CONTENTS
Wednesday, December 13, 1995
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 17623
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 17626
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 17626
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17627
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17627
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17627
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17628
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17628
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17628
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17628
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17629
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17629
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17629
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17629
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17629
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17630
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17630
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17630
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 17632
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 17632
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 17632
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 17632
Bill C-364. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 17635
Bill C-365. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 17635
Motion for concurrence in 109th report 17636
(Motion agreed to.) 17636
Motion for concurrence in 110th report 17636
(Motion agreed to.) 17636
Motion moved and agreed to 17636
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 17637
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 17638
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 17638
Bill C-110. Motion for third reading 17638
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 17650
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 150; Nays, 101 17651
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 17652
Bill C-108. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 17652
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 207; Nays, 47. 17652
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 17653
Bill C-315. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 17653
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 111; Nays 122 17653
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17656
17623
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, December 13, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our custom, we will now sing O Canada,
which will be led by the member for Halton-Peel.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to pay
tribute to Mr. Dwight McMillan, longtime coach of the Weyburn
Redwings.
For 35 years, Mr. McMillan has brought the community of
Weyburn, Saskatchewan a great deal of national honour and
recognition in the sports arena. Both in hockey and in baseball, his
contributions have brought him two national titles and he has
participated in other national finals on several occasions.
As both a player on the original Redwings hockey team and later
as the most successful coach in the history of the team, Mr.
McMillan has shown all of Canada the expertise and fine character
of Weyburn's sporting teams.
Congratulations to Mr. McMillan as he is honoured by the city of
Weyburn on December 29.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Tuesday, December 12, 1995 will go down in history as a
day of achievement and hope in the fight against AIDS.
Yesterday, Health Canada's Drugs Directorate approved, as part
of a priority review process, the use of 3TC with Retrovir in the
treatment of AIDS infections.
3TC was discovered by Biochem Pharma in Montreal and
developed by Glaxo Wellcome. This is a Quebec achievement of
which the whole scientific community can be proud.
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Biochem Pharma for its
research efforts of the past few years. They have not been in vain. I
hope that this breakthrough will open the door to other discoveries
that will not only significantly improve the quality of life of people
with AIDS but also cure them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week the chair of the Reform family caucus tabled a
dissenting opinion to the national AIDS strategy report. She says
that the Liberal government's education and prevention programs
actually increase the health risk of Canadian youth by promoting
sexual activity.
Research conducted in the United States by the U.S. naval
research laboratory revealed that the HIV virus is 60 times smaller
than a syphilis bacterium and 450 times smaller than a human
sperm.
Analysing test results conducted by the U.S. Centre for Disease
Control, which tested leakage rates of latex condoms, doctors have
discovered a 78 per cent HIV leakage rate. As one U.S. surgeon put
it, the HIV virus can go through a condom like a bullet through a
tennis net.
It is the height of stupidity for the government to be spending
millions of dollars to spread the lie that condoms protect Canadians
from contracting AIDS. Its politically correct approach is actually
aiding and abetting the spread of this deadly disease.
* * *
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I
would like to draw the attention of the House to the journey of a
young man from Toronto, only 12 years of age, Craig Kielberger,
who left this week for the Far East to visit India, Pakistan, Thailand
and other countries that use child labour.
17624
Very often countries in the western world are appalled at human
rights violations and the denial of political freedom in these
backward countries.
Labour standards, and especially the abuse of young children in
nearly slave-like conditions must be of serious concern for all
Canadians. As a trading nation, and as consumers of products
manufactured under uncivilized conditions, we must somewhere
draw a line in the sand against those who profit from such
practices.
Today, let us salute Craig in his crusade, Free the Children
Campaign. Hopefully all of us can join with him in his venture.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian soldiers who served in Burma and elsewhere in Southeast
Asia in World War II have had to accept the fact that most of these
conflicts have been forgotten in the annals of our war effort.
While other battles made headlines, the fighting in Burma and
Malaysia went almost unnoticed. This, however, does not take
anything away from the heroism of the Canadians who served in
those countries. Our soldiers were brave and courageous. They had
to face not only the enemy but also scourges such as malaria,
dysentery and many other tropical diseases.
(1405 )
[English]
It is with great pride that I note the exploits of these brave young
Canadians which are now being commemorated in ceremonies
across Asia. Their heroism is an inspiration, as is their commitment
and faith in Canada. They served in the hope that when they return
they would be granted the liberties that other Canadians enjoyed.
Fifty years later, we know that their hopes were not misplaced.
Those young Canadians contributed not only to our freedom, but to
our dignity as a nation.
In a country that prides itself on equality and tolerance, there can
be no better loyalty than that-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa West.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow members of Parliament will leave this House and return
home to celebrate the season that has become around the world the
symbol of peace on earth. Yet one of our NATO partners continues
to plan and execute the obscenity of testing nuclear weapons.
In 1982, the award winning film called ``If You Love This
Planet'' shocked the world by revealing that there were already
enough nuclear weapons to destroy us all 14 times over.
This Parliament and this government face some difficult
questions. Should this country be selling uranium to countries that
produce and unleash nuclear weapons on the world? Should it be
allowing the planes of countries doing these things to land and use
our country on the way to their missions?
Seven years after the end of the cold war, the doomsday clock is
in danger of again being moved forward. I ask us all to take this
season of peace to consider what we can do in this House to make
sure that the doomsday clock does not take that disastrous leap.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
she tabled her master plan to reduce tobacco use in Canada, the
Minister of Health indicated that broad consultations would be
taking place with a view to introducing legislation in the spring.
Unfortunately, before tabling her plan, the minister did not see
fit to initiate serious consultations with the tobacco industry on her
government's plans to severely regulate its activities.
First of all, the minister would not discuss the code of ethics to
be adopted by the manufacturers or the thrust of her master plan.
She missed a great opportunity to make her intentions perfectly
clear to the industry, thus avoiding another court challenge on her
upcoming legislation. If that were to happen, Canada would once
more find itself without a strategy to reduce tobacco use.
In the meantime, following the Supreme Court's decision, the
tobacco industry would resume actively promoting its products
through advertising. What a mess.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker,
T'was the year before Christmas, when all through the land,
The Liberals were shivering, their heads in the sand.
Their pockets were hung by the chimney with care,
In hope that St. Martin would not leave them bare.
The backbenchers all ready to jump into bed,
While visions of gold-plated pensions danced in their heads.
But out on the Hill there arose such a clatter,
The Reformers had arrived to deal with this matter.
17625
The Liberals threw open their red book in a flash,
We promise to hand out plenty more cash.
But what to their wondering eyes should appear,
Defeat in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario so clear.
But lo and behold, Canadians will see,
More broken promises from these Liberals MPs.
Reform is the party that will bring to this land,
Hope for the future-one that is planned.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good flight.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the closing of Radio Canada International was
announced in Montreal.
This means an end to the Canadian Forces Network, which
brought Canadian programming to our peacekeepers around the
world. It means an end to the English and French language
shortwave services which kept Canadians travelling, working or
living overseas in touch with Canada.
[Translation]
The end of shortwave broadcasts in eight languages, which are
the voice of Canada around the world, will have an even more
devastating effect.
In 1995, the foreign policy review conducted by the government
concluded that RCI was in a perfect position to promote Canadian
values abroad.
The Business Council on National Issues itself pointed out that
the station was creating a demand for Canadian goods and services.
[English]
The Broadcasting Act requires the CBC to provide an
international service. I call on the Liberals to reverse this shameful
decision and ensure continued support for Radio Canada
International. Canada must not be the only G-7 nation-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lincoln.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on November 28
I had the pleasure of hosting another workshop, this one a
pre-budget consultation in my riding of Lincoln. Many constituents
felt that the government had taken decisive action in prior budgets
but we need to stay the course. However, the reduction in
government spending must not be done in the slash and burn
fashion of Mike Harris.
Three major themes were developed and discussed:
unemployment and job creation, concerns of small business, and
debt and deficit. I am pleased to state that progress has occurred in
all three areas.
The Minister of Human Resources Development introduced
employment insurance programs. The Minister of Industry's Bill
C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, will continue
to provide access to debt capital for small businesses that need it to
expand and to create jobs.
Last week the Minister of Finance stated that the deficit for the
1997-98 fiscal year will be brought down to 2 per cent of GDP. The
goal is to eliminate the deficit based on a measured and responsible
strategy.
I would like to thank my constituents for participating in the
workshop. It is through this type of forum that constituents views
will be heard.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
Mr. Speaker, an historic vote was held in the Arctic. A plebiscite
was held on Monday when residents chose Iqaluit as the capital of
the new territory. Sixty per cent of Nunavut voters chose Iqaluit.
I congratulate Iqaluit. I congratulate as well the people in both
communities who worked so hard throughout the capital campaign.
I thank the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
for giving the people of Nunavut the opportunity to democratically
choose their future capital.
The people of Nunavut have spoken. I recommend Iqaluit highly
to the minister and the government as the people's choice. Let us
join our efforts now in our common goal of creating a new territory
in 1999 in which all communities will share.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the
past two years it has become clear that the Reform Party and the
Bloc Quebecois are flip sides of the same coin on the national unity
issue.
The Reform Party is at it again. The leader of the Reform Party is
now promoting American style impeachment rights. Canadians are
getting sick and tired of the Reform Party's shameless
self-promotion at the expense of Canada. The Gingrichs of the
north are more interested in scoring cheap political points than in
working together to solve the problems that face the country.
The Reform Party's idea of constitutional renewal and nation
building is a wrecking ball. History will judge it as such when the
party joins the ashes of the Social Credit movement from which it
evolved.
17626
The Reform Party should take a lesson from the over 150,000
Canadians who were at the Canada rally in Montreal on October
27 and get on side with nation building. Unless the Reform Party
changes its tune it will be up Beaver Creek without a paddle.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister had the nerve to say that the
French language survived in America thanks to Canada. Yet, the
rate of assimilation of French speaking British Columbians
exceeds 75 per cent, while that of French speaking Ontarians is
close to 40 per cent. French speaking Canadians outside Quebec
must constantly fight to keep control of their institutions. Their
rights are still violated in several parts of the country.
How, in all decency, can anyone claim that the survival of French
in America is due to anything other than the strong will of our
ancestors to perpetuate their culture? French survived in America
thanks to our parents, who fought so that their society could thrive
in French, despite the many injustices condoned by Canada
regarding the French language.
If I can address this House in French today, it is because of the
vitality of Quebec, which is the cradle of our language, our culture
and our identity.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Quebec Minister of Finance made an excellent
suggestion regarding social programs. She asked that the federal
government transfer tax points to the provinces, instead of money,
and give them greater autonomy regarding the management of
these programs.
The minister would like to change a system whereby Ottawa can
withdraw its financial assistance, while continuing to impose
federal standards. That proposal is already included in the 20 point
decentralization plan of the Reform Party, and several provinces
support such changes.
(1415)
The federal government should contemplate such a reform,
instead of wasting its time on symbolic measures such as
recognition of the distinct society. The irresponsible refusal of the
federal Minister of Finance does not mean that federalism cannot
be reformed and that Quebecers must separate. On the contrary,
Quebecers have allies all over the country, as regards this issue. It
is the Liberals that cannot be reformed.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let us take advantage of the momentum we have gained to present
Canadians with a rapid overview of the greatly changed Canada of
tomorrow. Let us do so in conjunction with all of the social,
economic and political strata of society, focussing on only one
goal: the public interest. The government has already shown its
colours in relation to recognition of Quebecers, and that is one
important step taken.
Members representing all parts of this country have just given
recognition to Quebec as a distinct society. Let us continue to focus
constructive efforts on entrenching that recognition in the
Constitution of our country when the time is right. It is more
important than ever for us to pool all of our talents, all of our
minds, but most importantly all of our hearts to make our country,
Canada, a country fashioned in the image of its peoples, into a
united yet diversified country, a country characterized by
generosity and equality of opportunity. Such a near-paradise is
close at hand.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Parti
Quebecois has decided not to bar membership to the president and
founder of the Mouvement de libération nationale du Québec. The
PQ leaders' lack of firmness in this respect points to a profound
malaise within the Quebec separatist movement.
How can there be any hope that the PQ, which is currently
involved in exorcising its own racism, will take any energetic
measures to distance itself from the racist and pro-violence views
of the MLNQ? The weak protestations of the PQ and the Bloc are
insufficient, to say the least, and do nothing to help reassure the
public about the intentions of Mr. Villeneuve and his group of
radicals. How could it be otherwise, when we know that some of
those who are soverignist members of Parliament today were
signatories in the past of a petition for the release of the ex FLQ
member in question?
_____________________________________________
17626
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in a speech he made in Verdun at the very end of the
referendum campaign, the Prime Minister made a formal
commitment to decentralize the federal system, in response to
Quebec's demands. Yesterday, his finance minister indicated this
commitment was doomed when he refused to so much as discuss a
proposal from his Quebec counterpart for replacing Ottawa's
17627
contribution for social programs with an equivalent transfer of tax
points to Quebec.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. How can he
reconcile his formal commitment to decentralize the federal system
with his finance minister's refusal to discuss even the principle of
the proposal made by the Government of Quebec to replace
Ottawa's present contribution to social programs financing with a
transfer of tax points?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, before I answer the question put by the Leader of the
Opposition, I would like to say that we are sorry to see him go. We
enjoyed the past two years during which he was Leader of the
Opposition. In politics, there is a certain amount of confrontation,
but there are also moments that we appreciate.
I wish him good luck, and if, as he said in his speech in Laval, he
intends to work hard to get the economy going and put public
finances on a sound footing, we will be there, ready to co-operate.
So I wish him good luck in that respect. If the other agenda
predominates, there will again be confrontation. As for the
question put by the Leader of the Opposition concerning tax points,
it is a matter of one type of transfer rather than another. The amount
is exactly the same.
(1420)
However, for the purposes of public administration and to ensure
that people know the money is transferred from the central
government to the provincial governments, I think the Minister of
Finance is right. People are aware of this in the case of a transfer
payment, as opposed to tax points. In the case of tax points, people
tend to forget. After a few years, they forget that no more funds are
transferred, but that the federal government has withdrawn and lets
the province collect taxes.
