36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 120
CONTENTS
Friday, September 22, 2000
1005
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CIVILIAN WAR-RELATED BENEFITS ACT
|
| Bill C-41. Second reading
|
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1010
1015
1020
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1025
1030
1035
1040
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1045
1050
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1055
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| FUEL TAXES
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| THE LATE LUC DURAND
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| WORLD ALZHEIMER'S DAY
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| KAREN COCKBURN
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| POLICE AND PEACE OFFICERS
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1100
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| CRIME PREVENTION
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| OLYMPICS 2000
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1105
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| ÉCOLE DES HAUTES ÉTUDES COMMERCIALES
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| LEADER OF CANADIAN ALLIANCE
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1110
| CRIME PREVENTION
|
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| FORT LAWRENCE
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1115
| FUEL TAXES
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1120
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FISHERIES
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1125
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Cummins |
1130
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1135
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| TRANSPORT OF MOX
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1140
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1145
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1150
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Suspension of Sitting
|
1215
| Sitting Resumed
|
1220
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Fire Alarm
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Via Rail
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1225
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| U.S. Missile Defence Program
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Department of Justice
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
1230
1235
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CIVILIAN WAR-RELATED BENEFITS ACT
|
| Bill C-41. Second reading
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1255
1300
| Mr. David Pratt |
1305
1310
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1315
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-321. Second reading
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. John Maloney |
1335
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1340
1345
1350
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1355
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault) |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-321. Second reading
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1400
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1405
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1410
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 120
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, September 22, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place
between all parties in the House and I believe you would find
consent for the following motion. I move:
That the motion for second reading and reference to committee of
Bill C-38, Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act, be deemed
put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until the
end of Government Orders on Tuesday, September 26, 2000.
The Speaker: Does the government House leader have
permission to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CIVILIAN WAR-RELATED BENEFITS ACT
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.) moved that Bill C-41, an act to amend the statute law in
relation to veterans' benefits, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to give a major speech
today. I am going to be as short as possible because there
appears to be agreement, and I am pretty sure there is, among the
critics of the other parties in the House that we try to deal
with the bill today at this reading so that it can go on to the
standing committee.
We have had excellent co-operation from the hon. member for
Souris—Moose Mountain of the Canadian Alliance, the hon. member
for Terrebonne—Blainville of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member
for Saint John of the Progressive Conservative Party and the hon.
member for Halifax West of the NDP.
The reason we all agree that the bill should be passed as
quickly as possible is that it will provide some much needed
benefits to our veterans and the survivors of our veterans.
1010
The bill also does something that should have been done many
years ago. It gives the civilian groups that served overseas
with our soldiers access to the same pension and disability
provisions as those who are recognized under the pension act and
the War Veterans Allowance Act. In other words, the bill gives
the ferry command personnel, the civilian group of pilots who
piloted the planes across the Atlantic during the war, access to
the full benefits of the pension act and the War Veterans
Allowance Act. Five hundred Canadian pilots lost their lives
bringing the planes over for use in the war effort.
The bill gives the nursing aids, the nursing sisters of the
first world war and the second world war, the Canadian Red Cross
workers and the St. John Ambulance workers who worked right at
the front access to the same pension provisions as our veterans
receive today.
The bill gives welfare workers of the second world war and the
Korean War access to those same benefits. It gives Canadian
firefighters for service in the United Kingdom group access to
the same benefits.
The bill gives a group called the Newfoundland foresters access
to those same benefits. The Newfoundland foresters went overseas
during the second world war before Canada was involved in the
war. Newfoundland was not a part of Canada at that time. The
ships left Newfoundland with about 3,000 people who had joined
the Royal Navy or the Merchant Navy in Britain, people who were
called upon as foresters.
The Canadian foresters who went overseas received full benefits
after the war but the Newfoundlanders did not because
Newfoundland was not a part of Canada at that time. It should
have been in the terms of union but, unfortunately, the
individual who was supposed to negotiate this in the terms of
union came to Ottawa in 1948, stayed at a local hotel and the day
before this was supposed to be negotiated in the terms of union,
he died. So it was an omission in the terms of union between
Newfoundland and Canada. This bill will correct the error that
was made back in 1949.
There are other things in the bill which will be good for
veterans, veterans' widows and family members of veterans who are
alive today. I will give members of the House two short examples
that I know they will appreciate being included in the bill.
There are about seven excellent changes. Take for example one
case of a veteran's widow who has an overpayment on a health
benefit. Another widow has an overpayment on the funeral benefit
and the debt stands. Why is there a debt? It is because
somebody made an error inadvertently in paying the money to that
individual.
Normally, when there is an overpayment, for example, in
employment insurance or in any of the the municipal, provincial
or federal government programs, then the person who received the
money is responsible for paying it back.
1015
However, the bill states that those overpayments, which were
inadvertently made and stand as debts to the crown, will be
erased. Although it will not cost that much money and is only a
small thing, it is huge to somebody like those two widows who
actually owe money because of overpayments.
I want to refer to another section which I think was commendable
for members of parliament and those people who participated in
the process to put into the bill. I just want to mention them.
The Royal Canadian Legion spent a lot of time with the
department drafting the bill and setting up meetings. President
Bill Barclay and particularly Allan Parks participated in the
drafting of the legislation. The National Council of Veterans
Associations also participated. Brian Forbes was at the meeting
on behalf of Cliff Chadderton.
There is perhaps no one individual in Canada today who has
contributed more to the process of legislation for veterans than
Cliff Chadderton. He is an incredible individual who constantly
works for veterans.
Peter Ambroziak of ANAVETS, the Army, Navy and Air Force
Veterans of Canada, took part in the negotiations as did Mr.
Lloyd Thompson of Botwood, Newfoundland. He is a Newfoundland
forester but he wore the British uniform overseas so he gets the
benefits. He is working on behalf of the other foresters in
Newfoundland who number anywhere from 500 to 1,000 that I know
of. They deserve these benefits and should have received them in
the terms of union. However, as I said, the person responsible
for negotiating them died the night before the terms were being
negotiated.
Also Louis Lang of Montreal from Ferry Command participated.
Louis spent a lot of time lobbying on behalf of Ferry Command
pilots who perhaps had the greatest loss of life of any one group
that took part in the second world war.
There are about seven items in the bill that will benefit
Canadian veterans today. I mentioned the overpayments to the two
widows and other people in a similar situation which would be
forgiven.
Another point I want to mention is that in all of our income
tested programs we always rely on somebody's last year's income
as reported on the income tax return. Old age security,
guaranteed income supplement and spousal allowance are based on
the income tax return for the previous year.
Sometimes somebody might receive a benefit, say a capital gain,
this year not knowing that next year the spousal allowance could
be gone or the guaranteed income supplement would be reduced
accordingly. That is one of the aspects of income tested
programs that is very difficult to deal with when we have cases
where somebody loses something because of what happened last year
on the income tax return, especially with our senior citizens.
Of course disability pensions and so on are not income tested.
That is the marvellous part of this bill. All these civilian
groups that served overseas will have access to the full
benefits. Some of them will not be income tested. A lot of our
civilian groups did not understand that this would be a real
benefit to the people who need home care, for example.
1020
We have people in Canada who went overseas for four and five
years and do not have access to home care because the bill is not
law today. That is why we are trying to pass the bill as quickly
as possible.
Getting back to what we are doing as far as someone's income is
concerned, we are saying that the income tested portion of
veterans payments will be based on estimated income for this
year, not what is on the income tax return.
What is the benefit in that? I will give an example. Perhaps
someone received a capital gain last year. Perhaps he or she
were left some money or sold some property last year and the
guaranteed income supplement and spousal allowance will drop. If
it is a veteran's payment that is income tested it will rise
accordingly, thereby cancelling the reduction that would take
effect under the guaranteed income supplement or the spousal
allowance.
These are some of the excellent things in the bill. They
certainly set a standard that should be looked at by provincial
governments and by everyone who deals with guaranteed income
programs in federal and provincial jurisdictions.
I have had preliminary discussions with the member for Halifax
West of the New Democratic Party. He has been very active with
regard to the bill over a period of time. In fact prior to the
announcement being made he was very active with regard to this
subject material, as well as the member for Saint John of the
Progressive Conservative Party and the member for
Terrebonne—Blainville of the Bloc Quebecois. As well, within
the last three or four days the member for Souris—Moose Mountain
supports the bill wholeheartedly and wants it passed.
That is why I will not say anything else. I will just shut up
and hope that other members of parliament will also shut up. Then
we could pass the bill with as little comment as possible. We
have until 11 o'clock this morning and then we will reconvene on
the bill at about 12.15 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. Therefore we have
until approximately 11 a.m. now and then about an hour and a half
after question period.
If we could so arrange it as to get over this stage of the bill
and send it to committee, we would be answering the prayers of a
good many veterans. We would be responding positively to what
every political party wants to do in the House.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like a good dose of
maritime eloquence to begin the morning. I thank the minister
for his eloquent speech. In fact we could pass the bill very
quickly, as he and other members of the House would like to do,
except for one little clause. Clause 46 needs to be removed from
the bill to provide the equitability and fairness I know the
minister would like to see.
I thank the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, as the minister
has mentioned, who has done an incredible amount of work not only
for our party but, more important, for the members and the
veterans who are waiting for the bill to pass.
I will get to the aspects of clause 46. I am glad the minister
will listen. I know he is a man of fairness.
I am sure he will encourage and convince his members to remove
this clause. If he does so, our party will support the bill and
help him expedite it through the House to relieve the suffering
that our veterans have been enduring for far too long.
1025
Our party supports Bill C-41 because it gives civilian groups
the same fairness and equitability as it has to other veterans
who have laid their lives on the line for our country, for peace
and security.
It gives it to groups such as the Canadian Red Cross, St. John
Ambulance, the Corps of Canadian Civilian Firefighters, the Ferry
Command personnel and the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit
because these people provided invaluable service to the war
effort. These people, as the minister mentioned, put their lives
on the line. Many of them lost their lives while supporting the
war effort. Their efforts, while they did not pick up a weapon,
were absolutely essential for the men and women who were in
Europe and other parts of the world fighting for the peace and
security that we enjoy today.
Our armed forces personnel must have access to existing veterans
benefits today if they served overseas during World War I, World
War II and the Korean war. Merchant navy vets gained full access
to these benefits in 1992. Unfortunately the issue of
compensation took far too long to come about. We do not want
this to happen with the bill.
The groups affected by the bill have historically had limited
access to veterans benefits previously given to other veterans,
but the bill recognizes that fact and does a very good job of
providing them with the benefits they so justly deserve.
I say these groups are worthy recipients because they served
alongside other forces personnel and their lives were in no less
danger during those perilous times. The efforts of these
organization deserve the recognition they have so long been
denied.
I will cite a few examples. The overseas air crew of the Ferry
Command ferried military aircraft across the Atlantic Ocean. In
many ways those brave pilots were trail blazers. Some of them,
interestingly enough, were among the first to chart a path across
the North Pole.
It was dangerous work, flying over uncharted territory. Many of
the pilots lost their lives in the endeavour to provide planes
that were absolutely essential for us to carry on the war effort
in Europe. During World War II about 340 civilian pilots and air
crew were contracted to deliver aircraft to Britain and
elsewhere. Today about 100 of these brave souls are still alive.
Coal was vital to Britain's war effort and mining activity. Its
use increased so much that Britain did not have enough and wood
had to be cut in Scotland. As a result, the Newfoundland
Overseas Forestry Unit was created on short notice. It went over
there to harvest timber. Of the 3,680 Newfoundlanders who went
to Scotland during the war there are roughly 1,000 of these souls
alive today who cut the wood that was necessary to build tunnels
and for other uses during the war.
During the second world war the Corps of Canadian Civilian
Firefighters bravely put out fires during the blitz, which was
central to saving the lives of many people.
Members of the Canadian Red Cross and St. John Ambulance worked
alongside people who were terribly injured during the war. They
were as close to the action as anyone could get. There are
approximately 450 members of this group alive today and they need
the care they require as they age.
It is a shame that with the passage of time there are so few
left and it has taken so long for this legislation to come
forward. We as a party are happy and encouraged by the
government's effort to move the bill forward.
This should be a lesson for all of us as Canadians to take a
more active interest in our military and service people who
historically have given us more care and consideration than I
think the House has given them. We must pay more careful
attention to the long term effects of war that for a long time
have been ignored: post-traumatic stress disorder, depression
and the effects on the family that are so often hidden.
1030
In fact, historically after World War I and World War II many of
these problems were buried but now that medical science and
others have taken a more active interest, these problems are
coming to light. As these problems come to light, so too is it
necessary for the care to be there for people who have been
traumatized by horrors that most of us can only imagine.
Not only will civilian groups benefit from the bill but members
currently serving in our armed forces will benefit as well. The
bill amends the pension act to allow Canadian forces members in
the regular force who have acquired service related disabilities
to receive pensions while still serving. This brings it in line
with the public service and private industry. This is important
because this is not a stand-alone issue. It does not affect only
the military. In fact the bill brings the military up to today's
standards in the public service and private industry.
I want to address our primary criticism which the member for
Souris—Moose Mountain raised with the minister. I am sure we can
find a way to ensure that this tiny issue will be resolved
expeditiously. It involves the RCMP.
While the bill alleviates a past injustice to our armed forces,
it creates an injustice to the RCMP. The RCMP pension is tied to
the armed forces pension but is funded by the RCMP. Currently
RCMP officers are in the same position as Canadian forces
personnel in that they cannot receive a disability pension while
being employed by the force. I will give an important example
very shortly, one of which we are probably all aware. Because
clause 46 was added to the bill, by its very wording it removes
previous legislation that prevented those in the armed forces
from receiving a disability pension while employed, but it
prevents the RCMP from getting the same benefits as will be
accrued to other members that the bill actually supports, brave
officers.
The example I will give now is one which we all remember very well.
Constable Laurie White was shot in the leg while trying to serve
a search warrant and had to get a portion of her leg amputated.
Constable White is back on the force working very hard, bravely
so, despite having had part of her leg amputated. She
demonstrates the best that we have within our RCMP service
personnel and indeed she deserves all of the honours that have
accrued to her.
Because this amendment exists, people like Laurie White in the
RCMP cannot receive the benefits the bill gives to other
individuals even though the RCMP is tied to the essence of the
bill. We ask that clause 46 be removed purely in the name of
fairness. We cannot ask the RCMP to be involved in the bill and
have its entire benefits package tied to those of veterans and
the personnel that this involves as the bill does, while on the
other hand exempting it from an aspect that would be very
important for individuals such as Constable Laurie White.
The bill also makes a provision for peacekeepers which is very
important because peacekeepers serve in very dangerous
environments. Peacekeeping is a misnomer in that one thinks it
has something to do with peace. It has, but the problem is that
peacekeeping is really war by another name because peacekeepers
confront land mines and snipers. They are often put in between
warring factions which are often under no control by their
supposed leaders. It is a very dangerous situation.
Unfortunately the government historically has given our armed
forces personnel the equipment for a peaceful situation. One
other thing I would like the government to know, and I hope the
minister of defence pays close attention to this, is that we
simply have to arm our soldiers for war in a peacekeeping
situation because peacekeeping, as I said, is war by another
name.
Our veterans have faced a litany of problems when they have
returned from war situations, particularly recently. I and many
other members in the House have received many legitimate
complaints from brave men and women who have come back from the
theatre and have not received the care they require.
1035
I know the minister is very interested in this and that his
heart is in the right place. I know he would not like to see
these people go without the medical care they so justly deserve.
He would want them to receive the required care for such things
as gulf war syndrome, other poisonings as yet unidentified,
post-traumatic stress disorder and severe major depression.
Fifteen per cent of people who suffer from major depression
commit suicide. Imagine the numbers that would involve with
respect to our armed forces personnel who go abroad and raise our
flag to fight for the noblest of elements of humanity. They fight
for peace and security, the things we gratefully enjoy in our
country. Let us give them the same care and consideration they
have given us.
The government has seen fit to give the members a cost of living
allowance. We support this. We have been working hard for a
long period of time to right this injustice. We applaud the
government for doing it, but there is a problem. While the
government has given the members a cost of living allowance and
an increase in pay, it is surreptitiously yanking that money away
by increasing their rents.
Their rents have increased dramatically in many areas. On the
base in Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca the members are so happy and
pleased to finally get some recognition and fairness in their pay
but there have been massive and dramatic increases in their
rents. While money has been given with one hand, the government
has taken it out with the other.
I know the government really does not want to do this, at least
I would like to think it would not. I challenge the government,
as all of my colleagues here do, to please stop yanking money out
of one pocket while putting it into the other pocket. Stop
giving our military forces money and talking about it as if it
has done something and then taking the money away. This has
created an incredible negative impact on the morality within our
armed forces. They do not deserve that. They have been
extremely patient.
The other small section I would like to talk about briefly
concerns the civilian population in our military who have done a
yeoman's job under very difficult circumstances. Their numbers
have been cut dramatically. They did not mind, as they
recognized that came down the pike in an effort to save money.
