when it is up to the federal Minister of Health
to see that they do.
How can a minister who is unable to properly discharge his
reduced health care responsibilities claim to control what is
going on in Canadian provinces? What a nerve.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
working closely with aboriginal communities to make the
necessary health care services available.
When one has responsibilities involving very remote regions, it
is always difficult. However, we are working with communities to
meet our responsibilities.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
instead of spending $4 million to establish a network of federal
health inspectors to spy on the provinces, would the Minister of
Health not be better advised to use that same amount to do what
he is paid to do and provide aboriginals with decent health
care? That is his job. It is what he is supposed to do and
what he should be looking after.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
spend over $1 billion annually to ensure that health care
services are available to aboriginals on first nations
territory.
We will continue to work with aboriginal communities to ensure
that essential services are available.
* * *
[English]
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the proposed changes to grain
transportation announced yesterday, and I guess that would be
legislation by press conference, are based on a memorandum of
understanding between the wheat board and the government.
Sceptics believe that the wheat board will protect its own turf
and not all real improvements to proceed. Will the government
clear the air by tabling that memorandum before it introduces
actual legislation?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have had the opportunity to discuss in the last short
while the principles upon which the government intended to move.
Those principles were announced yesterday by the Minister of
Transport.
In so far as those principles bear upon the operations of the
Canadian Wheat Board, we now have to translate that into a legal
document that will be a memorandum of understanding between the
board and the government. When those discussions are concluded
it will be a public document. In the meantime we will be
consulting with the other players to get their input too.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the bottom line in all this is that
producers have to benefit the most of any of the players.
Allowing the wheat board to sit behind closed doors and determine
the rules for the future of the grain industry would be totally
self-serving.
All the studies that have been done have shown the government
that freight costs will decrease only when railways and grain
companies can negotiate efficient grain movement directly between
themselves.
Could the transport minister guarantee those producers out there
that his new system will allow the grain companies and railways
to negotiate without interference by the government or the wheat
board?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the proposal I announced yesterday has to be seen as
a complete package. I think the hon. member would have to admit
that putting $178 million out there for the producers is a
victory for western farmers. I challenge the Alliance to go
anywhere in western Canada and to say otherwise.
1440
This is a comprehensive package. This will allow a competitive
system in western Canada for the first time, and the producers
will get the benefit.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have learned
from Access to Information
that the Canada Information Office, the famous CIO, the federal
propaganda agency, has given $1.2 million to BCE Média, an
affiliate of BCE, headed by Jean Monty, for the production of a
program, Scully RDI.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Why is
the federal government subsidizing a company as rich as BCE,
just so that it can be used as a front for producing Scully RDI?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Information Office
participated, in partnership with BCE Média and the CRB
Foundation in a program called “Le Canada du millénaire”.
In it we addressed the challenges Canada faces with its
millennium programs.
* * *
GREENHOUSE GAS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Global warming constitutes real threat for the people of Canada,
and for their way of living. In Kyoto in 1997, Canada—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. If hon. members wish to have
personal discussions, I would ask them to be so kind as to
withdraw.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: In Kyoto in 1997 Canada made a commitment to
reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to below the 1990 level
between now and the 2008-2012 time horizon.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell us what measures
Canadian industry has taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to have this question on the eve of what
will be next week National Mining Week in Canada.
The Canadian mining industry is today releasing a document
entitled “Global Climate Change—Taking Action”. It recognizes
climate change as not just a challenge but also an opportunity.
It partners with environmental organizations like the Pembina
Institute and Stratos in constructive action. It shows that the
Canadian mining industry this year will be more than 4% below its
1990 levels in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and it promises
to do more.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the winter of 1996-97 accentuated a
huge problem in grain transportation in western Canada. The
Estey report, followed by the Kroeger report, made several
recommendations, one of which was to put grain transportation on
a totally commercial basis.
These reports recommended that grain companies and the railways
should enter into contractual agreements for moving the grain to
port. Why has the government decided virtually to ignore the
major recommendations made by both Estey and Kroeger?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from western Canada knows that this
issue divides everyone in the western provinces. It is full of
emotion. It is full of history. What Mr. Estey did in his
report was to give us the framework. What Mr. Kroeger did was to
show us how to implement it.
We have used their work as a basis of the package we announced
yesterday. Yesterday's announcement marks the beginning of a
competitive system that will continue for years to come.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government's independent third
party to monitor the overall efficiency of grain transportation
will no doubt come up with the same recommendations as Mr. Estey
and Mr. Kroeger.
1445
Everyone knows that this Liberal caucus has been fighting over
this issue for months. Why has the Minister of Transportation
allowed government infighting to overrule the wishes of the
stakeholders in the grain transportation?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps there is infighting in the Alliance Party
but in the Liberal Party there is constructive dialogue on the
issues of the day. This constructive dialogue has helped to
bring forward a balanced package.
The bottom line in that package is that the paramount issues
affecting western producers have been addressed. One hundred and
seventy-eight million dollars have been put into the hands of
farmers and $175 million will be spent to improve grain roads.
This is a victory for dialogue and a victory for the producers in
western Canada.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health.
The fact remains that the Minister of Health has failed to stop
something that he himself said was disastrous for medicare. The
fact remains that the record of the Minister of Health stands in
stark contrast to the record of a former Liberal minister of
health, Monique Bégin, who, when she saw a threat to medicare,
used the power of this parliament to amend medicare legislation
and bring in the Canada Health Act.
This has happened on the health minister's watch. He failed on
all counts to stop what he himself said was disastrous. Why does
he not consider resigning?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there they go again: Empty rhetoric, no ideas, no solutions and
no specifics. How does bill 11 contravene the Canada Health Act?
How are they going to solve the problems of medicare? For a
party on the periphery, it is easy to just talk.
This government will be watching on the ground in Alberta to
make sure those private for profit facilities do not contravene
the Canada Health Act. That is the role Canadians want us to
play and that is the role we are going to fulfill.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the minister is watching on the ground all right. He is on the
ground with Ralph Klein's foot on his neck, doing whatever he
pleases with the federal government standing by doing nothing
while this happens to medicare.
We have made all kinds of suggestions. One suggestion we have
made is that the federal government restore its full share of
medicare funding. If it had done that we never would have had
this problem. Do not dare to stand up here and tell us that we
have not made suggestions.
The minister did not say a word about NAFTA in his statement.
Can he tell us today when we will get the federal government's
opinion on why it thinks this has no NAFTA implications?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the NDP pretends to have come up with an idea. It wants more
money. Its idea in the 1997 election was a cash floor of $15
billion. We made it $15.5. The NDP said “How about adding $7
billion to health care”. We added twice that since 1999. Before
we presented our health budget, the NDP said that we should put
$2.5 billion more into transfers for health. We have added $14
billion. The NDP are a little behind the times.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of National Defence just said that the helicopter
file was moving ahead, which is good news because that is more
than the helicopters are doing. He also said that there was a
$50 million upgrade.
The fact of the matter is that most of the $50 million will go
to replace engines and gearboxes in those helicopters that all
other countries have already replaced. There are no new radios,
no new equipment and no upgrades.
Where are the $50 million upgrades? Exactly what new capacity
is there? Exactly what new capability is there? Where are the
$50 million upgrades?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, into various components of the
helicopter, all of which are designed to work well together to
ensure the safety and good operation of our Sea King helicopters.
They continue to provide terrific service and our pilots are
guiding them toward doing that. They recently rescued a number
of people from a sinking ship in the Caribbean area off the
Atlantic. They continue to provide search and rescue, plus operations off
the back of our frigates in terms of patrol and surveillance.
They are doing their job and we are putting in additional money
to make sure that they continue to do so until we get the new
helicopters.
1450
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, he could have shortened that answer and said that there
was no upgrade, that they will just try to keep them in the air.
The minister said earlier that the helicopters only fly when
they are safe to fly. Now we know how often they are safe to
fly. A Sea King pilot has said that there is an urgent situation
in one out of every twelve flights. Imagine if Air Canada had an
urgent threatening situation in one out of every twelve flights.
It would be grounded. It would be unacceptable.
Why the double standard between military safety and civilian
safety?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would put the military safety record
and the rigorous regime of maintenance up against any private
sector company any day. We ensure that our aircraft are safe to
fly and that they are properly maintained. I think the record
speaks for itself in terms of the safety over a great many years
of the Sea King helicopter.
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
Some weeks ago the opposition raised allegations regarding the
sale of federal government land in my riding of Brampton Centre.
New allegations regarding sweetheart deals between the Ontario
Realty Corporation and Reform Tory alliance supporters have been
raised in the Ontario legislature.
Can the minister inform the House where this issue stands at
this time?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after a media report
on the transaction of the property in Brampton, the management of
Canada Lands asked KPMG to conduct an independent audit. The
report indicates very clearly that there were no irregularities.
It also said that a series of special circumstances allowed the
original purchaser to sell the property at a considerable profit.
This property was put on the market through two prominent real
estate firms for 18 months. This is a long time for the real
estate profession.
* * *
ATHABASCA RIVER
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in June of last year in the House, I asked the
government why it had abandoned dredging on the Athabasca River,
the only traditional supply route to Fort Chipewyan. The
government's response was that it would get back to me.
Two days ago the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced,
with all smiles and fanfare in the House, a $15 million program
for dredging on the Great Lakes for the very same reasons that
exist for the Athabasca River.
Why did the government abandon the people of Fort Chipewyan
while at the same time announce new dredging programs on the
Great Lakes?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the members have put an excellent
case together. The low water levels in the Great Lakes are
unprecedented.
The hon. member should know that there are $2 billion of
economic development on the rivers and the Great Lakes. The
recreational and sports fishery depends on the marinas. The
marinas have come forward and said that this is something that we
should do. We want to do it in conjunction with the provincial
government and the marina association. This is welcome news for
business people and for Ontario.
* * *
[Translation]
PAROLE
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thanks
to the parole program, about one hundred Rock Machine members
will soon be released from prison.
How can we possibly allow crime gang members to benefit from a
reintegration measure such as parole, when we are well aware
that as soon as they get out of prison they will go to war
against another crime gang?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that
anyone who receives parole, it is granted through the National
Parole Board. This is an arm's length body that reviews all the
information and public safety is always the number one issue.
* * *
1455
HEALTH
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
rather than attacking the NDP for its defence of medicare, the
Minister of Health needs to ask himself what he really did to
stop Ralph Klein's privatization. Maybe when he is home alone
tonight he should ask himself that question.
Does he really believe that his expression of grave concern and
his wait and see strategy has done the job? Here we are today
and bill 11 has passed. The NAFTA grab is on its way.
Canadians have no confidence in the minister who has let us down
big time. It is time for him to resign. Will he go?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what does it boil down to? What are the NDP saying?
If the NDP are saying that bill 11 is contrary to the Canada
Health Act—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We are going to listen to
the minister's answer so please let him respond.
Hon. Allan Rock: I want to make it very simple for
members of the New Democratic Party.
The Canada Health Act, of which they speak so much, has powers
in it which are intended to enable the Government of Canada to
enforce the principles. Parties like the right wing Alliance and
the Tories would do away with the cash component and the
transfer, leaving only tax points. They campaigned on that so
that there would be no way to enforce it.
Liberals understand that it has to be enforced. We told the
House today that we will ensure that the principles of the Canada
Health Act are respected in any facility in Alberta. That is the
obligation of the government.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of National Defence has just said that he will put
up the safety record of the Sea Kings to the transportation
safety board any time. Could the minister please table that? We
would love to see it so that all Canadians can compare the safety
of our soldiers to the safety of the general public.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to provide whatever
information may be of help for the hon. member to understand that
we only fly the Sea Kings when they are safe to fly. There is a
very rigorous maintenance program. We are putting $50 million
into upgrades.
If the hon. member wants to fly in one to see for himself, he is
quite welcome to do so. He will find it a lot safer experience
than being a member of the Conservative Party.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada takes great pride in being the first country to have
signed the Convention on Biological Diversity at the Rio
conference in 1992. As of May this year, the protocol on
biosafety under this convention will be open for signature.
Can the Minister of the Environment indicate whether Canada will
be one of the first signatories?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Cartagena protocol set
the new global framework for the protection of biodiversity from
any potential adverse effects of transboundary movement of living
modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology.
The protocol is very complex and is a demanding instrument. We
need to consult with the provinces, with the territories, with
Canadians and with industry. We will not waste time but we will
do the necessary work to make sure we understand the full
implications of the protocol before we sign it.
* * *
CAMILLE MONTPETIT
The Speaker: It is a rather important
occasion for us in the House today.
[Translation]
I wish to draw your attention to this event. It is with a twinge
of regret that I am telling you that today is the last day of
work at the table for one of our most esteemed clerks, Camille
Montpetit.
Indeed, Camille is taking a well deserved retirement after over
30 years of faithful service to the House of Commons.
1500
[English]
Camille, as was stated by the House leader of the opposition,
began his career with the House in 1868—in 1968.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: If we look that good when we are his age, we
will be happy. He has served with distinction in various
positions. Among other roles he has served as the principal
clerk of the journals branch and of the table research branch, as
clerk assistant, House proceedings, and as deputy clerk, which he
is to this day.
As members are aware, Camille has most recently been the
co-editor of the now much quoted manual, House of Commons
Procedure and Practice, which I had the honour to table on his
behalf in February this year.
[Translation]
I know that all members will join me in paying tribute to
Camille Montpetit for his distinguished career.
Camille, on my own behalf and on behalf of all my colleagues in
the House, I want to convey to you, to your wife Monique and to
the members of your family who are here today, our wishes for
good health and happiness in the years to come. You have been a
great help to the House of Commons, and we are very grateful to
you for that.
My dear Camille, a thousand thanks for the very good work that
you have done for us here in the House. We will miss you.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1510
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the question I think Canadians have on their mind as we
enter into this Thursday question is: What exactly is the House
leader's plan for business in the days ahead? Are we are going
to deal with the meaty issues of the land or are we going to just
deal with the fluff?
I ask the House if he will tell Canadians today what legislative
program he plans for the rest of this week and for the week
following.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is always the best question
that is asked every Thursday. I will try to give the best
answer, although some of my colleagues gave such excellent
answers today they would perhaps be hard to surpass.
In any case, we will continue today with Bill C-18, the criminal
code amendments with regard to impaired driving. If by any
chance this is completed we could start with Bill C-33, but I
understand there probably would not be any more than one or two
speakers on that today.
In any event, tomorrow we will do second reading of Bill S-10,
the DNA, and Bill S-3 respecting international tax conventions.
Should those bills be completed tomorrow before the end of the
day, I would not propose to call any other business.
On Monday, we would hope to deal with report stage and, if
possible, third reading of Bill C-26, the airlines bill. There
are ongoing consultations to that effect. If we complete all of
this we would then continue with Bill C-33 or in any case get
started on Bill C-33 if it was not begun earlier. Bill C-33 is
the legislation concerning species at risk.
On Tuesday, we will debate Bill C-25, the income tax
legislation. This is the bill that is presently stuck at second
reading as a result of two reasoned amendments.
On Wednesday, we would propose to complete any of the listed
bills we have not completed. I wish to designate Thursday, May
18, as an allotted day.
1515
While I am at it, because that leaves only one additional day
before the parliamentary break, it would be my intention, if
possible, to call Bill C-12, the amendments to the Canada Labour
Code, at report stage and third reading on Friday of next week.
That would complete the sequence until the break.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, could the government House
leader tell us if a bill regarding the grain transportation issue
which was dealt with today in question period is soon to be
tabled in the House? I understand that the government would like
it passed before the start of the next crop year, and it is
important for us to see the details of that bill so we can start
the debate.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for raising this issue, which is obviously of great importance
not only for us, but for the agricultural community, particularly
in western Canada.
I hope to introduce this bill at the very earliest opportunity.