As a result, the central government's participation becomes
invisible. I think the Minister of Finance wants all citizens in every
province to know exactly what the federal government contributes
towards the cost of administering social programs.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I must say the leader of the government took some of the
wind out of my parliamentary sails.
In a word, I would like to tell him that I will leave this place,
respecting its members and the opinions of those members, even if
they do not coincide with ours, and with every respect for these
institutions as well as a sense of gratitude for the opportunity to
become more experienced in the ways of a truly exceptional
parliamentary democracy, the House of Commons of Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: I would like to ask the Prime Minister how he
can dismiss out of hand the proposal made by Mrs. Marois, which
in fact would respond to what Quebec has maintained since the
Victoria Conference in 1971, and I am referring to Quebec's
insistence on the need to control all the levers of its social
programs.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, whether transfer payments are made in the form of tax
points or cash, it boils down to the same thing.
As far as decentralization is concerned, we have made it clear
that we will withdraw from manpower training. However, we want
the money collected for that purpose to be used for our clients, in
other words, for people who across Canada contributed their share,
added to their employer's share, to give them some security if they
lose their jobs. This money is to be used for workers who have lost
their jobs.
As for decisions on the administration and nature of training
programs, that is under provincial jurisdiction. The provinces can
decide what kind of training they want to give, but we must be sure
the money transferred is used to train people who are unemployed,
because they paid their contribution to the federal government so
they would receive this service if they lost their job.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there is considerable confusion afoot, but if anyone knows
what is at stake here, the Prime Minister does.
In fact, it makes all the difference in the world to have tax points
that leave a government free to proceed as it wishes and will
increase in value with total tax revenues, as opposed to having
financial contributions which the federal government reduces at
will and controls by imposing national standards. It makes all the
difference in the world.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would not agree that
what we have here is an entirely odious strategy that consists in
making the Quebec government pay an increasingly larger share if
the cost of social programs, and meanwhile Ottawa collects more
and more taxes from Quebec.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we formed this government two years and some
months ago, the federal government's transfers for social programs
and equalization payments totalled more than $11 billion. Today, it
is even more and next year it will still be more than $11 billion.
There have been no cuts. Some payments may be down, but
equalization payments for the poorest provinces in Canada
inevitably increased during this period. In fact, there were no cuts
in transfers to the Government of Quebec or to other provinces that
17628
receive equalization payments according to the balancing system
that exists in this country.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the
Prime Minister's referendum commitments to decentralize the
federal apparatus, the Minister of Finance yesterday rejected out of
hand the request of the government of Quebec that it transfer the
tax resources the federal government invests in health, social
assistance and post-secondary education.
(1425)
Since he is reneging on his referendum commitments on
decentralization, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that his
government's hard-line approach to Quebec is a return to the tried
and tested recipe to slow his decline in popularity with English
Canada, which is to put Quebec in its place?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the recipe is a very old one. Transfer payments used to be
simply cash payments. We subsequently gave a number of tax
points. It is very important we continue to make visible transfers
like these so that the people in all the provinces will see that the
federal government helps pay for the social programs the
provincial governments manage.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in view of
the Minister of Finance's attitude toward the legitimate request by
the Government of Quebec, will the Prime Minister acknowledge
that his referendum commitments to decentralize were nothing
more than window dressing and the only decentralization he
foresees involves sending the bills to the provinces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said very clearly that we have withdrawn from job
training. As for the bills, I have to say, and I already made it quite
clear earlier, that the amount of transfers the federal government
makes to the provincial governments receiving equalization
payments has not decreased in the past three years. Some of the
cash transfers for programs were cut, but equalization payments
were increased. In the case of Quebec, the amount was over $11
billion when we formed the government. It remains unchanged
today and, as far as I know, it will remain unchanged next year.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister was unable or unwilling to
answer a simple question. The question was: How does the Prime
Minister propose to use the federal power of peace, order and good
government to ensure a fair and clear question in the next Quebec
referendum.
Now the Prime Minister has had another 24 hours to reflect. The
Deputy Prime Minister has whispered in his ear. He has had a
chance to consult his legal advisers and the answer is probably on
the front page of his briefing notes.
In the interest of national unity, will the Prime Minister now give
an answer? How does the Prime Minister propose to use the federal
power of peace, order and good government to ensure a fair and
clear question in the next Quebec referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have to read my notes. The leader of the third
party should just read yesterday's Hansard.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a clear answer appears to be beyond the capacity of the
Prime Minister.
After the last referendum Canadians demanded change and some
new ideas for national unity. Reformers responded to that call by
putting forward proposals for changes in the federation and terms
and conditions for dealing with separation.
The Prime Minister, on the other hand, has borrowed from Brian
Mulroney's distinct society clause, gone back to a 1971 veto
proposal and gone back to an 1867 clause in order to deal with the
referendum.
(1430 )
Where are the new ideas, the imagination and leadership needed
to keep this country together? How will distinct society,
constitutional vetoes and vague references to peace, order and good
government ever convince Quebecers to vote for Canada in the
next referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Quebec have voted twice to stay in Canada.
We should remember that. The leader of the Reform Party seems to
be very disappointed that they have chosen Canada but that is not
my case. When the Leader of the Opposition tried to teach us some
lessons he should know the ridiculous move he made.
I guess the party was too long yesterday. The leader of the third
party does not know that 52 members of Parliament is nothing
compared to 177 on this side of the House.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what the Prime Minister is doing on the national unity
front makes Brian Mulroney look good, and you have to go a long
way to make Brian Mulroney look good.
The Prime Minister has cobbled together a national unity
package without consulting the nation, without consulting the
premiers, without consulting his own caucus and without even
17629
submitting it to parliamentary debate. He even uses closure, the
most undemocratic tool of all to push parts of a national unity
package through the national Parliament.
Why would anyone follow the Prime Minister's lead in the
national unity area when there is no consultation, no mandate, no
rationality, no democratic legitimacy behind his proposals?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): First, Mr.
Speaker, we had three discussions in caucus about this matter
before I went public with it. Second, I do not know if the people
will follow the leader of the third party. Last week he was asking us
to give a veto to the province of British Columbia and-
Miss Grey: The people of B.C., not the government.
Mr. Manning: Why do you not understand about people versus
government?
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes, and after that he voted
against his own proposition last night.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: He could not even convince his own caucus
to follow him.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I understand that his two
neighbours to his left had the good sense not to look ridiculous like
their leader and voted with us on the motion.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
When questioned in the House yesterday, the heritage minister
suggested that the future of Radio Canada International would be
determined by the Juneau report, which will be submitted to the
government on January 15. However, 20 minutes later, the director
of Radio Canada International told his 125 employees that RCI
would shut down in March.
Can the heritage minister clearly state that, when he was eluding
our questions yesterday in the House, he did not know that, 20
minutes later, the director of Radio Canada International would
announce that his service was going to shut down?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that I know what goes on at the
CBC. What I said yesterday, and my answer is the same today, was
that Radio Canada International is the international component of
the CBC. It is part of the CBC's overall mandate.
Therefore, the future of Radio Canada International will be
decided when we review the CBC's mandate, along with the
recommendations made by a special committee.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister knows what goes on at the CBC, why did he tell us
yesterday that the CBC's mandate would not be changed before the
Juneau report is submitted, considering that 20 minutes later it was
announced, without waiting for the Juneau report, that Radio
Canada International would shut down?
(1435)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that no decision will be made
on the CBC's mandate before the Juneau report. That is clear.
Similarly, we will not know the future of the CBC's budget before
the next federal budget. That is precisely what I said yesterday.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government is trying to sell the provincial finance ministers
on its freedom 67 plan, raising the age of retirement from 65 to 67.
The finance minister says that freedom 67 should be his choice.
It should not be his last choice. It should not be his first choice. In
fact, it should not be his choice at all. Will the minister commit
right now to abandoning his freedom 67 package?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question relates to
the Canada pension plan. There is a study being done by the
provinces and by the federal government on the Canada pension
plan which has not yet been completed. There has been no decision
on that. Sixty-seven is not the issue.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
thank the hon. member for his very clear response on that question.
The Reform Party plan to renew the Canada pension plan will
allow people to choose when they wish to retire. The Liberal
freedom 67 plan will break the government's contract with seniors
by cutting their pensions. Six months ago, the Liberals locked in
their gold plated MP pensions and now they are poised to hammer
seniors by cutting pensions, raising the age of retirement and
increasing CPP taxes.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How can this
government justify attacking seniors' pensions when her
government just locked in its own gold plated MP pension plan?
17630
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians ought to know what the Reform Party's plan will do.
Over 800,000 disabled Canadians would have lower benefits; 600
widows would have lower benefits; and 1.8 million pensioners
would have lower benefits than now. That is not the Liberal way.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that the people of Canada are entitled to clear
answers to clear questions. Yesterday at 3:20 p.m., RDI announced
the closing of Radio Canada International. It was in all of this
morning's papers. Can the minister tell us, since he is so up to date
about the CBC, is it open or closed?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Radio Canada International is open until the end of
March, that much is certain. What remains to be decided is the
financial future of the CBC in its entirety, and that future will be
determined by the next federal budget.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, all of the staff of Radio Canada International got their
pink slips. Everybody knows what a pink slip means: no job after
March 31.
My question to the Prime Minister is therefore as follows: once
again, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is shirking his
responsibilities. Does the Prime Minister not consider that, this
time, enough is enough?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am satisfied with the minister's reply. We will be
receiving the report on CBC's mandate on January 15.
(1440)
The corporation itself decided to let Radio Canada International
go. I am very pleased to hear that the Bloc Quebecois wants us to
preserve national institutions such as the CBC, and I shall take
careful note of this.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Senate has completed its inquiry into the Pearson
airport contract and there were no surprises.
The truth be damned. It was siege mentality all the way. The
Tories defended writing the contract and the Liberals defended
cancelling it. A glossy bound report bigger than my riding's
telephone book settles nothing. It just wastes millions more
taxpayer dollars.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he admit that
this process did nothing to bring out the truth and in fairness to all
parties, will he agree to the full judicial inquiry I asked for over a
year ago?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast to coast have made up their
minds on the Pearson deal. It appears that the only people who are
not convinced that the Pearson deal had to be cancelled in the best
interests of Canadian taxpayers and in the best interests of
Canadian travellers are the Conservative members of the other
place and the hon. member who raised the question.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister keeps saying that the Pearson deal was not in
the public interest and it was not good value for the Canadian
public. One cannot help but wonder if the minister has financial
studies to prove this or if he is just talking through an empty hair
follicle.
Will the minister agree to prove his claims by tabling a cost
benefit analysis of cancelling the contract, if one exists? Failing
that, will he admit that the latter alternative was true?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should read his friends' majority report
which was produced by the other side. These are the people with
whom he has consorted on a regular basis. I hope not too much of it
has rubbed off on him.
We understand one thing: the minority report puts out a lot of
facts of which the Canadian people were already aware.
To take up the challenge of the hon. member with respect to the
deal at Pearson, next week we will sign the deal in Toronto for the
transfer of Pearson International Airport to a local Canadian airport
authority. I guarantee him that not only will the facility which those
people are going to build be far superior to what was proposed by
my hon. member's friends in the rip-off that he supports, but also
the bottom line return to the taxpayers of Canada will be
substantially better than what was suggested in the original deal.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
In the fight against smoking, we discover that, in the master plan
tabled on Monday, the government intends to strictly regulate
tobacco industry sponsorship of sporting and cultural events.
Will the Minister of Health confirm her remarks at the press
conference to the effect that her objective in the plan of action is to
ensure that events as the Festival Just for Laughs, the Jazz Festival
and the Montreal Fireworks Festival, will no longer get a cent from
tobacco companies?
17631
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we hope they will continue to sponsor all of these good works.
It is absolutely not our intention to ask tobacco companies to stop
supporting these events. It is, however, very definitely our
intention to ensure that they do not use these events to advertise,
since, after all, 40,000 Canadians die every year from smoking.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Since the minister has just announced she will come down hard
on funding for major cultural events, what does the Minister of
Canadian Heritage intend to do to ensure the survival and financial
well-being of these events?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we said no such thing.
I am very surprised, however, to see the health critic defending
the tobacco companies so vigorously. Now I have seen everything.
It is time you got a new health critic.
* * *
(1445)
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
A new weapon will soon surface on the battlefield: the
antipersonnel laser. These portable lasers have a scanning
capability thanks to an invisible light beam with a range of several
kilometres; they can irreversibly damage people's retinas and even
cause blindness.
What is the Government of Canada's position on the use of laser
weapon systems?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to inform this House that Canada has never
produced or even used these laser weapons. Canada and other
countries addressed this issue as part of the UN discussions on the
use of conventional arms in order to provide clarification and ban
the use of laser weapons. I can assure this House that Canada
supports the measures being taken to prevent the use of these
weapons.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In light of the fact that the justice committee did not ratify Bill
C-232 on December 7 and thereby did not support grandparents'
right to ask the court for continuous access to their grandchildren,
would the Prime Minister explain what he intends to do to support
and strengthen families in Canada?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is the principle of the government to foster family life and to
preserve family values. It is for that reason the justice committee
decided it was not the responsibility of the federal government to
support the private members' bill she brought forward. Not that
there were not a lot of good ideas in what she was trying to do, but
it is primarily a provincial responsibility.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I must disagree, although I thank the parliamentary
secretary for his answer.
I would really like an answer from the Prime Minister. Does he
realize that a child's right of access to his or her family has been
recognized in the convention of the child of the United Nations in
1989 and accepted by Canada in 1991? Legislation similar to this is
in place now in Great Britain, the United States and Quebec.
What will the Prime Minister tell Canadian grandchildren who
face yet another Christmas without their grandparents?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is well aware of the role of the United Nations in
child care and the government's support of that role.
It is also well aware of the important need for child care. That is
why the Minister of Human Resources Development brought in a
multi-million dollar child care program today.
In the interest of fostering relationships with the grandparents
and their grandchildren, the Minister of Justice has undertaken to
look at the subject matter the hon. member brought forward to see
if something can be done which would meet some of the objectives
she has mentioned in the House and before committee.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Thousands of consumers in Quebec and Canada are angry
because their expensive satellite dishes that receive TV signals
have now become obsolete as a result of inadequate regulations and
technological changes.
Since the minister helplessly watched the development of an
unregulated market without informing consumers of the risks
involved in buying these satellite dishes, what steps will he take
today to address this problem?