Their members have been cut by 50% or more. They have increased
their efficiency dramatically and in fact have been given awards
for it. On the other hand, alternative service delivery is
taking place. They do not mind alternative service delivery but
they do want to ensure that they are able to compete on a level
playing field with the private sector.
I have one request for the government. Make sure that the
people there today are treated as fairly as other competitors.
That is what they want. They are confident they will be able to
compete well, and as they have done for a long time, do their
jobs to support our military. They have done this well but they
want to be considered fairly with the private sector that is
competing for their jobs.
The government should take a good look at that because they have
done an excellent job. They have provided high quality service.
They have probably done a better job than many private workers
could do. Take a look at that and compare it fairly. I think the
government will find that in many cases the civilian workers have
done an excellent job and deserve to keep doing their work. Do
not let them be lost in the cracks. I would ask the government
to make sure that they are listened to and that their concerns
are dealt with.
As my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain said, the
improvements made in the bill involve: clarifying how private
information can be exchanged within the department to expedite
benefits, which is a good thing; protecting the public servants
from having to testify in courts of civil litigation;
compassionate awards to be continued to survivors, which are very
important; deleting penal provisions from veterans legislation
where the provisions are either unnecessary or substantially
duplicated in the criminal code; where two disabled pensioners
are married to each other, both receiving the married rate of
pension benefits; and allowing for remission of overpayment based
upon compassionate grounds if the debt is not collectable.
These are fair things.
1040
In conclusion, the groups of people affected by this bill have a
very legitimate claim to the benefits provided. We compliment
the government for putting this bill forward. The civilians who
went alongside the armed forces personnel did yeomen's jobs. Many
of them lost their lives in the process. Their survivors and the
remaining few deserve the care this bill provides.
The pension act prohibits armed forces personnel from receiving
a disability benefit while employed in the forces and this has
been removed. But clause 46 has been added to the bill and it
prevents the RCMP from being able to acquire the benefits of this
part of the bill. This inequity must be addressed before our
party can fully support the bill.
If the government removes clause 46 from the bill, we will have
a piece of legislation that will correct years of injustice. If
the clause remains, the RCMP will be exempt from the very
provision and benefits that our armed forces will enjoy and it
will therefore be instrumental in creating an injustice.
In the name of fairness, let us include the RCMP in the bill as
it ought to be. Let us remove clause 46 and let us pass the bill
for our veterans.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, better
late than never. Half a century after the fact, we have our
government acknowledging that a variety of Canadian civilians,
such as firefighters and Red Cross personnel, took part in World
War II and the Korean War and shared the merits and often the
dangers of military personnel. Yet until now they have not been
entitled to the pensions and other benefits received by
uniformed veterans which are concrete expressions of this
country's gratitude.
Bill C-41, which we are looking at now, has the praiseworthy
objective of remedying that injustice.
It does so only partially, however, as I shall attempt to
demonstrate.
Another category of civilians also has been waiting 55
years for recognition of their merits. These are the merchant
mariners. Until now, it appears that those in high places have
forgotten that these are the people to whom we owe the fact that
the weapons and ammunition, without which our soldiers could do
nothing, were able to be shipped across the Atlantic on merchant
ships hounded by German U-boats. Many of these merchant mariners
now sleep at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Only this year
did the surviving brave mariners, or the widows, get any
compensation.
The compensation was awarded to the Merchant Marine veterans of
Canada and Newfoundland who served in wartime and were not
members of the armed forces, or to their surviving spouses if
they were deceased.
This settlement for the Merchant Mariners is close to the amount
of compensation mentioned in the dissenting report tabled by the
Bloc Quebecois on this issue. We called for a minimum of
$20,000. They received a maximum of $20,000. It is interesting
that this amount is within $1,000 of the amount that would have
been paid in 1945, taking inflation and interest into account.
The bill before us today concerns other categories of civilians
who served overseas. They are primarily the members of the
corps of Canadian firefighters for service in the United
Kingdom. These men helped fight the fires in the German bombing
raids in London and elsewhere for the first two years of the
war.
Others benefiting from the bill are the Canadian members of the
voluntary aid detachment of the British Red Cross during the
first world war. It took 82 years to remember them.
Welfare workers and voluntary aid workers in the second world
war and the Korean war are also finally being recognized.
1045
Not forgotten either are the civilian pilots in the ferry
command, who often at the risk of their lives convoyed aircraft
built here and destined for the European front between Canada
and Great Britain.
The members of these various categories of civilians deserving
of recognition by their country are, under this bill, being
accorded the same treatment as military veterans—and this is
fair—and therefore are entitled to a pension. As many of them
are dead, their widows will benefit.
The part of Bill C-41 that grants them full eligibility for
pensions from the Department of Veterans Affairs is an
improvement over an existing act, namely the Civilian War-related
Benefits Act.
Under that act, welfare workers who worked with the Canadian
armed forces during the war have had limited access to pensions
from the very beginning. The same goes for Ferry Command
personnel. In order to have access to the benefits provided
under that act, these people had to have suffered injuries
during an offensive or a counter-offensive.
Many of these civilians did not get any disability pension
following accidents that occurred in situations such as the
moving of troops and materiel. Bill C-41 would eliminate that
restriction, which has the effect of granting pensions, contrary
to what is done in the case of veterans, only to those who were
injured while on duty, under certain conditions.
The problem is that this good legislation will not be
retroactive. It does not provide any compensation for the 55
years during which all these brave people were forgotten by
their government.
This is an injustice. Since we are now recognizing that these
people are entitled to national recognition just like military
personnel who have been getting pensions since the end of the
war, it is totally unfair to make them pay for the fact that the
government waited for over half a century before recognizing
their contribution, and thus their rights to national
recognition.
Consequently, when this bill is reviewed in committee, I will
propose that the government take action to correct this anomaly
by making the act retroactive in this respect.
I do not find it acceptable for the government to permit itself
what would be considered a reprehensible abuse of power by the
courts if it had been the action of an individual against his
employees. Can anyone imagine a business leader admitting that
some of his staff had been unfairly treated for years and
agreeing to remedy the situation only if no retroactivity were
involved?
But this principle of obvious equity does not seem popular with
the government, if we are to judge by its reaction to the
Canadian Human Rights Commission ruling ordering it to
compensate those of its employees who, because they were women,
had for years been paid less than their male counterparts—another
example. It will be recalled that Ottawa held out against
making these retroactive payments for a long time. It only did
so because it was forced to by the tribunal.
The purpose of Bill C-41 is to correct another anomaly.
This one involves members of the Canadian armed forces who are
still serving but are suffering from service-related
disabilities.
These men and women are not currently entitled to disability pay
before their release. This situation is going to be corrected.
We need hardly say that we are in favour of this provision of
the bill.
But we do not understand why clause 46 excludes the RCMP from
this measure. I will be raising this in committee and calling
on the government to withdraw this provision from the bill.
1050
Another anomaly is corrected. As the result of an error for which
the recipient is in no way responsible, a veteran might receive
a higher amount of pension than his entitlement for a certain
period of time.
Until now, when the error was detected, the person concerned was
required to pay back the overpayment under conditions and a
deadline that might be prejudicial to his quality of life. From
now on the victims of these administrative errors will be
treated more humanely. We approve of this provision, while once
again regretting that it has been so long in coming.
I will now give some of the other provisions of this bill in
favour of pensioners with which we are totally in agreement.
Permitting veteran disability pensioners who are married to, or
living common-law with, each other to both receive the married
rate;
Providing for a one-year continuation of a deceased veteran's
pension to the guardian of the veteran's orphaned children;
Correcting the pension indexing formula to accommodate declines
in the consumer price index;
Consolidating the provisions relating to service in special duty
areas, peacekeeping and Korean war service, directly into the
Pension Act;
Allowing compassionate awards to be continued to survivors
without the necessity of a time-consuming high-level
re-adjudication.
Finally, we naturally approve the housekeeping amendments to
clarify regulation-making authorities, ensure the use of gender
neutral language, correct cross-references, correct the French
name of the department—it is called in French the ministère des
Anciens combattants, with a small “c”, whereas it should be a
capital “C”, thus ministère des Anciens Combattants—and, finally
to repeal obsolete acts and provisions.
In conclusion, I come to the date the bill will come into
effect. In light of the already considerable delay in the
bill's correction of the various injustices, the Royal Canadian
Legion would like, quite rightly, that once the bill has
received Royal Assent and an implementing order has been issued
for it, to have the changes it provides to be made effective not
on the date of the order but rather as of March 1, 1999, the
first day of the month the minister announced it.
Once again all these civilian and military individuals, who are
entitled to recognition must not be penalized by the length of
time it has taken to put a statute in place in order to correct
the various injustices these people have faced up to now.
To summarize, we support this piece of legislation in principle,
but reserve the right to propose certain amendments to improve
it. Subject to these amendments we are happy with the content
of Bill C-41.
I repeat, we regret that this legislation comes some 50 years
too late. However, as I said at the start, better late than
never. We will propose to the government that the text of it be
amended, either to make it effective retroactively or to have it
provide for the payment of an indemnity to correct, at least for
those still living, the injustice this delay represents.
We will also propose that the RCMP not be excluded from the
application of the law with respect to the pension for
individuals wounded in the line of duty but still serving. I
add that we will ask for a greater assurance of confidentiality
for personal information that candidates for benefits will have
to disclose to the department.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1055
[English]
TRADE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of the successful
completion of the Baltic Express II, a trade and investment
mission, which I had the honour of leading to Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania.
The trade mission took place from September 11 to September 15
and included representatives from 11 Canadian companies in the
sectors of construction and building materials, transportation,
food, textiles and high technology.
Through trade missions, such as the Baltic Express II, Canada
hopes to increase the level of awareness of commercial
opportunities and help foster long lasting commercial
relationships. The first Baltic Express mission in 1998 exposed
12 to 15 Canadian companies to the regions. Several business
partnerships resulted in one or more of the three countries.
With commercial partnerships comes a greater understanding
between nations. The Baltic Express II is another initiative
that will deepen the important ties between Canada and the Baltic
nations.
* * *
FUEL TAXES
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this year alone the Liberal government will take more
than $350 million from the people of B.C. in the form of fuel
taxes. That is an annual tax grab of $20 million more than the
entire Vancouver area budget for new highways to the year 2005.
Yet the Minister of Transport stubbornly refuses to return to
B.C. a single cent of those taxes in support of our
transportation network.
While greater Vancouver residents line up in gridlock on a four
lane Trans-Canada Highway built back in the 1950s, the minister
pumps our fuel tax money into election goody projects elsewhere.
Our taxed-to-the-hilt drivers have had enough. They are sick of
topping up the minister's pork barrel every time they gas up and
they are not going to take it anymore. They want their share of
the national highways funding returned to B.C. and they want it
now. When exactly is the minister going to deliver?
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE LUC DURAND
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we wish to pay
tribute to a great Canadian theatre personality, actor and
director, Luc Durand, who died at the age of 64 on July 3.
Luc Durand, and his character, Gobelet, touched an entire
generation of Canadians. This dreamy-eyed clown was a source of
inspiration not just for the children who faithfully tuned in to
Sol et Gobelet, but also for teenagers and even adults.
Luc Durand's friends often spoke of his intelligence, his
great poetry and his sensitivity.
He was the consummate professional, respected and his admired by
all.
On behalf of the Canadian government, I wish to thank him and
offer our sincere condolences to his family.
* * *
WORLD ALZHEIMER'S DAY
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
was World Alzheimer's Day. In Canada, there are more than
230,000 people suffering from this disease and over 100,000 new
cases are expected this year.
The federal government and, I am sure, all members of the House,
wish to congratulate the Alzheimer Society of Canada on all the
support it provides to those with this terrible disease.
I would like to thank all those who have donated their time and
energy in the fight against this disease.
* * *
[English]
KAREN COCKBURN
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to salute Karen Cockburn of Toronto for her
wonderful performance and her bronze medal on trampoline at the
Olympics. It is the first time that this sport has been included
in the Olympics.
Over the past two years Ms. Cockburn has obtained numerous
medals and has consistently been ranked in the top eight in world
competition. This is quite an accomplishment for such a young
person.
[Translation]
This medal, Canada's fourth in these Games, is a fine tribute to
the efforts of every member of the Canadian delegation.
[English]
I am sure that all members will join me in congratulating Ms.
Cockburn for this great achievement and thank her for bringing
glory to Toronto and to Canada.
* * *
POLICE AND PEACE OFFICERS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the 23rd annual memorial service for police and peace
officers who have died in the performance of their duties will be
held this Sunday on the steps of Parliament Hill.
On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to pay
tribute to those who have paid the ultimate price in protecting
Canadians from coast to coast. This memorial is an opportunity
to publicly express our gratitude to our fallen officers and to
honour their memories.
To the friends and families, you are not only in my prayers, but
you are in the prayers of an entire nation as we can only try to
appreciate the sorrow and the hardship that you continue to
endure.
1100
For those of us who cannot be there Sunday, I urge you to take a
moment and reflect upon our heroes and ensure they are not
forgotten.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
plaque commemorating the contribution of immigrants and refugees
to the development of Canada will be unveiled by the Secretary of
State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women at a ceremony
today at Pier 21 in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
With the exception of the native peoples, all Canadians are
immigrants or descendants of immigrants from various regions of
the world. Since Confederation, generation after generation,
they have come to settle in Canada with the firm intention of
making a better life for themselves and their children.
[English]
Our history records show how through courage, hard work and
ingenuity they played a major part in settling the land,
developing our resources, building cities and forging
transportation links over vast distances. Our history also
records that many of these immigrants experienced hardships,
discrimination and hostility which memories continue to hurt
those affected.
[Translation]
Between 1928 and 1991, Pier 21 was the point of arrival in this
country for over one million immigrants, refugees and displaced
persons. A testimony to the history of immigration in Canada
and the embodiment of the multicultural nature of our country,
Pier 21 was declared an historic site in 1997. I urge everyone
to pay it a visit.
* * *
ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the St.
Lawrence River now has its flag and I am proud to point out this
initiative of the Secrétariat à la mise en valeur du
Saint-Laurent, a Quebec government organization responsible for
promoting the St. Lawrence River, both in Quebec and around the
world.
The importance of the St. Lawrence River can never be
overemphasized. Sixty per cent of Quebec's population lives
along its shores and 47 municipalities pump out 2 billion litres
of water per day from the river for their drinking water.
According to the Quebec department of transport, the marine and
port sector generates over $3 billion yearly. We are talking
about over 27,000 jobs and a payroll in excess of one billion
dollars.
The St. Lawrence flag is a reminder of the invaluable heritage
that this great river. It also reflects our collective
pride in this major resource.
The flag is a nice memento for VIPs, as well as a promotional
item here and all over the world.
Congratulations to the Secrétariat à la mise en valeur du fleuve
Saint-Laurent.
* * *
[English]
CRIME PREVENTION
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, safe
communities and safe streets have been the Liberal government's
priority from the beginning of our election. Canadians asked us
to firmly respond to the serious crimes and we listened.
In this session alone our government has introduced legislation
to toughen sentencing provisions for home invasions. We have
introduced legislation to strengthen the current animal cruelty
laws. We have toughened impaired driving provisions of the
criminal code. We made legislative amendments to strengthen the
voice of victims of crime within the justice system.
We have made sure law enforcement has the tools to do its job
too. Last year we provided $115 million to the RCMP to modernize
the Canadian Police Information Centre. We provided another $15
million to the RCMP to fight organized crime in our nation's
airports. We have increased the total RCMP budget by $584
million over the next three years to modernize computer—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
* * *
OLYMPICS 2000
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, our Olympians are going for the gusto in Sydney. We are
watching and cheering them on in every single event. Our
athletes are working their hearts out, pushing themselves to the
very limit to achieve their goals. When one stands on the
winners' podium and the Maple Leaf goes up and we sing our
national anthem, our whole country stands tall and proud.
This is what the Olympic spirit is about: our young men and
women representing us and competing against the very best
athletes in the world.
I am sick to see the politics of funding entering the debate
right during the games. Yes, we need to question levels of
amateur sport funding and how much of it actually goes to the
athlete. Those are priorities that, yes, need to be discussed,
but certainly not right now in the midst of the games.
Right now we need to be cheering them on and letting them focus
on their goal of competing. They deserve and need our support.
Go team Canada, go.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, organized crime is a threat to the safety and security of
all Canadians. That is why the Liberal government continues to
work to provide the tools necessary to break the back of
organized crime.
Since 1994 the anti-smuggling initiative led to 17,000 charges
and identified $118 million in evaded taxes and duties. Since
1996 the witness protection program has protected those who
risked their lives to assist the police.
1105
Since the 1997 Bill C-95 participation in an organized crime has
been an indictable offence. Since 1997 the cross-border crime
forum has been sharing law enforcement information with our
American counterparts.
Since 1999 accelerated parole review has been eliminated for
organized crime offenders. This year we brought in new
legislation to combat money laundering.