I am hoping to do so before we adjourn next week. I understand
that the drafting will probably not be complete. I intend to
introduce it as soon as we return and give it the maximum time
that is available to all of us.
It could be introduced, with consent, perhaps as early as the
Tuesday after we return. That would require being later in the
day, because of different instruments of government. I would
propose to seek that consent should the bill be ready by then.
If not, the latest date for the introduction, as proposed, would
be on the Wednesday, but again I will do my best to have it
available as early as Tuesday.
As a result, in part, of representations from members of the
House, together with colleagues, we arranged that the policy at
least would be announced yesterday so that members could consult
their constituents on this very important issue.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
THE CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18,
an act to amend the criminal code (impaired driving causing death
and other matters), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before Oral Question Period, I had th
opportunity to speak to Bill C-18 and explain the Bloc Quebecois'
position and its opposition to Bill C-18, and to explain why we
are going to vote against the bill.
The Bloc Quebecois recognizes that impaired driving causing
death is a very serious offence indeed. We are all in agreement
on this because for the victim the consequences are final and it
causes a lot of trouble, a lot of pain to the family. Everybody
agrees on that.
However, we think that giving a life sentence to the driver who
caused this person to die by operating his vehicle while impaired
would be disproportionate as compared to other sentences under
the criminal code, and it would not solve the problem.
The Bloc Quebecois believes there are other practical, concrete
solutions that should be implemented such as an ignition
interlock with a breath alcohol analyzer, a system I will be
pleased to explain later on, if I have the time.
The point I want to make is that the bill before us was
introduced by the government much more out of political
expediency than to meet a need in the justice system. Everyone is
aware of the fact that there is in Canada a very strong shift to
the right spearheaded mainly by the Canadian Alliance calling for
tougher, harsher laws, especially with respect to the criminal
code, without necessarily any factual basis.
We saw it with young
offenders. The situation is very clear, very obvious. We in
Quebec have developed a preventive approach to bring young
offenders back on the right track, to help them learn again how
to live in society and respect the legal framework of our
society, and it works.
1520
However, the rest of Canada really let the American approach
influence them. They want longer prison terms. They want young
men and women to be harshly punished when they make a mistake.
They often forget that by doing so, these offenders end up in
prison and that prisons are often schools for crime. I think
that the example of the young offenders also applies to Bill C-18
and to the issue of impaired driving causing death.
Instead of adopting this kind of punitive approach, the Bloc
Quebecois would rather increase the deterrent effect through a
device known as an alcohol-ignition interlock device. It is
simply an ignition locking system that by including a clause to
that effect in the criminal code, this type of offender could be
compelled to have in his car.
All sorts of uses could be made of this device. Why not, for
example—and this is my own personal opinion—install this type
of device in every single car?
Seat belts have already been made compulsory.
At first, a lot of people were against it, but today we all
buckle up because we know that it is safer and that, should we be
involved in an accident, our injuries would be less serious. Such
measures could therefore be considered. However, if the
government is not prepared to go that far, it could at least
apply such measures to impaired drivers who are repeat offenders,
so as to prevent them from taking the wheel and causing death, an
offence for which, if the government had its way, they would
receive a life sentence.
We can see the difference. The bill seeks to punish after the
fact without doing anything to remedy the situation, by
preventing further deaths, whereas the Bloc Quebecois wants to
deal with the root of the problem to ensure there are as few of
these types of situations as possible.
I think the Bloc Quebecois has a very responsible attitude on
this issue. It is a well thought out attitude that is advocated
by many stakeholders. The prevention system I am talking about
was used in the past in Alberta and Quebec. Current programs are
satisfactory, produce significant results and help prevent these
types of situations.
In conclusion, I will simply say that, as far as the Bloc
Quebecois is concerned, Bill C-18 is a bad piece of legislation.
It does not get to the root of the problem, and it will create
more problems than it solves. It also introduces a double
standard in our criminal code, which we find unacceptable.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to my colleague for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. He
recommended some intelligent measures which should be implemented
as quickly as possible. I call that prevention.
Putting someone in prison and cancelling his driver's licence
for years, that is obviously something. Sometimes we may have to
do it but nobody can convince me that in the year 2000 we cannot
do better than that.
I see young people who are generally more serious than people
who are 40 or 45 years old. For many years now, when they go to a
tavern for a few drinks, they get someone to drive them home.
However, some might forget and let themselves be led by others.
Last week I heard that many accidents happen in Quebec
involving bikers. We must also think about this. What means
should we take? Should we send someone to prison? Should we
suspend his driver's licence for 5, 10 or 20 years? I do not
think this is the solution. My colleague told us about an
ignition interlock system which prevents the car from starting.
When we pass a bill what do we want? We want two things: to
protect society and to protect the guy who, after a few drinks,
can become a criminal under the code. We should think twice.
1525
I would ask my colleague to explain further what this system is.
Should we adopt it as quickly as possible? Has this system been
adopted in other countries?
I commend my colleague for his speech and I urge the government
to think, to listen and to pay close attention to what my
colleague has to say.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker,
before going into the details of the ignition interlock system
with breathalyzer, I would remind the House that, indeed, as the
member said, the percentage of people sentenced to jail upon
conviction by the courts for impaired driving decreased from 22%
to 19% between 1994-95 and 1997-98. Consequently, it is not
urgently required to increase penalties. Instead, we should try
to eliminate the source of the problem.
What is the Bloc proposal, the ignition interlock system with
breathalyzer? It is simply ignition interlock system that, in
specific circumstances provided for in the code and which I will
mention, would ensure an impaired driver is not be able to start
his vehicle.
Furthermore, the criminal code should be amended to allow judges
to order an offender to install an ignition interlock system with
breathalyzer in his vehicle, as a condition of probation or in
exchange of the reduction of a much longer period of prohibition
from driving.
This would be a real prevention measure. It would even promote
behavioural changes, because the offender would have the
opportunity to change his attitude. It would ensure that there
are less and less of this type of accidents.
What is this system? It is a little breathalyzer installed in
the vehicle, which requires the driver to provide a breath sample
showing a level of alcohol that is nil or almost nil in order to
be able to start it. The current technology of ignition interlock
systems is very reliable, even in extreme temperature conditions.
This system has been validated, it is working very well and it is
in use in Quebec and in Alberta.
Ignition interlock systems with breathalyzer are normally
installed after a period of suspension of the driver's licence,
as a condition for returning the licence to the offender. This
way, we attack the problem at its very root. We go to the repeat
offender and make sure there will be no further offences and
further deaths; that is a much more progressive approach than
convicting the offender once someone has been killed. It is much
more progressive to prevent loss of life.
Evaluations made over the last 10 years have shown time after
time that ignition interlock systems are effective. As I said
earlier, Alberta and Quebec now have satisfactory programs for
the installation of such systems.
The criminal code would allow all Canadians to benefit from the
increased security provided by this technology. It could be done
in two different ways. The judges could have the power to order
an offender to install an ignition interlock system as a
condition for his release under mandatory supervision, or the
convicted offenders could be prompted to install an ignition
interlock with breathalyser in exchange for a reduced period of
driving prohibition.
This would require the prohibition period to be extended
considerably so that, after it has been reduced in exchange for
the installation of the system, it would still be as long as the
suspension of licence by the province.
We could encourage the provinces to make the installation of
ignition interlocks a mandatory condition for the reinstatement
of driver's licences, at least for repeat offenders and first
time offenders.
If, instead of telling people who have lost a family member in a
car accident that they will be vindicated because the person
responsible for the accident will get life imprisonment, we told
them that if this system had been in place, nobody would have
been killed in their family, which of the two alternatives do you
think people would choose?
The government should be open to this suggestion of the Bloc
Quebecois. It is a positive suggestion, and I think the federal
government should start bucking the right wing trend that
currently inspires every criminal code amendment.
1530
It seems that the Minister of Justice is much more concerned
with her own re-election, because this right wing trend is quite
strong in her area. But modern technology gives us the means to
prevent these accidents.
I hope the government will pay attention to our suggestion.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to what the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques had to say.
Could he tell us whether there are any other preventive
measures—in addition to the one that Quebec and another province
in Canada have found effective—that would prevent those who
might drive while impaired from paying the extreme penalty
contained in this bill introduced by the Minister of Justice?
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I think there are two kinds of
solutions.
The first involves preventive measures. We must ensure that
impaired driving is reduced to the absolute minimum in Canada,
that there are fewer such situations. Provincial and federal
legislation is needed. There could be advertising campaigns so
that fewer and fewer people drive while impaired.
There could be theme campaigns, such as the RIDE program, which
reduces the number of people who drive during the holiday season
while impaired. These are preventive measures which could be
continued and the member for Jonquière's question makes that
assumption.
There is another approach, which is not preventive, but which I
think should be considered. We know that the current provisions
are not used to the full. I will give an example.
The heaviest sentence handed out by the courts for impaired
driving causing death is 10 years, while the courts, which are
the best placed to analyse the characteristics of each offender,
have not exhausted the resources of the criminal code, which now
sets the maximum sentence for impaired driving causing death at
14 years.
There is already some play. Judges are already handing out
lighter sentences than the criminal code allows for. This would
perhaps be one avenue to consider. Judges would send the message
to the public that what is in the code is what will now be meted
out, rather than amending the code when the full extent of what
is available is not being used right now.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the bill before the House today, Bill C-18, is aimed, once again,
at amending the criminal code.
A great many changes are made to the criminal code here in this
House, particularly where impaired driving causing death is
concerned. This is, of course, a serious offence. Hon. members
will understand that, even if we are strongly opposed to this
bill, our position is not intended to convey the idea that it is
a minor event if a person kills another because he or she had
too much to drink before driving.
Toward the end of 1999, Pierre Gravel, a respected editorial
writer for La Presse—there is such a thing as a respected
editorial writer—wrote as follows:
The Bloc Quebecois is often faulted for carrying out systematic
obstruction in Ottawa, solely for the purpose of demonstrating
that the federal system is not workable.
I am tempted to add “solely for the purpose of demonstrating
that the federal system refuses to be improved by taking the
views of the opposition into consideration”.
Mr. Gravel continues:
This is not, however, an accusation that can be made of its
interaction in the debate on the sanctions to be imposed on
impaired drivers.
This is probably the most important point in his editorial:
It is, on the contrary, in this connection that its hardline
attitude has contributed greatly to moderating the excessive
zeal of the zero tolerance zealots.
1535
Those zero tolerance zealots are to my right here in this House,
although their intolerance has, regrettably, crossed the floor
of this chamber.
Continuing to quote from Mr. Gravel:
And, at the same time, to take over from any discussion of this
matter from a reasonable point of view, in which the sanctions
connected to these offences will not be disproportionate to
crimes as serious—
These crimes could even be worse, in some instances.
Bill C-18 is back in the House today and it is rather disturbing
to see the impressive silence from the government side, from the
right wing parties. Could it be that they have nothing left to
say to refute our arguments? That would already be a sign of
wisdom, but the greatest wisdom would be to withdraw this bill.
Could it be that they are more concerned about an election? One
of the parties in this House is holding its convention as of
today and I can understand why its members are not participating
in the debate.
The alliance also has a convention of course, but it is held
around Quebec's national holiday, so there is still time for
them. The party opposite held its convention just a few weeks
ago. So, why are they silent?
I believe they are keeping quiet because they decided that this
bill would be passed with a very large majority, since it is
clear that the Bloc Quebecois will be the only party to oppose
it.
In the same article, which was written about a year ago, on June
3, Pierre Gravel added this:
But when the government, as is
currently the case, faces an ultraconservative and populist
opposition such as the Reform Party—
At that time, they were still called the Reform Party.
Mr. Speaker, you are well aware that radicalism and respect
rarely go together. There are some very recent examples in this
House.
Pierre Gravel went on to say:
The greatest merit of these measures is to calm a population
obsessed by a desire for vengeance that is constantly exacerbated
by a large number of demagogues. When, in addition to that, the
party in office—
That was true one year ago. Members can imagine now.
When, moreover, the party in power feels an urgent need to
increase its popularity with a group of people who support the
intractable attitude of the opposition, we end up with an
unacceptable bill such as the one that earned the absolute and,
in this case, totally justified opposition of the Bloc Quebecois.
A year later, Mr. Gravel will be able to take his editorial and
adapt it to today's reality and see, increasingly, that this
government is making a name for itself with its opportunism and
the effect of this will be dealing this way with people, who are
honest, but who may have made an error in judgement. Who has
not?
1540
Who can rise and say “I have never and will never make an error
in judgment”. This is the way they will treat an honest
citizen who has made an error in judgment, who has done
something wrong, namely starting his car and driving off risking
or possibly causing the death of someone.
I would like to ask a question. Could anyone of us making
this error in judgment live serenely after making the mistake of
driving under the influence of alcohol and causing injury or even
death? I know no one here or where I come from or among the
majority of the population who would say “Oh, that is nothing”.
That is not true. Unlike habitual criminals who are part of a
culture where crime is part of their daily life, and is in the
end of no importance, most people facing a criminal charge for
driving under the influence of alcohol and causing the death are
people who repent. Obviously, repenting is the first step
toward wisdom.
My colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques talked of the importance of prevention.
I was young once. I remember that, at the tender age when I was
fascinated by guys who drove cars, I went for a ride on July 14;
I met my husband on that same day. I went for a ride with young
people who were going to celebrate Bastille Day. In
the early 1960s, Quebec was awakening and wine flowed freely as
we celebrated France's national day.
When it was time to go home, I looked at the driver and I said:
“My God, I will never get into this car”. I thought that my
life was still worth something. I accepted something that could
have been worse; I agreed to leave with a nice young man whom I
had met on the dance floor and who appeared to be serious. I had
noticed that he had not drunk too much, maybe a glass and a half
of wine. In fact, he brought me back home safely and, three years
later, I agreed to become his partner for life.
Prevention makes people more aware of the risks associated with
some behaviours. In Quebec, prevention is valued and is now part
of our life.
There is another bill before this House that has been under
discussion for a long time and that concerns young offenders. I
do not need to, once again, go over the statistics from Quebec,
which are self-explanatory. They show that crimes by young
offenders is dropping and that prevention and rehabilitation are
effective.
For this reason, instead of deciding to send young delinquents
to prison or to send reckless drivers guilty of injuring or
killing someone to prison for life, we know that prevention
works. This method helps make them more responsible people.
In fact, this debate should have been an opportunity to have an
adult and mature discussion between people from all over Canada
and Quebec on the subject of what it means to be responsible
citizens.
1545
This is what we should be reflecting on. The House of Commons is
an extraordinary forum to reflect on the notion of
responsibility. Many members of the House are parents and have
done their best to raise their children. I believe not too many
parents would say “My kids are model and responsible citizens
who are successful and fulfil all the duties that are entrusted
to them because I beat them regularly and locked them up in their
room”.
This is precisely what the government wants to do with Bill
C-18. We believe that prevention is the way to go and that we
must invest some money in schools.
We know that young people start smoking around the age of 8 or 9
and that some start drinking at a fairly young age.
Hence the need for education programs, with people who are
knowledgeable and able to transmit values. We need education
programs focussing on parents in order for them to promote a
whole series of acceptable behaviours.
We know that there is nothing wrong with having a drink with
friends to mark a happy event or just because it is Friday and
the weather is nice. On the contrary, I believe it is a sign of
socialization, and God knows that we need this. However, the
situation turns sour when one takes one, two or three drinks,
then up to eight drinks, finally getting to the bottom of the
bottle. I am obviously referring to wine. If it is scotch, the
situation is different, because it does not take as much.
There is another real problem I would like to address. I do not
know if my colleagues have raised it. Among those who drive under
the influence and cause serious accidents, we find the honest
citizen implicated in an incident. He did not want it to happen
and there was no premeditation on his part.
