CONTENTS
Friday, September 30, 1994
Bill C-22. Motion not to concur 6371
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6371
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6373
Bill C-52. Motion for second reading 6374
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 6378
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6379
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6380
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6382
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6382
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6383
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6383
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6383
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6383
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6383
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6383
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6384
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6384
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6384
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6384
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6384
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6385
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6385
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6385
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6385
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6385
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6386
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6386
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6387
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6387
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6387
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6387
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6388
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6389
Motion for concurrence in 35th report 6390
Motion for concurrence in 36th report 6390
Changes in membership of committee 6390
(Motion deemed withdrawn.) 6390
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6391
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6391
Bill C-52. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 6391
6371
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, September 30, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the matter raised
Tuesday last by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway
concerning the speech of the hon. member for Central Nova on
September 20, 1994 during the debate on Bill C-41, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in
consequence thereof.
[Translation]
I have carefully reviewed the representations of these hon.
members. I also want to thank the Chief Government Whip and
the hon. member for Lethbridge for their contributions.
[English]
From the comments that were made Tuesday and from the
Hansard of September 20 there can be little doubt that there
exists a profound and fundamental difference of opinion among
members.
It is evident from having reviewed Hansard that the opinions
of the hon. member for Central Nova were stated during the cut
and thrust of debate. Further, the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway did indeed have the opportunity to
challenge, refute and question the hon. member on her speech,
as did the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. This is
the very reason for debate.
It is not the role of the Chair to be the arbiter of opinion.
Rather it is the role of the Chair to ensure that debate on any
issue can proceed under the rules which the House has set for
itself.
Held against that standard I am satisfied that the words of the
hon. member for Central Nova were not directed at any one
individual or any member specifically. Rather, they were the
hon. member's personal opinions on the matter. .
[Translation]
I would refer hon. members to a ruling made by the Deputy
Speaker on November 4, 1987, at page 10741 in the Debates. At
that time, he said, in part that if remarks ``were not aimed at a
particular member, the remarks are not unparliamentary''.
[English]
My colleagues, paramount to our political and parliamentary
systems is the principle of freedom of speech, a member's right
to stand in this House unhindered to speak his or her mind.
However when debate in the House centres on sensitive issues,
as it often does, I would expect that members would always bear
in mind the possible effects of their statements and hence be
prudent in their tone and choice of words.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1005)
[Translation]
The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the
motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill
C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the
redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B.
Pearson International Airport.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today with respect to the amendments made to
Bill C-22 by the Senate.
Bill C-22, respecting certain agreements concerning the
redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B.
Pearson International Airport, proposes, among other things,
immunity for the government from any legal action resulting
from its disengagement vis-à-vis Pearson Development
Corporation, with respect to the project to privatize this airport.
The Bloc Quebecois is entirely in favour of this provision of
Bill C-22, and furthermore the position of our party on this issue
is unequivocal; we are asking for a royal commission of inquiry
to take a thorough look at the role played in this matter by the
6372
Canadian financial establishment and the Conservative and
Liberal parties, as well as the lobbyists.
In addition to clauses 7, 8 and 9 of Bill C-22, which free the
government of all legal responsiblity regarding agreements
made by the previous Conservative government with Pearson
Development Corporation, subclause 10(1) states that subject to
the approval of Cabinet ``if the Minister considers it appropriate
to do so, the Minister may-enter into'' agreements to provide
for the payment of damages.
However, subclause 10(2) states, and I quote: ``No amount is
payable under an agreement entered into under this section in
relation to (a) any loss of profit, or (b) any fee paid for the
purpose of lobbying a public office holder-''.
The Bloc Quebecois is, of course, opposed to the payment of
any amount whatsoever to the Pearson Development
Corporation; we are clear on this. We understand that the Liberal
government, by opening the door to compensation in the form of
agreements wishes in a roundabout way to reassure the friends
of the regime, of whatever stripe.
However, the action for damages that Pearson Development
Corporation wants to institute is for $200 million in unrealized
profits. This is unbelievable.
Bill C-22-as we just saw-rejects this option under the
pretext that the bill violates a basic legal principle, ``as it
deprives the parties of their fundamental right to ask the courts
to rule on their disputes with the government''. This right is
enshrined in the constitution of nearly all civilized countries,
but the attitude of Pearson Development Corporation clearly
goes against any kind of basic social ethics.
Such an attitude shows capitalistic greed worthy of
unrestrained economic liberalism without any kind of
protection for ordinary citizens. As far as I know, the right of a
corporation to sue the government and the company it represents
for unrealized profits is not enshrined in the constitutions of
almost all civilized countries. This bill does not deny the right to
sue the government; it simply applies to a specific case, a single
corporation, a single project in depriving Pearson Development
Corporation of the right to extort $200 million from the
Canadian people. That is very clear.
So, to use the same words as corporation officials, it is not a
government attempt to put itself above the law. The Bloc
Quebecois' position goes beyond simply defending Bill C-22.
Our party is defending the very principle of democracy, that is,
people's right to live in decent conditions, in a society that is
well managed politically and economically and protected
against any form of exploitation by capitalist or state enterprise.
(1010)
In this case, Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is rising against
Pearson Development Corporation's shameless attempts to dip
into the public purse by invoking constitutional law.
As for the Senate, its attitude in this matter is most deplorable
and confirms the urgent need for Canadian society to get rid of
this archaic institution and for Quebec society to withdraw from
the federal system. The Upper House once again shows itself as
clearly undemocratic by amending a bill designed to protect,
albeit very incompletely, the interests of Quebecers and
Canadians.
The amendments proposed by senators support the interests of
Pearson Development Corporation, as the Senate proposes to
delete clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 giving the government immunity
from any legal proceedings under the bill, thus leaving the door
open to all financial claims from Pearson Development
Corporation.
In endorsing the corporation's position, the Senate places
itself squarely on the side of Canada's financial interests and
shows its bias in favour of unrestricted capitalist exploitation
without any kind of protection for society in general. It
promotes the proliferation of lobbyists and infiltration by
financial interests, while opening the door to the corruption of
politicians in Canada and Quebec. Nothing less. A great
majority of Quebecers do not want the Senate and I hope that
this House clearly understands this desire.
A major theme of the government's red book, the Liberal
Party's veritable manifesto in the last federal election
campaign, of which they remind this House, is to question the
disproportionate and decisive behind-the-scenes influence of
lobbies on government policies. Their goal is to remake this
same government's image in order to restore public confidence.
So be it, and democracy will be much better in Canada as a
result. Therefore we urge the government to keep its
commitment by refusing any compromise with the lobbies,
senators and companies and by not bowing to this country's
financial establishment.
The Senate is as archaic as it is useless. I think I demonstrated
that in this House on June 8, when, on behalf of the Official
Opposition party, I opposed the funding for that other House.
I repeat, that other House is nothing but a pretext for the
government in power to reward friends of the regime, be they
Tories or Grits, who will then do partisan work either for the
government or for the interests they represent, and it is
important that everyone know this.
The Senate has no democratic legitimacy as an institution. Its
members are appointed by the Governor General who, by
convention, acts on the initiative and advice of the Prime
Minister, who actually makes the appointments. Since the
senators are not elected, the Bloc Quebecois considers the
second chamber to be a political anachronism, a convincing sign
that Canada's federal system is outdated.
6373
On behalf of my colleagues in the Official Opposition, I also
denounce the unacceptable waste which the budget of that
House represents; the Canadian Senate costs some $26.9
million, plus statutory expenditures of $15.7 million, for a total
of $42.6 million. Given the current tough economic times, with
a debt over $500 billion, and unemployment which is especially
high in regions like the one represented by the hon. member
who is trying to interrupt,
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, this amount could be
used for economic recovery and his riding could benefit from
it.
Canada's public debt is partly due to outdated political
structures, such as obsolete political centralism, a constitutional
monarchy that is an unnecessary waste of public funds and an
Upper House that is really just a golden retirement for
politicians or others who have well served the traditional
parties, be they Conservative or Liberal.
(1015)
The Senate of Canada is modeled on the House of Lords in the
British Parliament. It is a chamber of highly distinguished
persons. In keeping with the British tradition, great importance
is placed in the division of legislative powers between two
separate chambers each representing a separate social class: the
people and the nobility.
Regarding the Pearson International Airport affair and the
Senate amendments to Bill C-22, the action of the Upper House
is in keeping with this tradition, nobility having been replaced
by the financiers of the Canadian establishment, represented by
lobbyists and paid by the people.
On the other hand, the structural illogicality of having such a
legislative chamber in a parliamentary system based on the
British model must be recognized.
Mr. Gagnon: ``Allons, enfants de la Patrie''-
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): You can hide many things
from everyone, day after day-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to remind the hon.
member it is not appropriate to sing in this place.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): This is a matter of
blackmail. The very existence of a second legislative chamber in
a British-type parliamentary system is structurally illogical.
Clearly dominated by the executive branch, parliamentary
systems give the Upper House an absolutely ridiculous, if not to
say insignificant, amount of power and yet it costs us a fortune.
To conclude, we consider the proposed amendments to Bill
C-22 inadmissible and undemocratic. The Bloc Quebecois, as
the Official Opposition, is against any legislative activity on the
part of the Senate, an institution which should plainly and
simply be abolished, and asks that a royal commission of inquiry
be held to get right to the bottom of the Pearson International
Airport privatization issue.
The Deputy Speaker: While the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe was speaking, the hon. member for Simcoe
Centre reminded me that he did not get to complete his speech
last time. So, with the hon. members' permission, I suggest that
we let him speak five minutes more.
[English]
I hear a voice telling me that unanimous consent is required
and I think that is probably correct.
On the basis that the member had not completed his time,
there was an error on the part of the Table or the Chair and he was
not given the floor first. I would ask for unanimous consent that
the member might be permitted to complete the five minutes
that are still remaining to him.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, the point I
was developing in the first part of my presentation on Bill C-22
was the fact that what we were doing here actually flies in the
face of what we should be doing to help restore the trust and
confidence that have been lost between the politician and the
voter. I had just completed dealing with the fact that the 30 day
review of the Pearson contract was done by a well identified
Liberal. Without getting into the question of how competent that
individual is, the fact that it was done by somebody so well
connected with the party just flew in the face of what needed to
be an open and honest evaluation of that contract.
The next step in Bill C-22 was that there was a well identified
Liberal appointed to review the compensation package. Again
this flies in the face of what the public told us during the election
campaign, that it wanted something done differently here and it
did not want a continuation of the old politics. This again flew in
the face of that.
(1020)
If it was going to be done it had to be done by a non-partisan,
somebody completely removed from the political arena in order
to restore the confidence that in fact what was happening here
was in the best interests of the taxpayers.
The bill is unprecedented in that it denies the right of
companies involved to the due process of law. Again in the
minds of the public this raises questions. Why is that in there?
Are we trying to hide something? It comes back to the question
of trust in the system.
6374
We tried during the committee stage to open up and give
these people an opportunity to come in and defend their
position, the people whose names and reputations had been
called into question, but this was denied.
To my thinking there is no other option available now than to
go through the courts in order to clear the air so that taxpayers
will indeed know the truth about the original deal but, more
important, will know the justification for the spending of any tax
dollars.
In all fairness those whose names and reputations have been
brought into question must be given their day in court. There is a
saying that those who steal my money steal nothing, but those
who steal my good name steal all.
Do not let this happen. Put yourself in their position and ask if
this is fair. As upset as we all were at the apparent deceit and
abuse of the process in the original deal, two wrongs will not
make it right. The minister said in introducing this bill that he
wanted to be fair and reasonable to all concerned. Let us do that.
Let us be fair and reasonable to the taxpayers as well as the
accused.
It is ironic that all this debate and delay is holding up an
infrastructure project that is a major part of Toronto and Ontario
if indeed not Canada. Here we have this major piece of
infrastructure continuing to deteriorate while this debate goes
on.
This project alone was worth almost a billion dollars,
representing about one-half of the total federal commitment to
infrastructure with the potential for thousands of jobs
immediately and yet to this day it is still not happening.
With so much support on the other side, who is speaking out
for Toronto and Ontario? Not only are we talking about jobs
now, we are talking about jobs that are indirectly tied to Pearson.
The first impression created by a fast, efficient, safe airport
plays a major role in decisions affecting where to locate and
expand new industry.
Pearson operations generate some $2 billion in personal
income, $4 billion in business revenues and $700 million dollars
in tax revenues and we are allowing this gem to deteriorate
daily. It makes no sense.
There is no reason why negotiations should not proceed as
quickly as possible. Pearson Development Corporation has said
in writing that it will do nothing to block expansion. Local
airport authority discussion need not have been delayed.
We cannot delay any further. Far too much is at stake. If this
government is serious about job creation now and in the future,
there is no better way to demonstrate that commitment than
immediate action on Pearson.
This government's lack of confidence in our courts to be fair
and reasonable is as frightening as the cynicism I spoke of
earlier between the voters and the politicians.
There will never be a better time for this government to show
its commitment to more open and honest government as was
promised in the red book than to turn this whole situation over to
the courts.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1025 )
Hon. Allan Rock (for Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency) moved that Bill C-52, an act to
establish the Department of Public Works and Government
Services and to amend and repeal certain acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House
on the subject of Bill C-52, the Department of Public Works and
Government Services Act.
This bill is one of a growing list of initiatives aimed at
renewing, restructuring and revitalizing our approach to
government. Other legislation now before this House will
reorganize and redirect many functions and organizations such
as the Department of Natural Resources, industry, consumer
affairs, communications, science, to name a few.
Bill C-52 also addresses the functions of what used to be
several departments or agencies. These measures are part of a
coherent plan to bring order, efficiency and effectiveness to
government. By merging the functions of public works, supply
and services, the government telecommunications agency and
the translation bureau, Bill C-52 is another step in the direction
of more streamlined, more responsive services to government
operations at less cost.
We can take great satisfaction in the fact that this
rationalization of resources will save the government in the
order of $180 million by 1998.
In this era of fiscal constraint, effectiveness and efficiency are
obviously of extreme importance to all Canadians. Canadians
have a right to expect leadership and the example of the
government to set that leadership and the direction for all
economies.
6375
This means getting our own house in order, getting our
expenditures and deficits under control. Nevertheless, we
should not think of Bill C-52 as mere housekeeping. To get
Canada back on the prosperity path, to create jobs and
well-being we need an innovative economic climate.
Government must provide the leadership and the focus to create
that environment.
In addition to its housekeeping functions Bill C-52 is part of a
strategy to do just that. The strategy was first outlined in
Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada, the
so-called red book which continues to inspire the agenda of this
government.
That document describes the innovative economy that we all
strive to see to completion. It also describes the proper role of
government to create the economic condition to permit
entrepreneurs to succeed.
Specifically, the red book defines the crucial role of the
government in such an innovative system as working with the
private sector to identify strategic opportunities for the future,
then redirecting its existing resources toward the fulfilment of
those opportunities.
The potential impact of the resources we are talking about is
nothing short of tremendous. The department created by this bill
manages an annual cash flow of $1.4 trillion. It buys $10 billion
worth of products and services a year. It lets out about 175,000
contracts for approximately 17,000 different categories of
goods and services every year.
It is the largest property management agency in Canada,
providing work space for 170,000 public servants involving
ownership of $6.5 billion worth of real estate. In the business
world that is called clout. It will be one of the roles of the
Department of Public Works and Government Services to use
that clout effectively. It will be used not only to effect savings
for Canadian taxpayers but also to boost Canadian business. An
organization that does business on the scale I just described
necessarily deals with both big and small buyers and sellers. It
deals with provinces, communities and other federal
departments. It deals with foreign governments and foreign
firms. Its purchasing power permits the public works and
government services to strike alliances with Canadian
governments and firms to achieve strategic objectives such as
penetrating world markets by small Canadian firms that would
otherwise never have this accessibility to them individually.
(1030)
Bill C-52 in fact encourages strategic use of the vast
purchasing power of the government. It encourages the
department to adopt an innovative approach to providing goods
and services to its clients. Equally it encourages a similar
attitude on the part of its customers.
The wording of the legislation makes the bill clear. Where
previous legislation stated that the department shall provide
certain services, Bill C-52 says it may. There is no coercion
here. In essence the bill says to both the department and its
clients: ``If it is efficient and effective let's make a deal''.
Such an arrangement makes for sharp pencils on both sides of
the bargain. If the Department of Public Works and Government
Services wants to keep its customers it will have to be
competitive. Government operations, Canadian businesses and
Canadian taxpayers, everyone, will benefit.
Bill C-52 places in one organization all the tools necessary
for efficient economical services to the federal government. We
have one minister, one deputy minister and one departmental
team dedicated to the task. At the same time the bill provides a
single forum for expression of the interest of clients as well as
suppliers, including businesses and other levels of government.
Flexibility rather than coercion is the spirit of the new
department's mandate. Services provided to federal
organizations would also be made available to provincial,
territorial and local governments but only if they wish to use
them.
Similarly the new legislation permits the department to
provide service to community colleges, school boards and social
service agencies. Federal and provincial governments combined
spend some $50 billion annually on goods and services. A mere
1 per cent savings would add up to half a billion dollars a year. In
addition to greater and more effective service to other
governments and institutions, this flexibility has the potential to
provide significant savings to all Canadians.