17632
(1450)
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has not sat by in this
area. The Information Highway Advisory Council has been
working on a whole host of recommendations put before the House
approximately a month ago. Over the next six to eight weeks many
of those recommendations we will be acting on. I am sure members
opposite will be more than satisfied.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
every company awaiting the CRTC's decision on the granting of
licenses will have its own technology requiring a large investment
by each consumer, what steps will the minister take to protect
consumers in case one of these companies goes out of business?
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most members would agree that as a
government we have probably been considered to be most sensitive
toward the small business community. One thing absolutely
imperative is that we do not make decisions that will not take its
concerns into account.
I do not believe a six to eight week delay in order to get the
proper answers is unreasonable.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on November 8 the Minister of Industry, with previous
notice, in response to my question stated that no funds had been
advanced to the Ontario Métis and Aboriginal Association since
1991.
I have since determined that since 1991 some $270,000 has been
advanced to the association. This is over and above the $111,000
advanced to Henry Wetelainen, Sr. Would the minister like to take
this opportunity to clear up the information he provided the House
on November 8 and set the record straight?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specifics on
this file but I will take his question under advisement and we will
report back to the House in due course.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP investigation of the Ontario Métis and
Aboriginal Association, initiated as a result of my questioning in
November, is awaiting a report from the minister's department.
Can the minister assure the House this report will be more
complete than his answer of November 8?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, part of this file is under the
jurisdiction of the RCMP and it would be inappropriate for us to
deal with it any more than that.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the solicitor general. It has now been more than a
month since the RCMP arrested an intruder inside the Prime
Minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive, which happens to be in the
riding I have the honour of representing.
The solicitor general said at the time that he would try to make
public as much as possible of the RCMP's reports. Can the minister
tell the House the status of this report and what details, if any, will
be made public on this serious matter?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier today the report in question was released by the RCMP,
pursuant to an access to information request.
I did say I would like to see as much of the report as possible
made public, subject to the need not to undermine the fairness of
the disciplinary proceedings under way against certain RCMP
members, subject to the need not to prejudice security at 24 Sussex,
and subject to the need not to prejudice the criminal court
proceedings against the suspect arrested in the course of the
incident.
This has meant that certain portions of the report have had to be
exempted, pursuant to the access to information and privacy laws.
However, I am confident the measures already put in place by the
RCMP for enhanced security will help ensure this kind of incident
never takes place again.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The airline industry has this particularity in Quebec that it
operates in French. Organizations such as the Association des gens
de l'air du Québec and the Association québécoise des
transporteurs aériens have been promoting the use of the French
language in air operations for many years, yet they are not
represented on the board of NAVCANADA, which is set to take
over the operation of the air navigation system.
17633
(1455)
How can the minister allow the Quebec air transport industry and
the place of the French language in Quebec airspace to be at the
mercy of an organization that does not even have the decency to
submit its instruments of incorporation in both official languages?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that the success we have had in our negotiations
with all those involved in the air navigation system in Canada is
worth noting. The composition of NAVCANADA's board of
directors was determined by stakeholders from every sector. The
Canadian professional pilots' association, air traffic controllers and
unions are represented on the board.
I think that the hon. member should mention the fact that, in our
negotiations with NAVCANADA's officials, we have made sure
that all NAVCANADA operations comply with the Official
Languages Act, for instance, and that, except for federal
government representatives, every board member is selected from
the community responsible for managing this whole system.
It is unfortunate if the particular group the hon. member referred
to is not represented, but that is certainly not the Government of
Canada's fault.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the minister not think that it is totally
unacceptable for the Association des gens de l'air du Québec and
the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens not to be
represented on NAVCANADA's board of directors, given the
particular status of the French language in Quebec airspace?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all NAVCANADA stakeholders, including the air traffic
controllers, who, as far as I know, are still members of the national
association representing this group, are involved in the
negotiations. Members of the Transportation Association of
Canada are represented on the board.
There is no doubt that we recognize the importance of the French
language in the air navigation system. That is why, during these
negotiations, the Government of Canada insisted that the Official
Languages Act be complied with.
I am convinced that, had the hon. member followed the
negotiations and taken a genuine interest in the outcome of an
unprecedented co-operative effort in the Canadian air transport
industry, he would have realized that the French language and the
needs of the people who use this language at work, not only in
Quebec but across Canada, are well represented on
NAVCANADA'S board of directors.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last year
Mr. Callum Scott, a Canada Customs agent at the Ottawa airport,
was reprimanded and subsequently left in employment limbo
because he was wearing a poppy on his uniform on Remembrance
Day.
The mismanagement by the minister and his department officials
has cost Mr. Scott his job and his dignity over the course of this
past year.
I ask the Minister of National Revenue and taxation, customs
and excise how this could possibly have happened. What measures
has he taken to ensure Mr. Scott receives a fair hearing from senior
management, as he has been promised over the course of the year?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I assure the House that the wearing of a poppy is no
ground for any concern with Revenue Canada. The rules are clear
for senior managers. Wearing a poppy by people in uniform is
perfectly acceptable.
If in Mr. Scott's case there was any suggestion or concern, it was
against the policy of the department. I do not have any information
as to whether it was a failure of policy in this instance.
Mr. Scott has a number of opportunities to proceed with various
grievance procedures. Under the circumstances it would be
inappropriate for me at this time to comment any further on this
case.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Scott
has phoned the minister 37 times. This individual has used the
procedures but has been stonewalled every time he turns around by
the management of the minister's department. The poppy issue is
over but what is at stake is that over the course of this year this
gentleman has been put into forced unemployment.
(1500 )
The gentleman is suffering severe stress. The department has put
this gentleman, who has received many commendations of good
employment, under such duress and stress that he has had a medical
certificate given to him. This is the kind of work this minister
considers efficient and effective.
Why does he not return his phone calls? Why does he not give
this gentleman what he promised and what his department has
promised over the last six months?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in question has had his
communications returned. There are procedures in place for
handling the complaint that he has. I believe it would be
appropriate that this take place and I certainly will not comment on
his medical condition.
17634
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
British Columbians are outraged at the suggestion that the
Liberal government, supported by the Reform Party, is going to
privatize Ports Canada police in the port of Vancouver.
In view of the negative impact this is going to have on smuggling
and other crime control in the port of Vancouver and the
overwhelming opposition to this plan from the communities
affected, will the minister assure the House that he will not proceed
with his shameful plan to privatize Ports Canada police in
Vancouver, a plan which the Reform Party of British Columbia has
supported?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find the hon. member's question incredible, being from
British Columbia and knowing the importance people in that
province attach to being able to operate the port of Vancouver, the
biggest, most important port in Canada. They have been asking for
years to have the right to operate the port, to make decisions in
British Columbia, in Vancouver, about the operation of that port.
It is a multimillion dollar operation with enormous potential.
The hon. member now stands in the House as a member of
parliament from British Columbia and says to the Government of
Canada ``give up the port, develop an autonomous organization that
is responsible for all the decisions related to the port'', but he
would have us keep responsibility for 43 port police in an operation
of that size.
I believe that if the people of British Columbia and the people of
Vancouver wish to operate the port of Vancouver, they are more
than competent to be able to take care of the policing
responsibilities that go along with the port.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
On November 21 a peace plan to end the fighting in
Bosnia-Hercegovina was signed, yet many individuals are still
suffering the effects of the conflict.
Can the minister tell the House how his department has
responded to the crisis?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. It is well known and recognized in Canada and
internationally the role that our peacekeepers have played in that
part of the world.
In addition to the peacekeeping forces, in addition to the
financial help extended by Canada, Canada has also played a role in
the immigration and refugee front. Relaxed criteria have allowed
people from the former Yugoslavia who were visiting to be
reunited with their families. Since 1992 we have been able to land
7,000 individuals. Through private and government sponsorship,
18,000 refugees from this part of the world have been landed in
Canada.
Last August when the UNHCR made an international appeal for
some 5,000 settled individuals, Canada pledged 10 per cent or 500
on top of the other measures taken. It shows in a very clear and
powerful way that Canada continues to lend a helping hand to those
who are in need.
The Speaker: This brings question period to a close. I had notice
earlier today of a question of privilege. As you know, I hear
questions of privilege as soon as possible after question period.
I address myself to the member for Ottawa West. Because it was
not the full time allotted, I will hear her question of privilege
tomorrow.
_____________________________________________
17634
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
present to the House a report from the Canadian branch of the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the 19th
Canadian regional seminar which was held in Toronto, Ontario
from November 24 to 26, 1995.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 109th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
request from the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the
Status of Disabled Persons to change the English version of the
17635
committee's name to Standing Committee on Human Rights and
the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 109th report later this day.
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 110th report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the Treasury Board Secretariat proposal on a trial basis for revised
Part III documents for the 1996-97 fiscal year for six departments;
namely, the Departments of Transport, Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Fisheries and Oceans,
National Revenue and Natural Resources.
The work that was done by the committee in this regard was
really done by the subcommittee on estimates, chaired very ably by
the hon. member for Ottawa West. I congratulate her on the good
work that her subcommittee has done in this regard.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 110th report later this day.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 111th report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
its order of reference of May 17, 1995, concerning Bill C-319, an
act to amend the Canada Elections Act (reimbursement of election
expenses).
The committee reviewed Bill C-319 and tables its report, with
one amendment.
[English]
Also, while I am on my feet, Madam Speaker, I have the honour
to present the 112th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs regarding the selection of votable items in
accordance with Standing Order 92.
[Translation]
This report is deemed adopted when laid upon the Table.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and
the Status of Disabled Persons.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108, the committee conducted a
study of the national strategy for the integration of persons with
disabilities and now tables its report entitled ``The Grand Design:
Achieving the `Open House' Vision''.
(1510 )
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response to this report within
150 days.
A vision without a plan is romantic at best; a plan without a
vision is simply adjusting the existing order of things.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-364, an act to amend the Criminal Code (no parole
when imprisoned for life).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill amends certain provisions of
the Criminal Code that relate to life imprisonment. It ensures that
when a life sentence is handed down, it means imprisonment
without any access to parole for the remainder of the natural life of
the offender.
Currently under section 745.5 of the Criminal Code, after
serving 15 years, those sentenced to life have access to judicial
review to determine whether or not a reduction in sentence is
warranted. This is a miscarriage of justice. Many life sentences
have been given because they are the maximum penalty within the
Canadian judicial system.
No matter how compliant or well behaved a prisoner is while
incarcerated, a barbaric crime was committed. All the remorse and
compliance in the world cannot bring the victim back to life. It is
imperative that the prisoner serve the entire sentence which has
been handed down. For the families, it is a sense of closure. For the
Canadian public, it is service of justice. For the criminal it is
paying a debt to society.
Let there be no misconception. If you take a life, you spend the
rest of yours behind bars. Life means life.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-365, an act to allow the electors of a province to
express an opinion on who should be summoned to the Senate to
represent the province.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce my
private member's bill, an act to allow the electors of a province to
express an opinion on who should be summoned to the Senate to
represent the province.
17636
The Reform Party's ultimate objective always has been true
Senate Reform, a triple E Senate, elected, equal and effective. We
can change the method of appointing senators so that they are
elected.
This bill will change the method of appointing senators through
an election process without constitutional revision. It will require
that the Prime Minister wait to receive the expression of opinion
from any province with a senatorial selection act similar to the
Alberta senatorial selection act which resulted in Senator Stan
Waters being appointed to the Senate.
The current Senate has not been able to perform its role
effectively because the selection process has undermined its
legitimacy. There is considerable urgency for the introduction of
this bill now because the Government of Canada is cramming
through veto legislation which will create constitutional gridlock.
I am introducing this bill today as a result of the forced vote to be
held this afternoon on Bill C-110. The long range interests of
Canadian federalism will truly be served by Senate reform.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1515 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I move that the 109th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this
day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I move that the 110th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this
day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved:
That, pursuant to its mandate in relation to the Comprehensive Review of the
Young Offenders Act (Phase II), and specifically, to observe how the youth
justice system operates in practice, the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs (6 members): four (4) from the Liberal Party including the Chair,
one (1) from the Bloc Quebecois and one (1) from the Reform Party, be
authorized to travel to:
I. Halifax, Sydney, (N. S.), and Charlottetown (P. E. I.) from February 18 to
23, 1996;
II. To Toronto and London (Ont.) from March 3 to 8, 1996;
III. Montreal and Quebec (Que.) from March 24 to 29, 1996,
in order to hold public hearings, visit sites (young offender facilities and
programs) and meet with officials and that the necessary staff do accompany
the Committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, since we are almost at the end of
the session, I should like to take the unusual step of thanking my
hon. colleagues opposite for their co-operation in arranging for all
the routine motions that we have on a regular basis.
The hon. member for Roberval, the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie, the hon. member for Bellechasse, the hon.
member for Lethbridge and the hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan have spent a lot of time going over these
documents in advance. I thank them for their co-operation, as well
as all hon. members who patiently listen while we go through this
rigmarole on a regular basis to have the motions adopted.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the pleasure of submitting a petition signed by about 100 people
from the Montreal region, including some of my constituents.
The petitioners ask Parliament to amend the charter of rights and
freedoms so as to protect individuals against discrimination based
on sexual orientation.
[English]
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a
petition today signed by 359 residents of Edmonton.
It has been over one month since Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other
Ogoni activists were executed. The Prime Minister condemned this
atrocity at the Commonwealth summit. Reaction to these
executions at the University of Alberta was strong and swift.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade is reviewing the situation tomorrow morning. I ask that
members consider the views of my constituents in their
deliberations.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today.
The first petition notes that employees of the House of
Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the staff of
members and senators have no health and safety protection under
17637
the law. The petitioners note a number of circumstances in which
their health and safety have been jeopardized on the Hill.
They call upon Parliament to press the government to finally
proclaim parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and
Staff Relations Act.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the second petition is presented on behalf of hundreds of
Canadians, in particular Tamil Canadians, who express their deep
concern about the continuing military offensive by the Sri Lankan
armed forces against Tamils in the north and east of Sri Lanka.
