CONTENTS
Thursday, October 5, 1995
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 15252
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 15252
Bill C-105. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 15253
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 15253
Bill C-78. Motion for second reading 15253
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 15259
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a
committee.) 15276
Bill C-71. Report stage 15276
Motion for concurrence 15276
(Motion agreed to.) 15276
Motion for third reading 15276
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 15282
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 15283
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 15284
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15286
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15287
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15287
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15288
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15288
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15288
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 15289
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15289
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 15289
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15289
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 15289
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15289
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15290
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15290
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15291
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15291
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15291
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15292
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15292
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15292
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15292
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15293
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15294
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15295
(Motion agreed to.) 15296
Bill C-64. Motion for third reading 15296
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15296
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 15301
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 15316
Consideration resumed of motion 15318
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 15321
15251
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 5, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, allow me first of all to apologize to the
representatives from the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party for
notifying them of this morning's ministerial statement on such
short notice. This decision was made only late yesterday. The
United Nations will announce a substantial reduction in its forces
in the former Yugoslavia, and I thought that a statement should be
made here in this House before the UN makes its announcement
today.
I should point out that I was under no obligation to make a
statement in this House, but I thought that, even on such short
notice, the opposition parties, who have always been involved and
who have always had the opportunity to express their views on the
peacekeeping forces deployed in the former Yugoslavia, would
appreciate this opportunity to participate in a parliamentary debate
and express for the record their reactions and, I hope, their support
for the government's decision.
Allow me to say that the situation in Bosnia has changed
considerably in the past few weeks. The UN having concluded that
it no longer needs all authorized UNPROFOR contingents, it has
asked some contributing countries to reduce their forces and others
to withdraw theirs.
These cuts and reassignments will affect some 9,000 soldiers.
UNPROFOR strength will drop from 21,000 to 15,000, while the
rapid reaction force added to the UN contingent will lose some
3,000 members.
Canadian Forces elements are among those that the UN feels are
no longer needed in Bosnia. The details of this decision will be
announced today by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The Canadian battalion now in Bosnia will therefore not be
replaced when its current six month mandate expires in November.
A parliamentary debate was held when this battalion was deployed;
some members expressed their support for this action while others
stated that we should withdraw from the former Yugoslavia. The
return of this battalion that will not be replaced should, I presume,
satisfy Reform members who told us at the time that we should
substantially reduce the number of Canadian troops in Bosnia.
I should, however, point out that Canada will maintain a
presence in the region, as Canadian military observers and
Canadian personnel at the UN force headquarters will remain in
Zagreb and Sarajevo. Canadian troops now assigned to NATO
operations in the Adriatic Sea, whose job is to monitor the no-fly
zone in Bosnia, will not be affected by this reduction either.
[English]
If current efforts to reach a peace agreement are successful the
region will enter a new phase. Canada will contribute to
reconstruction efforts in the former Yugoslavia. Once a settlement
has been reached Canada will be there, if necessary, in the new
force with our allies to help implement the peace under the
authority of the United Nations and as part of Canada's continuing
commitment to Europe.
Canada has been in the former Yugoslavia for three and a half
years, since the beginning of peacekeeping in the region.
Canadians have served with distinction in land, sea and air
operations. We will continue to be involved with 13 military
observers and one ship with a crew of 212 personnel. We will be
involved in the Sarajevo air bridge with one aircraft and 45
personnel. We will also have six people in the AWACs aircraft and
50 people in headquarters.
I pay tribute to the courage and integrity of thousands of
Canadian forces personnel who have served with honour under the
Canadian and UN flags. I pay special homage to those who have
paid the supreme sacrifice in the service of peace. I express on
behalf of all Canadians appreciation to those who will continue to
participate in the UN efforts to forge a lasting peace in the area.
[Translation]
I wish to thank this House for allowing us to make this short
statement, which also gives the opposition parties an opportunity to
express their views.
15252
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in this debate on Bosnia this morning on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois.
I would like to point out however that, as the minister indicated,
we received a copy of the ministerial statement only half an hour
ago. I think this is unreasonably short notice.
(1010)
This rather high handed approach speaks volumes about the
government's lack of respect for even the most fundamental
parliamentary procedures. It is customary in Parliament for the
minister to send out a copy of his statement at least one day ahead.
This is typical of the foreign affairs minister.
In 1990, this very minister had the gall to claim that federalism
acts as a shield to protect individual freedoms. There is cause for
concern when we hear this kind of falsehood. It was the Liberal
government that did not hesitate to implement the War Measures
Act in 1970, using an alleged danger of insurrection in Quebec to
trample the rights and freedoms of several hundreds of Quebecers.
One can rightly be outraged to hear such the remarks from this
minister, who told the Bélanger-Campeau commission that abuse
of fundamental rights by the government is more likely in countries
with a single level of government. This is the same man who made
outrageous remarks during a recent trip to New York, drawing a
parallel between the former Yugoslavia and the highly democratic
process under way in Quebec to achieve sovereignty.
What did the minister mean when he said: ``We have not started
killing another yet, and I hope that what is going on in the former
Yugoslavia will never happen in Canada''? The Minister of Foreign
Affairs and the Government of Canada should be ashamed of
making such insinuations. This kind of irresponsible behaviour on
the part of the minister says a lot about the No side: intolerance,
abuse, insults.
At any rate, it is with a feeling of having done our duty that we
learned this morning that the Canadian battalion deployed in
Bosnia will not be replaced when its mandate ends in November. If
the work done by our peacekeepers is starting to pay off, it is
precisely because we steadfastly took our responsibilities as the
official opposition the whole time.
When there was strong pressure to withdraw our troops,
abandoning the civilian population over there in a state of
destitution and insecurity, as the Reform Party suggested for
instance, we, Bloc members, felt that it was our humanitarian duty
to stay on location.
As the Leader of the Opposition said as earlier as in January
1994, we had to bear in mind that we had to take on, to the best of
our abilities, our fair share of the tasks that arise out of our belief
in the democratic values of peace and justice. Today, we can see the
concrete result of this. There is every indication that the conflict in
Bosnia can be resolved through negotiations instead of violence
and massacres. On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to pay
tribute to the courage and sacrifice of all our military personnel,
some of whom gave their lives so that peace could prevail.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I make my
comments from the national opposition standpoint.
After three and a half years of excellent service our peacekeepers
are finally coming home from Bosnia. That is just great. They
deserve hearty congratulations for a job well done. During these
years our peacekeepers have had to operate under the most difficult
of circumstances but they always fulfilled their duties with
distinction.
All our troops who have served in the former Yugoslavia have
the thanks of the Canadian people and Parliament. To the families
of those who were killed in the service of peace, we also pay our
deepest respects.
For over a year now the Reform Party has been asking for this
day to happen. I refer directly to the statement. I believe there is a
coded message in that statement. I draw to the attention of the
minister that the last debate in the House occurred on March 29,
which was a six-month mandate. That mandate expired at the end
of September of this year. Somehow we have extended that to
November without consulting the House.
(1015)
The minister commented that we will be part of a new force.
There is no detail of what this new force might be. There is no
suggestion of what the criteria might be under which we would
participate. There are a lot of questions Canadians are asking. They
want the questions answered and the criteria established in the
House.
The questions include cost, length of the commitment and
whether there is peace to keep. Is there a mandate for our troops
when they go? Most important. they want to know we will be part
of the decision making, not like with the former Yugoslavia where
the contact group was one thing and we more or less put up our
hands and said we would go along with what was decided.
We have to look at the UN and the reforms. I know the minister
is interested in that. We have to look at the mismanagement that
has occurred and the serious doubts we have about UN missions,
Somalia, the former Yugoslavia and now Haiti where there appear
to be serious problems in terms of conducting the mandate. We
have to establish those criteria.
15253
The government has mismanaged the whole affair. I find it
difficult since we received the statement only 15 minutes ago.
However the minister has said he is not responsible for that.
The debates in the House have brought serious questions
forward. I do not believe they have been heard. This summer
during a critical time there was a lack of leadership. The minister
was unavailable for comment. The Prime Minister was found in a
canoe somewhere and gave some very general comments which I
found to be very insulting to me as a parliamentarian and to
Canadians.
The Reform Party thanks our troops. We demand from
Parliament that it set some criteria before we become the 911 UN
call number. We must do it in Parliament and not simply in cabinet.
We want to return the confidence of the people of Canada to
peacekeeping and to the management and leadership the
government should be showing.
Mr. Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I apologize. I forgot to table the
letter during my original statement. I should like to table the letter
we received from Kofi Annan, the undersecretary general for
peacekeeping operations, outlining the decisions of the UN
addressed to us. It will be of interest to all parliamentarians.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the minister have
unanimous consent to table the letter?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Finance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-105, an act to implement a
convention between Canada and the Republic of Latvia, a
convention between Canada and the Republic of Estonia, a
convention between Canada and the Republic of Trinidad and
Tobago and a protocol between Canada and the Republic of
Hungary, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention
of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1020 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition
circulating across Canada. It is signed by a number of Canadians
from the Oakville, Burlington and Mississauga areas of Ontario.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to our
society. They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families that make the choice to provide care in the home to
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or aged.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is my honour and duty to present to the House a petition containing
the signatures of 7,953 people, part of a larger petition of nearly
10,000 signatures, mainly from people in the city of Calgary.
These residents are opposed to the closing of CFB Calgary and
are increasingly concerned as they learn that the move of CFB
Calgary to Edmonton will not save taxpayer dollars. The move is
not designed to do so.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the House
that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2), because of the ministerial
statement, Government Orders will be extended by 16 minutes.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
15253
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-78, an act to provide for the establishment and operation of a
program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation
to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to open debate on Bill
C-78, the witness protection program act, and to ask for its
approval on second reading.
The bill creates for the first time a statutory foundation for the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police source witness protection
program. I am sure all members realize the importance of witness
and
15254
source protection. Governments must be able to help ensure the
safety and security of persons who assist police and prosecutors in
their efforts to crack down on crime.
Experience shows that witnesses or sources who provide
evidence or who assist in police investigations at risk of harm to
themselves or their families are often among the most effective
tools our justice system has against crime, especially organized
crime.
The intent of the witness protection program act is to ensure our
federal witness protection program offers the best possible
protection to potential witnesses and sources.
(1025)
[Translation]
The proposed changes to the act will make the current RCMP
source witness protection program-which has been in effect since
1984 as a strictly administrative program-more transparent and
more efficient, by providing sound statutory and regulatory
authority.
[English]
In short, we are creating a witness protection program which for
the first time will have a legislative base. This will have the
important effect of placing the RCMP source witness protection
program more in the public domain.
I know this was a major concern of my colleague, the member
for Scarborough West, when he put forward his private member's
bill on witness protection. His bill provided a useful basis for
discussion of the issues leading to Bill C-78. I again thank him for
his efforts.
Under the bill there will now be clear accountability for the
operation of the RCMP source witness protection program. While
the identities of sources and witnesses will remain secret, the
selection criteria, the decision making process and the scope and
the extent of the protection to be provided will be transparent and
clear. This will help ensure that both applicants who enter the
program and the RCMP which operates it have a clear
understanding of their respective rights and obligations as well as
the extent and scope of the protection to be provided.
[Translation]
This should also prevent any misunderstanding between the
RCMP and those it seeks to protect. Overall, the changes to the
RCMP source witness protection program will meet the needs of
police departments, as well as those of witnesses and sources
requiring protection.
[English]
The proposed changes will ensure clearly defined admission
criteria for witnesses, the consistent handling of cases across the
country, and the clear setting out of the responsibilities and
obligations both of the administrators of the program and of the
individuals entering it. The bill will also ensure a more defined
management structure within the RCMP for the daily operation of
the program, thereby increasing accountability.
Furthermore the bill will ensure a complaints procedure is in
place and that the commissioner of the RCMP will submit to the
solicitor general an annual report on the operation of the program
which then must be tabled in the House.
Provincial and municipal law enforcement agencies will still, as
they have done in the past, be able to participate in the RCMP
source witness protection program on a cost recovery basis.
However the bill is not intended to replace other witness protection
programs run by provincial police forces and by some municipal
police forces.
In keeping with the government's program of fiscal restraint, the
changes to the RCMP source witness protection program arising
out of the bill will be funded out of existing resources.
When the government was elected it made a commitment to a
safe homes, safe streets agenda. Since taking office we have been
honouring that commitment. We have introduced Bill C-45 to bring
about an updating of our corrections and parole system. This bill
has now been passed by the House and is being studied in the other
place.
We have created a system using the Canadian Police Information
Centre data banks to help screen out sexual abusers as potential
employees and volunteers working with children. We have
established also using the CPIC data banks a national flagging
system to help provincial crown attorneys to make more frequent
and more effective use of the dangerous offender provisions of the
Criminal Code as an instrument to protect the public better from
dangerous high risk offenders.
(1030)
We have introduced comprehensive gun control proposals,
proposals adopted by the House and under study in the other place.
We have created a national crime prevention council. We have
passed amendments to the Young Offenders Act. We have passed
Bill C-41 to reform the sentencing process. We have passed
legislation that would prevent extreme intoxication from being
used as a defence to excuse violence and other serious crimes. We
have passed legislation that permits a provincial court judge to
issue a warrant allowing police to obtain body samples from
suspects for forensic DNA analysis.
The witness protection program act is another important
component in our overall effort to improve the safety and security
of all Canadians. I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-78. In
this respect I thank the hon. Reform Party member for
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley when she was solicitor
general critic for having expressed her support of the bill.
Therefore I look forward
15255
to and I ask for similar support from all other members of the
House to ensure speedy passage of Bill C-78.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise on behalf of the official opposition to discuss
Bill C-78, which was just tabled by the solicitor general.
It is somewhat surprising that, for all intents and purposes, Bill
C-78 is similar to a bill considered by the House on September 26,
namely Bill C-206, which introduced by the hon. member for
Scarborough West and given first reading on February 1.
Indeed, a comparison of both bills shows that there is very little
difference between Bill C-78, which is before us today, and Bill
C-206, which has already gone through second reading in this
House.
The only changes that I could find, and they are not major, are
that compensation of witnesses may be better under bill C-78.
Also-and to my mind this is not an improvement-under this bill,
the RCMP commissioner will now have to make the necessary
arrangements with witnesses, or their counsel, to ensure their
protection. Under Bill C-206, as considered on September 26, the
solicitor general had the authority to reach agreements with
witnesses. That, of course, made it easier, under our parliamentary
system, to ensure control of government activities through
ministerial accountability.
This, I feel, is an issue which the committee will have to look at
again. In terms of the principles involved, there is not much
difference between the solicitor general's position and the one
which I express on behalf of the official opposition. Nevertheless,
we will have to take another look at this issue and decide who
should be responsible for the arrangements made. I understand that
it can be argued that the RCMP commissioner is ultimately
accountable to the solicitor general who, in turn, is accountable to
this House, which means that the House will have a say in the
process. I will come back to this point.
(1035)
Before getting into the heart of the matter, I would like to begin
by stating that the contribution by the hon. member for
Scarborough West, not only in introducing Bill C-206 but also in
taking part in all aspects of the work of Parliament, particularly in
the justice and legal affairs committee, ought to ensure that he will
have the opportunity in the very near future of having his point of
view heard on legal issues within that committee.
Now, having made that remark, and having voiced these few
reservations, I must nevertheless express my pleasure at the care
the government has taken with this issue of witness protection. I
believe that the government's wishes will result in a change to
Canadian law.
We must admit that we lagged considerably behind our
American neighbours, who have had witness protection legislation
applying to all 50 states of the union for 25 years now. That
legislation is is well known by the general public, which is thus
aware of its rights.
Here, we do have some legislation in this regard, but it is not as
well known and is administered by the RCMP in some cases, by the
OPP or the Sûreté du Québec in others, but always sporadically and
piecemeal, which does nothing to help the general public
understand the system.
In a law-abiding society, I do not believe that we can settle for a
piecemeal approach, with decisions depending on the whims of
whoever is responsible for policing at a specific time. I feel that
instead we need to have legislation that will apply all across
Canada and will therefore incorporate in the rules of law those
principles we wish to be seen in our public law. This will improve
the situation of witnesses, particularly in criminal cases, and more
particularly in cases involving serious crimes.
It is my opinion that this will put an end to the application, in a
sometimes sequential manner and without any controls, though it
was done in good faith, of procedures about which there might be
witness confusion as to which policies apply to them. From now on
it will be clear, and attorneys will be able to inform witnesses of the
protection programs available to them by law. This transparency in
application of the law cannot help but be beneficial to the
community at large.
As I just pointed out, there should be one set of criteria for
everyone, and the public should be aware of those criteria.
Now, how should witness protection be structured and how
should it be monitored? Should the courts monitor witness
protection or should it be left up to the RCMP commissioner or the
minister?
Some will probably argue that monitoring by the courts would
involve a certain amount of publicity which may not be desirable in
this case, because often the purpose of the witness protection
program is to allow the witness, who has put his life on the line
many times, to hide behind a new identity so that he can start a new
life.
If there is monitoring by the judiciary, every precaution must be
taken to avoid undue publicity or releasing names, which could be
disastrous and even do the opposite of what the bill introduced by
the government is intended to do.
15256
There could, however, be a form of monitoring by Parliament.
I have been and still am a member of the Sub-Committee on
National Security, and I submit that this would probably be the
ideal venue for reviewing, either from time to time or on an
ongoing basis, as deemed appropriate by the committee, the entire
witness protection system and its implementation by the RCMP.
The expertise of the Sub-Committee on National
Security-which I would like to see become a standing committee
of this House-would ensure that parliamentarians would be able
to monitor the actions of the police in this respect, both discreetly
and effectively, I would hope.
(1040)
Those are some of the issues. I hope that in committee we will
have an opportunity to hear witnesses, and we may be able to
clarify certain points during clause by clause consideration.
In serious cases involving drug trafficking and organized crime,
for instance, often the very survival of the witnesses is at stake.
Under our legal system, the crown's case is usually based on the
testimony of witnesses as opposed to confessions by the accused.
That is the whole point of protecting witnesses. There are no
spontaneous confessions. We live in a country that respects its
citizens. We have reached a level in our civilization where we can
treat people with respect. We cannot force people to confess. The
crown often has to introduce circumstantial evidence by calling
witnesses, and these witnesses must be protected.
The crown never knows, during the bail hearing, the preliminary
hearing or, later, the trial-all of which may or may not be part of
the process-whether it can count on these witnesses at a given
time. We have to protect witnesses and we also have to protect the
evidence that may be collected at some time or other. The very fact
that courts across the country have a huge backlog of cases means
that preserving evidence is a serious problem in Canada. Evidence
collected at a previous stage may often no longer be valid at a
subsequent stage if the witness has disappeared from this earth. So
in addition to protecting witnesses, we must also protect the
evidence.
The Crown prosecutors' big concern is whether they can keep
their witnesses until the time of the trial. They wonder whether the
witnesses will answer their questions properly, once on the stand.
Time is often the Crown's greatest enemy in a criminal trial.
Witnesses' memory is inversely proportional to the length of the
proceedings. It is perhaps even directly proportional, that is, it fails
as proceedings go on or the risk of failure increases. It is a bit like
cigarettes. The risk increases with use.
At the moment, there are no ways to deal with this, since
witnesses' memories often fail in criminal cases. People at home
can see on TV what happens when witnesses do not want to
remember anything or when they cannot remember anything, all
the pressure that can be brought to bear on people who want to help
in the cause of justice, but are unable to because of constraints
imposed on them.
So Bill C-78 will remedy this to some extent. It should not be
considered a magic formula, a miracle solution. I am one of those
who believe that, in politics, nothing happens magically or gets
done immediately, we progress by taking one small step at a time in
the right direction. I consider this bill, Bill C-78, one such step and,
in using it, we will see what sort of contribution it makes to
changing criminal law, protecting witnesses and safeguarding
justice in criminal matters.
I also think there are two times, in particular, when witnesses
need help. Before the trial, naturally. At that point, witnesses'
material security must be looked after, and they must be given
effective protection. In some instances, they literally have to be
hidden for their own protection-I hope it is with their
approval-so they may give proper testimony, which will give a
court of law the opportunity to assess the quality of the testimony
and decide whether the Crown has presented beyond any
reasonable doubt the necessary evidence. We must not forget that,
under our system, the burden of proof is on the Crown. And the
burden is enormous. The slightest failure in this regard inevitably
leads to the acquittal of the accused.
(1045)
In the case of heinous crimes-I will address drugs and
organized crime later-the mere disappearance of witnesses can
raise a reasonable doubt. Often, if witnesses, who may or may not
show up in court, disappear, the prosecution will simply have to
rise and tell the court that they have no evidence to offer. This can
only lead to an acquittal since there is no evidence. We must then
provide protection for witnesses before the trial.
Protecting witnesses before the trial is not enough, however, we
must also protect them after the trial, after the verdict, whether it is
a verdict of guilty or not guilty, because there is no guarantee that
the testimony of a witness protected under the provisions of Bill
C-78 will be enough to convict someone. The bill must allow
witness protection authorities to assure witnesses that if they testify
at the trial, they will be protected whether the accused is found
guilty or not guilty, because witnesses' safety cannot be
compromised whatever the verdict.
I mentioned it earlier but it always bears repeating: In some
cases, because of our legislation-I am not questioning our
Criminal Code in any way-because of the presumption of
innocence and the resulting reasonable doubt, there may be an
acquittal even if the witness is protected. We must therefore
provide for the reintegration of those witnesses who have secured
convictions or
15257
who have failed to do so through no fault of their own because of
the way the evidence was reviewed.
In closing, I wish to express my support for Bill C-78 at second
reading and to issue a warning against what we too often see in
some courts of law that are probably trying to proceed too quickly.
A famous trial recently held in Canada showed us that the
prosecution is often much too eager to plea-bargain with some
witnesses to get them to testify against their codefendants, an
arrangement through which a person pleads guilty to a lesser
offence or an offence included in a more serious offence in return
for a lighter sentence and a promise to testify against targeted
people for whom the prosecution wants stiffer sentences.
In some cases, this practice is quite commendable; in other
cases, it is, in my opinion, quite reprehensible. And I do not think
that good judgment can be guaranteed by a bill. I call on the
solicitor general, on provincial attorney generals, who must deal
with these issues practically every day, to use as much common
sense as possible when plea-bargaining with witnesses, many of
whom are corrupt, who will testify against codefendants in return
for a more lenient sentence. This practice deserves a serious
examination. It must be the subject of wide criticism and of a broad
national debate.
What do we expect from our judicial system? Our judicial
system does not make enough room for victims. We, of course,
give the accused all the benefits provided by our laws, by our
charter of rights and freedoms. We must, however, give victims in
criminal cases the importance they deserve. As we heard several
times in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs,
victims of crime very often feel left out. A crime has been
committed but the victims are the least of our concerns. It is all
well and good to be concerned about witness protection. I
nonetheless think that people who have lost a loved one-be it a
spouse, a child, a friend or a relative-to murder are entitled to
some compassion.
(1050)
On these words, I will ask the government to provide protection,
to provide a much greater compensation for victims.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
believe I have 40 minutes. If so, I will be sharing my time with the
member for Fraser Valley West.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent of the House to share his 40 minutes as
first speaker?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Thompson: Madam Speaker, at the outset I congratulate the
member for Scarborough West for initiating this topic through his
private member's bill. It needed to be done and it brought the
attention of the government to the fact there was a shortfall in our
system regarding the protection of witnesses.
It is unfortunate that such members are no longer part of the
justice committee. He is a member who contributed much, who
understood much about legislation and who was able to formulate
this kind of initiative. I am sure he would be able to do more in the
future. However, since he does not co-operate with his Liberal
caucus when voting on some bills, he will no longer be serving on
the justice committee. It is a shame that we have that situation in
Canada, but unfortunately that is the way it will be with the Liberal
government. However I am sure the hon. colleague will be
contributing as much as possible in the future along these lines.
We must protect our witnesses if we are to combat crime. I do
not think anyone would deny that. The colleague from the Bloc
mentioned the words common sense, which are the two key words.
We must protect our witnesses and we must do it in a common
sense manner. We have to take many things into consideration
when we are doing it.
We all know the importance of witnesses when it comes to
fighting crime. It is much easier when we have good witnesses to
help put away criminals that need to be put away. We also know it
is foolish to enter into any kind of special agreement with
individuals. We only need to look to the latest court case involving
Mr. Bernardo and Ms. Homolka. Providing for and doing what we
did for the witness, Karla Homolka, in that case was a criminal act
in itself. We need to be cautious when doing these kinds of
activities, which could make it very possible that someone who is
guilty of an offence would be let off the hook under a protection act
for witnesses. We need to be careful about that.
There are a lot of crazies out there in the world who are in it for
the dollars. They are willing to eliminate witnesses. We know they
are out there. We know we have some in the prisons today. I talked
to one inmate not too long ago in British Columbia who was there
for eliminating a couple of witnesses; he was a paid hit man. We
know there are more of them out there. We know that organized
crime is becoming more and more active with the bombings that
we see going on throughout Montreal and other parts of the country
and with the smuggling that is taking place only an hour's drive
from here, which occurs on a regular basis. When we know that
kind of organized crime is active then we have to be very careful
when we bring forward witnesses that may crunch organized crime.
We certainly must have some kind of protection in place, because
the criminals would be willing to eliminate the witnesses rather
quickly to protect the huge industry that exists.
(1055 )
It is unfortunate that we have a government, a solicitor general
and a minister of justice who sit back and watch these kinds of
15258
activities go on and do not seem willing to get involved or do much
about them. It is a shame when we pick up the paper and read about
bombings taking place in Canada by terrorists, thugs and organized
criminals, and we have a government that sits back and the best it
can come up with is that it is a provincial matter and we should not
get involved. It is a very poor attitude and a real lack of intestinal
fortitude when it comes to saying that we will take the bull by the
horns and make our streets and our communities safer.
It is unfortunate the solicitor general alluded in his speech to all
the wonderful things the Liberal government has done through
Bills C-45, C-41, C-37 and C-68, to name a few. That just is not so.
The House knows and all the people across Canada know that a
number of things were attempted with the particular bills to make
them better, to put the victim first. We also know that in every
instance when there was a motion put forward in Bill C-45, which
was simply geared to making things better for the victims of our
country, the government turned them down and did not vote for one
of them, not one.
It is silly for the minister to stand in his place to try to convince
Canadians that he is doing a wonderful job when he turns down
such things as mandatory restitution and then says that mandatory
restitution is taken care of in Bill C-41. That is just not so.
The government is saying that it is up to a judge: if the judge
wants to order it then he can do so and then things will take place
and the restitution will happen. That just is not the case. We know
that judges today can tell people that they will have to make
restitution, but it does not mean anything. There is no enforcement.
We cannot get blood out of a rock.
When we suggest that we will take part of the money we will pay
them when they are in the penitentiary to put to the use of victims it
is turned down. I guess it makes too much sense. It is something
Canadians want.
Governments in the past 30 years are used to passing all kinds of
legislation: if the people want it, do not do it, and if the people do
not want it then make sure we do it. GST and all these other things
apply to that.
It is unfortunate that during his speech the solicitor general
alluded to the fact that these other bills were contributing to the
safety of Canadians. He mentioned Bill C-37, the improvements to
the Young Offenders Act. If Bill C-37 was such a wonderful
improvement, I wonder if someone on the other side of the House
could tell me why the Minister of Justice asked the justice
committee to put on their parachutes and fly around the country.
They are flying all over Canada and are asking people once again
what they would like to do with young offenders. They are
spending lots of money going through a process that is totally
unnecessary.
If we put each member on the justice committee on a street
corner in any city to talk to the grassroots, the people who are
closest to these crimes, about what should be done with the Young
Offenders Act, I am quite certain they would get an answer. For a
fact thousands and thousands of letters have been received from
across the country telling the minister and others what to do with
the Young Offenders Act. We have had petitions galore, with
millions of signatures suggesting that we get rid of the Young
Offenders Act or fix it. It has been ignored. Bill C-37 did not
address that.
The government went through the process of getting Bill C-37
passed and then it turned around and sent the justice committee
across the country to ask people what to do about young offenders.
To stand in the House and say ``we did it, we got Bill C-37, aren't
we wonderful'' is just a bunch of baloney. I am really tired of
hearing people in the House saying what a wonderful job the
government is doing in fighting crime and keeping its red book
commitment. That is not so. There is so much more the government
could do but it does not dare.
(1100 )
I will admit that Bill C-78 makes total sense. It is something
Canadians want. I congratulate the government for at least bringing
forward one bill that will protect the right individuals, potential
victims and witnesses rather than criminals.
The rights of criminals have always been up front, first and
foremost. That has been the biggest worry for the government over
the past 30 years, particularly in the last few years since the charter
of rights has come into being. It must protect the criminal. There
seems to be such a terrible amount of emphasis on that. It becomes
really sickening. With Bill C-78 I say that at last we have
something concrete and will protect the right people.
I should like to put a proposal to the government. When it is
doing legislation in the future, the first thing to be written down in
the legislation should be the word victim, the law-abiding people,
the ones we need to look after. They are the most important people
and criminals should be put somewhere else. Yes, nobody denies
that we should look after the basic rights of the criminal. But, for
crying out loud, we must remember the victims and do what can be
done in all legislation to protect them.
Liberals stand in the House to tell us about the wonderful gun
legislation. Somebody tell me what kind of balance is 17 pages
which address the criminal versus 160 pages which go after
law-abiding people. The document is so thick we cannot carry
more than three or four. It is so expensive that we cannot order very
many for our constituents to look at because of the cost. That
document is full of regulations and all kinds of things law-abiding
people are expected to do.
15259
In the meantime there are individuals running around the
country who are armed better than most military units. I see
nothing being done about the real problems, but I constantly see
all kinds of legislation coming forward that is not doing what it
could for victims and law-abiding people. Instead the government
concentrates on making certain that things are done right
according to the charter so that the criminals are forever looked
after. Canadians are getting tired of it.
I will conclude and turn it over to my colleague for Fraser Valley
West by saying that Bill C-78 is the kind of bill we are most happy
to support. I thank the government for bringing it forward. Once
again, I thank my colleague for Scarborough West, the initiator of
the whole idea. I hope we will see more legislation that says
victims come first and not the criminals.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-78 today. As my colleague for
Wild Rose said, it is one of the few pieces of legislation we have
seen in the criminal justice system today from the Liberal
government which actually directly and successfully address a
concern we have in our society, the protection of witnesses.
The protection of witnesses is actually quite an informal
program today managed by the RCMP. Certainly there is no
overriding national program that looks after the interests of the
victim.
Regardless of what the government says, it is necessary to take
the country back from the criminal element. Time and time again I
hear that crime is not on the increase. I would denounce that theory
of the government. We only have to stand in a circle of friends
anywhere in the country and ask who has been the victim of a
crime. I am not just talking about serious sexual crimes or the high
profile crimes we see in Vancouver, Toronto and so on. I am talking
about major everyday crime: break and enters, stolen vehicles and
so on.
(1105)
We have to somehow get to the nub of the issue. We have to get
back to punishment for disobeying laws. That includes actually
getting the criminal incarcerated.
A victims protection act gives confidence to those out there who
are intimidated by the process. It gives them some confidence of
protection. I can think of several instances in my community which
I have been involved with where intimidation was a very large part
of an exercise of the criminal.
I can think of a lady named Joan who was sexually assaulted by a
pretty hardened individual who had spent more time on the inside
than on the outside. He has been in and out of parole board
hearings. Every time he gets out, he commits another crime and
goes back in.
This time good old Karel sexually assaulted Joan with a weapon.
The weapon was a needle with cocaine in it. Joan was 63 years old.
All through the process, through the court hearings and so on when
I was there with Joan, the individual was intimidating her by way
of looks and other things that were done. The intimidation was
there.
Not only did it happen in the courtroom but subsequent to his
incarceration when he was in Vancouver remand waiting for his
little trip to the regional psychiatric centre, good old Karel started
to send threatening letters to Joan. It just brought home to me very
clearly why witnesses need protection. Joan had no one to look
after her.
We finally got the letters stopped. Imagine, he was in Vancouver
remand for such a horrendous crime and used stamps paid for by
the taxpayer to threaten the very person he attacked. That is the
kind of thing which is going on.
Hopefully Bill C-78 will do something about those sorts of
things. There are other people who need protection. Joan was not
only a witness but was a victim at the same time. There are people
who see things today and are just plain afraid to take that step
forward because of the intimidation.
Along with my colleague from Wild Rose, I spent some time
yesterday with the mayor of Cornwall who has some serious
problems in that community. There are serious criminal activities.
He is a pretty sure and very responsible individual. I am certain that
with the intimidation he has been under, the threats and so on, there
are times that people like him who want to stand up for their
community and provide public service but are being threatened by
gangs and organized crime need formal protection.
The mayor of Cornwall and other brave individuals who are
willing to stand up and be counted and people who witness the
crimes that are going on down there right off the reserves need the
protection. They need the confidence they will get the protection.
The witness protection program will strengthen the existing
RCMP source witness protection program. Hopefully the process
will be formalized so that both the witness and the RCMP know
and understand it. It is a loose program today. People do not
understand their rights.
(1110)
Victims rights do not discontinue with such things as witness
protection programs. There are all kinds of other things which also
need attention as far as victims rights go. There will be a victims
rights bill in the House of Commons this year. Within that bill there
are things that have to be addressed.
For instance, victims should have the right to give oral and
written statements at parole board hearings. Today they are at times
allowed a written statement but in many cases the statements are
vetted. I have seen victims' statements in sentencing hearings of
murder cases. I am not a lawyer but I attend these cases when my
riding is involved. I was at one where the victim's statement was
actually vetted which is wrong. The Liberal government has to
15260
understand that victims should have the right to have oral and
written statements put forward.
There are other things about the criminal justice system that
have just got to be said. It is about the intimidation of witnesses. I
am looking here at a document produced by a colleague on the
government side concerning judicial review decisions of people
who were sentenced to death. That sentence was revoked and put
into the current life sentence, which is 25 years, and now under
section 745 the sentencing decision is being reduced further. That
is appalling. It is truly appalling to be reducing these sentences.
Let me give two examples in which I was involved. Dwight
Lucas was sentenced to 20 years for a non-capital murder. That was
reduced to 16 years. An individual from Quebec has had his
25-year sentence for killing a police officer reduced to 15 years. At
the time of the killing the individual would have been put to death
but they said: ``No, we will make it 25 years''. Now, after time has
gone by, the individual's sentence has been reduced to 15 years.
That is wrong. These people are out on the streets and ultimately,
when other crimes are committed, witnesses are going to need
protection against the very people we are letting out who should not
have been let out in the first place.
The thinking over there is truly convoluted. It does not wash
with the greater portion of people. The government thinks it is
right. What is it going to take to convince the Liberal government
that its laws in the criminal justice system are just too liberal?
It will take a removal of the government in the next election. For
those folk who are listening, it will come down to some very
specific issues in the next election: the economy, the criminal
justice system and just how democratic or undemocratic the
process in the House of Commons actually is.
Mr. Thompson: The pensions.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The MPs pensions, my
colleague from Wild Rose said. That will always be an issue. Since
he has mentioned it, I did wear my piggy tie for those who are still
involved in the MPs pension plan, just so people would notice. I
had not thought of that until they raised it.
(1115)
There are times when we have to use a crook to catch a crook and
we have to use the information they have as witnesses. Yes,
unfortunately some of those individuals get off from their crimes
and some of those people have to be under a witness protection act.