There is another group of citizens comprised of all the
individuals plagued by a very serious illness which is called
alcoholism. At one time or another, every one of us has known a
fine person who, sadly, had a serious alcohol dependency.
It is hard enough to get rid of a cold or the flu, but getting
rid of an alcohol problem is nothing like getting rid of the flu.
It is an illness of the soul, which caused awful physical
dependence. We must help those affected, because they need both
psychological and medical support.
They must be helped to make their decision because this illness
can be cured when there is no other choice.
Bill C-18 says “Here is the solution, we open the door, you go
in, we close the door and that is that. You will come out feet
first”. That is how we would treat honest citizens who were
unlucky, or sick.
Once again, and I imagine that the chair of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, who is a reasonable
man, a sensible man, will back my request that the government
withdraw Bill C-18.
It will do nothing to improve the situation
on highways. It will simply hurt some citizens more without
lessening the pain of families who lose a loved one. That is
clear. What is the purpose then?
Again, as I have said, the purpose is to seek the votes of those
who, for one reason or another, tend to think that repression
works and that this is the way to go.
1550
When a state has reached the stage of using repression as a
standard administrative tool, it is not far removed from having
something in common with a dictatorship. I trust that Canada is
very far from being a dictatorship. I certainly hope so.
I would like to make it perfectly clear to the members here in
the House and those watching us at home that behaviour is never
modified by repression. Changes are brought about through
education, prevention, and a serious investment by professionals
who are capable of helping people in difficulty.
I am going to read something that is absolutely fascinating. I
have referred to some journalists, but everyone knows that not
all journalists are serious all the time. Who reads what they
write? Fortunately, we are allowed to quote them in the House.
I am going to read something far more serious than that, an
excerpt from the recent Gladue decision.
This is the context, and when I get to the part I wish to
emphasize, I will point this out to hon. members.
This country being Canada.
—to examine, among other things, the effectiveness of the use
of incarceration in sentencing. There has been at least one
commission or inquiry into the use of imprisonment in each decade
of this century since 1914.
Things have changed considerably since 1914. The means of
communication have nothing to do with it. It is not that at all.
Here is the part I wanted to emphasize:
An examination of the recommendations of these reports reveals
one constant theme: imprisonment should be avoided [—]
That was true in 1914.
This is not a quality of the government opposite.
This too seems to have escaped the members opposite.
Imprisonment has failed to satisfy a basic function of the
Canadian judicial system which was described in the Report of the
Canadian Committee on Corrections entitled: “Toward Unity:
Criminal Justice and Corrections” (1969) as “to protect society
from crime in a manner commanding public support while avoiding
needless injury to the offender”.
If things have come to the point where a citizen who happens to
commit an error of judgment and kills someone might be treated,
as he will be if this bill is passed, like the hired killer who
so neatly put away Dédé Desjardins in Laval ten or so days ago, I
think that that is not treating society with respect.
1555
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before asking a question to my colleague from Laval Centre, I
would like to congratulate her on her speech.
My colleague from Laval-Centre has just brought us back down to
earth by telling us what a lot of people in Quebec and elsewhere
in Canada are living every day. She has just reminded us that
driving a vehicle while impaired is not in and of itself a
criminal act that should lead to a life sentence or require a
person to be taken out of society.
She has just told us that coercion gets us nowhere. It does not
solve anything and it only postpones the real decisions that will
have to be made if we really want to solve the problem.
In her wisdom, what does she think the government, which is so
disconnected from everyday reality in Canada, should do? What
should this government do with Bill C-18? How should people
struggling with this problem be treated within the existing laws
in Canada?
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr.
Speaker, it is always nice to be congratulated for a speech. I
sincerely thank the hon. member.
As a matter of fact, there are two simple ways to deal with the
problem of impaired driving. The two solutions depend on the
federal government. I am under the impression that my colleague
opposite is listening.
The first way to deal with the issue is, of course, to use the
media to get the message across. The Canadian government has huge
advertising budgets. I must recognize that occasionally it does
excellent work with ads for the good of the nation. It is not
always the case, but when the government is concerned for the
good of the nation it is capable of offering constructive and
interesting ads that will make viewers think.
As members will appreciate, the most efficient media is, of
course, television during prime time. But advertising during this
time slot gets very expensive. What is needed is investment,
money invested directly in information on TV.
The other solution is also money, but money directed to
provinces. The federal government, and this is no longer even an
open secret, is amassing surplus after surplus. I do not know how
it does it, but the government is keeping its head above the
water.
Is it not time, therefore, to restore funding for provincial
transfer payments for education and health care—in my speech I
referred to alcoholism as a disease—to their 1994 levels so that
the provinces, which are well aware of the problem, can have the
money they need to invest in effective prevention programs
adapted to their clientele? The results could be worthwhile.
Again, I have no doubt that my colleague across will take my
suggestion to cabinet, and I thank him in advance.
1600
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are dealing
today with Bill C-18 which provides for tougher penalties for
those who made the unfortunate decision to drive while impaired,
causing death.
Yet, every commission that has studied that issue since 1914—
and there has been one almost every ten years—has demonstrated
that imprisonment does not deter offenders in such cases. Tougher
penalties for those who make such a stupid decision, although not
deliberately—it must be stressed—will not make these people
think twice about it. Thinking is a good thing, not when we know
the consequences of an act, but rather when we start thinking
before making a mistake that might have dire consequences.
Impaired drivers who caused death did not really want to kill
anyone. What is the difference between two people driving while
impaired, one who has the bad luck of hitting and killing
someone, and the luckier one who does not meet anyone on his way
and does not cause death? Both of them were in the same
situation; they were out drinking and driving and both could have
been in an accident. Their behavior could have had the same
consequences. Yet, one would get punished less harshly than the
other who had the misfortune of causing death because of his
action.
What do we want to accomplish by increasing sentences in such
cases? Do we want to prevent such acts from happening again, or
instead, do we not want to get revenge for an event that everyone
finds deplorable?
What would we say if, in two separate cases, two people trying
to kill another one would prepare a potion containing some
poison, the same quantity in both cases, these quantities being
known to be sufficient to cause death in most cases? These two
people would prepare a poisoned potion, would mix it with the
meal of the person for whom the poison is intended, and would
wait for the results.
What if, in one case, the dose is enough to kill the person and,
in the other one, the same quantity of poison that would normally
have the same effect would not give the same result, for all
kinds of reasons. In one case, the victim had probably a normal
constitution and, in the other one, the victim had a sturdier
constitution and resisted to the poison. Would the two people who
committed the same act not deserve the same punishment? Would
they not deserve the same sentence?
1605
Yet the law requires that we treat them differently. Why?
Because in one instance the action caused death and, in the
other, the same action did not result in death; however, the
result was beyond the control of the two individuals who acted
exactly in the same way.
These two individuals both did the same thing with the intent to
cause death. In one case, the individual succeeded. In the
other, he did not. The courts will give these two persons
different sentences.
This is where I think this bill is not logical. By increasing
the sentences, we are not preventing anything. We are avenging
the victims of some dreadful action.
Will such an approach improve the situation? I do not think so.
The best way to bring people to think about what they are doing
is to apply a reasonable sentence to anyone who does something
reprehensible. What is the reprehensible part of impaired
driving causing death? It is not the fact that someone was
killed because that part was not intended by the individual who
caused the death. The reprehensible action is the act of
getting behind the wheel under the influence.
When someone decides to drive while impaired, there is a
decision being made. Some people will tell me that decision is
not a clear-sighted decision because the individual is drunk and
unable to evaluate his condition and his ability to drive a car;
nevertheless, a decision is made at that time.
What we need to do, then, is to prevent people from getting
behind the wheel when they are drunk. What is the best way to do
that? It is certainly not to evaluate the consequences of driving
after the fact and say “In one instance, the fault had serious
consequences but in another one the consequences were less
serious. We will then impose a penalty according to the
consequences”. This way of doing things does not improve the
situation.
Society is punishing itself by reacting this way because, first,
sending someone to prison does not increase chances for
rehabilitation. In both those cases, the chances for
rehabilitation are just not there. Second, keeping someone in
prison entails huge administrative costs.
Keeping a criminal in prison costs about $62,000 a year in
Canada. What is the point, for society, of sending someone to
prison for 14 years at $62,000 a year, when that person does not
need 14 years to realize that what he or she has done was bad?
The only point is that it gives the satisfaction of revenge
against someone who caused us prejudice by hurting our feelings,
our family or our loved ones?
I can understand the resentment of people who experienced such
tragedies and who may have lost a spouse or a child. In my
riding, there was the case of a doctor who lost his wife at an
early age after she was hit by a drunk driver.
1610
Today, this doctor campaigns in favour of improved legislation
so these things do not happen again. I understand his sorrow. He
will bear the scars left by that tragedy for the rest of his
life. He lost a wife he loved, and the sadness he feels will be
with him forever.
But by imposing a life sentence on the person who caused that
situation, instead of 10 years, for example, will we make the
sadness that man feels go away? Will we give him back his beloved
wife? Will his children have their mother back? Not at all. It is
unfortunate and we must not excuse such actions, but, at the same
time, we must not respond to an abuse by an abuse.
A society based on vengeance is going nowhere. If there were
cases where society needed to protect itself, if the person found
guilty of impaired driving were a repeat offender, if we had
every reason to believe that that person would not get back on
the right track and would continue to drink and drive and to
endanger the life of people, then it would be logical to put that
person in jail. Society has a duty to protect itself and its
children.
Is that what happens in most cases? Bill C-18 does not solve
that problem. If this bill provided for harsher sentences for
repeat offenders, it would be easier to understand the intended
objective, but it is not the case. It could be a first offence,
but if that offence resulted in death, the person would be put in
jail.
Imagine that it is your child.
Imagine a fine young man or a beautiful girl of 16, 17 or 18
years of age who, at the end of the school year, after the prom,
goes out to celebrate the end of their secondary or college
education. For the first time in his or her life, this young man
or this young girl has too much of a good thing, hops in a—which
is probably your car—and, while driving his or her friend
home, has an accident and kills somebody.
If it were your children, how would you like them to be
punished? Do you think these young people deserve life in prison
for a lack of foresight or experience due to their age? Should we
ensure that they waste their lives in prison, while depriving
society of talents that it could have benefited from for 50, 60
or 70 years?
1615
It would be much more useful to impose on them a sentence that
would make them think, that may bring them to dedicate the rest
of their lives to the promotion of abstinence, to the promotion
of security measures. This would help to ensure that such events
do not happen again.
A person in jail is of no help to anybody. If that young boy or
that beautiful girl were sent to jail for the rest of their
lives, they would be completely lost to society.
Would our society find any satisfaction in being able to say:
“This guy has killed someone, and he should be put behind bars.
We are glad, we wash our hands, and he will not be seen around
anymore”? Is this such a great and noble satisfaction that we
cannot do without it.
When we try to be objective, we have to admit this kind of crime
is beyond pardon, but we should also realize that people who
have been involved in such a terrible experience have to be
rehabilitated.
I was talking about a young man 18, 19, or 20 years old, but he
could be even 25 or 30. It could also be a good family man, 35
or 40 years of age, who goes out to celebrate a special
occasion. It could also be somebody celebrating a wedding
anniversary or the graduation of one of his children from
university.
This father or mother can get carried away, have one drink too
many, drive and cause someone's death.
Did this person set out to kill somebody? Absolutely not. He or
she was taking part in festivities, and when you celebrate, you
are not out to kill anybody.
It can happen that we behave in such a way that we accidentally
cause death. But, for the sake of improving the situation,
should we send a father or mother in prison for the rest of
their lives?
We would be telling them “Sir, we will take you away from your
wife and kids because you have accidentally killed someone
through your negligence and wrongful behaviour.
Because of you, another family has lost their father”. Therefore,
courts will say, from now on, that in order to repair the harm
done to a family, it will cause harm to another family. That is
not justice, but vengeance.
A civilized society should not demand an eye for an eye. This
course of action is a dead end. What we must do instead is
educate.
We must educate the people to make them understand that their
actions have consequences. The consequences can be serious, of
course, but the act itself is even more serious. It is such acts
that we must prevent from being committed.
Campaigns such as Nez Rouge during the Christmas holidays are
much more useful than putting people behind bars. Because of
these campaigns, more and more people understand that they must
not drive their car while impaired. This type of public
education ensures that society gains more by using this method
than by crying out for vengeance when such a tragedy occurs.
Statistics show that Canada is second to the United States in
terms of the incarceration rate. Not a commendable record. I
hope the government will understand that its bill goes too far
and that it must be withdrawn immediately.
1620
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my colleague from Joliette made some very good points regarding a
long standing problem, which has existed from time immemorial and
which every country is facing, namely how to ensure that the
sentence fits the crime.
I would ask him to comment on the following statement, which has
long been considered as the common judicial wisdom of the ages:
an appropriate sentence is the one beyond which the guilty party
becomes a victim. It is the one which, should it be any harsher,
would make the guilty party appear to be a victim in the eyes of
the public. This is obviously the case if the sentence is too
harsh.
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this
opportunity to elaborate on what I said earlier.
He is quite right. In other words, it is tantamount to abuse of
powers. In my previous life as a teacher, when students did
something wrong, we had to punish them of course, but the
punishment had to fit the seriousness of their action.
We might tell a student “You broke a window. You are going to
have to fix it. You are going to pay for it and we are going to
give you a little extra work to do as punishment” or “Your
parents are looking after it and you will serve your detention at
home. You will be grounded for a few hours”.
If the corrective measure is appropriate and equivalent to the
seriousness of the action, the child will benefit enormously and
perhaps never repeat the action. However, if the measure taken
against him is twice as harsh as the seriousness of what he did,
what will the child do? He will start to revolt, because he will
feel that he is being punished more severely than his action
warrants.
When a child is in revolt, what does he try to do? He feels
that people are taking revenge for what he did and, in turn, will
seek revenge as well. Things then begin to escalate and no one
can say where it will lead. The child grows older. When he
becomes an adolescent, he thinks the same way. When he is an
adult, he thinks the same way.
It is not the unfortunate consequences of an action that should
be punished. It is the action itself and the seriousness of it.
This is what I tried to show when I gave the example of the two
people preparing the same quantity of poison for two different
people. One succeeds and the other does not. They would be given
different sentences because one was luckier than the other. Yet,
the action of each is as serious as the other's, and the intent
was the same, to kill.
Even in cases where the intent is the same, the law would not
punish in the same way. Why would the government do so in Bill
C-18, when the intention of the person driving while intoxicated
is never to cause the death of another person?
1625
Of course, there is a greater risk that he will, but that is not
his intention. Yet, that person would be treated like a criminal
who walks into a bank or a senior citizens home—there is intent
here—and shoots people at point-blank range.
If a person driving while impaired should kill someone, that
person would be treated like criminals who kill people
intentionally.
In its current form, Bill C-18 is more about seeking vengeance
to please people who, unfortunately, whose lives were affected
by such tragedies, either directly or indirectly, in their
family.
To show that we sympathize with their plight, that we share
their grief, we will impose excessive sentences that do not fit
the circumstances and have nothing to do with the justice that
should be applied.
Again, I urge the government to give this serious thought.
Beyond the votes that the government may win by pleasing people
who, understandably so, would like to see such a bill become
law, there is more to consider, namely the interest of society
in the longer term. Instead of locking up forever people who
made a mistake and are willing to do something about it by
playing a positive role in society, we have to consider how we
can best help these people.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak this afternoon following my colleagues from
Laval Centre and from Joliette, who have both dealt in their
remarks with the human side of the problem which should be taken
into consideration before the government has this bill passed by
the House.
I will draw the attention of the hon. members and of the
government to statistics that are relevant to this problem,
because I feel it is important. Beyond the remarks of my two
colleagues, it is important to tell the government that
statistics currently available show that the courts have not
used the full range of sentences allowed by the criminal code.