(1520 )
It calls upon Parliament to ensure that Canadian neutrality in the
national conflict is not jeopardized; to intervene immediately and
release Mr. Manickavasagam Suresh who was arrested in Canada
pursuant to a minister's certificate; to take action to lift the
economic embargo and press censorship in the north and east of Sri
Lanka; and to resolve the conflict between the Tamil people and the
Sri Lankan government through peaceful negotiations between the
Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, the representative of the
Tamil people.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have an additional petition to present dealing with the
very serious situation in East Timor.
It calls upon Parliament to send a clear message to the
Indonesian government from Canadians that human rights
violations against the people of Indonesian, and especially East
Timor, will not be tolerated; to enforce this statement by making
recent trade and aid deals with Indonesia contingent on respect for
human rights as set out in the petition; and to ensure that Canada
lends full and vocal support to the United Nations mediated peace
process, pressing for the inclusion of East Timorese representatives
in the peace process and access to East Timor for the United
Nations and human rights and humanitarian organizations.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the final petition which is
signed by residents of Victoria and other cities in British Columbia.
It calls upon Parliament to establish a peace tax legislation
which recognizes the right of conscientious objectors not to pay for
the military and within which the government would declare its
commitment to apply that portion of their taxes that was to be used
for military purposes toward peaceful purposes such as peace
education, war relief, humanitarian and environmental aid, and
housing.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to
present some 1,000 signatures of petitioners from my riding of
Winnipeg North and beyond concerning certain aspects of our
immigration policy.
They pray that the landing fee be collected at the issuance of the
visa and that no surety bond requirements for applicants be applied.
Knowing that the minister of immigration is sensitive and caring
about immigrants and their sponsoring families, this member
remains very optimistic.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to present to Parliament a petition signed by a number of people in
Alberta regarding the military offensive by the Sri Lankan armed
forces against the Tamil regions.
The petitioners are requesting the restoration of their rights and
dignity and the release of Mr. Manickavasagam Suresh.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament
to ensure Canadian neutrality in the national conflict in Sri Lanka is
not jeopardized. They request Parliament to intervene immediately
and release Mr. Suresh.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from 41 people
in my riding and in the regions adjoining, written in both of
Canada's official languages.
[Translation]
The petitioners ask the Prime Minister and the Parliament of
Canada to immediately state and confirm that Canada is indivisible
and that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces, territories and
territorial waters may only be modified by a free vote of all
Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, or through the amending formula stipulated in the
Canadian Constitution.
[English]
It provides that Canada is indivisible and that the boundaries of
Canada, its provinces, territories and territorial waters may be
modified either by a free vote of all Canadian citizens as
guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or
through the amending formula stipulated in the Canadian
Constitution.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my honour today to present to the
House a petition containing over 500,000 signatures from the
17638
Melanie Carpenter Society. To be exact, there are 506,285
signatures in seven boxes full of petitions.
The petitioners pray that Parliament will enact legislation to
keep dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles locked up for life; to
eliminate statutory release; to impose stiffer sentences for violent
offenders; to have violent criminals serve their full sentences and
have time added for bad behaviour; to have a central registry for
the names and addresses of violent offenders; to give more power
to legal institutions to keep dangerous criminals, even after their
sentences are served if they are still at risk to society; to give the
police more authority in apprehending and interrogating violent
offenders, including the ability to take blood and salvia samples; to
eliminate the insanity, drunk or drugged defence; to impose stiffer
laws and sentences for stalker criminals; and to reinstate capital
punishment for first degree murder in which there is no doubt of
guilt. They humbly pray that Parliament enact legislation.
(1525)
I present these over 500,000 signatures from Canadians from
coast to coast to coast.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a petition on behalf
of the residents of the city of Vancouver, B.C.
They call upon Parliament to endorse the Bessborough Armoury
Community Services project for the use of underused defence
institutions in the city of Vancouver, and to initiate appropriate
action to designate the armoury facility for shared use and make it
accessible to the residents of the city of Vancouver for the
community services proposed.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have another petition to present from the people of British
Columbia.
The petitioners respectfully call upon Parliament to enact
legislation requiring that all containers of alcohol sold in Canada
bear warning labels, alerting consumers of the attendant risks of
alcohol consumption.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
two petitions to present today.
The first group of 200 petitioners requests that Parliament pass
legislation to strengthen the Young Offenders Act, including
publishing the names of young offenders, lowering the age of
application and transferring serious offenders to adult court.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
second group of petitioners requests that the Government of
Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrases
sexual orientation.
The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to
homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal privileges as
married people.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of
papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
17638
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (for the Minister of Justice) moved that
Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments, be read
the third time and passed.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased and proud to
take part in the debate in the Chamber this afternoon on third
reading of Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional
amendments.
It will be very difficult for all of us in the short time allocated to
each speech to capture the essence of how members feel about
Canada and our shared future. However allow me to try
nonetheless.
[Translation]
I listened carefully to the members opposite who told us what we
cannot or should not do. I want to tell you about what we should do,
can do and will do. With the support of all Canadians, we are going
to unite Canada, and this is precisely what this debate will be all
about.
17639
[English]
I have listened to the ideologues of the Bloc Quebecois who
would rather tear down than build. I have listened to Reformers
who, despite all their loud noises, shouts and grunts, are really the
couch potatoes of national unity. They would rather second guess.
They would rather criticize than encourage. They would rather
watch than participate as they did during the last referendum.
Participation is one of the two issues I should like to talk about
for a moment. We have all heard the word participaction. Perhaps it
is now time to talk about citizaction. Just as participaction is about
exercising the body, citizaction should be about exercising our
responsibilities and obligations as citizens of this great country.
Good citizenship is not only about sitting on your hands and
criticizing, like the third party, but it is also about getting out and
doing something.
(1530)
Good citizenship also means making a difference. At the end of
the referendum we witnessed in a very moving and a very powerful
way how average Canadians across this land answered that call and
defined what citizenship is and should be all about.
I am talking about the unity rally in Montreal. I am talking about
the candlelight vigils on the Pacific coast. I am talking about the
march by tens of thousands of Canadians across the bridges
between Hull and Ottawa. I am talking about the raising of the
Canadian flag on Signal Hill in Newfoundland; all of these and
many of the other demonstrations where people came together in
the sense of collectivity, in the defence of a sense of community
and demonstrated their affection not only for their country but for
the kind of deep rooted commitment they have to good citizenship
from coast to coast to coast.
This is a country of doers and not whiners. This is a nation of
home builders and not home wreckers. The October 27 rally in
Montreal for me and many others was a day like very few. We shall
never forget that day for those who either watched it or participated
in it. It was a day when the Canadian family showed what it was all
about, considering the jammed buses and trains and planes that
created that incredible movement to Montreal.
The Toronto caucus in metropolitan Toronto and area was able to
facilitate on two days notice 100 buses of committed Canadians
who wanted to do something about this country, about the inability
to facilitate any other coach in the Ontario system because they
were all gone.
We had to rent buses from Pennsylvania because of the lack of
buses in the Ontario system. The Finch West Bakery in my riding,
because people were getting up and lining up at 4.00 in the morning
to get on one of these coaches, provided croissants and muffins and
orange juice as its contribution to this movement.
We have to consider people like John Campion who said: ``We
cannot go but we would like to fundraise for those who want to go
but may not be able to afford to go on their own''. We had an
outpouring of Canadians coming forward with financial
contributions.
We had strangers who could not get on the bus and who car
pooled with other strangers. All of a sudden, through that exercise
we had instant friendship and instant family that tied us together
quite naturally.
It sounds simple, and maybe it was, but it really was about
ordinary Canadians doing extraordinary things. Farmers from
Quebec shook hands with those farmers who travelled from
western Canada. It was about a schoolgirl who sang the national
anthem next to me, who was beside a gentleman who was born
thousands of miles away in southeast Asia but who now proudly
calls his home Canada.
It is the kind of thanks and appreciation, without being
patronizing, we received from our fellow family Quebecers on the
streets of Montreal who said thank you for coming down in
solidarity, thank you for not abandoning the concept of community
and of family, despite the attempts of some in the media to portray
things clearly that were not the reality on that day.
One of the lessons that rally taught all of us, particularly the
political class on both government and opposition benches, is that
unity requires inclusion. That was the strong message of the rally.
It showed Canadians also need to get involved and be part of the
solution. Canadians must be able to sing the song and not only hold
the song sheet in order for the country to continue to be the kind of
society that is recognized not only by us but, more important, by
those across the globe.
(1535 )
On that day in Montreal there were thousands of individual acts
by ordinary Canadians that epitomized what good citizenship is all
about. Sometimes as the minister of citizenship I am called to
define citizenship, what active and engaged citizenship means.
Sometimes we have these speeches that try to articulate that. Yet
how powerful and eloquent instead of those speeches was the act on
that day that gave expression to what active and engaged
citizenship should be and is all about.
We have also heard from our friends in the Bloc mutter about the
federalist plots and the discount fares which were the real reasons
people came together in Montreal. Does the leader really think a
cabal of schemers and plotters as well organized as it may be could
have produced such spectacular events without the willing,
enthusiastic participation of those Canadians? I think not.
Does he subscribe to the politics of exclusion, to the politics of
marginalizing people on the sidelines of our country? That is the
17640
second issue I would like to touch on this afternoon, the attempt by
some to marginalize segments and people in Canadian society.
Canada cannot and will not survive in a climate of tribalism or of
attempting to push certain groups to those dark corners, to those
margins. This initiative today is not and cannot be only about
history. It cannot be restricted or limited in debating only the
English and French reality in the country.
This debate has also to be about our present and about our
tomorrows. We must be inclusive and talk about today and a future
that includes the French and the English facts that gave rise to the
country. We must also embrace without reservation, without
qualification the reality of the aboriginal people in Canada and the
millions of Canadians whose origins span the globe.
It is only when we speak of these four pillars, the French, the
English, the aboriginals and the Canadians who have adopted this
country as theirs, does it give full expression to Canada. Only then
will it be inclusive and only then can Canada be entirely whole.
Let me be very clear to those across the way who would want to
dance neatly through the politics of exclusion by attempting to
shrug off too many statements that were nothing more than veiled
ethnic slurs, slurs that really try to appeal to people's darker sides
and lowest instincts. It was not only a case of pure campaign
gimmickry to alienate and marginalize individuals in the province
of Quebec; it continues today, after the referendum was fought and
won by Canada.
It continued this week when elements of that separatist
movement suggested ethnic communities in Quebec were enemies
of Quebec. It was articulated by Pierre Bourgault, who had the
audacity and the courage to suggest that those Greeks, Italians and
Jews were racist because they voted for Canada.
The separatists across the way and those beside them who
participate in the politics of division would want to stratify our
province of Quebec, our nation of Canada into different classes of
people. They would want us to talk about them and us.
(1540 )
I find it exceedingly ironic that the separatists would try to chide,
castigate and humiliate those communities which in large numbers
have always supported the quest for the French Canadian identity
in Quebec and across the country, those which largely have always
supported the quest for that French Canadian language not only to
be preserved and protected but to be enhanced, those which in the
late sixties and early seventies supported the battle for bilingualism
which Mr. Trudeau and the current Prime Minister fought tooth and
nail for.
They did so willingly. They did so because they believed in that,
because it defined what Quebec in Canada is and should be about.
They also did so because they identified with that kind of quest for
themselves, which is also part of Quebec and part of Canada.
We have the maturity and the foresight in this country such that
when immigrants come through our airports we do not ask them to
check their cultural baggage at Revenue Canada, Canada Customs
and Immigration Canada. We say they are no less Canadian for
believing in who they had been for the past 30 years or in the forces
that shaped them in Europe, in Africa, in South America.
Now because those ethnic communities, as they are referred to,
have the temerity to choose Canada, they are ridiculed. It is the
separatists who are wrong because there does not have to be a
choice. Those members in the Canadian family labelled ethnic
want both and can have both because the two concepts are
compatible. One can be fiercely loyal to Canada and our flag while
at the same time aggressively promoting that which is the very
essence of Quebec or our other provinces and territories.
That is their mistake, that they push for that either/or, when in
fact those members of the Canadian family labelled as ethnic have
always supported both, the search for the French Canadian identity
and the eloquence of being a member of the Canadian family, the
best membership the world knows.
When we cast our minds back to October 27 on the streets of
Montreal, there were also immigrants at that rally. There were
ethics at that rally. There were people whose skin tone was
different from ours and there were people whose mother tongue
was different from ours. However, we should never forget, let alone
castigate them, that they were there because they too love Canada
and Quebec, because they too helped build Canada and Quebec and
because this is not just our home; this is also Quebec and Canada,
their home.
The government will never play that ugly game of exclusion
because that is a game that quite frankly breeds racism, hate and
division. If we were to go down that dark ally which some want us
to travel it truly would be the beginning of the end, without
exaggerating.
All we have to do is notice on our television screens every night
the kinds of wars and division this so-called world of ours is
engaged in. If we think of the root causes which regrettably give
life to the kinds of acts of one against the other, it is always found
in the very divisions these statements would have us propelled into,
the game of exclusion that does breed racism, hate and division
between brothers and sisters.
We also know or should know in our souls that unity is certainly
not exclusively built around constitutional amendments,
constitutional discussions or constitutional conferences. I think
Canadians know this very well. It is much more than that.
Constitutions do not necessarily build countries. Constitutions do
not necessarily give
17641
countries greatness. Constitutions do not necessarily provide
countries with momentum. People do.
(1545)
Unity is bound by how we treat each other. On this score,
Canadians and the very essence of Canada as I define it have
always valued generosity, inclusion and a sense of compassion for
one another. That is one of the reasons our country has been able to
prosper over the years. This is not the time to abandon those values
because those same values are needed the most at this time.
[Translation]
We must make these values part of our daily lives, perhaps even
celebrate them in special events such as National Citizenship Week
and Flag Day. This coming year, the two events will be combined
into a week of celebrations around the theme Canada: take it to
heart.
We have recently begun to note in Canadians throughout the
country a growing desire to show their great love of Canada and
their concern for the state of the nation in some concrete way.
[English]
It was with this in mind that the Canada take it to heart initiative
was developed by the citizenship and immigration department
working with the Canadian heritage department. Together we
created a special week of activities where Canadians can come
together to celebrate their commitments as fellow citizens and their
pride in being Canadian and the remarkable heritage and future we
all share.