The Liberal government, with its provincial and territorial
partners, will keep working to find new ways to eradicate
organized crime.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the NDP, I urge the government to change its
approach to the issue of residential school lawsuits. The
approach to date has been far too legalistic, has threatened the
work and viability of some churches, has delayed compensation for
victims and has been an attempt to evade the extent of the
federal government's responsibility by obscuring the fact that
the churches acted on behalf of the federal government and not on
their own. No one but lawyers and the tendency of this
government to drag things out rather than deal with them fairly
is being served by the current approach.
The appointment of the Deputy Prime Minister to talk to the
churches about this issue is, we hope, a good sign. The churches
are willing to accept responsibility and pay their fair share of
compensation. However, to burden them with all the legal fees
associated with the federal government constantly naming them as
third parties in the suits, shows either a hostility to the
churches or a cynicism at the heart of Liberal strategy on this
issue that will no longer go unnoticed by Canadians who want
justice for aboriginal victims, but who also value the ongoing
work of the churches.
* * *
[Translation]
ÉCOLE DES HAUTES ÉTUDES COMMERCIALES
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
mention the performance of MBA students from the École des
Hautes Études commerciales who won first prize at the televised
contest The Economist Business Challenge, on September 9 and 10,
in Montreal, with representatives from 15 U.S. and Canadian
universities.
I particularly congratulate Martine Valcin, the team member who
won the most valuable player trophy.
The team from the Hautes Études commerciales, which was made up
of Carlos-Eduardo Luna-Crudo, Dominique Sauvé, Martine Valcin and
François Blouin, faced participants representing 15
universities, including Wharton, Harvard, Northwestern, New York
(Stern), Queen's and Toronto.
These students had to correctly answer questions on all the news
published in The Economist over the past six months, on themes
as varied as the international economy, finance, mergers and
takeovers, market strategies and new business trends across the
world.
These awards reflect the calibre of the students—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laval West.
* * *
LEADER OF CANADIAN ALLIANCE
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on September
21, the leader of the Canadian Alliance treated us to a fine
example of what he thinks of dialogue and collaboration with the
provinces.
In his comments on the gas tax, the leader of the Canadian
Alliance stated that Ottawa no longer has any excuse not to cut
the fuel tax, with or without provincial agreement. That is a
fine example of co-operation.
How can the leader of the Canadian Alliance traipse around
Quebec repeating the constant refrain that he calls for the
total respect of provincial jurisdictions and the necessity to
consult the Canadian provinces, while at the same time
pressuring the federal government to lower gas prices?
This is great inconsistency. The leader of the Canadian Alliance
ought to explain his words here in the House.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
morning the federal court in Halifax ruled against Indian Brook's
request for an injunction to prevent DFO from removing their
lobster traps off the coast of New Edinburgh, Nova Scotia.
Federal court Justice Pelletier recognized what has already been
stated in the supreme court's decision on Marshall, which is that
DFO has the right and the obligation to uphold the laws of this
country as they relate to the fishery. Any other ruling would
have been disastrous for our fishing communities. We cannot
afford to have two sets of laws within Canadian society. To do
otherwise would result in chaos.
It is now imperative that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
state that there will be one fishery, one set of regulations and
one season for all native and non-native fishermen. We must
respect the rights of our native people but at the same time we
must not ignore the rights of our non-native fishermen and the
tremendous job they have done over the years to develop the
fishery into the successful industry that it is.
* * *
1110
CRIME PREVENTION
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Statistics
Canada has recently reported that the national crime rate was
down 5% in 1999. That makes it now eight consecutive years
that the national crime rate has gone down. In fact, Canada's crime
rate is at its lowest level in 20 years.
The numbers released earlier this year for youth crime were
headed in the same direction, down. Youth crime was down for the
seventh year in a row.
We are pleased that crime is declining but we are not
satisfied. The Liberal government continues to commit $32
million a year to the National Strategy on Community Safety and
Crime Prevention in order to prevent crime and attack its root
causes.
We are supporting communities large and small in
developing projects on the ground to prevent crime where we live.
It is only when we achieve safe communities and a sense of
security that Canadians can focus on their larger hopes and
dreams.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Sumas energy project is a power plant proposal that
will pump three tonnes of pollution every single day into the
narrow air shed over the Fraser Valley. The Fraser Valley already
has one of the most polluted atmospheres in Canada, with one of
the highest rates of respiratory disease in the country.
Virtually every person and every group in B.C. is opposed to
this project. The Canadian Alliance is opposed to the project.
The B.C. Liberal Party, the provincial NDP, the Abbotsford and
Chilliwack city councils, and even the B.C. Lung Association is
against it. So the questions for the Minister of the Environment
are these.
Why has he failed to back up the Abbotsford city council, who
have been fighting this proposal on both sides of the border? Why
has he refused to tell the Americans that Canadians just do not
want this plant near the border? Why has he failed to raise the
alarm about air pollution with an industrial plant, but feels
free to tell B.C. residents that it is up to them to clean up the
valley air? Why as a B.C. minister has he completely failed to
aggressively represent British Columbian interests?
Finally, why does he insist on acting more and more like an
American industry minister and less and less like a Canadian
environment minister?
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday a member of the Canadian Alliance accused me of
holding up the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights through my systematic objection to each of the 200
clauses of the Minister of Justice's bill to criminalize young
people who are having problems with the law.
It is true that I have made use of all the parliamentary tools
available to me in order to prevent Bill C-3 from ever getting
passed. It is true that we heard many witnesses, but none from
Quebec supports the Minister of Justice's bill.
It is true that I had a duty to do everything within my power to
have the bill die in committee. I am here to defend the
interests of Quebec. I have done so and I will continue to do
so with all the energy available to me.
The Bloc Quebecois will continue this battle with solidarity.
* * *
[English]
FORT LAWRENCE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
a recent discovery of a 1958 infrared photograph taken by the
Royal Canadian Air Force confirms the exact location of the
Acadian village of Beaubassin established in the late 1600s. This
Acadian village survived until 1750 when the Acadian leaders
burnt the village down and the inhabitants moved across the river
to an area now known as Fort Beauséjour.
In the meantime, the British took possession of the site of the
Acadian village and built a settlement there called Fort Lawrence,
named after the fort of the same name. Throughout this exercise,
native peoples were involved and present throughout.
The Fort Lawrence Heritage Society has done a great deal of
research and work on this project. It proposes that the federal
government should assume ownership of the land before any more
damage is done to the site and any more artefacts are removed.
I will be meeting with the Minister of Canadien Heritage, as soon as
possible, to seek her support in arranging for the federal
government to acquire the land to protect it for the future.
This one site reflects important aspects of our English, French
and native history. I urge the government to move quickly to
preserve this historic area.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while
this House is currently debating Bill C-41, veterans benefit
legislation, it is significant to note that the issue of
compensation to our merchant seamen has not yet been
satisfactorily concluded.
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, almost half of
the claims received from merchant mariners are still waiting to
be processed. These Canadians risked life and limb during the
war to deliver fuel, food, goods and people and were under attack
from German submarines, facing casualties and all too often death.
Every month more and more of these brave members of our
community succumb to illness and old age. It has been estimated
that the merchant mariners are dying at the rate of 12 per month.
I ask this government to resolve this matter immediately and pay
those who qualify so that this injustice will not persist one
day longer.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1115
[English]
FUEL TAXES
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, appreciating the rules about
remarking on attendance, I will be faithful to that and pose my
question to the acting Prime Minister.
In terms of knowing with some sense of confidence in which
government documents we as Canadians can have confidence, when I
asked the Prime Minister yesterday about his commitment to reduce
the 1995 excise tax on gasoline he simply said “Never mind that,
just refer to the red book”.
I need to know which government documents or which statements
can we rely on as being accurate and factual. Is it the red
book? Is it the budget? Is it documents from the House? Is it
statements the Prime Minister stands up and reads? Since there
has been some history of inaccuracy, which statements and which
documents can we rely on as being truthful?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): All of
them, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, then we hold the Prime Minister to
his commitment to reduce the 1995 excise tax. Why is that not
happening?
We have helped the government remove all the obstacles. It said
that there was no provincial co-operation on gas tax. We now
have provinces talking about it and one province saying it will
match it penny for penny. We have said that it will not be a
non-confidence vote. Every area the government raises, we are
helping it with the obstacles.
Are there any more obstacles that the Prime Minister would like
us to help him with so that we can see this gas tax reduction go
to Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition could help the government
by understanding the work the government is doing to deal with
this issue and give the government its support. It is not doing
that. It should do that and it is about time.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have been doing a lot of work
clearing the way for this. There seems to continue to be
obstacles although the government will not name them.
The finance minister was decent some time ago in terms of
apologizing for not reducing or eliminating the GST. I wonder if
the Prime Minister would be willing to make an apology at least
to Canadians. If we do not get the money back can our hearts be
somewhat comforted with an apology from him for not doing
something about the 1995 commitment relating to the excise tax on
gas?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when will the Leader of the Opposition apologize for
sitting in the Alberta legislature as minister of finance for
nine years and not doing anything to remove the increases in
gasoline taxes in that province which came into effect before he
was minister of finance. He could have dealt with that when he
was minister of finance but did not. Where is that apology?
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I think he did quite a few things in terms of lowering
taxes in Alberta.
Let me read from the minister's 1995 budget. It said “Federal
excise tax on gasoline will be increased to help reduce the
deficit”. The deficit is gone but the tax is not.
It is not just low income Canadians who are worried about this
fuel crisis and who are in the midst of it. All Canadians are
worried about heating their homes this winter and putting gas in
their vehicles.
Is it not time that the gas tax being lowered would be one
promise that the government should keep?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to
helping Canadians, including homeowners, the best thing the
government can do is to have the amendment proposed by the member
for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge included in the debate and in the
record in terms of the motion that was proposed by the opposition
party yesterday.
The Alliance proposal to us does not do anything to help
homeowners, truck drivers or the public at large.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure as a member of the government he would be
happy to bring that legislation in any time under government
orders. We would be happy to deal with it.
I said that it was not just low income Canadians who are worried
about this. Canadians of all brackets and all walks of life have
vehicles that need gas and homes that need heat this winter.
I find it interesting that the government all of a sudden says
that it has to consult with the provinces. It sure did not
consult with them when it jacked up the tax. I do not know why
it is so worried about consulting them now. No one will ever buy
that argument. The Canadian public sees right through it.
If the Liberals could get their nominations through in holy
haste, surely to heaven they could lower this tax about that fast
as well.
1120
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we challenge the
official opposition to accept on the spot, because it can do it,
the amendment to its motion proposed by the hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. This would ensure that the relief got
through to Canadians and was not just gobbled up by the oil
companies.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there are, within the Liberal cabinet, significant differences
of opinion on the rules governing access to employment
insurance. Everyone knows this, it is an open secret.
Does the minister intend to support the position taken by the
Prime Minister, on the eve of an election, of making the changes
necessary in the field of employment insurance?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are all of
one mind. We are here to help Canadians who do not have the
benefit of work to find work.
As I have said on a number of occasions in the House, as part of
the 1996 amendments there is an annual review of the Employment
Insurance Act to see if the changes are doing what they are
supposed to do. If there is evidence that changes need to be
made, we will make them.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
will the minister finally be brave enough to listen to public
opinion and announce significant changes to the employment
insurance plan established by this government, which affects
women, young people and seasonal workers especially.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on the government to
ensure that its programs are efficient. As I have said on a
number of occasions, we continue to look at the impact of the
employment insurance legislation and, if changes need to be made,
we will make them.
I want to remind the hon. member that we are having this debate
in the context of making sure that Canadians have the opportunity
to work. In that regard, I am very proud of our record. Since
taking office in 1993, the level of unemployment has been reduced
significantly. That is something we should all be supportive of.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the people who made the greatest contribution
to eliminating the deficit are the very people denied their fair
share of the fruits of the economic recovery. Cabinet bickering
is denying justice to seasonal workers, women and young people.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development drop this
pointless bickering, assume her responsibilities and announce
the specific measures that these workers and unemployed
individuals have been awaiting for all too long?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to look at
the facts. He makes reference to women. We see that the
unemployment levels for women are particularly positive over the
course of the last number of years. A million more women are
working today than there were in 1993.
When it comes to seasonal workers, again, we understand the
realities facing men and women who work in seasonal industries,
but the status quo is not acceptable. We are in communities in
the Gaspé and the Acadian Peninsula, working with employers and
employees to change that status quo. I just wish the hon. member
opposite would assist us in that regard.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development
responsible for the mess created by the Liberal's employment
insurance scheme also has all the information she needs to make
quick decisions in order to remedy the injustices created by her
government.
What is keeping her from announcing changes to the system in
order to give seasonal workers, young people and women their
due? Is she waiting for the election call?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is speaking out of both
sides of his mouth. He sits there and talks about the grants and
contributions with reference to the investments that we have been
making and it is those grants and contributions that go directly
to seasonal workers, that go directly to women and that go directly
to Canadians who want to improve their own capacity to be part of
this great economy. Is he now saying that we should not be
making those investments?
* * *
FISHERIES
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, mediator
Bob Rae's report on the volatile situation at Burnt Church
recognized a role for all communities dependent upon the fishery.
He also expressed the view that a negotiated result was
possible, but that at this point the parties were too far apart.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the government
prepared to do its part to reduce that distance, to reduce that
gap between the parties and to get back on course toward a peaceful
resolution?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me once again commend Bob Rae
for the excellent work he has done. I also want to thank him for
continuing to say that he will make himself available where he
feels he can do more good work. I appreciate that very much.
Certainly I have always said that it is through dialogue and
co-operation that we can get real agreements in the long term.
1125
Meanwhile, at this time the Miramichi is closed for conservation
reasons. Our scientists have said that fishing there threatens
the resource. The Miramichi is closed for fishing and our
enforcement officers enforced that last night and removed traps.
We will continue the dialogue because in the long term we will
resolve it at the table not through enforcement.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government knows that Burnt Church is more than just a fishery
issue.
Bob Rae has indicated publicly that he is prepared to resume
mediation if the parties call upon him to do that. He believes
that there is potential for a negotiated result.
I would like to direct my question again to the Deputy Prime
Minister. Will the government make the first move and ask Mr.
Rae to continue working with the parties to achieve a peaceful
resolution?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, in the long
term the real resolution to this is to negotiate an agreement.
There are many long term issues that have to be resolved and we
are always open to dialogue.
All parties have to accept that there is room for negotiations.
Certainly we are always open to dialogue. At the end of the day,
the only way this will be resolved is through negotiation and
dialogue. Our door is open and we are open to ways we can do
that.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am
very encouraged by his reference to dialogue and a willingness to
dialogue.
I just got off the phone with Chief Wilbur Dedeam of the reserve
who said that he and his band would welcome a meeting with the
minister but that there has not been a face to face meeting
between the minister and the band council. He told me minutes
ago that he and his council would very much welcome the
opportunity to meet face to face with the minister.
I ask the minister if, in the interest of maintaining calm in
the area, he would agree now to respond to that opening by the
Burnt Church Band?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I did meet with
the chief and his band council members. At that time I urged him
to come to the negotiating table and meet with our federal
representatives. They were not willing to do that.
Right now in the Miramichi there are conservation threats. The
scientists say that there is a threat to the lobster fishery if
the fishing effort continues. I would ask that Chief Dedeam and
his first nations band, because they believe in conservation,
immediately remove all the traps so we can protect the resource.
As long as there is illegal—
The Speaker: The right hon. leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot understand why the minister wants to do this at long
distance. He has a crisis that is looming. It is a crisis that
could have very serious consequences. He has a chief and band
council who are prepared to meet with him right now, today,
tomorrow, this weekend.
Why will he not go to Burnt Church and intervene immediately at
the highest level to meet with the chief and band council and
perhaps with others who are interested in this issue?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every effort has been made to get
a resolution on this. I have met with the chief and band
members. My deputy minister has met with the chief and band
members. Mr. Bob Rae has been down there. Our federal
representative was involved.
At this time the Miramichi Bay is closed to all fishing because
of the threat to the resource.
I am always open to dialogue. Our door is always open. However,
we cannot dialogue when people are involved in illegal and
unauthorized fishing. If they want to dialogue, they have to
stop the illegal and unauthorized fishing.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister issued the
ultimatum that the traps were to be out of the water at 11
o'clock this morning. It is now past 11 o'clock at Burnt Church.
Are the traps out of the water?
1130
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had urged the first nation band
of Burnt Church to immediately remove their traps to protect the
resource. Of course we will take enforcement action as we did
last night. Our enforcement staff did remove more than 100 traps
last night. If those traps are not removed, we will ensure that
we enforce and carry out the law of the land both on the water
and on the land to protect the resource for all Canadians.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 100 traps out of 3,500. Freeze up is
coming and so is Christmas.
The minister said that he would not negotiate until traps were
out of the water and he did. He set a 40 trap limit and he
ignored it. He set a 40,000 pound catch limit. He ignored that.