Yet a remarkable aspect of the legislation is the simplicity. It
is based largely on existing legislation. No great new powers
have been invented. In sum, it reduces the government
machinery, eliminating overlap and duplication. It provides
one-stop shopping for suppliers and contractors, making it
easier to do business and easier to get information. It permits the
Department of Public Works and Government Services to use its
purchasing power strategically, not only to reduce costs to
taxpayers but to enhance the effectiveness and competitiveness
of all Canadian business.
The legislation is good for business in Canada. It is an
instrument of responsive efficient government that will assist in
creating the economic environment that all Canadian businesses
need to get on with the task of creating jobs and economic
well-being.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-52, which is at second reading today, is primarily an attempt
to group four different services under the same authority.
(1035)
These services either existed as distinct entities before, such
as public works and government services which were formerly
two separate departments, or were part of another department,
as was the case for telecommunications and translation services.
In any case, under the new legislation those four services will
6376
now be part of a single department, the Department of Public
Works and Government Services.
The primary objective of this bill is obviously to implement
an organizational restructure. It is simply a musical chair
exercise to reduce, in the months to come and according to what
we were told, the number of civil servants from 18,000 down to
14,000. In other words, the government wants to eliminate some
4,000 jobs in the public service and offer essentially the same
services.
From that perspective, the bill is not without merit. If the
government can reduce the number of civil servants and still
provide the same quality of service, particularly in the current
context of excessive government spending, debt and deficit,
then it must do it.
The problem is that this legislation does not go far enough. It
could go a lot further toward improving the operations of the
Department of Public Works and Government Services. It is
very unfortunate to stop short of doing that, because the hon.
member said the following.
[English]
``It is another initiative to revitalize. This is not mere
housekeeping. This is job creation. This is an incentive
approach. This is government in action, with clout, based on
simplicity''. It is a lot of mere words that we hear from the
government. Basically it is housekeeping. These are a lot of
empty words because there is no revitalization whatsoever.
As a matter of fact the law that is being proposed is
discouraging to some extent because it does not address itself to
the real problems that concern the Ministry of Public Works and
Government Services. I am not surprised because the
government really does not have the backbone to act where
action is needed.
[Translation]
The fact is that except for a musical chair exercise, a grouping
together of various services, this housekeeping bill does not
include anything very exciting for anyone. Even though we are
told that this is the first major change since that legislation was
drafted in 1867, the bill still does not introduce anything new.
In fact, civil servants to whom we had an opportunity to talk
have insisted that they did everything in their power to ensure
that no new provisions were included. The various related acts
were grouped together and great care was taken to make sure
that nothing was changed. The exercise was conducted as though
it was important not to affect existing structures.
This is precisely why Bill C-52 is such a disappointment.
There is nothing new in this bill to improve the performance of
that department, to reduce waste, or to eliminate abuse. Yet,
changes or improvements to the Department of Public Works
and Government Services are long overdue. We all know that
this department is often accused of wasting public money.
Mr. Speaker, you and all the hon. members in this House, not
to mention the public watching us on television, are aware of
specific instances of waste in government, which can hurt
because it is taxpayers' money being wasted. This waste and this
abuse are often linked to the Department of Public Works and
Government Services or directly or indirectly. The reason is
obvious. As my hon. colleague said earlier, the department
spends a lot of money in Canada, grants something like 175,000
contracts each year and has hundreds of thousands of civil
servants and thousands of construction and service contracts to
look after. In the past, the department has wasted a lot of money
and significantly contributed to increasing the government debt.
(1040)
The public also knows full well that this department is the
major channel for government into patronage. Without going
into too much detail, how else would the government manage to
award construction or service contracts to its friends and
supporters who poured funds into its war chest? In fact, we saw
again this week to what length government members are ready
to go to leave the door wide open for unlimited corporate
contributions.
We on this side of the House have tried to limit contributions
to campaign funds to a minimum and to enforce throughout
Canada an act limiting contributions similar to the legislation in
force in the province of Quebec, which is quite reasonable and
much more democratic and helps to reduce abuses and
patronage.
Again this week the government voted in favour of an act
which does not limit donations from large corporations in
Canada. Once the party these compagnies have financially
supported is in office, the companies want their share of the
contracts, hence the problem. Such undue influence can be seen
particularly in the Department of Public Works and Government
Services. What is disappointing unfortunately is that Bill C-52
in no way addresses these issues which are vitally important in
Canada, since, as everyone knows, our country is faced with
some serious debts.
Nor does the bill contain provisions to curb lobbying, another
big concern for Canadians. We know how lobbyists have control
over the contracting process when big government contracts are
involved. But then, for God's sake, with Bill C-52, why does the
government not take the opportunity to deal with some major
public concerns, like waste, patronage and lobbying? Nothing in
this bill addresses these issues. In fact, this legislation does
nothing to improve openness in the allocation of contracts for
the Department of Public Works and Government Services, for
telecommunications or for translation. That is the main problem
6377
with this legislation. It is also the main problem with the current
government. It is the main problem facing Canadian politics.
Basically, the government has a serious credibility problem.
Of course, it did not start with the current government. The
Conservatives before them had the same problem. This is an
image problem. Elected representatives and the government are
accused of mismanaging public funds. Canadians accuse them
of waste and patronage and they are right, since the national debt
is reaching the $600 billion mark and the deficit exceeds $40
billion.
(1045)
Besides, the government has a serious debt problem, so much
so that the International Monetary Fund is about to intervene.
From a debt and deficit point of view, Canada is in a critical
situation. Bill C-52 gives us a great opportunity to reduce waste
in the thousands of contracts that are granted in Canada and, in
doing so, to reduce our debt and deficit. But we do not take
advantage of it.
As everybody knows, we are faced with a very serious
problem, which affects politics in general. Politicians
themselves have lost most of their credibility with the public at
large, precisely because of this loose management of the public
funds, which conjures up stories of patronage, abuse and waste.
It is not surprising that Canadians call us hypocrites, crooks and
liars and accuse us of not doing our job as their elected
representatives.
It is a serious problem because that loss of confidence by the
people in their elected representatives challenges the very basis
of our democracy. When the uncertainty and the lack of
confidence felt by Canadians is such that it weakens our
democratic institutions, then it becomes a serious problem.
The government could have seen Bill C-52 as an opportunity
to address these concerns, to show Canadians that it is taking
action to reduce waste and overspending, but it has not done so.
This bill could have been used to make the government more
open, which is essential if we want members of Parliament to
regain some credibility. I think that openness was one of the first
concerns expressed by the government when it was elected last
October. The Liberals promised Canadians that there would be a
certain level of ethics within their government, and that is why
the Prime Minister appointed a former Liberal minister to see to
it that his ministers follow this code of ethics. Openness is
mentioned in the red book, although not on the first page. I will
read to you an excerpt from page 95 of the red book that most
Liberal members are very familiar with. It says: ``We will
follow the basic principle that government decisions must be
made on the merits of a case rather than according to the
political influence of those making the case. We will take an
approach of openness in decision-making. A Liberal
government will not allow the public agenda to be dominated by
lobbyists as it has been since the Conservatives took office''.
The Conservatives are being accused of patronage and lack of
openness, but we see no change. The present government is not
doing anything to address the problem and does not even seem
willing to do something about it. Bill C-52 is a perfect example
of this unwillingness on the part of the government. The
Liberals could have given some teeth to this bill to put an end to
the waste and misuse of taxpayers' money, but it has not done so.
(1050)
It is disappointing because today, as I said earlier, the general
public has grave doubts about the effectiveness of its elected
representatives and the federal system. In fact, that is one of the
reasons why Quebec wants sovereignty, and will become
sovereign, because it looks like the federal system is unable to
adjust.
Government members show no indication that they want to
improve the system. Consider lobbying, for instance, where
there has been considerable abuse. This week, the government
which, as I just mentioned, said in the red book that it wanted to
restrict the influence of lobbyists, again gave in to the lobbyists,
who scored at least two points on the restrictions the
government wanted to impose on them. The lobbyists managed
to avoid having to disclose their fees, and corporations may
deduct lobbyists' fees from corporate income tax. This is one
more example of a government that lacks the political will to
deal with the real problems.
We had a whole series of events just this week which clearly
reflected the government's lack of concern for the problems of
Canadians. Yesterday we found, for instance, that the Prime
Minister had purposely withheld information about federal
compensation for the cost of the 1992 referendum in Quebec.
The government has shown a preference for secrecy and an utter
lack of transparency.
Consider the Pearson Airport controversy. Granted, the
government cancelled this contract or attempt at privatization
because it had to stop this kind of abuse, but it is trying to ensure
that the parties concerned receive quite substantial
compensation. The government is compensating lobbyists. It is
compensating private interests. Even the Senate, in this
particular case, suggested paying up to $45 million to the people
involved in the privatization of Pearson airport, which is abuse
of public funds. The Senate itself is another case of this kind of
abuse, of wasting taxpayers money: we have 104 senators sitting
around doing nothing, who are paid $70,000 a year, spend
$500,000 each and as a result cost the public Treasury a total of
$50 million. This is a horrific waste of money in a country that is
already carrying an extremely heavy debt load. We know the
senators are just
6378
another kind of waste, another form of patronage, because they
are all-
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, on a point of order.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Chair that it is
contrary to the Standing Orders to speak disrespectfully of the
members sitting in the other place or their institution. This is
clearly stipulated in the Standing Orders of the House of
Commons and I wish to remind my colleague opposite of this
rule. I believe he should unequivocally withdraw his statement
and limit his remarks to the bill before us instead of maligning
the senators.
[English]
The Speaker: I am sorry, I just took the Chair and I did not
hear everything. I would hope that we would always carry due
respect for ourselves and this Chamber as well as members in
the other place. I will of course review what was said. If such a
thing was done I will get back to the House.
(1055)
[Translation]
We only have a couple of minutes left before Question Period.
Therefore, I invite the member to resume his comments, keeping
in mind what I said earlier regarding our colleagues in the other
House.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were aimed at
government expenditures which many believe are out of control.
I meant no disrespect to members of the other House.
Another example of government waste or lack of transparency
is family trusts. We are having a very difficult time getting
information regarding family trusts. The finance minister is
keeping it a secret. This is yet another case of a blatant lack of
transparency on the part of the government.
As I said earlier, this is a serious problem which affects the
government in general and the Department of Public Works and
Government Services in particular. It is even more obvious
within the Canada Communication Group. This particular
group, which is part of PWGSC, was illegally given money by
other departments trying to preserve their budget for the
following year.
At the end of the fiscal year instead of spending the money
they had left they transferred it to Canada Communication
Group as payment for services planned for the coming years but
not yet rendered. This is totally illegal and we have been told
that there are several millions of dollars in this fund. Several
departments have been contributing to it. This is what has been
going on within this government.
We doubt whether this will be rectified. Faced with such a
fraudulent scheme, the President of the Treasury Board has yet
to take action that would restore our confidence. As a matter of
fact, there is nothing this government is doing to deal with
waste, patronage and the lack of transparency that inspires our
confidence. Some of the CSIS spirit seems to be floating over
this government. It is trying to conceal rather than reveal what is
going on within government, and I am convinced that the
problem is worse in the Department of Public Works and
Government Services. It is mainly in that department that we
should have more openness, in order to prevent thousands and
thousands of cases of abuse and waste of public funds.
I should say that the problem is compounded by the minister
himself, who acts in a way that might not be appropriate. He said
he intended to relocate a number of Public Works employees in
the maritimes, in his riding.
The Speaker: Order. My dear colleague, you will be able to
continue after Question Period. It being eleven o'clock,
pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to
Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
6378
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, on Sunday, September 11 in my riding of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury 80 residents met for some four
hours to discuss the country's current fiscal situation with the
intent of advising the Minister of Finance as part of the
prebudget consultation process.
I want to thank my colleague from Algoma who is on the
finance committee as well as George McAllister, senior
economist with the province, and forum co-chairs Len Hoyt and
Gustavo Argaez for their support and participation.
A report of the forum is being prepared and will be forwarded
to the finance committee and the Minister of Finance for
consideration.
I also want to thank the residents of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury for their continued support as this
was the fifth public policy forum we have hosted in the riding.
Finally, I want to thank the Government of Canada and in this
instance particularly the Minister of Finance for the refreshing
openness in encouraging such initiatives.
6379
[Translation]
Mme Maud Debien (Laval-Est): Mr. Speaker, concerning
the trade mission in Asia the Prime Minister will lead next
November, we want to condemn the highhandedness, to say the
least, of some Foreign Affairs officers and of the Deputy Prime
Minister.
The federal ultimatum to the effect that the Quebec premier
and nobody else should be part of that trade mission is an
expression of contempt. It is not for the Canadian government to
decide who should represent the Quebec government. Ottawa
should not impose an agenda on the Quebec premier. Mr.
Parizeau, who has responsibilities keeping him in Quebec City,
is perfectly entitled to send a delegate of his own choice.
That is another example of the lack of flexibility of Canadian
federalism and of the lack of respect of Foreign Affairs officers
for the democratically elected representatives of Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize the outstanding effort of Mr. Michael Szelag from
Hamilton Ontario to promote Canadian unity.
Mike started out in St. John's, Newfoundland on August 9 this
year for a 33 day, 7,000 kilometre bicycle ride to Victoria, B.C.
During his travels Mike presented for signature a proclamation
to Canada to the mayors of each city he passed through. He was
enthusiastically received without exception. He commented that
his reception in Quebec was outstanding.
The proclamation reads:
Our desire is strong
Our commitment is strong
Our understanding is the result of experience
Our contribution will continue
Our goodwill will lead us
Our faith will guide us
We will remain one people
I am sure members will join with me in a tribute to Mike for
his tremendous contribution to Canadian unity.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
Canada is very diverse from east to west and from north to south
and each and every area is significant and important.
Recently while promoting patriotism in my constituency of
Carleton-Charlotte by encouraging the use of our national
anthem and the display of our Canadian flag, I discovered one of
Canada's best kept secrets. I refer to the pledge of allegiance to
the Canadian flag. For all members of this House and indeed for
all Canadians, I will recite this pledge today and encourage its
use.
To my flag and to the country it represents, I pledge respect and loyalty.
Wave with pride from sea to sea and within your folds, keep us ever united.
Be for all a symbol of love, freedom and justice.
God keep our flag.
God protect our Canada.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, Rosedale is a
complex urban riding with a diverse social structure. As in most
parts of Canada today, the people who live in it know that the
health and well-being of their community depend upon an open,
tolerant and pluralistic society in which discrimination against
fellow citizens is not permitted and everyone is treated with
mutual respect.
It is for that reason among others that I support Bill C-41 and
welcome the statements of the Minister of Justice and the
Deputy Prime Minister that the government will introduce
legislation amending Canada's human rights act to prohibit
discrimination against persons based upon their sexual
orientation.
This is not a question of creating special status for anyone; it
is a matter of ensuring that all Canadians are treated equitably
under the same circumstances. We must apply this principle of
fairness to all members of the Canadian population if we are to
guarantee their rights as individuals as well as our own
development as a progressive and modern society.
* * *
(1105 )
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker,
since 1988 certain communications experts within what is now
the Department of Canadian Heritage have talked about the
concept of neighbouring rights. That is a form of copyright
payment imposed on radio broadcasters to be paid to recording
artists and producers.
Other experts admit that 68 per cent of blank cassettes sold are
used for reproducing existing recordings which are legally sold
in retail outlets. In this age of user pay let those who are bending
existing copyright laws, that is the purchasers of blank
cassettes, pay an artist's fee. Business, that is the big and small
radio stations in this country, once again should not be required
to pay. Without radio stations there is no recording industry or
artist showplace. Without radio stations our sense of community
surely diminishes.
6380
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, earlier
this week, the Minister of the Environment made some very
uncalled for remarks with regard to an environmentalist group
in Quebec, the ``Société pour vaincre la pollution'', which she
referred to by its acronym, SVP.
SVP has been active in the environmental area for 15 years
now. Like many other groups of its kind, it is on somewhat shaky
financial ground. For the minister to declare that the restricted
financial means of that group is a discrediting factor in the eyes
of the public and of the scientific community is totally
unspeakable.
Furthermore, the minister's data were inaccurate because, as
one can see in the last issue of the prestigious magazine,
National Geographic, the SVP group is still very much active.
Such unfounded judgments on a Quebec environmentalist
organization are unworthy of someone in a ministerial position.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, fall is in the air and the redness of the leaves is eclipsed
only by this government's balance sheet. As of this morning
Canada was in debt to the tune of $532,444,756,445.36. That is
$18,718.40 for every person in Canada, or $37,879.22 for every
taxpayer. By the time it takes me to read this statement the debt
will have grown by $88,410.
This government says it is concerned about the debt, but I
remind the House that it was the Liberal Party in the 1970s and
1980s that sold Canada's future to pay for whatever spending
was needed to get it re-elected. The Conservatives finished the
job because they did not have the guts to kick the deficit habit.
It is the Liberals who have sold us and our children to our
creditors.
* * *
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr.
Speaker, 50 years ago today Parliament officially proclaimed
the creation of the Industrial Development Bank, the forerunner
of today's Federal Business Development Bank. This was to
assist in the smooth transition from a wartime to a peacetime
economy with particular consideration to the financing
problems of small business.