Far from it.
The stiffest prison sentence handed down for impaired driving
causing death has been ten years. That is the maximum sentence
imposed on offenders these days.
Judges, who are in the best position to consider the specifics
of each offender, have not been using the whole range of
sentences allowed by the criminal code. The criminal code
already sets at 14 years the maximum sentence for impaired
driving causing death. The ratio of offenders sent to prison
after a conviction for impaired driving has dropped from 22% in
1994-95 to 19% in 1997-98.
1630
The prison sentences brought down in these cases are for the
most part less than two years. Hon. members heard correctly. The
courts could sentence offenders to 14 years, but sentences are
currently less than two years.
Why then pass legislation to allow life sentences if the courts
are not inclined to make full use of the tools available to them
already?
I would also like to cite other statistics. The offence of
impaired driving causing death is not on the increase at the
present time. In 1998, 103 people were charged with impaired
driving causing death, the lowest figure for this offence since
1989.
In addition to what is stated in this bill, there are some
preventive programs that have already had an effect.
Canada has become a champion as far as imprisonment is
concerned. When something is going wrong, instead of looking
into the problem, let's throw them in jail. Good riddance, we
don't have to deal with the problem any more.
To echo the words of my colleague for Laval Centre, take the
person, put him in a box and lock him up, that is all.
This runs counter to what the supreme court justices concluded
in Gladue, where they faulted the federal legislator for being
too quick to imprison delinquents. These are not my words. It is
what two honourable justices of the supreme court said.
I will read a few excerpts from the decision in Gladue:
Canada is a world leader in many fields, particularly in the
areas of progressive social policy and human rights.
Unfortunately, our country is also distinguished as being a world
leader in putting people in prison. Although the United States
has by far the highest rate of incarceration among industrialized
democracies, at over 600 inmates per 100,000 population, Canada's
rate of approximately 130 inmates per 100,000 population places
it second or third highest. Moreover, the rate at which Canadian
courts have been imprisoning offenders has risen sharply in
recent years, although there has been a slight decline of late.
I think that everybody in this House knows it, but many choose
to ignore the day-to-day realities of our society. Since being
elected as the member for Jonquière, I have noticed that, in its
ivory tower, this government unilaterally adopts bills that are
totally out of touch with the realities faced by the people when
it comes to taking action.
This government is listening closely to the Canadian extreme
right, which believes that the solution to any and every problem
in Canada is the law of retaliation. These people believe that
we should condemn first and then say “The longer you will stay
in jail, the better it will be for you and for society”.
1635
It is not true. This is not the way Quebecers think. This is not
what we think. I find that the Quebec society is ahead of its
time in many areas.
Prevention is required. What could be more beneficial to find
solutions, to find an ideal way out and solve problems in
society, than prevention programs?
This government is ignoring the prevention means we are
advocating to help people. I am not saying that driving a vehicle
while impaired is not serious, especially when lives are lost.
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that, right now, we
should establish prevention and education programs. We must start
educating our children when they are young. In Quebec, we have
very good prevention campaigns, aimed at society as a whole,
which that drinking and driving is a crime.
That is certainly true, but we must also consider the fact that
nobody can say it will never happen to them. Everybody has
surely had a drink or two when they were extremely tired and
then got behind the wheel. An accident could happen.
Such people are not criminals. I do not think that they are
criminals. If something happens, it is just an accident. The
notion of accident will have to be considered.
In Quebec, we consider alcoholism a disease. We will have to
invest a lot of money in research so people have places to go to
be treated for alcoholism.
As my colleague for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques said earlier, there is an ignition interlock system with
a breathalizer available in Canada, particularly in Quebec and
in Alberta. The criminal code should be amended to allow judges
to order an offender to have such a system installed on his or
her vehicle as a condition of parole or in exchange for a
reduction of the driving prohibition period.
I can see in the document that was given to me by my colleague
that this system has been proven effective.
Why not require all car manufacturers to install such a system
on all vehicles?
We could also give tax breaks to those who have such a system
installed on their vehicle. It would be a way to reduce the
number of people who drink and drive.
1640
As my colleague from Joliette said, during the holiday season,
in Quebec, we have Operation Nez Rouge. I do not know if there
is such a thing in the other provinces of Canada, but Nez Rouge
is an organization that tells people “You want to celebrate
during the holiday season; leave your keys and your car where
you are, dial this telephone number and someone will come and
pick you up and drive you home.”
Because of that, in Quebec, since Nez Rouge has been in
operation, the number of people driving while impaired has
significantly decreased during the holiday season. The success
rate is extraordinary and I would like to say, incidentally,
that this not for profit organization is manned by volunteers
who provide the service. That is another way of saying that we
have to deal with alcoholism.
It is not through legislation imposing life imprisonment that we
will deal with the problem. This is not the way to make people
more responsible. I am not talking about people who have
repeatedly driven while impaired, who have no social conscience
and get behind the wheel even though they know they are not
allowed to drive. I am talking about individuals who are doing
it once in their life and whose families and fellow workers will
be branded for the rest of their life. That is not the way we
should act in Canada; that is not the way the government should
act to improve the situation and make society more responsible
with regard to this scourge, which is less prevalent in our
society, according to the statistics I mentioned earlier.
I ask the Minister of Justice to withdraw her bill. It is not
constructive, it is repressive. I want to warn her and tell her
that she is on the wrong track with the young offenders bill. It
takes the same approach.
I think that right now this government
is assuming that the people of this country are second-class
citizens, that they lack judgement, that they are not aware and
that they are not able to improve. That is unacceptable. The
federal government has only one speed when it comes to criminal
justice: overdrive.
This bill goes too far. In both the young offenders bill and
the impaired driving bill, the Minister of Justice reveals her
inability to manage complex problems without resorting to
dangerously repressive measures. There is no justification for
this attitude, because crime, I repeat, has been on the decrease
in Canada for several years now. Furthermore, there are no
studies showing that such an approach is effective.
We must guard against inflated sentencing, which bears a
dangerous resemblance to an eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth. Nobody will win in this mad race except the jailers.
But law and order politics are very popular politically, as the
Minister of Justice is well aware. As for justice, and more
specifically youth crime, there is also opposition to this bill
because of the simplistic measures proposed by the federal
government.
I think that this government will have to stop and think, that
it will have to get back in touch with what people really
experience every day, if our society is to improve and not be
undermined by bills such as this one.
There is still time for the Minister of Justice to withdraw her
bill and I and my fellow members of the Bloc Quebecois urge her
to do so.
1645
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre,
Gasoline Prices; the hon. member for Jonquière, Importation of
Plutonium.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
agreed to speak on Bill C-18 concerning the amendment to the
criminal code, because it was impossible for me to remain silent
in face of a somewhat hateful bill.
For some reason that is totally unknown to me and that seems
totally unfounded and nonsensical, the Minister of Justice
strikes again, with a bill in which she wants to amend the
criminal code to provide a maximum sentence of life imprisonment
for an impaired driver involved in an accident causing the death
of another person.
This bill also wants to provide for the taking of blood samples
for the purpose of testing for the presence of drugs.
In looking at the nature of the debate we are having today,
where only the Bloc Quebecois feels the need to speak out and to
alert the people against this hateful bill, I realize once again
that Quebec is a distinct society. If we were still looking for
reasons to leave Canada, we just found a new one. Canada and
Quebec are not on the same wavelength on such an important bill
for society.
I certainly do not want to underestimate the importance of an
accident involving an impaired driver who causes the death of
another person.
A death, no matter the circumstances, is always sad and painful,
but when it is caused by an impaired driver, the loss seems even
more terrible.
So, we do not want to diminish the gravity of the offence, but I
want to pause to reflect on the issue.
When the Prime Minister introduced in the House his famous
notion of a distinct society for Quebec—and he still blames us
for voting against it—he was told “Mr. Prime Minister, what you
are proposing is an empty shell”.
Quebec is a distinct society, but it can never express its
distinctiveness. It is not allowed to be distinct. There is a
move toward increasingly centralized policies, toward wall to
wall policies. Provincial jurisdiction is increasingly being
encroached upon. In spite of all that, Quebec feels more and more
distinct. The more we learn of the values of Canadian society,
the more concerned we are about the future of Quebec's society.
I do not wish to make an issue of this, but let me point out
that the Minister is, first and foremost, a member from western
Canada. In western Canada, the Liberal Party has a fierce
opponent. It used to be called the Reform Party. It is now called
the Canadian Alliance.
1650
Since 1993, we in the Bloc Quebecois have seen how the Liberal
government, which used to be a progressive government—not as in
Progressive Conservative, but progressive in the real meaning of
the word—which went ahead with forward-looking policies became
backward-looking. It is turned more toward the 19th century,
while we are steaming full speed ahead into the 21st century with
all the tools the new technology has to offer.
This government is asking the wrong questions. Let us try to
find out which ones. What do Quebec and Canadian societies want?
They want their politicians to give them laws that will ensure
the betterment of society, and not laws that will make life in
society increasingly difficult and stifling.
What has happened so far? We have the criminal code. Currently,
when an individual drives a vehicle while impaired, and
unfortunately causes an accident which results in a fatality, the
criminal code provides that the judge may sentence this
individual to 14 years in prison. To this day, no judge has ever
sentenced anyone to more than 10 years. And it was such an
accomplishment it made the headlines across the country, pointing
out that, at long last, a judge had dared give 10 years for
impaired driving causing death.
Why, when nothing more than a 10 year sentence has ever been
imposed, suddenly come up with a measure expected to be more
effective because it provides for life imprisonment? What does
society want? What values underlie this specific measure? Is our
role as politicians to find a way to avenge what happened to
someone else in society? Must we only advocate a punitive,
coercive approach? Is this really the reason why we exist as a
parliament?
Or do we not, on the contrary, want to educate our fellow
citizens by teaching them a value such as moderation? Quebec's
liquor board, the Société des alcools, sponsored a campaign to
encourage people to drink with moderation. The campaign's theme
“La modération a bien meilleur goût” was displayed everywhere,
along highways, in newspapers and magazines and on the television
and radio.
While alcohol sales and profits did not go down, Quebecers'
behaviour changed. Now, when you entertain guests at home, it is
not rare to hear someone say “I will only have juice or Perrier
water, because I am the designated driver”.
Countries such as Sweden introduced educational and progressive
measures to improve the situation. But here we want to punish
people, we seek vengeance.
That approach will not work, as evidenced by the research done.
All the criminologists in the world will tell you that putting
people in prison is not the solution. On the contrary, we should
find ways and pass legislation that will help us create public
awareness, and invest money in educational programs and
initiatives designed to make people more responsible.
What does Operation Nez Rouge do in Quebec? It is a huge success.
That initiative is now beginning to spread to Ontario and the
maritime provinces. What does Operation Nez Rouge do? It tells
people “Do not forget, it is important to celebrate, but if you
drink, do not drive; we will drive you home for free”.
1655
We can pass legislation to influence the public for the better.
The goal of members of parliament should not be to use public
funds to build more prisons.
What is the Minister of Justice doing now with her criminal code
reform? She must be on the verge of sending kindergarten kids to
prison. She is not pleased to see that our own reform in Quebec
is successful with young offenders. She wants to undermine our
efforts. It is just one more reason to get out of this country.
Bill C-18 will lead us nowhere.
If this bill is passed in its original form, we will negate the
specific nature of this offence and create a serious imbalance
in our criminal justice system. The most important question we
should ask about this reform of the criminal code is whether we
really want what is best for the offender who has a bad habit of
drinking and driving, or if we want to fight the political right
on its own turf and win more votes in the next election by
promoting harsh punishments that are out of proportion with the
offence.
Let nobody be mistaken. I do think impaired driving is a serious
offence. It is an action that cannot be rationalized. We have a
hard time accepting it, but we should be helping people get rid
of that bad habit instead of punishing them and locking them up
for the rest of their life.
This reminds me of the answer the solicitor general gave me this
afternoon during question period when I asked how the public
could understand what was going on. I said “Thanks to the parole
program, about one hundred Rock Machine members will soon be
released from prison. How can we possibly allow crime gang
members to benefit from a reintegration measure such as parole,
when we are well aware that as soon as they get out of prison
they will go to war against another crime gang?” The minister
stood up and replied that I should not worry, that everything is
under control, saying “My hon. colleague is well aware that
whenever anybody receives parole, it is granted through the
National Parole Board. This is an arm's length body that reviews
all the information and public safety is always the number one
issue”. All is well; if they are out it is because they are not
dangerous. Those are the regulations and we respect regulations.
However, everyone knows that any member of a crime gang who gets
out of prison will be a worse offender than before, because a
prison is no place for rehabilitation, and he will be very happy
to resume his position within the gang and wage war against other
gangs.
When they talk about life imprisonment for people who are in a
car accident, we have to wonder why. I am no expert on the
criminal code or criminal law, but I know there are two things in
the code. There are people sentenced to 25 years imprisonment
without eligibility for parole and there are people sentenced to
life.
There seems to be a difference.
I hope somebody will explain the difference to me someday so I
can understand, but I have been told that there is a difference
between the two and that, in this case, someone who is sentenced
to life imprisonment could, depending on the conditions set by
the judge, serve only a few years because he would be eligible to
parole after serving a third of his sentence.
I wonder why we go to so much trouble to pass such hypocritical
bills. Although judges can now sentence people to 14 years, they
usually sentence them to two, three or four years. There is one
exception, a 10 year sentence.
1700
There is also one thing one must not forget. The crime rate is
dropping in Canada, as statistics show clearly. The proportion of
individuals who were incarcerated after being convicted of
impaired driving decreased in 1994-95 and 1997-98. Thus,
within three years, the proportion of incriminated individuals
went from 22% to 19%. Most prison terms in these cases are less
than two years.
Why legislate to allow life imprisonment, if the courts are not
willing to fully use the instruments they already have?
Although impaired driving causing death is an offence of
considerable importance, it is wrong to claim that we are
currently faced with a huge upturn in its figures.
In 1998, only 103 people in Canada were charged with impaired
driving causing death. Hon. members will respond that this is
103 people too many, which it is, but putting those 103 in prison
for 25 years is not the way to help the 100 more who will come
along the following year and be found guilty.
Educational measures must be found so that society can be
changed rather than punished, so that there is education rather
than revenge. Canada has become a champion as far as putting
people in jail is concerned, just behind the United States. This
is hardly a record of which to be proud.
As far as the incarceration rate is concerned, we rank second
in the entire world. I think our Prime Minister
would be delighted if he were able to say we were 180th. For
once, being last would be a good thing. Instead of being first,
we are second, with no one higher than us but the Americans. It
is a shame. Canada uses imprisonment twice as often as most
European countries.
In this connection, the supreme court was very clear, and I
quote an excerpt from the judgment in Gladue:
Canada is a world leader in many fields, particularly in the
areas of progressive social policy and human rights
I myself pointed this out at the start of my remarks. I
continue quoting:
Unfortunately, our country is also distinguished as being a
world leader in putting people in prison. Although the United
States has by far the highest rate of incarceration among
industrialized democracies, at over 600 inmates per 100,000
population, Canada's rate of approximately 130 inmates per
100,000 population places it second or third highest. Moreover,
the rate at which Canadian courts have been imprisoning
offenders has risen sharply in recent years, although there has
been a slight decline of late.
All the measures that the Minister of Justice has proposed since
she assumed this position are such that we are looking at
increasing numbers of incarcerations.
Is it the aim of the Prime Minister to surpass the United States
in numbers of prisoners? It would be interesting to have him
tell us in the next election that his aim is to put as many
Canadians as possible behind bars and, if possible, not too many
Liberals, because he wants to win his election.
I had prepared a much longer speech on this bill, which I find
extremely painful and difficult to understand and which will
long be hard to swallow.