He claims and expresses a commitment to conservation. He
ignores that. Now he has set a 24 hour limit and he ignores
that.
I want the fisheries minister to level with us and tell us why
the traps are not out of the water.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual the member has his
numbers all wrong. There are not 3,000 traps in there. There
are less than 1,700 traps in the water according to our
estimates.
Enforcement action is taken both on the water and on the land.
If the traps are not removed, we will have to take enforcement
action. I have said that will continue. This will be
enforcement action both on the water and on the land, but
enforcement action will be taken with due respect for public
safety. Our number one concern is to make sure that we avoid
confrontation, that we avoid conflict. Unlike the hon. member,
we want to ensure that everything is done to avoid a situation—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
made a speech in committee over 27 hours long in order to
explain Quebec's position with respect to the treatment of young
offenders.
Visibly ill at ease, the Minister of Justice had to resort to a
gag order in order to silence the opposition to Bill C-3.
My question is this: Will the government listen to reason and
allow Quebec to opt out, so that it can pursue its course of
rehabilitating young offenders and returning them to society?
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as we have said on numerous occasions, Bill C-3 is about
accountability and responsibility. It is a balanced approach. It
is a flexible approach.
On many occasions we have asked the hon. member where in the
bill does it not allow Quebec to carry on the philosophy as they
do now. Show me in the bill where you are prevented from doing
so.
The Speaker: My colleagues, please address your responses
to the Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
member should have been listening to what I said in committee
for 27 and a half hours because I gave numerous examples that
would have answered his question.
He knows perfectly well that the consensus in Quebec is that we
should reject Bill C-3.
Apart from wanting to win over Canadian Alliance supporters,
what is stopping the federal government from allowing Quebec to
continue enforcing the young offenders legislation as it sees
fit?
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I have said, the bill provides flexibility. The bill allows
for the Quebec system to continue as it would. This is good
legislation. It is balanced across this wide country.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said that his
department has not been allowed to monitor the fishery in
Miramichi Bay. That is an astounding thing to say. After all,
the minister is the one who is responsible. If the minister is
not in charge, then who is?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, I guess he
is referring to Burnt Church where we have been working to try to
get dialogue and to try to get co-operation. That is what we
have been doing for the last couple of weeks and for this year
because we wanted an agreement. Unfortunately we were not able
to get that. That is why, as a result of our estimates of the
amount of catch in Miramichi Bay, we have taken the step of
closing the Miramichi Bay to all lobster fishing to protect the
resource for all Canadians. I would encourage and plead to Burnt
Church to also protect the resource—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
1135
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Bob Rae has reported that the
situation at Burnt Church is hopeless. It only took days for Bob
Rae to determine that the situation is hopeless. Why did it take
the minister months?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member
about the situation being hopeless.
I have always believed that dialogue can achieve the objectives
we want. I have always believed that co-operation is the way to
go. That is why my number one priority is to resolve some of the
issues with dialogue and co-operation. That is why 29 out of 34
first nations have signed an agreement. We hope we will get more
signed because dialogue and co-operation work. I will not give
up on that because I believe that is the way to reduce conflict.
That is the way to reduce confrontation.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSPORT OF MOX
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
matter of MOX, the public had confidence in the Department of
Transport's public hearings.
Now the emergency plan accepted yesterday morning demonstrates
that Transport Canada had no intention whatsoever of respecting
the public's opposition.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources admit that the period of
public hearings was nothing more than a façade of democracy, and
that he never had any intention of taking the public's
opposition into consideration?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): No,
Mr. Speaker, I will not admit that because it is not true.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can
the minister explain that Transport Canada took less than 24
hours to analyze hundreds of scientific documents, one by
Dr. Edwyn Lyman in particular, which demonstrate that the
shipping of plutonium by air is extremely dangerous?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the public consultation process began a month and a half
ago. Ample time was given for all of the necessary analysis and
indeed the emergency response plan was amended specifically to
address the points raised by Dr. Lyman.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government likes to
parade in front of the cameras to impress Canadians with how much
money it is giving to struggling farm families, but let us look
at the facts.
Only 41% of the money promised to farmers has made it out of
Ottawa. In the two hardest hit provinces, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba, 58% of the farmers have been rejected outright. Farmers
have been waiting many months, yet administration costs are very
high at $700 for each processed form.
When will the government live up to its two year old promise to
farmers? Is this just another Liberal PR—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to the party platform of the
opposition which says that it would eliminate subsidies and
support to the farmers, the government has shown very clearly
that it has increased support to farmers by 85% in just the last
two years. That is far more than that party said. I think
farmers across the country are pleased that this party is the
government and that party is not.
We made the commitment that for the 1998 business year there
would be $600 million of support to farmers across the country
and that the support available would be up to $1 billion for the
1999 business year. I am confident that all of that money will
go to farmers.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we will reduce subsidies but we will reduce them in
conjunction with other countries, not ahead of them as has been
done in the past.
It is this kind of inaction which has caused 26,000 farmers to
leave the prairies in the last year alone. The average age of
those who left is 60 years. Not only is the government failing
to deliver on its promises, it is refusing to lower its
staggering tax burden of $100 million on farm fuel. It refuses
to allow farmers to process their own grain. It continues to
support an antiquated transportation system which is costing
farmers millions.
The government continues to be one of the largest stumbling
blocks to a viable farm industry. What—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
1140
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only did we support farmers with the
amount of dollars I mentioned a few minutes ago, but also with
the changes to the transportation of grain in western Canada this
year we have limited and reduced the amount that will be paid by
farmers for transportation of their grain this year by $178
million.
As the hon. member should know, farmers pay very few direct
taxes. They do not pay direct taxes on fertilizer. They do not
pay direct taxes to the government on pesticides. Any GST that
they pay on any of their business expenses is fully rebated to
them. I am not saying that farmers do not pay a lot of taxes,
but the biggest majority of those that they pay are municipal and
provincial taxes such as school taxes, property taxes, et cetera.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to today's newspapers the government might be tempted
to settle the fuel crisis by that method so characteristic of
the Liberals, particularly when elections are imminent: the
short term solution.
Would the government not be better advised and more responsible
if it were to avoid short term vote-seeking solutions and to
amend the Competition Act instead, thus preventing three
refiners-distributors from controlling the market?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in terms of the long term functioning of the market, we
have established under the Conference Board of Canada a detailed
market analysis so that people in government both federally and
provincially and the general public can have greater knowledge
and understanding about how that marketplace functions and why
the price trends occur the way they do. It is that kind of
effort that is already being taken by the government to ensure
that we do have the right long term policy in place.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada recently issued a request for proposal to
select service providers to administer the Canada student loans
program.
The September 14 release and the accompanying fact sheet did not
make reference to the Official Languages Act.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm to
this House that only those proposals that meet the requirements
of the Official Languages Act will be considered so that
students from all regions of the country can be served in the
language of their choice?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker. Our position is clear as regards the
administration and management of the program:
[English]
I would like to recognize the work of the hon. member for his
intensity and assurance that the official languages are always
there and that Canadians have the services they need in the
language that meets their needs.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government bulldozed its changes
to grain transportation last June despite recommendations from
the official opposition, farmers and the Estey and Kroeger
reports.
As a direct result of not listening, we now have the ridiculous
situation where the Canadian Wheat Board is threatening grain
companies with legal action if they refuse to handle tendered
grain. This means effectively that the wheat board will be using
farmers' money to sue farmer owned companies.
Since the wheat board minister refuses to appoint a mediator to
correct the mess he has created, will the transport minister?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a more commercial, competitive and contractual system is
emerging in the grain handling and transportation system. That
is a big change. All of the players have been accustomed to
decades of administration and regulation and they must now
function in a much different environment. The request for
mediation will be responded to appropriately, but in the meantime
the parties should conduct themselves in a mature, responsible,
businesslike and good faith manner. I am hopeful that will be
the case.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian prairie farmers are facing severe hardship due
to low commodity prices and international subsidies. The
government's answer appears to be to allocate $1.7 billion to the
problem, but only pay out one-third of that. What a cruel joke.
Does the government have no social conscience? What does it
want? Does it want the farmers to go broke and now import our
food from the United States? Is that its answer?
1145
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has been in the
House all through question period. I thought he would have
listened to the answer I gave a few minutes ago.
When that program was put in place we said that it would provide
$600 million in assistance to farmers for the 1998 business year.
It did. That would leave up to $1 billion for assistance as a
result of the situation in farm businesses for the 1999 business
year. It will and it is in the process of being paid to farmers
at the present time.
We even had to extend the deadline by 29 days so that farmers
would get their applications in, even though they knew way back
in the spring that they had—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians have been devastated by the government's
assault on the unemployed. Since elected the Liberal government
has left a trail of discrimination against women, youth, older
workers and seasonal workers. Now we have a huge surplus of
which over $7 billion was built on the backs of these same
individuals.
Over the last few years we have heard the Liberal government
talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk about the EI changes.
Will the government commit today to make the necessary changes to
EI so that more unemployed Canadians will qualify?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's record when it comes to
unemployment is very good. We see the fact that two million more
Canadians are working today than there were in 1993 when we took
office. We see the levels of unemployment at historic lows. We
see the job growth numbers increasing on a regular basis.
This is as a result of investments we are making in the economy.
This is as a result of the work we undertake with employers and
employees, and we are talking about seasonal workers and women.
Again I remind the hon. member that when it comes to employment
levels for women in Canada, the results are ever increasing. We
should be proud of that.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I said unemployed, not employed. The Minister of Human
Resources Development says she needs evidence. Only 40% of those
unemployed qualify. How is that for evidence?
The Prime Minister talks about changes. The leader in waiting
says “Don't touch it because it helps build a surplus”. Who is
calling the shots? Will the government do what Canadians have
been asking for and change the EI system to put money back in the
pockets of working Canadians instead of in the pockets of the
finance minister?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on an ongoing basis we review the
Employment Insurance Act. As part of that act there is a
monitoring and assessment report done every year. We review the
results of that report. If the program is not working as
efficiently as it needs to be, we will make changes.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans talks the talk about
conservation but he does not walk the walk.
Did the minister approve or know about the money offered to
Miramichi fishermen to ignore the illegal fishery or, more
literally, to turn their backs on conservation?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I responded to this question
yesterday, the mediator, the hon. Bob Rae, is meeting with all
the parties to look at what options are available for them. A
mediator was put forward by Burnt Church and he was exploring the
options with the parties.
We certainly did not approve any option which required a payout
to the commercial fishermen, but the mediator is looking at all
the options he could bring to the table to get a final agreement.
Unfortunately we did not get an agreement and we have no
agreement at this time.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I have to tell the minister that trying to buy off the
fishermen to turn a blind eye to conservation should never have
been put on the table.
The minister is saying he was not aware that it was being put on
the table. What we need to know now is what is the mandate of
the negotiator. Will the minister table that mandate so we know
exactly what he is planning on doing?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me say that when the
hon. member was on this side of the House her questions were much
better than they are now.
1150
The other point is that I do not know where she has been because
our plan has been laid out. In fact the former federal fisheries
minister, Mr. Crosbie, said that our plan was working and that we
should stick to it.
Just last week I received a letter from the hon. member for West
Nova saying “Allow me to commend both you and your department
for the tremendous efforts you have devoted toward enforcing
fisheries regulations along the coast of Burnt Church and New
Edinburgh”. This is a letter from the member for West Nova, a
member of her own party, just last week.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of
the Treasury Board. The absolutely stunning performance of the
Canadian economy over the last seven years is beginning to put
stresses and strains on Canada's infrastructure.
It has been six months since the last budget and the
announcement of infrastructure funding. What is the government
doing to get this money out to communities across Canada?
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for Nepean—Carleton for his question. While no formal
agreements have been signed as yet, I am pleased to report that
the president is presently negotiating with all provincial and
territorial governments and that these negotiations are on
schedule, to be completed on or before the end of the year if not
sooner.
I would also like to add that $2 billion levered with another $4
billion by our municipal, provincial and territorial partners
will mean $6 billion will be available for municipal
infrastructure priorities such as safe drinking water and waste
management, which will enhance the quality of life for both rural
and urban Canadians.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, corporate America plans to spill the equivalent of
emissions from 480,000 cars per day into the Fraser Valley. That
is the result of a new power generation plant going up in Sumas,
Washington. This is in an area that has the third worst air
quality in the nation.
If all MLAs, citizens, businesses, virtually everyone in British
Columbia disagree with it, why is it that the Minister of the
Environment is the only one who will not support these people?
The Speaker: Order, please. We make special provisions
sometimes. If the hon. minister would prefer to answer the
question sitting down, he may.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the fire alarm rang:]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is very kind of you and I would like to reply.
I did not know that when I rise to speak I have such remarkable
support outside the building. To finish the response, on May 2
of this year I responded to the proposal that was put forward by
the proponent of this particular energy facility.
I point out to the member that we have consistently opposed the
aspects of this plan which would increase pollution in the Fraser
Valley. I urge him to join with me and with other members so
that we can have a Canadian approach rather than have the
Americans proposing something and him and his colleagues—
The Speaker: That answer is a real barn burner. I am
going to get more information here. This might be a false alarm.
We will wait for another couple of minutes. I am simply going to
suspend the questions for a few minutes and then I will come back
when I get the information.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Speaker: We will suspend to the call of the Chair.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.54 a.m.)
1215
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 12.20 p.m.
The Speaker: I have decided that it is a little too long
after question period. If it is possible we may make some kind
of adjustment next week but I do not know exactly what that will
mean.
In view of the fact that it is 12.20 p.m., many of the ministers
have had to leave and I do not want the member's questions to go
improperly answered. We will work that out hopefully next week
in some way.
* * *
1220
POINTS OF ORDER
FIRE ALARM
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I was just on my way up to the chair to give you
notice that I wanted to address you specifically about the
Chamber. I am not sure if it is a point of privilege or a point
of order.
The Speaker: You said you wanted to address me
specifically. I am always willing to listen to a member.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, this arises out of the
alarm that we just had in the House of Commons. I want to refer
specifically to your behaviour in the chair when you said that
maybe we could let this wait for a couple of minutes.
You and I are both school teachers. You know what to do when we
have people who are personally our responsibility and we hear an
alarm. You are up and out. You know that I got up and out as
quickly as I could. The galleries cleared sooner than this
Chamber.
This is not just a little laugh or chuckle. I am deadly
serious. No, we could not smell smoke and maybe you wanted to
hear the minister's answer. However, you said that we would
leave it for a couple of minutes. It could have been a bomb and
there could have been not just members of parliament here. There
could have been people in the galleries and staff in the
building. I do not think that we need to just pass this off.
I have been here many years and you longer. That was a
different sound than many of the alarms than we have had. It was
incumbent upon us and it was incumbent upon you to get people up
and out of here as quickly as possible. You are responsible for
the Chamber and, in fact, the whole place. I think it was—
The Speaker: I take the chastisement as one former
teacher to another that I did not react as quickly as I might
have. It is good that you brought it up.
We have been through this on a number of occasions and I usually
wait for my Sergeant-at-Arms because we do have false alarms. We
were in the middle of a question period and perhaps I wanted to
hear some more questions and responses. The alarm that you heard
is the same alarm that we have always had here.
I will take your advice under advisement. As one former teacher
to perhaps a former student, I take advice usually in the spirit
with which it is given and I thank you for your intervention.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I know that this is kind of unconventional
and I realize that today has been rather unconventional.
I have been waiting a number of days to ask a question during
question period and it stopped just before my turn. I appreciate
that I am out of order probably with this request, but I would
like to seek unanimous consent to ask the Minister of the Environment
a single question. It is an important question. It is a serious
question. Could I seek unanimous consent to see if I could have
that opportunity?
The Speaker: The hon. member has sought unanimous consent
to put a question to the minister. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: I make it clear that question period is over
but this is a question we are permitting in extraordinary
circumstances. I will hear this one question as this is all we
consented to.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will forgo the colourful
introduction and go right to the question for the Minister of the
Environment.
The minister will be aware that on VIA trains from coast to
coast, from Halifax to Vancouver and elsewhere, when one flushes
the toilet on a VIA train it flushes directly onto the tracks.
The millions of people who ride these trains literally flush
their toilets on the tracks. This is a serious question and I
have been asked about this by various railway unions who work on
the tracks. The Minister of the Environment of course will be
aware of the environmental implications.
Could he see fit, at least, to get in touch with VIA officials
and ask them for their timetable for putting proper containers
on-board their trains so that they are like some of the private
trains which already have containers on their passenger cars?
1225
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I hope that my reply will not have the incendiary
effect of my reply as in the last response.
In response to the question of the hon. member, as the hon.
member may appreciate I do not have the details in front of me
and I am guessing, but I believe there was some $40 million in
the budget to deal with the problem that he has raised before the
House.