Throughout the years the FBDB has addressed the evolving
needs of small business by introducing innovative financial and
management services. Not only was the bank the first to
introduce term loans to the Canadian small business sector but it
was among the first to offer small business management
assistance through counselling and training courses. In addition,
it became the first national source of venture capital.
The bank has proven to be instrumental in building successful
businesses while at the same time not being a drain on the
government. In fact over the past five years it has received no
funds from the government for its lending activities and has
loaned out some $3.4 billion to small and medium size
entrepreneurs.
With its unique array of services, the bank continues to be
ideally positioned to help businesses grow and create jobs. In
fact approximately one in every five businesses in Canada has at
some point turned to the FBDB for assistance.
On behalf of the House and the small business sector, I would
like to congratulate the FBDB as it celebrates its anniversary. I
support the continuing efforts of the FBDB.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to pay tribute to Ed Carter-Edwards, a resident of
Bala in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.
Mr. Carter-Edwards, a veteran of World War II, was the
driving force behind the recent CBC special called the ``Lucky
Ones: Allied Airmen and Buchenwald''.
Ed Carter-Edwards was one of the lucky ones because he
survived a nightmare during the war. He was one of 168 allied
flyers, including 26 Canadians, who were shot down over Nazi
occupied Europe and sent to the brutal Buchenwald death camp.
(1110 )
Instead of being sent to a prisoner of war camp, Mr.
Carter-Edwards and his fellow flyers spent three horrifying
months in the concentration camp. They lived in fear and terror,
witnessing many inhumane acts. Thanks to Mr. Carter-Edwards
this untold story is now on the record to be shared by all
Canadians.
Canadians owe the men and women who fought in World War
II a large debt for their personal sacrifices and courage. I am
proud to have Ed Carter-Edwards as a constituent in my riding.
6381
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, following a recent visit to India I wish to inform fellow
Canadians of the troubled situation which still exists in the
province of Punjab.
While efforts have been made to ease tensions and the death
toll is down considerably, the situation unfortunately is still not
normal. Police excesses continue. Equally worrisome is the lack
of any commitment toward achieving a lasting peace and
restoring law and order.
I hope that Canada will encourage the Indian government to
accept independent international human rights groups to visit
the Punjab.
I also hope that the Indian government will take concrete
steps to engage in dialogue with representatives of various
political groups to achieve a peaceful solution.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to bring to the attention of the House that Monday,
October 3 is World Habitat Day. In this International Year of the
Family the celebration of World Habitat Day by the United
Nations is even more significant.
It is important to recognize that more and more families
around the world are living in substandard housing conditions.
The need for adequate shelter is not only a basic human right but
necessary for the well-being of all world citizens.
As members of this House, we can facilitate the promotion of
public awareness about housing by celebrating World Habitat
Day in our individual ridings.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, Bloc
Quebecois members were relieved to learn last night that the
federal government had finally agreed to compensate the
Government of Quebec for its 1992 referendum expenses.
We have lost track of the number of questions the Official
Opposition asked since January as to whether the present Prime
Minister intended to keep the promise made by his predecessor.
The sovereignist members have succeeded in shaking this
government out of its malevolent torpor concerning Quebec
issues.
We might add that there is a phantom looming behind the
whole story. While the Bloc members had been pressuring the
government for a week, the member for Sherbrooke waited until
the very last minute to inform the House that, as far as he was
aware, the former Prime Minister had made a solemn pledge a
long time ago.
I dare ask the phantom of the House: ``Where have you been
for the past 18 months, since March 1993?''
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
several months ago our party submitted 20 very specific
questions to the Prime Minister concerning what action his
government planned to take on the issue of Canadian unity. To
date the Prime Minister has failed to respond to any of these
questions.
Obviously the Prime Minister is subtly continuing his do
nothing policy, or more likely just does not have the answers. If
the latter is indeed true, may we suggest that the Prime Minister
do like other concerned Canadians and tune into his local cable
channel on Monday, October 3 for Reform's national unity
electronic town hall meeting.
During the show Canadians will have the opportunity to
answer three direction questions on the future of Canada. This
historic event will give Canadians an opportunity to express
their views on this important issue. It will give the Prime
Minister an opportunity to see that his do nothing policy is not
acceptable to Canadians.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to bring attention to and
salute the great veterans of our merchant navy, the merchant
seamen.
This great country of ours, Canada, has always recognized the
contribution of our citizens in time of war and has given just
compensation for services rendered.
During the war, the merchant navy served under some of the
most dangerous conditions and hostile weather. However they
have not been fully recognized for their role in the war.
(1115)
These veterans have not been provided with the status due to
them and promised to them. While our country was generous
enough to compensate Japanese Canadians who were interned
during the war, we have turned our backs on these brave
members of the merchant navy. They have even been denied
their former part in placing a wreath in remembrance at the
National War Memorial this year.
6382
I say: Canada, it is time to provide just rewards to these brave
Canadians who risked their lives so we could live ours in
freedom.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the Minister of Justice for including provisions in
Bill C-41 which ensure that individuals convicted of an offence
motivated by the sexual orientation of the victim automatically
receive a sentence of aggravating circumstances in addition to
their original sentence.
I go on record as supporting the inclusion of sexual
orientation in the sentencing provisions contained in Bill C-41.
Crimes motivated by the sexual orientation of the victim must
not be tolerated. As Canadians we cannot claim to support the
protection and promotion of individual human rights if we do
not oppose hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is as much a matter of individuality as any
other freedom we enjoy in Canada. As such it should be
protected under Canadian law.
_____________________________________________
6382
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, last Tuesday, in an attempt to confirm Robert
Bourassa's version of the facts regarding reimbursement to
Quebec for the expenses incurred in the referendum on the
Charlottetown Accord, the Prime Minister had a telephone
conversation with Mr. Mulroney. In the account of this
conversation he gave this House on Wednesday, the Prime
Minister stated, and I quote: ``I called Mr. Mulroney, who did
not give me an answer''.
How can the Prime Minister reconcile the statement he made
before this House on Wednesday with the now established fact
that Mr. Mulroney fully briefed him on Tuesday on all that was
said between himself and Mr. Bourassa?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
last weekend we contacted several persons to make sure we got
all the facts. We had the privilege of speaking with Mr.
Harcourt, calls were made to Mr. Bourassa, and I personally
spoke with Premier Bob Rae. I also called Mr. Mulroney. Our
brief conversation did not satisfy me and we agreed that the best
thing would be for him to send me a written statement.
When one has a $34-million decision to make involving
taxpayers' money in a matter one did not handle, which had been
on the table for a long time and involving discussions to which
one was not privy, as a Prime Minister one must make sure that
all the facts are in the open and quite clear.
I reviewed the matter and on Tuesday consulted the cabinet
and was authorized to act with the permission of Treasury
Board. When the documentation was received I was not in the
House myself, having been held up with the president of
Tanzania. I was informed at 3.05 p.m. yesterday that the written
communication had come in.
I authorized my minister to take the necessary steps to make
headway with this matter, but I acted cautiously because it
involved taxpayers' money and was a matter that was not really
the responsibility of this government. It had been dragging on
for some time and we did not have the proof required to
authorize payment. Once proof was received, we authorized it.
It is that simple.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I bring the Prime Minister back to the central issue.
This Prime Minister said in this House that there was no answer
from Mr. Mulroney, although yesterday Mr. Mulroney reported
all the facts in a letter to the Prime Minister, saying that these
facts were conveyed to the current Prime Minister during
Tuesday's telephone conversation. There is a flagrant
contradiction.
(1120)
The least that can be said is that the Prime Minister's memory
of his talk with Mr. Mulroney is as bad as his recollection of his
recent telephone call to Mr. Parizeau.
Does the Prime Minister not agree that yesterday's letter from
Mr. Mulroney formally contradicts what he said Wednesday in
this House, namely that there had been no answer from Mr.
Mulroney?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
said in this House that I had discussed the problem with Mr.
Mulroney. I had not received a satisfactory answer from Mr.
Mulroney at that time. I told him that I had sent him a letter and
he told me that he would answer. We discussed the matter but I
was waiting for his written reply. I never said that I had not
talked about it with Mr. Mulroney. On the contrary, I informed
the House that I had spoken with Mr. Mulroney.
Furthermore, he told me that he would send me an official
reply. During our discussion, he told me certain things. Was I
satisfied with his answer? Was it enough? I do not think so. But I
had enough after I had spoken with and received information
from Mr. Harcourt, who was involved in the discussions in
Charlottetown, as were Mr. Rae and Mr. Bourassa, and after I
had reviewed the whole matter.
The letter itself is not absolutely clear. It was only after
reviewing the whole matter that I concluded that there was
6383
indeed a commitment and that Mr. Bourassa had received a
commitment from the then Prime Minister. I took precautions.
As I said earlier, on Tuesday, I discussed the matter
hypothetically in Cabinet, saying in effect, if we receive some
information confirming all of this, can I go ahead? The Cabinet
did give me the go-ahead; as for the amount of money, it was set,
as required by Cabinet, by Treasury Board, which sat yesterday
afternoon. It always sits on Thursday afternoon.
I myself was notified of Mr. Mulroney's letter or of Mr.
Shortliffe's telegram giving us Mr. Mulroney's version, and we
accepted it. It is no more complicated than that.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, beyond the question which has now been settled, the
payment of what is owed to Quebec, there is a serious question
concerning the proper behaviour of a Prime Minister in telling
this House the truth. Nothing should prevent this House from
knowing the facts. This House was told by the Prime Minister
that he had no answer from Mr. Mulroney, when we know today
that he had a complete answer, the same answer which was the
basis of his decision yesterday to pay.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his statement that he had
received no answer from Mr. Mulroney was likely to mislead the
opposition and prevent it from getting to the bottom of this issue
as it should?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
myself answered all the questions I was asked on this subject in
this House. I have just explained clearly that it involved $34
million of Canadian taxpayers' money, as a result of the
question raised by the Leader of the Opposition claiming that
the federal government had made a commitment.
I took the necessary action to find out if there was a
commitment from the federal government. He would have been
the first to criticize me if I had acted on mere hearsay. I did what
was necessary to assure myself that we could act as soon as
possible with all the information in hand. A prime minister must
act in such a prudent fashion. I acted with caution, as a
reasonable man would.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
during Question Period, the Deputy Prime Minister and the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs were obviously not aware
that a written answer had been received from Mr. Mulroney. Yet,
that answer had already arrived.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that he kept his Deputy
Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in
the dark, since Mr. Mulroney's letter had already reached his
office around 1.30 p.m., before Question Period?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
could not inform the Deputy Prime Minister, since I was only
told about that letter at 3.05 p.m. I decided not to show up for
Question Period because my meeting with the Prime Minister of
Tanzania took longer than expected. The letter was sent to my
office but I was not there; I was at home. I was informed about it
by telephone at 3.05 p.m. Obviously I could not tell the Minister
of the Environment at 2 p.m. about something I received at 3.05
p.m. My office received a letter at 1.55 p.m., but I was not there.
I am being criticized for not reading a letter which arrived in my
office across the street, and not at my office here. I was not in my
office. I am therefore being criticized for not having read a letter
I had not seen.
(1125)
Mr. Bouchard: Do you not have a fax machine?
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I did not send that letter. It is
up to the sender to make sure the letter reaches its recipient. I did
not receive that letter. Since when do we blame people for not
having a letter they did not receive? I received that letter at 3.05
p.m. and the issue was settled two hours later. This shows how
efficient our government is.
This morning I was expecting the Leader of the Opposition
and other MPs to congratulate the government for taking swift
action and making the right decision. I am surprised at how
partisan they can be.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, when the
Prime Minister is not here, it is customary for the Deputy Prime
Minister to answer on his behalf.
Does the Prime Minister recognize that by acting as they did
the senior officials in the PMO and the Privy Council kept the
Deputy Prime Minister in the dark and prevented her from
accurately answering the questions asked by the opposition?
Does the Prime Minister of Canada think he acted as a prudent
man should?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
explained that the letter arrived when the House was convening.
It takes a few moments to go over a document, and I was not
there. The Deputy Prime Minister sat in this House and
answered based on what she knew. We received a letter at 1.55
p.m. and we are being blamed for not providing an appropriate
answer until 2.55 p.m. when the first question was put to us. If
the letter had been sent to us at noon, we would have been able to
answer at 2 p.m, but, as it happens, we received the letter at
precisely 1.55 p.m. So, it took us exactly 70 minutes. We are
fast, but not that fast. If we have not seen something, we cannot
have read it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, last night
Canadian taxpayers became aware that they had an additional
financial obligation of $34.5 million, two years after a
Conservative government supposedly committed to it and
months after a Liberal government had been in the process of
denying that commitment existed.
6384
Governments have a moral obligation to fulfil their
commitments, but governments have an obligation to undertake
those commitments in a financially and legally responsible
manner. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has
repeatedly assured the House that no formal or written
documentation existed on this agreement at the relevant time
period.
What I want to know from the Prime Minister is what are the
guidelines in this government and in the previous government
for senior officials, for cabinet and for cabinet ministers to
undertake these kinds of financial obligations on behalf of
Canadian taxpayers and how precisely are those criteria fulfilled
in this case?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
this is an obligation that was committed to by the previous
government to the premier of Quebec. It was discussed among
the premiers in Charlottetown or Halifax at a time when there
were laws in Alberta, in B.C. and another in Quebec about
provincial referenda. There was a discussion at that time on
whether there should be one national referendum or a series of
provincial referenda.
The conclusion was that the premier of Alberta decided to join
in the federal referendum. The premier of B.C. did the same
thing. But Quebec did not. Mr. Harcourt made a public statement
that he understood that if he proceeded with his own legislation
he expected to receive some compensation. I was not there but I
tried to find out from the participants what had happened to get
the best proof I could.
(1130)
It is not a question of having a contract or not having a
contract. I said in the House that there was no documentation on
it. That is why I was prudent. I tried to have good witnesses and
that is what I have done. However, it is an obligation that was
contracted by a previous government.
In fact the taxpayers have paid for the referendum in all other
provinces but not in Quebec. It was making an argument about
fairness and so on. When I had all the files in front of me and the
discussions that my staff had with the people concerned, I did
my best. When I had the complete file in front of me I acted.
That is the difficulty. As I said before there were no
documents. That was the problem. But there was a commitment
by the Prime Minister of Canada to certain premiers that I am
respecting.
It is just like when I get up in the House and I am asked a
question and I say I will do something, sometimes I have to act
after I said that. But if a Prime Minister cannot deliver on his
word, who can?
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
I hope the Prime Minister will agree that verbal commitments
or verbal agreements made at dinner meetings, cocktail parties
or on golf courses are not the proper way to conduct the business
of the Government of Canada. This is an extremely dangerous
route to go.
When the Prime Minister spoke to former Prime Minister
Mulroney did he ask him whether there were any verbal
agreements with various other parties, for example, with the
Pearson consortium or the EH-101 contract? When he does do
that, how much does he feel the taxpayers of Canada will be
dinged for on those verbal commitments?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
explained to the House clearly what happened. I have nothing to
add. There was an agreement between the Prime Minister of the
day and the premier of Quebec that he would recommend a
payment. He never proceeded with it, perhaps due to
circumstances. I do not want to get involved with what happened
in those days.
I said I was confronted with a problem and I tried to find the
proof that was needed to justify the payment. The payment was
made. If the hon. member says we should not have paid, that
would be another argument. That is not what he is saying.
Rather than to pass judgment on the substance, he is trying to
play on the process. I am saying that there was a commitment by
the previous government and we respected that commitment.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I am
asking precisely about the process. When these various subject
matters go to the courts these things will be under examination.
I would like to know if the Prime Minister will table for the
benefit of the House the guidelines that he will be using on past
and future matters to ascertain whether cabinet and cabinet
members have undertaken financial commitments on behalf of
the Government of Canada?
For example, would the government be open to undertaking a
request from the current Quebec government to pay for the next
referendum? How would he handle such a request? What is the
basis for a financial obligation on that matter?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if
it is a provincial referendum that is one thing. In this case,
however, there was a national referendum where the same
question was asked of all Canadians.
What we did was very easy. We divided the per capita costs of
having a referendum in the rest of Canada and that is what we
paid. If there is a provincial referendum in Alberta or B.C. or
Nova Scotia or Quebec, they pay the bill. This is a democracy.
6385
This was a national referendum and there was a commitment I
have respected.
I wanted to have good documentation. I am happy to
recognize by his silence that he accepts that we made the right
decision.
* * *
(1135)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Still on
the subject of the Charlottetown referendum, the Prime Minister
said in the House that he did not want to act unlawfully like Mr.
Mulroney.
My question is this: Would the Prime Minister indicate
whether he still considers it unlawful for the Prime Minister of
Canada to give his word to a colleague, without first obtaining
the agreement of his cabinet?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): The Prime
Minister can make commitments but has a duty to go to cabinet
with his commitment, which I did this week. I talked to cabinet
about this and they said: fine. The document then went to
Treasury Board, to determine the amount. This is entirely legal.