I suppose the end justifies the means in that case. However there
are a lot more people out there today witnessing crimes who are
just too intimidated to do anything about it. All I ask is that the
Liberal government follow through with a thorough witness
protection act and regulations that are well meaning and protect the
witness.
We do not need rhetoric such as we heard on the Young
Offenders Act when government members said they had made
great changes. They did not. We do not need rhetoric like that. We
need to do Bill C-78 right. We need to protect the good people who
want to come forward.
Members opposite are enjoying this. They say that they do things
right. If they are doing things so right, why are there so many
victims? If they are doing things right, why are there so many
complaints about the Young Offenders Act, which was absolutely
boggled by the Liberal government? If they are absolutely right
about what they are doing, why is it that down in Cornwall the
government does not have the courage of its convictions to go on to
the reserve and end the crime wave? Why is that? If they are doing
things right, why is that? That kept them quiet for a moment.
What is wrong is the government is very long on rhetoric and
very short on dealing with the actual problems. It does not have the
courage to go on to the reservations to deal with the crime rate.
Meanwhile the people off reserve are suffering from the crime
wave. Where do they think the drugs are coming from that are in
the schools in Cornwall? They know where they are coming from.
Where do they think the guns are coming from?
This is not something we dreamed up. We were down there
listening. The government is not listening. It should get up the
courage to go on to some of the reservations and deal with
organized crime. That the government is doing something is
hogwash. It is doing nothing.
I am glad we had this little chat, but it is more than a little chat
members opposite need. People who are listening to this debate
will understand that there is a big difference between being long on
rhetoric and short on action. This will haunt the Liberal Party in the
next election. The treatment that victims are getting today from
government legislation is abysmal. That is why there are groups
like Victims of Violence, CRY and CAVEAT. They are springing up
all across the country. They know that the legislation the
government puts through is wrong.
I have a few notes about Bill C-45.
(1120 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I remind the member we
are discussing Bill C-78.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, I got carried
away, because none of the bills they have put forward so far are any
good. I am surprised that Bill C-78 is something I can agree with.
15261
When we talk about compensation for crimes, the government
comes up with things like 30 per cent of their income for room
and board. What the government does not come up with is what
kind of income they are getting. Government members say it is
$5.61 a day, but they discount the fact that they get GST rebates,
old age pension, CPP and the guaranteed income supplement.
They discount that.
There is nothing more that can be said. I would agree with Bill
C-78, but the Young Offenders Act, Bill C-45, Bill C-41 and all
these other acts are abysmally poor. We cannot deal with the
problems in the criminal justice system by dealing with one Bill
C-78, which is only a small portion of what is needed, and by
working in a very poor fashion on the other bills. They should not
take credit for something until they do it 100 per cent right, not 3
per cent right.
What more can we say? The only way to get through their thick
heads is to replace them, and that we will do in the next election.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate following the remarks of
the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. I will try to draw the
debate back to the bill before us, instead of the scatter gun
treatment we have had all over the place on all the other legislation
the hon. member says he does not like. When he gets a good bill he
does not know what to say; he is almost tongue tied. I sympathize
with him, but I want to address my remarks to Bill C-78, the
witness protection program act, which is the one we are debating in
the House of Commons today.
The purpose of Bill C-78 is to establish a solid legislative and
regulatory basis for the RCMP source witness protection program.
This is necessary to ensure that our national witness protection
program offers the best protection possible to potential sources and
witnesses. Given the importance of the program and the fact that
we are strengthening it and making it more open and accountable, it
would be useful to provide the House with a brief historical
overview of the RCMP source witness protection program and
some background that went into the development of the witness
protection program act.
I am sorry the hon. members find this so amusing. I do not think
it is.
Historically witness protection programs are most closely
associated with the investigation of organized crime. The term
organized crime covers a broad range of criminal activity,
including large scale drug trafficking, murder, serious assault,
money laundering, extortion and robbery.
I wish hon. members would restrain themselves. They seem to
treat serious legislation as a joke. The hon. member for Fraser
Valley West in his remarks did not talk about the bill, and I did not
find his remarks amusing.
The hon. member says that the speech was written for me. I am
assisting the solicitor general in my capacity as his parliamentary
secretary today. I am trying to impart information to the House
concerning the bill so that hon. members perhaps will make more
enlightened comments later. I wish the hon. member for Fraser
Valley West had not split his time. He could have made his remarks
after mine and would have benefited from listening.
As often as not, the crimes committed by these organized groups
go hand in hand with the use of fear and intimidation to ensure the
silence of potential witnesses and informants.
(1125 )
Using a broad definition of organized crime, it can be said that at
the present time approximately 50 per cent of RCMP source
witness protection program cases deal with organized crime.
However witness protection today has a broader application. The
disturbing trend in recent years has been the use of fear and
intimidation by lone criminals. These people are willing to go to
any lengths to avoid conviction or to extract retribution from
witnesses. As a result a growing number of people need protection
as a result of their role in cases that have nothing to do with
organized crime.
To deal with the growing need for witness and source protection,
and in response to increased enforcement priority placed on
fighting major national and international drug trafficking
organizations, the RCMP source witness protection program was
started in 1984. Although originally intended for the use of the
RCMP alone, the program now provides protective services to
provincial and municipal police forces across Canada. While many
police forces rely entirely on the RCMP for witness protection
services, some of the larger police departments have formed their
own witness protection units. These larger police services usually
come to the RCMP for assistance in cases where federal help is
needed to facilitate a change of identity for a witness or an
informant.
Most people entering the RCMP source witness protection
program in the mid-1980s were associated with major drug
trafficking activities. However, as I mentioned a moment ago, this
has changed of late. Today a growing proportion of people entering
the program have been involved in Criminal Code offences such as
murder and serious assault. Since starting the source witness
protection program the RCMP has built up an infrastructure of
experienced members and contacts. RCMP members are available
in every province and territory to support witness relocations and
protection, to obtain secure identity changes, and to help obtain the
necessary provincial documents to authenticate those changes.
15262
At headquarters in Ottawa RCMP members have developed
national RCMP witness protection policy procedures and contacts
to facilitate the changes that must be made within numerous
federal government data banks when a witness or an informant
receives a new identity.
The annual cost of the RCMP witness protection program is $3.4
million. As my learned friend, the solicitor general, has already
pointed out, no additional costs are expected as a result of the
legislation. The average cost per case is $30,000 and approximately
60 per cent of cases cost less than $20,000.
At any given time there are approximately 80 to 100 people,
including family members, in the program. The success of the
RCMP source witness protection program speaks for itself. Of the
large number of witnesses, informants and their families who have
been relocated since the program began, none has come to any
harm. It is difficult to establish precise conviction statistics for
cases involving protected witnesses. However, based on available
data, approximately 85 per cent to 90 per cent of cases involving
witness protection result in convictions, usually because of the
testimony of the protected person.
From my brief remarks I am sure the hon. members can
appreciate how important the witness source protection program is
as a law enforcement tool. There is no more devastating evidence
than the firsthand testimony of a trusted accomplice exposing the
inner workings of a criminal organization or that of a witness who
has seen a serious crime take place and can identify the
perpetrators. Whether a witness or an informant, these individuals
are invaluable assets of the police and the judicial system.
[Translation]
That is why it is our responsibility, as legislators, to do
everything possible to ensure that our national witness protection
program is as efficient and effective as it can be. It is for this
purpose that the government is introducing this bill.
(1130)
The proposed legislation was drafted in consultation with all
major stakeholders and after all issues had been thoroughly
examined. In my view, it is particularly important to point out that
police forces across the country were consulted. In 1992, a
questionnaire was sent out to about 400 municipal and provincial
police forces in the country.
Our goal was to assess how much protection witnesses were
afforded, determine the types of offences being committed and
nature of the protection provided, examine the problems facing
service users and recommend improvements. We also conducted a
comprehensive review of witness protection programs in place in
other countries, particularly the U.S., United Kingdom and
Australia.
Bill C-78 incorporates the results of the analysis performed on
the data collected and the lessons drawn from this extensive
research. In short, this bill is the result of many years of research
and effort and it will ensure that our national witness protection
program remains modern and effective. Under the provisions of the
bill, our program will continue to provide safe and effective
support to witnesses under protection while at the same time
remaining open and transparent.
Witness protection in itself will not check violent crime or
organized crime. But it is nonetheless a major element of the
investigative techniques available to law enforcement officials and
a tool very useful to police in fighting against organized crime and
major criminal activity in Canada. We must therefore make sure
that it remains such a tool.
The solicitor general has already given the House the broad
outlines of the bill and proposed changes to the RCMP's
sources-witness protection program. All hon. members will agree
that the need for such changes is crystal-clear. It only remains for
me to associate myself with the closing remarks made by the
solicitor general and urge all hon. members to ensure the speedy
passage of Bill C-78.
[English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill
C-78. I sought the opportunity because over the past 15 years I have
been active as a lawyer in the criminal justice system. As a lawyer I
have worked with witnesses in court, as a defence counsel, as a
crown prosecutor for the provincial government of Ontario and as a
crown prosecutor for the federal government.
On other occasions I have worked as counsel for witnesses who
were involved in witness protection programs. I have had the
opportunity to see firsthand what happens to a person, particularly
a member of the public, who becomes a witness and to people in
the past who became involved in our less formal former witness
protection program. I have also seen what happens when a witness
is intimidated or when an accused person or a person involved in
crime attempts to intimidate a witness.
It is now past the time when we should come forward and set out
some clear legislation, some clear rules and clear guidelines and
regulations to deal with persons who find themselves in the very
delicate and very dangerous position of being a witness and being
subject to duress and penalty from those who would seek to quiet
them.
Criminals have successfully utilized fear and intimidation of
potential witnesses to avoid prosecution and punishment for their
criminal acts. Individuals will go to great lengths to avoid convic-
15263
tion or to exact violent retribution from witnesses. We have
recognized this. We have worked with this in the system for a long
time. We now recognize that enforcement agencies need the
support and the assistance of the public to further their
investigations and to achieve success in their efforts to bring
criminals to justice.
(1135)
That support would not be forthcoming in the absence of
programs designed to ensure the safety of those citizens prepared to
get involved by providing information or testifying against
criminals.
Witnesses are the ultimate public servants. They are people
without whom we could not operate our criminal justice system
and without whom we could not bring criminals to the courts and to
justice. Witnesses fall into several categories. There are witnesses
who are paid to be witnesses and who receive salaries for that,
public servants, police officers, investigators at Revenue Canada or
at Canada Customs, investigators in various forms of activities that
could result in criminal prosecutions. These people are accustomed
to dealing with criminals. They also have a role in life that allows
them within the system to have the protection of their office and the
protection of their job.
On the other end of the spectrum there are ordinary citizens who
by coincidence or accident find themselves witnesses to crimes:
somebody is walking down the street and they see a bank robber
getting away or they witness a car accident in which one of the
drivers was criminally negligent or drunk.
Some members of the public become witnesses by virtue of their
status as victims of crime. These witnesses by and large come
forward and provide a tremendous public service with little
concern for their own personal safety as a result of their testimony.
Witnesses who may have been involved with organized crime or
other forms of criminal activity and who come forward, as much as
they may want to come forward, have their lives affected adversely.
These are people who live under threat, people who live in fear of
some kind of punishment from those they would seek to accuse or
witness against.
There are also witnesses we seek out, we being the government
or the agency doing the investigation. These witnesses fall into the
general loose category of informants, paid informants or sources. It
is an unfortunate fact of life that sometimes we have to go to
criminals to bring criminals to justice. Sometimes we have to go to
people involved in an activity to have their assistance in bringing to
justice the main perpetrators.
The legislation is intended to cover these people and to protect
them in the event their lives are in danger. The legislation will
cover agents who participate in investigations as well as
informants.
The witness protection program act defines a witness as a person
who has given or who has agreed to give information or evidence or
has agreed to participate in a matter relating to an inquiry or the
investigation or prosecution of an offence whose security is at risk
as a result. Also included in the definition are persons who may
require protection due to their relationship to or association with
the people previously mentioned.
We are talking about people who by accident or on purpose
become involved in an investigation and who are under duress from
those who would be investigated as a result. Protection under the
act can include relocation, accommodation, change of identity,
counselling, financial support for those people or for any other
purpose in order to ensure their security and to facilitate their
re-establishment or their becoming self-sufficient. It covers a wide
range of services that can be provided.
(1140)
Not everyone involved in the witness protection program will
live a secret existence in the future. They may simply require
counselling or assistance to get on with their lives after the trauma
of having dealt with this.
We know from previous speakers that the annual cost of the
protection program is $3.4 million and that there will be no
additional costs as a result of the legislation.
The legislation clearly defines what is expected of the
government and what is expected of the witnesses as a result of this
program. In the past there has been a problem because our program
has been informal and because the program has been allowed to
change with particular circumstances.
As a result there have been complaints from those who are
protected and from the RCMP which administers the program that
people's expectations are not being met and that the RCMP needs
assistance in defining how far it can go and what it should do to
protect the witness.
The new legislation will ensure a clear defined admission policy
for witnesses, consistent treatment of cases across the country, a
clear setting out of responsibilities and obligations of
administrators of the plan and protectees entering the program, and
a more defined management structure within the RCMP for the
daily operation of the program, thereby increasing accountability.
This is an important section. I recall dealing with a witness who
was under protection and who was having difficulty within the
system making contact with someone to assist her or to give some
answers on some information she required. Even as a lawyer it was
a bit of a nightmare trying to get through the maze of
administration to find someone who could assist her with her
problem. The
15264
more clearly defined management structure within the RCMP will
assist to straighten that out.
A complaints procedure will be in place and the commissioner of
the RCMP will submit to the solicitor general an annual report on
the operation of the program.
During 1994 and 1995 we have provided protective services to
70 new witnesses, 30 of whom were referred by other agencies. The
$3.4 million we are spending annually on the program will not
increase as a result of the change in administration but the money
will be spent more effectively. It will be spent more clearly on
guaranteeing the safety of the witnesses.
It is important for the public to understand and appreciate that
the witness protection program operates across the country, but it
does not operate in a vacuum. In devising the statute and in setting
out the scheme in the act we have consulted all the provinces and
territories.
When someone applies for the program or when a decision is
made to admit an applicant to the program, the following factors
will be taken into consideration: the potential contribution the
witness or source can make toward a police investigation; the
nature of the offence under investigation; the nature of the risk to
the individual; what alternate methods of protection are available;
the danger to the community if the individual is admitted to the
program; the potential effects on any family arrangements; the
likelihood of the individual's being able to adjust; their maturity,
their ability to make judgments and other personal characteristics;
the cost of maintaining the individual in the program; and other
factors the commissioner of the RCMP finds relevant.
It is important that there be a clear, defined decision making
process to admit an individual into the program. In serious cases
such as those requiring a change of identity or an admission of a
foreign applicant, the decision to admit an individual will be made
only by the assistant commissioner in charge of the program. A
decision to terminate protection must also be made by the assistant
commissioner.
This is only part of the Liberal safe streets, safe neighbourhoods
program. Obviously we need statutes like this. No matter how
much serious crime there is, we know there always will be crime
and there always will be a need to protect people.
When we are protecting people we need to be able to say to
Canadians we are protecting people worthy of protection, that we
are protecting people when there is a serious risk and that we have a
clearly defined methodology for doing it. As the economy becomes
healthier, as we work toward the creation of jobs and the creation of
prosperous communities, we will find there will be less and less
violent crime on our streets.
(1145)
Those who would seek to encourage Canadians to believe that
violent crime is increasing at the present time are being
disingenuous because we know statistically and from crime reports
that is not the case.
The bill is not a response to the fearmongering that exists in
certain quarters of society. It is a practical, concrete response to a
need to clearly define and assist the criminal justice system in
witness protection. It is a practical, pragmatic response to a
situation we have been able to identify. It is part of the ongoing
Liberal government plan for safe streets and safe communities in
Canada.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I extend my gratitude
to the Solicitor General of Canada for establishing a legislative
base for the RCMP's source and witness protection program. I also
assure him of my total support.
It is another useful and effective tool for our law enforcement
officials. It will reduce crime and make Canada a safer place for
everyone.
Our various colleagues in the House have defined the extent and
content of the bill. I found the interventions of my colleagues very
interesting. I particularly refer to the previous intervention by my
colleague from Windsor.
As my hon. colleague and the solicitor general have said, in the
past criminals have successfully used fear and intimidation of
potential witnesses to avoid prosecution and punishment for their
crimes. Enforcement agencies need the support and assistance of
the public to further their investigations to successfully bring
criminals to justice.
[Translation]
The bill under examination today is aimed at improving the
RCMP's witness and informant protection program, making it
more effective and more open. Its intent is to protect those who
assist our police forces in criminal investigations, particularly
when organized crime is involved.
It is an acknowledged fact that the contribution of informants
and witnesses is often essential in resolving certain criminal
investigations. The Quebec Minister of Public Security has, for
instance, stated only a few days ago that the most effective means
of curtailing the war between motorcycle gangs in Quebec is to
recruit informants and witnesses. Those who cooperate with law
enforcement agencies occasionally place themselves in dangerous
positions as far as their personal safety is concerned, and we owe it
to them to provide the best possible protection.
In the past, some participants in the old sources and witnesses
program have complained that they did not get the benefits they
had been promised. This will not happen any longer, because the
15265
changes proposed today will ensure the application of clear and
uniform criteria across the country.
[English]
The changes proposed by the witness protection program act will
help ensure that both the applicants who enter the program and the
RCMP which operates it have a clear understanding of their rights
and obligations. The legislative initiative defines a range of
protective services and benefits that can be provided. It makes the
program more transparent and more accountable.
The process of how one gets into the program has been clearly
defined.
(1150 )
A decision to admit an applicant to the RCMP SWPP, as it is
called, will be based on the following factors: the potential
contribution the witness source can make toward a particular police
investigation; the nature of the offence under investigation; the
nature of the risk to the individual; alternative methods of
protection that are available; danger to the community if the
individual is admitted to the program; the potential effects on any
family relationships; the likelihood of the individual being able to
adjust to the program, that is the maturity of that individual, the
maturity of their judgment and other personal characteristics, as
well as the cost of maintaining the individual in the program; and
any other factor the commissioner of the RCMP may deem
relevant.
Under the witness protection act there will be a clear decision
making process to admit an individual into the program. In serious
cases such as those requiring a change of identity or admission of a
foreign applicant, the decision to admit an individual can only be
made by the assistant commissioner in charge of the program. A
decision to terminate protection must also be made by the assistant
commissioner. In less serious cases the decision to admit an
individual can be taken at the chief superintendent level. There are
protections built into the legislation.
I am proud to say that more than any previous administration the
government is committed to reducing violence in our society,
specifically violence against women and crime motivated by hatred
or bias against any of the vulnerable groups, particularly those
which are listed in section 15 of the charter.
Violence is not a phenomenon that can be encompassed or dealt
with in one big bold stroke. It is a complex problem with multiple
causes and multiple effects. It touches all levels of society and all
regions of the country. The whole program was worked out with all
regions of the country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the
Arctic, and that includes Quebec in the portrait. That is why the
government is taking a comprehensive approach involving several
federal departments.
In the past year a whole series of measures have been tabled by
ministers, reinforcing our commitment to address the problem of
violence. As the solicitor general has said, the government has
instituted many new measures to make our homes and our streets
safer. Members will recall that in our red book, safe homes and safe
streets was one of our major undertakings and a commitment which
we have met with great sincerity and alacrity.
I mention a few measures which are extremely important to
women: measures against criminal harassment, commonly called
the anti-stalking law; the firearms control legislation; the reform of
the sentencing process; and the reform of the Young Offenders Act.
[Translation]
These widely varying initiatives have one common goal: to
reduce violence and crime in our society. That objective is,
moreover, set out clearly in the federal gender equality plan
prepared under the auspices of the commission on the status of
women, for which I am secretary of state, and tabled early this
summer. Cabinet has been solidly behind this undertaking.
The federal plan also calls for the Canadian government to
undertake a comparative analysis by gender of all of these
initiatives. A similar endorsement was given at the fourth
international congress for women in Beijing. This comparative
analysis by gender indicates how policies affect men and women
differently. I must say that I see this as an eminently logical
undertaking.
In some cases, these differences are central to policy and play a
determining role in its application. In others they have a minor
impact and are only one of a series of factors that must be taken
into consideration.
[English]
In the spirit of the federal plan for gender equality we must
ensure that the specific needs of women who qualify are considered
in the application of the RCMP sources and witness protection
program. We have a tendency to think of the world of criminals and
organized crime as a man's world, but that is not entirely true.
Unfortunately hundreds of women are in contact with this violent
world and many are dreaming of getting out of it, just like the men,
if only they could do so safely.
(1155 )
These women could become vital sources of information for
police and prosecutors. However they are vulnerable to fear, to
intimidation and blackmail. They have to think not only about their
own personal safety but in most cases they also have to be
concerned with the protection of their children.
Women should know that under section 2 of the witness
protection program act, protection may include relocation for
themselves and their families, accommodation and change of
identity, as well
15266
as counselling and financial support. The objective of the program
is to ensure the safety and the security of citizens, women and men,
who assist police in their efforts to crack down on criminals. We all
know this is a needed program and a needed access to information.
The program will help them to re-establish in a new location and
will support them until they become self-sufficient if they fulfil the
criteria I outlined earlier in my remarks.
All citizens who contribute to eradicating crime and violence
from our society deserve our gratitude and support. We know that
crime is on the decrease. Notwithstanding we will always have
some individuals in society who will engage in abhorrent
behaviour. We will always have those who will act outside the law
in their selfish, personal interests. However initiatives such as this
one will help to ensure society can be a caring, safe and just.
In some cases contributions that witnesses will bring to the court
on very dangerous criminals call for extraordinary courage. We
want those citizens who have demonstrated their concern for safety
and security in the home, in the marketplace and on our streets to
receive the best possible protection. No other program has been so
comprehensive or so considerate of the needs of our citizenry. That
is why I support the solicitor general's initiative.
I hope that all my colleagues in the House, particularly those
who have been expressing their concerns on individual cases, will
look at this collective undertaking, support it wholeheartedly and
join in ensuring a speedy passage of Bill C-78.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak today on Bill C-78 which is really about
public safety. This must be very rewarding for my colleague from
Scarborough West considering his diligence in bringing this vital
matter to the government's attention. His efforts in this regard are
certainly commendable.
The debate on private member's bill last spring and the previous
fall showed great evidence of support on both sides of the House
for the bill and for what he was trying to do. The debate on Bill
C-206 demonstrated there is really a clear need for a legislated
protection program for witnesses and sources in criminal cases.
It seems that demonstrated there was a clear desire by members
of Parliament for such a program. One of the reasons for the desire
and the need for the legislative program is that there have been
some problems in the past. For example, at times there have been
misunderstandings between the police and a witness or a source
about what the agreement was between them, or what the roles of
each was and what their responsibilities were. It is important that
the bill clarify some of the rights, responsibilities and obligations
on both sides in these matters.
In my view the solicitor general is to be commended for
responding to an obvious need to bring about changes to the decade
old program. Many people may not realize there is a witness
protection program within the RCMP that has been active and
operating for quite a few years. Also many programs are operated
by municipal and provincial police forces across the country.
(1200 )
The solicitor general is to be commended for responding to the
obvious need to bring about changes to this decade old program.
We see his response today in Bill C-78, which is now before us.
The bill is really another plank in the government's efforts to deal
with crime.
I will give some examples of how we have dealt with crime in
various ways over the past couple of years. There have been
amendments to the Young Offenders Act. In fact I am looking
forward to attending a forum in my area in Dartmouth next
Thursday, where we will be discussing youth issues and issues
related to the Young Offenders Act. It is being put on by CBC radio
and I am looking forward to attending to discuss some of the issues
arising out of past amendments and concerns of the public about
the Young Offenders Act.
We have also had Bill C-45, which provided for reform of the
corrections process and issues of conditional release. We all
recognize that we had very speedy passage of the bill to provide for
the use of DNA evidence in criminal proceedings.
All these things are planks in the efforts of the government to
deal with crime. We are working steadily to fulfil our goal of
ensuring that Canadians live in safe homes and safe streets.
Upon passage of Bill C-78 Canadians will have a witness
protection program that will serve them well, because it will
provide a legislated program that will operate more efficiently,
more effectively, but will not cost taxpayers more money. I am sure
that in my riding of Halifax West the taxpayers will be in favour of
that part of the bill.
The whole area of witness protection is particularly important in
places like Nova Scotia, as it is across the country. However in
Nova Scotia the area where it will be most often used will be in
drug enforcement. Our province is a key offloading area for drugs
coming from South America, the Caribbean, and the eastern coast
of the United States because of the fact that Nova Scotia is a
peninsula with so much coastline and many little coves. This
makes it picturesque and beautiful to visit, and I recommend that
all members and Canadians who are interested should visit us and
see our beautiful province. However it also provides an opportunity
for drug smugglers to offload their product because it is difficult to
15267
detect them and difficult for the RCMP or other police forces to
cover all those inlets and bays.
The witness protection program is also used in areas of crime,
including homicides and prostitution, which are also of great
concern. If we can help in those investigations and the prosecution
of cases of that nature with the bill, it is certainly worth pursuing.
I checked with one of the local RCMP offices in my riding and I
was told that the existing witness protection program had been used
there about 25 times in the past 20 years. Obviously it is not used
constantly, but it provides a very important tool for police in
investigation and prosecution for criminal offences.
It seems to me that in the future those who must turn to the
witness protection program, like the approximately 70 Canadians
who did so last year, will benefit from a number of programs
provided by the bill. I believe members would agree that all
Canadians would benefit from the improvements.
In many respects we are talking about trying to fight organized
crime. Yes, there other kinds of crime involved, individual crimes.
We can readily see how the witness protection program can deal
with problems of organized crime. With that kind of an organized
group there is much more need for witness protection.
In that sense one of the best ways to fight organized crime is with
information that sources and witnesses can provide if they do not
feel they are at risk of being killed, injured or maimed if they give
evidence or assist the police in some other way. The bill is
important in all those respects.
(1205 )
Another key element of the bill will be a clearly defined
admission process and criteria so that not just anybody can qualify
under the program. It is very clear from the RCMP or other police
forces that want to make use of the RCMP program what the rules
are, what the procedures are, and who can be admitted and how.
This is very important.
The RCMP has a responsibility after the bill becomes law to
thoroughly examine the applicant's suitability for the program in a
variety of ways. That means not only the potential contribution the
applicant can make toward an investigation, but the RCMP will
also look closely at the individual, at the risk involved to that
individual, what might be the risk of danger or harm coming to
him, the impact on the person or his or her family, as well as the
ability of the individual to adjust to the program. I suppose that
could be a problem in some cases, depending on the kind of
individual being dealt with. All those factors are obviously
important in determining who should be admitted to the program.
Interestingly the protection of witnesses and sources does not
just mean relocation, as we assume, and change of identity. It also
means counselling or other kinds of support. I turn to the bill itself
for a moment to read to the House the definition of protection in
Bill C-78:
``protection'', in respect of a protectee, may include relocation,
accommodation and change of identity as well as counselling and financial
support for those or any other purposes in order to ensure the security of the
protectee or to facilitate the protectee's re-establishment or becoming
self-sufficient;
We see there are a variety of kinds of protection that can be
provided and are necessary. Under the bill the RCMP is required to
look at alternate methods of protection.
We talk about the kind of counselling support that a witness may
need or a source may need and we think of prostitution involving
children, for instance. While there is a basic need for protection in
the sense of protection from violence of the child, there will
probably be a need for counselling for a child who has been
involved in prostitution and the violence and the intimidation
associated with that activity.
We can all recognize how difficult and frightening it has to be for
people to come forward who have been a witness or a source and
have been involved in some way in a matter of this sort. It has to be
terrifying, particularly if they are fearing for their lives and in some
cases for their family or someone else who may be close to them.
That is why the definition of witness in Bill C-78 includes those
who might have evidence or will give evidence in the future, as
well as those who might be at risk themselves, for instance their
family.
The source witness protection program must, and with Bill C-78
it will, make it easier for people with information that may help
investigations to come forward without fear for their own safety
and the safety of their families. That to me is key. We are not only
talking about the safety of their families, but by extension if we can
get them to feel freer about coming forward and being witnesses or
sources then it is the safety of all our families we are talking about
here. The success of the program and of our crime fighting efforts
in general depends on sources and witnesses and the information
they can provide. Their safety is of paramount importance, which is
why I am so pleased to support the bill.
The bill provides one important item that we do not have at the
present and is needed. As we can see in the bill of the member for
Scarborough West and the debate around that bill over the past year
or so, we need consistency in how each case is dealt with. With the
bill every case across the country will be dealt with in a consistent
manner, which is a big improvement.
The bill will not replace other witness protection programs that
exist across the country. I mentioned that provincial forces and
municipal forces have their own programs. They will continue to
operate. Those law enforcement agencies will continue to be able
to participate in the RCMP source witness protection program, but
15268
they will now be able to do so with much more accountability and
transparency in the process.
(1210 )
Another important area in the bill solves some potential
problems in the present system in the area of accountability and
transparency, which we need to have more of in this process. The
bill makes the administration of the program much more
transparent and accountable. It goes through the commissioner of
the RCMP to the minister and to the House of Commons. It
provides for clearer lines of authority within the RCMP structure.
That makes unquestionably for a more efficient administration.
The commissioner is required to make an annual report on the
operation of the program, a full report indicating what kinds of
problems they face, what amounts have been paid out, the number
of witnesses who have been protected in various ways, and so forth.
He must make that report annually to the solicitor general. The
solicitor general will then table the annual report before Parliament
so that members of the House have the opportunity to scrutinize the
report. Therefore it makes the whole system accountable to the
House of Commons and through the House of Commons to the
public.
The annual reporting requirement will mean that information
will be available to members and the public on the cost and the
number of people involved in the program. It will be much clearer.
It is very important for both parties to the agreements where a
witness is being protected that both the witness and the RCMP or
other police force have a clear understanding of what the
agreement and what the responsibilities and obligations of both
parties to the agreement will be.
This will provide for transparency and accountability with
regard to the responsibilities and obligations for both the applicants
and the RCMP as administrators of the program. These protection
agreements and the obligations of applicants and administrators to
fulfil these agreements will provide further transparency and
accountability to the program.
All these factors lead to public safety. All these factors are
providing a greater feeling of security, a greater sense of safety in
coming forward for the witness.
If persons have heard about other witnesses in the past who
perhaps did not feel they were treated properly, did not feel that the
police had lived up to their part of the bargain in protecting a
person, they will obviously be less likely to come forward.
However, if we can clarify the rules, if we can have clear
agreements between the RCMP or another police force and the
witness that provide for the rights and obligations of both and what
is going to happen for them, we will not have people saying that
they did not get treated properly by the police. They can go to the
agreement itself and look at what is on paper.
It is kind of like good fences making good neighbours. A good
agreement with clearly specified rules on who is to do what
provides for a good relationship between the two sides. I think it
will add to people feeling freer about coming forward to the system
and providing their information.
To review some of the issues we have talked about how in the
past criminals have successfully used fear and intimidation to scare
witnesses to keep them away from the police so that they will not
bring evidence forward. This program is very important, because
individuals involved in organized crime will go to great lengths to
try to ensure that a witness or a source will not come forward. As I
said, it can be a terrifying experience. They can certainly
sometimes threaten and exact violent retribution from the
witnesses.
Enforcement agencies need the support and assistance of the
public. We are talking here about the public in more than one way.
We are talking about the individual who is a witness. In some cases
when a witness is relocated he or she may require assistance from
the public in that regard to find a new location. I am not sure
exactly how that would work, but it may require it in some regard.
To achieve success in bringing criminals to justice and to further
investigations, the police do need that kind of information and they
need people to come forward.
(1215 )
The legislation will cover agents who are involved in
investigations, not only in the trials but throughout the whole
process, which is why I was pleased to see the definitions I
mentioned earlier. Not only is the person who has given evidence in
the past covered, but so is a person who has agreed to give evidence
or information in the future. In any case where because of taking
part in some way in an inquiry, investigation or in the prosecution
of an offence a person's security may be at risk, the person is
covered by the legislation.
I talked about protection and how it can include relocation,
accommodation, change of identity, counselling, financial support
or any other requirement needed to ensure the security of the
protectees as they are called, or to facilitate re-establishment or
becoming self-sufficient in a new location with a new identity.
Let us think about a witness who has been totally innocent, has
not been involved in crime at all, but happens to be a witness to a
serious crime. I am reminded of the movie ``Witness'' in which a
young boy was a witness to a crime and had to be protected. In a
case where someone is totally innocent it must be a bewildering
experience to be called upon to be a protected witness, fearing for
one's life; having to change identity and home; and being away
15269
from family and friends. It has to be a very difficult and
bewildering experience.
Interestingly the annual cost will not go up as a result of the
program and if it goes down that is fine. It is an important program
and will vary each year depending on how many people are being
protected. The annual cost is $3.4 million. There are no additional
costs expected as a result of introducing the legislation. The
average cost per case is $30,000 but approximately 60 per cent of
cases cost less than $20,000. If that can bring people who are
involved in organized crime or other serious crimes to justice then
it is well worth the money. I am confident that all Canadians, and
certainly those in my riding of Halifax West, would support that
and would certainly support the intent of the bill.
The changes proposed in the witness protection program act will
give the RCMP's source witness protection program a solid
legislative and regulatory basis. This is lacking in the existing
program. It is important that we provide it and therefore I urge
members to support this important bill.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have a few moments to speak to Bill
C-78, the source witness protection program bill.
There are two or three perspectives I thought I would like to
touch on. My colleagues have touched on most of the technical
aspects of the bill and all parties in the House are apparently
supporting it. Therefore there is nobody really nibbling at the
corners. I am certainly not going to do that. It is a good bill, as has
been recognized by colleagues.
There are two or three perspectives that should be brought out in
discussion. I want first to pay some tribute to police officers across
the country who over the past many years have informally provided
protection for witnesses. They have done it in many ways, often not
at taxpayers' expense.
This is something that has not been recognized very much in the
history of law enforcement in Canada and North America. It was
very real over the past decades when no public moneys were
formally available to protect witnesses that police officers had to
use their cars, their garages, their basements, freebies from the
motel outside town, and all kinds of different devices to make sure
the witness who was scared to death got a chance to get into the
courtroom, give the evidence, get out and survive in the face of
great risks. I pay tribute to all those policemen, many of whom
were Mounties. This was not confined just to the federal police
force but also to provincial and municipal forces across the
country.
(1220)
That history is not written; it is all unwritten. It is anecdotal now
to the extent that these policemen and former policemen get a
chance to talk about it. It is an unwritten part of our Canadian
criminal justice history. I wanted to note it here and pay tribute to
the many who made the system work.
Starting in 1984 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police began a
witness protection program that provided some kind of framework
for witness protection albeit not recognized in statute. That was in
the face of the growing threat from organized crime which
developed post-war. Also as was mentioned earlier, there were
threats from individuals who while they might not have been part
of an organized crime group apparently were not prepared to stop at
anything in trying to preclude their conviction.
There have been many bad stories in relation to that as part of
our criminal justice history but there have also been many good
stories. With the growth and public knowledge of the availability of
a witness protection program in many parts of the world, there
began to be some confusion about what a witness might be entitled
to have: a free bus ride, a free taxi ride, a free room or some
accommodation, money, protection and a new identity.