This is a longstanding situation. We are now trying to put in
effective holding tanks on all VIA trains across the country
so that we can completely deal with the problem that he has
raised. I cannot give him at this stage information as to how
far that program has progressed, but there is a substantial
amount of money put aside to deal with that very problem. I
thank him for raising the issue.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments made recently by the government, pursuant
to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1). These are deemed
referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which
is attached.
* * *
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 46
petitions.
* * *
PETITIONS
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this
afternoon.
The first petition is from a number of constituents from
Kamloops who point out a number of concerns they have with the
Criminal Code of Canada. Their fundamental concern is to ask the
Government of Canada to amend the criminal code to prevent
persons convicted of serious crimes from being released from
custody pending the hearing of their appeal, except in very
exceptional circumstances.
U.S. MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners
are concerned about the U.S. national missile defence program.
It is a $60 billion plus program that Canada has been asked to
participate in.
The petitioners are calling upon parliament to declare that
Canada objects to the defence program of the United States of
America and ask the government to play a leadership role in
banning nuclear weapons and missile flight tests.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
PRIVILEGE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to respond to a question of
privilege filed by the member for Wentworth—Burlington, if you
are prepared to entertain the government's response.
The Speaker: Yes, I am. I will set the stage for you.
This was a point of privilege which was brought up before
parliament adjourned for the summer. This is a response to that
time. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, you may recall on June 15,
2000, the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington raised a point of
privilege concerning the defeat of his private member's bill,
Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act at
second reading.
The question of privilege alleges that the Department of Justice
may have wilfully deceived MPs by means of a document marked
exhibit A, which MPs received on their desks in the House prior
to the June 6 vote on Bill C-206.
The documents stated that “the privacy commissioner had
expressed concerns that, under Bill C-206, 30 year old records
would be made accessible resulting in the potential release of
personal information held by the government”. It is alleged
that the document falsely attributed these concerns to the
privacy commissioner.
1230
It is also claimed that the privacy commissioner's concerns were
misrepresented in a talking points document dated May 26 to
cabinet ministers, which was marked exhibit B. This document,
which was provided to cabinet ministers for discussion purposes,
stated that the privacy commissioner considered Bill C-206 to be
“a serious threat to the privacy of Canadians”.
I will demonstrate that exhibits A and B are a fair
representation of the privacy commissioner's concerns regarding
Bill C-206.
According to the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington “The
problem is the privacy commissioner was not in official
communication with the Department of Justice on Bill C-206 until
10 days after the May 26 memo outlining his position and never
described his concerns as a serious threat, nor ever provided the
example cited in the document above”. In fact, those concerns
were exposed and expressed in different forums long before May 26.
There appears to be some misunderstanding of the facts. From
October 1999 to June 2000, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner
consistently indicated that Bill C-206 raised privacy concerns.
Let me illustrate.
In October 1999 the executive director of the Office of the
Privacy Commissioner called a meeting with Department of Justice
officials. Officials from the privacy commissioner's office
indicated that they had two major problems with the changes
proposed in Bill C-206.
First, they were concerned that the changes proposed in clause
14 of Bill C-206 would “eviscerate” the Privacy Act by imposing
a mandatory obligation to disclose personal information. The
example used was that data collected by Revenue Canada is shared
with HRDC under section 8 of the Privacy Act. Changing the
discretionary “may” disclose to “shall” disclose would result
in all the income tax returns of Canadians for the last 10 years
being accessible.
Second, they were concerned that the proposed 30-year rule,
which would release virtually all documents after 30 years, would
have privacy implications. The confidential information
collected by the government continues to be sensitive even after
30 years.
Justice officials took the concerns of the Office of the Privacy
Commissioner very seriously.
On May 16, 2000 the privacy commissioner tabled his annual
report in which he referred to, at page 75, the bill by the hon.
member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Bill C-264,
which was the predecessor to Bill C-206. He indicated the bill
could have “negative privacy impact” and that the proposed
disclosure of information older than 30 years would, in his view,
“completely disregard the protections of the Privacy Act”.
Furthermore, he expressed concern over the removal of the
critical discretion that the Privacy Act gives heads of federal
institutions to determine whether to disclose individuals'
personal information to third parties.
Based on these statements, the document marked exhibit B was
prepared for cabinet ministers. It concluded that “The privacy
commissioner believes Bill C-206 is a serious threat to the
privacy of Canadians”. This statement is clearly a fair
representation of the views expressed by the Office of the
Privacy Commissioner during the October meeting and in the
privacy commissioner's annual report of May 16, 1999.
Furthermore, in a letter to the Minister of Justice dated June
5, 2000, the privacy commissioner confirmed what his office had
previously flagged. The privacy commissioner stated at line 2 in
the second paragraph of the letter “while I support the ultimate
goal of a more transparent and accountable government, I fear the
bill will have, perhaps unintentionally, a detrimental effect on
the Privacy Act”.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Act protects the private
information of Canadians held by government institutions.
Therefore, anything that would have a detrimental effect on the
Privacy Act would be a threat to the privacy of Canadians.
There was no deception on the part of the Department of Justice.
The privacy commissioner's office expressed serious concerns
about clause 14 and the 30 year rule in October 1999. The
commissioner's annual report of May 16, 2000 reaffirmed in a more
general manner these concerns.
1235
On June 5, 2000 the privacy commissioner officially indicated
that the same clauses would have a detrimental effect on the
Privacy Act. From October 1999 to June 2000 the message to the
Department of Justice from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner
was the same: Bill C-206 represented a serious threat to the
privacy of individuals. The examples used indicate the nature of
that threat.
I would like to remind the House that at the beginning of the
previous parliament the government indicated that private
members' business would be subject to free votes. Each member
must assess the long term implications of any private member's
bill or motion and vote accordingly.
The Minister of Justice simply and correctly expressed a
legitimate concern about Bill C-206 and shared the information
she had with her colleagues.
The Speaker: I want to review the transcript of what
has transpired not only today, but want to put in
juxtaposition what happened last June. I have a request from
another member who wants to speak to this particular point of
privilege. I will of course reserve judgment until I hear from
the member if indeed he wants to intervene.
At this point I will take both the submission of the member for
Hamilton Mountain and your own submission. I will hear from at
least one other member and then I will come back to the House
with my decision.
I also want the House to be apprised that I received a message
earlier from the Deputy Prime Minister asking to rise on a point
of order but we had the fire alarm. He is not here, but I will
hear whatever point he wants to bring up when the House convenes
on Monday or after question period. I want that to be on the
record.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CIVILIAN WAR-RELATED BENEFITS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, an
act to amend the statute law in relation to veterans' benefits,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour for me to address Bill C-41, an act to amend the statute
law in relation to veterans' benefits.
I am going to provide the House with some background
information.
This bill proposes to provide benefits for civilian groups that
served Canada overseas, such as the Canadian Red Cross, St.
John Ambulance, the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit, the
Corps of Canadian Firefighters and other organizations.
The bill proposes to allow Canadian forces members to receive
disability benefits while still serving their country, thereby
ensuring equality with those whose disabilities arose in special
duty area service and reserve force service.
[English]
I am pleased to state at the outset that there may be some
issues we wish to pursue in committee. Some of these have been
mentioned already by previous speakers, for example, section 46
concerning the RCMP and also the concern of the legions with
respect to retroactivity. While we may want to pursue these in
committee, the New Democratic Party at this point stands in
support of the bill.
I do have some skepticism. My skepticism does not arise from
the words in the legislation, but from the government's intent on
following through with its commitment to Canada's veterans.
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, almost half of
the claims received from merchant mariners are still waiting to
be processed. These Canadians risked life and limb during the
war to deliver fuel, food, goods and people, and were under
attack from German submarines, facing casualty and, all too
often, death. Every month more of these brave members of our
communities succumb to illness and old age.
1240
It has been estimated that merchant mariners are dying at the
rate of about 12 per month. The Department of Veterans Affairs
reportedly has 45 people working on these claims. Clearly,
staffing levels should be increased to meet the demand created by
merchant mariners' claims. The decision not to hire more staff
likely translates into a decision to let more merchant mariners
die without seeing their claims processed and justice done.
Furthermore, if the government wishes Bill C-41 to be taken
seriously by the people who would be affected by the bill, it
should state here now that it is committed to ensuring that all
merchant mariners entitled to compensation will receive their
full benefits and that the government will not turn its back on
these merchant mariners after the first payments have been made.
The legislation sets out to extend veterans benefits to a number
of civilian groups with overseas service and would allow all
serving members of the Canadian armed forces who suffer a service
related disability to receive disability pensions while serving.
As the New Democratic Party representative on the all party
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, I am
pleased to see that the government is responding to issues raised
by our committee in a positive way. Allowing the serving members
of the forces who qualify for disability pensions to receive
these disability pensions while serving does indeed begin to
address issues relating to the quality of life of Canadian forces
members.
While I am pleased to see that the government is taking some
steps toward addressing the issues raised by the all party
standing committee, I strongly suggest that the government could
be doing much more to address broader issues relating to working
and living conditions for our troops.
Military personnel who live on bases in single quarters or
in permanent married quarters must contend with old and
deteriorating accommodations that are among the worst to be found
in this country. The quarters in some regions were called
dilapidated by the committee, and that was being very generous.
From leaky roofs to cramped, old, deteriorating spaces, Canada's
forces personnel deserve much better from the country they so
admirably served, and in particular from the Liberal government
that is responsible for these decisions.
Canadian forces accommodation policy cites the need for well
maintained quarters, respecting dignity, privacy, safety and
security. The Liberal government's policy is “tough luck, you
lose”.
The Liberal government had cash on hand to spend $15 million
building a brand new armoury in Shawinigan which, by a great
coincidence, happens to be in the Prime Minister's own riding.
As I have said, the legislation sets out to ensure serving
forces personnel may receive disability pensions while still
serving. In other words, troops serving Canadians through
assisting with crises, like the great ice storm of 1998, fighting
floods on the Red River or working as peacekeepers in Bosnia,
would be able to collect a veterans affairs disability pension
while continuing to serve the country. This will ensure equity
with members whose disabilities arose in special duty areas and
reserve force service.
We support the legislation as it would extend veterans benefits
to certain civilian groups who served overseas in close support
of the war effort. This would include groups such as the
Canadian Red Cross, St. John Ambulance, Newfoundland Overseas
Foresters, Canadian firefighters, pilots who ferried across the
Atlantic and other groups who assisted the military overseas.
This move will provide these individuals with greater access to
Veterans Affairs Canada income support, disability pensions and
additional health care benefits, including the veterans
independence program.
The overseas crew of the Ferry Command assisted the war effort
by ferrying military aircraft across the Atlantic Ocean from
North America. During the second world war, some 340 Canadian
and Newfoundland civilian pilots and aircrew were under contract
to deliver aircraft from North America to Britain and elsewhere.
The members of the Ferry Command, who today number approximately
100 people, have never had access to veterans programs.
The Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit assisted the war effort
by cutting timber in Scotland, which was then predominantly used
in British coal mining operations. Britain quickly realized the
increased production of coal was a strategic imperative to fuel
the war effort and thus the immediate need for experienced
loggers to produce timber for mining was paramount.
1245
Over the course of the war some 3,680 Newfoundlanders served in
the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit although many later
transferred to the British armed forces or served with the
British Home Guard. There are about 1,000 members alive today.
When Canada was negotiating the terms of union several years
after the war it was agreed that Newfoundland armed forces
members would be eligible for veterans benefits from Canada but
members of the forestry unit were not included in that agreement.
During the second world war the Canadian Corps of
Firefighters served in the United Kingdom. It served the war
effort by fighting fires in Britain that were created by the
dreaded blitz.
Also during the war overseas welfare workers, which included
members of the Canadian Red Cross and St. John Ambulance
served overseas in support of the injured. They have had basic
access to income tested veterans programs but limited or no
access to pensions for a service related disability and no access
to the veterans independence program.
One of the more important aspects of the bill is working to
ensure equity of access to services and benefits to all Canadian
forces members regardless of whether the injury occurred in
Canada or in a foreign deployment.
At the present time Canadian forces members can only receive a
Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension for a service related
disability if the disability occurred in or resulted from service
in a special duty area such as a peacekeeping mission.
For those Canadian forces members who suffer a service related
disability while fighting a flood in Canada, for example, their
disability can be assessed and their entitlement to a disability
pension may be agreed upon while they are still serving. However,
no Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension can begin to be
paid until after they have left the Canadian forces.
The amendments in Bill C-41 would remove this inequity and allow
all Canadian forces members with a related disability to receive
a Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension upon application
regardless of where the injury occurred.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the legions
in my riding of Halifax West for their work not only in support
of veterans but also in terms of the incredibly positive role
they play in the community.
I have attended many events hosted by these legions. I continue
to be struck not only by their camaraderie but also by their
social conscience and community support. The legions in my area
have sponsored seniors dinners at Christmastime. When we go to
those dinners and see the joy on the faces of those seniors, we
realize how much these veterans are giving back even yet to their
communities in terms of supporting our seniors and helping to
bring some joy and happiness into their lives.
I have attended special awards nights where legions honour
members who have served for a long time within their
organizations. It is important that we honour people while they
are still alive. Far too often people are spoken of after they
have gone. It is nice when we take the time to honour people
while they can still appreciate receiving that honour for the
service they are rendering.
I have also gone to events in the Camp Hill hospital in Halifax
where legion members go at Christmastime and visit with seniors
and people who live in those residences. They take not only
material gifts but also the gifts of love and compassion. The
appreciation is reflected in the faces of the people who reside
in that facility when someone comes around and wishes them a
merry Christmas and a happy new year and shows some interest and
concern in their state of well-being.
I have a cousin who is a veteran. He unfortunately suffered a
stroke many years ago so he is not able to speak. He recognizes
me and has a wonderful smile on his face when I go to visit him.
The legion from Whites Lake quite often takes the residents from
Camp Hill out to its headquarters to a special event for them.
On one occasion when my cousin was there a family with a small
infant allowed him to hold the baby. Just seeing the look on his
face, the smile, the sense of contentment and happiness at
holding that young child, showed that even though he was disabled
by a stroke he still had a certain compassion and a certain
sense of well-being. His relationship with that infant was
something that one had to be there to experience.
This tells us again how important veterans are to our community
and what they give back to our community. Even those who may
appear to have a disability are still able to give and to
appreciate love and respect.
I thank the following legions in my area for their ongoing work:
The Beford Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 95, Lakeside Royal
Canadian Legion Branch No. 156, Spryfield Royal Canadian Legion
Branch No. 152, St. Margarets Bay Royal Canadian Legion Branch
No. 116, and Whites Lake Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 153.
1250
I want to have it recorded in the House of Commons that these
legions provide an outstanding service to their communities and
for this we thank them.
As we stand in support of this legislation, the point I want to
leave is that anything we can do to advance the cause of equity,
fairness and justice for veterans who served our country so well
we should be glad to do. It is for this reason that the NDP is
standing in support of this legislation.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-41
on behalf of the member for Saint John, our veterans affairs
critic who has certainly done yeoman service on behalf of
veterans.
I am sure she takes a personal interest in every veteran in the
country. If veterans fall somewhere and hurt themselves, I often
think she feels the pain because she is so much involved with
them and so concerned about their welfare. In fact she will drop
any issue she is working on if a veteran's issue comes up. She
will deal with it first as a priority item. That is a very
commendable approach.
Generally speaking we support Bill C-41 for all the good things
it proposes to do, but we do it with reservation because of the
problems that are already in the system which are not being
addressed or not being resolved. We would like to see those
problems addressed first before we add additional
responsibilities for the department and add new obligations for
very lean resources that are not available.
As members of parliament I am sure we all deal with veterans
affairs issues. Certainly in my area I deal with veterans on a
day to day basis. Veterans have all kinds of challenges and all
kinds of problems. In the run of a day if I have nine
appointments usually three of them will be Canada pension plan,
three might be Revenue Canada, but there will be three with
regard to veterans affairs. They are very similar. They are
almost all the same. They run along the same lines of a few
subjects. It is a repeat event on every visit.
The veterans independence program, the VIP program, is designed
to make the quality of life a little better for veteran. It has
a very low threshold of income before one is disqualified from
access to VIP. That is a problem we have in our area. Many
veterans who really need the service, just to improve their
quality of life a bit, are denied access.
Also access to pensions for disabilities is an ongoing problem.
It is an involved procedure that seems to be dragged out for long
periods of time and causes more stress and grief for already
disabled veterans. Part of the problem is that medical records
in the military are not complete. Often a veteran has a problem.
Everyone knows of it, but there is no proof in his or her medical
records. When there is no proof it is extremely difficult to
convince the Department of Veterans Affairs to acknowledge the
problem.
I have heard from veterans who served overseas but there was no
record of that service, even though everyone knew they had been
there. I have heard from veterans who served in Atlantic waters
but still there is no record of it and they were unable to prove
they had that service even though their colleagues would
acknowledge it and back them up. The benefit of doubt clause
sounds good but sometimes it seems that the benefit of the doubt
is not given to veterans.