Payment is authorized by the government in accordance with
certain government mechanisms. The commitment made
previously was not a clear commitment to pay, and, in fact, Mr.
Mulroney said so himself in the document you received. There
was never any reference to specific procedures. As far as I am
concerned, this payment is entirely legal.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister says he discussed it with cabinet,
and earlier, he told us he mentioned it to cabinet Tuesday. He
confirmed that this is what happened. Are we to understand the
Prime Minister called a cabinet meeting, while the next day, he
told us there had been no satisfactory answer from former Prime
Minister Mulroney? He said again today that there was
sufficient and satisfactory reason to call a cabinet meeting to
discuss the matter although the next day he said in the House he
did not have an answer. Is that correct?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
everyone in the Press Gallery, everyone in this Parliament
except the hon. member, knows that cabinet meets Tuesday
mornings at 10 a.m. All the reporters are there for the Tuesday
morning scrum. I raised the problem. I did not call a special
meeting of cabinet. The problem had been making the headlines
for several days. I talked about it. I said: This is what we could
do if we receive confirmation from Mr. Mulroney, which, in
fact, came two days later. We acted on that confirmation, but we
also made sure we had the versions of Premier Harcourt, former
Premier Bourassa, and the Premier of Ontario. You cannot be too
careful when you are about to spend $34 million. I did what I
was supposed to do. I got the support of cabinet and the approval
of Treasury Board for making this payment.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
recent dialogue in the House between the government and the
official opposition over the issue of Quebec separation has taken
the form of metaphors.
Leaders of the separatist forces have been called maestros
leading a symphony. I would like to extend the metaphor to
include the Prime Minister and ask him how long he intends to
fiddle while the unity issue burns.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is not very complicated. We said the people of Quebec will stay
in Canada if they have a good government in Ottawa that is
preoccupied with the real issue of Canadians and Quebecers. I
am talking about the creation of jobs and security of income for
those who need it. That is the program of this party and this
government.
Of course the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois just talk
Constitution and separation even though the people of Quebec
would like them to talk about job creation.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, it
looks like we not only have fiddling, we have waffling.
Despite the Prime Minister's other dialogue, Canadians are
concerned about the government's lack of action and dialogue
on this thing.
(1140 )
By contrast, Reform will host a national unity town hall
meeting on October 3, Monday next. Tune in.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what specific action the
government has taken or plans to take to engage in this type of
nationwide discussion with the people of Canada on this
important subject?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
in our party one thing is very clear and not very complicated. I
told the Canadian people during the campaign that if they
wanted to have Parliament discussing the Constitution all of the
time not to vote for me. Now it is the Reform Party members
who want to talk about the Constitution because when they try to
talk about something else they are a complete failure.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. The more I hear his
explanations, the more I see that it is nebulous. Given the
troubling facts concerning the Prime Minister's statements in
this House and
6386
his obvious reluctance to compensate Quebec fairly for the 1992
referendum, how can the Prime Minister explain his attitude and
that of the Deputy Prime Minister and of the Minister for
Intergovernmental Affairs except as a cheap manoeuvre to avoid
giving Quebec its due?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is clear that the Bloc Quebecois is totally-
An hon. member: Bankrupt.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Someone said ``bankrupt'',
but I was going to say ``totally confused''. They are so
disappointed that we paid.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, can
you believe it? Does the Prime Minister admit that by hiding the
contents of his conversation with Mr. Mulroney, he lied to this
House?
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, we know that in the course of
debate sometimes some words are used that are not always
acceptable.
I would ask the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe if he
would not withdraw the statement that the Prime Minister lied in
this House. It takes away from the debate when we engage in this
type of language. I would ask the hon. member to please
rephrase that question and withdraw the words that the Prime
Minister lied to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, in view of all
that was said and done in this House, I believe that I would be
lying to myself as a member of Parliament and to thousands of
Quebecers if I withdrew my words.
[English]
The Speaker: We are going to be faced many times in this
House in dealing with facts or the interpretation of facts which
are contradictory, and we are going to engage in very vigorous
debate. All of us were sent to Parliament to represent very strong
opinions.
However, in the nature of Parliament itself, we must take the
word of hon. members at face value.
(1145 )
We all have done this as a tradition. If there is an
interpretation of facts that are contrary one to the other it does
not serve the purpose of Parliament if we use words that are
unparliamentary.
I would appeal once again to the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe, who holds as is evident very strong
opinions, to withdraw the words ``que le premier ministre a
menti'' and use other words that would be acceptable to
Parliament.
I am sure it would help a great deal not only in the course of
question period but in the course of debate if we did not resort to
this type of word. I would appeal to the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe to reconsider what has been said. If he could
do this, we could get on with question period.
Would the hon. member please withdraw the words ``que le
prime ministre a menti'' and replace them perhaps with some
other words?
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, as a
parliamentarian, I am deeply convinced in my conscience that,
in view of all the facts observed and reported in this House, the
Prime Minister deliberately misled the House. He lied to this
House, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, the conduct of a member may
only be discussed in the House of Commons by way of a
substantive or distinct motion, that is in a self-contained
proposal submitted for the approval of the House and drafted in
such a way as to be capable of expressing a decision of the
House.
Such a motion may contain the abusive accusation that would
otherwise be unparliamentary language, but the member cannot
do this by using unparliamentary language in this House. The
member does have an avenue if he wishes to pursue this avenue,
which is a very serious matter.
In the course of debates that we have had and will be having,
we always hope we can put forth our very strong views without
using language that is unparliamentary. The choice of our words
is our weapon. In this sense this is where we are in the arena. We
all understand.
I would strongly ask once again if the hon. member would
reconsider and withdraw the words ``que le prime ministre a
menti''.
(1150 )
If the hon. member would do this we could of course proceed
as we will with Question Period.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I just said
aloud what millions of Quebecers are quietly thinking.
[English]
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, I must express profound
regret as your Speaker that I will have to resort to naming one of
our colleagues in the House of Commons. It is a very strong
sanction that you have put into the hands of your Speaker. In so
doing, I would hope that all hon. members would take into grave
consideration the great stakes and the great responsibilities
which are entrusted to this House.
6387
I am tempted, as a matter of fact I will once more appeal to
the sense of fair play of the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe
to respect the authority of the Chair and respect the authority
indeed of Parliament and everything that has come to rest in
this position. I would ask the hon. member in the sense of fair
play if he would withdraw his accusation ``que le premier
ministre a menti''.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I recognize
the effort that you are making and the difficult situation you are
in. I also recognize that my colleagues in the Bloc see that one of
their fellow members must remain firm in his decision because I
deeply believe that the facts taken together do indeed show that
he lied to the House.
The Speaker: Mr. Leroux, I must name you for disregarding
the authority of the Chair.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me under Standing Order
11, I order you to withdraw from the House for the remainder of
today's sitting.
[Editor's Note: And Mr. Leroux having withdrawn:]
[English]
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
The Speaker: Order. To continue with question period, the
hon. member for Simcoe Centre.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, our research
indicates that as of September 19 the three levels of government
have committed almost $1 billion of borrowed taxpayers'
dollars to projects which are outside the red ink book definition
of infrastructure. How can the minister justify this breaking of
red ink book promises?
(1155)
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
the red book promise has been fulfilled and the infrastructure
program is a great success.
This program which started only a few months ago has had
terrific support from every municipality and every province
across this country to the point where 70 per cent of the $6
billion allocated has now in fact been approved in projects,
putting 100,000 Canadians back to work.
We said that we would get our $2 billion of the $6 billion from
reallocation. We outlined in great detail in the red book exactly
how that is being done. I have seen municipalities and provinces
right across this country pick up on that spirit, reallocate funds,
find ways of providing funds to get Canadians back to work
without further burdening the taxpayers of this country and that
is what we have done with this program.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, what we are
doing here at all levels is reallocating borrowed funds.
How in the name of infrastructure can you spend borrowed tax
dollars on bocce courts in Toronto, the World Canoe
Championship in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia or the removal of
overhead electrical wires for a movie in Shelburne, Nova
Scotia? The list goes on.
Will the minister take immediate action to ensure that no
more borrowed tax dollars fund projects of questionable value to
Canada's infrastructures?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
notice the member did not mention the arena or the library in his
own riding which he did not get any-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Eggleton: Of course what he does know or should know
is that this is based on municipal priorities. This has to do with
attracting additional investment dollars to the community by the
upgrading of infrastructure and it has to do with the quality of
life in our community. That is what attracts additional
investment dollars. That is what attracts people to live and work
in our communities. These projects are based on the priorities of
local government and our local communities across this country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, the role of the federal Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs in the referendum issue is at the very least disturbing. Is
the minister prepared to state in this House that until yesterday,
as he suggested, he did not know anything about the content of
the telephone conversation Mr. Mulroney had with the Prime
Minister on Tuesday?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, my answer is yes.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I therefore have to conclude that the federal Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs was absent from the cabinet meeting
on Tuesday. In that case, does he not feel that he was much too
quick to take position against Quebec when he stated, without
having all the facts, that the federal government owed nothing to
Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, the Opposition should know that the conversation
between
6388
the Prime Minister and Mr. Mulroney took place on September
27 at around 1.30 p.m., thus after the Tuesday morning cabinet
meeting. The question is therefore pointless.
That being said, what is important is that the matter has been
dealt with in a way that is fair to all Canadians, including
Quebecers. That was this government's aim. We did exactly
what we said we would, that is if there was written evidence of
an agreement, we would reimburse Quebec, and that is what we
did.
* * *
(1200 )
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The people of
eastern Ontario are greatly concerned with the suggestion that
the hours of operation for the Trent-Severn and Rideau
waterways are going to be reduced. Such a reduction would
greatly affect tourism and all associated businesses.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage assure us that the
hours of operation of the Trent-Severn and Rideau waterways
will not be reduced?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to give our colleague a position report
on this important issue.
As he knows, there is an operational review concerning the
Trent-Severn waterway and the Rideau Canal. Some
recommendations have been made in that operational review
concerning hours of operation.
Extensive consultations were carried out during the summer
by stakeholders and users. An independent working group has
been set up to examine the results of these consultations and I
expect a report to be in my hands on October 15.
I can assure my colleague that we will take very much into
consideration the representations that have been made by users
and stakeholders.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw to your attention the presence in
the gallery of the Right Honourable Douglas Hurd, Secretary of
State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, on
September 28, in this House, the Prime Minister, answering a
question from the Leader of the Official Opposition, said and I
quote: ``If conversations took place between Mr. Mulroney and
Mr. Bourassa, I would be delighted to know what they were
about. I called Mr. Mulroney, who did not give me an answer''.
This statement by the Prime Minister, which caught our
attention, is the subject of our question of privilege since it was
categorically contradicted by the member for Sherbrooke who
said yesterday: ``I made inquiries, and I later found that before
Question Period yesterday, the Prime Minister knew that his
predecessor had promised the Government of Quebec he would
submit to his government a request to compensate Quebec for
referendum expenses''.
Moreover, a press release from the office of the President of
the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
clarifies the whole issue, contradicting the statement made by
the Prime Minister.
By his behaviour the Prime Minister impeded the Leader of
the Official Opposition and members of the House in the
discharge of their duties since the nature of the answer he gave
during Question Period changed our line of questioning. The
Leader of the Opposition and members of the House were asking
questions pursuant to Standing Order 37 and as such were
entitled to a valid answer enabling them to carry on their duties
as parliamentarians.
In our view the Prime Minister's behaviour clearly constitutes
contempt as defined by May, page 136, nineteenth edition:
Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House in the
performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or
officer of such House in the discharge of its duty, or which has a tendency to
produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no
precedent of the offence.
(1205)
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, given the facts I mentioned, I
respectfully ask that you rule that the behaviour of the Prime
Minister on September 28 constitutes an obstruction to the
discharge of the duties of the House and of the Leader of the
Opposition and declare votable a motion to refer the issue to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with a
view to getting to the bottom of this whole thing, and reviewing
the Prime Minister's answers and behaviour by calling wit-
6389
nesses, especially the former Prime Minister of Canada, the
Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.
Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to your ruling in this
matter and I trust that you will come to the right conclusion.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): I have nothing
to add, Mr. Speaker. I clearly related everything that happened
during Question Period. There can be differences of opinion
between one side of the House and the other. It is a matter for
debate and not a substantive issue.
I admitted earlier that I talked about this with Mr. Mulroney. I
said it clearly, and he confirmed to me that he would send a letter
to make things as clear as possible. Read the letter and you will
see. He explained to me what had happened and I said that I
would wait for his written reply before stating that I was happy
with all the answers. I took every precaution to protect the
public interest by ensuring that there were other witnesses.
I am being criticized for being overly cautious. It is a matter
for debate. Perhaps I should have been careless. Perhaps in the
future I should follow the hon. member's advice of not thinking
things through before acting, as the Bloc Quebecois would like
me to do. I did everything not to embarrass anyone and give
half-answers because in a conversation like this we talk about
many things. As I see it, I said that I had not received Mr.
Mulroney's answer because he told me he would send a written
reply. I preferred to rely on his written answer rather than on a
verbal discussion. That is what I clearly said here in this House.
I was waiting for his final answer, which arrived within 48 hours
as promised.
[English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, a motion has been moved by the hon. member and I
believe it is my duty to speak to the motion that the member has
indicated he is willing to introduce.
Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to you-
The Speaker: The Chair has not heard a motion. One
moment, please.
If the hon. member wishes to enter into this exchange it
should be on the point of privilege because there is no motion
before the House.
Mr. Boudria: That is exactly the point. I was indicating the
fact there is no point of privilege in my estimation based on
citation 31(1) of Beauchesne's which states:
A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not
fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
Therefore, the member indicates that he wishes to put a
motion, if you deem that there is a prima facie case of privilege,
Mr. Speaker. I submit that there is not such a prima facie case of
privilege because of 31(1) of Beauchesne's 6th edition.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I leave this to you to
decide, having pointed out what I see as a breach of my
colleague, the opposition leader's privilege. It is from that angle
that the Prime Minister's answer should be considered and
absolutely not within the context outlined by the government
whip.
With all due respect, I would like to rise again on a question of
privilege and repeat my argument that the Official Opposition's
work has been undermined by an answer which was clearly
inaccurate.
(1210)
[English]
The Speaker: The seriousness of this point of privilege
cannot be lost on anyone in the House. I want to be absolutely
sure in my own mind and I want to take some time. I want to
review everything that has been said and I want to reflect on it. I
take it all of the submissions have been made.
I would ask the indulgence of the House. I will consider all
matters that were brought forward and I will return to the House,
if necessary or when necessary, and give my judgment on this
request.
_____________________________________________
6389
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 35th and 36th reports of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Both are
regarding membership of committees.
The 35th report is a comprehensive report dealing with
membership in the committees. The 36th report is one that deals
with the appointment of associate members to the committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
both these reports.
6390
I move that the 35th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House this day,
be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I move, with the unanimous
consent of the House, that the 36th Report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled today be
adopted.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Milliken moved:
That the following changes be made to the membership of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Mr. Silye for Mrs. Ablonczy; Mrs.
Catterall for Mr. Gagliano; Mr. Plamondon for Mr. Gauthier (Roberval); Mrs.
Parrish for Mr. Patry; Mr. Harper (Calgary West) for Mr. White (Fraser Valley
West), and that the list of associate members be as follows: Mr. Axworthy
(Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing; Mr. Bellehumeur; Mr. Gauthier (Roberval); Mr.
Harper (Simcoe Centre); Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe); Mr. Patry; and Mr.
White (Fraser Valley West).
This may sound odd but the procedure and House affairs
committee cannot, by reporting changes, change its own
membership. It is being done by motion since it was established
by motion for the duration of the Parliament. I just want to
explain that.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1215 )
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal) moved:
That a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be
authorized to travel to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest
Territories during the month of October 1994 to undertake a study of the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and that the necessary staff accompany
the subcommittee.
The Deputy Speaker: Would all those members who are
opposed to the motion please rise.
And more than 25 members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(3),
the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.
(Motion deemed withdrawn.)
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, I have today
the honour of presenting a petition from a very hard working
constituent of mine who over the summer gathered 6,120
signatures.
The subject of this petition is the matter of MPs pensions. It
calls upon Parliament to amend the pension plan as it stands
right now. While I am not in full agreement with every phrase of
this petition I feel it is the right of my constituent to give me this
petition and I will present it. I feel confident that during the term
of this Parliament the pension plan will be reviewed and
changed.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to present a petition from 400 of my constituents
dealing with the rights of those individuals in this country who
were willing to give it all for Canada, our veterans.
This petition calls for the establishment of a basic service
pension for all of our veterans who fought in World War II and in
other conflicts and for their surviving spouses.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present six petitions to the House
this morning.
In two of the petitions the petitioners pray that Parliament
will ensure the present provisions of the Criminal Code of
Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and
that Parliament make no change in the law which would sanction
or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, in two petitions the petitioners pray and request
that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination that undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, in the last two petitions the petitioners pray that
Parliament will act immediately to extend protection to the
unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
6391
(1220 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present two petitions today. The first one is a petition on behalf
of the constituents of Simcoe Centre on the issue of euthanasia.
The petitioners request that current laws regarding active
euthanasia be enforced.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is requesting that the Government of Canada not amend
the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation.