Over time the field became more and more confused. It was not
so much on the part of the police, as they were simply doing their
very best to deliver evidence to the courtroom door for the
prosecutors. It was more so for the witnesses who from time to
time and place to place became confused about exactly what the
protection was composed of.
Some witnesses were more accommodating than others; some
wanted more than others. It became more difficult for the police to
manage. There might often be cases where when the process was
over, the evidence had been given hopefully ending in a successful
prosecution, witnesses felt they did not have the protection they
thought they were to have. Maybe they made it difficult for the
police involved. Maybe they went to the local newspaper, the local
media. It became confusing and embarrassing for some. Something
had to be done.
The first positive signs I saw in the House was the research and
the bill produced by our colleague, the member for Scarborough
West. That was quite a credible exercise. A private member's bill
was passed in the House at second reading and referred to the
justice committee. At about that point in time the Ministry of the
Solicitor General indicated it would want to have a bill similar in
nature. Our colleague essentially acquiesced and the solicitor
general has presented the bill which apparently has support from all
sides of the House.
The last perspective I want to address very briefly is that the bill
will help us better manage the safe streets policy the Liberal Party
has adopted. It will better manage the costs. The program will be
codified. It will probably show up as a cost item in the estimates
and the parliamentary authorizations as a specific category rather
than being buried as it was in part previously.
15270
The bill will help us better manage what we are doing in the
safe streets policy. It will result in better prosecutions. The crown
attorneys will know what the infrastructure will be for their
witnesses if there has to be a witness protection program
extension. It will result in better criminal procedure, a better
understanding both on the part of witnesses and the people who
manage the witness protection program of what they have to
deliver.
(1225)
It is a three-way street. We have the public that wants to see the
benefits of a better managed system. We have the witnesses who
need to know what they can expect, who will know what they have
the right to ask for and require in terms of protection. It will assist
the police better in knowing what the deliverables should be and
what the deliverables are, both to the crown which is gathering the
evidence and to the witness.
I congratulate both the solicitor general and the hon. member for
Scarborough West for their contributions in this regard.
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member for
Scarborough West who has so much history with this issue, would
the hon. member find it acceptable, as another member came out of
a meeting to speak, to have the hon. member for Dartmouth speak
first?
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Speaker, it would be my delight to hear what
the hon. member for Dartmouth has to say.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my colleague.
This is an important bill, particularly for the hon. member from
Scarborough who so kindly gave up his spot for me to speak. I
congratulate him on the work he has done in laying the groundwork
for this type of legislation.
Many times in the past the legislative procedure and process of
the House of Commons have given reason for the public and
members of this place to be cynical and sceptical about what it is
the backbench can do, what it is independent members can do with
respect to setting the legislative agenda. I acknowledge up front the
work the hon. member for Scarborough West has done in ensuring
this important piece of legislation was put before the House.
It is quite rare for a private member's bill to be debated and
actually get beyond the pro forma number of required hours once it
is drawn and actually get passed. The fact that the hon. member for
Scarborough West got the bill to second reading and caused it to
come forward is not only a testament to the way Parliament can
work. It is also a personal testament to how the member sticks to it.
All members owe him a debt of gratitude.
There are very few times when a piece of government legislation
comes forward which is supported by all sides of the House. It
appears the legislation is supported by all sides of the House.
Perhaps the government and the House leadership on our side will
take a close look and find, when legislation comes from the
backbenches of either side of this place, that it is better legislation.
They might want to free us up a bit more to do that type of job.
In the last number of years I have found that my opinions on
justice, law and order have gone from what would have been
considered to be a liberal left position to a more realistic,
responsive position when it deals with some aspects of the criminal
justice system. That has happened over the seven years I have been
a member of Parliament because of my interaction with the
criminal justice system on behalf of my constituents. I have viewed
it from afar and have watched cases unfold. I have dealt with
people who have been victims of crime. I have dealt with the law
enforcement agencies and people in the judiciary.
(1230 )
As we start to understand that, when we deal with the criminal
justice system, just as we have to be flexible in other areas of
public policy such as social policy and fiscal matters, we have to be
extremely flexible and reasonable when we deal with the criminal
justice system.
The system must be responsive to the needs of the community.
Clearly the area of witness protection is one of those areas where
there was a responsibility, a requirement by government, to come
forward and recognize we had to statutize programs that currently
existed at the federal level with the RCMP.
I am concerned that sometimes we direct the limited resources
we have for law enforcement into areas that simply are not able to
deal with the problem in as effective a manner as is required. The
area of witness protection has concerned me for a number of years.
I will deal with the reasons for that.
In my area, which is not that dissimilar from most urban areas
across Canada, there is a lot of urban crime. There are a lot of
crimes specifically against children. The hon. member for
Scarborough West has been on his feet in the House more times
than any other member dealing with some of these issues.
In my riding we have had to suffer through a disproportionate
number of our young children from 13 years old to 16 years old
being drawn into prostitution. I claim no moral high ground in
dealing with these issues, but I am a parent and I represent an area
where there are many kids who have been plucked from their
turbulent years in puberty and thrown into a world that can only be
described as a world of terror. They are plucked out of their
schools; they are taken from the downtowns, from the shopping
malls, by people who can only be described as the worst criminals
in Canadian society. They are pimps that befriend primarily young
girls, draw them into a life of crime, of drug addiction and literally
15271
sexual slavery. At 14, 15 or 16 years old these children have lost
their youth and have been violated in the worst possible ways.
However there has been a problem in the criminal justice system
in dealing effectively with that situation. There has been a problem
in the judiciary in applying the strictness of fines and of penalties
the public demands and that should be applied. There has been a
problem in the prosecution because it has been extremely difficult
to offer the level of protection to those young girls, the victims of
crime, but also the witnesses to crimes that happen to themselves
and to others in that circumstance.
They come forward with the certainty that if they give testimony
in a court of law against these monsters walking the streets one of
two things will happen. Either the criminal justice system would
deal with a conviction in such a light manner that 6 months or 12
months later the individual is back out on the street doing the same
thing with young kids again, or there would be threats to the
personal safety of the individual who came forward as a victim and
a witness to the crime as well as threats to their families.
I relate something that happened about three years ago which
marked me forever. It was late on a Friday afternoon. There were
far too many calls to return and I was tired after a week up here. My
secretary said I had to take a phone call.
It was a mother who was more than distraught. She was beaten
by a system that could not respond to what she saw as her child's
need, a mother despondent because she did not think she could help
her child. Her 15-year old daughter had been lured into prostitution
at the age of 13. At one point the daughter said she had made the
break and she did not want to do that any more. Two days later a
van showed up in front of her house with her pimps or the part of
the international criminal element that deals with street prostitution
of juveniles. They had their buddies and they parked outside.
Within two or three days the daughter told her mother she had to
go back to Toronto, back on the street. The mother begged her and
beseeched her not to do it. Her child had been raped, abused, beaten
and threatened with death. She had seen some of her friends beaten
close to death by this criminal element, these monsters, these
pimps. Why would she go back to a life like that? She feared for her
own personal safety and did not believe the criminal justice system
could afford her the protection necessary to put those demons
away.
(1235)
Outside her own personal safety she went back to the street out
of the fear for the safety of her family and knowing full well that
she might be a statistic, and maybe she is today. I hope not. She did
not want her mother to suddenly turn around one morning while
she was by herself in her kitchen and be confronted by thugs who
would beat and perhaps sexually assault her. That is why that child
went back to the street.
About a year later the mother called me and said: ``My daughter
has called and she cannot stand any more. She has been beaten,
tortured, sexually assaulted and she is getting out. She is in Niagara
Falls and I want to bring her home. We have to get her out of there.
She has broken away from her pimp and I cannot get anybody to
help''.
I thought of my 11-year old daughter and my God, I hope that if I
am ever in a situation like that somebody would at least do their
best to take my child out of that danger.
It took a lot of phone calls, a lot more than it should have taken,
before I could get somebody to act. The child was turning 16 on a
Monday of a long weekend and the law enforcement agency said:
``We can bring her back but what do we do with her? Where do we
put her? These people will be back. Is she prepared to testify? If she
is not, what do we do with her?'' I spent until 11 p.m. that night
trying to find a safe haven for that victim of crime and potential
witness against the perpetrators of the crime.
The bill begins to address some of the real issues facing law
enforcement agencies, the judicial system and certainly facing the
victims of crime and individuals who can come forward and give
testimony in a court of law, knowing full well that if they do there
are resources and programs available by statute that will assist in
their protection and that of their families.
Every year we spend a lot of money to put somebody in jail. We
spend a lot of money when we have to send law enforcement
agencies and police officers to pursue criminals. We must put
money into a program that will say to witnesses that if they come
forward and tell their stories, we will do our very best in a very
regulated statutory fashion with a program that has financing to
protect them and their families against intimidation or, God forbid,
physical violence or even death.
In my riding a young lady involved in prostitution broke away
and wanted to stop. She wanted the people who had stolen her life
to be dealt with by the criminal justice system. She was to give
evidence against a gang of criminals operating right across Canada
and in the northeastern U.S. She was to testify. A strong message to
all those other victims of that type of crime was sent when she was
found murdered before the testimony could be given. The
individual she was to testify against is currently awaiting trial on
murder charges.
I wish that were the only case I could relate. There are more
cases in which young girls or women who have decided to get out
of prostitution and turn evidence have had to live a life from one
hell to another, a life on the run, not knowing when a car stops in
front of them whether somebody will put a bullet in their head.
That is reality street in a town of only 65,000 people. It is
15272
happening in Toronto, in Scarborough, in western Canada and in
small town Canada.
The bill starts down the right road. It does the right things. It tells
us there is a program and there will be rules to the program. The
program will have a dollar allocation. Currently the RCMP deals
with that in its own programs because it has the budget.
(1240 )
This is the type of legislation the Canadian public wants. It wants
to give the necessary resources to government agencies and to the
criminal justice system for it to work. They want the resources to
be targeted in a way that we alleviate as much as we can the
criminal element from our streets while at the same time give
protection and statutized, regularized program protection to those
willing to come forward and confront elements in our society truly
from the dark side of humanity.
I speak for the victims of crime who are potential witnesses to
their victimization. I encourage the government and all members to
continue to work, like the member for Scarborough West has
worked, to identify to government and Parliament the types of
programs through which we can come together and ensure the
limited resources of government can be directed toward law
enforcement and the criminal justice system. They should be
directed in a fashion that allows us to attain the goal of safer streets
and that those willing to participate to help us have safer streets are
afforded the protection required.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
knew my decision to yield the floor to my hon. friend from
Dartmouth would be the correct one. His speech was peppered with
his usual enthusiasm, a very interesting case study of why we need
the program. I also thank all the speakers on the bill who mentioned
my name in a positive light today. It is such a refreshing change and
I really appreciate it.
I will talk about the history of witness protection and how I
developed an interest in the subject to let Canadians know a bit
about the need for a legislated witness protection program.
About three years ago when I was the official opposition critic
for the solicitor general a gentleman came into my office. He was
fearful, nervous, literally looking over his shoulder in
apprehension. He was also very frustrated. He was a witness and an
informant to a serious crime. He had in his view co-operated with
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in an investigation. In his
opinion he had been offered certain protection and certain financial
incentives which would help him to relocate and get away from the
wrath of those he had reported to the authorities.
Unfortunately because nothing was in writing or because there
was no real mechanism provided, there was a dispute about what
had been agreed on and how long the protection would be afforded.
Suffice it to say he felt abandoned. He felt adrift. He felt at the
mercy of those he had informed on.
It was a courageous thing for him to do. These were vicious
people. He feared for his family, his wife and children, not just for
himself; perhaps more for his wife and family than for himself.
I could see why he was in fear but why was he frustrated? He had
gone to the RCMP and did not seem to get any redress there. He
had gone to his local police department and did not get redress
there. He had gone to the Ontario Provincial Police and did not get
redress there. He went to his local member of Parliament. His local
member of Parliament was unable to help, not because his local
member of Parliament did not want to help but because we were
now entering into the nether world of witness protection in Canada.
(1245 )
He went to the minister of the day who along with his officials
begrudgingly admitted there was such a program but they were not
about to talk about it. They were not about to discuss it. They were
not about to give details and they certainly were not about to talk
about his case.
In desperation he came to me, the official opposition critic for
the solicitor general. That piqued my interest in the subject and I
began to investigate. I found that since 1970 a federal witness
protection program has been run by the U.S. marshall service in the
United States. Prosecutors in the United States have said that the
program was one of the most effective assets they utilized in law
enforcement.
The population of the United States of America probably
approaches 300 million people now. That U.S. witness protection
program currently protects approximately 500 witnesses per year,
which is not a very large number of witnesses considering the size
of the population.
That says it is used in extreme circumstances for extreme cases.
In a way that is good because there is only so much money.
Generally speaking it has a fairly good success rate in solving
crimes except the most dastardly kinds of crimes, the ones where
people do not think twice about snuffing out a life in order that the
person not be a witness in a proceeding against them.
I am talking about drug related offences. I am talking about
organized crime. I am talking about gang warfare. The last thing
those people are worried about is the value of a single human life. It
is simply a matter of money. Nowadays one can get somebody to
kill another for virtually a song. What a sad commentary in general
on society.
15273
I began to work on a witness protection bill for Canada because
what I found out about this nether world of witness protection was
that first, no one would talk about it. Hardly anyone would
acknowledge that it existed and there was no legislative base for
it.
As a lawyer, this concerned me. How can the law enforcement
agencies give a person a new passport? How can they give someone
a new social insurance number? How can they give someone new
background documents and resumes of work that never existed to
get the person back into the workforce with no legal basis to do so?
It worried me that our law enforcement agencies with the best of
motives to protect witnesses might be doing something contrary to
the law by issuing these kinds of papers and these kinds of new
identities without a legislative base.
I felt they needed this legislative base. I discussed this with the
solicitor general of the day. Thousands of people across Canada
presented petitions to the government of the day asking that a
national witness protection program be brought forward. In a
response to one of those petitions, the Hon. Doug Lewis, the
minister at that time had this to say:
Witness protection is indeed a very important function of law enforcement
and, equally, a crucial service to witnesses who are at risk of retribution as a
result of giving testimony in court.
It is accurate to say that, presently, there is not a national, legislated program
as exists in the United States, for example. My officials are currently examining
the state of witness protection in Canada, which necessitates consideration of
the witness protection requirements of not only the law enforcement
community, but also the witnesses themselves. Also, integral to this process is a
review of the efficacy of the legislated program and its application in Canada.
Bearing in mind the complexity of this issue, a thorough review is required
before a decision can be reached on the best possible witness protection
program for Canadians.
Rest assured that your views, particularly your request for a legislated
program, are being given serious consideration and I would like to thank the
petitioners for expressing their views on this matter.
That was a very nice response but I was getting the same feeling
as John Doe who had come into my office of being pushed from
pillar to post, study after study. Yes, there is no legislative program.
Yes, it is a good idea. Yes, we need it, but we have to study it.
(1250)
What changed? If I do say so myself, what changed was there
was an election and with the election the appointment of a new
solicitor general, the hon. member for Windsor West. Very shortly
after becoming Solicitor General of Canada, among the various
other initiatives that he came up with, the solicitor general
recognized the merit and the need for a legislated witness
protection program which would be offered nationally.
In consultation with his officials, he very kindly sat down with
me and discussed my bill and the work that I had done up to that
point. Of course the solicitor general has more resources than an
ordinary member of Parliament. He did everything that was
required of him. He talked to the U.S. marshall service, found out
about the flaws and the pitfalls of the program. He talked to the
various solicitors general of the provinces to see how the program
could be most effective in a federal system where we pass the
criminal laws, but they are enforced by the provinces.
He did not drag his feet. After having done the work and keeping
me informed at all times so that I was convinced that the work was
proceeding, he brought forward the legislation, Bill C-78.
In my judgment the bill is historic from a number of
perspectives. Not only will it go a long way in protecting witnesses
and informants in the future but it will help solve crimes.
Between 1980 and 1992 there have been 1,455 unsolved murders
in the country. That is an incredible statistic. Never mind 1,455
murders, but 1,455 unsolved murders. No doubt there are people
out there who know who was the perpetrator in many of these
murders but they fear for their lives or they fear for their families'
lives. They fear to come forward because they have no way of
knowing they will be protected. Because of the nether world, the
shadowy world of witness protection before the bill, people were
not aware of it. They did not know whom to approach.
Did the House know that right now there are approximately 15
police forces across the country that offer witness protection; the
RCMP, the OPP, the Metropolitan Toronto Police, some other
police forces? Each has its own program. They have different rules.
They have different standards. They have different budgets.
What good is it to a person who witnesses a murder, shall we say
in Sudbury, if the Metropolitan Toronto police has a witness
protection program? That budget is for the residents of that city.
What good is it in Calgary if the OPP has a witness protection
program?
The key is that it has to be a national program because our
criminal law is national. We have a national police force, the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, which has a presence in every province
and territory. It has a witness protection program so it is only
logical that it administer a national witness protection program and
the bill provides precisely for that.
It provides that those other police forces or any police force can
contract through the RCMP to provide protection for witnesses in
investigations that it is conducting. This is good financially as well
because those police forces can budget for witness protection. They
can pay the RCMP for the services that the RCMP will be giving,
15274
but then they will have the expertise and uniformity that the RCMP
will offer under the bill.
To me that is a very positive thing. I believe we will be able to
solve crimes when we are able to offer proper legislated witness
protection to people across Canada.
(1255 )
Goodness knows, there are enough crimes that need solving.
Hopefully we will get people to come forward and offer their
evidence in exchange for being protected from those very vile
people in society who do not care about snuffing out people's lives.
The hon. member for Dartmouth used a descriptive term for
these people. He called them demons. In order for us to exorcise
our demons from society, our criminal demons, this will be one of
the excellent tools we can use in that regard.
The bill is deceptively short considering what it is going to do. It
only has 24 relatively short paragraphs. Perhaps we lose sight of
the fact that sometimes shorter is better. It is deceptively short yet
not lacking in anything.
When I drafted Bill C-206 I spent a lot of time thinking about all
the different angles. I thought I had them all covered. I was very
gratified when the House unanimously approved it at second
reading. However, as is probably most often the case, the
bureaucrats examined the bill and found certain things that were
not in it and put them into a recommendation to the solicitor
general. He, to his credit, accepted those recommendations. Bill
C-78 is an improvement on my Bill C-206 and covers ground that
is not covered in my bill.
One other thing I want to mention is the use to which the witness
protection program has been put. For example, in 1986
approximately $500,000 a year was being spent by the RCMP on
witness protection in all of Canada. In 1993 that amount has
ballooned to $3,800,000. This is money well spent because it is
money used for solving crimes perpetrated in Canada, crimes that
might otherwise go unsolved. That demonstrates to me the efficacy
of a national witness protection program and the need for Bill C-78.
One thing that was lacking before was openness, light shining on
the witness protection program, publicity about the witness
protection program. The program has been ongoing for quite some
time. I am very pleased to note in clause 16 of Bill C-78 something
that was not contained in my private member's bill but is very
important, an annual report.
The commissioner of the RCMP, who will be in charge of the
legislated national witness program, will file a report with the
minister. That in itself is very important, as the minister will be
apprised of what is going on with witness protection, how much it
is costing, how many witnesses there are and its success rate in
solving crimes.
The minister has gone further because not only will he receive
the report but the clause provides that the minister shall-not may,
not think about, but shall-cause a copy of the report to be laid
before the House of Commons. We in the House of Commons and
the people of Canada whom we represent will have an opportunity
on a yearly basis to hear about the witness protection program and
thereby publicize it, to examine how much is being spent on it, to
know how many people are being protected by it and to understand
how many crimes are being solved by the use of the witness
protection program as a tool of law enforcement.
To me this is important because it will publicize the program. It
will give people an opportunity to come forward and say they saw
something, know something or heard something and say they will
come forward if they have protection in the circumstances. It will
be for the commissioner to decide whether or not in the
circumstances of the particular case witness protection should be
afforded. That is as it should be because it is a tool for law
enforcement to use for the protection of witnesses who will help to
solve crimes.
(1300 )
All in all, Bill C-78 is an excellent bill. I am delighted to support
it. I am delighted that it apparently has all-party support. That
indicates to me that it will receive quick passage through the House
of Commons so we can get on with the legislated witness
protection program, get on with publicizing it, get on with solving
crimes and get on with trying to find the perpetrators of the 1,455
unsolved murders between 1980 and 1992.
There are a couple of areas in the bill on which I would like some
clarification. Hopefully these will be clarified by the officials in
their appearance before the committee when the bill is studied at
committee.
I draw specific attention to a lack of a provision to authorize
emergency steps. For example, if the commissioner believes that
there is some urgent need to protect someone to get them out of
harm's way before the technicalities of the bill kick in, it would
seem that there should be some sort of mechanism specifically
provided in the bill for that purpose.
The bill will help Canadians. It will protect Canadians. It will
help solve crimes. That is fairly obvious because of the all-party
support the bill is receiving. Members on all sides of the House of
all different political persuasions and of all types of views on
justice issues recognize that witnesses and informants need to be
protected if we are to help solve and fight crime.
It is refreshing to see that there is such unanimity on such an
issue in the House. Canadians can feel reassured that the House of
Commons cares about them, cares about their personal safety, cares
about the fact that crime exists and must be controlled and
eradicated, and cares about the fact that witnesses and people who
come forward to help in the enforcement of the law will be
protected by society in a legislated way, in an open way, not in
some quiet and shadowy backroom without possibility of appeal,
15275
without possibility of redress in the event that there is some
misunderstanding.
By the way, that is another good point. There will be written
reasons given by the commissioner if people are turned down so
they are not left out there with their heads spinning, unable to
comprehend why the system did not protect them.
I support the bill. I am very grateful the House supports the bill. I
am grateful to the minister for bringing it forward. As I began, I am
grateful for all the kind comments that have been made about me
by members of the House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
I want to thank RCMP officers for the consistently good work they
do for Canadians. I am satisfied that they will continue to have
operational control over this program.
The protection of witnesses is one of the most useful and
efficient tools to fight crime. In order to be effective, witness
protection programs must provide the best possible protection to
likely sources and witnesses. This is precisely what the Witness
Protection Program Act seeks to do.
The proposed changes to the legislation will allow sources and
witnesses participating in the program to fully understand the terms
and conditions under which they will be protected. As well, the
decisions and the measures taken by the authority responsible for
the program, namely the RCMP, will be more transparent. This will
result in a more transparent and efficient operation of the program,
while also contributing to the government's efforts to implement
the act and thus stop crime, particularly organized crime.
(1305)
The proposed changes in the Witness Protection Program Act
will provide sound statutory and regulatory authority to the RCMP
program by establishing a federally legislated witness protection
program.
The new legislation will provide the following: clearly defined
eligibility criteria for witnesses; identical treatment all across the
country; a clear statement on the responsibilities and obligations of
program officials and participants; a better defined management
structure within the RCMP regarding the daily operation of the
programs, so as to strengthen accountability; a complaint
settlement process as well as the presentation, by the RCMP
commissioner, of an annual report to the solicitor general on the
operation of the program.
The RCMP source witness protection program was established
in 1984 to meet the specific needs of that police force regarding the
protection of sources and witnesses. Other witness protection
programs are run by a number of provinces and municipalities.
Police departments using these programs also rely on the RCMP
source witness protection program, under a cost recovery system,
and this will continue to be the case. The RCMP helps other
protection programs by obtaining I.D. documents delivered by the
federal government-including passports and social insurance
cards-when a name change is necessary, or by facilitating the
relocation of witnesses in another province.
During the 1994-95 fiscal year, the RCMP was able, through its
source witness protection program, to provide protection services
to 70 new clients. In 30 of these cases, the services were provided
at the request of other organizations. The RCMP currently allocates
$3.4 million annually to witness protection activities.
The changes made to the RCMP source witness protection
program will not result in additional spending. The program will
continue to be financed with current resources.
The provinces and territories were consulted and they support
the proposed changes in the Witness Protection Program Act.
When a decision is made to admit an applicant to the RCMP's
source witness protection program, the following factors will be
taken into consideration: the potential contribution that the witness
or source can make toward a particular police investigation, the
nature of the offence under investigation, the nature of the risk to
the individual, what alternate methods of protection are available,
the danger to the community if the individual is admitted to the
program, the potential effects on any family arrangements, the
likelihood of the individual being able to adjust, their maturity,
their ability to make judgments and other personal characteristics,
the cost of maintaining the individual in the program and other
factors as the commissioner of the RCMP may find to be relevant.
Under the witness protection program act, there will be a clear
and defined decision making process to admit an individual into the
program. In serious cases, such as those requiring a change of
identity or admission of a foreign national, the decision to admit an
individual will be made only by the assistant commissioner in
charge of the program. A decision to terminate protection must also
be made by the assistant commissioner.
In less serious cases, the decision to protect an individual may be
made by the incumbent of a position at the level of chief
superintendent.
Finally, the changes introduced in the witness protection
program act were drafted following consultations with the RCMP
and various police forces across the country who were asked to
15276
contribute their views. These changes will help make the RCMP's
source witness protection program more open.
I am very pleased that the House has agreed to support this
important bill, and I hope it will be passed very shortly.
(1310)
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.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-71, an act to
amend the Explosives Act, as reported (without amendment) from
the committee.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Natural
Resources) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time?
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Goodale (for the Minister of Natural Resources) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support
of Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act. Today I will
address some of the concerns members opposite have raised during
the second reading debate and I will emphasize the major points
government members raised during that debate.
Let me begin by thanking members opposite for expressing
support from their respective parties for Bill C-71 during the
debate on second reading of the proposed legislation.
I note from Hansard that during the debate the hon. member for
Matapédia-Matane asked what is the use of marking explosives if
we do not monitor them. My response is that we do. Canada's
explosives inspectors are doing an excellent job of monitoring
legally licensed makers, distributors and users of explosives in the
country.
There are concerns about how terrorists and biker gangs get their
explosives. Terrorists typically purchase stolen explosives on the
black market, or they make their own if they have the expertise, as
was the case in the horrific bombing of the Oklahoma City federal
building this summer.
Sources for stolen explosives include explosives obtained from
break-ins and thefts from storage magazines on construction sites,
in mines and quarries. Naturally these incidents fall within the
jurisdiction of Canada's police agencies. In any case I submit to the
House that it is not a common occurrence in the country. The mere
fact that it can happen does not require a maze of restrictive and
unnecessary regulations from any government, least of all the
Government of Canada.
Furthermore, explosives that are used or intended for use in
criminal activities are never purchased from legitimate vendors
licensed under the terms of existing federal explosives legislation.
That is because legitimate vendors must keep accurate and
complete transaction records for all explosives they sell. These
records, coupled with the records of police security checks that are
required under the terms of the existing Explosives Act, could
easily provide a clear paper trail of evidence to anyone who used
legally obtained explosives to commit a crime.
Let me return to the issues that are more closely related to the
proposed legislation before the House. With respect to the length of
time it has taken to submit the amendment to Parliament, I want to
make a few points.
Officials at Natural Resources Canada have indicated to me that
shortly before the Montreal convention on the marking of plastic
explosives was signed in 1991 they joined their colleagues from
national defence, customs, and transport to prepare a memorandum
to cabinet regarding the proposed amendments to the Explosives
Act. As members of the House may recall, there were significant
changes in the structure of federal government departments in
mid-1993. Shortly thereafter a federal election was held, resulting
in even more significant change. Since then the Government of
Canada has been working hard to put Canada on a positive new
course for the future, to revitalize employment opportunities for all
Canadians, to attack major issues such as the deficit and debt and,
in short, to get Canada moving again. The government is delivering
the good government that Canadians wanted and deserved. In
addition we are making excellent progress to reach a number of
positive public policy objectives.
15277
(1315)
Hon. members will know we have faced tremendous challenges
to deliver on our promises to Canadians and that the Government
of Canada has worked hard to manage our priorities since 1993 in
order to succeed. I hardly think this debate is the appropriate forum
to trot out the list of our accomplishments but if members opposite
wish me to do so I will be more than happy to.
Departmental officials had to review their work to prepare their
memorandum to cabinet concerning the amendments to the
Explosives Act we have before us today. Consequently the officials
made the necessary revisions to meet the demands of a new
government. The officials have done an excellent job.
The 1991 convention signed in Montreal represents an
international agreement to combine efforts among nations to
reduce the risk of any further aircraft bombings. Participation in
this effort is viewed by Canada as an essential element in the
continuing battle against terrorism.
Like all international agreements, the convention on marking of
plastic explosives is based on trust among signatory nations.
Canada respects this spirit. Canada is known around the world as a
leader in encouraging progress to increase the trust among nations
that leads to progressive international conventions.
We have every intention of living up to all of our international
obligations in the hopes that other countries will follow our
example. This is not a blind trust; this is the essence of good
leadership.
At present there is no way to detect plastic explosives in airports,
while conventional explosives materials can be detected by
equipment at our airports. The act proposes the marking of plastic
explosives by adding a chemical which would be detected by
equipment in Canada's international airports and thus ward off the
threat of terrorism.
The amendment would allow Canada to be among the first
nations to ratify an international convention requested by the
United Nations and co-ordinated by the international civil aviation
organization with respect to the marking of plastic explosives.
The convention was signed in March 1991 by 40 countries, and
14 countries have already ratified the convention since April 1992.
Five of these nations, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, Slovakia and
the Czech Republic, are producer states where plastic explosives
are manufactured.
Given that Canada is a world leader in vapour detection
technology, Canadian equipment manufacturers will be able to take
advantage of international market opportunities for their vapour
detection technology as more and more countries ratify the
convention.
Plastic explosives have emerged as a weapon of choice among
terrorist groups for bombing aircraft and other targets such as
public buildings because this type of explosive is small, powerful,
stable, malleable and, most important, difficult to detect.
If plastic explosives are marked or tagged with a substance that
can be detected by equipment at Canadian airports, it is quite likely
that terrorists would be discouraged from attempting any attacks in
Canada using plastic explosives.
The convention on the marking of plastic explosives requires
states to ensure the marking of plastic explosives to enhance their
detectability. The convention also requires controls over the
import, export, possession and transfer of marked plastic
explosives and the destruction of most unmarked plastic
explosives.
Let me remind the House about the main features of the
convention. Only plastic explosives as defined in the convention
are required to be marked. Existing unmarked commercial stocks
of plastic explosives are to be destroyed within three years. An
international explosives technical commission will be created to
assess technical developments.
The cost of Canadian participation in such a commission will be
low and the convention will come in force after 35 states including
the 5 producer states have ratified it. Canada is one of the world's
producer states and by passing the proposed legislation before the
House today Canada will be among the first countries to ratify the
important convention.
Looking at other departments, the military has agreed it can
except perhaps in times of emergency observe all of the terms of
the convention. Priority will be given to the use of unmarked stocks
of plastic explosives in the military stock of explosives materials.
As always, tight security of storage facilities will be maintained. In
addition, tight accounting procedures regarding the use of all
stocks will also be maintained.
(1320)
Transport Canada, responsible for the operation of detection
equipment at Canadian airports, has indicated current technology
can detect the marked plastic explosives.
The extra cost of producing detectable plastic explosives is
expected to be negligible. This is primarily due to the relatively
low volumes of plastic explosives manufactured in Canada. The
industry has been working in co-operation with organizations
involved in the effort to develop substances to mark plastic
explosives for the purpose of detection. Therefore the industry
acknowledges the impact of extra costs will not be that serious.
In addition, given the low volumes of plastic explosives
compared with the volumes of conventional industrial explosives,
the challenge of enforcing the provisions of this proposed amend-
15278
ment and by extension the international convention will not pose a
significant problem or cost to the respective regulatory bodies.
Canada's position as a leader in the development of vapour
detection technology will be enhanced as a result of the ratification
of the international convention. Increased foreign market
penetration by Canadian equipment manufacturers is virtually a
certainty. Therefore the proclamation of the amendment has the
potential to help stimulate job creation and contribute to Canada's
future economic growth and trade.
The amendment to the Explosives Act demonstrates the
Government of Canada's commitment to good government. We are
determined to contribute to the health and safety of passengers on
aircraft. We are committed to working with our international
partners to do whatever we can to stop the threat of terrorism in our
skies and around the globe.
The amendment to the Explosives Act will send a signal to
terrorists everywhere that Canada will not be an easy target for
their deadly campaigns of violence. In the process, Canadian
manufacturers of vapour detection equipment will be able to take
advantage of significant marketing opportunities. As a result, the
proposed amendment to the Explosives Act will contribute to two
major federal goals: job creation and Canadian economic growth.
Moreover the passage of the amendment will protect the health and
safety of all Canadians.
I thank members opposite for their support in passing important
legislation. I urge all members of the House to give speedy passage
to the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak as well on Bill
C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act. There is of course
already an Explosives Act, which this bill will amend, and the aim
of the earlier legislation was, as a general rule, to ensure public and
worker safety.
This legislation governed the composition, quality and
characteristics of standard explosives as well as their manufacture,
import, sale, purchase, possession and storage. It covered
pyrotechnic devices, that is, the products used for fireworks.
The new legislation brought before us today will require the
incorporation of a detectable additive in plastic explosives to
enable the governor in council to approve regulations on the
possession, transfer and destruction of unmarked plastic
explosives. The aim is to thwart terrorism, as my colleague
mentioned, and to enable Canada to ratify the Convention on the
Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection,
concluded in Montreal on March 1, 1991.
The bill would also prohibit, among other things, the
manufacture, stockpiling, possession, transfer, transport, import
and export of unmarked plastic explosives, except in the instances
provided by the convention and for military purposes of vital
importance clearly specified in the legislation.
What is the Montreal Convention? I am asking the question for
the benefit of Canadians watching us. The convention was signed
in March 1991 at the headquarters of the International Civil
Aviation Organization by the members of this organization. Its aim
is to control the proliferation of plastic explosives used in terrorist
attacks.
It covers unmarked plastic explosives, that is, explosives that do
not contain a substance permitting easy detection and it requires
signatory countries and producing countries, such as Canada, to
mark plastic explosives, except those used for research purposes or
by the police and the military.
(1325)
The bill proposes marking plastic explosives through the
incorporation of a chemical that could picked up by the detection
equipment installed at international airports in Canada to
counteract the threat of terrorism.
Generally speaking, Bill C-71 meets the main requirements of
the Convention. It appears to meet all of the obligations in it. First,
the bill prohibits the production of unmarked plastic explosives,
except in the instances provided. Then it announces regulations
governing the transportation and possession of unmarked plastic
explosives. Finally, it provides measures for unmarked plastic
explosives produced or in possession prior to the date the present
bill comes into effect, as my colleague stated just before me.
Clearly, plastic explosives are the preferred weapon of terrorists,
for the very reason that they are hard to detect. One need only think
of recent terrorist incidents mentioned previously by my colleagues
and remembered by many, such as the one involving Pan Am flight
103 from London, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, a few
years ago, or UTA flight 772, that crashed in Africa not too long
ago. More than 440 people were killed in these two incidents. One
might also think of the Air-India tragedy, another terrorist attack
where a 747 that had taken off in Canada blew up over the Atlantic,
south of the Republic of Ireland, killing everyone on board.
We must make sure that plastic explosives can be detected in
airports. That is what this bill is about. Of course, the Bloc
Quebecois reaffirms its support. Especially since, based on
information we received, production costs for the manufacturers,
most of them private enterprises, will increase only marginally as a
result of this decision.
However, we nonetheless have some concerns about this bill.