We will have an election campaign in which we will remind the
people that this government is hateful and insensitive, right of
centre and bringing us more violence than what we have at the
moment, because its model seems to be the American society. In
matters of values, Quebec is apart.
1705
We want an educational approach. We want rehabilitation. Once
again, I repeat, I am pleased to note that you are giving us one
more reason to bow out.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are enjoying the debate this afternoon on a subject that most
Canadians regard as a top drawer issue; the way we deal with the
criminal code offence of drinking and driving and causing death.
Would the hon. member accept that the bill is not about
incarcerating more people? Rather, it is about articulating for
Canadians that the offence we are dealing with, which it is so
frequent now, killing as a result of drunk driving, has increased
to the point where it is overshadowing all other serious
offences. Canadians want that type of killing offence numbered
among the most not just serious offences in the criminal code but
the most serious among the offences involving the taking of life,
whether wilful or not.
What this particular piece of legislation does is it moves up
the range of sentencing. It does not increase the bottom range
but it does increase the top range. By increasing the range, we
effectively signal to the courts and the public that we regard
this as among the most serious offences. That is the reason for
the bill. It is not for the purpose of throwing more alcohol
addicted drivers into prison. Would the hon. member accept that
as the purpose of the bill?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely wonder why my
colleague does not consult the same statistics that we are being
provided with. We do make these figures up. Why does he not go to
the sources, the official sources which prove without a doubt
that everything he has just said is far removed from reality?
In that area, the crime rate is going down. It is not rising, it
is decreasing. When I say that this government wants to
incarcerate more people, it means that from the moment an
individual is sentenced to life imprisonment, he will have to
serve at least 25 years behind bars unless the judge takes into
consideration other circumstances or unless the individual
benefits from conditional release after a certain time, perhaps
10 years.
Currently, the average length of imprisonment is about two years
and even less.
We all know that individuals sentenced to two years plus one day
are sent to a federal rather than a provincial institution. We
know very well what the results are at the end of the day.
Individuals come out of federal prisons worst than before their
incarceration because the federal government does not focus on
rehabilitation or re-education, but on punishment and revenge.
Those are not the values which guide Quebecers.
We have been trying as hard as possible to rehabilitate people
who have committed crimes, even young offenders. Our level of
success is staggering. Some people who were involved in
well-known situations, for example the FLQ, were able to study
in prison and they became university professors. Today, they are
unknown to anyone who has not seen their snapshots at the time
of the FLQ crisis.
We do not want this kind of prison system. For us, Quebecers,
Canada may be turning into a jail. Most of all, we do not want
more Quebecers incarcerated by the federal government than we
have now.
1710
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I served some time on the Ontario parole board. I
remember holding a parole hearing for a person who was an
habitual drunk driver. He did not own a car and did not have a
licence. Each time he was incarcerated, his time was served in
the two years less a day housing at a provincial institution. The
last time he was incarcerated, at which I did the parole hearing,
there was no way he was getting out on parole. He served his
full two years.
After he had served his time, he refused rehabilitation and
refused to deal with the fact that alcohol was the leading factor
for his problems. At that time I felt that he was a person in
need of counselling, if not provincially then federally. I felt
that he needed more time in the prison system. This was an
individual who had never had a a licence, never owned a car, had
seven impaired driving charges and he had no rehabilitation.
I do not know what we would do with a person like that other
than to have longer incarceration periods so that public safety
is taken into account.
In all good conscience, what would the member tell the families
of the two people that man killed in his last accident? Would
she tell them that longer incarceration was not necessary?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, first, there is no
justice in this world. We know that from the day we are born. It
is not by avenging the unfortunate death of these people that we
will solve that person's problem.
From what the member told us, the person in question had several
problems: no driver's licence, no car, a drinking habit and he
killed two people while driving.
Who lent him a car when he had no driver's licence? That person
is the one who should be sent to prison. That person is the one
responsible. He either borrowed or rented a car from someone.
Where did he find a car if he did not own one and had no driver's
licence? It is a serious mistake to lend a vehicle to someone who
does not have a driver's licence and who has been drinking.
Bar owners see people who are already drunk continue drinking
beer or scotch. All they can think of is the money they are
making, not their responsibility in letting someone who is dead
drunk get behind the wheel.
We should look at all the responsibilities. If that man was
drunk and was able to steal a car, it may be that he had easy
access to a vehicle that was running or unlocked. We should look
at the whole, big picture before convicting an innocent man, even
though what he did is unfortunate and two people suffered the
consequences of his action. I agree that his two victims are two
too many, but it is not by putting that man in jail for 25 years
that we will rehabilitate him and help him get rid of his
drinking problem.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like my
colleague to comment on the following situation.
At present, the courts have the power to give sentences of up to
14 years, yet no court has ever sentenced anybody to more than
10 years for such an offence. Therefore, they still have 4 years
to play with. Since the Criminal Code was amended to increase to
14 years the maximum sentence for this type of offence, no judge
has ever found the offence serious enough to impose the full 14
year sentence.
1715
Will the mere fact of telling judges they can give a life
sentence change anything? Up to now, they could impose sentences
of up to 14 years, but they never did. What will Canadians think
if we tell them that judges have the power to hand out life
sentences but never use it? They will say there is even less
justice than there was before, because the full life sentence is
never imposed.
Will the bill not make our legal system even less credible?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, this is
an excellent question. I regret not having enough time to give
an answer more befitting the value of the question.
The government and the Minister of Justice should first and
foremost think about the quality of the people appointed as
judges and make sure they are competent. Once appointed, the
judges should undergo refresher training every year to keep up
to date in their way of thinking, be aware of the psychological
conditions of life, reflect on the new situations in which
families are living and gain a better understanding of society.
There are judges who have been on the bench for 30 years and
never stopped even for a moment to think about what they are
doing and why they are doing it. It is not even clear whether
they know the criminal code well enough to realize that they can
give 14 year sentences. Refresher courses should be developed
for judges and competitions held to make sure competent judges
are appointed.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too am
pleased to speak to Bill C-18. As was clear from the excellent
speeches given by my colleagues, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed
to the bill.
We feel, however, that impaired driving causing death is a very
serious offence. Nonetheless, there are solutions other than
revenge and punishment. In the supposedly most wonderful
country in the world, a democratic country, Bill C-18 boils down
to a system of fear. As my colleagues pointed out, the existing
laws allow the courts to hand down adequate sentences.
As the Bloc Quebecois explained, this bill is not the solution.
Passing Bill C—18 would be to ignore the very characteristics of
this offence and create a significant imbalance in our criminal
justice system.
Why not allow the courts to fully avail themselves of the leeway
they now have under the criminal code?
As one of my colleagues so eloquently said earlier, 10 years
is the maximum sentence which has generally been handed down by
the courts. The maximum has been 10 years, when 14 was
available. This 10 year sentence has been imposed by the courts
for impaired driving causing death. Who is better placed than
the courts to determine what sentence is appropriate? We are
questioning the competence of the courts by forcing them to hand
down a stiffer sentence, a life sentence, when they had the
opportunity to hand down a longer sentence and did not do so.
Because of the courts and the existing legislation, impaired
driving causing death has dropped from 22% in 1994-95 to 19% in
1997-98. It is incorrect to claim that we are now facing a sharp
increase in this sort of crime.
Supreme court justices Cory and Iacobucci were recently critical
of the fact that Canada has become a champion of incarceration,
and decried the overeagerness of federal lawmakers to embrace
imprisonment as a solution to the problems of delinquency.
1720
In calling for life imprisonment for people convicted of
impaired driving causing death, the minister is ignoring the
comments made by her own supreme court.
We believe that prevention is the real solution. Imprisonment
must be a solution of last resort with respect to crime. In
fact, the justice minister has not shown that she has exhausted
all means at her disposal to address the problem of impaired
driving and protect the people. She has chosen the easy way out:
to increase prison sentences.
She has adopted least effort approach of the Canadian Alliance,
but she could have acted otherwise.
There are efficient tools other that incarceration to reduce the
number of offences linked to impaired driving. In fact, in the
last two years, in Quebec, we have seen a decrease of such
offences because of the prevention campaign saying “Drinking and
Driving is no Accident” and “If you drink, don't drive”. I think
this campaign was successful, as evidenced by present results.
The ignition interlock system with breathalyser is a system with
which Quebec and Alberta are presently experimenting. It is a
system that can determine the concentration of alcohol in the
blood by analyzing only a sample of the driver's breath and
prevent ignition of the vehicle if the alcohol concentration is
higher than a predetermined level.
Alberta and Quebec are currently the only provinces that impose
ignition interlock systems as a condition for giving a
conditional licence to drivers who have had their licence
suspended by the province.
Treating an impaired driver who caused death the same way as a
hired killer who committed a premeditated aggravated crime, who
prepared his crime, would be using a double standard.
Should a friend, a relative who partied too hard and, through his
negligence, caused a fatal accident, be treated as harshly as a
killer who committed a premeditated and aggravated crime? Past
experience says no.
It is impossible to treat this type of driver like a confirmed
criminal. Should we treat him like a member of an organized
crime group? I do not believe so. Certainly, both individuals
have done something very wrong, yet their profiles are quite
different.
Should an ordinary citizen who drank too much at a
party, but is a good family man who was never involved with the
justice system, be imprisoned for life?
How can the minister justify that an offender who killed in cold
blood and in full control of his faculties be sentenced to a
shorter prison term than a driver whose faculties were impaired
by alcohol?
The federal government knows only one thing when it comes to
criminal justice: excess. The law and order policy is very
profitable, politically, and the Minister of Justice knows this
very well.
Whether on the issue of young offenders or on the issue of
impaired drivers, the Minister of Justice has shown her
inability to manage complex problems without having to resort to
dangerously repressive measures.
1725
We are examining what seems today to be the most important issue
in criminal law, the tendency of the legislator to misinterpret
the public's state of mind and the belief that punitive
legislation will satisfy those advocating dissuasion as the
cornerstone of the criminal justice system as it applies to
adolescents.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-18.
We must not lose our sense of direction. In 1998, there were no
more road deaths and injuries, serious or light, in Quebec than
there were criminal acts. The statistics bear witness: there
were 47,000 criminal acts committed in Quebec in 1998, compared
with 39,000 road accidents.
On the 39,000 unfortunate accidents on the roads, the experts do
not agree. The figures cited vary between 5% and 50%, making
these statistics useless.
In the worst case scenario, road accidents still represent fewer
than half the crimes. They say that there are 50% fewer crimes
than there are accidents involving alcohol on the roads, and the
government is proposing a bill to punish and to take vengeance
out on the drunk drivers, ignoring the real criminals.
What can be said for sure, however, is that a road accident,
even one caused by alcohol, is not the result of a conscious
desire to do harm.
The Bloc Quebecois has often been criticized for systematically
causing obstruction in Ottawa, simply to show that the federal
system does not function.
This criticism will not apply this time around, for its stand on
sentences for impaired driving.
Quite the contrary. In this case, its firm position has helped
curb the excessive zeal of those who promote zero tolerance. By
the same token, it has helped set the whole debate in a more
reasonable context where sentences for these offences will not
be out of proportion, compared with crimes that are just as
serious, but entail shorter sentences.
This is not a new problem for federal authorities. Year after
year, they watch as the number of accidents caused by impaired
driving reaches an alarming level. In 1997 alone, there have
been in Canada no less than 193 fatal accidents caused by
impaired driving.
Such statistics should have warned any responsible government
that it had to examine how relevant its preventive and
repressive measures and not vengeful measures.
That was precisely the mandate of a House of Commons justice
committee, which has been reviewing for the last few months all
the legislation that could have an impact on this issue, in
order to make recommendations to the minister before the
introduction of a bill amending current legislation.
But when the government is facing, as is the case right now, an
ultraconservative and populist opposition like the Reform Party,
which keeps demanding stiffer sentences to impose law and order
everywhere, we run the risk of getting extreme solutions that do
not always take the whole picture into account.
Their main advantage is that they tend to placate a frustrated
population whose thirst for vengeance is constantly played on by
many demagogues.
1730
When, on top of that, the governing party feels that it must
absolutely increase its popularity among a group of citizens who
applaud the opposition's uncompromising attitude, we end up with
an unacceptable bill such as the one that gave rise to the Bloc
Quebecois' unyielding and totally justified opposition.
Of course, it should have been obvious to its drafters that,
notwithstanding the comments of those who promote drastic
harshness, it would end up with fanatics calling for life
imprisonment.
I am now addressing those who drafted Bill C-18. With lucidity
and responsibility, they should have recommended to the
lawmakers and the Liberal Party that such legislation never be
passed.
Surely, a clear message must be sent to all those who are so
irresponsible as to drive while impaired.
The Bloc does not object to this. We must continue to raise
public awareness. We must continue to seek more humane and
logical approaches to raise public consciousness about impaired
driving.
I am convinced that, if the government reacted more
realistically, more responsibly, Bill C-18 would be withdrawn.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief government
whip, the vote on the motion is deferred until Monday at the
conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think you will find that as a result of discussions
between the parties there is an agreement pursuant to Standing
Order 45(7) to defer the recorded division just requested on the
motion of the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley until the
end of Government Orders on Tuesday, May 16, 2000.
1735
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to further
defer the division until Tuesday?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of the Environment) moved
that Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife
species at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour for me
to rise today to speak in favour of the species at risk act, the
first specific piece of federal legislation in Canada to ensure
protection for all species of birds, fish, mammals, plants and
insects at risk. This bill, an important part of a balanced and
comprehensive package, will ensure that species and their
habitats get the protection they need.
Our top priority in drafting this legislation was to consider
the needs of Canada's species. Home to a rich diversity of
plants and animals, Canada has over 70,000 known plant and animal
species, many of which are only found in this country. Given the
vast size of our land and the unique wildlife within our borders,
the government believes that we have a moral responsibility to
present and future generations to make sure that our precious
diversity is protected.
Globally we are losing species at an alarming rate due to human
activity. In Canada today we have at least 352 species
classified as being at risk. We must all work to turn this
around to ensure that species will not become extinct or
endangered in Canada because of our human activities. With this
bill we are choosing an approach which is already working on the
ground where it means the most and where Canadians are already
hard at work.
Bill C-33 has been seven years in the making. In 1992 Canada
signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. In
fact Canada was one of the first countries to ratify the
convention, as was already mentioned in question period today.
In 1996 governments across Canada supported the accord for the
protection of species at risk and agreed to bring in species
protection legislation in their own jurisdictions. Many
provinces and territories have already fulfilled this obligation
and commitment. Now it is time for the federal government to
step up to the plate.
Protecting wildlife in Canada is not an academic exercise. This
bill will protect species currently endangered and it will
prevent other species from becoming endangered. The approach
taken in this bill is balanced and practical. It recognizes that
we must all work together if we are going to maximize our
successes.
Introducing a Canada-wide comprehensive species at risk act was
challenging. It required listening to many voices. The
Government of Canada engaged in a thorough process of study,
consultation and planning. It involved environmental groups,
landowners, aboriginal peoples, other levels of government and
thousands of individual citizens.
We have examined and benefited from the experiences of other
jurisdictions, other provinces and other nations. We have taken
what works and avoided what does not. The result for forests
today is a strong bill, a bill which balances many important but
sometimes conflicting interests.
The species at risk act before us is an effective bill which,
when passed, will ensure the job gets done. Bill C-33 will help
save species and protect their habitats on all lands in Canada.
To quickly outline what is contained in the bill, the species at
risk act provides for independent scientific assessments of
wildlife species by the Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC; an accountable listing process for
species based on that scientific assessment; and a comprehensive
process for planning and implementing species recovery.
The bill also provides for strong prohibitions against the
killing or harming of any species at risk and its residence, and
the power to protect species' critical habitat on all lands,
public and private, in Canada.