The petitioners are concerned about the undefined phrase sexual
orientation. There is a legitimate concern that such a broad term
could include all kinds of sexual behaviour.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition submitted by one of my
constituents, Miss Carole Horan, which calls for the government
to enact legislation which will enforce the long term
incarceration of child sex offenders.
In the short span of six months Miss Horan collected 6,176
signatures from concerned individuals across this country.
These Canadians are concerned with the safety and well-being
of their children. I join them in expressing their desire to ensure
that all children in Canada are protected from sex offenders.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions
to present this morning.
The first petition calls on Parliament to ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia. That petition
is signed by 215 constituents.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, the second petition
is signed by 649 constituents. It urges the Government of
Canada to ban lap dancing as understood and thereby stop
offensive and repugnant entertainment, control the spread of
sexism and check and/or help prevent the spread of the deadly
HIV-AIDS pandemic.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, under
Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition from
constituents in and around the area of Bowden, Alberta in my
riding.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the human rights code or change the Canadian Human Rights
Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which
would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6391
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and
Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Québec-Est now has
the floor. I believe he still has about 30 minutes left. I am not
sure. If the member would begin, I will find out.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, we
are now debating Bill C-52, the purpose of which is to set up a
new department, the Department of Public Works and
Government Services.
I will resume the comments I was making before Question
Period. To begin with, I would like to say that for several
months, especially during the summer, all the Bloc Quebecois
members have been sending letters to the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services asking him to inform them of
all the contracts awarded by the federal government in their
ridings, which is a perfectly normal request one would think
given that we are elected and want to keep an eye on the
government to make sure that it runs smoothly. Surprise,
surprise. The answers were negative in all cases. Across the
board, the Department of Public Works refused to give out any
information, saying that it was too costly.
(1225)
We were surprised by that action, but of course on second
thought we realize that the department is acting right from the
start with a lot of secrecy about government contracts. It is
becoming extremely difficult for us to get information on
federal contracts in public works.
6392
That is worrisome because, as I mentioned at the beginning,
before Question Period, that somewhat reflects the government
mind-set, first of all, not to act firmly about waste, not to reduce
waste in government expenditures. That also reflects a lack of
transparency by the government, despite its intention, its desire,
as stated in the red book, to encourage transparency in
government.
It is as if they wanted to hide information, as if there were
something fishy, things that could not be disclosed, things that
the minister and his department are trying to hide. Is it because it
is too complicated? Why is it that elected government people
cannot obtain information on contracts given by the government
in public works and government services? Certainly, it is
because of a lack of concern for transparency. And that is the
least of our concerns.
I know, for example, that in the case of contracts awarded by
the federal government, Quebec has always been
short-changed. If you consider Quebec's contribution to the
federal level and the share of public works and service contracts
that Quebec should receive, the figure should be approximately
25 per cent and at least 23 per cent of all contracts. For a long
time now-10, 15, perhaps 20 years-Quebec has been getting
much less.
Last year for example, in 1993, the province was awarded 16
per cent of all contracts. It was 15 per cent in 1992 and 13 per
cent in 1991. When you think that contracts awarded by the
federal government are worth a total of $30 billion or more, this
is a considerable loss for Quebec. It amounts to approximately
$200 million a year. They may be trying to hide the extent of
these losses.
In any case, there are hidden facts, there is a lack of openness
on the part of the government. We would like to suggest at least
some improvements. Unfortunately, Bill C-52 deals only with
minor matters and moves things around and does not improve
the operation of the Department of Public Works. With this in
mind, the Bloc would like to make constructive, positive and
concrete suggestions.
For example, the legislation should require that regular
notices, say for example monthly notices, be given of all
contracts awarded by Public Works and Government Services.
(1230)
Normally, this should be included in Bill C-52. These notices
should be public and easily available and provide data by federal
riding, region and province. Such a measure would keep the
members of this House informed on what is going on in the
Department of Public Works so they would be in a position to
exercise their discretion and disclose cases of misuse or waste.
We also want to make a second recommendation. The
responsibility for public tenders should be decentralized in
order that offices of federal members of all parties be more
involved in the process, that members be consulted, or at least
informed of the awarding process in the case of government
contracts regarding their riding. This is not complicated. It is
normal for the members to be informed of the federal
government contracts in their ridings, so that they can shed
some light on some of these contracts, play a positive role and
do something about cases of waste or abuse.
We would even have another recommendation which would
be to adopt a precise code or agreement on subcontracting in Bill
C-52 in order for the government and the public servants to
know the government's intentions regarding this practice which
has been a policy for some time now. The very complex
subcontracting infrastructure costs more than $5 billion at the
federal level.
Over the last three to five years, subcontracting has increased
at an alarming rate because the government never established a
policy in this regard and has no guidelines indicating whether
subcontracting would or would not be profitable for the
government. We opened the door to subcontracting with all the
problems we are experiencing now and there are no guidelines.
We would have liked to seen some guidelines in Bill C-52 or a
code for the government to deal with subcontracting.
We have another suggestion for the government. It might be
time to give the federal civil servants the right to blow the
whistle on the waste of money in the public service, because
they know what is going on, but they cannot make anything
public. Obviously, if public servants had that right, as is
apparently the case in some American states right now, they
would not only be more accountable for their job, but I am sure
there would be less waste in government contracts.
Even if that suggestion goes through, some steps would have
to be taken to ensure that public servants with that right would
be protected and would not use it against their supervisors. We
must provide some measures to make sure that exposure of
abuse and waste by public servants works satisfactorily, and
would be useful to the government.
(1235)
In conclusion, following what I said this morning about the
lack of openness of this government in awarding contracts at the
Department of Public Works, and there are many of them, the
lack of will of this government to give teeth to Bill C-52, while
it is such an important department, because of all the contracts
that are awarded every year- 150,000, 175,000-because of
the amounts involved and mostly because of the doubts that we
have about waste within the government, in order to allow that
department to become more open and more accountable toward
elected representatives we would like to propose an amendment
6393
to Bill C-52. Therefor, I move, seconded by the member for
Charlevoix:
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word
``That'' and substituting the following:
``this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-52, An Act to establish
the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and
repeal certain acts, because it does not provide for the development of a code of
ethics aimed at ensuring the transparency of contracting activities and the
acquisition of all goods and services by the Department of Public Works and
Government Services''.
The Deputy Speaker: Having held consultations, I find the
motion in order.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
privilege of being able to respond to the proposal by the
government to put into legislation something which it has
already done, that is to amalgamate the Department of Supply
and Services, the Department of Public Works, the Government
Telecommunications Agency and the Translation Bureau into
one new department, the Department of Public Works and
Government Services Canada.
Before I comment on the actual legislation before us, I cannot
help but note that things are being done in backward order. The
thing is already done. The decision has been made and
implemented and it will not be reversed. We are now discussing
it and soon we will be voting to formalize a decision already
made.
I wonder if I am the only one who notices illogical things like
this. The same thing was done on the question of the military.
With much fanfare the government cancelled the helicopter
contracts. With great flair it announced the closure of a number
of military bases and moving them around. Then a military
review was announced and the work started on thinking about
what should be done. After some time the committee will
announce its findings and we will probably discuss the report,
but the actions have already been taken at huge expense. There
will be even greater expense if it becomes apparent that some of
these decisions need to be reversed.
(1240)
We have had exactly the same thing in the last few days in the
post office. We knew in June that the post office applied for an
increase in first class postal rates to 45 cents. Ironically the
government proceeded to do the work. The stamps were printed
and distributed. Now we see cabinet deciding whether or not to
actually do it. Meanwhile the taxpayers have spent the money.
No real business that has any hope of surviving can operate in
this way. We need to do our analysis first and include in that
analysis the most cost effective way of making changes. Why is
it that government can waste billions of dollars simply by
terribly poor planning and by taking hasty actions that are not
well thought through? Billions of dollars are forcibly removed
from citizens by the bully of taxation.
I need to get on with the main topic of my speech but I cannot
forget the Pearson airport deal. Is it not another example? If the
former government had not been in such a big hurry to sign
contracts without having covered all the facts of the situation
first, we would not be in the mess we are in now with that deal. I
find it appalling that the government is now ramming through a
bill respecting that deal which will hide payments made at the
discretion of the minister from parliamentary or public scrutiny.
I need to turn the corner and talk about Bill C-52. After what I
have just said members may be surprised to note that in general I
am in favour of the legislation. In general I support the move
toward downsizing, but the plan needs to be well thought out. A
number of issues need to be tackled. They must be done in the
right order.
In analysing the situation one should really ask the following
questions: First, what public service, what actual work, what
functions do we want the department to perform? Second, in
order to achieve what we want the department to do, how can we
best organize it so that it can perform those functions with the
greatest efficiency?
The amalgamation proposed in Bill C-52 is positive in the
sense that it will result in the reduction of overlapping duties
and functions. It should reduce overall costs, though that
remains to be seen. There will be a reduction of overhead costs.
Hopefully the new department will be able to deliver the
services specified in a timely and efficient manner.
Another efficiency will be achieved by combining the annual
report and the estimates. It will make it possible for managers,
and indeed members of the House, to make decisions more
effectively and more quickly on whether or not an expenditure is
being controlled by looking at the consolidated statements.
There are two broad principles governments should use. The
principles have been given to us by the people. The Reform
Party is articulating the principles on behalf of citizens who
have not been heard by governments of the past 20 to 40 years.
The first principle is that governments, civil servants,
politicians and political parties exist to serve the people. They
should demonstrate this service at all times.
I cannot help but interrupt my speech again to draw the
attention of the House to a great misunderstanding concerning
the Reform Party. Several days ago the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Humboldt gave a rather cute member's statement in
which she echoed the misinformation broadcast by our
sometimes untrustworthy CBC. She implied that members of the
Reform Party were somehow herded along by the leadership of
the party. The facts are that the leadership of the party and
6394
Reform MPs are driven by the grassroots. Ordinary citizens are
finding that their voices are being heard by us. Party policies in
our party are initiated by the members and the party leadership
acts as a clearing house to expedite debate and decisions at our
assembly.
(1245)
Yes, we believe in service. That is the first principle that
should pervade all levels of government. It is government of the
people, for the people, by the people. If we could do a 180 degree
turn in how governments operate compared to the past and the
present, perhaps that would be the single most important move
in restoring the faith of the people in the governments they elect.
The second principle is that public money should be regarded
by governments as funds in trust and governments should
practise fiscal responsibility. In particular, they should exercise
the responsibility of balancing expenditures and revenues.
There are not many issues that upset my constituents more than
the issue of the burgeoning debt.
If we were a board of directors of a public company the
shareholders would fire us. We are spending 20 per cent more
every year than we take in. We are headed for financial disaster
and for bankruptcy. Yes, the shareholders of a company would
fire the board of directors if that was how they carried on.
Indeed, this is what the Canadian people have begun to do.
They are totally fed up with the flagrant waste of their money by
governments of the last 20 or 30 years. Beginning in the west
there is a massive sweep of support for Reform because we are
promising to balance the budget. We just cannot go on the way
we are. In some form or another, if not now then in the very near
future we will have to pay the bills that we have run up.
The most unfair transfer of responsibility in this country is the
intergenerational transfer of debt. We are spending our
children's inheritance. From our graves we will have to
apologize to them for giving them the inheritance of such huge
financial indebtedness that they will not be able to enjoy
anything near the standard of living that we have stolen from
them. I am embarrassed to be a member of this generation,
leaving my children a legacy of profligate overspending,
exercising no discipline in how we handle our affairs.
In speaking to Bill C-52 I believe that we are beginning to
move in the right direction on these principles. I want to show
my support and commitment to the principles by helping to hold
this government accountable for the steps it is taking. I want to
assume that the motives of the government are honourable. I
want to assume that it really means it when it says it wants to do
better.
I suppose it is almost impossible to do worse than the
government that was defeated last fall. But there is always the
danger that the frail ship can be blown off course. We will be
there to help and to remind the government to abide by these
principles.
The principle of service to the public should be demonstrated
by the way that business processes are developed and
implemented. It should be evident in the way that public
property is managed, particularly office and warehouse space. It
should be evident in the way bidding and procurement
procedures are developed and implemented. It should be evident
in the way technology will be utilized to increase effectiveness
and efficiency. Most of all, it should be evident in the way we
and all civil servants meet the people, the way we talk to them
and the way we serve them. There should never be an attitude of
condescension but always an attitude of helpfulness and service.
I would add that we should also always have an attitude of
total honesty and openness, whether it is procurement or
whether it is talking about the way government influences
public policy. There should be total openness. It is the people's
business. The people have the right to know everything.
With respect to the second principle I mentioned, the one of
sound fiscal management and wise use of the limited financial
resources available, I need to emphasize it is my opinion that we
are not doing enough here in this bill.
(1250 )
It is insufficient to merely shuffle the deck to bring together
two or three departments here and two or three there. It is not
sufficient to merely reorganize the management tree. We need to
look very seriously at the functions of government. We need to
re-examine many things government is doing that is not
supported by the people. There need to be some cuts. Some
departments need to be eliminated because there is no longer a
need or a demand for the functions they provide.
Can this be done? Would it be possible for us to discuss this in
a meaningful, non-emotional way so that we could brainstorm
our way to some positive solutions?
I can think of a number of examples in which we are not
serving the people well with regard to monetary stewardship. I
think of the $60 million taken out of the accountability loop by
the antics of the CCG. I think of the ongoing construction of a
national GST processing centre in Prince Edward Island at the
same time as this government is promising to eliminate the GST.
I am thinking of some extravagant offices and some
unacceptable vacancy rates. I am thinking of moneys to crown
corporations and special operating agencies and the way some of
them are operating without full accountability. I am thinking
even of the fact that the collection of hundreds and hundreds of
smaller
6395
savings could save millions of dollars for the Canadiantaxpayer.
Departmental contracting value for last year was in the order
of $7.8 billion. The handling of this large amount of tax dollars
must be treated with great respect. We need to assure the public
that everything is done out in the open with full disclosure of
who is getting what and how much they are getting.
I wish to conclude by saying that I am personally committed
to doing my share in influencing the way the government does
its business. I want the people of Canada to know that in the
Reform Party and hopefully among the other members of this
House there are individuals who are deeply committed to doing
this thing right. We want to treat the people with the respect they
deserve. We want to stop overtaxing them. We want to serve
them and we want to be good stewards of the money that they
entrust to us.
I believe that the Canadian public is becoming more and more
disillusioned with the concept that the government has to do
everything for everyone. There are more and more people who
simply want the government to back off and give them some
freedom to make their own choices and manage their own
affairs. They want government to do just the minimal things that
it is not possible for them to do by themselves.
The days of thinking that nothing will get done unless the
government controls and subsidizes or pays for it are over. The
days are ending when everyone can use the government as a
means of confiscating the dwindling available earnings of the
average person to spend at will on whatever project seems to
meet their fancy.
Henry Samtrooke said it well when he referred to the
rapturous, wild and ineffable pleasure of drinking at somebody
else's expense. In giving support in principle to Bill C-52, I
hope that we are beginning to move in the right direction. We
will be waiting with great interest to observe that this
government takes it all the way. We want to see that the deficits
are stopped before its too late.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to be able to follow the two lead critics
of the Bloc and the Reform Party with respect to this legislation
because it gives me an opportunity to make a few comments, not
in an unkind way but to make sure that we understand each other
and that we are talking from the same base.
My colleague from the Reform is supporting this bill and I
appreciate that. I think it is for many of the right reasons. I want
to make sure it is understood that the decision to amalgamate
government had been initiated by the previous government with
the order in council process. We are undertaking today this
legislation to affirm that we do have the powers that we thought
we had.
(1255)
It would not be fair to say that we had not done our job. We are
in fact doing our job. I am not sure that is what he was
suggesting.
I also want to point out that we are open to suggestions. My
colleague mentioned that he wanted to make some suggestions.
That is not a problem.
A comment was made regarding Canada Post and increased
postal rates. My colleague will know that Canada Post had
anticipated that. There was a request made of government and
that request is being reviewed right now. My minister, the
minister responsible for Canada Post, is particularly sensitive to
what the impact might be on small and medium size businesses.
He will analyse that with his colleagues and look at it very
carefully before proceeding.
The third point that was made was with respect to the deficit
and the debt. I want to remind my colleague that by the year
1998, if my memory serves me correctly, the anticipated savings
with this legislation because of what will be done are in the
neighbourhood of $180 million and by the year 2000 up to $1
billion. That is a lot of money and it is going in the direction I
think he would like, perhaps not as quickly but certainly in the
right direction on that particular issue.
[Translation]
The Bloc Quebecois member commented about government
waste and abuse. He mentioned contracts for Quebec. In a calm
and generous manner I simply ask him to prove what he is
saying. Where is the proof? It is so easy to make accusations.
The member knows very well that we are now in the process of
eliminating overlapping and duplication with this bill. If I
remember correctly this is exactly what some of my colleagues
from the Bloc are asking. I hope it is not only talk, that they
really mean it because this bill is tackling the problem of
overlapping and duplication.
I think the member also forgot to mention the large savings
this will bring about: $205 million by 1998, and one billion by
the year 2000. I hope he will still be here, as well as myself, to
see these savings come about.