First, while the convention was signed on March 1, 1991, no bill
was introduced until now, nearly five years later. This obviously
reflects a glaring lack of efficiency on the part of the government in
15279
an area directly related to public safety. It took less time to set up a
unity Canada group. I think this is indicative of a glaring lack of
efficiency that should be pointed out.
Of course, the goal in itself is commendable and we support it
but how effective will the bill really be? First of all, not all
countries signed the convention or belong to the International Civil
Aviation Organization. This means that terrorists will still be able
to obtain explosives in non member countries where plastic
explosives will remain unmarked.
We put a question to our hon. colleague who said that, as far as
terrorist groups were concerned, Canada could not say who did or
did not sell explosives to them. We stress the fact that the federal
government is not clear, as our colleague just indicated, that
explosives are obtained in part on the black market. We did not
need to be told that. We already knew that this was the case. We
also knew that some of them are home made. But who on the black
market supplies terrorists? Who are the people operating this black
market? These questions remain unanswered.
In many regards, Canada is like a sieve for contraband goods. I
am thinking about drugs in particular. It is well known that, in a
way, Canada is the North American entry point for drugs and
certainly part of the weapons smuggled on the continent. It is a fact
that certain groups are currently using this channel and that, in
many cases, they are more heavily armed than the police and even
the Canadian armed forces.
(1330)
One wonders what specific measures will be taken in this bill to
counteract such effects. Canada has problems controlling liquor
and tobacco smuggling. It is therefore extremely difficult to
imagine that a bill such as this one, in spite of all its positive
measures, will effectively prevent the smuggling of explosives.
Explosives manufactured for military purposes are totally
exempt from marking requirements, and we can understand that.
Obviously, military people do not want to make their arms easy to
detect; that would make no sense. Nevertheless, there is the
possibility of leaks.
One can also think of the motorcycle gang war currently going in
the Montreal region, another reason to be cautious in this regard. In
recent months, there have been numerous victims, mostly gang
members, but also innocent people.
Incidently, I want to thank a group, the Oir Rachaim Tasher
Yesheva jewish congregation, in Boisbriand, for immediately
coming to the help of injured persons during one incident. The
compassion and the support shown by that community deserve to
be mentioned.
As regards the gang war, I also want to stress the work of the
hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve who helped start a
petition in his riding, asking for anti-gang legislation, and who
organized for the benefit of many Montreal area MPs meetings
with police officers of the city, including Mr. Sangollo, who is the
assistant to the chief of police, Mr. Duchesneau. These officers
gave us an idea of who these motorcycle gangs are and what is
organized crime.
We were clearly told about the need for anti-gang legislation.
The House should seriously consider such legislation. I am well
aware that this would not be easy, since we would have to
specifically define what constitutes a criminal gang.
That is not an easy thing to do. We must, of course, take the
charter of rights and freedoms into account, but I think we must
eventually find or come as close as possible to finding the exact
words we need to counter the real damage done by these gangs.
When I talk about these gangs, I am talking not only about criminal
bikers but also about the mafia, the Chinese triads, the Japanese
yakuza and the Russian mafia that is now spreading to all
industrialized countries and especially to Canada since the collapse
of the Soviet Union.
I think that this bill as it now stands certainly deserves to be
supported because it is a step in the right direction, but I think it is
not nearly enough, in the circumstances, to restore the feeling of
safety that Canadians may have lost or are now losing.
I would like to close by repeating a few words that my colleague
from Matapédia-Matane said in his first speech on this bill,
because they are words of wisdom. My colleague said this: ``You
can mark the explosives you make as much as you want, but unless
you take real measures against violence, organized gangs and
terrorism, you are simply wasting your time''.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise in the House to address
third reading debate on Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives
Act.
I am happy to inform the House that my party is supporting Bill
C-71. I will not go on at great length to discuss the bill because of
that support. It is good to see legislation come forward in the House
which is required and which we can support because so often
legislation has been flawed.
My one criticism of the business of the House has been that we
have had to deal with a lot of rather inconsequential legislation.
While Bill C-71 is important, all members of the House would have
passed the bill rather quickly. It has not received much obstruction.
It seems odd that we are spending so much time on these bills of
little consequence when there are issues like the national debt and
deficit to deal with. UI reform is needed. Health care reform is
needed. Those areas are being ignored by the government.
15280
(1335)
I notice the minister of agriculture is present in the House.
Certainly there are agriculture issues which need to be brought to
the front burner. We encourage members on the opposite side of the
House to bring forward those very pressing issues.
Yes, we will give support to the common sense bills brought
before the House like Bill C-71, but let us see a little more
substance. Let us see a little more meat to deal with.
The bill to amend the Explosives Act will allow Canada to
formally participate in an international convention on the marking
of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection, a very
worthwhile cause. The purpose of the convention is to make sure
that as many plastic explosives in the world as possible are able to
be detected by legal authorities mostly in airports to stop terrorism.
We all use airports, except perhaps the members from Ottawa
who I am sure stay home all the time. We recognize the importance
of safety and the importance of being able to detect explosives so
that our air traffic continues to be safe. It is an anti-terrorism bill.
Therefore I can give my hearty endorsement to the piece of
legislation.
After the Air India tragedy and the PanAm bombing over
Lockerbie, Scotland, in the late 1980s, the United Nations passed
two separate resolutions both in 1989. One was passed by the
security council and the other by the general assembly. These
resolutions urged the International Civil Aviation Organization,
another U, body to intensify its work on an international regime for
the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection.
Out of those resolutions was born the convention I have already
mentioned. It was put forward in Montreal in 1991 and was signed
by 100 nations. Although Canada signed as well it did not have the
legal authority to ratify it. The bill will grant Canada the ability to
formally ratify the convention, another reason to endorse the
legislation.
For the last four years research has been ongoing to consult with
the industry and develop an appropriate chemical marker. It has
been developed in labs in New Jersey. Now is the time to move
forward.
Unfortunately the convention will not take effect until 35 nations
become signatories, 5 of them producer nations. Five nations which
produce plastic explosives need to sign this agreement. I
understand that five producer countries have signed, among them
Slovakia, Switzerland, Norway, the Czech Republic and Spain.
Canada will be the sixth producer country to sign. This still means
that only 13 countries including Canada will have legally ratified
the convention. That is a long way from the 35 that are needed to
actually put the wishes of the convention into reality.
I agree that the ordinary terrorist without international
connections will be harder pressed to obtain material that will
escape detection devices. Therefore the convention is a positive
thing.
Interestingly the United States has signed the convention but as
yet has not introduced legislation to ratify it. We talked with the
explosives industry organization in Washington, the Institute of the
Makers of Explosives. It endorses the convention and said that the
Federal Aviation Administration, the lead agency in America
dealing with the issue, may introduce legislation soon to ratify it
but nothing has been done to date.
We have not had an incident for a long time like the Lockerbie
incident or the Air India disaster. The urgency unfortunately has
died down somewhat and the issue has probably taken a lower
priority. I hope it will not take another tragedy to bring the issue to
the world stage once more.
For whatever reasons the convention is not in force right now
and therefore it really is not relevant right now. Probably until the
United States recognizes it, no significant countries will join in
ratifying the law.
The amendment to our own act will continue to be irrelevant
until we do something on a political level to bring the United States
into the game. Until that happens nothing will ever get done and
airline passengers all over the world will be at greater risk from the
plastic explosives going undetected in aeroplanes.
A couple of weeks ago the member for Fraser Valley East called
on the Minister of Natural Resources to urge her American
counterparts to do something about it, to urge them to go ahead and
ratify the convention so that other nations would come on board.
My colleague has since received a letter from the minister saying
that the Americans are already working on legislation implying
that there is no need to address the problem.
(1340 )
We would reply that the Americans have been working on it for
years with no action. The minister needs to express her concerns
directly on a political level to her American counterpart and we are
calling on her again today to do that. We want the minister to call
her American counterpart and bring him up to speed on the issue.
We urge the United States to move on the issue and formally
approve the convention so that we can keep terrorism where it
belongs. Of course it does not belong at all.
The minister also promised in her letter to participate in an
American study that will examine the cost and benefits of marking
conventional explosives that are being used in the biker bombings
in Montreal to see whether it would be cost effective to identify all
15281
explosives and not just plastic explosives. We are pleased to hear
that Canada will take part in this study and we look forward to the
results.
In conclusion, I reiterate that I support Bill C-71. My colleagues
support Bill C-71. It will not set the world on its head but it is a step
in the right direction and is worthy of our support. It is certainly a
shame that the government is not moving ahead with a Canadian
agenda but instead is keeping to housekeeping legislation like this
which we could have moved through even more rapidly than it is
going through the House.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the legislation and look
forward to its speedy passage.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Explosives Act is an act of public and worker safety which
regulates the composition, quality and character of explosives in
addition to their manufacture, importation, sale, purchase,
possession and storage. It also controls the use of fireworks.
The amendment is necessary to require the incorporation of a
detectable additive in plastic explosives coupled with a provision
to enable the governor in council to make regulations to control
unmarked plastic explosives. This will hinder terrorism and will
enable Canada to ratify the ICAO convention on the marking of
plastic explosives for the purpose of detection.
The principal provisions of the bill are worth noting. The
principles are: to require the marking of most plastic explosives for
the purpose of detection; to prohibit the manufacture, storage,
possession, transfer of possession, transportation, import and
export of unmarked plastic explosives, except as may be permitted
by the terms of the convention or required by overriding military
necessity; and to empower the governor in council to make
regulations governing the possession, transfer and disposal of any
unmarked plastic explosives.
The passage of the legislation will vault Canada ahead of the
U.S. as the only producer state in the Americas to have ratified the
convention.
Many questions have been asked with respect to the Explosives
Act. Some of those questions are technical; others relate to policy
and still others are legal questions. I intend to address those
questions today.
One technical question asked is: Will the addition of a detection
agent be effective in combating terrorism in disguise? The answer
is yes. The proposed detection agents are of such character they can
be detected by bomb detection equipment of current technology
and use in Canada. This would render marked plastic explosives an
undesirable choice for assembling bombs. A second benefit from
tagging plastic explosives is that detection of illegal stockpiles will
be simplified.
Another technical question often asked is: Will the presence of
the detection agent compromise the performance or safety of
plastic explosives? The answer is no. Only one type of plastic
explosive, a military version known as C-4, is manufactured in
small quantities in Canada. The safety and performance
characteristics of the marked version have been verified by the
manufacturer, the military and the Canadian Explosives Research
Laboratory.
Another technical question asked is: Will there be a problem in
using the existing stocks of unmarked plastic explosives? The
answer is no. Small existing stocks of unmarked plastic explosives
in Canada coupled with ample grace periods of three years for the
public and fifteen years for the military police to use up or destroy
these stocks were judged to be satisfactory during consultations
with all concerned parties.
(1345 )
Another technical question often asked is whether explosives
technology is advancing so rapidly that this initiative will soon be
rendered obsolete. The answer is no. Explosives technology is
stable at this time. In North America, plastic explosives are
implicated in very few bombs targeted at aircraft. Prohibitions
against the import, export and transfer of unmarked plastic
explosives will discourage terrorists from using Canada as a
location to plant bombs on aircraft.
Many policy questions have been raised as well. One question
often asked is who may manufacture, possess and use plastic
explosives in Canada and how will the legislation affect their
activities. Plastic explosives in the form of military demolition
charges are manufactured in small quantities on an as required
basis by Les produits chimiques Expro in Valleyfield, Quebec. This
manufacturer is authorized by its factory licence, which is issued
pursuant to the Explosives Act and regulations. Sale and
distribution of this product is limited to the military, as well as
police explosives disposal units.
Commercial plastic explosives in sheet form are legally
imported from the U.S. by companies engaged in hardening metal
surfaces and explosives welding. The sole Canadian manufacturer
does not expect any problems. Importers of commercial plastic
explosives in sheet form, however, may experience difficulties in
locating suppliers of marked product.
Another policy question often asked is whether these new
restrictions will affect competitiveness. The answer is no. It is
estimated that the cost associated with incorporating the additive
will increase selling prices by no more than 1.25 per cent. It is quite
possible that the Canadian manufacturer could realize a
competitive advantage in international markets by being fast off
the mark in offering marked products.
Another policy question often asked is if this initiative is
connected in any way to the new proposed gun control legislation.
The answer is no. This initiative is the result of an agreement
15282
signed in March 1991 and has no connection whatsoever to the gun
control legislation recently tabled.
Often legal questions are asked with respect to the act. One
question often asked is why the act is to come into force by order in
council. It is specifically provided that the act will come into force
on a day to be set by the order of the governor in council to ensure
that the grace periods provided for in the convention will be
respected. This will enable us to make the date of coming into force
of the act coincide with that of the coming into force of the
convention.
Another legal question often asked is when the convention will
come into force. It is impossible to predict when the convention
will come into force. Section 3 of article 13 of the convention
provides that the convention will come into force on the 60th day
following the date of deposit of the 35th instrument of ratification
by a state, provided that at least five states have declared they are
producer states. Should 35 instruments of ratification be deposited
before the deposit of their instruments by five producer states, the
convention will come into force on the 60th day following the date
of deposit of the instrument of ratification of the fifth producer
state.
Another legal question often asked is what happens to the
definition of detection agent if the technical annex is amended.
This is not a problem. The word convention is defined to refer to
the convention as amended from time to time. This means that the
definition of detection agent is ambulatory. It will follow any
amendment in the technical annex to the convention.
Finally a further legal question often asked is what happens to
the definition of plastic explosives if the convention is amended.
Amendments to the definition of plastic explosives in the
convention would not be automatically reflected in the Explosives
Act because we repeated the definition instead of referring to it. We
would have to amend the definition in the Explosives Act in order
to have it follow an amendment to that found in the convention.
However, from a practical point of view this should not be a
problem. The definition of plastic explosives is standard.
Furthermore it is unlikely that the convention itself will be
amended. The only amendments contemplated are to the technical
annex.
(1350)
In addition to the technical questions, the policy questions, and
the legal questions, we have what we refer to as miscellaneous
questions. It is often asked why it took nearly five years from the
March 1991 signing of the convention to table the bill. Initial MOU
development, which began shortly after the signing of the
convention, involved considerable consultation with DND, Canada
Customs, and Transport Canada. Additional time was lost in 1993
when there was a change in government prior to the tabling and
approval of the memorandum to cabinet. It required a second
consultation and resubmission of the MC.
In conclusion I support the Explosives Act. As a member of the
natural resources committee I recommend Bill C-71, the
Explosives Act, at report stage to this honourable House.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-71, an act to amend the
Explosives Act.
When I read over the act I notice some very specific benefits for
Canada, specifically in the area of vapour detection. Our
government is very interested in promoting scientific and
technological devices to expand our knowledge base and to
increase employment. It is very interesting that Canada is a world
leader in this type of technology.
I am very pleased to speak in favour of the bill. I note this is a
UN convention. It basically restores our commitment to the United
Nations and to other countries to detect plastic explosives and
prevent their exportation throughout the world.
There have been a few classic examples of plastic explosives
being used by terrorists both in and out of Canada. Many of us can
remember the Air India disaster and numerous other cases where
terrorists have used plastic explosives and the death and
dismemberment of many innocent people has resulted. The bill
basically addresses that issue with the objective of detecting and
stamping out the use of plastic explosives for that very purpose.
It is necessary that the bill be brought into place to recognize our
commitment to the United Nations and to recognize the need to
deal with terrorist activities. I note that Canada is also a producer of
plastic explosives, but the main consumer of them in Canada is our
own military. I understand the Canadian military has
approximately a 10-year supply of plastic explosives. I am very
happy to see that we have made a provision in the act for a 15-year
moratorium to allow the inventory of unmarked plastic explosives
to be brought down while the new replacements have this detection
device included.
I can remember being in Heathrow International Airport where
they use canines and detection devices to control the exportation of
firearms and dangerous substances. We have developed a whole
technology to do that. The world does that very well. However we
must always be on guard for the development of new types
technology. Plastic explosives and small component devices can be
exported very easily.
(1355 )
In conclusion I support Bill C-71 and the effect it will have in the
industrial sector in creating jobs for Canadians.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
15283
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report
of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons,
volume two, dated October 1995.
[Translation]
I would remind the hon. members that, under Standing Order
108(3)(d) this document is deemed to have been permanently
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
[English]
It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing
Order 31.
_____________________________________________
15283
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are celebrating national family week in Canada. The family is the
basic institution of life and the solid foundation upon which our
forefathers built this great nation.
The protection of families, family life and family values must be
a priority with the government. The conventional terms of debate
in matters of political, economic and legal issues tend to focus on
individual rights and the rights of the state, not the rights of the
family. This is unfortunate and must change, for the family is the
most important reality in our lives.
This weekend families celebrate Thanksgiving Day in Canada
and give thanks to God for our great country, Canada, for our
families and friends. Happy Thanksgiving to my constituents of
Central Nova.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if we choose
sovereignty, we shall be able to make choices in keeping with our
own values and priorities. By offering to associate ourselves with
the rest of Canada in a partnership, we shall be able also to make
shared decisions with our neighbours. The proposed partnership
agreement with the rest of Canada is a winning combination.
It is a happy combination of autonomy and co-operation. It
enables us to take advantage of the elements we have built
together-the Canadian currency, the Canadian economic
space-and to finally give up squabbling over areas in which our
interests are divergent. A vote for change means a vote for
ourselves, for the people of Quebec, above and beyond party lines.
A Yes vote means finally standing up for our convictions, voting
for what we are and what we want to be.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to voice my deep concern for the nine
Canadians whose helicopter crashed yesterday heading home from
Kumtor gold mine in Russia, where they were struggling to bring a
new mine into production.
Throughout history the lure of gold has prompted prospectors to
face incredible hardships, often only with a packhorse, a pick, a
shovel, or a gold pan. The helicopter serves as the modern
prospector's packhorse, so all of us in the mining industry can
readily sympathize when an accident involves these vehicles.
Gold has its own way of calling us, so precious and fundamental
in value. Despite the very real hardships involved, the search for
gold will continue to beckon Canadian prospectors and mine
developers to snowy mountain tops around the world. Meanwhile,
our prayers and good wishes go out to all 15 people on board, as
well as to their families.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today's Auditor General of Canada report reaffirms what New
Democrats have been telling Canadians for years, that the high real
interest rate policy is the major reason for our massive debt, not
social program spending.
High real interest rates hurt the economy, drive up debt and kill
jobs. If the federal debt of $546 billion is a mortgage, Canadians
are becoming tenants in their own homes, because 46 per cent of
the debt is held by foreigners.
Canada's net foreign indebtedness is by far the highest among
major industrialized countries. Even Italy has a foreign debt of less
than 12 per cent.
New Democrats have called the Liberal government's high
interest rate policy a disaster and the auditor general agrees. High
interest rates have created nearly one-third of our debt. More debt
should be held by the Bank of Canada. Social program spending
has not contributed significantly to Canada's debt.
In view of this evidence, will the Liberals now create a fair
economic policy for Canadians, rather than one for foreign
investors?
15284
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and thank the hard working
men and women who staff our national parks and historical sites.
As Canadians we can be very proud of the quality of our Parks
Canada facilities and the quality of service that is provided by a
dedicated staff of professionals, men and women who are
committed to what are undoubtedly some of Canada's greatest
natural resources, our parks and historical sites. These represent an
important part of Canadian identity from coast to coast to coast.
In Parry Sound-Muskoka, Parks Canada has responsibility for
Georgian Bay Island National Park in the west of my riding and
Bethune Memorial House in Gravenhurst. Both facilities have fine
reputations and attract visitors from around the world, adding
significantly to our local tourist economy.
I congratulate the Parks Canada staff for their fine work on our
behalf and for maintaining our resources to the highest standard.
Specifically I would like to acknowledge the dedication of Mike
Walton, Mary Ellen Corcelli and her staff who are responsible for
Bethune House and Georgian Bay National Park.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 4, 1966, a special intergovernmental conference adopted
the UNESCO recommendation on the status of teachers. Thirty
years have passed since the adoption of that historical document,
and today we mark the anniversary by inaugurating World Teachers
Day.
Just by pure happenstance, on the very day we are marking the
vital contribution of our teachers, the permanent campus of la Cité
collégiale will be holding its official opening ceremonies in
Ottawa. Its teachers and students can be proud of the fact that theirs
is the first French-language college of applied arts and technology
in Ontario.
I would like to take this opportunity, therefore, to offer my
thanks and congratulations to all of the men and women in the
educational field for their ongoing efforts to provide Canadian
youth with the opportunity to realize their full potential.
My best wishes to all teachers for a happy international day, and
to la Cité collégiale for a long life.
[English]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I toured the head offices of
Canada Post Corporation here in Ottawa.
I found Canada Post to be a thoroughly modern distribution
organization, the equal of any in the world. Its track and trace
system for managing mail flow is said to be state of the art and
Canada Post is selling the technology worldwide.
Ensuring timely and cost effective mail delivery to all Canadians
is no small challenge. Doing so in the midst of a revolution in
communications and at a profit is the challenge that Canada Post
faces.
For a time, closing rural post offices was seen as a way for
Canada Post to meet this challenge, but this avenue was closed with
the decision by the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services to impose a moratorium on the closure of small rural post
offices. That decision has proven to be enlightened. It has
refocused the energies of Canada Post and allowed the corporation
to discover that its more than 19,000 outlets are not liabilities but
important assets. Now it is time to broaden the range of services
which Canada Post provides, especially to rural Canadians.
As other countries have discovered, the possibilities are endless
and endlessly exciting.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every
day, owing to Canada's enormous debt, a federalist legacy, we see
the extent to which interest rates and monetary policy are
determined by the central bank of our neighbours to the south and
by international financial markets.
On May 16, 1994, even Canada's finance minister acknowledged
this dependence on financial markets, and I quote: ``Canada's debt,
especially its foreign debt, undermines the sovereignty of this
country. Our sovereignty suffers when we have to keep our interest
rates high-even if our rate of inflation is among the lowest in the
world-in order to attract foreign investment''.
Because of Canada's dependence on foreign investment, it is
clear that if the finance minister ignores his obligations as the
manager of this debt by refusing to negotiate a new economic
partnership with Quebec, national and foreign markets will call
him in to order.
15285
(1405)
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the politically artificial October 15 deadline imposed by
the health minister on the provinces is rapidly approaching.
Why was it imposed? Some provinces have dared to reform their
health care system in the best interests of their residents by offering
them choice. Alberta, for example, by addressing the chronic
problems in their health care system, may be penalized $7 million
annually.
Now there are indications that the minister may be backtracking
on her original edict. Officials in her department have stated that
October 15 is only the date when they will determine whether some
provinces are violating provisions of the Canada Health Act.
Financial penalties may be some months down the road.
It is clear the minister's line in the sand is being blown away;
blown away by the wind of reform and innovation; blown away by
the need for a new Canadian federalism.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to inform the House that Ville de Waterloo, Quebec and
the city of Waterloo, Ontario have agreed to formally twin their
respective communities.
The aim of the twinning is to promote social, cultural, economic,
historic and sports exchanges in order to strengthen existing ties of
friendship and provide a framework for mutually beneficial
exchanges of information and experiences.
Representatives of the two Waterloos first met in Ottawa during
the Spicer commission hearings. I had the honour to be a
participant as a municipal councillor.
Ville de Waterloo will be hosted by my community this weekend
during Oktoberfest, the largest Bavarian festival outside of
Munich. On Monday, Thanksgiving weekend, the mayors of the
two Waterloos will be part of the Oktoberfest parade that will be
televised nationally.
To mayors, Bernard Provencher and Brian Turnbull, along with
their respective councils and communities, we offer our
congratulations for their initiatives in promoting goodwill and
understanding among Canadians.
My colleague from Kitchener and I would like to invite all
members of the House and Canadians to come to
Kitchener-Waterloo for Oktoberfest.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the separatist leader of the Action démocratique
du Québec asked Quebecers to support his plan for Quebec's
separation because it was based on the same approach as the
common sense revolution of Mike Harris.
This statement by the leader of the ADQ openly contradicted
what was said recently by the leader of the PQ about the new
government in Ontario. I may recall that recently, the Péquiste
leader said in an interview with Le Soleil, and I quote: ``Ralph
Klein and Mike Harris did not take the bull by the horns. They took
the public by the horns''.
The Yes side should stop adding to the confusion and
contradictory statements around the referendum and the future of
Quebec. They can make as many clever moves as they want, but the
public knows perfectly well that the real issue is separation, and on
October 30, the answer will be no.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
statement by the separatist leader of the Action démocratique du
Québec, which referred to an independent Quebec on the Ontario
model proposed by Mike Harris, was not only a contradiction of
what was said by his boss, the leader of the Parti Quebecois, it was
also a denial of the position taken by the Leader of the Bloc
Quebecois.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has already said that the
approach and policies of the Conservative Government in Ontario
would not be applied to Quebec, and I quote: ``I find it disturbing,
and many people in Quebec are afraid of this model of society''.
It has become increasingly clear that the three leaders on the Yes
side cannot agree on the kind of society they want to offer to
Quebecers. The people of Quebec are very wary of these
contradictions, and that is why they will elect to stay in Canada by
voting no on October 30.
* * *
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
strangely enough, some supporters of the No side are still
questioning the right of a sovereign Quebec to use the Canadian
dollar. The decision as to which currency can be used as legal
tender on a sovereign country's territory can only be made by that
country. Even the United States has no control over transactions
made in U.S. dollars outside its borders. It must also be understood
that if
15286
Quebecers stop using the Canadian dollar, this will have a very
negative effect on its value.
As for the monetary policy, Mr. Johnson must be the only one
who thinks that it is controlled by Parliament, as he stated
yesterday. In Canada as in most industrialized countries, the central
bank must be independent from the political powers in order to
ensure its immunity from political influence and vagaries.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, here we
go again. The Liberal government's failure to deal effectively with
terrorism by a few aboriginal thugs in the past is continuing to
cause a breakdown in law and order.
(1410 )
These terrorists know that the justice minister and the solicitor
general follow the politically correct agenda that will not bring the
full force of the law to bear for legal action.
Canadians, including law-abiding aboriginal people, are
disgusted that the government has two legal systems in place. Word
has been received that other terrorist actions will take place, that a
few more hotheads are planning to take over land they do not own
and have no claim to, land to which they have no history.
Let the government know that the law-abiding people of Canada
are watching, that they want to see all laws enforced. Canadians are
watching for the government to quit the politically correct attitude
and bring the full force of the law down on all those who threaten
Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the separatist leader of the ADQ has added to the
rumours about the PQ Premier's leadership that have been
circulating for several days among Quebec separatists.
In his conversation with reporters yesterday, the leader of the
ADQ warned that, should the No side win the October 30
referendum, we must expect ``a redeployment of Quebec's
nationalist forces''.
Although tour organizers tried to minimize the importance of
that statement and urged reporters not to publish it, the leader of the
ADQ nonetheless allowed himself to speculate publicly on the
political future of the PQ Premier.
The political ambitions of some separatist leaders must not
derail the debate in which Quebecers have been invited to
participate.
The only true question is Quebec's separation, to which our
answer is No.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on September 14, the Bloc Quebecois critic on
Canadian heritage issued a press release in which she stated that the
federal government had failed in its effort to protect and promote
French language in Canada.
In making such a statement, the separatist opposition is looking
for a way to make people forget that its separation project means
that French speaking people outside Quebec will be left to fend for
themselves.
We, the Canadian government, really care about that community.
Thanks to the concerted efforts of our government and the Ontario
government, the 200,000 French speaking residents of eastern
Ontario now have the largest French speaking technical college
outside Quebec.
This afternoon, the Prime Minister will personally attend the
official opening ceremony of the Cité collégiale. This is yet another
example of the efforts made by the Canadian government to
promote the use of French from coast to coast.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the bleeding heart mentality of the Liberal
government has penetrated the Immigration and Refugee Board,
appeal division. Its decision to allow Satpal Singh Jhatoo, a
convicted murderer, to stay in Canada is reprehensible. The board
says the killer is remorseful. It says the killer is unlikely to
reoffend, so it let him stay.
It does not matter that he beat a mother of six to death with a
baseball bat, doused her body in gasoline and set it on fire. It does
not matter that before being sentenced to life for this horrible
crime, he was convicted of aggravated assault when he stabbed a
man in the neck.
It does not matter that he violated parole. It does not matter that
he was caught smoking pot while on parole. It does not matter that
he received day parole after only seven years in prison.
15287
It does not matter that the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration has the means and the power to declare this criminal
a danger to the public and have him deported. It does not matter
to the bleeding heart Liberals, but it does matter to Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Royal
Bank is our largest financial institution. It is part of the general
banking industry that has been requesting increased access to other
financial service sectors within our country so that, as it says, it can
more effectively compete in a new globalized trading system.
Canadians have paid the price of reduced competition in the
securities business and now there is the possibility of
encroachment into the area of insurance.
This bank now chooses to display the flag of the United States in
some of its branches.
(1415 )
While I understand this is a promotional campaign, Canadians
are nevertheless insulted by this intrusion of foreign symbolism
into what has been until now a historically Canadian institution.
This is especially true since it has been Canadians who have paid
the price in many countless ways of supporting it.
_____________________________________________
15287
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in a unanimous decision, the Société québécoise de
développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which brings together
business and employee representatives, yesterday denounced
federal encroachment, in the form of Bill C-96, in the area of
manpower training. This public organization is asking the
government to stop setting up new parallel structures and to refrain
from further intrusion into Quebec jurisdiction.
I ask the Prime Minister if he acknowledges that, with Bill C-96,
Ottawa is acquiring the means to meddle further in manpower
training and will therefore increase overlap and waste to the
detriment of the unemployed and Quebec's jurisdiction?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Leader of the
Opposition has not taken the time to read the bill. There are no new
powers given to the human resources department, as he may well
recall.
The human resources department is an amalgamation of four
other departments to provide a more effective delivery of services
across Canada. The powers under article 6 were also contained
within the existing departments. Over the past year they have
allowed us to have almost 50,000 different contracts and
agreements with a wide variety of groups, including the province of
Quebec and the Government of Quebec in order to better assist
Quebec workers to get back to work and to help with training. We
have done that in a very co-operative way.
I hope the hon. Leader of the Opposition will not go off on
another wild goose chase but will look at the legislation and see
there are no new powers. We are simply trying to make a more
efficient delivery of what the government wants to do which is help
people get back to work.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the Prime Minister and his minister that
the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre is a
non partisan organization, which brings together all stakeholders in
Quebec, which knows how to read bills, and which saw in this one a
dangerous encroachment upon Quebec's jurisdiction.
I would ask the Prime Minister whether he acknowledges that,
with this bill, his government is going against the very broad
consensus in Quebec in favour of repatriating financial
responsibility for manpower training?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development said it
clearly a few seconds ago. He said that the bill before Parliament at
this moment is aimed at amalgamating government agencies that
were under different departments, and the powers delegated to the
minister at this moment are exactly the same as those in previous
legislation.
At this point, with all the provinces, including Quebec, we are
trying to make administrative arrangements to reduce duplication.
The minister, in fact, signed a number of agreements with the
Government of Quebec over this past summer.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government cannot minimize what is going on. It is an
unprecedented assault on all legislative fronts, which is aimed
specifically at giving the federal government the means to meddle
once and for all throughout an area of Quebec jurisdiction, messing
things up further than they already are at the moment.
I would remind the Prime Minister that the Société québécoise
de développement de la main-d'oeuvre's denunciation of the
federal bill was unanimous and had the support of Ghislain
15288
Dufour, president of the Conseil du patronat and a member of the
no camp.
Does the Prime Minister consider the position taken by his
federalist ally a mere caprice as well and will he also sweep him
away with a wave of his hand?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is quite a pleasant about face. Yesterday, I was being
criticized for forcing all businessmen to be on my side. There are
some who do not agree with us. That is what democracy is all
about.
(1420)
I am not asking everyone to be on our side. At the moment, we
are trying to give the Minister of Human Resources Development
the legislative means to ensure programs are better co-ordinated.
At present, we are trying with the provinces, including Quebec, to
find ways to decentralize and administer them so that Canadians
may benefit directly from them.
I do not think our plan is to build a bigger public service in
Ottawa. We proved that recently by cutting 45,000 public service
positions in the federal government. If we were here to build
empires, we would not be laying off 15 per cent of the workforce.
If we can deliver services to people better than we do at the
moment, we are always ready to look at the options, but our
objective is to ensure that regions in Canada with more
unemployed receive essentially the same benefits as regions that
are well off.
Our job, as the Government of Canada, is to ensure that well off
regions and prosperous citizens are able to help those, across
Canada, in the Maritimes as in Quebec, who are, unfortunately, in
the difficult situation of being out of work at the moment.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Yesterday, the Société québécoise de developpement de la
main-d'oeuvre strongly denounced Bill C-96, saying: Quebec
alone will hold the responsibility for manpower adjustment and
trade training policies on its territory and will therefore repatriate
the budgets allocated by the federal government for these programs
in Quebec.
Will the minister agree that the federal government's plans
confer upon it the possibility of entering directly into an agreement
with any individual or organization of its choice, thereby turning its
back on the consensus of the partners making up the SQDM and
their priorities and on the unemployed of Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mercier
knows better than that because she has been carefully following
many of the developments and initiatives we have taken.
Under the existing legislative authority which would simply be
ratified in the new bill we have an agreement with the Government
of Quebec to provide assistance to older workers who have been
displaced from their jobs.
We buy annuities. Last year we helped close to 2,000 workers in
Quebec. It simply gives us the authority to purchase those annuities
to help those older workers retain some income when they cannot
get a job.
It seems the hon. member for Mercier is telling the federal
government that we cannot work with the Government of Quebec,
we cannot help older workers, we cannot buy annuities and we
cannot help people who are displaced from their jobs. It is an
advocacy of a do nothing approach to helping people who do not
have jobs.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after a
careful and most thorough examination, we find no previous
legislation which gave legal and constitutional power to the
government to sign agreements directly with individuals and
organizations. This is what we are denouncing.
Does the minister acknowledge that all he has to offer Quebecers
is an agreement which Daniel Johnson himself labelled, as did the
present Minister of Labour, a bargain basement agreement and
refused to sign because it did not correspond in the least to the
consensus in Quebec.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a
very gross error in factual information. She said that somehow we
are acquiring new powers. The legislation simply confirms existing
mandates under the jurisdiction of Parliament on things like the
Unemployment Insurance Act and the Department of Labour Act.
As a result, last year under existing authorities which will simply
be confirmed by the new act, we signed close to 10,000 contracts
with not for profit organizations. We signed 9,300 contracts with
private firms. We had 2,800 contracts with public sector
organizations and municipalities. We even have a number of
contracts with the Government of Quebec which we have signed.
For example, when the Hyundai plant in Bromont was going down
we worked closely with the Government of Quebec to collaborate
and help displaced workers.
(1425)
We are already doing those things under existing authority. We
are simply trying to have administrative simplification and
cohesion so we can provide better service to the people of Quebec.
15289
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after years of
peacekeeping under very difficult circumstances our ground troops
are finally coming home from Bosnia. Our troops have done the
very best job possible and all Canadians are extremely proud of
them.
While the government blasted the Reform Party for suggesting a
withdrawal, when the UN told it the same thing last night it
immediately fell into line. Now that our troops are coming home
will the Prime Minister guarantee that before Canada commits to
any future missions Parliament will be allowed to establish a clear
set of criteria for all future military commitments?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian soldiers in the former Yugoslavia for the last
three years have performed an excellent duty. That is recognized by
everybody.