This is just one very modest way of expressing that sense of
Canadian community. For that concept of community to survive
and indeed thrive, it will need the help and co-operation of the
entire Canadian family, of all Canadians in all regions of all ages
and of all backgrounds. We should never forget that it is only
through the participation of Canadians and the inclusion of all of
her people that we can make Canada grow, thrive and flower.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, Bill
C-110 is a big mistake. It not only fails to respond to Quebec's
expectations but even makes future constitutional amendments
impossible, for all practical purposes. When everyone has a veto,
the obvious and inevitable conclusion is that on any given proposal
for a constitutional amendment, there will always be one holder of
a veto who will use it to block such proposals.
Although the Prime Minister hinted to the House that
recognition of the distinct society concept would eventually be
included in the Constitution, the veto powers he is now distributing
left and right will make it impossible to make any further
amendments to the Constitution. It would be a joke, if it were not
so tragic. However, this is symptomatic of a far more fundamental
problem.
(1550)
When provinces and First Nations insist on each having a veto
on any constitutional amendment, this can mean either that all
parties are so pleased with the Constitution as it stands that they
want to give each other assurances they will never change it, or
they are showing a considerable distrust of the federal system. I am
afraid the answer is obvious.
The present Constitution of Canada does not fit the economic,
social and cultural realities of Canada today. The profound
constitutional malaise in our societies today has many
consequences for our daily lives, because of the combined impact
of the federal government's legislative and spending powers.
That is why we are now saddled with an incredible deficit, why
employment policies always were and still are formulated from the
top down without any real regard for the provinces and why the
spectre of national standards irrelevant to regional situations can
only mean institutionalized chaos.
In this respect, the Quebec government's desire to establish a
new partnership with the rest of Canada was and still is a unique
way to start the 21st century with a process that would make for a
new relationship and a new solidarity between the populations
residing in the Canadian economic space. Unfortunately,
traditionally federalist forces have stubbornly distorted Quebec's
blueprint and made it out to be the opposite of what it really is.
[English]
Even the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a few
moments ago could not resist doing exactly that. The minister and
this government must realize that when a majority of Quebecois
voted no in the last referendum, it was in the hope that the Prime
Minister would deliver on his promises.
The bill now before the House is not what was expected and is
not what is needed. Therefore, no one should be surprised if in due
time those who voted no shall want to reconsider through another
democratic referendum.
In view of this, it is most unfortunate that the Reform Party
proposes using legal force to oppose the legitimate will of the
people of Quebec to reconsider democratically their future.
Furthermore, it is also most unfortunate that the Reform Party has
stated that shall the people of Quebec decide in favour of
sovereignty, it should be denied this outcome using armed forces.
Even the Prime Minister let it be known that he would object to the
unfolding of this democratic process. This is intolerance and it is
unacceptable in any democratic country.
17642
[Translation]
Nor do we need the kind of statements that are spread around by
the Liberal Party of Canada and repeated by the anglophone media,
that Quebec is living on handouts from the rest of Canada and is not
capable of taking full control of its tax system, legislation and
international relations.
The exact opposite is true. In fact, Quebec contributes one
quarter of federal revenues and also carries one-quarter of the
federal debt, but unfortunately, it receives significantly less than its
share of federal spending that creates jobs.
(1555)
This unfortunately, but unavoidably, leads to proportionately
greater unemployment insurance and social security expenditures.
So that each federal transfer reduction measure wreaks even greater
devastation on Quebec. This is exactly what has been happening in
recent years. Per capita federal transfers in constant dollars have
dropped significantly in the past few years.
This is why Quebec must take back control of its economic and
tax levers at the earliest opportunity. To this end, serious and
doubtless difficult negotiations will be required for the needed
modernization of the constitutional framework. In the meantime,
however, the very last thing we need is a bill that is both a bogus
overture to Quebec and a straitjacket that will preclude any
constitutional change in the future.
Traditionally, Quebec has always demanded a constitutional
veto, and I repeat, constitutional, as protection against amendments
to the Constitution which are contrary to its interests.
Let us take a quick look at history and remember that, in the
early 1960s, the Fulton-Favreau formula arose out of a
constitutional conference. It provided for a veto for the provinces
on any constitutional amendment affecting their rights, powers and
privileges. In 1971, the Victoria conference proposed a
constitutional veto for Quebec, Ontario, two of the maritime
provinces and at least two of the western provinces whose
combined populations constituted a majority.
The mechanics of Bill C-110 are oddly similar to the Victoria
formula, with one exception. In 1971, fourteen years ago, they
were talking about a constitutional veto and not a simple legislative
measure. It was the former Liberal premier of Quebec, Robert
Bourassa, who turned down the Victoria accord, because it did not
satisfy Quebecers.
Then, in 1979, the Pepin-Robarts report proposed four regional
vetoes, including one for Quebec. In 1982, then Prime Minister
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, with the help of the current Prime Minister,
tore up the 1867 Constitution, replacing it with another one,
without Quebec's consent. Ever since that time, there has been a
crying need for a constitutional veto allowing Quebec to protect
itself against amendments that would hurt its interests.
The famous Meech Lake accord, which was supposed to achieve
reconciliation between Quebec and the rest of Canada after the
1982 patriation episode, would have given Quebec a veto. We
know what happened next. The current Prime Minister torpedoed
the accord with the help of Clyde Wells and his associates.
In 1991, Beaudoin-Edwards recommended four regional
constitutional vetoes, including one for Quebec; in 1992,
Beaudoin-Dobbie also recommended a constitutional veto for
Quebec.
Even the Charlottetown accord, which was found clearly lacking
by the vast majority of Quebecers in a referendum, would have
given Quebec a veto.
(1600)
As we can see, the constitutional veto demanded by Quebec is a
constant political aspiration that has always been at the heart of its
minimum requirements. That is why, when the Prime Minister
portrayed the Constitution as a path to change and promised a veto,
as he did in Montreal, Quebecers were clearly expecting a
constitutional veto, since Quebec always talks about this as a
minimum.
As we know, giving Quebec a constitutional veto would require
the consent of the federal government and the 10 provinces. Yet,
according to a recent poll, barely 10 per cent of people in the rest of
Canada support a veto for Quebec. The Prime Minister must know
that he is in no position to give Quebec a constitutional veto. He
also knows that, as he keeps telling everyone in the rest of Canada,
a legislative veto is not worth much.
That is why the government performed mental gymnastics to
create the illusion that it is offering Quebec a real veto. In fact,
nothing could be further from the truth. What the Minister of
Justice is proposing to this House is not a real veto. In fact, his bill
would give Quebec no constitutional protection against
constitutional amendments.
Bill C-110 is not a constitutional guarantee that would ensure
that Quebec will be protected in the future. You and I know that the
government in place could repeal this bill at will. In fact, that is
exactly what the Reform Party said it would do upon taking office.
This goes to show how tenuous the protection offered by Bill C-110
would be.
The federal government has some gall to talk about a veto when
in fact what it is offering Quebec is all wind, an illusion. Worse yet,
it actually guarantees that no constitutional change benefiting
Quebec will ever be approved, since all it will take is for another
veto right holder to object to nip any reform attempt in the bud.
With Bill C-110, we can be sure that the federal system will be
even more impossible to change than ever before, until such time
as the government grows tired of resisting and finally decides to
repeal the miserable act.
What this government has come up with is at best a sort of
self-censorship that is only binding on this government, if at all. In
fact, with this stroke of inspiration, the Prime Minister will have
managed, if only briefly, to make the Canadian federal system even
more inflexible by taking the dangerous step of protecting the
status quo at his own risk.
17643
(1605)
In reality, Bill C-110 is intended solely to convince Quebecers
that the Prime Minister is making good on his referendum
promises. No one in Quebec will be taken in, as recent surveys
prove quite well.
Half of Quebecers opted for sovereignty-partnership and the
rest, the majority, pinned their hopes for renewed federalism, but
the bogus veto proposed by the Minister of Justice will not satisfy
even his erstwhile referendum allies who, let us keep in mind, have
always called for a constitutional veto for Quebec.
[English]
The federal government ``knows best'' attitude has been, is and
will remain totally counter productive in this country.
[Translation]
During the debates on this bill this House has had a chance to
appreciate the Prime Minister's talent for improvisation-I have
chosen that term deliberately-in para-constitutional matters, by
granting the province of British Columbia its own veto. But we
must be well aware that adding to the number of vetoes ends up
watering down their value, by diminishing the concept and thus its
effect as well.
It must be realized that, although having a veto reassures each
veto holder that Canada could not go against its interests
constitutionally, this does not in any way make it possible for a
province to go where its interests dictate. In short, it is our feeling
that not only does the formula proposed by the Minister of Justice
run contrary to the higher interests of Quebec, it is also contrary to
the higher interests of Canada. For this reason, I and the Bloc
Quebecois will be opposing passage of this bill, in accordance with
the convictions of the large majority of Quebecers.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to commence my speech today on behalf of the Reform
Party with regard to Bill C-110 by speaking about the attitude there
seems to be on the part of people in the government.
This attitude is led by none other than the Prime Minister. People
in the House have learned, they have listened and understand well.
The attitude is that if there is vacuousness, in other words, nothing
to talk about and nothing to offer, then attack the other person's
motive.
I was deeply dismayed yesterday and I quote the Prime Minister
when he said: ``There has not been one day since we have been
talking about this problem that he''-referring to the leader of the
Reform Party-``has not been in bed with the Quebec separatists.
There has not been one day he does not want to try to make life
difficult for a government that is trying to save Canada. There has
not been one day that he is not causing some disturbance in Canada
because he has no interest in keeping the country together''.
I find that kind of personal attack beneath the dignity of the
person who has the title of Prime Minister of Canada. It is
exceptionally unfortunate that he is setting that kind of a tone for
the people in his party when he has absolutely no content, no idea
of what he is doing. He is running this country from the back of an
envelope. He attacks the motives of the leader of this party or
anyone else who does not go along with his flavour of the day.
(1610 )
His flavour of the day apparently has now changed and we are
going to have a veto for the province of B.C. While there are few
things said by the Block Quebecois I agree with, I agree with the
last speaker that this veto for the province of B.C. is nothing more
than an additional piece of chewing gum to add to the chewing gum
and baling wire that has been used to put together this concocted
Bill C-110 in the first place.
How did we get there? Contrary to the remarks of the Deputy
Prime Minister who apparently has taken the comments and the
direction of the Prime Minister to heart to the point of ending up in
tears here in the House of Commons, contrary to her point of view
and the way in which she chooses to express it, there are people in
Canada, including members of the Reform Party, who are avowed
federalists and believe in the concept of keeping this great nation
together. The chewing gum and baling wire effort at this point is so
absolutely and abjectly inadequate as to make my stomach turn.
Why do we have this bill? It is, first, because the Prime Minister
panicked. Obviously the ``don't worry, be happy'' attitude he had
when he came to British Columbia saying everything is fine, did
not work. ``I am really pleased that nobody in British Columbia,
nobody in the west, has been panicking over the fact that we have
not really been running in this referendum debate. It is really nice
that you have not been running and creating any problems,
therefore don't worry, be happy''.
That was approximately two weeks before October 30 when the
first string quarterback, Jacques Parizeau, decided to replace
himself with a backup quarterback, the leader of Her Majesty's
official loyal opposition as the person who was going to lead the
province of Quebec out of Canada.
17644
When that happened, the people of Quebec started to listen to the
siren songs and the abject lies of the separatists. They listened to
them and actually believed that by voting yes, this group to my
right were talking about making a better place for Quebec in
Canada. What the people of Quebec did not know at that time was
that the leader, the vice-premier of Quebec, was actually at that
time circulating to four embassies saying that on October 31 you
will recognize us as an independent state. The people of Quebec did
not know that.
The leader of Her Majesty's official loyal opposition that the
Liberals want in the position of Her Majesty's official loyal
opposition decided that he would continue with those lies. He
obviously got away with it to the extent that 38 per cent of the
people who voted yes in the referendum actually believed those lies
and that they were going to be a part of Canada.
What did the Prime Minister do? He absolutely panicked. He
turned around and said: ``Let's see, what do I have in my grab bag
of tricks? What have we tried before? Why do we not take a whack
at distinct society? Hey, that is a good idea. Let's do distinct
society. What about veto? Yeah, crumb, let's do veto too. That's a
good idea''.
That is how we are in this House today with the government
having rammed distinct society down Canadians' throats and
tonight ramming veto down Canadians' throats.
Why did we get here? Some of the responses from my province
are indicative of the kind of rage there is not only in British
Columbia but around the nation. I will read a paragraph from a
letter from Jack Weisgerber who is the leader of the third party in
British Columbia. It is dated November 28 and addressed to the
Prime Minister. He says:
If your aim is to truly keep Canada united from coast to coast, as I certainly
hope it is-
I might parenthesize that there are some people in Canada who
would question the Prime Minister's motives. Because I find that
act reprehensible on the part of the Prime Minister and the Liberals,
I will not do it. Then he says:
-you must have the courage to articulate a vision of Canada that is consistent
with the views of most Canadians in every province. From British Columbia's
perspective, the only vision of Canada that is acceptable is one where all
provinces and all Canadians are equal, with special status for none. Surely that
should have been the lesson learned from the referendum on the Charlottetown
Accord, which is being entirely ignored by your government.
(1615)
It is really telling the way in which this government has chosen
to bring this legislation forward with a complete ignorance of the
fact that the people of Canada rejected these provisions in the
Charlottetown accord. Yet it is jamming it down their throats in
spite of what the people have said.
The Reform Party is very clear and unequivocal. If there is to be
any change to the Constitution, the Constitution must be approved
by the people of Canada, not the provincial legislatures, not this
assembly, but by the people of Canada because the Canadian
Constitution belongs to Canadians.
We currently have an amending formula in our constitutional
law. It is called the seven and fifty formula. That is the formula
where seven provinces representing a total in excess of 50 per cent
of the population of Canada would be able to ratify most changes to
the Constitution. For the sake of time I will not go into the detail of
the exceptions to that. That is a broad enough statement.
An interesting comment was written in the column ``The write
stuff'' by constitutional experts David Bercuson and Barry Cooper.
They say in part:
First, remember that we do have a Constitution in Canada; it contains an
amending formula. Mr. Chrétien surely knows that. Given his pivotal role in its
adoption back in the early 1980s, he must have once believed that the current
amending formula is a good thing. But now, with Saint Lucien about to become
the great helmsman of the separatist cause in Quebec, the Constitution is no
longer convenient.