Also there is access to the merchant navy package which passed
in February 2000. This was something for which the member for
Saint John fought long and hard to try to access. We were all
very pleased when it came through, but we understand only half
the applications for this program have been addressed. There are
a lot of problems in qualifying. Half the applications are not
even processed. Of the half that are processed some have
received some money but none have received all the money that has
been talked about and promised to them.
Every day my office receives calls asking when they will get
money from the merchant navy program or when they will get the
balance.
There seem to be no answers to these questions. That in itself
is frustrating and creates more stress for veterans, none of whom
are very young.
1255
This raises a question. If the resources are not there to
address the program instituted in February of this year, how can
we add new programs when we know the resources will not be
available to deal with them? The program is good but the
resources are weak. That is the problem. There is no point in
having the programs if the department and the minister do not
have access to the funding. Certainly they do not have the
access to funding to deal with the current programs.
Another issue I mentioned earlier was the VIP program. I am
certainly glad to see all the important ministers in the House
today. I am certainly pleased to see the Minister of Veterans
Affairs in particular. I would like to make him aware of an
initiative taken by branch No. 10 of the legion from Amherst, a
group led by Pastor Harold Higgins which included Russell Clark,
Harold Ettinger and Peter Lynd. They developed a motion that was
taken to Atlantic command of the legion and then went to dominion
command. It was passed all the way through the system. It was
to make it easier for veterans to access VIP. This is a good
program. It does not cost a lot of money and it increases the
quality of life of veterans.
Most veterans are disqualified because the program is income
tested at a very low threshold. We would like to see the
threshold increased so that veterans can earn a little money,
have a little income and still access the VIP program. It is not
an expensive program, but it is a good program and it should be
expanded to all veterans. Many people think it should include
all veterans. At least the threshold should be changed to allow
more veterans to participate in it.
The motion went all the way through dominion command and across
the country to almost every legion in Canada. They all had a say
in it. It started in branch No. 10 at Amherst. I am proud to be
associated with that legion. I hope the minister will take note
and see if he can access the motion and approve it, as I know he
will.
It is very frustrating to be approached by veterans as a member
of parliament. We know what they have done. We know the
sacrifices they have made. In some cases they have visible
disabilities. In some cases we cannot see the disabilities but
we know they have them. I can think of several situations that
are very trying. These people cannot access pensions because the
appeal board or whoever says there is no proof that the injury
was incurred while in service. There is no proof how it
happened. There are no records in the files.
However, all their colleagues and the veterans involved know. I
find it very frustrating to deal with those situations. It is
not their fault the records are not complete. It is not their
fault the information and the backup are not there. It makes it
extremely difficult for them to access these programs. I know of
some veterans personally and it is awful to deal with them
because we know we cannot arrive at the right solution.
If there is some indication that the veteran is qualified for
the pension and some information that says he may not be
qualified, the veteran is supposed to get the benefit of the
doubt. I find that they do not get the benefit of the doubt. I
would like the minister to make note of that if he would.
We support Bill C-41. We are really pleased that the government
will recognize the people involved in these conflicts even though
they were not directly in the military. These civilians were
involved in all kinds of duties and activities which provided
support and help to our military people who actually carried arms
and were involved in the conflicts.
We are also pleased that Canadian forces members who are still
in the service will now be recognized if they have a disability
that was incurred while in service. That is most appropriate. It
recognizes the contribution they made to our country and to the
service.
While we support the bill we are a little skeptical because of
the history and the track record of the merchant navy process.
That has not gone as well as expected. I understand they have
had far more applications than their homework had indicated they
would have and this has created a problem.
The bottom line is that there are merchant navy veterans who
feel they are entitled to this program and are not able to access
it. We hope that this does not happen with the new programs that
are included in the bill.
It is one thing to have the program but we have to have the
people, the resources and the funding to back them up. Otherwise
all it does is create more frustration and more difficulty for
veterans rather than help them.
1300
On behalf of the member for Saint John, our veterans affairs
critic, we are pleased to support Bill C-41. We do hope that the
minister has the support of the finance minister to put the
resources and people in place to support this.
The last speaker mentioned the involvement of the legions in his
riding. My riding has 17 legions and every single one is active
as a community organization. They are great organizations which
provide all kinds of things like meals on wheels and help to
seniors. They provide money for people who have disabilities who
are not involved with the military at all. Every single legion in
my riding performs an important service to the community. I
would like to acknowledge them as the last member did because
they are often not recognized for their contributions to the
community.
I have watched the minister take notes with every word I said
and I am sure he will respond to them exactly as I asked.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I too am very pleased to join my colleagues, the Minister of
Veterans Affairs, the opposition critics and others to speak in
support of this legislation.
This is an omnibus bill and by definition is quite detailed on
the various pieces of veterans legislation that it updates. It
is not our purpose today to debate the intricate details. I am
sure that will be handled well enough by the committee. Today
perhaps is the day to agree to the principles contained in the
major sections of the bill.
Let us take the extension of benefits to civilian groups who
performed wartime overseas service. I hope this is not presuming
too much on my part but I dare say that aside from the reference
to the Red Cross, most of us do not know of the services
performed by other civilian groups such as the Newfoundland
foresters, Canadian firefighters or Ferry Command, and if we have
heard of them, we do not necessarily associate these groups with
the provision of veterans benefits. Yet when we look closer at
what they did, their contribution was monumental.
The Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit assisted the war effort
by cutting timber in Scotland which was predominantly used in
British coal mining operations. The British were in dire need of
increased production since coal was a desperately needed fuel.
Many of the 3,600 Newfoundlanders who served with the forestry
unit would later join the British armed forces.
The Canadian Corps of Firefighters represent another hidden
story of service and sacrifice. They were called on to help
fight the dreadful fires created by the blitz on London and other
British cities.
Then there are the overseas welfare workers which included the
Canadian Red Cross and St. John Ambulance who served as welfare
workers overseas in support of the injured.
And finally there are the overseas air crews of Ferry Command
who assisted the war effort by ferrying military aircraft across
the Atlantic from North America.
The men and women of these civilian units, like their military
counterparts, served their nation and the allied cause with duty
and dedication. Like their military comrades from the second
world war their numbers are quickly fading with the passing of
the years. It does not seem too much to ask for easier access to
disability and allowance benefits and through regulatory change
to health care benefits.
The issue of clause 46 of the bill has come up. It was
mentioned by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. It
relates to the benefits enjoyed by members of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police.
In speaking with the minister on this issue, it would appear as
though there may have been an unfortunate oversight with respect
to that clause appearing in the bill. I know it is the minister's
desire to have that clause removed. I am prepared to undertake to
the House to introduce an amendment to that effect to deal with
the concerns that have been raised by members, and which exist as
well on the government side, to have that issue dealt with.
Turning briefly to currently serving military personnel, the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs has
studied the modern day problems of the regular forces.
I have been a member of the committee since the last election and
was pleased to work with colleagues from every party in the House
who were part of the quality of life study. Each of us came away
from that study feeling as though we had made a contribution and
a difference in the lives of the men and women serving in the
Canadian forces.
1305
The department has taken the recommendations of the committee to
heart and has acted in concert with DND to take a more
comprehensive approach to dealing with injured or disabled
clients. For its part, DND has established five regional
operational trauma, stress and support centres located near major
military bases across the nation. Veterans affairs clients have
access to DND's post-deployment regional health centres for
clinical evaluation and assessment purposes.
In addition the department continues to deploy its personnel to
bases to deliver briefings on our services and benefits to
Canadian forces members across the country.
Where veterans affairs can act to improve access to veterans
benefits without changes to the legislation, it is in fact doing
so. Where there is a need for legislation of course is in having
a level playing field for all members of the armed forces
wherever they serve at home or abroad.
As hon. members have heard, this bill fills that gap by allowing
all Canadian forces to have equal access to disability pensions
and related health care benefits regardless of whether the injury
occurred in a special duty area. I know hon. members will have no
difficulty whatsoever supporting the provisions of the
legislation in that regard.
Nor do I imagine will members opposite have any difficulty
supporting the removal of longstanding irritants that veterans
have had with current veteran legislation, irritants such as the
handling of mistaken overpayments, the correction of the negative
consequences of lump sum payments and their effect on war
veterans allowance, and the issue of income testing and access to
health care. The changes proposed by Bill C-41 will remove those
irritants. As a result veterans will feel more secure that their
benefits will continue unimpeded by bureaucratic rules and
regulations.
One of the things the department prides itself on is the front
line service it gives to veterans at its offices across the
nation. Staff in the field have developed long term
relationships with veterans, some of them spanning the decades.
They realize that many of their aging clients can have difficulty
navigating the complex and complicated rules and regulations, not
only as they exist within veterans affairs but with other federal
departments as well.
The department has taken on a full service profile when a
veteran walks in the door. Put simply, this client centred
approach makes a commitment to design, implement and maintain
services from the client's point of view, not from the point of
view of the bureaucrats.
Veterans Affairs Canada has been a leader in client centred
service delivery. At its best, this type of service means
cutting red tape and communicating in plain language. It means
making sure that our veterans and all other clients who require
our services never feel that they have knocked on the wrong door
when looking for our help. Veterans affairs has served clients
in this manner for decades now.
Members will notice provisions in Bill C-41 which ensure that
the department can continue to render this type of front line
service. The provisions have been carefully worded in order to
balance service for our increasingly aging clients with their
privacy rights.
Finally there are several more specific measures, some of which
we have already heard about. They include for instance:
permitting both veteran disability pensioners who are married or
living common law to receive the married rate; extending
remission authority to all types of overpayments of veterans
benefits; reformulating the provisions governing the assessment
of outside disability benefits, such as dealing with workers
compensation or court awarded damages for personal injury; and
providing for a one year continuation of a deceased veteran's
pension to the guardian of the veteran's surviving children.
Other measures included are: consolidating the provisions
relating to service and special duty areas as well as Korean war
service directly into the pension act; improving and clarifying
the exchange and use of client information, both internally and
with other departments; insulating client information from having
to be disclosed by public servants in non-criminal legal
proceedings; reformulating the provisions governing the amount of
income support under the War Veterans Allowance Act when income
has declined since the previous year; allowing compassionate
awards to be continued to survivors without the necessity of a
high level readjudication.
There are also technical housekeeping changes to clarify
regulation making authorities, to improve the wording, to ensure
the use of gender inclusive language, to correct cross
references, and to remove obsolete acts and provisions.
1310
That is quite a list. It is not called an omnibus bill without
good reason. Some of the changes are pretty technical and they
can be discussed at length during the committee. As a committee
member, I certainly look forward to that discussion.
If we keep our eye on the ball we see three distinct parts to
the legislation. It provides benefits to previously overlooked
civilian groups who provided service to the war effort. It
improves access to disability pensions for currently serving
Canadian forces members so that the playing field is level for
everyone. It makes housekeeping changes that will remove
irritants for veterans and clean up or remove outdated parts of
the legislation.
I would like to make reference to the issue of the merchant navy
special benefit which has been raised by a number of members and
provide some up to date information with respect to the
processing of those claims. That issue has certainly been raised
in the local media around Ottawa and it is essential that members
have the most up to date information.
This is the current status of the merchant navy special benefit.
As of the July 31 deadline for applications, 13,928 applications
had been received. Sixty per cent of those have been processed.
More than 4,300 cheques totalling approximately $31 million had
been issued by September 14, 2000. The Government of Canada had
earmarked $50 million for the merchant navy veterans special
benefit and Veterans Affairs Canada is currently doing a
statistical sample of the remaining applications in order to
project the total cost of the benefit. This information should
be available early in the fall.
During the early weeks of August 2000, departmental officials
consulted with five veterans organizations that represent the
interests of merchant navy veterans. The purpose of the
consultations was to provide information to the organizations
about the status of processing applications and to seek their
advice and input on policy issues that had been previously
raised, including dual service in the military, review and appeal
process and the requirement for payment of war risk bonus. The
discussions were productive and the veterans organizations
continue to provide constructive input.
All of that to say that the government is certainly very, very
concerned about the status of veterans in Canada. I for one,
working with the defence and veterans affairs committee, have
sensed a very non-political approach to this by members of the
committee. I find it unfortunate personally that some media
people have decided to try to turn this into something of a
political football.
In conclusion, as far as Bill C-41 is concerned, it has my full
and unqualified support. With some changes I believe that the
committee can make it an even better bill to ensure that our
veterans receive the very best of benefits and care from the
Government of Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion
carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Under the circumstances, I believe if you were to seek the
consent of the House, the House would give its consent to see the
clock as 1.30 p.m. and we might proceed to private members'
business.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to see the clock as being 1.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1315
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance) moved that
Bill C-321, an act to amend the criminal code to provide for the
forfeiture of property relating to child pornography crimes, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be here today to
lead off the first hour of debate on the second reading of Bill
C-321. This is my first private members' bill. For those
members who do not have a copy of the bill in front of them,
C-321 is an amendment to section 163.1 of the criminal code,
which would allow a court that convicts a person of an offence
under the provisions relating to child pornography to order the
forfeiture of anything by means of which or in relation to which
the offence was committed.
Before I get too carried away, there are a number of people I
want to acknowledge and thank for their hard work in making the
bill happen. This is in no particular order, but I wish to thank
Detective Inspector Bob Matthews who heads up Canada's lead
agency in the fight against child pornography, the 16 member
Ontario Provincial Police Child Pornography Unit, Project P.
Detective Inspector Matthews is a widely respected voice in the
debate between free speech advocates and law enforcement. He is
one of Canada's top law enforcement agents in the field of child
pornography investigations.
In early 1999 my office was researching the contentious issue of
child pornography and controls on the Internet. During the
course of the research my assistant contacted Mr. Matthews and
asked him what we could do as parliamentarians to assist police
in their fight against the sexual exploitation of children. This
bill resulted from that discussion.
Detective Inspector Matthews “Thank you very much, sir, for
giving me this opportunity to assist law enforcement agents in
their efforts against child pornography.”
The second person I want to thank is Detective Noreen Waters of
the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia. Detective Waters
has been a child pornography investigator for eight years and was
part of the team that brought in the now infamous John Robin
Sharpe. She has been an enthusiastic supporter of our bill.
I also wish to thank Sergeant Randy Brennan of the
Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police High Tech Unit. Sergeant Brennan
has been involved in many successful child pornography
investigations and is a valuable source of information.
I also want to recognize Mr. Steve Sullivan, the hardworking
president and CEO of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of
Crime. Steve has been a tireless advocate of victims' rights and
has worked with members of parliament to change the justice
system to place the rights of victims above criminals.
Before I go on, I also want to thank all of my staff who helped
me work on this, especially Klaas Deemter, my executive assistant
here in Ottawa, who has spent many hours on this bill. He is a
graduate of the University of Lethbridge in my home riding, one
of the best universities in Canada. I also want to thank my
family and some of my friends who have supported me through all
this.
The list goes on. Those people and many other law enforcement
officers, victims' advocates, federal parliamentarians,
provincial justice ministers and Canadians across the country,
particularly in my riding, have contacted me and offered their
support. To these concerned Canadians I say “Thank you and keep
up that good work. Thank you for fighting to protect children
because today more than ever they need our help”.
I want to broaden the theme of my speech today to discuss the
challenges of controlling child pornography in today's Internet
age. In my speech I hope to expose the depth of the problem
facing policy makers and law enforcement. I also wish to share
with members and viewers some of the ideas that I have to tackle
these challenges.
At the root of these challenges lies the Hydra-like nature of the
Internet. In its humble beginnings as a forum for academia and
the military, the Internet was boring and difficult to navigate.
It contained only dry text, no images or flashy graphics.
However, the creation of graphical interface known as the world
wide web in 1993 has created a surge in popularity unlike
anything seen before. From little more than 100 sites in 1993,
the web has grown to the point where some industry experts
estimate that over 800 million web pages exist today, with some
160,000 pages being added each and every month.
The Internet has revolutionized communications. Most of us in
the House did not even know what e-mail was a few years ago, but
today our children and our grandchildren are growing up having
never known anything but instantaneous communication as developed
through the Internet.
Businesses, organizations, government agencies and individuals
have seized on this technology, setting up websites and changing
how we interact with each other.
1320
However, with increased usage comes increased abuse. In his
report “Innocence Exploited: Child Pornography in the
Electronic Age”, prepared for the Canadian Police College,
Winnipeg Professor Doug Skoog estimates that there are at least one
million sexually explicit images of children on the Internet. It
is a horrible thing to even think about.
OCABC Detective Waters shared with me recent stats which
estimate that 53% of Internet traffic is concerned with sexually
explicit material. Calgary Detective Butch Dickens of the vice
unit had this to say about child pornography on the Internet in a
newspaper article last year “A year ago, we probably only got
one phone call a month about it. Now, on average, we get four a
day”.
Before the advent of the world wide web, child pornography
detectives around the world could say with confidence that they
were winning the war against child pornography. The old methods
of creation and distribution were tremendously risky. Instead of
safely and anonymously zipping images down the fibre optic
pipelines of the Internet, carefully arranged meetings, secret
mailing lists and postal drops placed pedophiles at extreme risk
of arrest.