1740
Under the act the assessment of wildlife species will be the
responsibility of COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada. COSEWIC is an independent body of
scientists and other experts. It will continue to operate at
arm's length from the federal and provincial governments. For
the first time, however, COSEWIC is given legal status and will
be given the budget to continue its work.
COSEWIC will assess whether a species is threatened or
endangered and that COSEWIC assessment and the reasons behind it
will be made public. All Canadians will have access to that
information. There is nothing politicized about the assessment
process. When COSEWIC independently determines that a species is
threatened or endangered, that decision is automatically
reported.
COSEWIC's scientific assessment will be the basis for the
government's list of wildlife species in Canada established under
SARA, the species at risk act.
Once a species has been added to the legal list, prohibitions on
the killing of individuals of a species designated as threatened
or endangered immediately come into force, as does protection for
the residences of individuals of the species. A comprehensive
process for recovery planning is initiated. The use of land that
is part of a species habitat may be affected and a wide variety
of other economic, legal and social consequences may come into
play.
Decisions taken under the act can have serious economic, social
and legal consequences for many Canadians. It is essential that
there be political accountability for these decisions. That is
why this act gives cabinet the legal responsibility to establish
and amend the legal list of wildlife species at risk in Canada.
[Translation]
This bill recognizes that the destruction or the degradation of
habitats is the main threat to these species. In the last 200
years, we have completely transformed the environment. Wildlife
habitats were not spared, be they wetlands, forests, lakes,
rivers or prairies.
Habitat lost threatens more than 75% of the species now
classified as being at risk. Obviously, if we want to protect
these species, we have to protect their habitat.
This bill on species at risk provides for the necessary
authority to prevent the destruction of these habitats. It
provides for the necessary authority to prevent the destruction
of habitats critical for the survival of species at risk across
Canada. This bill allows us to take emergency measures rapidly.
[English]
When a species is listed as threatened or endangered, the
recovery planning process will identify what needs to be done to
recover that species, including the identification of that
species' critical habitat needs. As I mentioned earlier, this
act provides the Government of Canada the legal authority to
ensure that all critical habitat areas are protected whether it
be federal, provincial or private land.
Our first line of defence will be to protect habitat by
encouraging landowners to undertake voluntary conservation
measures often in co-operation with other governments. The
Government of Canada will provide incentives to promote habitat
conservation because we know this approach works on the ground to
effectively protect species.
1745
In the last federal budget this government committed $180
million over five years to implement our strategy to protect
species at risk. A sizeable portion of this money will fund
habitat stewardship measures.
In many cases the habitat important for species at risk will be
in a province or territory, and we respect their authority. We
expect these governments to bring in habitat protection measures.
This bill will complement existing or improve provincial and
territorial legislation, not compete with it.
Make no mistake, where voluntary measures do not work, other
governments are unwilling or unable to act, the federal safety
net will be invoked. If a province does not have complementary
legislation the Government of Canada will act to protect Canada's
heritage, to protect our species on provincial and private lands.
Where the federal safety net is used to protect critical habitat
on private land there will be provisions to compensate for
unexpected losses caused by unforeseen restrictions on the normal
use of that land. The compensation provisions, however, will not
create perverse incentives to inhibit voluntary habitat
protection measures in hopes of receiving future compensation.
It is all a question of balance. To find this balance the
Minister of the Environment has asked a distinguished Canadian
expert on conservation issues, Dr. Peter Pearse, Professor
Emeritus of Resource Economics at the University of British
Columbia, to review the issues and to provide him with advice.
Some people would say that this bill is an infringement on
property rights. They are misguided. Their criticisms are based
on horror stories about the very different experience of the
United States endangered species act. The Canadian species at
risk act is fundamentally different. While it certainly gives
the government the power to protect species on private lands, we
have gone a long way toward meeting the concerns of land owners
and land users.
Perhaps what is most important about the bill is that it must be
used and accepted by the people on the land who make decisions
affecting wildlife every day. The bill recognizes that while we
need strong measures for those who would break the law, we need a
co-operative approach on the front lines. This in fact is what
will protect our species.
For this legislation to be effective all affected stakeholders
must be engaged. Reality and experience dictate that to get the
job done we need land owners, conservation groups and other
levels of government working together.
Aboriginal communities in Canada are especially important in the
effort to protect species at risk. Many threatened or endangered
species are found on aboriginal lands. Aboriginal people will be
involved in the species at risk act recovery efforts at every
step. The assessment and recovery processes will incorporate the
wisdom of aboriginal traditional knowledge as well as local
community knowledge. We will work closely with and respect the
role of wildlife management boards established under land claims
and first nations agreements to ensure the protection of species
on traditional native lands.
We know from experience that all governments and stakeholders
working together can help species recover. Already we have made
progress on the swift fox, the white pelican and the peregrine
falcon. We have learned from these successful efforts and now we
must focus our efforts on saving species still in danger, such as
the beluga whale, the Vancouver Island marmot—the minister's
particular favourite—the burrowing owl and the leatherback
turtle. To prevent other species from being added to that list,
as a government, as citizens and as stewards our goal must be to
protect species on the ground.
The new species at risk act is part of a comprehensive approach
to accomplish this goal. Combined with the accord signed with
the provinces and territories, and extensive stewardship
activities already under way, we are confident that species and
their habitats will be protected in Canada.
I invite all hon. members and all Canadians to join with the
minister in taking this important step toward protecting wildlife
species and their habitats in Canada. After seven years of
debate it is time to focus our attention on protecting and
recovering wildlife.
Bill C-33 is designed to work not merely in the courtrooms and
the classrooms, but where it counts, in the fields, forests,
wetlands and open waters of Canada. Effective species
protection, not costly litigation, must be our primary goal.
1750
We look forward to the committee process where all concerned
citizens will see exactly how effective this bill can be.
We have an opportunity to pass strong legislation, legislation
that is needed and is long overdue. I sincerely hope that all
members of the House will assist in this monumental
responsibility.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think you will find that there is unanimous to say that, it
being 6.06 p.m., the time provided for government orders has
expired.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Rimouski—Mitis has asked for the unanimous consent of the House
to see the clock at 6.06 p.m., which would bring to an end
Government Orders for today. Does the House give its unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 6.06 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
The House resumed from April 7 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and to
make amendments to other acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-206, an act to amend
the Access to Information Act by defining more precisely what
records held by governments are to be disclosed and providing
more severe penalties for those who would wilfully circumvent the
intent of the legislation.
First, I am very supportive of this legislation, as is our
party. It is a step in the right direction. The updating of
this act, which was introduced and served its purpose well during
less complicated times, is long overdue. Clearly the act needs
to be updated and strengthened at this very critical time.
It is notable that the government of the leader of my party, the
Right Hon. Joe Clark, first introduced the freedom of information
legislation in Canada in 1979. It is in that tradition that we
are supportive of improvements to the act at this time to bring
it up to date with today's circumstances.
Under the current Access to Information Act the government
almost got away with what was perhaps the most egregious abuse of
government power recorded in a long time, perhaps even at any
time during the country's history, and that was the HRDC scandal.
There was an obvious abuse of the public trust and mismanagement
of public funds, which ultimately uncovered innumerable counts of
unethical or at least dubious uses of taxpayer money to buy
electoral support. The improvements brought forward in Bill
C-206 would help to guard against this and perhaps bring to light
these types of abuses earlier.
One thing we have to consider is the degree to which the
government is privatizing many of the government services which
previously were the exclusive purview of government departments.
Whether this is within the new Revenue Canada agency, the new
money laundering agency or any of the new arm's length agencies
that are separate from government, we have to ensure that we are
being vigilant in ensuring that we continue through the Access to
Information Act to have an opportunity to seek information that
should be in the public domain.
It is a fear which I have and which others validate that
sometimes when we see these new agencies access to information
may be compromised.
That is something we have to be awfully careful of, particularly
given the degree to which the trend in government service
provision in Canada is to that sort of agency model. I would
urge all members of the House to consider this very carefully to
ensure that as this trend evolves we do not see a compromising of
the access to information mechanism.
1755
One of the most glaring concerns with the legislation is that it
proposes to prohibit access to information to users who make
frivolous and abusive requests. As a member of the fifth party
in the House of Commons I would certainly hope that the hon.
member, or any member of the governing party, would not see
requests coming from my party as being frivolous or abusive.
An hon. member: Suspicious.
Mr. Scott Brison: Suspicious perhaps, but never frivolous
or abusive.
Whenever we get into nebulous descriptions there is the
potential to use what I refer to as weasel words to benefit
perhaps the governing party. I think we have to be clear that,
by and large, any request for information through the Access to
Information Act should be considered to be more important than
would be deemed frivolous or abusive. Clearly a sound opposition
on any number of issues has been based on access to information
and the ability to receive information that perhaps other parties
were not smart enough to ask for. There are some concerns about
that.
We also pose as some concern the requirement of payment from
individuals who use the ATI service frequently. Again, clearly
we do not want to create a system whereby ultimately access to
information is more achievable by people with means than people
without means. That is something we should consider.
We are supportive of Bill C-206. I commend the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington for his continued diligence in bringing to
the House erudite and well thought out contributions. While I
differ with him periodically—in fact often—I generally respect
his opinions, even when those opinions are frivolous or abusive.
I commend the hon. member for a well thought out piece of
legislation which is very constructive at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Haldimand—Victoria—Brock.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is Haliburton—Victoria—Brock. When you start
dealing with the member for Wentworth—Burlington you will be
talking about Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough and Aldershot, so you
will have to work on that.
There are a lot of things the House has to learn other than
finding out where a member actually resides. Do not worry, the
name of my riding will change shortly because Victoria has been
changed to the City of the Kawartha Lakes. I will probably have
to change that also because it does not exist. When I get around
to running a survey in my next householder I will ask people what
exactly they want the riding to be called.
Bill C-206 was introduced by my colleague from
Wentworth—Burlington. As the member for Kings—Hants has noted,
we sometimes disagree. Probably the only reason he does not
heckle me is because I am on his side of the House.
Allowing private members' business, in general, to be debated in
the House is something which I think the public does not quite
understand. I think it should be pointed out that any debate or
negotiating, or anything that is allowed in private members'
business should be looked at very seriously.
People should understand that private members do a great deal of
research into what they feel is perhaps an injustice or perhaps
is not. If something is being left out of legislation that
affects the people on the street with whom we deal as backbench
members of parliament, sometimes the only way to create debate is
to bring a private member's bill forward. I compliment the
member for Wentworth—Burlington for doing so.
1800
First reading is an important stage because it introduces the
bill to the House. That in itself allows members to read the
bill and to discover the very thoughtful discussion that has gone
into it, the commentary and the amendments that it would make to
the act. After that it receives second reading and goes to
committee. Then it comes back to the House for report stage and
amendments, if necessary, and concurrence.
Many people do not realize that it takes a long time for that to
happen. It takes a great deal of gumption on behalf of a member
to follow it through and to try to deal with the various
amendments from other members. Then third reading debate and a
vote will send it on to the other place, or the Senate as it is
known. That is the process.
We should keep in mind that there are, I think by design, 30
private member's bills on the order paper. The number is never
less than that. As one is dealt with another is brought forward.
I am not sure of the exact number that are actually waiting to
get into that stream, but there are quite a few of them.
One of the subcommittees that I sit on is the one formed by the
central Ontario caucus. We as group looked at ways to improve
the way parliament works. That report is making its way through
the system. It has some 24 recommendations. Some are doable.
Some are not. Some will die from partisan politics, although we
tried to make it extremely non-partisan. It deals entirely with
backbench members of parliament.
One of the recommendations was Friday sittings. Some members
have said that this is the only place that sits on Fridays in the
world wherever there are parliaments, wherever there are
democratic systems that work under the British model. If it is
not in the government's interest to sit on Friday, I thought we
could compromise and move Private Members' Business to Friday and
make Friday a day when all Private Members' Business would be
dealt with. Then members know exactly when it would be dealt
with. We would not have to change the clock. This is the only
place in the world where it is 6.05 p.m. and the Chair can
declare that it is 6.10 p.m.
In any event certain things need some work around here and that
may be one of them. A Friday sitting for Private Members'
Business would highlight it and give it the precedence I believe
it deserves in parliament. I would like to see us go ahead with
that. We could allow for government bills to be introduced so
that we would not lose a day and so on, but there would be no
dilatory motions, no surprise votes, and private members would
have a day of their own on Fridays.
That is one recommendation for improvement. When I come to the
recommendations for improvement on Bill C-206 I notice that
changing the act from the Access to Information Act to an act to
allow for more open government would make perfect sense to the
public and should make perfect sense to all of us. In fact the
more open the government is, the more trustworthy it becomes.
We as politicians could actually move up the scale a little,
which would be quite a change from some of the ways we are
treated. In particular, we are in a more adversarial position
with many members of parliament trying to find the party that
they are in, some trying to find the party they are not in, and
some working away at trying to carve out their niche.
It is more confrontational. The agenda seems to move forward,
whether it is the Bloc trying to bring its agenda forward by high
profiling everything, whether it is the Canadian Alliance Party
trying to bring its leadership debate to the front, or whether it
is the Conservative Party trying to bring its leader to the
front. There seems to be a spirit of less co-operation in this
place.
1805
This affects backbench members of parliament, no matter whether
they are in the government or in the opposition, more than it
affects members who sit on the frontbenches or those who hold
positions in official opposition and have functions which give
them things such as a parking spot. It would be nice to have
some place to park our cars around here but this is not allowed.
We would not have to bunk in with other people because we do not
get enough money to cover our apartments. I do not know of a
company in the world that would send some one to Ottawa and say
that he or she has to bunk in with three or four people to afford
to be here.
When we deal with an open government act, I believe the right to
access to information is the right to democracy. I believe we as
democratically elected politicians should allow the government to
be more open. I see in the legislation a spirit of compromise. I
see a spirit of change. I believe we all feel that this act
needs to be changed.
This is the only time, as this is Private Members' Business,
that I can speak against the government. If I were moved back
any farther I would get into curtain burn. I cannot be moved
back any farther so I am allowed to speak my mind on Private
Members' Business.
The government does not support the bill for a couple of
reasons, but it recognizes that the issues of access reform are
controversial and complex. Those diversions of opinion are
legitimate so Private Members' Business has been legitimized.
Mr. Speaker, either I have two minutes left or you are a Roman
ordering five beer. I always try to inject a little humour into
this place because sometimes it is very hard to find. Whenever I
see a response that uses the word stakeholders, which I never
learned until I came to Ottawa, and the phrase at the end of the
day, I know the government is in trouble.
I know the bill has a good chance. I compliment the member for
Wentworth—Burlington, soon to be
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamboro—Aldershot, for his initiative in
bringing it to our attention and highlighting the importance of
Private Members' Business. It does move the agenda forward,
although not necessarily on this particular day. However it will
move the agenda forward and bring it to the forefront, which
perhaps will cause the government to improve an act that needs
improvement, as the member has so rightly pointed out.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-206 as I have
had some involvement in it in terms of how it got on the order of
precedence and came up for debate.
Our party would not argue that there is a real need to review
and make changes to the Access to Information Act to make it work
better for members of parliament. Our recent experience with the
human resources department and its non-compliance with the act
gives us great concern about how the issue of access to
information is being handled and how members can get the
information they need in a timely manner.
The bill proposes some changes that might help. In my view,
from the time I originally signed the bill until the bill was put
on the order of precedence, it has been substantially softened to
obtain the support of a sufficient number of backbench Liberals
to get their signatures. That was too bad.
1810
The original intent of the bill was to change the Access to
Information Act to open up access to information from crown
corporations and to information around the issue of Canadian
unity. It was a pretty good change and was important to our
members. That was reflected by the number of our members who
signed and supported the bill. However, for whatever reasons the
sponsor of the bill changed it and got into all the trouble about
changing it after getting the 100 signatures.