What then, can Chrétien do except to pretend the Constitution doesn't exist?
Hence his proposal of wholesale change to the structure of government without
following the rules. It is a plan that, if successful, will allow Chrétien to avoid
the minor inconvenience suffered by Brian Mulroney of having his proposals
for constitutional change thrown back in his face.
Chrétien's proposals are, in our view, more dishonest, more divisive, and far
more repellent than anything the Mulroney gang ever dreamed up.
They go on to say:
There is no such thing as a ``region'' in the Constitution, or anyplace else in
Canadian law. So, giving a constitutional veto to a ``region'' isn't much
different than giving a veto to all red-headed, left-handed, green-eyed women
in Canada. Both entities are equally recognized in the Constitution and both
have the same status as constitutional players, namely none.
These experts, in looking at these things, are very incisive in
their comments. They reveal the fact that the government and
indeed the whole country of Canada are currently being run by a
Prime Minister and his cabinet from scribblings on the backs of
used envelopes.
In a column by Joan Bryden, entitled ``Veto for B.C. fuels
constitutional uproar'' I read:
Although B.C. will now be recognized as a fifth region with its own
veto-along with Ontario, Quebec, the prairies and the Atlantic
region-Premier Mike Harcourt complained the move will make it even harder
to amend the Constitution in the future.
17645
It means, effectively, that seven provinces representing at least 92 per cent of
the population must approve any constitutional change before the federal
government will consider giving its own stamp of approval.
That's a stiffer requirement than the seven provinces with 50 per cent of the
population currently needed for most constitutional changes.
Forest Minister Andrew Petter, B.C.'s point man on the unity package, said
Chrétien is putting a ``straitjacket on Confederation'' and accused him of
making up his unity strategy ``on the back of an envelope''.
Truly that is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing. Yet the
Liberal members, like sheep, will come to this House tonight, fall
in line and vote for this straitjacket on the Canadian Constitution.
We have a situation where we are giving a veto. Perhaps I should
stop for a second here and just detail my concept of what a veto is.
Simply, if someone being one of many has a veto power and that
person's vote was negative then that person would be able to stop
the process in spite of the fact that the majority of the vote was
positive. That is my understanding of the word veto.
(1620)
What this Prime Minister has done is to give Canada's federal
government constitutional veto over Canada's Constitution to the
separatist government in Quebec. It is absolutely unbelievable. It is
so unbelievable I have to repeat it: The Prime Minister is giving
Canada's federal government constitutional veto over changes to
Canada's Constitution to the separatist government in Quebec.
It goes beyond exasperation to think that those people would
come back into this House tonight and actually vote that way
simply because their Prime Minister says so. I should explain that
there is a lot of embarrassment on the part of Liberals in the
province of British Columbia because they have the misfortune of
having the name Liberal. I will read from a column by an MLA
candidate:
The federal government has made its spectacular move. In an effort to
appease the disgruntled Quebec separatists, the Prime Minister is putting the
true union of Canadian provinces at risk.
The thinly disguised `veto to all' will leave Quebec in the position of
stopping any constitutional changes, no matter how logical they may be. British
Columbia, the fastest growing and third largest province has been pushed aside
once more.
I say in parenthesis that this was written immediately prior to the
extra inclusion of the veto for British Columbia, but the sentiments
are exactly the same. This B.C. Liberal is trying to distance himself
from the crazy federal Liberals. He goes on to say:
The unity committee, as designed by the Prime Minister, has one western
Canadian representative-and she is from Edmonton. This committee now
should be disbanded because Chrétien's latest move has made it redundant.
The `distinct society' clause will enshrine a special status for a small section
of our society and will inflame relations with Quebec for years to come.
Liberals, this is a Liberal speaking.
The Prime Minister has no inkling as to what makes Canada tick! He is
completely out of touch!
The Charlottetown accord of 1992 was defeated because of the inclusion of
this type of special treatment.
I wonder who the minister of western alienation is? This individual is doing a
commendable job!
This was said by a B.C. Liberal candidate. But what does the
B.C. Liberal leader say? When he was interviewed on December 6
the questioner asked: ``You have no embarrassment though that
they are Liberals and you are a Liberal in name?'' The B.C. Liberal
leader wanted to distance himself from these people over here
because he said: ``Our party is totally separate from the federal
party. I am embarrassed for British Columbia that they are not
standing up in Parliament and speaking up for the interests of
British Columbia, which is what I believe their task is''.
Mr. Hermanson: It is a different story if you are trying to get
elected.
Mr. Abbott: It is absolutely amazing. I think it would be even
more instructive if we were to take the words of the self-declared
constitutional expert, the man from Vancouver Quadra. I will quote
from an article dated November 30 where he acknowledges the
regional veto system was resurrected from a constitutional
conference in 1971. It may have come about for no other reason
than because ``someone in the Prime Minister's office mentioned it
and nobody happened to point out that what worked in 1971 would
not work now. I think it is as simple as that''. That is what the
member for Vancouver Quadra said to a reporter in Vancouver on
November 30. It will be very instructive to visualize how this
member will end up voting later in the day.
Why do we get there? Because the Prime Minister panicked
because he had a totally worthless plan for trying to fight the
referendum. That is the only reason we get there. We have a Prime
Minister who has no vision and is out of touch. Quite frankly, it is
my judgment and apparently the judgment of all of my colleagues
in the House that the Prime Minister should seriously reconsider
his future in the role of Prime Minister of Canada. He has no
vision.
(1625 )
I will quote from another authority. I consider this person to be
an authority because as the former premier of Newfoundland from
1979 to 1989, Brian Peckford went through a tremendous number
of constitutional wars. He points out something very subtle here:
Furthermore there are other problems with what is being proposed. In a ruling
in September 1981, the Supreme Court of Canada said about a federal unilateral
initiative to patriate and change the Constitution that it was inconsistent with the
17646
conventions of the Constitution which required the substantial consent of the
provinces. This ruling is significant for at least two reasons:
I will give one:
The concept of ``conventions'' of the Constitution. It can be argued that the
present federal proposals involve a process that is really backdoor constitution
making, given that it is possible in the future for the high court to rule that these
proposals form part of the conventions of the Constitution. Therefore you
actually have the likelihood that these will be viewed in a constitutional way
even if they are not specifically put into the written Constitution.
He summarizes and submits that ``the present federal proposals
use a process which is contrary to what Canadians wish to see as
the process for constitutional change''. As a matter of fact, I would
parenthesize again and say that this process is totally outside
constitutional law. The Prime Minister is tinkering with the
Constitution outside of constitutional law.
The Supreme Court ruling of '81 casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of the
process being used, in as much as what is being effectively done is tantamount to
a constitutional change disregarding the convention of first obtaining
substantial consent.
That raises a whole host of questions. Where is the substantial
consent to these changes? Nowhere, except with 177 sheep. That is
where the substantial consent is.
These federal proposals if passed could be viewed by the supreme court in the
future as part of a convention of the Constitution and hence carrying more
weight than is currently being ascribed to them.
It is scary stuff. Very scary stuff. What is going on is that we
have a fundamental subversion of the constitutional process, of the
very document on which Canada and the relationships not only
between the provinces, but between us as Canadians are founded.
These are the rules under which we live together. These are the
rules under which our various jurisdictions function.
The Prime Minister, out of a sense of panic, has gone ahead and
made these changes. He is oblivious to the fact that according to the
expert I just quoted, because these changes will form part of a
convention and a part of the way things are done, they could be
viewed by the Supreme Court of Canada as being substantive
changes to the Constitution.
Who has the Prime Minister consulted? No one. That is who. Let
us briefly look at the consultation process. Did the Prime Minister
go to members of his Liberal cabinet? If he did go to those
members, what did the Minister of National Revenue say to him?
Or did he totally disregard the fact that the Minister of National
Revenue is supposedly touted as being the minister representing
the viewpoint of the province of British Columbia?
He cannot have it both ways. Either he did not go to the revenue
minister and the rest of his cabinet and did this thing on the back of
an envelope with chewing gum and baling wire, or he did go to the
Minister of National Revenue and chose to disregard the advice of
the Minister of National Revenue. I suppose one could even ask if
the Minister of National Revenue was awake that day and realized
what a major problem we are stumbling into in Canada.
(1630 )
The second question: Did he go to his caucus? He said today in
the House that he went to his caucus. I would suggest that he
probably went to his caucus well after the fact, well after it was
etched in stone, and caucus members were too embarrassed to
stand up and be counted, as they should stand up and be counted on
behalf of Canadians.
Did he go to provincial officials? Clearly not. We have received
copies of letters from the premiers to the Prime Minister. I read part
of a letter from the premier of British Columbia: ``I am writing in
regard to the bill currently before the House of Commons entitled
an act respecting constitutional amendments. The Government of
British Columbia strongly objects to the fact-'', and it goes on and
on. Where was the consultation?
We are led to believe by the news media that the Prime Minister,
just by happenstance, may be calling some of the premiers to say:
``Guess what we are doing today?''
In the Calgary Herald today the premier of Alberta is quoted
going on about the fact that the Prime Minister was completely out
of touch and had not contacted him. In fact, the premiers are still
being told, probably by an aide to the Prime Minister, what is going
on. Where is the consultation?
That is the crux of it. The blatant disregard which the Prime
Minister and his party have for the people of Canada is appalling.
He has not gone to the people of Canada at any point and he is
talking about substantive changes to their Constitution. It is their
Constitution and he ignores them. He does not consult them in any
way.
Why would the Liberals vote for this egregious piece of
legislation? I suppose it is because they like being parliamentary
secretaries or chairmen of standing committees. Maybe they like
the privilege of being able to travel around the countryside or on
international junkets. I believe this is where the whip comes in.
When the hon. member for Mississauga West was on television a
few weeks ago she said: ``Look at the number of free votes we have
had in the House of Commons''. Sure, there have been free votes in
the House of Commons for Liberal members, but every single,
solitary one of those free votes was on private members' business.
There was no exception. The whip has been on when it came to
17647
government business. Any member who voted against the
government whip, against the wishes of the Prime Minister, has
been banished, chastised and disciplined. It is absolutely and
totally contrary to what the red book told Canadians. It said that
this government would be different and there would be free votes.
Why vote? It almost leaves me to ask: Why have a House of
Commons? Why do we come here, as we have today, realizing that
the debate which started at approximately 3.30 this afternoon will
be terminated by the Liberals at 5.15 p.m.? The bill will
substantively change the Constitution of Canada. I say: Shame on
the Liberals. There is no excuse for this kind of pile-driving and
ramrodding of legislation.
I suspect that my words have fallen on deaf ears on the Liberal
side. They just do not understand. They do not even show up for the
debates. I cannot comprehend where their head space might be.
What can I say? When the Reform Party is elected to
government in 1997 it will repeal this bunch of legislation, which is
so divisive, so discredited, so damaging and, I suggest, so
deceitful. The Reform Party will ensure that any future changes to
constitutional law will include the provision that the people of
Canada will have a say over their Constitution by way of one
person, one vote. That is democracy. That is the Reform way.
(1635 )
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
honoured to participate in the final moments of debate prior to what
is, in my opinion, an historic vote.
What a difference almost four weeks makes. It is very easy to
speak here today knowing the result of the vote on October 30. I
would first like to thank the hundreds and thousands of Canadians
who came from all corners of Canada on October 27. In my
opinion, this bill is their bill. It responds to the wishes of Canadians
as does the distinct society recognition that we voted on earlier this
week. It is a response to Canadians who on October 27
demonstrated clearly their love and affection for Canada.
I am appalled that the member for Kootenay East insinuated that
the only reason we Liberals are going to vote in favour of the bill is
because of junkets, of freebies. It shows a lack of respect for
Canadians when he denigrates the bill and the vote to that degree. It
also slows a lack of understanding. If the member for Kootenay
East would only listen to us and read the red book for a change
instead of just referring to it, he would know that the Liberal Party
has always respected the right of veto for Quebec and has for over
30 years recognized its distinct character.
The member for Kootenay East and others have criticized the
Prime Minister for not having consulted Canadians. On the
contrary, the people of Canada spoke on October 27, and when he
saw the testimony by all Canadians, the Prime Minister read the
people correctly. That was true democracy.
He promised the people of Canada and on their behalf promised
Quebec prior to October 30 to recognize Quebec for what it is. If
Canadians cannot accept the fact that Quebec has a unique culture,
unique language, a unique civil code and other institutions, then we
are truly in serious trouble.
Reform Party members are falling into the trap that has been laid
for them by the current Leader of the Opposition by saying that
they will repeal the legislation. I can say that hindsight is 50:50.
Imagine if the result had been different on October 30. I wonder if
the members who have spoken on the bill would speak the same
way.
The Prime Minister could not consult Canadians. He could not
telephone Premier Harris or Premier Harcourt or even Premier
Klein. But these same premiers spoke to Quebecers.
I remember the appeal by Mr. Klein to Quebecers saying: ``We
love you Quebec. Stay in Canada''. I remember the appeal by Mr.
Harris who said to Quebecers: ``Your demands for the revision of
the decentralization devolution of responsibilities are our demands.
We will work hand in hand with you in Quebec because your
aspirations for a renewed federation are our aspirations''. The
Prime Minister could not take the time to consult the premiers. He
had to make a decision. He relied on his experience, on his
knowledge and understanding of the country and of the great
province of Quebec and made three promises which tonight we will
uphold. Those promises were the recognition of the distinct
society, the regional veto and decentralization.
(1640 )
If we recognize, as it seems to have been generally accepted
across Canada, Quebec's distinctiveness, then we must also
recognize that Quebec needs all the tools to protect and promote its
language and its culture.
An Albertan, a British Columbian or anyone else living in the
rest of Canada is not threatened with the loss of culture or the
English language. On the contrary, it is in use worldwide. However,
as a co-founding people of this great country it has to be recognized
that the French language and the French culture that exists in
Quebec must be protected. The only way to protect that is to give
the people of Quebec the veto. That veto is of utmost importance.
The current Constitution says that seven provinces representing
50 per cent of the population can amend the Constitution. That
means seven provinces could gang up on British Columbia, seven
provinces could gang up on Quebec, as happened in 1980, seven
provinces could gang up on another province. That is why the veto
is so important for Quebec.