The United Nations decided the battalion in Visoko is not needed
any more because it is within an area completely controlled by the
Bosnian government. We will repatriate its members with pleasure
and thank them for a job extremely well done.
We were there because the UN asked us to be there. Now the UN
says they do not need to be there any more, and so we will bring the
troops back to Canada.
For the first time ever we have had debate on this in the House of
Commons. I have seen the Reform Party change its position two or
three times since the beginning. For our part we have always been
behind the UN and behind the Canadian soldiers who are
considered the best there.
Now the mission is over. We are happy. The troops will be back
in Canada with the satisfaction of having accomplished an
excellent job in Visoko. We are all proud of them in Canada.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the mandate in
Bosnia disappeared months ago. We have been calling for the
withdrawal for months now. Canadians are demanding to know
before they commit to these sorts of missions what they will cost.
They want to know how long we will be there. They want to
know whether we can deliver the mandate being given to us. They
want to know whether we will be part of the decision making
process or whether we will simply be followers.
Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians the government has
learned a lesson from this mission and that it will promise to let
Parliament be involved and have a free vote on developing criteria
for peacekeeping?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the mandate we accepted in February after a debate in the
House of Commons was until the end of this month.
We respected the mandate. The UN now says it does not need the
Canadian troops because it wants to reduce the number. We are
happy because if we bring them back to Canada they will be better
off.
Canada is always available when people are in very difficult
circumstances, when there is misery and when people have been
killed to protect families, children and so on. We have always been
there. We will do it again and there will be a debate in the House of
Commons.
The peacekeeping mission was created by the Canadian
government. The peacekeepers who are so well known in the world
were created by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, my predecessor
as leader of the Liberal Party. It was done at the time of the war of
Great Britain and France against Egypt. He had the guts for the
good of the peace of the world to say to the British and the French
that war had to stop.
It is in the tradition of Lester B. Pearson that we are making our
decision in relation to the UN.
(1430 )
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think this is
typical of how the government reacts to issues. It is in the past. It
lives in the past. It gives us a history lesson. What we really need to
do is look to the future. The 21st century is coming. It is going to be
different. The old line politics will not work any more.
The government is trying to claim victory on the backs of a
decision made by the UN. It is about time that it admitted that we
need these criteria, that people are demanding these criteria, and
that people are really interested in this.
I wonder if the Prime Minister is going to be just like the last
government: do things in secret and then try to somehow
rubberstamp them by bringing them here after the decision is made.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe I can see how desperate they are.
The member talks about the past. Yes, the past was last week,
when the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a very important speech
at the United Nations recommending the modernization of the
United Nations. What the hon. member should do to complete his
education is read the speech of the minister.
15290
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Clearly the minister is about to make the same mistake with Bill
C-96 as the Minister of Industry in the case of Bill C-88 on
interprovincial trade, by unilaterally assuming powers that negate
the responsibilities of the provinces. I may recall that after scoffing
at the objections of the official opposition, the Minister of Industry
had to acknowledge his mistake and back down.
If the minister does not intend to go over the heads of the
provinces, why does he use clause 6 and clause 20 of the bill to
acquire the means to do so, it is there in black and white?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have in fact done quite the
opposite.
As I have said in the House before, when the minister of
employment was given her new task I immediately wrote and
suggested that we sit down and negotiate the whole question of the
labour market issues in Quebec with a view to taking a look at 75
per cent of the programming we do in that province and developing
a different set of authorities, joint planning, and transferring certain
responsibilities. The answer from the minister of employment was
no; she did not even want to talk about it.
I tried again. I wrote back to her and said let us do a joint study
between the SQDM, the Government of Quebec, and my
government on duplication and overlap. I made the offer, saying
that we would jointly pay for it. Again the minister of employment
refused to answer.
My point is that I cannot force the minister of employment in
Quebec to co-operate with me. I would like to have that
co-operation. I want to sit down and work out how we can get a
better delineation of responsibilities. I would urge the hon. member
to go back and talk to the minister of employment in Quebec and
ask her when she is ready to co-operate. As soon as she says yes, I
will be there.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, apparently the minister would like to be Canada's minister
of education. Would the minister agree he is taking the means to
circumvent the provincial governments because he wants to
establish a national strategy for intervening in manpower issues,
which may be acceptable to other provinces but flagrantly
contradicts the general consensus expressed many times on this
matter in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite the contrary again.
The member should know, because he has been in the House now
for two years, that in fact what we have arranged is a very good,
co-operative arrangement in the area of student assistance. We
have the Canada student loans program. Quebec has its own
program.
When we reformed our program this summer and brought in
programs to provide specific grants for disabled students and
students with high income needs that would enable them to go
school earlier, we transferred that money directly to the province of
Quebec so it could offer the same programs to its own students.
Now that is the notion of flexible federalism: not a takeover, but a
way of working in co-operation.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question speaks to the mismanagement at the
highest level at the Department of National Defence and is directed
to the Prime Minister.
(1435 )
Every day we have seen another leadership crisis in the
Department of National Defence. The minister and the CDS are
publicly at war. These are Liberal problems, and the government
uses the inquiry to justify inaction. The Canadian Armed Forces are
demoralized, dispirited, and cannot wait until June 1996 for the
government to act.
Why is the government failing to deal with these daily scandals
at the Department of National Defence?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if there is any demoralization of the Canadian forces I can
assure you it is aided and abetted by the irrelevant questions that
are put forward by the members of the third party.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has mishandled de
Chastelain, Kenward, Vernon, Labbé, and it goes on and on and on
every single day.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Liberal
government has done nothing to correct the leadership problems at
DND. The Prime Minister's confidence in his Minister of National
Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff is misplaced. Will the
Prime Minister solve the leadership problem and demand the
resignation of the Chief of Defence Staff and his Minister of
National Defence?
15291
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have confidence in the Minister of National Defence and
the Chief of Defence Staff. We are now discussing a problem that
arose in Somalia before we formed the government. We will try to
get to the bottom of this. We took the initiative to have an inquiry
on the subject, and I think that so far, the minister, the Chief of
Defence Staff and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of National Defence are all doing an excellent job.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
absolutely incredible to see the Minister of Human Resources
Development talk about the Quebec government's refusal to
co-operate on manpower issues when at this very moment, he has a
bill in which he assumes powers he never had before, which
constitute an incredible and unprecedented invasion of the
jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec over manpower. So
much so that it was even criticized by hard core federalists in
Quebec. You can only go so far.
Would the Minister of Human Resources Development agree
that this bill marks the first time the federal government acquires
the legal authority to go directly over the head of the Government
of Quebec? Will he admit it?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is being a
little silly, frankly.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask all hon. members to please choose
their words carefully.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, maybe
I will rephrase it to say I think hon. member has strayed
substantially from the line of logic and reason.
I would simply quote to him clause 6 of the bill. It is in black and
white. It reads: ``The powers, duties and functions of the minister
extend and include matters over which Parliament has
jurisdiction''. That is the existing act. There is no difference.
Nothing has changed. Nothing is altered. Nothing is amended.
Everything is the same. We simply are able to work out the kinds of
agreements and arrangements with provinces that the department
of labour, the department of employment and immigration, the
department of welfare, parts of the department that used to be in
citizenship have all done over the past 30, 40, 50 years. Nothing
has changed. We are working on the legislative base that exists. We
are simply consolidating the powers because the department has
been consolidated.
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is really
too bad that the Minister of Human Resources Development should
stoop to name-calling, the logic of the weak, the logic of those who
have nothing to say. He would be better off answering the question.
We would rather have answers than arrogance. Quebecers would
appreciate that.
I will direct my question to the Prime Minister, and maybe then I
will get an answer. Would the Prime Minister agree that the bill
introduced by his Minister of Human Resources Development is a
perfect illustration of the federalism by administrative agreement
he is proposing to Quebecers, in other words: first step, Ottawa
assumes all powers over a given jurisdiction; second step, it asks
the provinces to come and beg to have these powers back, and
third, I am sorry to add, he calls them names when they do?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister just explained very clearly something that is
quite straightforward. A number of departments were amalgamated
to put all human resources together. The powers given to the
minister are the same as they were in each department separately.
The bill clearly says that no new powers have been given to the
minister. What we are trying to do is use certain decisions and
administrative agreements, which will necessary vary from
province to province because some are more interested than others,
as a way to make adjustments appropriate to the needs and wishes
of each province.
This is federalism at its most flexible, and there is no-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Especially since they keep
saying we are empire building. Again, I want to say that we have
just cut 45,000 jobs within the federal government. That is not
because we want more power and more bureaucrats. The minister
eliminated 5,000 jobs in his own department to make his operations
even more effective and less costly for the people of this country.
We are accused of empire building, when we are being extremely
accommodating.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the IMF
said yesterday that the government should move faster to reduce
the federal deficit to safeguard economic growth. The Auditor
General of Canada said today that longer term targets for debt
15292
should be identified beyond the two-year rolling targets that have
been put forth by the Minister of Finance.
Will the Minister of Finance commit to the House that he will
introduce legislation to assure Canadians and the IMF that the debt
will finally be controlled?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact the IMF in its
report was quite complimentary of the actions the government has
taken. Indeed, the report of the Auditor General of Canada was
equally complimentary of the actions we have taken, both in terms
of deficit reduction and in terms of the publication of information.
I have made it very clear that the process that was employed by
the previous government, which was to simply set a series of long
term targets, most of which occurred after an election and were
never attained, was not a process we were going to follow, that in
fact the series of rolling two-year targets was far more beneficial.
In fact, it is as a result of that that this government has consistently
hit every single target it has set.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the IMF
wants to know when the debt is going to be under control. The
Auditor General of Canada wants to know when it is going to be
under control. Canadians want to know when it is going to be under
control.
I ask the Minister of Finance if he knows, beyond his two-year
rolling targets, when the deficit will be eliminated.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, control is a condition
of credibility. The government has re-established the credibility of
government in terms of its projections and what it does. Control
arises when a government very clearly not only hits its targets but
in fact brings forth balanced legislation, a balanced program to do
what it set out to do.
(1445 )
Our goal is deficit reduction but let us never forget that deficit
reduction is an ingredient of this government's number one goal
which is to make sure that more and more Canadians are working.
That is what we are going to do instead of engaging in the slash and
burn destructive policies of the Reform.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The auditor general just tabled his second quarterly report. With
the federal debt approaching $600 billion, he feels that Parliament
and the Canadian public need more information, particularly
regarding the size of the debt and the choices taxpayers will have to
make.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, by waiting for the
referendum to be held before giving the bad news about cuts to
social programs, he is unduly delaying a public debate on the
choices to be made, as requested by the auditor general?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general
fully agrees with us that, before this debate can take place-and we
are all in favour of this debate-there should at least be statistical
data and figures available. He made this quite clear. Last year's
figures are not ready yet. As soon as they are and as soon as we get
an invitation from the committee, we will gladly go before the
committee.
Having said that, I would like to mention what the auditor
general asked us to do. He asked us to produce an annual financial
statement, and we did. He asked us to provide the public with more
information on our tax expenditures, and we did. He asked us to
produce an annual economic update; we did so for our first two
budgets and will do so again this time around.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
The auditor general also contends that our choices are becoming
increasingly difficult.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister of
Finance admit that this statement by the auditor general explains
his government's strategy, which consists in hiding all the bad
news until after the Quebec referendum?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Hide, Mr. Speaker? Tell us what a
sovereign Quebec's debt level will be. Tell us how much higher
interest rates will be in a sovereign Quebec. Tell us how much
higher taxes will be in a sovereign Quebec? Let us lay all the cards
on the table. Tell us the truth. He should tell us the truth, Mr.
Speaker, about the negative impact of independence in Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In the budget of two years ago, measures were announced
regarding the downsizing of Canadian Forces Base Shearwater
which resulted in the loss of about 700 jobs. Through perseverance
and hard work that community has adjusted. However, new and
unnamed DND sources are now being quoted in the media as
saying that the Department of National Defence intends to com-
15293
pletely close that base down this fall which would result in the loss
of an additional 1,400 jobs.
I ask the minister to remove the anxiety these recent rumours
have caused to that community by stating clearly that these latest
rumours bear no relationship to the plans this government has for
CFB Shearwater.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Dartmouth for his question.
As announced in the 1994 budget, the operation at Canadian
Forces Base Shearwater has been integrated with Canadian Forces
Base Halifax across the harbour. Certain parts of the operation,
strictly air, are being moved to Canadian Forces Base Greenwood.
Savings have been effected essentially by reducing the air
operation at Shearwater from a full airport operation, as the hon.
member knows, to a heliport operation. This is a very viable
operation as it turns out and there are no plans to move it.
In summary, I am advised there are no plans to close the
Shearwater site at this time.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general.
(1450 )
Last night the radical native squatters burned down another
building at Camp Ipperwash to continue their reign of terror against
the people of Bosanquet. The police and town fire department
refused to attend because previous threats of violence were made
against them.
For the last two years the town council of Bosanquet has been
demanding that the federal government do something to restore law
and order. Why is the minister not responding to the requests of the
town council? Why does he continue to cater to thugs who thumb
their noses at the laws of this country?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are established procedures for the federal government to
provide assistance to local law enforcement authorities.
It is very simple. If the province of Ontario feels it cannot handle
the situation and asks the federal government for assistance, it will
give a prompt and effective response to the request. The road of
action is very clear. We are not catering to thugs. As I said and I
repeat, if the province of Ontario wants federal government
assistance then the means of making that request are very much in
place.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sick to death of hearing about jurisdiction from the minister.
Furthermore, I am saddened by the fact that this minister does not
have the guts to protect Canadians-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, many times we are carried away
on the spur of the moment and sometimes we use terms that could
in other circumstances be judged to be unparliamentary.
I would ask the hon. member to please refrain from that type of
language and I ask him to please put his question.
Mr. Hanger: Will the solicitor general order the RCMP into the
area to assist the OPP in putting an end to this rebellion or else will
he go to Bosanquet and explain to the people why he will not act?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I said very clearly that I and the federal government are ready to
act. All that is required is for the town council to go to the Ontario
government and if the Ontario government says it cannot handle
the matter, then we are ready to step in. If my hon. friend does not
realize that simple fact, then he is not doing his job.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Two days ago in this House, the Prime Minister stated, and I
quote: ``Information can be sought under the Access to Information
Act. Any citizen can request information from government
departments''.
After inviting the official opposition to use the Access to
Information Act, how does the Prime Minister explain the fact that,
in the past seven months, the Privy Council has systematically
turned down every single request submitted by the official
opposition under the Access to Information Act?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Privy Council receives requests, as provided for in the
act. Some documents cannot be released under the act, under the
regulations. This act was passed by Parliament. Internal
communications between ministers, in any government, are not
made available to people from outside. That is normal. The Privy
Council is, however, instructed to release what must be released
under the act.
15294
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, again, the government has a perfect score: 17 out of 17
requests for information have been turned down. Not a bad
average.
In that case, why does the Prime Minister refuse to release the
studies on overlap and duplication, whose existence was confirmed
in the secret Industry Canada document? That much is clear.
(1455)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs gave a more
than adequate explanation on this matter a few days ago in this
House.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture.
Canadian farmers have been delivering wheat and barley to the
United States, often clearing Canadian customs without a Canadian
Wheat Board export permit. On Tuesday, three American trucks
hauling barley from Canada were seized by customs as they tried to
enter the United States. Previously, these same trucks with the
same product were allowed to enter the United States.
Is it legal or is it illegal? Are exports permitted or are they
refused? Will the minister tell confused farmers why some trucks
are seized and others are not?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the law on this point is very clear
with respect to export of wheat and barley from Canada. Obviously,
the appropriate paperwork and authorization from the Canadian
Wheat Board are required. When that paperwork is not provided,
then the export is contrary to the regulations. Those regulations are
enforced in due course as the law requires. I trust the Reform Party
is not advocating violations of the law.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, actually the law is not always enforced. In fact,
farmers do not know what the law is because there is no standard.
The minister in charge of Canadian customs, the Minister of
National Revenue, has received notice that today trucks carrying
farmer owned wheat and barley will pull in at Canada customs at
the Peace Gardens in Manitoba. I would like to know if the minister
has given orders to customs officials to seize the trucks or if he has
given orders to let those trucks pass through into the United States?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the officials of the Government of
Canada, whether they work for my department or Revenue Canada
or any other department of the Government of Canada, need no
instructions to do their job. They know what their job is and they
will exercise their responsibilities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It appears that
members of the Bloc Quebecois cannot decide whether or not they
want the federal government to spend money in Quebec.
Does Quebec get its fair share of economic benefits from official
development assistance?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, finally a question that will certainly interest our friends
across the way.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice, Lib.): Excellent question. We
had been expecting it for a long time.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, they obviously do not like being
given figures that clearly show how good Canada and the
Government of Canada are for Quebec businesses and to
Quebecers.
As for official development assistance, 30 per cent of supplies
come from Quebec, and 33.4 per cent of registered consultants are
from Quebec.
An hon. member: One hundred per cent of them Liberals.
Mr. Ouellet: More than one third, or 36.3 percent, of all
contracts go to Quebec.
I can hear a voice shouting: ``Liberals''. I will remind my hon.
friends opposite that one of the organizations that benefit the most
from CIDA's assistance is Hydro-Quebec.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Ah.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. On Monday, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister both said that
Quebec was receiving more than its share of federal moneys for
science and technology. However, the secret document prepared for
Operation Unity clearly shows that, in 1993, Quebec only received
17.1 per cent of the federal moneys spent on research and
development.
Given the figures provided by Industry Canada, will the Prime
Minister recognize that he was wrong when he claimed that
Quebec was getting its fair share, and that in fact our province was
treated unfairly as regards the establishment of federal research
centres?
15295
(1500)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, surely the hon. member is aware of the efforts made by the
government of Canada to ensure the establishment of a very
important industry in her own riding.
It always comes as a surprise to hear opposition members ask
questions on sectors in which Quebec is undoubtedly the leader
among all Canadian provinces. I thought the hon. member would
have been pleased by such a success in her own riding.
* * *
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday the membership of the Frog Lake reserve in Alberta
ousted its chief and paid him $25,000 to leave. It is frustrated that
the Indian Act does not empower individual band members.
When will the minister introduce a mandate for other
government departments such as Revenue Canada and the auditor
general to ensure accountability of federal funds so that members
of bands will feel protected, and not just their chiefs?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Frog Lake band situation is
not as simple as that, as the member should know since she lives
approximate to it, although very seldom visits it.
On Frog Lake there is an issue between those who want to have
housing and those who want to have a band office to the extent that
the chief's health-he is a good chief-has deteriorated
significantly and he wants to leave.
The hon. member would serve her constituents in a budding band
in a more fruitful manner if she would go there and help that chief
because he is in a very difficult situation and in ill health.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The government continues to indicate that social and health
programs are the major cause of debt and deficit but as the minister
knows and has said in the House, it is tax loopholes and the high
interest rate policy.
Today's auditor general report reaffirms that Canada's level of
foreign indebtedness is the highest among major industrial nations
and that this foreign indebtedness is threatened by control of
monetary policy.
I ask the minister if he would consider two measures to start
taking control of our monetary policy. One is whether he would
reinstate reserve requirements for the chartered banks with the
Bank of Canada which would allow the bank to assume more of
Canadian debt, and whether he would reduce the 20 per cent
foreign investment option with RRSPs which would encourage
Canadians to invest in Canada.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
properly identified a problem the government in its deficit
reduction program has identified and is seeking to address, the very
high level of foreign indebtedness which exists primarily in the
private sector and in a number of provincial government
borrowings.
I do not believe, however, the solutions brought forth by the
member really suit. We must increase the percentage of Canada's
savings.
As far as the reserve requirements of the banks, if we are to
create jobs we want to make sure our banks are competitive with
other banks.
As far as the 20 per cent rule, we have looked at it. As members
know, there have been recommendations that the 20 per cent rule
be increased. Those are not recommendations I would be inclined
to accede to at this time.
The Speaker: This brings to a close question period. I have the
usual question for Thursday. I will take that first and then go to a
point of order.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the leader of the government in the House. I want to
ask him if the legislative agenda of the upcoming weeks will be as
light as the one of the last few weeks.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am surprised the opposition House leader does not consider major
measures with respect to public safety like witness protection and
updating our parole system and improving the system of regulation
of transport as serious and important.
15296
(1505 )
The hon. member and his colleagues have fully participated in
these debates. I think the public will agree, even if he does not, that
we have had and will continue to have a serious and important
legislative program.
Our priority today and tomorrow will be third reading stage of
Bill C-64, the employment equity legislation. I wonder if he is
saying to one of his colleagues he does not consider that an
important bill. If this bill is not completed when we adjourn
tomorrow we will resume its consideration on October 16.
Following that, we will call Bill S-9 involving the U.S.-Canada
income tax convention, followed by any other bills that have been
or are about to be reported from committees. A number of bills are
in the late stages of consideration in committees and we hope to
have them reported soon.
We will then call second reading of the bill creating the Law
Commission of Canada to be introduced tomorrow, followed by the
tax convention legislation that was introduced this morning.
I am pleased to give this statement of the important and
substantial government business, the balance of which we will be
calling for this week and after we return from the break for
Thanksgiving.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
arises out of question period when the minister questioned my
commitment to Frog Lake. I would like it on the record that I have
lived on the reserve and taught on the reserve. I have had foster
children living with me from that reserve. There is no way to
question my commitment to those people and the crisis they are
facing right now.
_____________________________________________
15296
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That four members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the
Status of Disabled Persons be authorized to travel to Halifax, Nova Scotia to
attend the meeting of provincial disability advisory councils October 17 and 18,
1995.
(Motion agreed to.)
15296
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.) moved that Bill C-64, an act respecting
employment equity, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as the House leader said a few minutes
ago, this is a very important legislative initiative by the
government.
In introducing it on third reading, I take the opportunity to thank
several colleagues in the House. As members will recall, we
introduced the bill with something of a legislative experiment.
Rather than going to the normal first and second readings, we
introduced it after the first reading so that a legislative committee
would have the full opportunity to actually shape the bill. In this
way it would not simply be a matter of responding to a series of
government propositions but would actually take a major role in
defining and designing the elements it felt would be most
important.
I thank the members of the committee on human rights and
disabled people for their enormous amount of work, the number of
hearings and the amount of time they have given. That applies to
members on all sides of the House.
I also give my appreciation to the Secretary of State for Youth
and Training and to my parliamentary secretary who have both
worked very diligently in making sure the bill was again effectively
presented to the House. At report stage we were able to get, as I see
from Hansard, a very effective debate and response.
(1510 )
A good sign of the way that worked is when the opposition party
presented amendments which improved the bill and we were
prepared to accept those amendments and work with them so the
bill would be a better piece of work. I compliment those members
who have worked so hard on this legislation.
Bill C-64 has one fundamental purpose, to remove the systemic
barriers that prevent people from going to work. We can put it all
together in one sentence but since I have 30 minutes I will take
more to elaborate.
What we really mean is that over the years practices, attitudes
and conventional habits have built up in a wide variety of
workplaces which have prevented people from using their God
given talents and abilities not because of their merit but because of
some label attached to them.
I am not referring to outright bigotry or discrimination but the
kind of informal practices and rules that develop over the years,
over generations, that simply build up a series of handicaps,
15297
barriers and obstacles which prevents people in the workplace to
get their full rights to participate.
Numbers of women, aboriginal people, disabled people and
visible minorities have been denied equal open access to fully
develop and explore their potentials in the workplace.
Ten years ago I had the privilege of establishing the Abella royal
commission, headed by Judge Rosalie Abella from the court of
Ontario, to look into this large question of systemic discrimination
in the workplace. Justice Abella tabled a very historic report.
Unfortunately by the time the report was tabled the people of
Canada had decided in their own good wisdom to send me and a
number of my colleagues on an extended sabbatical on the other
side of the House. Therefore I was not in a position to fully
implement those recommendations. It was up to the previous
government to implement the recommendations of the Abella
commission.
It brought in the Employment Equity Act which passed in 1986.
It required employers in the federal jurisdiction that employ over
100 people to implement employment equity and to report on their
progress.
If we look at the original Employment Equity Act, while it was
full of wonderful language and high sounding objectives and
phrases, it lacked some very major components. It was a form of
legislated volunteerism. There was no enforcement. It was simply a
good wish list of things people were allowed to do.
Therefore when it came time when we wanted employers to take
positive steps to improve the access and openness of the workplace
and they refused, there was nothing to be done. As a result there
have been over the years a number of incidents in which
employment discrimination has continued to prevail.
The other major flaw in the 1986 legislation is it did not apply to
government. It was the classic case of do what we say, not do what
we do.
It was in recognition of those two major flaws of the original bill
that in the red book we put forward to the electorate in 1993 we
committed ourselves to making major changes in the Employment
Equity Act.
The legislation before us today on final reading is designed to
meet those two major omissions. It is to fulfil the commitment we
gave to the Canadian people in 1993 when they gave us a mandate
to implement it. It is to give the Employment Equity Act some
authority to carry out measures to reduce discrimination and to
make it applicable to the federal government in its own workplace.
The bill increases the authority of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission to conduct an audit of public and private sector
employees to ensure they are in compliance with the principle of
employment equity.
(1515 )
It also provides that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, when
needed, can in effect transform itself into an employment equity
tribunal to guarantee that the legislation respects the rights of all
Canadians regardless of whether they are employees or employers.
There is a right of appeal.
[Translation]
This bill will have a positive impact on Quebec. More than 150
employers and approximately 350,000 employees will be affected
by this initiative.
Those Quebecers will be entitled to a stronger system, with the
human rights commission and a tribunal if necessary to ensure that
employment equity is being implemented.
As well, application of employment equity measures within the
public service will be fairer. It will give women, the disabled and
other designated groups equity in employment, training or
promotion. I feel that this represents a proper response to the
demands of Quebec women and the needs of the disabled,
aboriginal people and visible minorities.
It is my belief that the bill demonstrates the commitment of the
federal government to take progressive measures for Canadians
and for Quebecers.
[English]
Despite some of the comments concerning the bill, it is not about
quotas. Let me make that very clear. That language was used in
debate yesterday. It is not about quotas. In fact the legislation
specifically prohibits quotas. Anybody who attempts to insert the
notion that we are following in some cases the example of the
legislation the Americans introduced 20 or 30 years ago is not
being fair or straightforward when the word quotas is used since the
act specifically prohibits them.
Neither is the bill about reducing qualifications to allow more
non-qualified people to enter the workforce. It is a bill about
lowering barriers, not lowering standards. That is the basic purpose
of the bill.
We are attempting with this legislation to make sure the
Canadian workplace fully reflects the richness and diversity of our
population, that all individuals will have an equal chance of being
considered for a job, a promotion or a chance to improve their
specific place and status in the workplace.
The bill is not about replacing the merit principle with
something else, far from it. I make the case it strengthens the merit
principle by making sure in no uncertain terms that everybody who
has merit will not be overlooked. Over the years people with
enormous qualification, with enormous merit, with enormous sense
of ambition and motivation never had the chance to fulfil that
potential because in the workplace have been obstacles, barriers,
15298
filters and screens that oftentimes have been built up without
people noticing they were there.
Sometimes qualifications were based on size. Sometimes
qualifications were based on saying that women for example could
not do certain physical tasks even though it had never been proven.
Yet in the last few years in police forces, the armed forces and fire
prevention forces women and men have been shown to be equally
capable of carrying out the entire multitude of tasks required in
those dangerous occupations.
(1520 )
Equity in the workplace means a better workplace. Study after
study show that those companies that introduce equity as a
fundamental principle in human resource planning become better
companies; more productive, more competitive, more efficient,
more effective.
I listened with some interest and read in Hansard some of the
comments from members of the Reform Party about the
legislation. I suppose if I were to summarize, and I do it with great
hesitation because I do not want to put words in the mouth of the
hon. member, but it basically says, let the market decide. Let it
choose who it wants to use and what is best for it.
Some progress has been made. Some companies have moved
forward and I give them full credit. However I say to members of
the Reform Party that more is needed. Where we are now is not
enough. I want to quote to members a couple of interesting
comments. There are times when they may be tempted not to take
my word as gospel, but let me try on them the United Nations
report on development.
It says, and I quote from this year's report: ``The free workings
of economic and political processes are unlikely to deliver equality
of opportunity''. The market can do some things wonderfully well.
It can make products, deliver services, make a profit, generate
growth and jobs. However it is not very good when it comes to
ensuring there is full equality of opportunity for everybody. That is
why we have government: to provide a balance and make sure there
are some rules, make sure that everybody is treated fairly.
The happy consequence of being a Canadian is that we have
always found a nice balance between the public service
consideration and the market consideration, that we find a way of
working the two in tandem. I believe the legislation in Bill C-64 is
a good example of that.
To make the point further, I want to quote from the Business
Council of British Columbia, which is made up of senior business
representatives from throughout the province: ``Employers alone
cannot achieve employment equity. Employers want to be part of
the solution in partnership with government, unions, employee
representatives, educational institutions and designated group
organizations''. When speaking, they used a very important word,
partnership, a partnership to achieve equality. If I had to put a label
on this bill I would say that is what it is about; partnership to
achieve equality in the workplace.
The reality faced by many women, members of visible minority
groups, aboriginal peoples, those with disabilities is not the reality
of the average white male when it comes to employment and
earnings. We have been a privileged group for generations. As a
result, other members of society have fallen behind.
Fifty-one per cent of women are employed in sales, clerical work
and service positions as compared to 20 per cent of males. Women
earn only two-thirds of what men earn, even holding education as a
constant.
Everyone in the House, I am sure, was cheered by the recent
United Nations development index which put Canada number one
in the world on matters of literacy, training and education,
investment in people and quality of life. But when gender is
factored into the equation we fall to number nine. It simply shows
that something is wrong. This bill is designed to correct that.
I heard comments in the debate yesterday about visible
minorities and that maybe they should not be included. Again, the
facts counter that because the visible minority group, which on
average has a higher education than the average Canadian, makes
close to $10,000 less. The correlation in that should tell us
something. The workplace is not being fair, open and accessible.
(1525)
We hear every day the eloquent words of the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development of the plight of First Nations
people whose levels of unemployment are sometimes 40 per cent,
50 per cent or 60 per cent and whose average income is less than
$10,000, which is one-fourth of what the average Canadian makes.
An article in today's Globe and Mail is headlined: ``Canadian
business chided for ignoring native market''. Ms. Pamela Sloan is a
principal in the Toronto consulting firm of Hill Sloan, which just
published a report on corporate aboriginal relations. The article
states that the public and private sectors have made successful
attempts but it is not enough. She says to the business community:
``You should introduce measures of equity because it makes good
business sense to do it''.
It was interesting to hear as we have gone through this debate
how broadly recognized that fundamental fact is. Canadians have
come to understand, whether they are in the public or private
sectors, the need to address the systemic exclusion of individuals
on the basis of gender, race or physical condition from the
opportunities to grow, contribute and develop. They understand
15299
that this bill is an attempt to create a more level playing field for all
Canadians.
I want to cite one statement which was made in the House. In a
sense this gentleman is an officer of Parliament. We have entrusted
to him the responsibility of overseeing human rights issues across
Canada. That individual is Mr. Max Yalden. When challenged by
certain members that this bill somehow is reverse discrimination
and works against the interest of males, Mr. Yalden said that ``far
from falling behind, able-bodied males appear to be getting more
than their proportionate share of hiring. Such data hardly convey a
convincing portrait of reverse discrimination''.
This bill does not take away from some people to give to others,
it simply opens it up for all. It ensures that there is fair and
equitable treatment.
We should discard the mythology. It is time to get rid of further
divisions by somehow putting over here the plight of a male versus
the plight of everybody else. We are all engaged in the enormous
task of ensuring employment for all Canadians. The workplace is
going through a transformation unlike any it has gone through in
the history of human kind. With new technology, global
competition and varieties of change, it is tough out there. The only
way to succeed is to make the workplace and the job market
equally accessible to everyone so all those talents will be put to
work. One group should not be put on the sidelines and treated
differently.
When people ask: How do we succeed as a country? How do we
meet the challenge of a new workplace and avoid the phobia and
fear which the Jeremy Rifkins are talking about? This is one of the
answers. I sincerely believe that in today's age the key ingredient
which really makes this country tick is its human resources. I may
be biased because my department is named human resources, but I
feel privileged to be given that responsibility. I see it as such an
important element in making this country work. That means
everybody has to work-not 50 per cent of the population, not 75
per cent, but everybody has to be given the chance to liberate their
talent, to free up their creative potential, to give full open choice
for them to make the kind of contribution they can make in the
workplace.
(1530)
I will digress for a second, if I might. A few days ago I was asked
a question by the member from Regina about the statistics that
were tabled last week by StatsCanada on the falling income of
Canadian families. It is worth repeating. It pointed out that
increasingly the falling income is a product of the increasing lack
of participation of women in the workplace, single mothers in the
workplace. In fact over the last several years that participation rate
has dropped by almost 15 per cent. That is one of the most
significant causes of the falling income of the Canadian family, in
particular families headed by women.
We as a government are trying to turn around and devote our
efforts to changing the basic structures to prevent that kind of
decline. We are looking at a serious initiative on child care, trying
to work with provinces and aboriginal groups. We are rewriting our
employment legislation to make it more available for women
coming back into the workplace to get the tools they need. We are
looking at how we can better support young people to get back into
the workplace.
That is the kind of response to our evolution, which is not to
throw up our hands in despair, not to retreat into the den wardens of
the past and try to hang on to the shibboleths of 30 or 40 years ago,
but to try to say we can do it, we can make a difference, we can take
initiatives and we can pass a law like Bill C-64. That is what we are
all about.
There is an impression being left in this debate that somehow
this is working against the interests of the private sector and that
private enterprise is going rise up in revolt if this bill passes.
If we look at statements made before the committee that my hon.
friend from Winnipeg North very ably chaired, look at the
organizations that have supported this bill. The Canadian
Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Bankers' Association,
the Canadian Chamber of Commerce told the committee that they
were convinced that employment equity is actually value added.
These companies told the committee that they had discovered that
diversity pays a major dividend. It does not cost them money, it
makes them money. It gives them improved access to a greater
number of highly qualified personnel to choose from. That is what
employment equity is about.
Why do we go off running after rabbit tracks and trying to create
smokescreens and trying to create a sense that somehow there is
this widespread apprehension? It is even interesting to point out
that when we look at the debate that was generated in Ontario
during the campaign about the impact of employment equity, most
of the employers in Ontario said they want the bill. Don't get
trapped by some ideology. Don't get trapped into imported
arguments that are taken from some fundamentalist group in the
southern United States thinks employment equity is next to the
devil. Our business groups are saying-
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Why make
it a law then?
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is a
little upsetting that the hon. member from wherever who arrived in
the House about two minutes ago did not hear the first part of the
speech where we pointed out why business said they need the law
in order to make sure that everybody gets treated fairly.
15300
(1535 )
I have heard from the hon. gentleman opposite, so let me give
him a list of other companies from his own region that are
endorsing it: Canadian National Railway, the Bank of Montreal,
Sun Life, the Royal Bank of Canada, B.C. Hydro. And listen to
this: Alberta Government Telephones is endorsing it. I do not know
how far he wants to stretch the case, but by extension I suppose we
could say that Ralph Klein is in favour of this, or at least his crown
corporation is.