A last comment, to be completely sure there is no
misunderstanding. Unfortunately, the member gave the
impression-he is not a bad man, maybe he was influenced by
somebody else-that the government had been far from
generous in the allocation of contracts to Quebec. As regards the
whole question of access to government, openness and
transparency for the government, the hon. member knows well
that our open invitations to bid are very transparent and that we
also have other systems. For the first time in a long while we
have opened up the process. For the first time in a long while any
Canadian throughout this vast country can obtain information
on what the
6396
government needs in terms of goods and services. Therefore
improvements have been made that I wish to mention.
I understand the opposition because I myself was a member of
the opposition for some time. I may have sometimes
exaggerated but I think there was gross exaggeration today.
[English]
I want to get into my formal remarks. At the conclusion of his
recent address to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the
Prime Minister stressed the importance of concentrating on
providing good government.
[Translation]
This is what the legislation before the House today seeks to
achieve. By giving its formal approval to the creation of the
Department of Public Works and Government Services,
Parliament goes one step further in offering Canadians
everywhere good governmental services.
The bill brings together in a single department all the service
agencies of the government in order to streamline government,
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of services and to
better meet the needs of Canadians everywhere in Canada.
(1300 )
[English]
The new department means improved service to other
government departments and agencies as well as improved
service to Canadians. Taxpayers save money. Government
departments have one-stop shopping for all their service needs
and there is a single window to the government for suppliers and
contractors across the country.
The creation of a new department simplifies the business of
doing business with the government. It simplifies the process of
receiving information from the government. Parliament is asked
to give approval to rolling government service agencies into one
department and thereby reducing overlap and duplication,
which is a tremendous way to save money.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services
was formed last year to provide from one source a range of
essential services in support of all other government programs.
The amalgamation was achieved by orders in council but this
bill was required to create the new department in statute. The
department brings together four common service organizations.
One major component of the new department is the former
department of supply and services which was the government's
internal service organization. The other major component is the
former public works department which administers a wide range
of federal buildings and properties. The new department also
incorporates the former government telecommunications
agency and the translation bureau.
I know that most Canadians have heard the phrase public
works and government services but I think it is fair to say many
of them wonder what those phrases mean and exactly what the
new department does.
I would like to take a few moments to outline the
responsibilities of the new department and to explain how it
affects the way government operates and how it affects
Canadians.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services is
the Government of Canada's chief purchasing agent, publisher,
banker, accountant and paymaster. It provides office
accommodation, real estate, design and construction,
telecommunications and translation services for the
Government of Canada and for other agencies as well.
We issue about $200 million payments a year on behalf of the
Canada Pension Plan, old age security, GST, child tax benefit,
public service payroll, as well as to our suppliers. We manage
the government's annual cash flow of $1.4 trillion with an
average daily balance of $2.7 billion. Certainly one of the most
popular services is issuing tax refund cheques to Canadians.
As the principal purchasing agency for the government the
department buys some $10 billion worth of products and
services each year and works on major acquisition projects
worth another $23 billion. We issue on average 150,000
contracts to the private sector annually.
The department handles the purchase of 17,000 categories of
goods and services. Our procurement ranges from frigates and
satellites to medical supplies and food aid, to weather balloons
and information technology. The department buys for more than
150 federal departments and agencies.
Our new government telecommunications and infomatic
service is the lead agency in moving the government toward the
better service and lower costs which can be achieved through
automation and electronic interaction.
Translation is provided in the official languages of Canada
and some 150 other languages and dialects. Our experts also
provide interpretation services for some 40 languages including
sign language. The department fields over 150,000 inquiries
every year regarding precise terminology.
[Translation]
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that I made a statement in the
House yesterday. On behalf of all my colleagues I spoke in
praise of the services that interpreters, translators and terminol-
6397
ogists provide us. Their services are very important to us and
today I wish to stress even more the excellent job they do.
[English]
The department is the largest real estate agency in Canada,
providing work spaces for some 150,000 government employees
across the country. We also run all federal properties under the
jurisdiction of any other department. We provide a wide variety
of management, maintenance and improvement services for
federal properties and facilities. The department holds an
estimated $6.5 billion of real estate on behalf of the people of
Canada. The primary holdings are office buildings and common
use facilities. We are also the custodians of national landmarks
including the Parliament Buildings where we meet today,
laboratories, warehouses, residences, bridges, highways, locks,
dams and dry docks.
(1305)
Three agencies provide services to public sector
organizations on an optional fee for service basis. The Canada
Communication Group offers communication services to
government departments and agencies. Consulting and Auditing
Canada's services include the full range of management
consulting disciplines and specialities. The Canadian General
Standards Board supports governments and the private sector
through the development and distribution of standards for
government and consumer products.
As members can see, a tremendous number of services are
provided by the integrated department. By integrating all of
these activities into one department we are making it easier for
Canadians to deal with the government and we are making it
cheaper for the government to function.
In fact the common sense rationalization of activities will
result in annual savings, as I have indicated before, of some
$180 million by 1998. We are proving the government can
reduce costs and improve services to Canadians at the same
time. This is surely a goal all members of Parliament and all
Canadians see.
The reality is that we are only able to achieve these
worthwhile objectives through the extremely dedicated work of
the public servants who have been brought together from other
departments and agencies into one. Those public servants have
shown extraordinary commitment to making this new
department a success and I applaud their efforts.
By the time the department is fully integrated, the workforce
will be reduced from 18,00 full time employees to 14,000. It
takes a great deal of integrity for people to organize themselves
out of a job in order to provide better government.
As the minister for public service renewal has stated, we can
and will achieve changes with the absolute minimum of
dislocation and involuntary lay-offs.
I respect the excellent work of the people in this department
and I understand, as my minister does, that they are real human
beings with real families, real bills to pay and a real
commitment to serving the public with integrity. The minister
and I are determined to treat them with the decency and fairness
they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission I wonder if I could make a
request. This morning because of medical problem I have, I got
to my chair a few seconds late and I missed my place, which is
fair.
I wonder if could have the unanimous consent of the House to
continue?
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow
the member to extend his statement by a few minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to add that in creating a
modern department to serve Canadians better in the years ahead,
we have also used the opportunity to bring forward legislation
that is modern and up to date. The bill before the House of
Commons reflects existing legislation and operational practices
of the government. To put this in context, the DSS act dates back
to 1967 and the Department of Public Works Act to 1867. That is
even older than I am. This legislation must be modernized and
brought into the 1990s.
The problem with making jokes about age is that some people
agree it is probably true.
What we have done in preparing this bill is to eliminate
unnecessary or antiquated sections of previous legislation
which no longer make any sense in 1994. For example, in the
Department of Public Works Act there is a long and detailed
description of public works. It has been eliminated. We have
modernized the legislative responsibilities of the department to
reflect technological changes which have occurred in our
society.
For example, the DSS act referred to data processing services.
We have changed it to information management and information
technology systems and services.
(1310 )
We have also eliminated old rules which added meaningless
red tape to our efforts to provide responsive and affordable
service to Canadians. For example, we have deleted the section
requiring the tabling of an annual report as we are now
producing a detailed report on the department's operations as
part of our main estimates.
6398
I want to assure members of Parliament that the legislation
before them is based on powers contained in the existing
legislation and that any changes are straightforward, common
sense changes to which I am confident every Canadian would
agree.
Without getting into cumbersome detail, I would like to point
out some highlights of the legislation to members. This bill
gives legislative approval to the department to create, oversee or
transfer information electronically or by other new
technologies. That is the kind of common sense change I was
talking about. The point is to reflect today's world. When the
government started centralized procurement policies in the
1960s nobody had heard of the information highway or personal
computers.
Bill C-52 also creates a real property disposition revolving
fund. The new fund will simply permit expenditures made in
selling off property to be paid from the proceeds of the sale.
Right now Parliament provides a specific amount each year for
these expenditures. The problem is that it is extremely difficult
to know what sales opportunities may come along in any given
year. Any annual appropriation by Parliament in the past was
based on a guess. The new revolving fund corrects this situation
and makes sure that the department's hands are not tied if the
chance arises to dispose of excess property at a fair price.
There are other sections of the bill which I think will not be
matters of great debate but which do represent key
modifications and improvements to the way the department can
operate. The new legislation improves upon the legislation it
replaces by providing greater flexibility and the removal of
administrative impediments to better service for Canadians.
As we stated in the red book, the government will work
closely with provincial governments to reduce duplication and
improve service delivery in all areas where governments are
involved. Under current law, officials on the supply and services
side are only permitted to share our purchasing power with other
levels of government after first seeking governor in council
approval. The public works side does not have this explicit
authority.
The current law does not allow the Department of Public
Works and Government Services to use its size, expertise and
contacts in assisting Canadian businesses to move them to new
world markets. The bill before Parliament will allow the
department to change all of those practices and to continue to
move forward in ensuring that taxpayers get the best bang for
their buck by ensuring that we can provide more help to
Canadians. This is totally in line with what we laid out in the red
book. We have done what we said we would do.
I do not want to take advantage of my colleague's generosity
this afternoon so I want to make a few more comments and bring
this to an end. I point out to my colleagues that this change is
needed in order to make absolutely certain that we have the
legislative authority to operate as a department should.
I want to stress that this legislative change is as a result of an
action undertaken by a previous government so we are doing
what the previous government might have done. I want to stress
that this particular change will remove obstacles to good
government.
[Translation]
As I said earlier, duplication and overlap will gradually be
eliminated, which will allow us to save $140 million by 1998
and $1 billion by the year 2000.
I am almost finished. I do not want to prolong this unduly. I
hope that I will not only get the support of Reform Party
members, who indicated in a clear and honest way that they were
ready to look at the bill with an open heart and an open mind, but
that the hon. members from the Bloc will agree to reconsider
what they said this morning and perhaps propose amendments
that could improve the bill instead of simply making
unsupported attacks against it. This is not the way one should
react.
(1315)
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, we have
just heard an absolutely wonderful speech. You would think this
is the best department in Ottawa. The problem is, I had the
opportunity to work in this committee of public works and
government services and I was also the official critic.
I can tell you that there is no openness in that department. The
hon. member for St. Boniface made a big show of it, but the truth
is we never got what we wanted. Every day we asked for
information, but this department was never forthcoming. This is
the patronage department. Let us be clear on that, there is no
hiding it, this is a fact.
The hon. member for St. Boniface is nodding in approval, how
very interesting. I know you want to answer my question, so I
will give you the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Speaker, we introduced a motion to amend this bill. I hope
the hon. member for St. Boniface will take it into account and
not launch into another one of those dramatic speeches he makes
every time he takes the floor in the House. I hope he will also try
to improve this department where there is no openness
whatsoever, but a great deal of patronage.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment a great
deal. I realize that the hon. member is the official critic and that
she was not always satisfied with the answers she received.
I realize also that she is not entirely right. We received a lot of
information. It was sometimes difficult to understand it all,
since there was so much of it.
6399
It is Friday afternoon, so I will be kind. This is nevertheless
an unsupported attack. The hon. member was the official critic.
She could have provided us with concrete examples showing
where she saw a lack of openness. But she did not do it, she
just attacked the department without backing up her allegations.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, the day
Public Works and Government Services Canada becomes really
open, really very clear and transparent will be a day of
celebration for me.
I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-52, an
act to establish the Department of Public works and Government
Services. As I said earlier, until just recently I had the privilege
of being the Official Opposition critic for this department and as
such I had the opportunity to discuss matters with its hon.
minister.
I would like to share with you today what I know about this
department and what changes should be made to make it more
transparent, more open and more accessible to all taxpayers who
wish either to receive information on its activities or do business
with it.
I understand, when one is in opposition one tends to
exaggerate-I was there, and maybe I did exaggerate a few
times. I will try not to do it now. I will give my total, sincere and
deep commitment to do my best to improve the openness of this
department. I understand that there is room for improvement,
but I intend to do everything I can to increase the degree of
openness and try to answer honestly the question of my
colleagues, including the hon. member who just spoke.
All of us in this House will agree that, either way, these are
legitimate demands on the part of the taxpayers and they should
not be ignored in a cavalier fashion. This bill should ensure that
the various demands of the taxpayers can be met, but this is not
the case. The only thing the enactment does is to merge two
former departments-a process which incidentally was initiated
by the Conservatives-as well as various government agencies.
(1320)
Section 5 of the bill states that this new department shall
operate as a common service agency for the Government of
Canada, and its activities as a common service agency shall be
directed mainly toward providing the departments, boards and
agencies of the Government of Canada with services in support
of their programs.
Basically, this department is responsible for the acquisition
and provision of goods and services for all departments of the
Government of Canada. It negotiates, buys and rents an
impressive number of goods and services for other departments.
Last year it negotiated 170,000 public contracts. That is rather
impressive.
As the member of Parliament for Laurentides and
parliamentarian responsible for taxpayers' money as well as a
taxpayer myself, I want to know everything there is to
know-and I mean everything-about the tens of thousands of
government contracts negotiated by this department every year.
It is the taxpayers' money that the government spends; it is
therefore accountable to them for its use.
Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill about how these
contracts should be accounted for in all the relevant information
made available to the public. The government sticks to its old
ways and continues to be secretive. This government refuses to
make information readily available. That is very clear, but also
quite sad. It shows mainly that the government is scared to
death, scared of getting caught spending the taxpayers' money
improperly.
By leaving out of this bill a provision to divulge automatically
all information in contracts, the government perpetuates the
widespread opinion that the department still indulges in
patronage, and awards thousands of contracts under the pressure
of lobbyists, friends of the government, or people who
contribute to the funding of the old parties. Failure to take action
to change this general opinion could prove in part that it is well
founded.
To leave the minister and bureaucrats free to conceal or to
divulge information clearly indicates that the system does not
meet the basic expectations of a democratic society. Letting the
minister decide whether Canadians should know how their tax
dollars are spent seems contrary to the transparent and open
government that Liberals have been promising since they
crossed the floor.
The Liberal government is no better than its Conservative
predecessor, that it once denounced so vehemently. Members
opposite are backing down. They have lost the backbone that
made them so brave when they formed the official opposition
and during the election. The members opposite are going back
on the commitments they made in their red bible. Transparency
and openness no longer figure in their vocabulary. First it was
the red bible, now they dress in red and follow their great leader,
the Minister of Public Works, Santa Claus personified, the main
purveyor of government contracts who keeps his secrets to
himself and silences his little elves gathered round him, across
the aisle.
This bill is nothing but a formality, an insipid document
which again hands taxpayers over to the minister and those in
high places under his control. With this bill, the government is
saying to taxpayers: ``The minister spends your money but this
is none of your business''. To use an expression made famous by
our illustrious Minister of Transport: ``If you taxpayers want to
know to whom, and how, contracts are awarded, use the Access
to Information Act''.
Why make it so difficult to have access to that information? In
recent months, I have tried to pressure the minister into setting
up a rational system to disclose contracts awarded. I even tabled
a motion asking the minister to disclose, on a monthly basis, all
government contracts awarded. Such a system could even be
established for all departments awarding numerous contracts.
The minister replied that this monthly disclosure was
unnecessary, since all the information is already available and
ordinary citizens can find out anything they want about
government contracts. How insulting from the minister! This
answer shows that the minister has no respect for us. It is wrong
to claim that
6400
the information is available and accessible. As evidence of that,
I have specific requests for information on contracts awarded to
entrepreneurs in my riding which have remained unanswered for
more than two months now.
(1325)
What is even worse is the fact that recently all Bloc Quebecois
members were refused access to a list of government contracts
awarded in their respective ridings during the last year. This
refusal from the minister and the Liberal government to provide
that information to members is, in my opinion, a very serious
violation of their right to information.
Indeed, how can an elected member, even if he is a minister,
deny other elected members the right to know what is going on
in their respective ridings? This behaviour is totally
unacceptable and is exactly why people continue to believe that
politicians and civil servants award contracts only to friends of
the government and to contractors offering the biggest bribes.
The minister must explain why he refused to provide the Bloc
members with the information they asked for. For the time
being, he argues that it would cost $160,000 and that he is not
equipped to provide the list of contracts required. Come on, with
everyone talking about the electronic highway, no one can
seriously claim that it is impossible to collect, code and release
this information according to some specifications.
With all the computer equipment the government buys, I think
it is a bit far-fetched to try to make us believe that all that work
is still done by hand in the department.
I also think that this amount of $160,000 is part and parcel of
the administration and operating costs of the department. I do
not see how these costs can be considered as additional
expenses.
Given the minister's refusal, we believe he is trying to hide
something. He knows full well that his department is not known
for its integrity and transparency. He also knows that the
department does not distribute federal funds fairly among the
various regions and provinces. The federal government must
play fair and distribute Canada's wealth so as to support
development in each and every region of the country.
However, statistics clearly indicate that the federal
government supports some regions more than others. For
example, the city of Ottawa alone received almost 99 per cent of
all contracts awarded by the government in 1993 for the Ottawa
region, while its twin city, Hull, across the river, made do with a
meagre 1 per cent.
That is a harsh reality for those who believe blindly in this
supposedly fair federal system. Federalists and centralists will
surely find reasons, legitimate or not, to explain these statistics
indicating such an extraordinary concentration of contracts.