Mr. John Bryden: You know that is not true.
Mr. David Chatters: No, I do not think that. I think it
is the absolute truth. Having got into this issue since sitting
on a subcommittee of the procedure and House affairs committee,
we are the midst of studying the entire process of 100 named
sponsors of a bill. It is becoming more clear that the whole
system of 100 names to force a bill on to the order of precedence
is not working, probably never will and will have to be scrapped.
Then we will have to go back to the traditional lottery draw on
bills.
This process has been in place for some time now. This is the
first bill that has ever been in the House under the process of
the 100 signatures. There are nine other bills on the order of
precedence with 100 signatures waiting to come on. The truth is
that any member who wishes to have a private member's bill
debated in the House statistically has a better chance of getting
it drawn in the lottery and debated than he or she would by
getting the 100 signatures. I am sure that the system will not
work.
As many of our members said and as the member who sponsored the
bill said, being one of the 100 signatories to the bill means
nothing more than that we thought the issue should be debated in
the House of Commons. If that is all it means, why would a
member not sign any other member's bill to come to the House?
The intent of the 100 signature rule was that if there were
extraordinary issues the government refused to deal with which
the general public or opposition members felt warranted serious
debate, there should be a process by which the bill could be
brought to the House. That was the purpose of the 100 signature
rule. If it means nothing more than a member signifying a
willingness to debate the issue in the House by signing the bill
then the process is not achieving the purpose everyone envisioned
it might and should be scrapped.
I guess the subcommittee will make its recommendations and some
time in the future the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs will make its decision to either change it to make the
process meaningful in some way or scrap it and go back to the
lottery draw where a certain number of bills are drawn. Then, if
we are lucky enough to have our bills drawn, we get to debate
them. Probably that is the fairest system and probably why it
evolved over the years.
I am surprised it does not appear that the government will
support the bill in its present form even after the member
softened the bill to get support of the government backbenchers
and to get the 100 signatures. The member has been chirping away
over there, but he has to remember that we have a $100 bet that
this bill will actually be proclaimed into law.
In fact, if the government is not supporting the bill, I think my
money is a pretty sure thing.
1815
Maybe the 100 or 113 people who supported and signed the bill
were simply supporting the concept that there would be an
extensive review of the Access to Information Act, with
substantive changes made so that we could get information,
particularly on crown corporations and other organizations that
are arm's length from government, that is not now available
through access to information.
I have heard from my constituents about some of their
experiences dealing with access to information. Under the Access
to Information Act a person can apply for information and remain
anonymous even to the people from whom they are acquiring the
information.
A small businessman in my riding got a notice from the
information office that someone had applied for some very
privileged information on his business, information that would
have put him in a non-competitive position if it was released. He
objected strongly to the release of that information but was told
by the office of the information commissioner that it had
overruled his objections and had released the information anyway.
The office told him that it had no obligation to reveal the name
of the person who was asking for that information and that if he
objected he had access to the courts to protect himself.
A process where one has to hire a lawyer and go through a court
to protect privileged information about one's business seems to
be a strange process. This to me does not seem reasonable.
People should be able to protect information about their business
or at least be apprised of who is looking for that information
and why when the office asks if they are willing to let that
information go. It is very difficult to understand why anyone
would let any information go when the content of the request is
not known.
I believe there are some real problems for us as opposition
members in getting information in a timely manner and within the
rules. Our constituents also have major problems dealing with
access to information and want some changes. Unfortunately I do
not think the bill goes nearly far enough to solve those
problems.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Access to Information Act came into force on July 1,
1983. At that time it was a revolutionary piece of legislation
and represented a significant leap forward for the right to know.
By enacting the Access to Information Act, Canada joined a group
of elite countries whose governments had opened their files to
their citizens. Prior to the Access to Information Act, access
to government information could be granted or denied according to
the whim of the government official who responded.
[Translation]
However, after the coming into force of that legislation,
Canadian citizens could not be denied access to information
without proper justification. Parliament had established the
principle that Canadians citizens and landed immigrants were
entitled to have access to documents held by the government,
subject only to specific and limited exceptions provided for in
the act.
1820
These exceptions were established after considerable thought in
order to maintain a balance between the right of access to
information and privacy, business secrets, national security and
the need to maintain a climate of open communication for policy
making purposes.
[English]
To further emphasize the commitment to openness, most of the
exemptions contained in the act were made discretionary. There
is no harm or injury to the interest protected by the exemption,
then the institution is not prevented from releasing the
information.
The Access to Information Act also provides applicants with an
appeal process if some or all the information they have requested
is denied or if they are unsatisfied with the processing of the
request. Complaints may initially be made to an independent
officer who reports directly to parliament, the information
commissioner and then, if the applicant is still unsatisfied, to
the federal court.
[Translation]
The Access to Information Act represented a major commitment to
openness by the Government of Canada. Since then, most provinces
have passed legislation providing access, to varying degrees, to
government information.
[English]
This right to know embodied in legislation is one means of
giving Canadians an insight into what their government is doing.
It also enables citizens to access and use the information that
their government holds on their behalf.
[Translation]
Canadians agree that the machinery of government has become more
complex over time, its responsibilities are broader and its
decisions have a direct impact on their lives. This is why it is
important to be accountable to the population and to constantly
ensure that the government systematically releases information
on its activities.
[English]
It is therefore important to remember that the Access to
Information Act was intended to supplement other traditional ways
of making government information available to the public. I
believe that the Access to Information Act has encouraged
institutions to identify many categories of information that can
be released without formal requests. Many institutions have, on
their own initiative, placed useful information on their
websites, in their libraries or in their reading rooms.
Since 1983 the environment in which the Government of Canada
operates has changed. Technology has had a tremendous impact on
the way government delivers programs and services to Canadian
citizens, and on how information is collected, processed, and
managed within the government.
[Translation]
Following these changes, some argued that the provisions of the
Access to Information Act are now outdated and require a major
update to take into account the new information technologies.
Consequently, many individuals and interest groups propose
changes touching on specific aspects of the act and some more
general changes.
Parliamentarians are among those who want to change the act.
While some members used the Access to Information Act to get
government information, others introduced private members' bills
to amend it.
[English]
For example, section 67.1 was the most recent amendment to the
act. This section was added when Bill C-208 was proclaimed on
March 25, 1999. This was a significant amendment to the act as
it made it a criminal offence for any person to wilfully obstruct
the right of access provided by the Access to Information Act.
Bill C-208 received all party support in the House, sending a
clear message that all parties strongly support the concept of
openness.
Another private member's bill is the bill we are debating today,
Bill C-206 which was re-introduced by the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington. This bill proposes a variety of
amendments to the Access to Information Act.
1825
I believe this bill is a good start. The member is to be
congratulated for his leadership on this important issue. He has
demonstrated his commitment to the concept of openness by
proposing 33 amendments to the act which he believes will improve
the act and will increase that openness.
Nevertheless, while I commend my colleague in his efforts, I
believe that before we vote on these significant amendments to
the Access to Information Act, we must seek the views of all
stakeholders who will be affected by them: Canadian citizens,
the information commissioner, special groups, representatives of
the media, government officials and so on. There are widely
differing views as to the impact this bill would have on the
Access to Information Act, and the consequences that would emerge
from the it. In order to properly assess the contents of the
bill we need to hear more, both from those who support the bill,
or portions of it, and from those who oppose the bill.
All of these individuals or groups who use or have an interest
in the Access to Information Act must have an opportunity to make
representations or bring forward their own proposals to amend the
act before we take any further steps.
We must open the discussion and invite all stakeholders to
participate in the important debate concerning what adjustments
are needed and how the objectives of the act can best be
accomplished. While I am among those who support the overall
thrust of the bill as laudable, there are a number of outstanding
concerns on which there needs to be full and wide consultation.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments on the
private member's bill, Bill C-206. I appreciate the efforts made
by the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington to look at access to
information. I guess I am just a little jaded in my feelings on
access to information and having any kind of legislation that
allows the head of a government department or the Prime Minister
to make a decision on whether information will be released.
My experience with access to information with government
departments has not been a pleasant one. I find that whenever
there is information that might embarrass or undermine the
government's agenda, the department makes every effort to ensure
that any information that is released is either highly blacked
out, whited out or completely removed from the documentation that
one receives.
I do not like the idea that someone can consider an access to
information request to be frivolous. It may be frivolous to the
people in the department or to an individual in a department but
it is probably not frivolous to the person who is making the
request. I cannot support the idea that a person in any
government department can decide on his or her own that something
seems to be frivolous, or that somebody seems to be asking for
access to information more than somebody in a government
department deems necessary, or that he or she personally does not
think that the person requesting the information is acting on
behalf of a group or organization.
Access to information should be very clear. When a citizen of
Canada asks for information it should be provided to them. The
gathering of the information is done using taxpayer dollars. The
people who are overseeing the spending of taxpayer dollars are
paid by taxpayer dollars. If an individual is concerned enough
about an issue to ask the government for the information in order
to do research, to support a position or for whatever reason,
nothing should be blocking the flow of information.
I particularly do not want the head of some government
department being able to say “I think that is frivolous. I think
that may be a secret or an issue that we cannot release because
of national security”.
I have found, in my research and in my position, that buying a
case of toilet paper for a government department can be
considered a national security. I do not want the head of any
government department able to say that the request is frivolous
or that it might be a danger to the welfare of the country if
that information is released.
This legislation, although it is a private member's bill and it
does reach into some of the corners, it is still basically
protecting the government from having to release information that
it does not want anybody to know.
1830
All we have to do is look at the human resources department and
the boondoggle of the waste of government money. That fact is it
is through access requests that we get little tidbits of
information which lead to other tidbits of information instead of
getting full documents released, instead of getting audits
released without access to information. A government can use any
legislation that it wants to hide facts and information from
embarrassing itself or from coming clean with Canadians.
With all due respect, I do not think think this legislation will
make it any easier for people to get information from government
departments that do not want that information released. It
points out a number of areas that could be cleaned up, but on the
whole it does not deal with completely opening up access to
information for ordinary citizens.
What it does do is if an ordinary citizen is concerned about
issues and digs deeper and deeper and asks for more and more
requests, the citizen can be asked to pay more and more money for
it. In other words, instead of a simple $5 fee it can be deemed
that a request is frivolous, is of a personal nature or whatever
and the individual will have to pay not only the cost but an
extra 10%.
I do not think it is good enough. Either the government will
come clean and release information or it will not. I am not
convinced that this legislation will make it any better for
Canadians to get access to information that the government would
just as soon not share because it is trying to hide its
mismanagement of government funds.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
maybe not today but at some point I would like to have the
opportunity to respond to the comments of the hon. member across
the way with respect to the freedom of information act and how
the government deals with it. For the time being I will confine
myself to Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information
Act introduced by the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.
I would like to acknowledge at the outset the tremendous amount
of work involved in putting together a private member's bill as
extensive as Bill C-206. It is evident that a great deal of
thought and effort has gone into the preparation of the bill. The
hon. member certainly deserves much recognition and appreciation
for his hard work.
I would also like to point out that the government values
openness and transparency. It recognizes the role of the Access
to Information Act in ensuring that these values of openness and
transparency animate every aspect of institutional behaviour,
subject of course to certain restrictions that are intended to
protect private and commercial information as an example.
The hon. member's bill was originally introduced in November
1997 as Bill C-264. It was reintroduced last fall as Bill C-206.
It is an extensive bill that proposes a major reform of the
Access to Information Act. It has opened a much needed discussion
on the subject of access to information.
Since the bill was first introduced in 1997, government
departments and agencies have had an opportunity to consider the
proposed changes to the act that the bill contemplates. These
government departments and agencies have some concerns about the
impact the bill would have on third party information provided to
the government by both individuals and businesses.
One of the proposals in Bill C-206 would result in the automatic
disclosure of a wide variety of information that has been under
the control of the government for 30 years. Many departments are
concerned that the automatic disclosure of personal information
that the government has held for 30 years could lead to an
infringement of an individual's right to privacy under the
charter.
While the bill does permit some exceptions against disclosure of
information such as the safety of an individual, Bill C-206 does
not recognize that in some circumstances individuals expect their
confidentiality to be maintained. In fact they will have
provided the government with their personal information with the
expectation that government will keep that information
confidential. Generally speaking, personal information should
not be disclosed except for the purpose for which it was
originally given to the government.
The privacy commissioner also has expressed grave concerns about
the impact the bill would have on the privacy of individuals and
on the confidentiality of personal information particularly with
respect to the income tax returns of Canadians.
Income tax returns by their very nature contain a lot of private
and personal information that should continue to be protected. No
one should want his or her income tax information to be
accessible at any time.
1835
Statistics Canada has advised that it is extremely worried about
the impact of Bill C-206 on its ability to maintain the
confidentiality of information which Statistics Canada collects
from individuals and businesses. For example the information
collected by the Statistics Canada census on lifestyle and from
pension managers is personal. The confidentiality of information
provided by businesses is also put at risk as a result of the 30
year rule I mentioned earlier and as a result of the proposed
repeal of section 24 which supports confidentiality clauses in
other statutes.
Industry Canada has pointed out that the proposed changes to the
act could have a chill effect on the information provided to the
government by businesses. There would be no guarantee to
businesses that their commercially sensitive information and
trade secrets would be protected. This would make it difficult
to administer regulatory schemes and government programs that
rely on information supplied by businesses to the government.
Health Canada has also confirmed that the bill may cause a chill
effect on drugs being sold in Canada. Drugs cannot be sold in
Canada without a pharmaceutical company filing a new drug
submission. The submission includes trade secrets. Businesses
may be unwilling to risk their competitive position by filing new
drug submissions in Canada if there is a risk that their trade
secrets could be released to third parties. This I am sure will
be a major cause of concern for Canadians.
The discussion prompted by Bill C-206 has highlighted how very
complex and controversial access reform can be. In fact it may
be possible to improve government openness and transparency
through administrative reform. However, if the better choice is
to reform the act in order to enhance openness and transparency
in government, then major reform of the Access to Information Act
such as that proposed in Bill C-206 should not be undertaken
without first conducting broad public consultations that would
allow all interested stakeholders to express their views.
This is a view that was expressed by the information
commissioner when he appeared before the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights last November. The information
commissioner stated that proposals for access reform should be
informed by a variety of perspectives and that it would be
preferable for consultations to be conducted on a broad scale
allowing all stakeholders to have a say.
Let me conclude by reminding the House that Bill C-206 would
make major changes to the Access to Information Act. Concerns
are emerging from many quarters about the implications of the
proposed changes. This raises an important question and a note
of caution. Will the government be able to continue to protect
personal information provided by individuals to the government
for various purposes as well as confidential commercial
information and trade secrets provided by businesses? Much
consultation must be undertaken to effectively answer many of the
outstanding questions and concerns.
Nevertheless I would like to once again congratulate the hon.
member for his efforts in this area. I think it is extremely
important. He has made a very significant contribution to the
debate.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
this is my opportunity to speak on private members' business
which is not a choice opportunity. The member for
Wentworth—Burlington is a member I have watched and I find him
sensible and thoughtful. I think sometimes he is a thorn in the
government's side and I always chuckle when I see that.
I would start off by saying that access to information and
opening up access to information as far as an opposition
politician is concerned is just perfect. I am vigorously pro the
process of opening up access to information.
I would like to mention a procedural concern with the bill. The
member I hope will take this in the spirit that it is intended.
There was a brand new process brought in where we could hasten
private members' business and have 100 signatures. Some members
of the alliance signed, having gone over the basic premise of the
bill, and enthusiastically supported it.
There were some changes that were made to the bill. I believe
that if the member had come openly to those who had signed and
said, “These changes have been made. I believe that these
improve the bill. Would you reassess it and take a look at it”,
there would not have been the procedural harangue and kerfuffle
that went with the bill. I think the hon. member would say that
honestly.