However, that has all changed. Detective Inspector Bob Matthews
states “The Internet has become almost the perfect vehicle for
pedophiles to distribute child pornography, the reason being that
at the stroke of a key, anyone can send large volumes of
information from one country to another without being detected by
authorities”.
Child abusers and pedophiles are rapidly creating a no holds
barred red light district on the web where they can distribute
vast quantities of pornography, often extremely explicit and
violent, to the point of murder, and organize with other
like-minded individuals. The anonymity offered by the Internet
allows child molesters to stalk their victims in their homes,
schools and libraries without ever being physically present in
any of those places.
The following are a few of the techniques that they employ to
exploit children. Chatting online in Internet chat rooms where
users can talk to each other by keyboard provides plentiful
hunting grounds where child pornographers can stalk their young
victims. With minimal effort and nominal expense, they can
physically track down their victims regardless of where they
live. These chat rooms and the similar Internet relay chat
channels, IRC, allow for instantaneous messaging in exchange of
contraband files such as images, videos or text.
Another example is sex tourism. With the increase in the use of
the Internet for the sex trade and sexual abuse of children, the
number of websites providing information to travelling pedophiles
has increased dramatically and the sites are extremely explicit in detail.
Children in second and third world countries,
often regarded as little more than property, are routinely
victimized by jet-setting foreigners who then return to their
homes to brag about their exploits. Weak local laws often
restrict the ability of even honest law enforcement agents to do
anything.
Another example is image morphing. With a decent computer and a
little skill, child pornographers can turn almost any picture
into a pornographic image. An $80 software program can morph the
picture of an adult body into a child's, creating the illusion of
reality, a horrific thought when taken to its conclusion.
Another example is real time molestation. Streaming video, which
shows live video on the Internet, enables child molesters to
display their victims in real time to selected members of child
pornography rings and clubs, even permitting them to respond to
requests from their viewers.
Another example is encryption. Skilled child pornographers will
encrypt their messages rendering them unreadable to outsiders.
Some pornographers even have access to the codes of the former
KGB.
Parents who were once confident that living in a small town
insulated them from troubles associated with big cities can no
longer be unmindful about the security of their children. With
the click of a mouse, children in remote areas can be exposed to
the seamy underside of the Net.
In what is becoming an all too often occurrence, cases are being
publicized where children under the age of 18 are being
threatened or even molested by someone they met online.
In July of this year a 45 year old man from the quiet P.E.I.
town of Summerside pleaded guilty to a child pornography case. He
had secretly videotaped a 14 year old girl whom he had coerced
into doing a striptease, then broadcasted it live on the Internet
for viewers in a special interactive online chat room. In same
month, on the other side of the country, police arrested a 28
year old Washington man in a line-up for the ferry to leave
Vancouver Island. In his van was a 14 year old B.C. girl who he
had met online.
1325
Earlier in March of this year, the Ottawa Sun reported
that an 18 year old man was arrested and charged with possession
and distribution of child pornography. An undercover police
officer met the man online while the accused was looking for a
partner in a plot to kidnap, rape and kill a young child.
While stats are hard to come by, there is also evidence that
child pornography, traditionally restricted to bartering, is
becoming very profitable for some criminals. A heavily edited
1998 RCMP report obtained by my colleague for Kootenay—Columbia
indicates that child pornography from Europe and Asia is flooding
into B.C. in the wake of the court ruling suspending the ban on
possession. The videos and magazines sold for between $50 and
$200 depending on content. An arrest by the U.S. customs service
several years ago broke up a child pornography ring where people
were making $25,000 a day showing CD-ROMs of child pornography.
While for pedophiles, child molesters and pornographers the
Internet is like a dream come true, it has become a nightmare for
everyone else. Where once a pedophile may have been able to
control his sexual urges toward children, the Internet has
created a situation where temptation lurks around every corner on
the web. They seek out other pedophiles as a form of peer
validation. This psychological validation leads budding child
molesters and pornographers to believe that they are not strange
or different after all and that it is society, with its laws
declaring sex with children and child pornography to be criminal,
that is wrong. The downward spiral into child exploitation
usually begins with the so-called harmless collection of child
pornography, progressing to sexually explicit online
conversations with children and eventually seeking child victims
online.
Tragically, authorities can only act when the pedophile acts on
his urges. Experts report that before he is arrested the
average child molesting pedophile abuses 35 children. They will
share methods and techniques by which to find children and then
reduce their inhibitions and facilitate seduction. Along the
way, many compulsively and systematically save mementoes and
souvenirs to validate their actions. This is how child
pornography is created.
But understanding the problem, as difficult as it may be, is
only half the job. Problems require solutions.
Some of those concerned about this problem advocate complete
censorship and regulation of anything that appears online. Others
lecture that any restrictions on speech are unacceptable and
prefer to place the responsibility on the users.
The answer, as it always does, lies somewhere in the middle of
these two opposing viewpoints. As policy makers, it is our task
to strike that balance, for we alone have the democratic mandate
of the Canadian people.
Shortly after her swearing in as Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin predicted that the court
would deal extensively with issues of computer crime. The court,
she said, would have to find ways to cope with offences that are
international in scope, given the breadth of the Internet and
computer communications.
Strong, effective legislation is one way that the impact of
child pornographers can be reduced. The supreme court holds in
its hands the linchpin on which many child pornography cases
hinge. It must uphold the ban on possession of child pornography
and its decision on the Sharpe case, which is expected later this
year. Without possession, police are stripped of their most
effective tool and are powerless to stop many cases of abuse.
In 1993, in the wake of the R v Butler decision, parliament
passed Bill C-128 which criminalized all aspects of child
pornography, including the creation, distribution and
importation, as well as simple possession of such material.
Although the constitutionality of the provision criminalizing
possession is currently under review, section 163.1 is considered
among the strongest anti-child pornography legislation in the
world, something Canada can be proud of.
Unfortunately, a provision ordering forfeiture was omitted.
This omission can be best described as an oversight when one
considers that forfeiture exists in 55 different federal statutes
and in various places in the criminal code, clearly demonstrating
that the justice system is not philosophically opposed to such
penalties for criminals.
To correct this omission in the law, I introduced Bill C-321,
which would give courts the authority to order forfeiture and
would give police an extra weapon in their fight against child
pornography.
Currently forfeiture of equipment in the context of a child
pornography offence is handled differently across the country. In
Ontario, the equipment is often forfeited as part of a bartering
between the defence and the prosecution. In British Columbia,
the prosecutors rarely ask for equipment to be forfeited.
1330
To see the danger in this patchwork practice, a little insight is
required into how charges under section 163.1 of the criminal
code are dealt with.
There is hardly a worse crime than the
sexual victimization of our children and perpetrating the sexual
victimization of children is the most insidious purpose of child
pornography.
Because of the strong public condemnation of child pornography, many
offenders will do anything to keep their names out of the public
domain, often eagerly agreeing to plea bargains resulting in
reduced sentences and often with no jail time. This creates a
situation where the case law on the section is scant because the
courts have had few opportunities to comment on it. More
dangerously, these plea bargains often allow the offender to
return to the same environment in which he lost control of his
pedophiliac urges in the first place. Returning him to this
environment with all his equipment intact is a temptation that
could prove too strong to resist.
By ordering forfeiture the risk of recidivism can be lowered.
Because a child pornography addiction is fueled by psychological
problems and not profit, many offenders have limited means.
Indeed, their compulsion likely creates financial hardship as the
individual spends much of his free time and money in the pursuit
of his fantasy. Confiscating several thousand dollars worth of
computer equipment and perhaps even a vehicle or something more
substantial will create a financial barrier to re-offending. Of
course I understand that is only money and does not address the
root cause of the problem, but it is one way that we can slow down
traffic in this horrific crime.
The technology of our rapidly changing world continues to create
legislative challenges for us here in parliament. Expanding the
legislation, filling in the holes, adapting to change, as we are
trying to do, is necessary because criminals do not stand still
and neither should we.
Bill C-321 is only one example of an amendment to section
163.1. Some have suggested that the encryption of child
pornography be treated the same way as using a firearm to commit
an offence is. Others are concerned that sound files are not
restricted under section 163.1. Still others advocate the
creation of a national task force, similar to those in the United
States, staffed with federal, provincial and local police
officers and given an aggressive mandate to stamp out child
pornography in Canada. Just last week the federal justice
minister met with her colleagues and proposed to criminalize the
luring of children for the purposes of sexual exploitation via
the Internet. I commend her for that. All of these are measures
are things that I and, I am sure Canadians are strongly
supportive of.
In the last 10 or 15 minutes we have heard about
the dangers of the Internet. Some of the members are no doubt
concerned about the safety of their loved ones. I would be glad
to share some of the steps we can take to help protect our
children from predators.
It was out of my own concern for the safety of Canadian children
that I took this initiative. We researched the issue of child
pornography on the Internet and tabled this bill. I acknowledge
that my bill may not be written in the most precise legal
terminology and I am open to any improvement to it. I took on
the challenge of tabling a private member's bill as a justice
themed bill knowing that the odds are stacked against my success,
but I did it because I believe in the spirit of my bill. I could
not stand by without doing something to help.
As members return to their families this weekend, relax and
enjoy their company. I urge all members to take some time to
think of the difference, even if it is just a small difference,
that my bill could make in the fight against child pornography.
Let us think of the law enforcement agents who have made it their
life's work to make our country safe from the perversions of
these child molesters. Let us think of the victims of these
cold-blooded criminals and help me make a difference.
The government is in the fourth year of its mandate and the next
election could come at any time. It seems to be getting closer
and closer but nobody is telling us. As the House knows, when an
election is called all legislation is dropped from the order
paper no matter what stage it is at and no matter how
commendable. Bearing this in mind, I urge the government, as
part of its commitment to criminalizing the luring of children
over the Internet for the purposes of sexual exploitation, to
acknowledge that not all good ideas come from its side and adopt
the forfeiture provisions contained in my bill. Let us give the
children of Canada the maximum protection allowable under the
law.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate of Bill
C-321, an act to amend the criminal code to provide for the
forfeiture of property relating to child pornography crimes.
At the outset I wish to congratulate the hon. member for
Lethbridge for his concern about child pornography, a concern
that the government shares with him and a great number of
Canadians.
1335
Our children are the most vulnerable members of our society and
we must do all that we can to protect our children from harm. No
one will deny that child pornography seriously harms children. I
believe it does so in at least two ways. It creates a permanent
record of the sexual abuse of children and perpetuates the
message that children are appropriate sexual objects. Indeed,
they are not.
Child pornography was specifically prohibited by amendment to
the criminal code, enacted in 1993. This amendment, which is now
subsection 163.1 of the criminal code, created new offences for
the importation, distribution, sale, production and simple
possession of child pornography. All these offences carry a
greater penalty than the offences prohibiting obscene materials
involving adults.
These criminal code provisions against child pornography take on
a greater importance with the rapidly expanding use of the
Internet. It is now easier to communicate valuable information
and carry on discussions on all kinds of subjects with people who
share our interests. Unfortunately it also makes it easier to
disseminate and collect images of child pornography.
The purpose of the child pornography provisions is primarily to
protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation, but also to
send a clear message that it is not appropriate to have sex with
children or to portray them as sexual objects. I know that
Canadians are greatly supportive of this legislation prohibiting
child pornography.
The purpose of Bill C-321 is very much in line with the purpose
of the child pornography provisions since its purpose is to
create an additional deterrent to child pornography. It would
add to the sentence currently available under the criminal code a
financial penalty that would result from a forfeiture to the
crown of all tools and instruments that have been used in the
commission of the offence. Bill C-321 would provide the judge
with discretion to forfeit anything “by means of or in
relation to which” a child pornography offence was committed.
I wholeheartedly support this purpose.
However, I have some questions on the working of the provisions
as drafted. I am particularly concerned that the bill might
unnecessarily penalize individuals who have nothing to do with
the offence.
It would be the case of an employee who uses the Internet during
his lunch hour to download child pornography images on an office
computer. He might also transmit these images to others; to do
so, he would use the computer provided by his employer for
conducting business for which he is employed. He would also use
it to access and distribute child pornography without the
knowledge of his employer and, of course, without his consent.
The offence would clearly be committed by means of the computer.
If the employee was convicted of a child pornography offence,
the judge could, in addition to sentencing him to imprisonment
for up to 10 years, order the forfeiture of the computer. Bill
C-321 would allow this. In this case the forfeiture would
penalize the employer and not the employee who committed the
offence. The person penalized would be an innocent third party
and not the person guilty of the offence. This is a
consideration that we should keep in mind.
I can see another problem in relation to forfeiture of
“anything by means of which the offence was committed”. In
order to receive and transmit on the Internet one needs a server
or a router, which is typically owned by a service provider.
Could the server be forfeited? I do not see anything in the bill
that would prevent it. Other criminal code provisions that would
allow forfeiture of the tools used in the commission of an
offence specifically exempt public communications facilities and
equipment from forfeiture. That is not the case here.
I support the purpose of this bill, but I have concerns with its
practical implications. This bill may require further
consideration and amendment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to speak today at second reading of Bill C-321, an
act to amend the criminal code to provide for the forfeiture of
property relating to child pornography crimes. This bill,
introduced by the member for Lethbridge, is votable, and the
Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the amendment to the criminal
code.
This bill consists of a single clause, which I will read:
1. The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after
section 163.1:
163.2 Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection
163.1(2), (3) or (4), the court that convicts the person may, in
addition to any other punishment imposed on the person, order
that anything by means of which or in relation to which the
offence was committed be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of
the province in which the person is convicted, for disposal as
the Attorney General may direct.
Since this is a bit obscure for the average person, I will
simplify.
1340
The purpose of this amendment to the criminal code is to make it
possible to confiscate, by court order, and following a
conviction, any material that has been used to commit a child
pornography offence.
In order to properly take in the ramifications of the bill
introduced by the member for Lethbridge, it is important first
of all to have a thorough understanding of the implications of
the offences listed under section 163.1, which have to do with
the making, distribution or sale, and possession of child
pornography.
Prior to 1993, the criminal code contained no specific
provisions relating to child pornography.
In 1993, as the result of the Butler decision, parliament passed
Bill C-128, an act to amend the criminal code and the customs
tariff (child pornography and corrupting morals). Its aim was
to amend the criminal code to expressly prohibit child
pornography.
In the Butler decision, which was given in 1992, the supreme
court had to decide on the constitutionality of the definition
of obscenity as set out in section 163(8) of the criminal code.
The court stated that pornography describing sexual acts
involving children constituted the undue exploitation of sex,
and accordingly the production and distribution of this type
of pornography were prohibited by the provisions of the criminal
code.
Although freedom of expression guaranteed under section 2(b) of
the charter of rights and freedoms—fundamental freedoms such as
the freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression,
including the freedom of the press and other means of
communication—was infringed upon as far as the supreme court is
concerned, this infringement is justifiable under the first
section of the charter.
However, the criminal code made no reference to the offence of
simple possession of child pornography. Bill C-128 therefore
filled this legal void by adding specific provisions to the
criminal code with respect to child pornography, including a
definition of it and providing that the distribution, sale,
production and possession relating to this definition were
criminal offences.
In adding the offence of simple possession, the aim of the
legislator was to dissuade people from undertaking this sort of
activity and thus further protect children against sexual
exploitation.
Recently in British Columbia, John Sharpe's acquittal—the
decision drew attention to the urgent and growing problem of
child pornography—sparked a general outcry right across the
country.
Not only was this decision questionable, relating as it did
pornography with freedom of expression, it also pointed out the
weakness of the instruments available to the law in seizures of
pornographic material.
Sharpe was charged with the offences in subsections 163.1(3) and
(4) of the Criminal Code for possessing pornographic material
involving children.
In this decision, the judge declared the section invalid because
it infringed section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and acquitted John Sharpe accordingly.
1345
According to Justice Shaw, it was not clearly demonstrated that
child pornography had direct harmful effects. He also pointed
out that freedom of expression is an important value, that an
individual's personal effects relate to that person's particular
character and personality and that banning mere possession has
an impact on a highly intimate and private aspect of a person's
life.
Following on the Sharpe case, a motion relating to child
pornography was brought before the House.
That motion, by what was then, Reform Party, called for the
government to immediately the move to use the notwithstanding clause
in order to maintain the ban on the simple possession of child
pornography as set out in subsection 163.1(4), which had been struck
down by the Sharpe decision.
Reiterating its attachment to the social values condemning child
pornography, the Bloc Quebecois expressed its conviction that,
although this issue needed to be addressed, it was premature to
immediately invoke the notwithstanding clause and that justice
ought to follow its course to the Supreme Court of Canada. The
Bloc Quebecois therefore opposed the motion.
Only this past January 18 did the supreme court hear this
controversial case.