In the view of the Bloc Quebecois, this imbalance could be
corrected if all contracts were made public. Thus, small and
large contractors would know which goods and services the
government needs. And knowing this, they might want to do
business with the government. Moreover, all this information
would force the government to show greater fairness in the
contracting process. Furthermore, the government should even
support and help potential suppliers in neglected areas, thus
creating growth and jobs where they are urgently needed. Is job
creation the main goal of the federal government or not?
It is about time that the government show some openness in
the allocation of contracts, not only in the department we are
talking about today but in all departments. There are means to
achieve this and the Bloc is proposing some.
Ministers across the aisle always beg us to suggest new ideas
and new ways of doing things. Well, here they are.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will still have nine
minutes next time this motion is debated.
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
6400
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact legislation
which will protect children from pedophiles by allowing members of the
National Parole Board to enforce the long term incarceration of offenders whom
they feel may reoffend.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to
speak on Motion No. 305 which calls upon the government to
introduce legislation which will allow for the post-sentence
detention of child sex offenders who are likely to reoffend upon
release from prison.
Motion No. 305 reads as follows:
6401
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact legislation which
will protect children from pedophiles by allowing members of the National Parole
Board to enforce the long term incarceration of offenders whom they feel may
reoffend.
I begin by sharing the story behind the motion with my hon.
colleagues. In June 1988, 11-year old Christopher Stephenson
was abducted from a Brampton shopping mall by 45-year old
Joseph Fredericks, a repeat child sex offender who was known
by criminal justice officials to be in a dangerous state of mind.
Fredericks murdered Christopher.
The details of this need not be recounted here. Rather we must
focus on action which we as legislators can take to prevent a
similar tragedy from occurring. The loss of Christopher's life
was both needless and preventable. This is apparent to anyone
who takes a moment to review the recommendations made by
the inquest that looked into Christopher's death.
Those recommendations, collectively called the Stephenson
report, tell us that corrections officials knew that Mr. Fredericks
was dangerous when he was released. They knew that he was
certain to reoffend. They just could not do anything about it. The
legislative authority required to keep Mr. Fredericks in prison
simply did not exist despite the fact that he was a certified
psychopath.
It is within the authority of the House to enact such
legislation. It is within the authority of the House to empower
corrections officials to act to keep people like Mr. Fredericks off
the streets as long as they pose a threat to our children. That is
what the motion seeks to do.
Motion No. 305 calls on the government to enact legislation
which will empower the National Parole Board to keep child sex
offenders who are likely to reoffend upon release incarcerated
beyond the term of their sentence. This was a key
recommendation of the Stephenson inquest and it came at a high
price.
When we look at the statistics surrounding child sex offenders
it is clear that many Canadians are affected by this horrible
crime. Fifty-three per cent of all females and thirty-one per cent
of all males are victims of unwanted sexual acts. Eighty per cent
of these incidents occurred when they were children or youth. A
full sixty-three per cent of victims in all sexual assaults
reported to the police are young people under the age of 18.
Canadian children are prime targets for sex offenders and it is
time that we took action to ensure their safety.
The magnitude of the task is apparent when we look at the
profile of child sex offenders. In eight out of ten cases the
offenders are either related or known to the victims. They
occupy positions of trust in the lives of their victims. It is
therefore no surprise that a sexual assault against a child often
goes unreported.
One study estimates that for every incident of reported child
sex abuse two and a half go unreported. Abusers will often
threaten the children, thus making them too afraid to report the
offence. Other times the offender will persuade the child that the
sexual acts are part of any loving relationship and are perfectly
acceptable.
Because of the power offenders often enjoy over their victims,
their abuse often goes unreported. That is why it is crucial that
we act in an effective manner toward child sex offenders when a
child has the courage to speak out about abuse.
Current legislation does not allow for truly effective action
against child sex offenders. Existing provisions of the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act allow for the release of
offenders upon completion of two-thirds of their sentence.
Amendments proposed by Bill C-45, which was before the
House for first reading last week, would allow the National
Parole Board to deny the release of offenders if it feels that they
will reoffend within the term of their sentence. Bill C-45 is a
giant leap forward in the fight against child sex offenders, but
more needs to be done.
(1335)
I do not wish to understate the importance of the amendments
contained in Bill C-45. By removing the requirement to prove
serious harm in order to deny parole to a child sex offender, we
are giving the National Parole Board a very important
instrument in the battle to protect our children.
The serious harm provision was removed out of a recognition
that the effects of abuse on children are often not apparent for
some time and that a unique sentencing procedure would have to
be enacted to deal with child sex offenders.
It is precisely because Bill C-45 employs a non-traditional
sentencing procedure that it is so progressive. Traditional
sentencing procedures are simply not effective with respect to
child sex offenders who have one of the highest reoffence rates
in any criminal group. Studies show that 40 per cent of sex
offenders reoffend within five years of being released from
incarceration.
I believe it is time we took an even bigger step toward
effectively addressing this horrible crime. I believe
post-sentence detentions are the means to take this step. By
keeping these offenders incarcerated as long as they are likely to
reoffend we are acting in a constructive, progressive manner. It
allows us to link punishment with rehabilitation.
The change in sentencing philosophy is long overdue. We
need to send a message loud and clear that punishment is not just
serving time. It is more than that. In order for punishment to
have been completed convicted offenders must not be in the
6402
same state of mind as they were when they entered prison. They
cannot simply leave after serving time. If they are likely to
reoffend upon release, they must remain in prison and receive
further treatment. Through the change in philosophy we are
saying that what offenders do in prison is as important as the
length of time they stay there.
Because the model of post-sentence detention is constructive
and progressive and looks after the well-being of the offender in
the interest of protecting society, it poses a particular challenge
for the criminal justice system.
There is no cure for whatever causes an individual to sexually
assault a child. However treatment is available with limited
success. One study conducted in Europe identified the reoffence
rate of child sex offenders as being in the range of 25 per cent.
The same study found that with treatment the reoffence rate
dropped by 10 to 15 per cent. This reoffence rate is still too high,
but any improvement is encouraging.
The reality is that sometimes any amount of treatment does
not help. According to the Stephenson report the treatment
which Joseph Fredericks received was counterproductive.
Post-sentence detention would not have helped to improve Mr.
Fredericks' condition, but it would have empowered the
National Parole Board to save a very precious life by keeping
him off the streets.
There is nationwide support for legislation introducing
post-sentencing detention procedures for child sex offenders.
Earlier today I presented a petition that Mrs. Carole Horan
began. The wording of my motion is actually very similar to that
of Mrs. Horan's petition. The petition began as a local initiative
and soon began circulating across the country. The petition was
only in circulation for six months. I was pleased to table it in the
House. It contains 6,100 signatures of Canadians from across
the country, and no doubt across the political spectrum, who feel
it is time that an effective post-sentence detention mechanism
was introduced.
Recent initiatives to enact the post-sentence detention of
child sex offenders have not adequately addressed the problems
which child sex offenders pose to society. I am referring to a
draft bill circulated by the previous government and
reintroduced in Parliament by the member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley as Bill C-240.
That legislation would amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act and remove the provisions that restrict
the application of a dangerous offender finding to the sentencing
court only. That means offenders would be declared dangerous
offenders after having completed their sentence and
incarcerated indefinitely, subject to periodic reviews to
determine whether they still fit the dangerous offender category.
(1340)
While I sincerely appreciate and share the concerns of the
hon. member, I respectfully submit that Bill C-240 is too narrow
in its application to child sex offenders to be a truly effective
piece of legislation.
Bill C-240 would not have the wide ranging power to enforce
post-sentence detention which most of us would like to see. This
is due to provisions found in clauses 16 and 26 of the legislation
that have the effect of restricting the number of applications for
post-sentence detention that would be approved.
Clause 16 empowers Correctional Service Canada to identify
offenders who it feels may reoffend and refer them to the
National Parole Board. If the board concurs with Correctional
Service Canada, clause 26 allows it to refer the case to the
appropriate provincial attorney general who may proceed with
the case before a court. This procedure would apply to a very
small number of individuals because in order for Correctional
Service Canada and the National Parole Board to take steps to
apply a dangerous offender finding, evidence must be presented
that could not reasonably have been presented to the court that
sentenced the offender.
This is a problem for detaining child sex offenders who we
know will reoffend. Often the only evidence that can be
presented, and the only evidence that should have to be
presented, is that they are of a state of mind to commit the same
crime again. However it is the same state of mind with which
they entered prison so it does not qualify as new evidence. We
need to be clear in saying that part of the original punishment for
child sex offenders is that they cannot be of the same state of
mind when they leave prison as when they entered.
Some would argue that this philosophy of sentencing runs
counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically they
would argue that section 11(h) of the charter, which prevents an
individual from being punished twice for the same crime,
prohibits the enactment of any post-sentence detention scheme.
The courts have been clear in declaring that post-sentence
detention is not a violation of individual rights under the charter.
They have ruled that the dangerous offender designation of the
Criminal Code which allows for the indefinite incarceration of
an offender is primarily in the public interest and is not a
violation of an individual's charter rights.
I refer to the 1987 decision of the Manitoba Court of Queen's
Bench in Regina v. Lithium. The court ruled that in dangerous
offender applications under the Criminal Code the public
interest is a primary concern and that the specific object of the
provision is to protect society from an offender who had been
convicted of a serious personal injury offence and who had
shown a propensity for violent crimes.
6403
In its precedent setting decision the Manitoba Court of
Queen's Bench clearly stated that post-sentence detention in
the case of dangerous offender provisions is in the public
interest because it serves a protective function. The court
recognized that the charter exists to protect the freedoms of all
Canadians. Post-sentence detention should be viewed as an
instrument for promoting the safety of Canadians.
The model of post-sentence detention for which I have argued
today goes beyond existing dangerous offender provisions and
is not only in the best interest of society but of the offender
through the provision of rehabilitative treatment.
Many of these offences occur when people are on parole. We
look for someone to blame and we often blame the parole board.
I was on the provincial parole board. Many times we had to make
a decision on releasing an offender whom we were not too sure
about. If we have two-thirds of the sentence, or even if it is a
three-year sentence, when we have people in front of the parole
board who may reoffend do we let them out or not? Many times
they are let out because the parole board feels they are going to
be let out anyway and it is better they be let out under
supervision. This gives the parole board more authority to hold
these people.
(1345)
In closing, I would like to emphasize that the legislation
which this motion directs the government to introduce is long
overdue. The post-sentence detention of child sex offenders
who are likely to reoffend upon release is sound, responsible
policy. When dealing with legislation or directives to introduce
legislation we must always ask ourselves what kind of statement
the proposed legislation makes about society. We must always
be sure that this action is focused on the problem it is meant to
address, effective in dealing with this problem and in the
interests of all Canadians.
I believe that Motion No. 305 fulfils all of these criteria. It
says that we as a society care about the safety and well-being of
our children and that we want to protect them from sex
offenders. It proposes that the government enact legislation
which will protect our children by imposing the post-sentence
detention of offenders who are likely to reoffend.
It says that this action is in the best interests of all Canadians
because it moves to assist not only those individuals who need
rehabilitative help but those Canadians who need protection
from these offenders.
Given the importance which passage of this motion has for the
safety and well-being of all children in Canada, I request leave
of the House to give unanimous consent for this motion to be
deemed votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion does not have the
unanimous consent of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Brampton who
presented this motion in the House for giving us this opportunity
to discuss a very important topic, and as far as I am concerned, I
felt that the motion as drafted was entirely acceptable and could
have been referred to a committee for consideration.
The hon. member gave us an excellent and carefully crafted
speech on the threat that child sex offenders represent to society.
There are of course certain aspects I would like to discuss with
the hon. member. I said this week, and it is my conviction, that
there are various ways of expressing one's sexuality. When I say
various ways, I do not include pedophilia, because I believe a
sexual relationship should involve consenting partners, those
partners being adults. Clearly, when pedophilia is involved, one
partner is in a position of power and dominates the other, and
there is also the exploitation aspect.
As Quebecers and Canadians we are right to be concerned
about pedophiles being at large. We could, of course, talk about
why some people in our society are pedophiles. A number of
theories, including psychoanalytic assumptions, the frustration
concept and the behaviourist approach are used to explain this
phenomenon. The fact remains that as legislators we have a
responsibility, as the hon. member for Brampton said, to take the
corrective action that is necessary. That is why I am glad she has
drawn the attention of the House to one of the aspects of this
problem.
However, I thought that the hon. member, being on the
government side, would have shown more support for the
contents of Bill C-45. I may have misread the bill, however, and
that is why I would like to discuss it with her, because I
understood that Bill C-45-I know we have some people with us
this afternoon who are familiar with the mechanics of the bill-I
thought that Bill C-45 gave the National Parole Board the option
of extending sentences.
(1350)
I thought that Bill C-45, in two specific cases that I will refer
to precisely, allowed for a criminal to be found to be dangerous
and not eligible for a reduced sentence or parole. As I
understood it, criminals convicted of sexual crimes are almost
automatically determined to be dangerous and it is extremely
difficult for them to obtain a reduced sentence or a conditional
discharge.
6404
The opposition parties support Bill C-45 on the whole, but,
as my colleague, the member for Saint-Hubert explained, we
do have some reservations about the mechanics of its
application. I thought that Bill C-45 authorized the National
Parole Board to refuse parole provided two conditions were
met.
First, the convict would have committed a criminal act
causing serious harm to the victim, and second, that harm would
be related to a crime of a sexual nature. Naturally, I am not a
lawyer, and with all due respect for lawyers I certainly do not
think I am a lesser person for that, but I was under the
impression that Bill C-45 was a proper answer to the motion. It
would have been interesting to have the member for Brampton
explain why Bill C-45 does not deal entirely with her motion.
Some of the people who talked to me about this motion, put by
the member for Brampton, were concerned that it might turn a
quasi-administrative body into a tribunal. I repeat that we
support the basic principle of the motion. It is truly the duty of
the Canadian society, and of all other societies, to protect
children from possible contacts with pedophiles.
According to our present legal system, a judge may impose
life-long sentences to offenders guilty of criminal acts. Judges
already have that authority. Naturally, I believe we should exert
pressures and stir public opinion on this issue so that the judges
themselves impose sanctions like the one suggested by the
member for Brampton.
Some people worry about the possibility that this authority
could be assumed by a quasi-administrative body which was not
a count. We all recognize that we must believe in rehabilitation.
Otherwise, it would mean that some individuals are born bad.
I had the opportunity to air my views on the topic when we
reviewed the Young Offenders Act. Personally, I do not believe
that individuals are born bad, mean, devious, criminal or
obsessed. I believe that they become that way due to a
combination of factors, especially social, environmental and
family factors.
The motion presented by the member for Brampton caused
concern because historically, in our justice system, parole has
been considered as the best road to rehabilitation. I understand
the member for Brampton and I respect her point of view. I do
not claim to have the answer. It may be that pedophiles, contrary
to other criminals, cannot be rehabilitated, and I would have
liked her to expand a bit on this point.
As legislators we must be aware that in our justice system
parole has always been considered as the very best road to
rehabilitation.
(1355)
This is the reason why the Canadian Police Association,
whose objectives are the same as the member for Brampton and
most legislators, namely to make Canadian society more secure,
would have felt more comfortable with some kind of life parole.
This way, we would recognize that pedophilia is a threat to be
taken seriously, that it has nothing to do with homosexuality,
that it is not a way to express one's sexuality but an offence, a
criminal act which should absolutely not be encouraged.
Of course, as legislators, we can try to understand what turns
someone into a pedophile, but our first duty-and again I want
to thank the hon. member for Brampton for drawing our
attention to this issue-is to protect the public. Would it have
not been possible, as suggested by the Canadian Police
Association, where pedophiles are concerned, to combine jail
sentences with more severe controls and what we called parole
for life, which requires offenders to report to their parole
officers, live in designated areas and refrain from any contact
with children?
Anyway, I support the initiative of the hon. member for
Brampton as well as her motion and I thank the Chair for letting
me complete my speech.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to and in support of this
motion. I believe that my hon. colleague from Brampton is
introducing an issue of great concern to all Canadians.
I know that when I raised my children I did not have to worry
or I never gave any thought as to whether they were outside in
my yard playing by themselves, whether they were at the corner
park or whether they were at the hospital grounds playing. I did
not feel a need to be watching over them every minute. I find this
attitude has certainly changed over the last number of years.
Parents are terrified to let their children out of their sight. They
walk them to school and they sit and watch them play at a
playground.
My hon. colleague from Brampton has indicated that
Canadians want something to happen to those people who prey
on children. I believe that what she wants is to get them and to
keep them off the streets so that our children are free again to
wander without parents watching over every move.
The government missed a golden opportunity with Bill C-45.
It could have incorporated this in that bill. I feel that it did lose
an opportunity there. I would hope when the committee is
reviewing it gives consideration to the concern that has been
raised in the House this afternoon.
I feel Bill C-45 does eliminate the need to prove that sex
offenders who victimize children have to commit serious harm
to be considered dangerous offenders. I feel that is a good thing.
6405
When it comes to the issue of post-sentence detention this
government decided to avoid the issue by making it a subject
for provincial health authorities to deal with. I know from an
incident that happened in our province of B.C. not too long ago
that the provincial health authorities do not have the ability to
keep dangerous offenders off the street.