1840
I do not believe that the member did this with any negative
feelings or with any bad motives, but it really would have helped
the process. Because I supported the idea of 100 signatures on
an important private member's bill, I would hate to see that lost
to us because of this procedural concern.
The bill has been reintroduced with 100 signatures so that there
still is support of at least 100 members and it is votable. This
will be an opportunity to have a debate on an issue which I think
is important.
Private members' business in general has been an interesting
thing to me as a relatively novice politician. Not very many
private members' bills get passed. There are significant
hurdles. It has been interesting to watch the changes.
The voting has changed. The cabinet no longer votes first.
Voting comes down the rows which gives those who do not have
cabinet solidarity at mind a little bit more of an opportunity.
I have seen a little bit of a change in attitude toward private
members' business because of that.
I am always fascinated to listen to the various members speak to
a bill that has some controversy to it. I will watch this
process with interest.
Why am I so supportive of access to information opening up? I
would like to go over a couple of examples in my own career here
to talk about why it needs improvement.
I will go back to the tainted blood issue. I consider that issue
one of the dark days. This is not a partisan comment because the
government opposite was not the only government involved in it.
There was a mixed accountability line or thread for the Red
Cross, the Canadian Blood Agency and the federal and provincial
governments. During the meetings that went on with tainted
blood, and in their minutes, some very important decisions were
made.
Judge Krever in his report said that the line of accountability
was partly to blame. He was hampered in his investigations
because some of the minutes and processes that were undertaken
during that period of time were destroyed. They were destroyed
on purpose. They were destroyed by individuals whom I felt had a
public trust and they have gotten off scot-free. Their names
were mentioned but there was no sanction or penalty for
destroying public documents that would have and could have in my
estimation made the process of compensation for those victims of
hepatitis C much easier for the government to have undertaken.
In that regard, in this bill I see penalties for destroying
documents. That is quite significantly appropriate.
How has access to information been handled on issues where I
think individuals in the government have done things that are
inappropriate? Not so long ago I remember some documents
surfacing that showed expense accounts were not being used
properly by a minister of the government. Although one could
look through the whiteout and find enough information to make
suppositions, the whiteout was like a blizzard. Skiers who have
gotten into a whiteout cannot see where the crowd is or where
their feet are. They are disoriented. The whiteout process used
on those access to information requests reminded me of skiing in
a whiteout, a blizzard in the snow. There is an indication for
me that access to information was not working properly.
Finally on HRDC, there was an audit that had been available to
government department resources which I feel was not released
publicly.
Audits are public information, and with an access to information
request, suddenly, that audit was made available. I presume that
it would have been hard to hide. It contained some information
which makes grants and contributions, that process of government
activity, unsavoury. We have spent a lot of time in the House in
the last three or four months on that issue. Looking back, we
can find similar audits with similar complaints made for a long
period of time.
1845
Access to information requests on this same subject are now
being held up. Departments are saying that the requests are too
voluminous. There is a 30 day point in time when that
information is supposed to be provided, but it is not being
provided in that time.
Given those three examples, I say that the ATI does need
improvement.
What does this bill do for white-out? I do not see anything. I
am not sure what I would do about white-out. I will listen to
the debate. I think that white-out, somehow, could be improved
in this whole process.
One other improvement I would like to see would be an expansion
to include crown corporations with regard to access to
information. The member says that it is in this legislation. I
have not found it in a form that I could say I am completely
comfortable with, but I know the member would not mislead me, so
I will presume that an expansion to include crown corporations is
in the bill.
As a principle, open and accountable government is strongly
supported. In practice, does this bill move us far enough down
that road? I will listen to the balance of the debate.
I am pleased to compliment the member opposite for doing what I
think is an excellent job regarding private members' business. I
will be supporting or not supporting this bill, according to some
of the concerns and comments I have just made.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
colleagues will accept that we will not get a thorough discussion
of any element of the bill in three minutes, but I certainly do
want to put my views on the record.
I want to recognize the huge effort and investment undertaken by
the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington in drafting this bill
and bringing it to the House as an item under Private Members'
Business. Some members have noted the procedural difficulties
and challenges faced by the hon. member as he brought his bill
forward. He has succeeded in overcoming those difficulties and
has presented a bill of great importance and complexity for us to
consider in Private Members' Business.
It is worthwhile pointing out that this bill was not drafted
over months and months by a government department in consultation
with other government departments. It was essentially put
together by the hon. member himself, in consultation with a
number of parties inside the loop. The bill reflects
difficulties perceived in the process used for obtaining
information from the government.
This government as well as previous governments have accepted
the importance of access to information and freedom of
information. That template was put in place 10 or 20 years ago
and is working reasonably well in achieving the intended
purposes, but there are some discontinuities, some obstacles and
some ways in which we could make it better.
Reference was made to the penalty sections for destroying
documents. I recall the House adopting another private member's
bill about two years ago which did put in place penalty sections
for destroying documents under this statute. The hon. member's
bill recapitulates them and streamlines them.
1850
Someone mentioned that the government may or may not be
supporting the bill. I point out for the record that the
government refrains, conspicuously refrains, from indicating
support or non-support for private members' initiatives and
generally leaves matters to members in the House of Commons.
That does not mean that government ministers do not, from time to
time, indicate preferences and create documents for guidance.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating that my three
minutes is up. Let me end by congratulating the hon. member for
this huge initiative. There will be further debate on the
subject.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to return to my question of February 24 to the
Minister of Natural Resources on the issue of energy costs.
In February gasoline, diesel and home heating fuel prices
skyrocketed to record levels for two reasons: OPEC cut back oil
production, and a bitterly cold winter in the northeast U.S.
hiked the demand for crude just at the minute it reached over $30
U.S. per barrel.
Canada is a net exporter of oil. That means we produce more oil
than we consume and, therefore, we export the difference. These
reasons which were given to us back in February, which are now
still affecting our price of energy, are very unacceptable.
There is no information which can prove that is driving up the
prices. I think it is a result of unjustified price increases by
oil companies.
Canadians were badly hurt by the resulting record price
increase, in particular those on the east coast and truckers who
already struggle with very thin cost margins.
I raised this issue many times in the House to almost nothing
but blank stares from the Liberal government. It was as if the
Liberals were completely unaware that Canadians were hurting,
completely oblivious that Canadians were hopping mad. This is
another example of how little the Liberal government is in touch
with Canadians.
I guess that is what happens when we give cabinet ministers a
government car and a government driver. They have no idea what
the price of gas is any more.
Meanwhile, south of the border, the U.S. administration was
convening energy summits in the northeast with refineries,
trucking associations, suppliers, consumer groups and industrial
users. President Clinton said that his administration found the
problem “deeply troubling” and was monitoring it daily. He
announced a 17 point plan to help consumers, truckers and
business people get through the crisis. He defended his economy
and dispatched his energy secretary, Bill Richardson, to meet
with OPEC ministers around the world.
By the way, a New York Times story some weeks later
pointed out that Bill Richardson, the energy secretary I
mentioned, earned very high marks for his decisive action on this
file and is now a leading contender for the vice-presidential
candidacy on the Democratic ticket. This is a lesson on how to
listen to people and take their concerns seriously, one the
Liberals could learn a lot from.
Back in Canada, the provinces and territories were not having
much more luck with the government than we in the opposition
were, as it turns out. They tried to convince the federal
government that it was only reasonable, if it was going to
conduct a credible study on gasoline retailing, to do it with
someone other than just the integrated oil companies. They
finally agreed to go in on a study with the federal government,
but then the feds let the contract out and it wound up going to
the same contractor that the big oil companies use, M. J. Ervin,
so half of the provinces, plus the independent gas retailers
pulled out again.
This was the moment at which I put my question to the Minister
of Natural Resources. Would he finally call an energy summit of
affected parties to consider urgent assistance measures and
consider some long term preventive measures to ensure such price
spikes and supply problems do not threaten our economy again?
The minister indicated that he would canvass his provincial
colleagues. I would like to know tonight what the result of that
canvass was, fully three months after the question.
Moreover, the federal government has subsequently announced a
new study of the oil industry. Initially I thought that if it
contributed some independent data and had some real teeth, it
might be worthwhile in terms of contributing to the debate, but
then I learned that the price tag was $750,000. That is
outrageous, since the study is going back to the same consulting
firm which the big oil companies use, M. J. Ervin, which the
provinces and the independent gas retailers raised concerns about
previously and rejected.
1855
Most of the cost is not going to research. Most of it, 60%, is
going to public relations. I quote from the terms of reference
for the study: “A highly structured/facilitated session of only
invited stakeholders to conduct a dialogue on the intransigence
of the public's perception on gas prices”. They are going to
Calgary, Toronto and Montreal. They should go to Whitehorse,
Regina and St. John's, Newfoundland instead and let the doors be
open wide.
The entire premise of the study by the Conference Board is that
the issue has been studied to death but the public just does not
understand the research.
In summary, I think we have a different problem in this country.
First, the refineries have a monopoly. Second, the Liberals rely
on the integrated oil companies for campaign contributions.
Third, the public is paying higher prices at the pump now when
crude is at $26 a barrel than it was during the gulf war when
crude hit $35 U.S. a barrel. What is the answer?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the hon. member's previous suggestion, the issue
of petroleum product pricing is a regular agenda item at the
federal-provincial-territorial meetings of energy ministers.
Natural Resources Canada officials also maintain an ongoing
consultation with their provincial colleagues on issues relating
to petroleum product markets.
The increases in crude oil prices are the result of increasing
world oil demand, due largely to economic recovery in Asia and
production restraint by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries, also know as OPEC.
OPEC members agreed to increase production at the OPEC
ministerial meeting in March. This should ease some of the
pressures, although not entirely, due to the demand for fuel and
the status of inventories.
The inventory situation is one that should improve somewhat over
the year. Reduced inventory levels throughout North America
since last summer have kept prices high on spot markets. However,
in the early part of 2000 the increased demand for distillates,
diesel and furnace oil resulted in price spikes to record levels
in certain centres in Canada.
This situation was the result of additional heating demand due
to frigid weather and the North American and European refineries
purchasing large volumes of low sulphur distillate on the spot
market to conform to environmental regulations that became
effective January 1, 2000.
The federal and provincial governments have some shared
responsibilities in relation to crude oil and petroleum product
pricing. Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia are the only two
provinces which currently regulate retail gasoline prices. The
provincial governments are responsible for the regulation of
retail pricing. The federal government has the authority for
competition law and policy and for international and
interprovincial trade.
When the federal government regulated crude oil prices during
the 1970s and 1980s it was in response to very large and
persistent price increases. Under the western accord of 1985 the
governments of Canada, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia
agreed that domestic crude oil prices should be deregulated.
The best option before us is to continue to defend primary
reliance upon competitive markets to set prices, even as we work
with other members of the International Energy Agency to promote
oil market stability.
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
February 24, I raised the issue of the importation of plutonium
based MOX fuel from United States and Russia.
At the Moscow summit, in 1996, the Prime Minister unilaterally
undertook to allow this dangerous product into Canada. The issue
having been referred to it, the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs tabled, in December 1998, a unanimous report that
clearly stated:
The Committee recommends that the Government reject the idea of
burning MOX fuel in Canada because this option is totally
unfeasible—
Yet, this committee was constituted of a majority of Liberal
members, that is, the hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex, the
hon. member for Scarborough Centre, the hon. member for Brampton
West—Mississauga, the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, the
hon. member for Halton, the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore,
the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant and the hon. member
for Brampton Centre.
Early last fall, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited held public
consultations, but for only 28 days. It is important to note
that these consultations were not on the principle of the
importation of plutonium but only on the route that the Russian
and American shipments would follow.
In the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited report tabled on November
4, 1999, it was decided that the American MOX would be carried
by truck and the Russian MOX by ship.
1900
However, on January 10, the federal government changed
unilaterally its initial plan and decided to import American MOX
by air four days later.
The minister will not have me believe that Transport Canada had
the time to assess this new plan in only four days, to make sure
that the process was consistent with the regulations of the
Atomic Energy Control Board, the regulations concerning the
packaging of radioactive materials, the regulations of the
International Civil Aviation Organization and the regulations of
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
I would point out that the transportation of plutonium by air is
illegal in the United States.
Moreover, in a January 1999 report on the Parallex project, that
is the plutonium importation project, the American Department of
Energy said the following:
It is considered to be more dangerous to transport plutonium by
air than by land, because accident risks are higher.
It is indecent for the natural resources minister to candidly
declare in the House that this danger is non-existent north of
the 49th parallel.
The American position is clear on this issue: no plutonium
container is safe enough to withstand a plane crash.
According to them, the 4H BUF containers used by Transport
Canada last January could not withstand an impact at more than
30 miles an hour or a fire of more than 15 minutes.
The fact that the plans for the transportation of MOX fuel were
changed unilaterally is a slap in the face of democracy. The
minister should recognize that the importation of MOX fuel is a
national issue affecting all Canadians and Quebecers.
The government tells us that this is done in support of
international nuclear disarmament. However, the government
should consider the fact that 50% to 66% of the initial mass of
MOX fuel will remain in the form of waste. Therefore, it will no
longer be a world problem, but a strictly Canadian problem. I
doubt that the Americans and the Russians will agree to take
back their waste.
Obviously, the Minister of Natural Resources never took the
people's concerns into account in this matter. The 149
resolutions from municipalities and RCMs located along the St.
Lawrence River opposing the project to import plutonium should
bring the government to give in on this issue, as should the 96%
negative comments from the general public.
It is unacceptable for the government not to ask the people if
they approve of importing plutonium.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the import of the MOX fuel test sample from the
United States to Canada and the helicopter flight in Canada, I
want to assure hon. members that the shipment complied with all
Canadian legal and regulatory requirements. The shipment
complied with the Atomic Energy Control Act, the Transportation
of Dangerous Goods Act, the Transportation and Packaging of
Radioactive Materials Regulations, the requirements under the
International Civil Aviation Organization, and the standards set
by International Atomic Energy Agency.
The MOX test sample shipments are safe. The trace amount of
radiation is so small that it poses no significant risk to
health, safety or the environment. The fuel is in a stable,
solid, ceramic form inside a sealed zirconium alloy element and
transported in a container. As I stated earlier, it meets
Canadian and international standards. It is not soluble and
cannot spill, ignite or explode. It is not a powder that can be
inhaled. The transport of the fuel samples is subject to all the
requirements of Canada's regulatory system, which fully protects
public health, safety and the environment.
The MOX fuel test shipment from the United States was safely
transported to Chalk River Laboratories on January 14, 2000. The
U.S. Department of Energy has clearly stated that this is a one
time shipment of a small quantity of used mixed oxide nuclear
fuel to Canada.
The mixed oxide fuel, MOX, test project is part of an
international non-proliferation initiative to find a safe and
secure manner to render surplus Russian and American weapons
grade plutonium inaccessible for future use in nuclear weapons.
The plutonium that has been declared surplus by the U.S. and
Russia already exists and will continue to present a real
proliferation danger until it can be reduced to a form that
cannot be readily used for weapons purposes.
The use of MOX fuel in a nuclear reactor is one of the methods by
which the plutonium can be rendered effectively inaccessible for
weapons.
Canada has agreed, in principle, to consider the use of MOX fuel
in Canada as part of its contribution to international
disarmament initiatives. The Government of Canada believes that
Canadians share a common desire to create a safe and secure world
for future generations and are prepared to take appropriate
action, provided that public health, safety and the environment
are not compromised in the process.
In conclusion, I must stress that undertaking this test does not
oblige Canada to agree to the large scale use of MOX fuel in
Candu power plants in the future. Should any such program be
proposed at some point in the future, stringent conditions will
apply, including full public participation prior to entering into
the program.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 7.05 p.m.
the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.05 p.m.)