[Translation]
I do not agree with what the member for Portneuf says about
these three promises being far from sufficient and not what
Quebecers wanted before the referendum. The veto proposed by
our Prime Minister protects Quebec even more; from now on the
17648
Constitution cannot be changed without the consent of the province
of Quebec, as was the case in the past.
I totally agree, the cornerstone of a country is its constitution. I
also agree with the member for Kootenay East when he says that
the Constitution is the property of the people who live in a country.
However, the fact that Quebec has gone without signing the
Constitution since 1982 has not prevented us Quebecers from
developing and flourishing along with other parts of Canada.
I would also like to point out that Great Britain does not even
have a constitution.
[English]
Think of the great powers and influence Great Britain has had
over centuries. The fact that it does not have a Constitution has not
prevented that country from developing. Quebec and Canada have
evolved together and we can continue to evolve together.
The member for Portneuf said that the veto is a watering down,
but that is false. The veto protects Quebec right now. If his leader,
the current Leader of the Opposition and future premier of Quebec,
would agree to enshrining it in the Constitution we would be the
first to embark on that process. However, his own chef de
l'opposition has already gone on record saying that he does not
want constitutional change. We all know what the Bloc Quebecois
want. It will settle for nothing short of a separate Quebec.
I defy the current Leader of the Opposition. When he occupies
his new position in Quebec City as the premier of that province he
should remember the words he spoke today in the House. He
espoused that Canada is one of the most democratic countries in the
world. He above all should know that in the position he occupies.
Therefore, when I hear the Bloc Quebecois members speak of
democracy and criticize the government for not respecting
democracy I find it a bit strange. Their version of democracy is-
[Translation]
If the vote is yes, they accept it as a yes. If it is no, they will accept
it democratically, but the very night of the no victory, the Leader of
the Opposition was threatening us with yet another referendum. A
funny way of accepting democracy.
Our Prime Minister has made a commitment on behalf of all
Canadians to keep his promises.
(1645)
[English]
A promise made by the Prime Minister is a promise kept.
Tonight we will vote on that final step of his three promises. Yes,
they must eventually be enshrined through the constitutional
process, hopefully as early as April 1997.
The Prime Minister made a promise on behalf of Canadians and I
am proud to be able to vote on it today, contrary to the statements
of the member for Kootenay East who said that I should be
ashamed to vote for this process.
I have sat in the House this week and seen three different
members of the Reform Party rise on points of order to indicate that
certain members of the House were or were not absent. It shows the
level to which Reformers will stoop for political gain.
When it counted, the leader of the Progressive Conservatives,
the hon. member of Parliament for Sherbrooke, was there. Madam
Speaker, he was in the trenches with you and me in Quebec
defending Canada during the delicate moments. I find it despicable
that Reform Party members stand day after day to question the
participation of the member of Parliament for Sherbrooke.
Where were they on October 27? Where were they during the
referendum? Today they have the audacity to stand here and again
criticize the government for its initiatives. The Prime Minister
responded to initiatives after listening to representations from
caucus members and other people on B.C.'s regional veto. It is very
important for British Columbia. It is also very important for
Ontario to have its veto.
When we talk about the distribution of population we have to
respect regional differences in Canada. The member for Kootenay
East has the audacity to criticize the way I vote when 50 per cent of
his members yesterday voted against recognition of the veto for
British Columbia.
It is very easy to criticize. It is very easy to get involved in the
debate of always giving into Quebec's demands. However I ask
hon. members what it is Quebec has demanded over the past 30
years that it has received.
We have made sacrifices. We have made concessions in the past.
I remind members from British Columbia that when British
Columbia entered Confederation we made a concession uniquely
for British Columbia. We honoured the concession to build a
national railway from coast to coast. Otherwise British Columbia
would not have entered Confederation.
I remind colleagues from Prince Edward Island that we made a
concession for Prince Edward Island. The concession was to
recognize that island by granting it four members of Parliament
and four senators.
In terms of making a concession to Quebec, Quebecers do not
want any more or any less than the rest of the provinces. They want
to be recognized for what they are. They want to be given the tools
17649
to develop and protect their language and culture. If that means
making a concession, it is well worth making it in order to keep
our country united and strong.
I will conclude to give another member a chance before we vote
at five o'clock by saying it is easy to criticize. It is much harder to
be constructive. It is easy, as some members have already stated in
the House, to demolish. It is a lot more difficult to build.
It is much easier to criticize, but it takes a lot of the leadership
and courage for the Prime Minister to deliver on his commitment to
Canadians of October 27.
(1650 )
We could have consulted all the premiers of the provinces but we
have seen what consulting the premiers does. The Mike Harrises
and the Ralph Kleins of the world who loved Quebecers prior to the
referendum will fall into the trap that the future premier of the
province of Quebec will set for us. The Reform Party is falling
hook, line and sinker into that trap. I appeal to all the premiers of
the provinces to work hand in hand with the Prime Minister who
has only taken the first very important step.
The Chinese have a saying: the journey of a thousand miles starts
with the first step. We have to take the first step. The Prime
Minister has shown leadership today. I ask the future premier of the
province of Quebec to respect his commitment and the democratic
will expressed by all Quebecers, not only the 51 per cent that voted
not but also the 15 or 30 per cent of those who voted yes, expecting
to remain a province of Canada and work with us to build a better
and stronger Canada.
I appeal to the premiers of the provinces to work with the Prime
Minister over the next 18 months or whatever time is allotted to
respect the will and desire expressed by Canadians on October 27. I
appeal to the premiers of all provinces not to let that tremendous
show of affection go to waste. That is what will happen if we
cannot come together and work hand in hand. Whether Reformers,
members of the Bloc Quebecois or NDPers, all of us owe it to
Canada to work hand in hand to make sure our country remains
united and strong.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I thought the member for Vaudreuil had a lot of
nerve when he indicated that somehow Reformers should be
castigated because they were not involved enough in the
referendum campaign, when he and his colleagues in the House and
outside the House told us we should not get involved at all, that we
should stay out of the referendum.
It so happens that we got involved as much as the legislation
would allow us to become involved. In fact many pollsters indicate
that the Reform played a positive role in the outcome of the vote, in
determining a no vote.
Then the member and his colleagues have the nerve to say
afterward that we should have been more involved. That is not
right. It is beneath the dignity of this place to play those types of
political games.
I was expecting to ask the member a question. I hope he will be
in his seat to respond during this question and comment period. I
noticed in Doug Fisher's column in the Ottawa Sun today that he
commented on the Liberal caucus meeting where the whole issue of
peace, order and good government was raised. He said it sent shock
waves through the Liberal caucus meeting on December 5.
He mentioned a couple of members' names and of course I
cannot do that. Canadians can guess who these members are. He
wrote:
A senior member of the cabinet, so far successful as a minister and neither
given to public philosophizing nor a publicity hound-stunned the gathering
with the argument that the time had come for the government to unveil Plan B.
Of course the plan has to do with the peace, order and good
government proposal. He went on to write that it would be a dose of
tough love for the province of Quebec and that a lot of the
proposals put forward in the Liberal caucus were similar to the
proposals put forward by the leader of the Reform Party in the
answers to the 20 questions.
Then he wrote that a jock would call this playing hardball. He
continued: ``The first doubt about such hardball begins in
appraising'' the Prime Minister as he seems.
And that is ``bushed''. Tired out after 32 years of hustling and partisan
hassling. As an example, take one his lines on Monday: ``I have a very good
cabinet''. Tripe!
This pretty accurately reflects what a lot of Canadians are
thinking about the Prime Minister's approach on these
constitutional issues: ram Bill C-110 through the House as though
it is a national emergency, ram the distinct society concept through
the House even though it has been rejected in the past by Canadians
in a referendum. They have no regard for Canadians, the provinces
or the failed concepts of the past.
(1655)
Given the lack of support for the Prime Minister's proposals and
given his suggestion that he would ensure a fairly worded question
in a future Quebec referendum through the powers afforded him
under peace, order and good government, how will the Prime
Minister use the powers under his jurisdiction with regard to peace,
order and good government to ensure the next referendum
question, should there be one, will be fair and not subject to the
criticism of the last question?
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member I respond
to a comment he made before about our invoking closure and this
not being a national emergency.
17650
The member does not live in Quebec as I do. He has not lived
in Quebec as I have. If ever he visits Quebec, I invite him to come
to my riding. If he had lived in Quebec he would understand
clearly that there is an urgency.
A commitment was made by the Prime Minister to make the
necessary changes. He had to respond, not with a sense of urgency
but with clear leadership, and this is what the Prime Minister has
done.
If we take a look at what is happening on the island of Montreal,
sadly we see a large number of unemployed and one of the highest
rates of poverty. Constitutional bickering since 1976 has put our
region in a very sad state.
The Prime Minister had to respond by giving leadership to
ensure, as he said in Toronto, a certain amount of political stability
not only for Canada but, more important, for Quebec.
An awful lot of colleagues from Quebec have horror stories
about small businesses by the twenties or thirties or even larger
corporations establishing plants, not as they did in 1976 in other
areas of Canada such as Toronto but unfortunately in places like
Plattsburg and Florida. I recently spoke to a VP of Northern
Telecom who is now opening up a plant in Southeast Asia because
of the uncertainty. The Prime Minister had to react.
On the question of veto, we are lending our veto. In all
constitutional amendments the federal government has a right of
veto on all aspects, whether there are three or four amending
formulas. All we have done is simply lend our veto to each of the
five regions. Therefore we were able to bypass the delicate process
of constitutional reform doomed to failure in the past.
I hope Reformers put aside their partisan politics. After the new
year when, after you have had time to celebrate with your families
in peace and love, as Canadians always do, I hope you will come
back in February and work hand in hand with the government and
the premiers to achieve the unity we deserve.
The Speaker: I remind hon. members to address the Chair rather
than one another.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I believe we have
only five minutes left in the debate this afternoon, and I will try to
be brief. It may be the last time we have a chance to speak this year.
I listened carefully to the hon. member for Vaudreuil, who raised
quite a few points. He is also aware of the position of the Bloc
Quebecois on the veto.
I may recall that from what I read and what I heard from the
Minister of Justice, this is not a constitutional veto but a veto for
the guidance of the Parliament of Canada. That is why Quebecers
realized this was not what they wanted. I may also recall that what
we say in this House reflects the views of the Quebec people.
I may remind the hon. member-
Mr. Discepola: So we are not Quebecers?
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): No, but I would like to remind the hon.
member that if he still reads Quebec newspapers, he will realize
that hardly 24 per cent of the population of Quebec believes that the
Prime Minister's proposals are a response to their expectations.
So if we are talking about barely 24 per cent, I think we still have
the right to rise in the House to say: ``Listen, this is an empty
shell''. And we must not forget the 94 per cent of Quebecers voted
in the last referendum. I will conclude with this. This means that in
Quebec, 9.4 out of 10 understood the question. And I do not
understand why the Quebecer from Saint-Maurice did not.
The Speaker: Thirty seconds for a short reply.
Mr. Discepola: Thirty seconds. Very well, Mr. Speaker.
We are prepared to entrench the veto in the Constitution, but his
own leader is preventing us. It is his fault.
If he ever changes his mind, which he has done several times
before, we would be willing to discuss entrenching the veto in the
Constitution. However, with the means at our disposal, we decided
to recognize their veto in this House, in the decisions made by the
various departments. We lend our veto, as a government, to the
various regions, including the province of Quebec.
However, if your leader decides to change his mind, come and
see us.
An hon. member: A nice little trinket for Christmas.
The Speaker: No, dear colleagues, but I have good news.
[English]
Yesterday afternoon we welcomed to the Table of the House of
Commons a new table officer. It does not occur often in Parliament
that we have new table officers but we have a new one today, Carol
Chafe.
Carol, in the name of my colleagues I welcome you.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
An hon. member: A Christmas present.
The Speaker: Yes, a Christmas present for the House.
[English]
Pursuant to an order made Tuesday, December 12, 1995, in
accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now
before the House.
17651
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 400)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed -150
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -101
17652
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bellehumeur
Canuel
Culbert
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Paré
Pomerleau
St. Denis
Szabo
(1730 )
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On a vote as
important as this I wonder if I could beg the Speaker to give a few
minutes for the Tory leader-
The Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, unfortunately
a truck got in my way and so I was delayed. If I had been here I
would have voted with my party.
Mr. Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was detained. As
always I will be voting on behalf of the-
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, if the Standing Orders so permit,
I have just arrived and I would like to be included in the vote, as I
am entitled to be.
[English]
The Speaker: Pursuant to an order made Tuesday, December 12,
1995, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division at the third reading stage of Bill C-108, an act to amend the
National Housing Act.
* * *
The House resumed from December 12 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act,
be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the festive season I
take this opportunity to salute my colleagues, the whips across the
way, and thank them for their co-operation.
I ask the House if there would be unanimous consent that the
members who voted on the motion previously before the House,
plus the hon. Secretary of State for the Status of Women and the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources, be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
the Liberal side voting yea. I am sure the whips of the other parties
will add, if needed, members of their parties with their ranks.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, Reform members will voting nay on
this motion, except for those who might wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats in the House vote yea
on this motion.
(1735)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I am voting in support of
this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division.)
(Division No. 401)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
17653
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-207
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-47
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bellehumeur
Canuel
Culbert
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Paré
Pomerleau
St. Denis
Szabo
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
The Speaker: Pursuant to an order made Tuesday, December 12,
1995, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the motion of the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin
at second reading stage of Bill C-315.
_____________________________________________
17653
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from December 12, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-315, an act to complement the present laws of
Canada that protect the privacy of individuals with respect to
personal information about themselves obtained by certain
corporations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: As is the practice, the division will be taken row
by row, starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in
favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the
mover. Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side
of the House will be called.