To make the point more directly, in a Compas poll that was done
of Ontario companies when the debate was going on, only 8 per
cent of Ontario companies said they would stop their programs if
the employment equity law was repealed, and 68 per cent, more
than two-thirds, said that they would continue with an employment
equity program once it was established and they had learned the
value of it.
There is a value in fairness. Canadians understand it, businesses
understand it. The only people who do not seem to understand it are
certain members opposite, who are still probably reading whatever
strange imported foreign-based literature they derive their ideas
from. Might I suggest that perhaps if they could look at the
Canadian case, look at the practicality of how it has worked, look at
the value it has, then we might get more light and less heat from the
members opposite.
I am going to speak for a moment to the members of the Reform
Party.
Mr. McCormick: There are three here now.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Three important
members of the Reform Party.
I think it is very important that the members of the Reform Party
understand there are things that government can do and must do
well. When they said in their minority report-
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
assume that it is not customary to refer to the absence or the
non-absence of members.
The Speaker: I did not hear anything about the absence or
non-absence. The Minister of Human Resources Development.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am
ready to address myself to the vast hordes of Reform members who
are on the opposite benches. It is simply a function of education.
There are times when I fall back into old habits of trying to say
``let's learn together in this House''.
When they put out in their minority report their opposition based
on a false premise, one has to take issue with it. One wonders, as
we found today in question period, whether some members of the
House actually read the legislation we present. We heard today
from members of the Bloc that they had not read the bill on HRD.
We tabled it four months ago and they got around to raising
questions four months later, which has something to do with a
certain date at the end of October, I suppose.
Clearly Reform members have not read clause 6 of this bill,
which I will read. It says ``The obligation to implement
employment equity does not require an employer to hire or
promote unqualified persons''. With respect to the public sector, it
requires that hiring or promotion be based on selection according to
merit. In the report there are many references to merit being done
away with and quotas being imposed, yet the legislation says the
opposite.
Clause 33, which I know is way down the bill and takes at least
five minutes to get to, reads: ``The commission may not give a
direction and no tribunal may make an order where that direction or
order would impose a quota on an employer''. Is that pretty clear,
that no commission or tribunal can make any order imposing a
quota?
Again, why does the Reform Party, in its members' speeches, its
minority reports, in its public language, say that quotas are being
imposed? Do they have a secret bill we do not know about? Have
they written something we do not know about, which they are
going to pop unsuspectingly on the Canadian public? It could be,
but it has nothing to do with Bill C-64. It is important we
understand that.
(1540 )
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Tell them about the RCMP,
Lloyd.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): He is the one who
calls the RCMP all the time, not me.
How much clearer can we be? When we ensure that all deserving
people have more chance, more opportunity to apply for a job, get
training, get a promotion, does that not mean a better achievement
of the merit principle?
When we ask companies to examine their own assumptions
about the tangible and intangible qualities it takes to do a job, when
we examine what it is we want from our workers, how we can
improve their skills, how we can ensure that there are not false
barriers based upon old habits and old wisdoms impeding the
development of that human resource in the workplace, does that not
also improve the achievement of merit?
The employment equity bill is about making merit work. It is
real and demonstrable in a practical way in the workplace. It is
about opening doors that have been closed for far too long and for
far too many people. That is why I believe Canadians support this
legislation. They know that our society will work better if
everybody has a chance to work.
I would like to quote from a letter I received from a young
woman who works in the construction industry. She has been
having trouble keeping her job because only 2.4 per cent of
construction workers are women. I should say by way of informa-
15301
tion that we have established a special program in my department
called Women in Trades and Technology, where we have put
together a council of employers across Canada to specifically
promote internships and apprenticeships for women in the trades
and technology areas, where only two per cent or three per cent are
represented.
This woman did not write to complain or to ask for special
privileges. There was no special pleading. She simply wrote to urge
me and members of this House to put an end to discrimination in
her industry and other industries. She ended her letter by calling on
all members of Parliament to pass Bill C-64. She said ``When you
review Bill C-64, think of my five-year-old niece, who wants to
grow up to be a builder, just like me''.
I invite all members of this House, on both sides of the House, to
join in the spirit this young woman represented. She has asked us to
be builders, to build something better, something more open,
something fairer, so that all Canadians, men and women, those with
certain disabilities, those with certain colours of skin, those with
certain handicaps that they have faced over time, can all contribute
to the building of this country. That is what we are all about.
I believe this legislation, Bill C-64, gives us a tool to be a good
builder, all of us. I hope all members will support this bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate, at third reading, on Bill C-64,
an act respecting employment equity.
As we have said many times before, the Bloc Quebecois supports
the principle of employment equity. It also recognizes the
importance of this legislation, which must absolutely be effective.
Let us look at the events which lead to this bill. In 1970, in the
wake of the Royal commission on the status of women, the federal
government set up its first affirmative action programs. However, it
was not until 1984, following the report of the Commission on
equality in employment, better known as the Abella commission,
that the foundations for the current equity policies were laid. The
Abella report emphasized the need for special measures to ensure
equal opportunities for all, regardless of one's gender, race, ethnic
origin or handicap.
The current employment equity legislation, which was passed in
1986, applies to employers and crown corporations governed by
federal regulations and employing at least 100 people. The act
requires that employers improve job opportunities for designated
groups, namely women, aboriginal peoples, persons with
disabilities and members of visible minorities.
(1545)
The act also requires that employers eliminate rules and
procedures which adversely affect members of these groups, and
that employers take concrete action to increase the representation
of these groups within their organization. The current provisions
also provide for the development of a plan stating the objectives to
be reached during a given year, or in subsequent years, as well as a
timetable.
Moreover, employers must file an annual report to the
Department of Human Resources Development providing all the
information relating to the implementation of the act within their
organization. That essentially sums up the current legislation on
employment equity.
Bill C-64, which is now at third reading, completely replaces
that act. The main amendments are as follows. The act will also
apply to the federal public service. The elements that must be
included in business plans will be better defined. The Canadian
Human Rights Commission is now responsible for determining
employers' compliance with some of the provisions. It has the
power to investigate. An employment equity tribunal is also
provided for.
The bill as it stands today by the government is an improved
version. During the first debate on this bill 10 months ago, I
denounced some of its flaws. I am happy to note that the witnesses
who appeared before the standing committee succeeded in
convincing some members to improve the bill.
Nor should we forget the amendments proposed by my colleague
from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, some of which were accepted.
Unfortunately, there were two with which the committee disagreed
and to which I will get back in a moment.
Contrary to what my Reform colleagues claim, I think that a law
on employment equity is both desirable and necessary. Let us listen
to what Glenda Simms, President of the former Canadian Advisory
Council on the Status of Women, said when she appeared before
the standing committee last February: ``We have been defending
since 1975 the idea that the Employment Equity Act is a way to
achieve equality for women in the work place. Over the past
decade, the extent to which women, as a group, are facing serious
and systemic inequalities on the labour market, particularly in
terms of compensation, working conditions and job access, is
explained at length in many reports both within government and
outside. Women are not evaluated on the basis of personal merit,
but rather their race, their sex and whether or not they are
disabled''.
Consequently, women are overrepresented in lower paying
positions. Approximately 60 per cent of all women to whom job
equity applies have clerical jobs and they are severely underrepre-
15302
sented in management positions. White male without disabilities
still hold 78 per cent of management job in the public service.
About the impact of systemic discrimination against women,
Ms. Simms said the following: ``The cost of discrimination should
not be underestimated. Ample proof has been given of the
correlation between sex and poverty in Canada. Many studies
conducted by the government confirm that women are poorer than
men and that, among poor women, those who have disabilities, are
immigrants or belong to visible minority groups, as well as native
women, are the poorest''.
It is not true to say, as my hon. colleague from
Edmonton-Southwest and others suggested the day before last, that
``it is reverse discrimination, that is means that one can get a job,
be promoted or hired on the basis of physical characteristics
instead of merit''.
This reflects-please excuse my bluntness-a sexist and macho
view of the situation.
It is a refusal to face reality, the everyday reality of thousands of
Canadians and Quebecers, both women and men. I refer of course
to those groups addressed by the bill: women, the disabled, visible
minorities and aboriginal people.
This is the reality referred to by Ms. Simms and many other
witnesses who came to represent their less privileged fellow
workers.
(1550)
A few figures clearly illustrate their demands. Statistics Canada
indicates that in 1993 women working full time earned 72 per cent
of what men earned. This is even the way it is at the present time in
the federal public service, where women are earning 72 per cent of
what men are earning. I trust that rectification of this situation
within the federal public service will not be long in coming.
The average income of immigrant women workers, however,
was 54 per cent of what immigrant males were earning, and close
to 80 per cent of disabled women had an annual income of less than
$10 000. This is an alarming situation, therefore, and the way we
must adjust our aim is to pass a law such as this. We are also aware
that 75 per cent of the ten lowest paying jobs in Canada are
occupied by women. According to the Council on the Status of
Women, the proportion of women in the lowest paying jobs has
increased four times more than their proportion in the best paying
jobs. The explanation offered by the council is the division of work
along gender lines, leading to an undervaluation of women's paid
work, which naturally leads to salary inequities.
The women who organized the great march on Quebec City last
spring were reminding us that this state of affairs, this inequality of
earnings between men and women, compromises the economic
security of women both now and when they retire. As for the other
designated groups, we know from the figures of the Department of
Human Resources Development itself that they are characterized
by a serious underrepresentation of aboriginal and disabled persons
and a concentration of members of these groups in the less well
paying jobs. The situation is apparently particularly acute for
aboriginal people, whether female or male. This is why we need
employment equity legislation.
Not content to denigrate the very foundations of employment
equity legislation, our friends in the Reform Party blithely deny the
harsh reality experienced by our fellow Canadians in the
designated groups. Two days ago, my colleague for Edmonton
Southwest said: ``The foundation is that somehow or other
Canadians are a mean, regressive, racist, discriminating people.
Canadians are nothing of the sort. We are not that. No such
discrimination exists in the workplace''. So they deny the problem.
``The workplace, particularly outside the federal government, is
progressive. Industry leads. It is a totally unnecessary law''. This is
ostrich politics. We have to ask ourselves why a certain segment of
the population refuses to acknowledge that their fellow citizens are
victims of discrimination every day.
We have to ask ourselves if it is not because these people do not
suffer the systemic discrimination repeatedly confirmed by studies
in this area. As a general rule, white men do fairly well compared
to other groups. So, contrary to what some people think, we as a
society need a law promoting employment equity.
As I mentioned earlier, the existing legislation was lacking and
needed improvement-hence the bill before us. In Quebec, women
have a promise from government that a proactive bill on pay equity
will be tabled soon. Under that bill, business will have to create a
balanced mechanism for evaluating jobs, in order to identify those
who are relatively underpaid. Business will then have a period of
time to adjust salaries.
The following sentence in a document produced by the
committee for the bread and roses march made it quite clear:
``Whereas discrimination is not the exception but the rule and
affects all female workers, the adoption of pro-active legislation is
necessary''. Reform members, if we go by their speeches, have no
understanding of the situation in Quebec or of the kind of society
we want to become. If they want to try their luck in Quebec, they
will have to adjust their thinking to the situation in Quebec and
consider the social values we want in our society.
(1555)
Of course this was about wage equity, while the bill before the
House is about employment equity. In fact, the two are closely
related. In both cases, the purpose is to close the gap between men
15303
and women, between white people and members of visible
minorities, between persons with a disability and those who have
none. It is about social justice and government policies that will
help to deal with the problem.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois
proposed two amendments which unfortunately were not accepted
by the committee and which in our opinion would have improved
the bill.
The first amendment concerns clause 14 of the bill and deals
with the preparation of the employment equity plan. We would
have preferred to see the plan prepared jointly by the employer and
the employees. As the bill stands, the employer only has an
obligation to consult with the representatives of the employees
which, we feel, falls far short of being satisfactory.
Spokespersons for the National Association of Women and the
Law also pointed out that opportunities for employees, their
representatives and members of designated groups to participate in
the development and implementation of employment equity plans
were few and far between. We deplore their absence from this
process.
We also suggested that the employment equity plan be posted in
public areas in the workplace, for the purpose of informing
employees.
Finally, we believe that it would certainly be in keeping with the
intent of the legislation for the tribunal, consisting of three persons,
to have at least one representative for workers and designated
groups. I think it is essential that one of these persons should be
designated to sit on the tribunal. The National Association of
Women and the Law expressed its surprise that the bill did not
contain a measure to that effect.
The association also recommended that both compliance officers
and members of tribunals should be specialized in employment
equity and represent designated groups.
This would be, to use a familiar phrase, putting your money
where your mouth is.
The stakes are high, for women and for all designated groups.
Ms. Simms, president of the now defunct Advisory Council on the
Status of Women expressed it very well in her presentation when
she said in concluding that the council encouraged the government
to follow the recommendation to ensure that employment equity
succeeded in giving women the opportunity, free of prejudice and
sexism, to prove themselves on the labour market and, at the same
time, to show that they have a right to dignity, respect and equity in
our society. This is just as true for the other designated groups.
What is good for women, is also good for aboriginal peoples,
persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. We
must have this awareness.
I therefore invite the members of this House to support all
measures of social justice that help reduce the gap between the
most disadvantaged and the most affluent. It is unfortunate that we
are still debating the passing of such legislation when, in my
opinion, our energies would be better focused on implementing
corrective measures to ensure that the target groups achieve
equality one day and that discrimination becomes a thing of the
past.
It should be our hope that everyone will have access to well paid
work, that no one has to face discrimination and that working
conditions are adjusted for certain people to enable them to grow in
the workplace. We should also aim for equality of opportunity and
employment equity.
In closing, I would like to ask the government how it will
enforce such a law, which is praiseworthy of itself? Having
participated in the Beijing conference, I know the government has
announced that a strategy will be established to evaluate, according
to the sexes, all policies to be made, department by department.
(1600)
Therefore, with the new social program reform, which has not
yet been announced but will probably be announced after the
referendum, I would like to know whether the impact of such a
strategy, of such a social program reform act, has been assessed and
how this strategy will affect people. It seems to me this is only
natural. We all know that, with the upcoming social program
reform act, women, people with disabilities, members of visible
minorities will be the ones who will have to pay for all the cuts to
be made in the public service. So the bill is praiseworthy, but will
the government's efforts be equal to this legislation?
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened attentively to the dissertations by my hon.
colleagues opposite.
At the outset, I want to make it very clear on behalf of my party
that we do not ascribe any negative motive to the Liberals for
bringing this legislation forward. As a matter of fact, we think they
probably in their heart of hearts think they are doing the right thing.
We just think it is stupid, unnecessary and counterproductive.
We do not ascribe any motive that would be negative to them
other than the fact that in their heart of hearts they wished they
lived in a perfect world but we do not. We cannot make a perfect
world through legislation. It might be possible to advance the
world to perfection through education, but there are some things in
life which just plain cannot be satisfied through legislation and this
is one of them.
Regrettably, the underlying foundation of employment equity or
affirmative action in our country presupposes that Canadians in
some way or another are now, have been and will be a systemically
15304
meanspirited lot of people who discriminate against others. That is
not true. It is not the case.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. minister opposite made reference
to members of the business community being in favour of
employment equity and that those who came to the committee said
so. When people are invited to make a submission before a
committee on something like employment equity, what are they
supposed to do? Are they supposed to say that they do not believe
in the notion of employment equity and that they would just as soon
discriminate against people? That is just not the case.
Our country's business community is very progressive. It is way
ahead of the government. As a matter of fact, the average business
has never seen a visitor from the employment equity police for the
legislation that is now in place. Most Canadians, including most
Canadian businesses, do what they do out of enlightened
self-interest. As I mentioned the other day, there is nothing wrong
with enlightened self-interest; it gets the job done.
In my few minutes today I would like to try to rebut some of the
arguments made in favour of affirmative action or employment
equity and also to give a sense of what this legislation might mean
as it gets its iron grip on Canadian society.
The most significant provision of Bill C-64 results in the
legislated mandate of affirmative action for the federal public
service, including the RCMP, the military, public security agencies,
federally chartered businesses and any business of 100 or more
employees that does business with the federal government. That is
quite a collection of people. Imagine the number of equity police
that will be required to police that to make sure it is working.
The nature of this proposed legislation is intrusive into the
marketplace. Under the proposed legislation an employer is
obliged to submit an employment equity compliance audit by an
officer acting on behalf of the human rights commission.
(1605 )
Based on the results of such an audit, the Canadian Human
Rights Commission may direct that an employer comply with the
provisions of the Employment Equity Act. Failure to comply with
such a directive renders an employer subject to a fine at the
initiative of the minister responsible for the administration of the
Employment Equity Act of up to $50,000. The responsible minister
has not yet been determined but we assume it will be the minister
of human resources.
It is important to note though that the term employment equity
will be heard from the Liberal side and the Bloc, but you will hear
members from this side using the term affirmative action. Liberals
are slow to use the term affirmative action because that term is not
particularly well regarded even by those who were purported to
have been helped by affirmative action 30 or 40 years ago primarily
in the United States.
In the last election in Ontario, the notion of affirmative action
was roundly discarded when the New Democrats were thrown out
of office by the Conservatives. They said in large part in their
election mandate that they were going to get rid of the employment
equity law.
That really causes one to wonder why the Liberal government
opposite would introduce this legislation at this time. Giving credit
where credit is due, the Liberals believe in their heart of hearts that
what they are doing is the right thing, that they will go ahead
regardless. Dam the torpedoes because the torpedoes surely will be
in the water at the next election when they are trying to explain why
they introduced reverse discrimination and codified it throughout
the land.
Through this legislation the Liberals will have planted the seeds
of resentment that will burn in the bellies of the thousands and
thousands of people who will be denied opportunity that is rightly
theirs. They will be denied that opportunity because there is a quota
for others determined by race, by gender. People will look at that
and ask: Is this a free country? Is this what is meant in article 15 of
the charter of rights and freedoms where it explicitly states that all
Canadians are equal regardless of race, creed or gender? Of course
the next paragraph says, except for designated groups, which then
allows legislation of this type to come forward.
The foundation for the notion of affirmative action versus
employment equity was really made about 10 years ago by Judge
Rosalie Abella. The royal commission recommended employment
equity legislation rather than affirmative action legislation because
affirmative action and the term affirmative action had been so
widely discarded because it just plain does not work.
It is important to keep this in mind. You can dress this baby up
any way you want but it does not matter what kind of cook you are,
you cannot make mutton taste like lamb. If it is not lamb, it is never
going to be lamb. You cannot dress it up in any way. It is a tough
old bird that is not going to fly.
There is a suggestion from this side of the House that
employment equity or affirmative action legislation really does
involve social engineering and forced acceleration of the effects of
demographic change. I am going to present an interesting set of
statistics.
Canada's demographics are changing rapidly. The make-up and
composition of this House is not representative of the changing
demographics of our country today. If we look around us in the
House, the vast majority of people representing constituencies of
the Liberals, of the Bloc and of the Reform Party are white,
15305
middle-age males. That is not our fault; it is changing. It is
changing slowly, but it is changing.
(1610)
According to the 1991 census, 9 per cent of Canadians aged 15 or
over, or 1.9 million people were visible minorities. Of the 9 per
cent or the 1.9 million people who were visible minorities in
Canada, only 15 per cent were born in Canada. Very few of the
visible minorities that live in Canada today were born in Canada.
Thirty-five per cent of the visible minorities in our country have
arrived since 1983. Sixty-seven per cent of all visible minorities in
Canada have arrived since 1972.
In a relatively short period of time in the 130 years or so that
Canada has been a nation, the changing demographics of our
country in visible minorities has only really been apparent in the
last 30 years. To suggest that there is systemic discrimination in our
country is wrong. We have not had the chance to have systemic
discrimination.
The demographic composition of employees at all levels in a
country which is 128 years old cannot be radically changed as a
result of demographic social change over 30 years, and most
significantly within the last 12 years. These changes will occur, but
it will take at least one or two generations, if allowed to occur
without legislative compulsion. As I said before, if we look at the
demographics of the House of Commons, we will see that is the
case.
Attempting a statistical matching for equity purposes, that is, x
per cent of a particular race means that x per cent of that race must
be in an occupation for there to be equity, involves the
unreasonable assumption that the extent of association to Canada
and the extent of Canadian work experience are irrelevant to
workforce entitlement or promotion considerations. Does it not
make sense if people have been in Canada and have participated in
the labour force that their participation rate and their advancement
rate would be higher based on the amount of time they have been
here or their familiarity with Canada?
That does not mention the fact that all of the government
agencies covered by this bill and many private contractors are
covered by unions in which people have problems moving up and
out and being hired or fired based on the unions. It has nothing to
do with management, it has to do with the union. It has to do with
whether a person is in the door first.
Let us talk about goals and targets. Let us ask ourselves: Are
goals targets and are they quotas by another name? Exception was
taken to the fact that members on this side of the House referred to
goals as being quotas. Under the Employment Equity Act an
employer is not required to hire or promote unqualified persons. It
says that right in the legislation and I acknowledge that. Employers
are not required to hire or promote unqualified persons or to create
new positions in the workforce. The Canadian Human Rights
Commission cannot impose a quota on an employer where a quota
is defined as a requirement to hire or promote a fixed or arbitrary
number of persons during a given period.
However, the other shoe is about to drop. In circumstances where
under-representation of designated groups has been identified, the
employer is required to prepare a plan in which short term
numerical goals for hiring and promotion of designated groups are
established plus longer term goals for increasing the
representation.
(1615)
What a minute. Just a second. Hold it. Did I not just say the act
says they cannot have quotas? Wait a minute, it does say they can
establish numerical goals. But what is a numerical goal if not a
quota?
If in the opinion of the human rights commission investigator an
employer has not made reasonable efforts the employer can be
fined $50,000. It sounds like a quota to me. If it looks like a quota,
sounds like a quota, acts like a quota and the results of it are like a
quota, the chances are it is a quota. It does not matter whether we
call it employment equity; it is still affirmative action. It does not
matter if we call it a goal or a numerical target. If it restricts the
number and the access by number, it is a quota. That is all it can
possibly be.
Just in case there is a possibility someone thinks that quotas are
not already in force in the Government of Canada hiring practices,
just try getting hired by the RCMP, as a constituent in Edmonton
tried. Barry Ceminchuk who lives in Edmonton called me and said:
``Please talk about my problem. I wanted to get a job with the
RCMP. They will not even take my application''. The RCMP will
not even take it and he has done some digging.
This is information from the employment equity guide from the
Department of Justice. Is that not amazing, there is an employment
equity guide from the Department of Justice.
For those of you out there in television land, when the census
comes next time and you are wondering why they are asking what
race you are, all of a sudden the light will come on. The reason
people want to know your race is so they can check out
demographically whether or not the companies in the local areas
are hiring enough people of the various races located in that
geographic area. That is why that question is there.
This is from the Department of Justice, and we do not have
quotas here folks, but we do have employment equity targets. In the
spring of 1991 Treasury Board introduced a new target setting
strategy as a means for achieving the equitable representation and
distribution of designated group members in the department. The
new strategy is flow based, which means that it focuses on an
15306
equitable share of recruitment and promotions of designated
groups.
It goes on to list the groups and then states what its non-quota
quota goals are for women. For scientific and professional:
recruitment, 43.8 per cent; promotions, 43.6 per cent. For
administrative and foreign service: 39.9 per cent for recruitment
and 66 per cent for promotions. If you happen to be a woman in the
Department of Justice in an administrative or support position, you
have it made, but you had better not be male because women are
going to get 93 per cent of the promotions.
We hear clapping from the opposite side. It has nothing to do
with whether they are the best qualified but they are going to get it
because of their gender. That is absolutely wrong.
My daughter is a totally capable person in her own right. She just
goes up and down a wall every time somebody thinks that she has
got somewhere or she has a job because she is a woman, because of
employment equity or affirmative action. She is an electrical
engineer and works in a male dominated field. My daughter
achieved what she achieved because she is a damn good electrical
engineer. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. It
has to do with the fact that she is a damn good engineer. She just
goes crazy when those feminists say she is a victim. She is not a
victim.
(1620 )
In any event let us keep talking. Let us talk about qualified
versus best qualified. The legislation says in clause 6 that an
employer cannot be required to hire or promote unqualified
persons. However, the other shoe drops. At the same time, an
employer is not free to hire the best qualified as a matter of course.
The concept of best qualified does not reflect systemic prejudices.
Subjectivity in hiring is largely eliminated under this legislation.
Attitudes cannot be legislated.
I am getting a fair amount of static from my friends opposite.
They are most uncomfortable because they will soon be standing to
justify this draconian legislation.
Ms. Clancy: I am just as comfortable as I can be. You have no
idea how comfortable I am.
Mr. McClelland: They are going to try to make this turkey look
like a chicken and they are going to have one heck of a time doing
it. I wish them well. When they take this boat in the next election,
there are going to be torpedoes coming at them from every
direction.
Part of me is saying that I cannot wait to see this legislation get
off the ground because the government is going to have to live with
it. It is like the dog that chases a car: What does he do with it when
he catches it? My friends opposite are going to catch this car at the
next election.
Let us talk about statistics and the employment equity legislation
and the supposition that it is grounded on unreliable statistics.
Much of this requires self-identification. The affirmative action
police will go into a place of business and pass out a form to be
filled out. People will be required to self-identify. Anybody who is
going to try to get a job with the government now has to identify
their race or whether they are part of a minority group. It is all part
of the legislation.
The employment equity police are going to require people to
identify themselves. I do not know if the House of Commons is
trying it because it is such a progressive place or whether it is test
legislation. At the time this was done there were 1,700 employees
in the House of Commons. The response rate was 23 per cent and
only 50 of those respondents identified themselves as belonging to
a designated group.
People do not like to self-identify. As a matter of fact that was
indicated in the Department of Justice paper I referred to a little
earlier. It talked about the effectiveness of self-identification.
Let me quote from the Department of Justice employment equity
guide: ``The effectiveness of the self-identification process is
questionable. Treasury Board is currently reviewing the process to
improve it. There will always be a certain number of people who
choose not to identify themselves as members of a target group for
various reasons. One of the strongest reasons is the concern about
being labelled a token employee and not seen as someone hired for
their qualifications or because they have earned the position''. This
is from the Department of Justice.
Whoever drafted this legislation over in the Department of
Justice must have been popping Tums all day. It must have been a
long, hard day at work.
Interestingly, there was a 30 per cent increase in Canadians
reporting a disability between the 1986 census and the 1991 census.
We have to ask why in a five year period there would be a 30 per
cent increase in the number of people reporting themselves as
having a disability. Why has this identification occurred,
particularly in view of the incentive to falsify self-identification
surveys? I know that might sound kind of meanspirited but there is
the potential for people to self-identify themselves one way or
another in some of these surveys in order to gain an advantage in
promotion or hiring.
(1625)
Mr. Bevilacqua: Come on.
Mr. McClelland: Now that might happen. Just imagine. There
are people out there who might just say: ``Gosh, how am I going to
go about getting myself a job here? I know I have the same
15307
qualifications as the vast majority of other people that are applying.
How am I going to get a job? I know what I might have to do. I
might have to self-identify myself into one of these groups''.
This brings to mind an anomaly in the whole notion of visible
minorities and disadvantaged groups. Based on statistics obtained
from Statistics Canada we know that Japanese Canadians have
among the highest incomes and the highest education levels of all
Canadians, yet they would qualify under this legislation as a
disadvantaged group. Figure that out. Does that make any sense?
There is deafening silence opposite. Give them a minute to think
about it. We have a demographic group in our country that has the
highest single average education, the highest single average
income, but members of that group qualify as disadvantaged
because of the colour of their skin.
Mr. Bevilacqua: What is the story with visible minorities?
Ms. Clancy: Tell us about visible minorities.
Mr. McClelland: Hold it, let us go back one more. Let us talk
about the Portuguese Canadians. Interestingly, Portuguese
Canadians do not rank at the same income level as Japanese
Canadians, but guess what? They are not visible minorities because
their skin is not a different colour. They are curse of curses, shame
of shames, white. Therefore, they do not qualify under the statute.
Does that make any sense whatsoever? That is the fallacy of
creating legislation in a free and democratic society based on race,
colour, creed or gender. There is no place for it.
What we should be doing in our society is making sure the
human rights commission works so that when people are
discriminated against for any reason, regardless of their sexual
orientation, regardless of their colour, regardless of their gender,
they have a place to go.
Let us talk about useless legislation in our country. Right here in
the precincts of Parliament Hill there is 10 years and $100 million
of reconstruction going on. A woman was working on the
construction site but she was fired because she was a woman and
one of the men did not want to be working with her. She went to the
human rights commission and was turned around and sent to the
provincial human rights commission.
If we want to do something, we should get our act together and
get a human rights commission with teeth. We should get some
semblance of uniformity between human rights laws federally,
provincially, municipally and human rights legislation in the
workplace.
We could be doing something worthwhile. If somebody is
discriminated against in this country, what do they do? They are
absolutely lost. They go to these commissions and get in line.
There is a line-up that takes six months to a year to get through.
That is where we should be putting our effort. We could be
educating people about why it is wrong to discriminate for any
reason. We do not have to legislate this sort of thing.
Then we have to make sure that people who are discriminated
against for any reason have redress. They presently have no
redress. It is not criminal. People can discriminate against anybody
they want to; it is not a criminal offence. What one has to do is go
through hoops in order to get some kind of satisfaction. We should
be making that easy instead of doing this. It is ridiculous.
(1630 )
Since the human rights commission is the agency charged with
the responsibility of enforcing this, how much money is going to
the commission to enable it to do the job? What is being done to
enable Mr. Yalden and the Canadian Human Rights Commission to
do the job? Make a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights
Commission today and see how long it takes to get satisfaction.
Dump this responsibility on it and how long is it going to take to
get from point A to point B?
Let us think about it. Think about the last bit of employment
equity legislation that came through the House and see what has
been done anywhere in the country to ensure that it has been done.
Absolutely nothing has been done. What happens when persons
who feel they have been discriminated against go to the human
rights commission? They grow barnacles. Nothing happens there.
Therefore, what do we do? We bring in more legislation to do
nothing. The Liberals are just giving lip service so that they can
further consolidate their position by saying: ``We looked after all of
these target groups. We are their great benefactors''. The Liberals
are not their great benefactors.
Mr. Bevilacqua: You are.
Mr. McClelland: Members opposite say, pejoratively I suspect,
that I am. Mr. Speaker, I take that as a compliment because damned
right I am. I will address these things honestly and through the
front door. I will not do it sliding in the back door.
Ms. Clancy: I have never come in the back door in my life.
Mr. McClelland: Members opposite are heckling me. I am
having trouble not laughing because some of their heckles are
fairly funny. People listening to their televisions cannot hear what
they are saying so I will have to try to ignore them.
I am going to finish my dissertation with a challenge to the
Liberals opposite. They control everything in this House. They
have a majority. If they do not want something to happen it is not
going to happen. As a matter of fact it is not really the Liberals, it is
the cabinet. It may not even be the cabinet, it might be the Prime
Minister's office. It might not even be the Prime Minister's office,
it might be one or two people trying to figure out how they can keep
him elected.
However, whoever it is that pulls the strings over there, I offer
those people a challenge: extend employment equity legislation to
15308
the House of Commons. Why is the House of Commons excluded
from this legislation?
Ms. Clancy: It works for me.
Mr. Bevilacqua: Are you in favour?
Mr. McClelland: The member opposite says to extend this. I
offer them a challenge: extend employment equity legislation to
the House of Commons.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Lévis-government subsidies; the hon. member for
Halifax West-foreign affairs.
We shall now proceed to the next stage of debate, which will
allow the hon. members a maximum of 20 minutes to speak,
subject to a 10 minute period for questions and comments.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish I had the time to debate my colleague point by point. It may
not be allowed, but I will do it at committee where the member sits.
As the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North, I rise today to
bring the sentiments of my constituents to the House during third
reading debate of Bill C-64. Bill C-64, an act respecting
employment equity, reflects the soul of our nation. It reflects our
shared value of equality. It reflects our humility to recognize the
presence of inequities. It reflects our ingenuity as a people to craft
solutions to problems.
Systemic discrimination remains an endemic problem, a national
malady, a barrier to equality in employment. In the 1960s
discrimination in employment was seen as a human relations
problem, the result of malice and intentional bias. Thus human
rights legislation was enacted, but proved ineffective in addressing
the overall problem. That is what the Reform Party would like us to
do, retreat from our progress.
(1635)
Pilot affirmative action programs on a voluntary basis were
tested in the 1980s but they failed to achieve the desired results.
Women, aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and persons with
disabilities continued to be disadvantaged, experiencing higher
than average unemployment rates and, if employed, were often
concentrated in low paying occupations and were not represented
in upper management.
It soon became apparent to the national leadership of the day that
discrimination resulted not only from intentional bias, but also
from outdated hiring practices and systems. In other words, a
seemingly unprejudicial employment policy had an adverse
impact on job opportunities for certain individuals and groups
because of their race, gender, colour and disability. The phrase
systemic discrimination refers to this type of unintentional barrier
to equality.
The persistence of this problem stirred the national
consciousness at a time when a new era was dawning in Canada. In
1982 the Canadian Constitution was repatriated and the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms was born.
Section 15, paragraph 1 of the charter speaks of the equality of
Canadians before and under the law, in benefits and in protection.
What a powerful national statement on equality, one in which we
can all take pride.
No doubt conscious of the presence of unintentional bias in the
workplace and no doubt aware of the need to eradicate it, the
framers of the charter saw to it that any future Canadian
government would not be handicapped in drafting programs to treat
this societal ailment.
Hence, the addition of paragraph 2 to section 15. This additional
paragraph gives government the authority to design programs
aimed at creating an equal and level playing field for those
disadvantaged in society. It gives Parliament the authority to enact
laws aimed at achieving equality, not preference, not superiority, in
employment for the disadvantaged groups, laws that will withstand
constitutional scrutiny.
These two paragraphs in one section of the charter reflect
Canadian ingenuity, reflect our genuine pursuit of equality and
reflect our national foresight in social legislation. This section
allows Canada to acknowledge, respect and accommodate the
differences among her people.
Equality in the workplace does not and cannot be allowed to
mean only identical treatment for all. Equality includes improving
the condition of disadvantaged people or groups, which sometimes
requires treating them differently to ensure equality. Thus there is
maternity leave for women, to cite one example, but not for men.
Seizing on this national foresight now entrenched in the charter
of rights and freedoms and wanting to redress systemic
discrimination, the Liberal government of the day soon struck the
Royal Commission on Equality in Employment. Chaired by Justice
Rosalie Abella, the commission issued its landmark report,
Equality in Employment, in 1984. It confirmed that discriminatory
practices, intentional or not, yielded the same outcome: low rank,
low pay or no job at all.
It confirmed that certain systems and practices unwittingly may
have adverse effects on certain groups in our society. Therefore it
prescribed a system based approach to remedy the situation. This
ultimately led to the enactment of the current Employment Equity
15309
Act in 1986. This law has helped advance equity in employment,
but not far enough.
The current federal government knew this before it took office in
October 1993. It therefore sought and was given the mandate by the
Canadian people to extend coverage of the act to the federal public
sector and to include practical enforcement mechanisms. The
government wanted to fulfil this mandate in a fashion that will
further advance equality in the workplace without adding an
onerous burden on employers and businesses.
(1640)
Bill C-64, tabled in the House last December 12 and amended in
committee and at report stage fulfils our national agenda. I was
privileged earlier this year to chair the Standing Committee on
Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons which conducted
a full review of employment equity and obtained input from
Canadians from coast to coast.