The supreme court decision, which is about to be released, will
attract the attention and interest of everyone. Let us recall
that the supreme court stipulated in 1992, in Butler, that “The
overriding objective of s. 163 is not moral disapprobation but
the avoidance of harm to society, and this is a sufficiently
pressing and substantial concern to warrant a restriction on
freedom of expression”.
We are confident that the justices of the supreme court will
rule along the same line in this case, justifying the attack on
guaranteed charter rights and quashing the British Columbia
Appeal Court judgment. The similarity with Butler leads us to
believe that this will be justified under section one of the
charter, given the potential of irreparable harm to the children.
Right now, section 164 of the code provides for the seizure,
under certain conditions, of pornographic material, but this
section has a very limited application. Only copies of a
publication or copies of a representation or written material
may be seized.
The purpose of Bill C-321 is to make it possible to seize
everything that was used to commit an offence. Accordingly,
under this new legislation, it would be possible to seize such
things as the computer used to download the pornographic
publications, the printer, the camera or anything else that made
it possible to make, distribute, sell or possess the child
pornography.
There are increasing numbers of organized networks for the
distribution of pornographic material and their activities are
made easier by the explosion of telecommunications technologies,
which make access almost universal.
Anyone, including children, has access, which is why it is
important to put even more energy than ever into fighting these
networks and giving the courts the tools they need.
Not only must the final product, whether copies of a publication
or copies of a representation or written material, be seized,
but so must everything used to produce and distribute this
pornography. Only thus can we hope to help destabilize these
networks and weaken their production capacity.
As the Bloc Quebecois pointed out during the debate held in the
fall of 1999, it is imperative that section 163.1 stand, but
what is also needed are tools that allow material to be seized,
for the safety and dignity of our children. This is precisely
what—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry, but the hon.
member's time is up.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: This is unfortunate. Could I have
the unanimous consent of the House to finish my speech?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House to read one last paragraph?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1350
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the bill
introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge is a laudable
initiative. It improves the existing legislative provisions and
will help lead an effective fight against pedophilia.
Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-321 and hopes
that the committee will soon review it.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from
Lethbridge for bringing forward the legislation. Bill C-321 is
important to complete a process that has been under way in terms
of dealing with child pornography. As he has indicated in his
presentation, it fills a void which the last piece of legislation
overlooked, I suspect inadvertently.
I also want to recognize that the initiative brought forward by
the hon. member for Lethbridge was previously brought forward by
the hon. member for Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing and also the hon.
member for Sydney—Victoria. I am sure the hon. member is aware
of their initiatives along a similar line. Today we have an
opportunity to round out the legislation.
I want to address the concerns raised about the legislation
by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I
think his concerns are inappropriate. I do not think he actually
read the bill, because had he read it he would not have said what
he did in the House of Commons. My friend from Lethbridge said
he was open to suggestions and that we could amend the
legislation if that is what is required if we need to improve it,
but just to toss it out because somebody has some concern about
some wording is inappropriate.
The parliamentary secretary said that this bill could penalize
the employers of those weird people who use the Internet to
download child pornography while they are at work. The
legislation says:
Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection
163.1(2), (3) or (4), the court that convicts the person may, in
addition to any other punishment imposed on the person, order
that anything by means of which or in relation to which the
offence was committed be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the
province—
I emphasize that it uses the word may. In other words, the court
may do this. No court in its right mind would say that if an
employee of the House of Commons downloads child pornography the
computers of the House of Commons will be forfeited. It is
insanity. Give the judge some credit for making a reasonable
decision.
The parliamentary secretary went on to say that perhaps the
server could be forfeited. Imagine any judge saying that because
a person was using a particular server on their computer while
they were downloading pornographic pictures of children, the
server on their computer system would be forfeited. It is just
insanity.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary to at least read the
legislation before he suggests that changes are required and
notice that the word may is used and not the word shall. I see my
friend the parliamentary secretary is back in the House of
Commons. Perhaps he will have a chance to clarify his error on a
point of order.
Colleagues in the New Democratic Party have been calling for
this for a number of years. We will inevitably and undoubtedly
endorse the bill when it comes up for a vote after another two
hours of debate.
From a personal perspective I have received many
representations, not only about this legislation but about the
whole issue before us. I have had representations from the RCMP
and other law enforcement agencies, from a variety of churches in
my constituency, from the legal aid office and women's groups. I
have heard from lawyers who see this abuse on a regular basis in
their courtroom work. I have heard from a variety of unions,
from the Kamloops and District Labour Council, from the chamber
of commerce, from the regional district, from our mayor and
council in Kamloops, and from a variety of non-profit agencies
and associations. Of course many citizens have written to
members. I suspect all of us have received a lot of mail on this
issue.
We should endorse this bill enthusiastically. It should not be
some serious debate, because who is in favour of child
pornography? Obviously no one in the House is. We are dealing
with some pretty unusual people to start with.
As the member for Lethbridge pointed out, this has come to us
from the Internet. Internet abuse as he terms it is almost like
a red light use of the Internet and the world wide web whereby a
variety of pornography can be seen.
1355
I suspect there is hardly anybody in here who has actually used
a computer who has not come across a pornographic site. Often
they show up when we do not expect them. A person may be
interested in deer, for example, and may decide to look up
Bambi. If the person looks up Bambi, a pornographic site comes
up.
I suspect that kids all over the place are now being confronted
with pornography by accident, let alone all the people we are
talking about here, the child predators and people who prey on
children. Everyone now has easy access to this.
I encourage the parliamentary secretary to talk to his
colleagues. I suspect, from what I have heard on this side of
the House, that we are supporting this private member's
initiative. I would like to think that he and his colleagues in
the Liberal Party would also support it. My goodness, what
better way for the House to do something meaningful than to have
every political party and the independents getting onside to
discourage, in every way possible, people from using child
pornography via the Internet.
If the parliamentary secretary has a concern about wording he
should bring forward an amendment. That is what these debates
are all about. I know he is a thoughtful individual and I would
encourage him to do just that.
I think the case has been made. My hon. friend from Lethbridge,
who pointed out from his research that 53% of all traffic on
Internet deals with sex in some way or another, opens up some
pretty interesting questions. Today we are focusing on the abuse
of the Internet when it comes to child pornography. I think we
need to do everything possible to deal with this, and this
legislation takes us in that right direction.
My friend from Lethbridge also reminded us that this does not
deal with the root cause, the individuals themselves who, because
of their physiological and psychological makeup, are people
who prey on children, who are pedophiles, people who are using
the national and international sexual chat line to consciously
victimize young people. We have to do whatever we possibly can
to stop this.
Today my friend from Lethbridge brings forward a private
member's bill that will close the gap somewhat. I hear from
parliamentary secretary that the Liberals have some concerns, but
I hope we can rectify those concerns by a simple amendment to the
legislation or perhaps through regulation. After all, the
legislation simply provides the overall umbrella. It is the
regulations that flow from that which would be helpful. It is
fair to say that no judge will suggest that we confiscate
someone's computer because some individual in his or her employ
decided to download some child pornography.
We in the New Democratic Party are pleased with anything
we can do to stop the victimization of children in our society,
whether it is the issue of child poverty and the suffering that
causes children or the issue we are talking about today, the
misuse of the Internet for child exploitation. We are very
strongly behind any initiative to that extent.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have received
notice from the hon. member for Lakeland that he is unable to
move his motion during private members' business on Monday,
September 25, 2000.
[Translation]
Since it was not possible to arrange an exchange of positions on
the order of precedence, I will ask the clerk to drop this item
to the bottom of the order of precedence.
The hour provided for consideration of private members' business
will therefore be suspended and consideration of government
orders will begin at 11 a.m.
* * *
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-321,
an act to amend the criminal code to provide for the forfeiture
of property relating to child pornography crimes, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to Bill C-321, an act to amend the criminal
code to provide for the forfeiture of property relating to child
pornography crimes, introduced by the member for Lethbridge.
Certainly this is a timely and important bill, and a bill that
all members of parliament should be able to support.
The purpose of the bill is to allow a court that convicts a
person of an offence under section 163.2 of the criminal code
concerning child pornography, to order the forfeiture of
anything used in committing the offence or related to the
offence.
This legislation is needed for the safety and the protection of
every child in Canada. The legislation resulted from a court
case in British Columbia in which the court ruled that an
individual had the right to possess child pornography, something
that the PC Party does not agree with.
1400
The original decision in the Sharpe case was appealed to the
British Columbia Supreme Court, which upheld its ruling of January
1999. Following the court decision, the PC Party justice critic,
the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, called on the
Minister of Justice to immediately refer the matter to the
Supreme Court of Canada. Since the supreme court was ultimately
going to hear the case, the PC Party wanted to expedite this
process and ensure that children in Canada had the full
protection afforded by the criminal code.
Again, in February 1999 the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said to the Minister of Justice:
There is an urgent need for clarification for law enforcement
agents, the judiciary, and all Canadians. The protection of
children afforded by section 163 of the Criminal Code should be
paramount.
Will the Minister of Justice do more than simply intervene in
the B.C. appeal and will she reference the Sharpe case to the
Supreme Court of Canada immediately?
We all know the results of that. However, the matter is finally
before the Supreme Court of Canada and we await the decision of
the court. If the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada does
not overturn the original decision allowing possession of child
pornography, the PC Party would support the use of the
notwithstanding clause. This would suspend the decision for five
years and allow parliament to introduce legislation to make
possession of child pornography an offence.
This is an obvious radical action, but without question, given
the heinous nature of this crime, radical action is required. By
the way, this position has enormous public support.
Our position is also supported by the Canadian Police
Association. The 30,000 members of the police association have
publicly outlined their support for this legislation and the
importance of ensuring that anything used in the commission of an
offence under the child pornography provisions could be ordered
forfeited by the court. The Canadian Police Association noted
that this provision would include seizure of computer equipment
used in the offence. As the Internet is a source of child
pornography, this legislation would enable the law to keep pace
with technology and recognize the role that the Internet plays in
such offences.
This is a case where the need to protect those most vulnerable
in society must supersede the rights of the individual. The
Parliament of Canada has the duty to use every avenue available
to protect society and especially children from sexual predators.
We support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I know my time is short this afternoon but I think
we have heard some excellent commentary on the bill on this side.
I was somewhat troubled, though, to hear the comments from the
Liberal member opposite reflecting the government's position on
the bill. Primarily, it seems the one concern that the
government has about the bill is the fact that someone may use
someone else's equipment in purveying or getting hold of this
grievous material and therefore the person who owns the equipment
would be held criminally responsible.
If that is the only reason the government is considering not
moving ahead on this important initiative, it is a very weak one.
In Canada today we have laws in place that allow for the
forfeiture of equipment and all that went into propagating hate
propaganda. If we can do it for hate propaganda, why can we not
do it for child pornography?
We have examples in other parts of the world. The United States
has very significant forfeiture legislation which has been used
to forfeit property, houses and things with relation to this kind
of crime. Therefore it can be done and it has been done in other
types of legislation.
To say we cannot move ahead on this because we have some
confusion about who might be held responsible because of who owns
the equipment is a complete sham, I would suggest, and a real
disappointment.
1405
There are many issues that come to the House that we have
different positions or, but I do not think we have on the issue
of child pornography. We owe it to the Canadian people, those
who are watching and those who are concerned about this issue,
to show some unity on this, move quickly and make Canada a
place in the world where there is a zero tolerance policy for
child pornography. This is one incremental step to move us that
much closer to it.
It is disappointing to hear the government say that it wants to
put up some little roadblock to stall this when it could move
ahead, particularly when we had the minister say that
she wanted to move ahead with legislation to tighten up the whole
cyber-stalker situation whereby people are luring children into
this on the Internet. It is an excellent initiative. What an
excellent time to integrate this improvement, plug the loop-hole
that was missed and solve both problems at the same time. I
encourage cabinet and members opposite to rethink their position
and integrate this as quickly as possible.
I had that experience myself when I brought forward a private
member's bill to the House. It allowed children's organizations
to have access to the pardoned records of convicted pedophiles.
We had unanimous agreement on this side of the House. The
cabinet voted against it, but the majority of backbench Liberals
voted with the bill. Eventually it went to committee and we had
everybody onside. Then the government brought forward a bill
much like mine, we made improvements to it, it went through the
Senate and has now become law.
In the House there is agreement on this issue that in Canada we
should have a zero tolerance policy. This bill is timely and is
the kind of thing we can all agree on.
I remember that in the committee meeting, and I believe the hon.
member opposite also remembers, we all decided to integrate my
bill into the government bill, make improvements and
send it back to the House with a recommendation that it go
forward and become law. It was one of the few times that
everyone around that table gave a round of applause and a cheer
went up because we knew that we had done the right thing.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, to the House and to all who are
listening that we quickly move on this bill. Let us do the right
thing. Let us get it done and move ahead for all those people
who have been concerned about the Sharpe case, which is still
pending after almost two years, and who have been waiting to hear
that possession of child pornography remains illegal in
this country. It has been a shame for so long. Then
all those people, almost 500,000 of them who signed those
petitions that I delivered to the House, will start to see the
House move on this issue and move quickly.
Hopefully the Sharpe decision will come down in the next few
days. We have had enough doors being opened for child
pornography in Canada. There is agreement in the House. There
is clearly agreement across the land that we do not want it in
Canada. Let us work together to make sure that we see that
agreement acted upon and the doors closed as quickly as possible.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I look around the House today and I do not think there
is a single member of parliament in this place who would say that
they were in favour of kiddie porn, or in favour of pederasts or
any of that type of stuff that would be condoned by these types
of activities. For the folks back home, I do not think there is
anybody here who would support kiddie porn. If there is, I want
that member of parliament to raise his or her hand. No, I did not
think so. The question then comes down to what is the best way
to deal with the problem.
First, I commend my colleague from Lethbridge for having brought
this forward. He mentioned in his speech, and others touched on
it, that one of the ways to potentially deal with this issue is
to try to regulate the Internet. That is an incredibly unwieldy
proposition and is next to impossible. Our ability to try to
restrict some website in the United States and somebody in Canada
from having access to it is very difficult. Even trying trying
to restrict it within the country would be difficult as well. We
all know how quickly these things are growing and how much the
Internet is taking off by leaps and bounds. That is just one
aspect of this. I think that would be very difficult to do.
1410
Another aspect, though, is the whole idea of the forfeiture of
property, of seizing the tools of the trade of these people who
engage in child pornography. If they are engaging in child
pornography and are using computers for those purposes, surely it
makes absolute sense to seize the tools of the trade. It would
make it all that much more difficult for them to do so. If we
take away the computers it probably would go a long way toward
stopping their dalliances on the Internet and their spreading of
the material. If we take their digital cameras or whatever they
happen to use, if we seize their ability to capture visible
images, it would go a long way toward ending the dissemination of
material.
People who go to great trouble and cause problems by somehow
obtaining visual images of the sexual exploitation of minors
could be processed under law and convicted for having done what
they did. Let us imagine the oddity of their keeping the
material and possibly selling it to others or somehow making a
profit from what they have done by distributing it to other
individuals who share their predilections. That would be not
right. I do not think any MP in the House thinks that would be
right.
The only point the government brought forward in this
consideration is if somebody worked for a company and used a
computer there to download or somehow distribute such images. It
is a pretty weak case. I put the issue to the people at home who
are watching today. It is not a fair analogy or something that
would serve as a real roadblock for the legislation to carry
forward. It is something that the government's representatives
on the streets of the country, the police, say is the right way
to deal with the issue.
Surely the parliamentary secretary must be willing sometimes to
step aside from his academic or theoretical and abstract
considerations with regard to some of these issues and listen to
his own deputies, his own people on the street, the ones who deal
with pornographers on a day in, day out basis, make it their
lives and spend decades trying to hunt down some of these
criminals. Surely listening to them makes sense.
If the parliamentary secretary cannot listen to police officers
who deal with the criminal investigation of pedophiles or child
pornographers, to whom can he listen? Would he take the word of
somebody in the Department of Justice, some lawyer worried about
some particular nuance, the crossing of a t and dotting of
an i with regard to a clause, or of somebody who deals with
child pornographers and pedophiles on a regular basis and sees
the sick work they do?
Police officers enforce this aspect of the law. They probably
have a far better understanding of its reaches and consequences
than the parliamentary secretary could ever dream of, and certainly
more than whoever it is in the Department of Justice with whom he
consults on these matters. I ask him to pay close attention to
what police officers have to say in this regard and to give due
consideration to the bill.
I would like to wrap up by saying that my colleague, the member for
Lethbridge, has done commendable work. It is noble of him to
have listened closely to police officers who work in this very
area and to have come up with legislation. Once again I applaud
the idea that rather than trying to regulate the Internet, which
is an incredibly difficult and possibly impossible task, we focus
on the tools of the trade of pornographers and pedophiles and go
after them instead. He may be able to provide more resources to
police officers, those people on the beat that the parliamentary
secretary does not seem to want to listen to in this case, so
that they can go ahead and do the good work they do.
I ask that the parliamentary secretary and the government do the
right thing in this regard.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
[English]
Accordingly the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.15 p.m.)