We saw a dangerous offender walk away from a provincial
hospital because the two guards did not have the authority to
stop him. I do not think that is what Canadians are looking for.
I think there is a better way and that is to enable the National
Parole Board to apply to the courts for a dangerous offender
designation. That is what my private member's bill, C-240,
tried to do. I disagree with my hon. colleague. I feel that Bill
C-240 does allow some flexibility and would address the
problem of pedophiles.
It allows the correction and parole board members to apply to
the appropriate provincial attorney general and to initiate a
dangerous offender application for those inmates who they
believe will reoffend, not necessarily just pedophiles but also
adult sexual offenders, but it does include pedophiles who they
feel will reoffend.
Like Bill C-45 it also removes the need to prove the
likelihood of causing serious harm in the case of pedophiles.
This is exactly the type of legislation the member for Brampton
is looking for in her motion.
(1400)
Unfortunately, the two members of the Liberal caucus who
spoke to Bill C-240 during its first hour of debate did not speak
in favour of it. I know the member is sincere in her efforts to
motivate the government to take action on this matter. Perhaps
she can speak to her colleagues and reconsider her own belief
that by passing C-240 it would allow these changes to be made
possible. I believe that Bill C-240 would accomplish that which
she is seeking.
Over the summer months I had the opportunity to tour a
number of penitentiaries in British Columbia. One of them,
Mountain Institution in Agassiz, has an inmate population that
is largely sex offenders. I had an opportunity to discuss one of
the ongoing treatment plans. The five month program is
extensive but only works on the outside if the released inmate is
under community supervision.
The therapist advised me there was one situation where the
parole officer observed that one of the parolees was falling back
into his crime cycle. It was only because he was a parolee and
under community supervision that they were able to revoke his
parole and reincarcerate him. This action probably prevented
another sexual assault from occurring.
On the other hand we have a case like Larry Fisher who
ironically was released from the same prison earlier this year.
He was convicted of raping seven women. He was deemed to be
so dangerous that he spent his entire sentence behind bars. He
served 23 years before he walked out free because he had
fulfilled his full sentence.
Larry Fisher is currently out there with absolutely no
community supervision. One day he is an inmate whom the
experts consider too dangerous to be released and the next day
he is a completely free man. There is something wrong with a
system that prevents society from protecting itself from the
worst type of sexual behaviour.
I agree completely with the member for Brampton that the
National Parole Board has to have the ability to keep dangerous
pedophiles off the streets of Canada. Experts on pedophilia
agree that the chances of ever completely curing a pedophile are
remote. Convicted pedophiles and other dangerous offenders
should be kept incarcerated as long as they pose a threat to
reoffend. If this turns out to be an indefinite sentence, so be it.
We should feel no obligation to release any dangerous offender
who is likely to reoffend.
Even when we reach the point at which the experts believe
that the chances to reoffend are low, there must be community
supervision. This way if a parole officer believes there is a
likelihood of an offender committing another sex crime his
parole can be revoked. For those offenders who have shown that
they have adapted well and are of little risk, the reporting
conditions of their parole could be minimal.
What we need is a bill that would keep pedophiles and other
dangerous offenders incarcerated as long as they are likely to
reoffend and a bill that would provide for lengthy
post-incarceration community supervision to ensure that once
these individuals are released their activities on the outside are
closely monitored. This combination will provide society with
the greatest amount of protection.
I repeat that this legislation can be found in Bill C-240, my
private member's bill. I respectfully ask the member for
Brampton and all those who support her motion to likewise
support my private member's bill which could bring this motion
to fruition.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to speak to Motion No. 305 proposed by the member
for Brampton.
There is no doubt our criminal justice system is flawed when
it comes to dealing with high risk offenders, in particular sex
offenders who prey on young children.
There have been several tragic cases in the past few years
which have exposed terrible problems of how the justice system
deals with sexual predators, but perhaps the most tragic is the
case of Christopher Stephenson.
(1405 )
The criminal justice system failed 11-year old Christopher
Stephenson of Brampton in 1988 when it released Joseph
6406
Fredericks onto the streets. Christopher Stephenson was
abducted at knifepoint from the Shoppers World mall in
Brampton on June 17, 1988 by Joseph Fredericks, a known
pedophile and psychopath.
Fredericks had spent his childhood in foster homes, his teens
in an institution for the severely retarded, although he was not
actually retarded, 24 years of his adulthood in a hospital for the
criminally insane, and his middle age in Ontario prisons. This
man who repeatedly raped, tortured and then murdered
Christopher Stephenson on June 17, 1988 had been given early
release from Warkworth Institution after the National Parole
Board and Corrections Canada ignored an Ottawa judge's
warning not to release him without psychiatric reassessment and
extensive monitoring.
To make matters even worse, it was revealed during the
inquest into Christopher's death that the prison psychologist
believed there was a high probability that Fredericks would
reoffend, but he crossed his fingers when he dropped Fredericks
off in Brampton. A criminal justice system that simply crosses
its fingers and hopes that a psychopath will not reoffend does not
serve the interests of Canadians. In particular it does not serve
the interests of young, innocent children like Christopher
Stephenson.
We must make the necessary changes to ensure that such
tragedies are not repeated.
Several years following Christopher's murder an inquest into
his death was held by the ministry of the solicitor general in the
province of Ontario. The inquest jury made 71
recommendations, the first of which was that legislation be
enacted to ``provide for the protection of the community by
permitting the continued detention of sexually violent predators
beyond the expiry of their sentence and to provide treatment
during their confinement''.
The jury also recommended that legislation be modelled on
the Washington state protection act of 1990, a law that allows
the attorney general to launch court proceedings against an
individual even if that individual has been released from jail, to
commit him to a special facility, possibly for life. While the
Washington state act was considered to be somewhat extreme by
Canadian standards, members may recall that in the dying days
of its administration the Conservative government introduced
legislation to deal with high risk offenders.
That particular bill proposed to allow the National Parole
Board to detain any inmate believed likely to commit a sexual
offence involving a child before the expiry of their original
sentence. The bill in question was of course lost when the
federal election was called.
The time has come to introduce new legislation to deal with
this serious problem. My colleague's motion echoes the
recommendation of the inquest jury that legislation is needed.
There have been many proposals for reform which have come
not only from the Stephenson inquest, but from a working group
on high risk offenders constituted by the previous Solicitor
General. The time has come to act on those recommendations.
(1410 )
I believe that legislation to keep high risk offenders in prison
much longer would go a long way to improving public safety. I
am also of the opinion that any legislation brought forward by
the government should include a provision which would allow
sentencing courts to impose a post-detention term of
supervision for high risk offenders.
A supervision provision would allow for the monitoring of an
offender's behaviour and actions for an extended period of time
following sentence expiry. In addition to placing a high risk
offender under supervision for a period of 10 years residency for
example, treatment and reporting conditions would also be
imposed.
Any breach of those conditions would land the offender back
in jail and remove any chance of future early release. That is the
only way we will be able to monitor the serious sex offenders
who we have no choice but to release after sentence expiry.
Perhaps if such provisions had existed in June 1988
Christopher Stephenson would be alive today. Perhaps if the
parole officer responsible for Joseph Fredericks had known
where Fredericks was living Christopher could have been found
in time. But there were no residency restrictions placed on
Fredericks and he had not bothered to report to his parole
officer. This cannot be allowed to happen again.
At a recent criminal justice conference in Hamilton, victims
rights organizations including CAVEAT, Canadians Against
Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, stressed the
need for high risk offender legislation.
Criminal justice reform advocates and even the new chairman
of the National Parole Board have stated that supervision and
residency restrictions are necessary if we are to protect innocent
children from sexual predators and other high risk offenders.
As terrible as the murder of Christopher Stephenson was, we
must learn from it as we must learn from all other cases in which
high risk offenders have preyed on innocent victims. We cannot
stand by and let such tragedies recur. We must act now by
supporting this motion and supporting any forthcoming
legislation that will keep sick people like Joseph Fredericks off
our streets.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, there are
times when being a member of Parliament is very difficult. It is
particularly difficult when having to deal with this type of issue
especially when one does some research in order to make some
6407
half intelligent comments. I have had a feeling of putting my
head into a toilet.
Members of Parliament must make the protection of children
a first priority. I mention the frustrations of being a member of
Parliament. From time to time I get the impression that we move
at glacial speed in this House. No matter how urgent the issue, it
is highly unusual for this House to move with dispatch. Even as
we sit here speaking again and again about awful issues like this
one, we move at glacial speed.
In doing some research I came across an article from the
Globe and Mail of June 1, 1994. The headline is ``Ottawa
ponders nationwide registry of child abusers''.
The article reads in part: ``A national registry of people
convicted of sexually abusing children could help prevent
schools and child care centres from unwittingly hiring
offenders, says a government discussion paper released
yesterday. Children could be better protected from sexual abuse
by preventing known sex offenders from having positions of
trust or responsibility with children, says the 19-page
document. But it draws no conclusions about how to set up such
a registry or what it might cost taxpayers. However, the report
says research suggests society pays roughly $200,000 each time
sex offenders repeat their crime, on investigations,
prosecutions, imprisonment and judgment''. In other words,
clearly on the basis of this report it is basically saying that we
are already spending the money so why do we not spend the
money more wisely, particularly in the area of prevention?
(1415)
By way of this speech I remind the justice minister that it says
here ``the justice minister, Allan Rock, has promised the registry
will be operating by fall once the government has reviewed
comments from the public''.
I can appreciate that this is a sensitive issue, particularly as it
relates to charter issues. I can appreciate that this has to go
forward responsibly and well by the justice minister. At the
conclusion of the article it says: ``A similar provincial registry
in British Columbia was shut down in 1984 after a court
challenge. A Manitoba registry survived a challenge last year
when three teachers suspected of child abuse lost a legal effort to
keep their names off the list''.
I raise that because it was clearly evident on the basis of the
motion put forward by the member when she asked that this
House give unanimous consent that this go forward that
unanimous consent was denied. We have to ask the question then
in the light of that what is it that we can do?
I have three suggestions. The first suggestion I have already
made, that the justice minister as quickly as possible fulfil what
I took to be a commitment that there will be a registry so that
repeat offenders will not have access to the young children of
Canada or at least as easy access as they presently have.
Also, from The Toronto Star of March 23 of this year:
``Pedophile gets three years for assault on boy 12 years of age''.
It reads in part: ``It was a matter of trust, a trust bought by
camping trips and outings to amusement parks like Canada's
Wonderland. But as Kevin Starnaman himself admitted
yesterday after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting a 12-year
old boy and filming the deviant acts'', and this is the quote of a
convicted pedophile, ``society must be protected from persons
like myself''.
I say again that a convicted pedophile says to us in this
Parliament as legislators: ``society must be protected from
persons like myself''.
One of the difficulties, again as a legislator coming to this
august assembly, is that very frequently there are measures
taken, whether we are talking about justice issues or whatever
the legislation before us that are half measures, quarter
measures, mincy steps, sometimes in the judgment of individual
members steps in the wrong direction. Clearly there must be
unanimous consent on the part of all members of this House that
our first priority must be the protection of Canada's children.
What is another thing we can do? In light of the fact that we
are having difficulty in terms of coming forward and there are
charter concerns and so on and so forth, and we have already
uncovered one which is a registry, let us take a look at what
might happen if we were to take tougher corrective action and
actually bring a grid to sentencing.
I will give just a few examples. A 41-year old male was
charged with several counts of sexual assault and gross
indecency on five children between the ages of five and nine.
Pictures of the sexual act were taken and retained. These
pictures were seized along with sex aids and other pornographic
movies. Do you know what he got? He was convicted and
sentenced to an amazing 23 months.
Some hon. members: Shame.
Mr. Abbott: A 43-year old male was charged with gross
indecency on several young females aged from 4 to 13 years. He
took pictures of the girls during the acts. These pictures were
seized, plus other pornographic tapes. That is several young
females.
(1420 )
He is presently before the courts.
A male was charged with gross indecency involving two
13-year old boys. A search warrant located photographs of
young males in a very compromising position that I do not
choose to read to this House. He was sentenced to all of two
years.
A 51-year old male sexually assaulted two boys aged seven
and eight years, taking various photographs of them. The
accused distributed these photographs to pedophile magazines
in the United States. A search warrant located the photos of
6408
numerous young males. Guess what he got? Nine months. That
is a tough one.
A 30-year old father attempted to get his nine-year old
daughter to touch his penis and he in turn attempted to have
intercourse with her. Investigation revealed he had taken
photographs of other young girls in his basement. A quantity of
pornographic material was seized. He received a real toughy, a
suspended sentence and probation.
A 16-year old male sexually assaulted an 11-year old female
neighbour. He took photographs of her in various sexual poses
including sexual intercourse. When arrested he had several
Penthouse magazines-I did not say hard core, blue
pornography, I said Penthouse magazines-in his possession.
He got two years probation.
It seems to me that we have something on our hands right at
this moment in terms of the penal system where we could start to
get serious, where we could take people who are giving lifetime
sentences to these children. These pedophiles are fouling up the
lives of their victims for their lifetimes.
Surely our court can do better than giving the pedophile all of
two years, or suspended, or probation or whatever the case may
be. It is already in our hands. We can go ahead and do something.
That is a second issue.
The first issue is the registry. The second issue is the
sentencing grid. As the revenue critic, I support the efforts of
Canada Customs in its interdiction of pornographic material. In
the research I did there is a very clear connection between
pornography and particularly the way pornography is used.
I mentioned Penthouse magazine that you will find in your
friendly neighbourhood Mac's Milk or 7-Eleven store. There is
a very clear connection between these things. I suggest to civil
libertarians who are always talking about freedom of speech and
expression that there must be a first priority and that is the
protection of children in this society.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to intervene on
this. I feel very strongly about this. We can look at pornography,
keep it under control, look at the registry and finally the
sentencing grid to show that we can be serious with the tool that
we have in hand right now.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the speeches that have
been made here today concerning this very important question. I
think that they have been very good. I commend the member for
Brampton for bringing this subject matter forward today.
The intention behind the motion of the hon. member is very
helpful. In proposing action by the government to exert greater
control over sex offenders, particularly pedophiles, she is
reflecting a concern shared by most Canadians.
A few days before introducing this motion the hon. member
held a press conference in Brampton jointly with one of her
constituents and announced that a public petition in support of
her motion was being circulated. I also commend the member
for Brampton for attempting to go beyond generalities by
imposing a mechanism that might increase our power to
incarcerate dangerous pedophiles.
In this case she proposes giving the National Parole Board the
authority to enforce the long term incarceration of offenders
whom it feels may reoffend. In my view that is where the
practical problem lies. I do not believe that the National Parole
Board is the proper body to determine what should be done with
an offender after he or she completes their sentence. Nor do I
believe that it is a simple matter, legally, to prolong the
detention of an individual when he or she has served the entire
sentence imposed by the court. The problem is with our
Constitution.
(1425)
Many say that the charter is a problem in a lot of areas. Maybe
in some things it is very binding. However in this case there is a
very good reason for this charter protection, and necessary if we
are to maintain a proper judicial system in this country.
When someone goes to court they are innocent until proven
guilty. They are heard. Both sides of the case are presented.
Then the person is determined innocent or guilty and, if guilty, a
sentence is imposed. Once that sentence is imposed that is the
punishment for that individual for that crime. That sentence has
been imposed by a court that has heard all aspects of the case.
If we are to say before the person is released at the end of that
sentence imposed by the court that this sentence should be
extended then we are extending the sentence arbitrarily without
due process of law in violation of overturning what the courts
have set down.
That is very important. That is not to minimize what is
attempted in this motion. There are better ways of doing it.
The parole board is not to be the vehicle for determining law
and order in Canada. It has a specific function. That function is
well defined. The parole board knows it and is perfectly
competent to do it.
We can do two very important things. This is what is being
examined by the Department of Justice at the present time. The
first is instead of extending the sentence and imposing a further
legal period of incarceration that we should instead have the
person toward the end of their sentence examined by medical
experts, particularly psychiatrists, to determine whether this
person is medically fit to go out into society.
6409
If this person is not fit to go out into society, then refer this
person at the end of his or her sentence to a provincial medical
facility, thereby giving the person much better treatment than
they would receive in incarceration. This is then a medical
problem.
Second, there are in the Criminal Code right now provisions
for dealing with dangerous offenders. Sometimes however we
do not know and do not designate people as dangerous offenders
until they have committed a horrendous crime after a series of
lesser horrendous crimes. They are not targeted early enough.
What can be done? We are attempting in the Department of
Justice, with the minister, with the people in the department and
with the co-operation of the ministers of justice and attorneys
general provincially, to designate these people earlier, to flag
them so to speak.
When they are released and show the potential for causing
further crimes in this ever escalating spiral that some of these
dangerous offenders follow, and when they reoffend, we will
take them to court and when they are found guilty to then make a
motion through the crown prosecutor to have them designated as
dangerous offenders under part IV of the Criminal Code. They
can then be kept for an extended and indefinite period of time.
The law is there. There are ways of doing it. This has to be
done. I cannot disagree that in a lot of ways the time that has
been taken seems long and extensive to a lot of people.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The period provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the
Order Paper.
It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)