We heard from 52 associations and individuals and received 18
written submissions. The views of employers, labour
organizations, designated group organizations and many interested
Canadians were fairly represented in the evidence before the
committee.
I am honoured to share with my colleagues in the House, my
constituents and other fellow Canadians some of what we heard
from witnesses.
Says the Congress of the Assembly of First Nations Chief
Mercredi: ``Although a lot of times Canada is presented as a nation
that believes in equality of opportunity, when you really undress
the country there is no equality there for aboriginal people''.
Says the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: ``We point out the high
participation rate in the workforce of our people to stress that
aboriginal people want to work but the structure of the Canadian
economy seems to leave them on the outside looking in''.
From the National Association of Women and the Law: ``A
rather bleak picture of the employment and economic situation of
women is evident at a glance. In general, women occupy most of
the short term jobs and are clustered in low paying services and
administrative support work positions''.
Says the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, a coalition of some 37
national ethnic groups around the country: ``The reality now is the
visible minority population labour force is under utilized. That
speaks to the economy of Canada and to the future of our country''.
From the Canadian Paraplegic Association: ``Clearly for people
with disabilities there are still numerous barriers to
employment-until more attention is paid to education, training
and skill development for persons with disabilities, reasonable
representation in the Canadian work force will continue to be an
illusion''.
Clearly in this body of evidence, only a sample of many, we can
see the plight of disadvantaged groups.
From the Canadian Labour Congress: ``By ensuring the diversity
of the Canadian population is reflected in all employment areas
under federal jurisdiction, the Government of Canada is creating an
enriched work environment''.
Says the Canadian Security Establishment: ``I am pleased to
advise that the establishment feels it can comply with the
requirements of the bill without special consideration''.
Says the RCMP: ``Under the recruiting process, what we would
do is hire the best and highest rated persons from all groups'' in
compliance still with the Employment Equity Act.
Says the CRTC: ``If the ultimate goal was to sensitize people so
they would do these intelligent things instinctively-then we are
definitely going in that direction''.
From the Canadian Bankers Association: ``Canada's banks, and I
speak most particularly for the six major banks, have been
committed to employment equity objectives since the current act
was passed in 1986. We think employment equity not only has had
a positive impact on the way our organizations manage their work
forces but also it has proven good for business.
Let me quote from Mr. Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil
Liberties Association: ``The idea then in setting numerical goals is
not to play catch up. You do not have to ask to get to the same
balance as the rest of the community. You set the goals in order to
pressure the employers not to discriminate. That is the objective of
the setting of the goals. You choose a numerical target that would
accord with how many the employer would get if he recruited
vigorously, set fair job standards, and at the end of the day did not
discriminate improperly''. That is from the Canadian Civil
Liberties Association leadership.
(1645)
The chair of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Max
Yalden, stated:
-let me make it clear that employment equity is not about quotas. A quota is
an arbitrary number of positions in the workforce that must be filled regardless
of whether qualified candidates exist for the jobs.
I hope these testimonials will convince even the doubting
Thomases from across the floor that the disadvantaged groups,
their advocates and civil libertarians of renown are not the only
supporters of Bill C-64. Employers from all sectors equally praise
the bill. They recognize that equity in employment enhances
productivity and business and inspires initiative and creativity.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has already
refuted the myth the Reform Party wanted to propagate about
qualifications, merit and quotas. Those issues have been dealt with
15310
by the bill. For the sake of time I refer the hon. member opposite to
the bill to see for himself his arguments are flawed.
During debate he told us he would object to census taking
because it would ask for the individual's race. I am not afraid and I
am not ashamed of my race. I am not ashamed of my heritage.
If he is really concerned that Canadians from the Portuguese
community are now not covered under the act, that is true. If they
are determined disadvantaged, then they will be given programs by
the government. That is one beauty of having this type of census, so
that we can get the facts and figures we need to formulate good,
sensitive legislation which will answer the needs of Canadians.
I repeat the bill is not about redressing the past mistakes of
history. It is about not wanting the past mistakes of history to be
repeated on our present and future generations.
I heard earlier in the debate about wanting to hire the best
qualified. I believe the Reform Party would be surprised at one of
the witnesses from the Manitoba Telephone System, Ms. Katawne,
director:
I would suggest that those people who believe it is a highly scientific art to
determine who the best qualified person is are dreaming. They are in la-la land.
That is not what happens on a selection committee.
We need an employment equity act.
In addition to making several clause by clause amendments to
the bill, our committee issued a separate narrative report entitled
``Employment Equity: A Commitment to Merit''. I suggest that
members who object to the bill give it careful study. I hope at that
time they will have a change of mind and a change of heart. The
report reflects the committee's confidence that Canada's new
employment equity law will ensure the pre-eminence of merit and
the elimination of systemic discrimination in employment
practices.
What we have in the bill is a win-win situation for employers and
employees alike. The report and the bill reflect the uniqueness of
Canada as a leader among nations, committed to excellence in
human endeavour and profoundly committed to social justice in
general and to employment equity in particular.
Chairing the national hearings on Bill C-64 was a very
meaningful experience for yours truly. It reconfirmed for me why I
am so proud to be a Canadian.
(1650 )
Let me close with something I will always carry with me from
my time as chair of the committee that studied this bill. It is a letter
from the Filipino Technical Professional Association of Manitoba,
an ethnic community to which I proudly belong.
The association stated that its members were proud of the efforts
of the Canadian government to show the world that we as a society
care about our citizens' human rights and shared the pride that the
United Nations recognized Canada as the number one country in
the world in which to live.
It emphasized there are already a lot of skilled immigrants and
new citizens in Canada unable to get a job in their respective fields
of training and experience because their professional credentials
and training are not systematically given recognition. There is not
even an orderly process for accreditation. Employers in a lot of
cases insist on Canadian experience which also closes a lot of doors
for employment. To the members of the association this amounts to
no less than systemic discrimination.
I can certainly agree with its view that it is very distressing and
undignified for a person to be systematically prohibited from
practising his or her chosen career which he or she spent a lot of
years mastering.
It recognizes, as I do, that employment equity may be one way of
dealing with this problem, but again this will not work if systemic
barriers are not dealt with.
Working together we can carry on this country's proud tradition
of championing equality, creating opportunity and building a better
country for us all. Employment equity is Canada's commitment to
merit to social justice, a framework for awareness, a search for
inclusion, a win-win for all. Canada has a duty to oblige.
I am proud to be part of a government that has taken the
leadership. I therefore urge all hon. members from across the floor
in the Chamber to join together and vote in favour of Bill C-64.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
been listening very intently to the speeches regarding Bill C-64. I
am also finding myself agreeing not with the bill but with a lot of
statements, particularly from the last speaker on the need to work
on equality. Equality is essential. We want that. Everybody in
Canada wants that.
I find it a little discouraging, however, when we come to talking
about wanting equality. We want all to be Canadians. We want
equality. That is what everybody wants.
Now we come to the time when we will have to ask the questions
that may differentiate between equality and non-equality. That goes
back to something talked about during the election. It was talked
about by a lot of people who did not like hyphenated Canadians.
They thought how great it would be if we could only come to the
day when we can be Canadians and we do not have to be
French-Canadian, Japanese-Canadian, aboriginal-Canadian,
Colorado-Canadian, Irish-Canadian or whatever. They would
really like
15311
to see that disappear. That message was loud and clear. Every
member in the House has heard that.
I think people would agree that is what we would like to see. All
of a sudden we see a piece of legislation coming out prior to a
census asking ``what is your race?'' I have already talked to a lot of
people who are concerned about that. They wonder what will
happen if they write Canadian. These people could write
hyphenated Canadian because they are not the same as me.
(1655)
People in my riding of a different ethic background are asking
what they are supposed to write. A good friend of mine, a sheet
metalist, asked: ``Am I supposed to write African-Canadian
because I am black?'' He refuses to do that because he was born a
Canadian. He said he will write Canadian and so will his kids. I
admire that kind of attitude. There is a perfect example of an
individual who would like to work toward being considered equal.
Government legislation is requiring him to declare otherwise.
My colleague said the legislation is stupid. That is why it is
stupid. It is forcing a lot of people to declare they are not Canadian
because of a hyphen. They do not want to do that.
A lot of business people have told me they have practised this
kind of legislation all their lives. The last thing they want to be is
discriminatory against anyone. Everybody in the House can go to
their ridings and talk to entrepreneurs of all kinds who have
practised this kind of thing.
Of the 30 years I have been in Canada, 20 were spent in a
supervisory position in which I had to hire people. On a number of
occasions we made certain we did not mistreat anyone on the basis
of gender, race, et cetera.
I recall several teachers who came from all walks of life I was
involved in hiring who were excellent. It was long enough ago that
we did not think about colour. We did not think about anything but
their qualifications and their ability to perform. Now we are to
force those same businesses that have those hiring practices to take
into consideration colour, race and gender.
Here we go again. There are a lot of entrepreneurs out there who
are up to their eyebrows in taxes and are having one heck of a time
making ends meet. The biggest reason is government got into
everything imaginable and interfered constantly with all the
different regulations. Businesses have been made to become tax
collectors through GST and other forms of taxes, which causes
business to add costs and hire people to do the work for the
government. Now we are to present them with more legislation.
I think all entrepreneurs all across the country of all races are
just about fed up. They are liable to say to my friends across the
way: ``You blew it. What we do not need is more government
involvement. We are grown individuals. We are intelligent. We are
Canadian. We will manage our own affairs, thank you. Stay out,
butt out, and get out of our lives''.
No, for 30 years I seen that the government knows better. The
government knows what is good for Canadians, so it has to make
sure it gets in there, gets involved and starts forcing things to
happen that have probably been happening all along. If they have
not been happening we have a mechanism to make certain that
people are punished when they do break the law by being
discriminatory. We have that. It is called the Canadian Human
Rights Commission. No, the government knows better.
(1700 )
This has been the practice for how long? Remember the metric
system? Not many people wanted it, but the government gave it to
them whether they wanted it or not. Remember the language law?
A whole pile of people did not want it, but the government gave it
to them whether they wanted it or not.
Let us go back to just recently. Consider the GST. It could not
have been more obvious. People did not want it, but we have it.
Mr. McClelland: But the Liberals want it now.
Mr. Thompson: The Liberals want it now, that is right.
We get promises about those kinds of things. The government
tells the whole world, all the Canadians, that they know best. They
are going to get in there and tell you how to run your business, what
you have to do, who you have to hire and how you have to do it.
Who do we think we are? I thought we came here to govern, not
to rule.
Ms. Clancy: They didn't come here to govern. We came here to
govern.
Mr. Thompson: That is right, Mr. Speaker. We came here to
govern; they came here to rule. This legislation is a perfect
example of it.
I think it is a shame. I think it is a shame when they do not even
recognize that 70 per cent of the mothers who are working have
declared that if they did not have to work they would rather be
home with their children. Why do we not do something to make
that possible? It may be a shock to our members across the way, a
shock to the member for Halifax, that there are a lot of working
mothers who would really like to be home with their children. Let
us make it possible. Let us cut some taxes. Let us see what we can
do to help them out. But no, no, no; let's bring in things like this,
because the poor dumb Canadian businessmen don't know what
they are doing.
15312
I looked at another thing that was handed to me. We are up to six
now in my riding. I would like to congratulate this government; it
has made it happen. There are six individuals, including my
22-year-old son, who have gone south of the border because down
there they can work and up here they cannot. These six individuals
are young males, and one is my son, who I would like very much to
remain in Canada and be a Canadian. He has to go south because he
has wanted to be a cop since he was six years old, and you do not
have a hope in the devil of being a cop in this country because
governments are ruling like they are today. So I thank the Liberals
very much. They have confirmed that my son will not be Canadian
because he cannot even get a job as a fireman, as a cop, as an EMP,
nothing, none of those things, because he does not fit: he is white
and male.
There are five others in my riding who have received their green
cards and have notified me that they will be gone. Congratulations
to the Liberals. They have chased some out. I do not suppose that is
discriminatory, though. That is probably just good government. If
that is good government, they can have it. I am sick of that.
I think they will find during the next election, if the Liberals
want to keep pursuing these kinds of ventures, if they want to keep
telling businessmen and women that they do not really know what
is right, that only we in Parliament know what is right, they will be
in for a rude awakening. I am certain I am going to stay healthy
enough to stick around and watch it. I will laugh and laugh, just as
they laugh today when we make the kinds of comments we do in
regard to the kind of legislation they bring down, legislation that
causes racism, that causes discrimination; it cures nothing. Wake
up and smell the coffee.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just one
minor question.
As was noted by my hon. colleague, the member for Winnipeg
North, one of the groups that supports this legislation and has
called for this legislation and indeed has worked very closely with
this government, the Department of Human Resources
Development, the minister, the parliamentary secretary and others,
a group with which I worked very closely on the area of
employment equity when I was in opposition, is the Canadian
Bankers Association.
(1705 )
When I list radical groups that are out there fighting for social
policy and holding down the left wing in this country, the Canadian
Bankers Association is not one that automatically leaps to mind.
However, I want to congratulate the Canadian Bankers Association
for its far-sightedness. It has had in place for a number of years,
certainly as long as I have been a member of the House of
Commons, employment equity groups. It has met with
representatives from the various banks in this country. It has
worked within its own organizations for the promotion of women,
minorities, the disabled, and so on, and has done a fairly good job.
Now I would not want my friends in the banks in Canada to think
that I am saying they are absolutely perfect, because they have a
long way to go. There are a number of things I could suggest to
them in areas of employment equity where they could make their
record better. But they have certainly been very much in the
forefront.
I do not question the member's 70 per cent of working mothers.
What I do question is the interpretation of the statistics. I have
many friends with children of varying ages, and there is no
question that for women the ability to juggle domestic and
professional duties is fairly severe. The superwoman syndrome is
very hard to deal with. When you have small children it is
particularly difficult to spend a lot of time away from them.
However, it is more difficult not to provide them with the
necessities of life, like food, shelter, and other things.
If the hon. member is suggesting that we tell all mothers of small
children to stay home and that we therefore will increase the
national debt by paying a salary to mothers who stay at home, I find
that very interesting. Along with his explanation of why a group
like the Canadian Bankers Association supports employment
equity, I would like to know whether the Reform Party is
advocating that we pay a salary out of Canadian taxpayers' dollars
to mothers to stay at home to raise their children. I would also ask
him how much he thinks that salary should be.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to answer that
speech. I will start with the bankers.
Hurrah for the bankers. If they think this legislation and the
practice of affirmative action is good, then let them do it. Nobody
cares. If that is what they want to do, they should be entitled to.
That is democracy.
What I do not think should happen is that somebody be forced
into doing something that may not be the right thing to do in terms
of the business, whatever that might be. I think we have to trust the
judgment of employers to make certain that they do not
discriminate. If they wish to have a hiring practice that resembles
employment equity or affirmative action or whatever, that is
democracy. Let it be their choice. There is nothing wrong with that.
I do not believe that mothers with children who choose to stay at
home want to be paid. I do not think that is their request, any more
than they like to pay day care and babysitters. However, I do
believe that if this government were listening to some of the tax
proposals and tax incentives, there are things it could do that would
make it possible. The government talks about spending more
money by letting mothers stay at home. I do not understand. Let
them work and you are going to spend money paying day care. Do
15313
not pay for day care. Save that money so mothers can stay home
with their children and give tax breaks to the providers of the home.
(1710)
Maybe they have a problem understanding arithmetic, but it
makes sense to me. It used to be that married couples with one of
them staying home were able to do so, but now they are not able to
do so because they are treated the same way as married couples
who are both working.
We can do a lot in that area. I suppose that is another topic. But
no, mothers do not expect to be paid. If we are going to give extra
money to other women who can work, if we are going to pay others
to look after their children so they can work, then if we want to be
equal I guess we will have to do the same thing for the mom who
decides to stay home.
At any rate, there are not many things she said that made any
sense to me. That is understandable, considering the source.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know whether I am unlucky or lucky. Each time an issue dealing
with things such as employment equity, discrimination, or fairness
in hiring comes up, I always speak after the member for Wild Rose.
What it means is that I normally do not have to worry about going
back to a speech that somebody else wrote for me. He usually
incites me to find things inside that are germane to my very being,
that are at the core of what I am and the reason I got into politics.
Some of the nonsense I hear espoused by that particular member
does a great disservice, not only to the constituents he represents
but to the party he belongs to and the Parliament he sits in. This
member consistently and constantly gets up and shows that it is
okay to speak in the Parliament of Canada-and I do not deny him
the right or the privilege to do so-and pretend that things are other
than what they are.
I listened to this member say ``What about the white male?'' He
told everyone who was listening tonight that his 23-year-old
mailman son, I think he said, had to go south of the border, had to
get a green card. I am sorry for that. I hope that my son will be able
to get employment in this country when he is ready to enter the
labour market. But I want to give him a wake-up call. There are
many sons of people in my constituency whose colour is not the
same as mine or the member for Wild Rose, whose native language
is not the same as mine or the member for Wild Rose, whose
fathers cannot get employment in this country, not because the jobs
do not exist but solely because of the colour of their skin, the
language they speak, or their cultural heritage. That is the reality in
this country.
If the member for Wild Rose wants to be shown, I will issue him
an invitation to come down and I will walk him through the back
streets of Preston, Nova Scotia, and he can meet the people who
for generations have fought to be included. They have not asked to
be given special treatment, they have not asked to be singled out.
They have asked to be treated like his white male 23-year-old son
to participate to the fullness of their ability in the labour market.
That is what this is all about.
For the hon. member to deny this tells me that this individual and
the fact that he can get up and speak the way he does in the House is
more a testament to the tolerance of the democratic institution
called Parliament than it is to the point of view he espouses.
The member opposite and the Reform Party get up and use this
high office called Parliament-what John Turner used to refer to as
the highest court in the land, and it is-to put forward points of
view they know are dishonest, points of view that say there is no
need in this country for the federal government, the lead
government in this country, the highest court in the land, to put out
in policies and programs what it believes are standards that should
be followed in its own bailiwick, with its own employees in the
areas it regulates, in federally regulated industries.
(1715 )
To listen to the member and those of his ilk over there one would
believe that everything is rosy, that the status quo is something not
just to be maintained but to be heralded. This is the way we have
done it. This is the way it should be.
Mr. Thompson: That is why you are doing it.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is not that many generations
ago that blacks in Nova Scotia were not allowed to walk into
theatres and sit with whites. It was not 100 years ago. It was in the
early 1960s when that came to an end.
The member should look at history to find out when native
Canadians, the first people in this land, were finally recognized as
people and given the right to vote. That is within my generation and
my lifetime.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. We are talking
about employment equity. I have never once indicated in my life
that there should be any form of racism. I am glad racism does not
exist.
An hon. member: That is not a point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Clearly-
Mr. Thompson: I'm not going to take that crap.
An hon. member: Language, language.
Mr. Thompson: I never called anybody a racist at any time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This is the House of
vigorous debate. There are strongly held views on all issues. This
one is bringing out some equally strong views. I say respectfully to
15314
the hon. member for Wild Rose that he was engaging in debate and
did not have a point of order.
While I am on my feet, I would appeal to members on both sides
of the House. On issues such as this which are critical and sensitive
we should be respectful of the institution and one another.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want the record to show that
this hon. member has not alluded to anybody in the House and
indicated that he or she was racist or bigoted. I am not trying to
impugn the motives of members of the House. I want the record to
show that the reality is in Canadian society today. Although we
have come a mighty long way, there is still a mighty long way to
go.
It is well within the responsibility of good government to
continue to push that agenda item, the envelope as it were, to
ensure the standards that Canadians want in the private work place
and in the government work place are continuously upgraded and
pushed forward.
I merely want to tell anybody in the House who does not know or
does not understand that inequality has been a fact of life since
European settlers first came to Canada. That is the reality.
It does not mean that society in and of itself is racist. It does
mean that sometimes the majority in society have to understand
that there may be built in barriers to participation by minority
groups. It has to be understood that those barriers may be systemic
and that even people from those groups, if we open the door to full
participation, may not feel that the door is open.
What this bill seeks to do is not to recast the dye. It seeks to build
on the original legislation that was passed in the House to include
more industry in the private sector and the federally regulated area.
That is all it does.
It says to employers that there may be an imbalance in the labour
market. We do not want them to set quotas or numbers because I do
not approve of that. Minimums become maximums in this game. It
seeks to establish that there is a problem and that industry can solve
the problem themselves. That is all it seeks to do.
If members come to my area or the area of the member for
Halifax in our part of Nova Scotia, there are real barriers to
participation to a whole variety of groups. A company should not
say it wants a black with a university education, and it does not
matter what the grades are, any more than it should walk in and say
that it does not want a black with a university education.
(1720)
It means that we should look at the labour market in the area we
are in. If it is obvious there are visible or invisible barriers to
participation in that labour market, that we seek as a conscious
policy effort to remove those barriers. That is it. There are no
quotas. There is nothing nefarious in this legislation. It simply
states that the federal government believes that wherever
inequality exists, it has to consciously work to remove that
inequality. That is all that it says. In areas of a federally regulated
workplace that is what it says.
I am not one of those individuals who believes there should be
quotas because inherently it is wrong. Many times individuals are
hired or are put on a board because of a quota system, either an
official or unofficial quota. They could be the best qualified
persons for the job, but their co-workers will not see them as a
qualified individuals. They will see them as individuals that was
put there simply because the number had to be filled for that
particular race, gender or whatever.
We seek to break those borders down. This legislation goes in
that direction. It states as a public policy that employers should
work toward making sure, wherever possible, that their labour
component is reflective, as best as it can be, of the mix in the labour
market. In areas of large populations of blacks, indigenous blacks
in Canada, the federal public service has to work toward making
sure that they apply for those jobs and, if qualified, that they are
hired.
Most of all, it should be seen that if they do apply for the job that
they will be considered. The reality is that in many non-traditional
roles for females in the public service, women do not apply any
more because in the past they have been turned down so often.
If the employer is a crown corporation or a federal department
and has a policy of encouraging the greater participation in the
labour market of women, for instance, it sends a signal out that,
yes, if the woman is qualified she can apply and should have every
reason to believe that she will be judged based on her qualifications
and will not be excluded based on her gender.
It is the same when dealing with blacks and it is the same when
dealing with native Canadians. Go to some of the ridings where
there are high numbers of natives in the population. Do the
numbers in the population respond to the participation in the
federal workplace? In some cases, yes, but in some cases they do
not. This bill seeks to recognize that in areas like that where these
factors are a reality, that a plan be put together to encourage
individuals in minority communities to participate. That is it. It
does not do any more than that.
It does not say we have to hire three white people who have
Gaelic ancestry. It does not say that we have to hire 15 women. It
says: ``We want you to be conscious in the way that you run your
operation that you should try to encourage participation from
minority groups who traditionally might have been excluded''. It is
nothing more than that.
I am going to conclude my remarks because I know the member
from Halifax is waiting to speak. I want to encourage this House to
tone down the rhetoric a bit. I know I have been pretty upset today.
I watch what I say in this place because I have a great deal of
15315
respect for the chair that I occupy. I may have certain strong
opinions but I try to temper them when I stand in this place.
I have a great deal of difficulty after seven years here to look
across in this place and hear people put things on the record that
may incite, maybe not by design, but may add to a lack of
understanding and a lack of conciliation among all Canadians and
may take away from the desire of Canadians to be fair and
reasonable.
The hon. member opposite who spoke before me indicated that
this law means that we are going to see colour, that we are going to
have to look for colour, we are going to have to look for language,
we are going to have to look for gender and that in the past that was
not the case. Unfortunately he might have been right. In the past
nobody saw colour when he hired because he did not hire people of
colour. Nobody saw gender when he hired because in many cases
he did not hire women. Nobody saw linguistic groups because in
the past he did not hire linguistic groups.
I look forward to the day when we do not have to worry about
those factors. The reality is the problems are caused by the fact that
those factors have been overlooked in the past. The only way we
can rectify it is by public policy. This bill goes in that direction and
I support it fully.
(1725)
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the last speaker and it sounds as
if he has a valid concern. However, it seems to me that the
legislation he is addressing is discriminatory and the government is
trying to resolve that with a concept called employment equity.
I could be corrected on this, but I believe it was last year when
we had recognition of women's day in the House, a women Liberal
MP suggested that the House had a long way to go because over 51
per cent of the voters in the country are women but only 18 per cent
of MPs are women. Where lies the problem? Women have the vote.
Women have the intelligence to vote.
Ms. Clancy: Could I answer this?
Mr. Gouk: People have the right to run as candidates. A number
of women ran for election and were not elected. I ran against two
women in my riding. People have the choice to make that selection.
Women have the vote the same as men and they make a choice.
The air traffic control system started talking about affirmative
action because there were not enough women air traffic controllers.
At the time I happened to work with a very competent female air
traffic controller who was asked to participate in the affirmative
action program to get more women into the air traffic control
system. She agreed that she would take part in a program to attract
more women to apply and to learn about the system. But nobody in
the system, male or female, was prepared to alter the practices so
that a woman who was less qualified than a male candidate would
be chosen.
Would the hon. member see a system where for the sake of
balancing quotas, and there is no other way to put it, that the system
has to take someone other than best qualified candidate because
there is an imbalance in the precious quota system?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I believe it is a legitimate one.
I want to make two distinctions right off the bat. This bill is not
about quotas. I do not support a quota system. It is not the right way
to go. What I do support is a legislative framework that tells
employers in the federal section, crown corporations and federal
government departments that there is a reality out there. There are
many members who are still in denial about the reality of barriers
to participation in the labour market. They are real.
This direction in legislation I hope would never say someone has
to be hired who is not qualified for the job. That is not what it is
about. It sets in process a conscious mechanism so that a business,
department or crown corporation can make sure that if there are no
natives employed but they are 22 per cent of the population, that
there must be some barriers to participation somewhere. If the
barrier is simply that no native has been hired, then by setting
targets for the participation of native employees sends out a signal.
But no, I do not agree. I would not support a bill that tells an
employer to hire someone who is not qualified for the position. The
member knows as well as I do, if you are dealing with an entry
level or mid-level position, many times the minimum qualification
for the job does not mean the applicant has to be a rocket scientist
but may require a grade 12 education, someone able to lift a box,
punch a typewriter or a keyboard, or operate a furnace. I do not
know.
This bill does not compel anybody to hire an individual based on
gender or colour.
(1730 )
It compels the corporate sector within the federally regulated
area and the federal government to ensure that where those
inequities are identifiable they have conscious programs to try to
encourage the participation of qualified minority candidates.
It does not do anything other than that and if the member thinks
it does I feel sorry for him. I would ask for him to reread the
legislation because I think he is off in a direction not consistent
with the goals of the bill.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that when the member opposite says he does not
believe in quotas he is quite sincere. It does not matter how it is
15316
dressed up. If there is a numerical target that is a quota. It does not
matter how it is dressed up, it is a quota.
I ask the member opposite to respond to two brief questions. In
his comments earlier the hon. member said it was wrong that a
woman should not be able to get a job because she was a woman. Is
it also wrong that a man should not get a job because he is a man?
The Department of Justice in its employment equity guidebook
uses an employment equity target with a table that specifies the
following. It will recruit 2.2 per cent of aboriginal peoples with
promotions at 1.1 per cent; 2 per cent of persons with disabilities
with promotions at 2.8 per cent; 4.4 per cent of visible minorities
with promotions at 2.7 per cent of the total staff. If these are not
quotas, what are they?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the members
opposite do not get. This is a very simple piece of legislation. There
is a history to this legislation. It is an amendment to an existing act.
I cannot recall anybody contacting my office in the last seven years
and complaining that the federal government through the existing
employment equity legislation was excluding anybody qualified
from participating. I have not had that and I have a lot of public
servants in my area.
There are many people who do not get a job and run out and say
there was a black hired and they must have been hired because they
were black. There are plenty of minorities, black, linguistic, there
are many women who in the past have not been hired not because
they were not qualified but simply because of who they were,
because they were females, because they were black, because they
were immigrants or because they spoke a different language as a
mother tongue. That is the reality.
This is not about quotas. I do not support a quota system.
However, I will not as a federal legislator shirk my responsibility to
pilot policy for the public sector which we are responsible for to
indicate that it appears there is a discrepancy in the hiring patterns
and policies of many government departments.
Either one subscribes to the the fact that people of colour or
women are unable to attain certain standards, which is why they are
not hired, or one can encourage the setting of targets whereby the
organization or the private sector company will examine whether
its employees are reflective of the mix of the labour market it can
draw from, and where it is not reflective to encourage that
employer to set forth a plan to get participation by the labour
market as close to the mix of the labour market by qualified
candidates.
I do not agree with quotas but I do agree that we will get nowhere
by going into denial and pretending there is equity in the
workplace. There is not. This bill will help to establish that it is a
priority for Canadians and for the government. I am proud to say I
am a part of the government that has taken the initiative to put this
back on the public agenda.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Due to a ministerial
statement and responses earlier, Government Orders will conclude
at 5.46 p.m., at which time we will proceed to private members'
hour.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when I look across the House it is interesting. I see more
ties that bind us than divide us even on such a sensitive issue as
employment equity, which we oppose.
(1735 )
The hon. member gave some very eloquent points on issues
where we have a lot of commonality. We in this party deplore and
oppose with every strand of our bodies discrimination against
anybody. We would fight to a person against anybody who was
committing these offences on our soil.
Therefore I find it amazing that the government wishes to put
forth employment equity which by its very nature is discriminatory
and against our charter of laws and freedoms.
The original ideals of employment equity, affirmative action of
fairness, equity and a level playing are what we in this party are
fighting for. That was the original intent. Unfortunately what has
happened with employment equity is it is being distorted. It has
been plasticized and distorted so it does not resemble its original.
Tragically employment equity now holds up that people will be
advanced on jobs or acquire jobs on characteristics designed by the
government to advance people. The characteristics have nothing to
do with ability and merit but have everything to do with
characteristics that have nothing to do with the important aspects of
getting a job, merit and ability.
This in effect is discriminatory by its very nature because it is
promoting people on non-objective criteria and it is also very
harmful to the economy. It is also very insulting to the individual
getting a job for characteristics that have nothing to do with their
education, their ability or their merit. I do not think that was ever
taken into consideration by the government.
I do not think the government has put itself into the shoes of
those individuals getting jobs like that. Furthermore it causes
divisions and discrimination within the workplace. That is not fair
and it is not good for the soul of the country.
The logic of the new employment equity law is clearly a flagrant
abuse of the charter of human rights and freedoms. If one looks at
the charter one can argue quite persuasively that employment
equity is discrimination and should be thrown out on that ground
alone. In other areas of the world where employment equity has
15317
been put forth such as California and in the province of Ontario, it
has been thrown out. Why has it been thrown it? It does not work,
it is discriminatory and it causes incredible social divisions within
the populations it is supposed to help.
That is not what we want in Canada. We want a country in which
everybody is treated equally, in which people advance on merit and
in which people can look at each other face to face as equals with
mutual respect and admiration.
We do not want Canada to uphold policies that are divisive and
which pit groups of people against each other. That has gone on for
far too long. I challenge people in the government to go into the
streets and ask people in the workforce about this. Tragically that is
what has happened. We should not have that in such a beautiful
country as ours, a country that has historically done an admirable
job of merging so many ethnic groups in a peaceful environment.
That is something all Canadians need to be proud of because very
few countries enjoy that.
Employment equity also seeks to promote quotas. No matter
what members of the government say on the other side,
employment equity means quotas. It means numbers. Any
employer will say that is what they are obligated to do.
The unfortunate thing that employment equity brings forth is the
whole aspect of work for equal value. It is an artificial designation
that tries to have the government determine what kind of work
should be paid for equally with another disparate work. What kind
of work is supposedly of equal value in an economy? The only
legitimate place to decide what work should be paid for and its
value is in a free market economy. That cannot be designated by
government power. It must be decided in a free market economy.
Anything less is extremely destructive.
(1740)
Governments must argue for laws which are anti-discriminatory.
The debate which took place a few moments ago involved my
colleague and a member of the government. What struck me as
very interesting was that they were both arguing the same point.
They both want laws which are anti-discriminatory and feel the
government's role is to ensure those laws are on the books and that
they are applied.
The second role of government is to apply equal opportunity. It
is imperative, particularly for those most dispossessed in our
society, to have equal opportunity. That is one of the failings we
see. Many people who are in the lower socioeconomic strata do not
have that opportunity. It is important we create that opportunity so
they can become the best they can become. That is the legitimate
role of government. We in this party would strive very strongly for
that and we would help government members to put forth strong
plans and strong legislation to create the greatest opportunities for
people.
The other aspect is to create fairness. It does not matter whether
a person is black, brown, polka dotted, aboriginal, male, female,
Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hindu. What matters is that the laws
and the opportunities to get jobs are applied equally.
The hon. member brought up the point of people applying for a
job and being discriminated against. We completely agree. We are
arm in arm with enforcing those laws so that when a person applies
for a job they are treated on their ability and their merit.
The other role of government is to create skills. Tragically we
saw that money was pulled away from post-secondary education
very recently. We understand very clearly the situation all
governments across the country are in with fiscal problems. There
is a way around that. We can cut from the federal budget but give
the provinces the ability to raise the moneys themselves for
education. We cannot build a strong economy and provide
individuals with the skills necessary for them to get jobs in the 21st
century if we cannot make educational opportunities available to
them.
The single most important determining factor in getting a job is
post-secondary education. It is important for us to support the
post-secondary educational facilities so they understand what the
needs of the economy will be in the future. We must provide them
the ability to communicate those economic needs to the students,
particularly when they are in high school, so they can plan for the
future.
I hope we do not pursue employment equity. It has been a failure
in other parts of the world. It is discriminatory. It is a tragic
example of Orwellian social engineering, a type of social
engineering we do not need.
We are very sensitive to the needs of the disadvantaged. The hon.
member mentioned the plight of the aboriginals. I have worked
with many aboriginals under the most tragic and harrowing
circumstances. It breaks my heart to see what they have to endure.
It is very important for us to understand that historically we have
created an institutionalized welfare state in which the souls of these
people have been broken. It is important for us to address their
needs in a sensitive fashion and to provide them the skills and
opportunities to enable them to take off the yolk of poverty and
discrimination which they have endured for so long.
However, it is not the job of government to push people into jobs
based on their characteristics. I hope the government will take this
to heart. I hope the minister of aboriginal affairs will engage in
activities which will help these people help themselves. I hope we
can create a country that is free of prejudice and full of opportunity,
that makes sure that Canadians are treated equally and we can look
15318
at each other face to face as equals in an environment of peace and
harmony.
I know we in this party would like to stand together with all
members in this House to ensure that legislation is effected to
enable all Canadians to live in that environment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.46 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
15318
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 27 consideration of the
motion.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak
today on Motion No. M-382 introduced by the hon. member for
Mississauga South.
The issue of the underground economy is of concern to me and
should be of concern to all Canadians. Most Canadians have been
faced with an offer to pay cash for a lower price. When someone
offers a lower price for cash and does not provide an invoice, at
least two things happen: one, the consumer has no protection or
recourse against poor workmanship; and two, governments lose
revenue.
The greater the activity in the underground economy, the less
revenue there is available to governments. Underground economic
activity creates unfair competition for honest businesses. Jobs are
lost and honest taxpayers are forced to pay more than their fair
share of taxes.
I have spoken with the people of my constituency about the
underground economy. Those who follow the law and pay their
share of taxes do not like having to pay higher taxes because others
are trying to cheat the system. Entrepreneurs who are trying to
make an honest living say they do not like being at a competitive
disadvantage to businesses and tradespeople who ask for cash
payments to avoid paying taxes.
My constituents worry over how lost revenue is affecting the
government's ability to maintain the social and economic programs
so important to our well-being. When we accept the terms of a cash
deal, what we end up doing is condoning a crime and promoting tax
evasion.
As consumers, Canadians have to say no to offers of work for
cash. It is in their interest to do so. First, work performed under the
table means consumers are at risk if the work is poorly performed
or the result is not of the quality expected. Second, as I said, it
means taxes higher than they should be. Third, it means essential
social services we all benefit from are being put at risk.
Businesses must recognize that in the end conducting business in
the underground economy will do more harm than good. Honest
businesses are put at a competitive disadvantage because they
cannot offer a customer the same deal as that offered by someone
who will do the work but not collect the taxes. Furthermore the
reputation of an entire business sector can be damaged by just a
handful of under the table entrepreneurs whose work is of poor
quality.
I hear stories in my riding of Essex-Windsor about businesses
that operate out of basements or backyard garages and only work
for cash getting their referrals for jobs by word of mouth. These
businesses usually give two quotes: a quote for doing work for cash
and a second higher quote which includes the proper taxes. Many
individuals and businesses engage in these illegal transactions as a
way to avoid paying taxes. They think all they are doing is cheating
the tax department but as I said a moment ago, their actions make
victims of us all.
The negative effects of activity in the underground economy
show up in the form of reduced essential savings and services,
taxes higher than they would otherwise be, unfair competition and
a reduced standard of living for the honest taxpayer. Governments
cannot afford to allow this practice to go unchallenged. People
have to know that there is fairness in the tax system, that honest
businesses have a level playing field and that people who try to
cheat the system will be dealt with appropriately.
The government has introduced measures for addressing the
underground economy to ensure there is fairness in the way in
which the tax system is being administered. The Minister of
National Revenue's action plan calls on Revenue Canada:
First, to encourage voluntary compliance by making clear why
compliance is important and explaining the consequences.
Second, to work closely with the provinces by setting up
exchanges of information to better target and improve enforcement
actions.
Third, to strengthen the department's program to identify
non-filers and non-registrants.
(1750 )
Fourth, to establish special audit teams to focus on areas of high
non-compliance: construction, home renovations, jewellery,
hospitality, car repairs, and other service sectors.
Fifth, to work closely with other federal departments, key
industry groups and professional organizations.
15319
Last, to explore ways including legislative changes to improve
reporting, to enhance the effectiveness of penalties and to improve
audit and investigation techniques.
The results of the action taken to date are significant. As of last
March 31 over $860 million, over three-quarters of a billion
dollars, in additional taxes have been assessed as a result of the
government's underground economy initiative. I should point out
that the underground economy initiative is only one part of
Revenue Canada's overall enforcement efforts, efforts which
generated $3.7 billion in additional taxes assessed in the 1994-95
fiscal year.
The government has also established close working relationships
with a large number of associations whose members know often
from firsthand experience how the underground economy can hurt
Canadian business. Revenue Canada has consulted with more than
240 groups, such as the Certified General Accountants Association,
the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Canadian
Home Builders Association and the Direct Sellers Association.
These groups have described how revenues and jobs are being
lost. They know how businesses face unfair competition from those
who do not play by the rules. Consumers lose out when they get
goods and services through the underground economy since they
forfeit any guarantees of quality backed by reputable firms. With
their assistance, Revenue Canada is refining its strategies
identifying areas of non-compliance and exploring measures for
improving compliance.
In my riding the department has been in touch with the Home
Builders Association and is getting information that might be
useful in identifying non-compliance.
Revenue Canada also has close ties with the provinces.
Co-operation arrangements are in place with all the provinces.
Revenue Canada has moved beyond the simple exchange of
information and the department is doing joint audits with the
provinces. It is sharing audit strategies, training materials and
expertise. The provinces have supplied Revenue Canada with
databases containing such information as PST registrants, liquor
licences, building permits and vehicle registration information as
well as the names and addresses of new and used car dealers.
There is also federal and provincial co-operation in terms of
ensuring that taxpayers have information to help them voluntarily
comply with the law as well as information on the consequences
associated with non-compliance.
For example, Revenue Canada has carried out community visits
with representatives of provincial tax administrations. During these
visits, businesses are given information on the underground
economy and information and assistance to help them comply with
the tax laws. Departmental officials also ensure that businesses are
properly registered for tax purposes and when necessary, encourage
businesses to comply with the law where they are not.
Across the country more than 40 community visits have been
conducted involving more than 10,000 businesses. The department
has increased and targeted its audits to focus on areas of high
non-compliance and strengthened its ability to identify non-filers
and non-registrants.
In 1994-95 an additional $245 million was assessed through the
non-filer program and an equal amount through the non-registrant
program. Nearly 11,000 audits were completed in the high risk
sectors which resulted in a further $90 million in taxes being
assessed.
Revenue Canada has increased its publicity of convictions for
tax evasion. During 1994-95 there were more than 170 convictions
for evasion of income tax and GST. There has been a doubling in
the number of voluntary disclosures as a result and the department
now receives about 19,000 referrals a year from Canadians who are
tired of their neighbours and friends not paying their fair share of
taxes.
Revenue Canada's preferred approach is to encourage voluntary
compliance. It works. Ninety-five per cent of all revenues are
collected without the need for enforcement action. A great deal has
been accomplished since the Minister of National Revenue
launched his action plan for addressing the underground economy
in November 1993.
While the government has introduced concrete measures for
addressing the underground economy, it is not exclusively the
government's responsibility. All Canadians must do their part,
individuals and businesses alike.
Canadians need to talk about the negative consequences of the
underground economy. They must resist the temptation and simply
say no. I urge members of the House to carry this message back to
their constituents. I urge members of the House to work diligently
with their constituents to come up with the answers.
I would like to thank the member for Mississauga South for
putting forward the motion allowing us to debate an issue of
extreme importance to all Canadians. The motion has forced
members on both sides of the House to talk about a serious
problem. I am hopeful it will eventually result in those now in the
underground economy returning to the legitimate economy. I am
confident that we are making the right progress in dealing with the
problem.
15320
(1755)
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a few
comments on Motion No. 382 sponsored by the member for
Mississauga South.
Let me say from the outset that I have spoken with a number of
people who run businesses in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex
about the underground economy. Those who respect the law and
pay their taxes do not appreciate having to pay higher taxes simply
because others are trying to cheat the system.
Entrepreneurs and small business people who are trying very
hard to make a living do not like being at a competitive
disadvantage of businesses and tradespeople who ask for cash
payment to avoid paying taxes. My constituents also worry over
how lost revenue is affecting the government's ability to maintain
Canada's social and economic programs which are so important to
our well-being.
The issue that is the focus of this motion is of major importance
to all Canadians right across the country. The greater the activity in
the underground economy, the less revenue there is available to
government. Underground economic activity creates unfair
competition for honest businesses. Jobs are lost and honest
taxpayers are forced to pay more than their fair share of taxes.
There has been a great deal written about the size, extent, nature
and causes of the underground economy. As members are probably
aware, estimates on the size of the underground economy vary
widely depending upon the methodology used, anywhere from 2.5
per cent to 3 per cent of GDP to over 20 per cent, or from $20
billion to $140 billion a year. Regardless of its size, there is no
disputing the fact that the underground economy exists and its
corrosive efforts are exacting a huge toll on Canadian society.
Why then do people make the decision to go underground? There
are many reasons. However, I would submit that none of these
reasons is legitimate. There is the myth that everyone is doing it, so
I may as well. There is the perception of the GST as an unfair tax
which enables someone to rationalize their behaviour as
acceptable. Others perceive the tax system as too complex and
cumbersome to even bother with it. Then there are those who feel
that it is easy to get away with it, so why not take the chance?
We have to also acknowledge a widespread disrespect for
government and politicians and the accompanying perception that
government is wasting the money it takes in from Canadians and
that they are getting poor value for their tax dollars.
While none of these reasons can justify not paying one's fair
share of taxes, the fact remains that an unfortunate snowballing
effect is created once the decision is made to go underground.
There is the fear that once one has gone underground, it is too
difficult to come out.
There is the perception that if people have gone underground
long enough, they might not be able to come out even if they
wanted to because there would be no possibility to pay the taxes, let
alone the interest and penalties, simply because there would be no
paper trail made up of bills, invoices and so on. Faced with this set
of circumstances, those who would like to reform their bad habits
perceive it cannot be done. They are somehow stuck.
One of the most attractive aspects of Motion No. 382 is the
provision for a limited amnesty on interest and penalties otherwise
payable when a taxpayer voluntarily declares income previously
undeclared. The inducement to go straight would allow the
previously delinquent taxpayers to voluntarily come forward
without penalty for a limited time and start paying his or her fair
share of taxes once again.
Another component of the motion is a proposed tax credit to
taxpayers on home improvements and renovations. This would
provide an inducement to create an essential paper trail and to serve
as one of the primary vehicles for a country wide information
campaign.
The motion before the House demonstrates a desire on the part of
the member for Mississauga South to get Canadians talking about
the negative consequences of the underground economy and to
hopefully find ways to encourage as many people as possible to
return to the legitimate economy.
There must be a public campaign which emphasizes that tax
evasion is a crime and that it is certainly not a victimless crime as is
often argued. All Canadians are victims, because tax evasion leads
to job loss, increase in the deficit, honest taxpayers carrying more
of the burden, and legitimate businesses operating in an
environment of unfair competition, sometimes leading to their
bankruptcy.
(1800)
I believe the co-existence of the amnesty program and the tax
credit for home renovations with more traditional public awareness
campaigns would serve to educate Canadians on the facts of the
seriousness of the existence of the underground economy and how
they can help to eliminate it. I also believe there will be a change in
the attitude of Canadians toward paying their fair share of taxes if
they can be convinced that government is upholding its
responsibility in enforcing the law in a tough but fair fashion.
To his credit, the Minister of National Revenue, through a series
of thoughtful initiatives over the past year and a half, has been
successful in recovering over $800 million in unpaid taxes. But the
department has done more than just collect unpaid taxes. Through
15321
consultation with over 240 groups and associations, the
department has learned how to refine its strategies, identify areas
of non-compliance, and explore measures for improving
compliance. For example, the government's recent budget
announcement of a measure to address the problem of the
underground economy in the construction industry is a direct result
of its consultation efforts.
The department has increased its publicity of convictions for tax
evasion. As a result, there has been a doubling of the number of
voluntary disclosures. The department now receives about 19,000
referrals a year from Canadians who are tired of some of their
neighbours and friends not paying their fair share of taxes.
The motion before the House demonstrates a desire on the part of
members to get Canadians talking about the negative consequences
of the underground economy and hopefully find ways of
encouraging as many people as possible to return to the legitimate
workplace within the mainstream economy.
I would like to take this opportunity to fully endorse the motion
brought forward by the member for Mississauga South and I would
encourage all members of the House to do likewise.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this private
member's bill by the member for Mississauga South. I hope his
constituents will appreciate the hard work he has put into this. I
know of his deep concern. Members of Parliament have all heard
this concern from our constituents. Perhaps there is no concern that
hits as close to the heart of every citizen in the country as what is
taking place in the underground economy. I applaud the hon.
member for trying to address the problem.
The underground economy is costing the Canadian economy
upwards of $90 billion every year. The underground economy is a
clear response from the taxpayers that they are angry and fearful.
They are angry because they see more and more of their pay
cheques being eroded and they receive less and less money to
provide for their needs. It is becoming increasingly difficult to
survive in this country. Perhaps the single most important reason
for this is because of our tax structure. I will look at the reasons a
little later.
The high taxes have also damaged our ability to compete
internationally. For a country such as ours, which relies on our
export potential to maintain our standard of living, there is perhaps
no other factor within our economy that is so damaging to the
ability for us to do that. We worked so hard to get agreements on
the NAFTA and the free trade agreement, but we have
unfortunately hamstrung the ability of businesses in the country to
compete internationally. The single most important reason we
cannot do it is because of the tax structure. We have seen many
business go under. When I go back to my home in Toronto, I see
many businesses that have been passed down from generation to
generation that have gone bankrupt. The reason is partly because of
the tax structure.
(1805 )
We see many businesses that flock south. People hold up the free
trade agreement as a reason that is so, our inability to compete. The
real reason most companies have actually fled south is because of
the high tax structure, which strangles the ability of Canadian
companies to compete internationally. We have one of the highest
tax structures in the world.
Yesterday we saw that the IMF has actually downgraded our
ability to get money from the IMF. The reason is because our
ability to get our debt and deficit down is not good enough. The
high taxes that we have are the result of the high debt and deficit
that we have in this country, nothing else. It has been a
consequence of course of the high spending that Canadians have
endured for years and years, overspending by successive
governments. This has combined with an extremely complex tax
structure and high administration costs to create the terrible tax
structure we have today. The result of that has been the
underground economy, which is costing us $90 billion or more a
year. That is why the hon. member for Mississauga South has put
forth these endeavours.
I will just talk for a moment on what I agree with and what I
disagree with. Part C of the hon. member's bill, which would
provide a tax credit for individuals who wish to hire other
individuals in their homes to do work, is a very good one. It will
provide transparency in a system that is currently opaque. A good
member from my community in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Mrs.
Shirley Wilde, put forth a similar idea. We have presented this to
the Minister of National Revenue. I look forward to a response
from him in the near future. I hope this is something we can work
together on in this House.
I disagree with part A of his bill, the information campaign, for
the simple reason that it will entail costs and expenses for the
government and in fact will add to the tax burden of Canadians.
I would suggest that the government look at new ways to get our
spending under control, to get the deficit down to zero, and to
attack the true ogre in this equation, which is the debt. We
presented our zero in three deficit reduction plan, which I hope the
government will look at, because there are very sensitive but very
concrete ways in which we can get our spending down so that it
will not hurt the people in our country, in particular those who are
most dispossessed, which is something we share a common interest
in.
Second, we have to get the GST down and simplify it. When we
go out to the business community, no other single complaint so irks
them as the GST, a system that is unfathomable, entirely complex,
15322
and whose administration costs chew up over one-third of the
moneys that are generated.
Third, we have to decrease taxes overall. Back in 1992 the
government of the day did decrease taxes. Interestingly enough, it
found that its revenues increased. What did it do? It began taxing
wildly. This wild taxing spree, instead of increasing government
revenues, actually decreased them. There is a lesson in there for
any government: decrease the taxes and the public will become
more honest in their representations and will spend more. In fact,
there will be a stimulation to the economy.
Fourth, I would ask the government and the Minister of Finance
and Minister of National Revenue to look at the flat tax that has
been proposed by our party. The flat tax will provide equanimity to
all Canadians.
One of the things that make Canadians extremely furious is they
feel that the more they work the less they have to take home; the
harder they work, the more they give to the government. Little
erodes the soil of the Canadian economy or any economy more
than if a worker feels that if they work harder they are going to take
home less. We have to institute the incentive factor back into the
soul of the Canadian economy. Right now it is dead. Canadian
workers wonder why they should work harder when they are giving
more and more tax money to the government and less and less
money is left for them to spend.
(1810 )
I would ask that we provide the Canadian people with increased
earning power, with an increased ability to keep more money at
home. The only we way can decrease the extent of the underground
economy is to get spending by the Canadian government under
control. Canadians are fed up with the overspending. We must do
this not only for the future of the people in this House and our
families but for future generations.
I appreciate the hon. member's introduction of this private
member's bill. I hope we can look at part C of that bill to discover
new ways to increase transparency in the economy we have now so
we can decrease the extent of the present underground economy so
there will be more money in the public coffers and fairness and
greater equanimity among the tax structures we have.
We are working on this together. I hope we can come together to
develop a tax structure that is fairer to all Canadians, a tax structure
that provides the government with the ability to get its spending
under control while providing more money for Canadians to spend.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to first congratulate the member for Mississauga
South on Motion No. 382, which addresses the ongoing problem of
the underground economy. The motion demonstrates his interest in
the problem. It encourages debate on something that really has
bedevilled the government in our attack on both the deficit and our
desire to pursue and maintain our social programs, because the
collection of revenues is impeded.
I hope this debate allows Canadians to focus as well on the
problem and to reflect on the difficulties created by the
underground economy. In my constituency of Windsor-St. Clair I
hear regularly from constituents who understand the problem and
who resent their neighbours who operate within the underground
economy.
Cash business transactions, cheap smuggled beverage alcohol,
under the table employment, and other practices of this type
shortchange all of us. When we do this we do not remit taxes. The
taxes themselves would help to maintain our health plans, our
roads, our universities, our social programs. When we do this we
help to create unfair competition for honest businesses who do
remit taxes. When our neighbours do it, they help ratchet up our
own tax bills.
This motion calls on the government to consider establishing
initiatives to address the underground economy that exists in
Canada today. A great deal has been written about this
phenomenon: its size, the social and economic costs, the reasons
people abandon the legitimate economy in favour of under the table
transactions, and suggestions for dealing with the problem.
The issue is of concern to me and it should be of concern to all
Canadians because the underground economy has significant
implications for all of us. The greater the activity in the
underground economy, as I said earlier, the less revenue available
to governments. The creation of unfair competition for honest
businesses has driven some small new businesses, marginal
businesses, out of operation. This results in lost jobs and in us
paying more taxes.
I agree with the hon. member for Mississauga South that
Canadians must act on the problem of the underground economy. I
say all Canadians because the responsibility for dealing with the
issue does not rest entirely on the shoulders of the government. We
all have a responsibility and a role to play. Public confidence in
Canada's tax system depends on all of us paying our fair share and
having the confidence that our neighbours are doing so as well.
Individuals and businesses involved in underground economic
activity are not playing by the rules. Governments cannot afford to
allow the practice to go unchallenged. People have to know there is
fairness in the tax system. They have to know that honest
businesses have a level playing field and that people who try to
cheat are going to be dealt with appropriately.
Public confidence depends on effective government measures as
well. It is for this reason that our government has introduced
measures to address the underground economy and other forms of
non-compliance. Revenue Canada has put in place a compliance
strategy that supports self-assessment and voluntary compliance
through assistance, education, services, and responsible enforce-
15323
ment. It seeks to ensure that revenues legitimately owed to the
government are collected. The strategy is comprehensive, covering
the entire portfolio of Revenue Canada and all dimensions of
revenue administration. It is also dynamic because it is sensitive to
modern business practices and the changing forces at play in both
the national and local economies.
(1815)
It is a targeted program which makes use of modern
technologies, compliance research and a cross-matching of
information from Revenue Canada's extensive databases, other
federal departments and provincial revenue administrations.
The department's approach also recognizes there are many
different kinds of taxpayers, individuals, corporations, salaried
employees and others.
The department has launched special projects as well to address
areas of systemic concern, as in the case with its underground
economy initiative announced by the minister of revenue in
November of 1993. The department has established special audit
teams to focus on construction, home renovation, jewellery,
hospitality, auto sales, repairs and other service sectors which are
areas of high non-compliance. Under this initiative we have put
agreements into place with all of the provinces to co-ordinate
actions and to ensure progress.
The government's underground economy initiative also involves
working closely with business, unions, industry and professional
groups to identify ways to further strengthen Revenue Canada's
enforcement efforts and to encourage voluntary compliance.
During the last year departmental officials consulted extensively
with more than 240 groups. They know that tax evasion cheats
honest workers out of steady, secure employment and compromises
the ability of governments to provide service. They want to help.
Specifically I will address that part of the motion which suggests
some relief or limited forgiveness on interest and other penalties
which would be payable when a taxpayer voluntarily declares
previously undeclared income. This section of the motion calls for
an amnesty. The suggestion is an interesting one in terms of how it
might facilitate the return of individuals and businesses from the
underground economy to the legitimate economy. In no way,
however, should it be possible for taxpayers to get away with not
paying the taxes they owe. There is merit to the thrust behind the
suggestion but I think there are some problems with it as it is
framed here.
Opportunities already exist for Canadians who may have
deficiencies in their tax reporting to come forward and get a clean
bill of health from Revenue Canada. The preferred approach to
non-compliance is voluntary disclosure. The department has a
voluntary disclosure policy which I as a lawyer in my previous life
was able to use to assist clients who had been following business
and personal tax practices which did not comply with the law.
This policy allows individuals, partnerships, corporations, trusts,
non-profit organizations, charitable and other organizations to
come forward to correct deficiencies in their reporting to the
department. When a disclosure is made voluntarily before the
department has started its audit or other enforcement action, then
no penalties or other sanctions such as prosecution for tax evasion
will be imposed. The taxpayer will have to pay the amount of taxes
or duty owing plus interest. This is a fair policy. It is a form of
amnesty which has been available for some time.
I do not agree, however, that interest should be set aside. The
interest owed reflects the true value of the money. It also
recognizes the fact that those who have not paid their taxes on time
have had the use of these funds, which essentially they were
holding in trust for the government.
Revenue Canada under its voluntary disclosure policy takes a
responsible approach to collections. Arrangements can be worked
out so that the taxes owing to the government are paid in a manner
which does not cause undue hardship for the taxpayers. This aspect
is particularly important to those individuals or businesses
operating in the underground economy for some time that feel they
would face onerous penalties if they were to come clean and
operate honestly.
A person can make a voluntary disclosure by contacting a
Revenue Canada office directly or by having someone do it on their
behalf, such as an accountant, a lawyer or a friend who wants to
assist. A disclosure will be considered voluntary so long as it is
made before Revenue Canada has basically started its audit or any
other enforcement action.
(1820)
As a result of co-operative agreements Revenue Canada has with
the provinces, we are working toward developing a co-ordinated
voluntary disclosure policy with all of the provinces. It is our view
that a consistent policy among the federal and provincial
governments with respect to disclosure will make it easier for
taxpayers who have decided to rejoin the legitimate economy.
I believe we need to be careful about tax amnesties. When tried
in the past, more extensive tax amnesties than what are available
under the voluntary disclosure program, they have had only limited
effect. They may actually create more non-compliance. This
happens because people believe that once an amnesty is in place
others will follow and so they can wait and delay co-operation. The
result is less compliance, not more.
15324
People also believe that when there is an amnesty policy in
place that will forgive interest it becomes their right to avoid
paying interest on taxes.
A great deal has been accomplished since the Minister of
National Revenue introduced his action plan for addressing the
underground economy. The initiative has resulted in more than
$860 million in additional taxes assessed. Revenue Canada's
ability to identify non-filers and non-registrants has been
strengthened. The department has put co-operation agreements in
place with all of the provinces and is working in partnership with
private sector groups.
It is clear Canadians are concerned about the underground
economy and that Canadians are willing to work together to find
solutions. I thank the member again for this motion. I congratulate
him on it because it demonstrates a desire on his part and on the
part of his constituents to get Canadians talking about the negative
consequences of the underground economy and to find ways of
encouraging as many people as possible to return to the legitimate
economy.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will make a few comments in support of Motion No.
382, sponsored by the member for Mississauga South.
We as as government are asking people to make significant
sacrifices in the name of deficit reduction. I believe most
Canadians understand the seriousness of the situation and are
prepared to make these sacrifices.
While they may grumble about taxation, Canadians in general
are quite prepared to contribute a fair portion of their income in
return for the services they want. They have made it very clear the
services they want include medical care, solid infrastructure and
transportation systems, safe communities and income security for
all Canadians.
However, I also believe they are fed up with seeing their hard
earned money wasted over the years in ways they never counted on.
They want us to spend their money the same way they spend it,
carefully, thoughtfully, with due consideration of what it took to
earn the money in the first place. That expectation is fair because
after all it is their money.
The public is watching us very closely. When it hears of lavish
spending or wasted funds at any level of government, federal,
provincial or municipal, its confidence in all governments is
eroded.
We as a government recognized this right from the start and have
taken many steps to ensure that taxpayers get their money's worth.
This is extremely important and I urge all members to keep up their
vigilance in this area.
When people see government as a black hole, sucking their
money in and giving nothing back, they tend to wonder why they
should pay tax on that kitchen renovation or that load of gravel.
(1825 )
For many individuals and businesses participating in the
underground economy it has become a convenient way not only to
avoid paying taxes but to take some small action against what they
see as governments they do not trust placing unfair burdens on
them.
They may feel their financial situation justifies their actions. It
may be several years since their last pay raise or even their last
regular pay cheque. They may have lost their previous job because
of government cutbacks or downsizing. They may feel the tax
system is too complex or unfair.
Whatever the reason, it is of paramount importance they come to
understand the damage they are doing to the economy of the
country and ultimately to themselves. Estimates on the size of the
underground economy vary widely depending on the methodology
used from $20 billion to $140 billion a year.
Even if one were to assume the lower figure is more correct, that
is still $20 billion not available to governments to provide
necessary services for their taxpayers.
Underground economic activity creates unfair competition for
honest businesses, jobs are lost and honest taxpayers are forced to
pay more than their fair share of taxes, and once again they feel
cheated. It is a vicious cycle and people must understand the
underground economy makes victims of us all.
We in the House as well as all Canadians must consider the real
cost of underground economic activity. This cost is huge. It shows
up in reduced essential services, taxes that are higher than they
would otherwise be, unfair competition and a reduced standard of
living for the honest taxpayer.
How does the underground economy affect the legitimate
business person trying to be competitive? Right from the start
honest business people are at a competitive disadvantage because
they cannot offer a customer the same deal offered by someone
who will do the work but not collect the taxes. The end result is that
the legitimate business person faces unfair competition and jobs
are lost.
The consumer who takes the lower price and pays cash must
understand that he or she is cheating the system and becoming
party to the evasion of taxes. They must come to understand they
are benefiting from the full range of government services but that
by engaging in the underground economy they are no longer paying
their fair share. They are taking part in a transaction that
15325
jeopardizes our health, education and other essential economic and
social services.
The motion before the House suggests the government educate
the public and encourage its participation in addressing the
problem. I support the suggestion wholeheartedly. Canadians need
to know the facts about the seriousness of the underground
economy and what can be done to reduce it.
The government has recognized this essential truth and has made
education a fundamental element of its action plan to address the
underground economy.
During the past year officials of Revenue Canada have been
actively consulting with individuals and associations across
Canada.
With the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, for
example, the department established a working committee to
investigate the causes of the underground economy, examine audit
techniques and identify training that would assist in tracking down
unreported or under reported income and identify opportunities for
reducing the cost and administrative burden of compliance for
businesses and individuals.
These groups are taking the message of the risks of dealing in the
underground economy back to their membership. The message is
simple: Every citizen and every business has a role to play in
eliminating the underground economy. Individuals can start by
refusing to deal with businesses and tradespeople who ask for cash
payments. Businesses can do their part by turning down demands
to do work off the books.
(1830)
The increased publicity given this problem by the minister of
National Revenue is having an effect. The number of voluntary
disclosures where people come forward to voluntarily correct their
tax affairs has doubled in the past year. The member's suggestion
that a limited amnesty on interest and penalties be offered to
taxpayers who voluntarily declare income previously undeclared is
a good one and will result in even more honest Canadians coming
forward.
I am confident that we are making progress in dealing with the
underground economy and other forms of tax evasion. I applaud the
member for Mississauga South for his efforts to stimulate
discussion on the issue. I urge members of the House to carry the
message back to their constituents.
We in government have recognized that we must take positive
action to restore respect, trust and confidence in government and
we are doing our part. I urge members to talk to their constituents
about the underground economy, its seriousness and how it can be
reduced. I urge Canadians to do their part to discourage this
harmful activity.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This brings to a conclusion
the debate on Private Members' Motion No. M-382.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Motion carried on division.
Motion agreed to.
_____________________________________________
15325
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to go back
to an answer I deem unsatisfactory which the Minister of Human
Resources Development gave to a two-part question on
unemployment insurance and training I put to him during question
period on September 28.
In his reply, the Minister of Human Resources Development
made a comment which I would describe as somewhat improper in
that he responded, not accepting my position with respect to
training, that:
-there is something the matter with the hon. member. I have a letter he wrote
me asking for my support in a youth project sponsored by the federal
government in his riding. I am very pleased to say I would certainly like to give
him the assurance of supporting that project if he can give me the assurance of
supporting the no vote on October 30.
Mr. Crête: Unacceptable.
Mr. Dubé: As my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup
suggests, totally unacceptable because this shows a contempt for
democracy.
Yet the Minister of Human Resources Development is an
experienced parliamentarian. A parliamentarian who has been in
opposition for at least nine years. For nine years, and I have read
and reread many of his speeches, he has been severely critical of
the accomplishments of the Conservative government, as it was his
role to do. I find no fault with that. When he was in the opposition,
it was his role to criticize government programs.
In this case, he refers to one letter, yet the next day the
parliamentary secretary indicated to me that there was a second
letter on two projects. As for the projects in question, there was a
project sponsored by Ateliers Jeunesse in my riding, a project
15326
called JET created to set up a part time job bank for high school
students. It had nothing whatsoever to do with training.
(1835)
The next day, the parliamentary secretary, substituting for the
minister, mentioned another project connected with Youth Service
Canada. Sure, I criticized Youth Service Canada, but this was for an
incubator program. My complaints about Youth Service Canada
were about the fact that the training components contradicted of
Quebec's policy on manpower training.
I was consistent in supporting the project submitted under this
program because there was no manpower training component. The
emphasis was more on an incubator program to help young people
create their own business.
I would have a lot more to say about this, but since there is so
little time, I would say it is a matter of principle. As I see it, this is
blackmail, an attack on our democratic system.
I was elected by the people of my riding to represent them. That
was my purpose when I sent projects to the minister for his
approval. Now he asks me to support the No side, and if I do, he
will approve this project. That is unacceptable.
If it were an isolated incident, I would say it was just a slip of the
tongue. In that case, the minister should have said: ``Listen, I spoke
without thinking. That is not what I meant''. But the next day he
was not in the House, and he let his parliamentary secretary answer
instead, who proceeded to criticize my criticism of this program.
I think that is unacceptable, especially in the present
circumstances when comments of this kind keep cropping up. For
instance, in a secret document prepared by Industry Canada,
companies were listed according to their political allegiance, to see
whether the project should be funded.
I think that is unacceptable. I am making this speech today
within the precincts of the House of Commons, where we meet as
democratically elected representatives. I invoke the right we have
in this House to demand that this be rectified, that members
opposite on the government side stop their blackmail, because we
will not tolerate this.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. It seems
no one will bother to respond. Very democratic indeed.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I
would like to point out that the Minister of Human Resources
Development was rather surprised at the support shown by the hon.
member for Lévis for a Youth Service Canada project in his riding.
This was the same member who had previously said Youth
Service Canada was an invasion of provincial jurisdiction. It is
therefore difficult to account for the enthusiastic support shown by
the hon. member, considering his opinion of federal initiatives.
Nevertheless, as the Secretary of State for Training and Youth
pointed out to the hon. member in a letter dated September 5, 1995,
the proposal is still quite interesting, but we need a few details.
The promoter, Alliance-Jeunesse, was asked to revise its
proposal, and the Youth Service Canada secretariat offered to send
one of its representatives to provide assistance. As soon as we
receive the proposal, I can assure the hon. member it will be
processed immediately.
Meanwhile, I think the hon. member will be pleased to hear that
the minister has already provided a great deal in the way of
employment assistance in his riding. In fact, according to the latest
figures, those available for 1994-95, assistance for residents in the
riding of Lévis totalled $7.7 million. That is a very substantial
amount.
This would seem to argue against the assumption of the hon.
member that the minister allocates funding on the basis of the way
the member for the riding voted or intends to vote.
Clearly the hon. member's allegation has no basis in fact.
(1840)
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today in
question period I asked a question about the share of spinoffs from
Canadian international development aid that goes to Quebec. From
what I have heard over the past few weeks in question period from
Bloc Quebecois members, it seems they cannot decide whether or
not they want the federal government to spend money in Quebec.
The Bloc claims that Quebec would be better off outside Canada
in a separate country. However the facts and even the reports put
out by the Parti Quebecois government in Quebec show that is not
true. They show that Quebec is much better off inside Canada than
it would be as a separate country.
One example of those kinds of facts is the case of international
development aid.
[Translation]
For the year 1992-93, the last year for which provincial
comparisons were made, nearly 30 per cent of IDA supplies came
from Quebec. One third-which means 33.4 per cent-of
registered consultants are from Quebec. More than one
third-which means 36.3 per cent-of the contracts go to Quebec.
The value of these
15327
contracts-a little less than $100 million-represents about one
third or 33.1 per cent of the national total.
[English]
It is very clear that with approximately 25 per cent or a little less
of the population of Canada or about one-third of these contracts in
relation to international aid, Quebec does very well under the
CIDA programs and under programs relating to international aid.
On the other hand, in the past at least, Atlantic Canada has done
so well. Atlantic Canada in recent years has received less than its
share of international development aid spinoffs. We are seeking
improvements in that regard.
I had the pleasure of serving on the foreign affairs committee
until recently when I was moved to the justice committee. Last
spring we had the president of the Canadian International
Development Agency before our committee on the estimates. I had
the opportunity to question her about a number of things. One of
the matters I asked her about was the share of development aid
contracts and spinoffs going to the Atlantic region. She agreed that
there needed to be work done to improve that number. She
recognizes or should recognize that Atlantic Canadian companies
can perform as well as anyone else. I think we showed during the
Halifax G-7 meeting that Atlantic Canadians can do things as well
as anyone in the rest of the country and in fact the rest of the world.
I am looking forward to seeing the results of this year. I am
hoping to see considerable improvements in regard to the level of
the share of CIDA contracts going to Atlantic Canada.
Atlantic Canada has other complaints in other areas where we
feel we do not necessarily always get our share. However we
believe very strongly in the country. I think the majority of
Quebecers believe strongly in the country; they believe strongly in
Canada. Like the majority of Quebecers, we believe we can
continue to work together to work out our problems. We can
continue to improve and build Canada, the best country in the
world.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all of
Canada's regions, without exception, benefit from the spinoffs of
the official development assistance budget. The Government of
Canada is not shy about drawing on the know-how of Canadians,
who have both the necessary skills and the desire to contribute to
the growth of a developing country.
Quebec has a wealth of such skills. It has always been committed
to helping the most disadvantaged peoples. The Government of
Canada is fully aware of this and regularly draws on this
knowledge and goodwill in carrying out its assistance program.
This is how a number of Quebec companies have obtained
contracts from the Canadian government enabling them to export
their know-how. Permit me to name a few whose contribution is
well known. They include the Société Vitronov of Montreal, which
this year won the award of excellence from the Canadian
Exporters' Association for an innovative project in biotechnology
in Morocco. Other companies include SR Télécom, ADS Associés,
Tecsult, to mention but a few.
The fact is that Quebec receives much of the spinoffs of
Canadian ODA. Nearly 30 per cent of ODA procurement is done in
Quebec. More than a third, 36.3 per cent, of contracts are
concluded in Quebec.
Of the 45,000 jobs created in Canada by official development
assistance, over 12,000 are in ``la belle province''.
Like other Canadians, Quebecers are opening up more and more
to the world. They understand, as the century draws to a close, that
the planetary stakes are so high we must pool our resources and
strengthen existing partnerships.
The ODA program tries to resolve problems that present a real
threat to security, both in Canada and in the rest of the world. The
Government of Canada intends to continue to draw on Quebec
know-how in helping to make the world a richer and a fairer place.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)