[Translation]
Those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 402)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Arseneault
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
17654
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Nunziata
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -111
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Loney
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Thalheimer
Tobin
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young-122
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bellehumeur
Canuel
Culbert
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Paré
Pomerleau
St. Denis
Szabo
(1745 )
[English]
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend Part XXIV
of the Criminal Code-Dangerous Offenders-to provide:
1. that where an offender is convicted of
(a) a sexual offence involving a child, or
(b) an offence set out in
(i) section 271 (sexual assault) that has been proceeded with by way of
indictment,
(ii) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or
causing bodily harm), or
(iii) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault),
or an attempt to commit any of these offences, the offender shall, before being
sentenced, be examined by two psychiatrists to determine
(c) in the case of sexual offence involving a child, whether the offender is likely
to commit or attempt to commit such an offence in the future, and
(d) in the case of an offence referred to in section 271 that has been proceeded
with by way of indictment, or section 272 or 273, whether the offender is likely
to cause or attempt to cause death, injury or serious psychological harm to
another person through a failure in the future to control his or her sexual
impulses; and
2. that where the psychiatrists conclude
17655
(a) in the case of a sexual offence involving a child, that the offender is likely to
commit or attempt to commit such an offence in the future, or
(b) in the case of an offence mentioned in section 271 that has been proceeded
with by way of indictment, or section 272 or 273, that the offender is likely to
cause or attempt to cause death, injury or serious psychological harm to
another person through a failure in the future to control his or her sexual
impulses,
the Attorney General of the province in which the offender was tried shall
direct that an application be brought to have the offender declared a
dangerous offender.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with my
colleague from Calgary Southeast.
The Deputy Speaker: That would require unanimous
consent. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the
opportunity to begin debate on Motion No. 461. I believe it is
especially appropriate to speak to this motion today.
Earlier this afternoon I introduced to the House a petition that
had been collected by the Melanie Carpenter Society. The
petition had over half a million signatures, to be exact, 506,285
names. The petitioners ask Parliament to enact legislation that
would keep dangerous offenders, especially dangerous sex
offenders, off the streets of our country. The first of the nine
items on the petition states: That dangerous offenders and
pedophiles should be locked up for life.
(1750)
As fate would have it, that is what we are debating today. The
motion that I introduced jointly seconded by my colleague from
Calgary Southeast, is targeted against sexual predators. It is an
effort to get these offenders off the streets after their first
conviction, not the second or third conviction which is often the
case now.
The motion asks that once an individual has been convicted of
aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon or
sexual assault that has been proceeded with by way of
indictment or any sexual offence where the victim is a child, the
convicted offender must be examined by two psychiatrists.
If the two psychiatrists conclude that the offender is likely to
commit a similar crime in the future, the attorney general shall
direct that a dangerous offender application be initiated. The
convicted offender would then have a dangerous offender
hearing where the crown would have to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the offender was likely to reoffend.
This motion carefully balances the rights of the offender and
the protection of society. The motion only applies to convicted
offenders. Two psychiatrists have to conclude that the offender
is likely to reoffend. Then the crown has to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt before a court that the offender is likely to
reoffend.
Society is protected by having early identification of
dangerous sex offenders. Some may ask if this is possible. Not
only is it possible but science is moving quickly in this regard.
While I was conducting research on my private member's bill,
Bill C-240, I came across the work of Professor Robert Hare of the
University of British Columbia. Professor Hare teaches in the
psychology department and is the leading authority in the subject
of psychopathy. Professor Hare and his colleagues have developed
tests to identify psychopaths for Correctional Service Canada as
well as the prison systems in Washington and California states.
It is generally accepted that these tests have an 85 per cent
accuracy in identifying psychopaths. Some may argue that not all
psychopaths are sex offenders and that is true. With this motion we
would only be concerned with those psychopaths who were
convicted of a serious sexual assault or pedophilia.
If two psychiatrists conclude that someone who has just been
convicted of one of these offences is a psychopath, then if our
society values its protection he must be found to be a dangerous
offender.
In this instance we are talking about people like Clifford Olson,
Paul Bernardo and Fernand Auger. I would like to use Auger as an
example. We all know Auger as the man who kidnapped Melanie
Carpenter from her place of work in Surrey, B.C., drove her out to
the Fraser canyon where he sexually assaulted and murdered her.
Auger was on parole at the time of this crime not for a sexual
offence, but for robbery.
However 10 years earlier Auger was convicted of sexual assault
or more precisely, two instances where he committed extremely
violent sexual assaults. One instance involved a 17-year-old
prostitute, the other involved a 14-year-old prostitute. In both cases
Auger picked up these girls, drove to a secluded location, put a gun
to their heads, threatened to kill them and the raped and sodomized
them.
Arrested and convicted for both crimes, Auger received the
remarkably lenient sentence of two years less a day and served his
time in Ontario's provincial system. Why such a light sentence? As
a Correctional Service Canada spokesman stated to a CBC reporter
last March, Auger's crimes were not viewed as being violent
because the victims were prostitutes and this implied a level of
consent.
However, after a subsequent conviction for robbery Auger ended
up receiving a sentence in a federal institution. He submitted
himself to a psychological review as part of a parole application. It
was at this time that the true nature of Auger's personality came to
light. Auger's psychological assessment reads as follows:
``Appears to employ defence mechanisms, such as minimization,
17656
rationalization and displacement to justify his criminal activity. He
has a fairly advanced anti-social personality disorder''.
(1755 )
In August 1994 the National Parole Board denied Auger parole,
stating he was a high risk to reoffend. Unfortunately, because of the
way the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is written, Auger
was required to be released a few months later and because of this
Melanie Carpenter is no longer with us.
I am confident that had Auger been examined by two
psychiatrists for his assaults on the two teenage prostitutes in
Toronto, his anti-social personality would have been uncovered at
that time. Had he been found to be a dangerous offender, he would
have received an indefinite sentence.
Contrary to what some may think, an indefinite sentence does
not mean to lock them up and throw away the key. What it does
mean, however, is that the offender is kept in custody until the
parole board is convinced that the offender does not pose a serious
risk to society.
It is mainly up to the offender to determine how long the
sentence will be. If the required treatment is taken and shows real
progress, it need not be a long incarceration. Parole eligibility is
after three years and then every two years thereafter.
The greatest value of the indefinite sentence is twofold. First, for
those offenders who show no inclination of rehabilitation, there is
no pressure on the correctional system to get them ready for
release, whether they are prepared or not.
Second, for those who are released, the justice system can
closely monitor their activities in the community. If this had
happened in Auger's case, maybe two people would still be alive,
Melanie Carpenter and Fernand Auger.
I believe this motion is sound. It satisfies not only the Reform
Party's objectives for public safety, but the red book objectives of
the Liberals to protect women and children.
Similarly, the justice critic for the Bloc Quebecois has frequently
expressed her concern for the safety of women and children. I only
hope that she is equally concerned about protecting them from
sexual assault, sexual predators, as she is from protecting them
from firearms.
This motion targets only a small percentage of the Canadian
population, sexual predators. I fully agree with the over half a
million individuals who signed the Melanie Carpenter Society
petition, who believe that dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles
belong behind bars, not on our streets.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak today in support of the motion of my
colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. It is
unfortunate, in fact an abysmal comment on Canadian society, that
we require this kind of legislation. However, I am heartened by it
and am honoured to second the motion.
Under current law, a sex offender cannot be detained beyond a
jail sentence. We may ensure their stay beyond their statutory
release date only if a psychiatrist signs a certificate saying that the
inmate suffers from a mental disorder that would likely result in
serious injury to others.
The motion before us today provides the point of difference that
Reform brings to the debate. Rather than attempt analysis at the
end of a sentence, an offender should be subject to analysis by a
psychiatrist before sentencing and then, if need be, deemed a
dangerous offender. This supports reasoned argument to keep
incarcerated those who pose a threat to society.
This is exactly the kind of legislation that this country needs.
This issue should be non-partisan. I believe all of us in this House
want to safeguard the rights of victims and, in this instance, the
rights of victims of sex offences.
Let us not forget that the law of the land should not only
safeguard those who already have been victimized, but the law
should also endeavour to protect us from further victimization by
those who demonstrate a dangerous propensity to commit sex
offences.
Currently, we sit in the House listening to a great deal, possibly
too much debate on national unity, when under our noses other
important problems need to be addressed. We can do something
positive here. Instead of splitting apart, instead of limiting debate
on issues of importance, we can join together today on an issue that
concerns us all. I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support
this important motion.
The motion we are debating today specifically addresses the
issue of protecting society from sexual predators, people who are
driven to inflict harm on women and children in our society. Sexual
predators are people like Clifford Olson, like Paul Bernardo. They
prey on the weak and vulnerable and they enjoy it. They have been
psychologically profiled as deviants who repeat their crimes and
even enjoy them. These are the people who will be affected by this
motion.
(1800)
By passing this motion we will be saying that yes, we believe
that we have a moral obligation as parliamentarians to protect
society from those who seek to prey on its weak and vulnerable;
yes, we believe that for the safety of society certain offenders
should be required to undergo psychological evaluation and under
certain circumstances should be deemed to be dangerous offenders.
17657
This allows us the freedom and opportunity to keep those
individuals in prison, those who pose an unacceptable threat to
society.
In this instance, to some extent we are talking about locking the
door and throwing away the key. That statement unto itself may
sound unduly harsh; however, when it is rephrased it may become
more palatable and perhaps better understood. Does anyone here
believe that someone like Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo should
ever be allowed to walk the streets again? I do not think so. It
would take a tremendous amount of convincing to dissuade me of
this opinion.
The criminal must have served many years in prison. Treatment
must have been completed and demonstrated to have had a positive
effect. Remorse must be clearly demonstrated. Compensation of
some kind would have to have been made to the victims of the
crime by the criminal. Then and only then would I even entertain
the notion of allowing the individual the opportunity to undergo
further psychological assessment to determine the possibility of
recidivism. This is not an issue of being harsh; this is a basic
human issue about protecting the most vulnerable.
Protection of society will not be accomplished solely by the
provision in the motion under debate today, but it does go a long
way. Clearly, the preference would be to treat sexual offenders and
to cure them of their illness. However, when this effort has failed
we have a moral obligation to protect society. What we are
debating today is whether the House sees this moral obligation;
whether the House feels this moral obligation so strongly that it
will make the moral obligation a legal obligation.
Some may ask why we need this legislation. Allow me through
the use of an anecdote to demonstrate why this kind of legislation is
necessary. There are times when my colleagues opposite are
critical when we cite real life stories. However, unfortunately, they
abound. They do represent a body of anecdotal evidence which
cannot be ignored. If we can introduce legislation at little or no cost
which will inconvenience few in society and by doing so save lives
or prevent the commission of crimes, then we must commit to that
effort. On that note, allow me to share with the House a sad story.
On November 18, 1984 Wray Budreo became a free man and
every parent's nightmare. For days his face had been plastered on
newspapers throughout southern Ontario. Budreo had a 32-year
history of child molesting, including 22 convictions for sex
offences. However, because he had served his full six-year term,
there would be no parole or probation, no restrictions on his
movements, no conditions for mandatory treatment. He was
bundled into the trunk of a police car and spirited past the
protesters who awaited him outside Kingston Penitentiary. I do not
know if this man has reoffended. I pray that he has not. What
concerns me greatly is that a known sex offender who was expected
to reoffend was released from one of our jails.
I hear a familiar refrain all too often from people who doubt their
own ability to shield their children from sexual abuse, especially
without being overly paranoid or obsessive. We must first know
some of the facts.
Not every child is equally at risk. Offenders target especially
vulnerable children: lonely kids, those with disabilities or who
have difficulty communicating, youngsters with absent dads who
may be looking for a father figure, and those whose behavioural
problems make it unlikely they will ever be believed if they do
speak up.
Of course, the biggest risk factor is contact with a potential
abuser. Here the facts contrast with the headlines. The dangerous
stranger is the exception rather than the rule. A 1992 Statistics
Canada survey found that in cases of child sexual assault, 48 per
cent of the abusers were a parent or family member. Another 43 per
cent astoundingly were friends or acquaintances. Only 5 per cent
were strangers.
(1805)
Whoever the offender, the offence is clear. It is always illegal for
an adult to engage in sexual contact with a child under the age of
14. It is also illegal for an adult who is in a position of trust or
autonomy to engage in sexual contact with a young person under
the age of 18. The law recognizes what adults know. Children can
be manipulated especially by the people they trust. Whether they
say yes does not matter because the adult is the one who must say
no.
There are no national statistics on the number of children
molested every year but whatever the figure, it is too high. It can
only be reduced one child at a time. That means we must make an
effort to deal with potential abusers by ensuring that dangerous,
repeat sexual offenders remain in a place where they cannot
threaten our children or society as a whole.
Even the term ``potential abusers'' is quite misleading in this
context because we are referring to people who have already been
convicted of a criminal offence but who we strongly suspect will
have the potential to reoffend. Suggesting that dangerous offenders
of this kind are only potential abusers gives them too much credit.
An important component of this debate revolves around the issue
of our ability to rehabilitate the convicted sex offender. One of the
reasons for this legislation is the widespread disagreement about
the success or even the possibility of rehabilitating a sexual
offender.
Two centuries after the birth of modern psychiatry there are
numerous treatments for sex offenders but as yet no consensus on
the results of such treatments. A forensic psychologist at the Oak
Ridge Facility for the Criminally Insane in Penetanguishene,
17658
Ontario states: ``We do not seem to be having much of an impact
on sex offenders''.
What are the costs to society? An argument is made that the
annual cost to supervise an offender while on parole is only $9,400
whereas the cost of incarceration for a year is reported to be close
to $70,000. Simply put, I believe there are times when social
protection is worth the price. This may just be an instance where
we have to swallow the costs. If it means saving 22 people from
being victimized by a man like Wray Budreo then $70,000 a year is
worth it.
Canada spends about $11 million per year on dozens of programs
for sex offenders. About 5,000 of the 23,000 convicts in the federal
corrections system have sex crimes on their record. The
government proudly points to the statistics that only 6 per cent of
sex offenders repeat their crimes within three years of their release.
However, researchers who study sex offenders say that the
recidivism rate jumps to about 50 per cent when the criminals are
tracked over a decade. It is always the part that is left out that is the
most startling.
There is little evidence, or at least there is lots of contradictory
evidence, that therapy reduces recidivism. I am concerned by this
contradiction. Until we are more certain of treatments that will
reduce recidivism, I am uncomfortable in allowing potential
predators back on the streets.
Belatedly, it is important that those who commit sexual offences
be categorized as to whether or not they are psychopaths. Experts
agree that the recidivism rate for psychopaths is triple that of
non-psychopaths.
In conclusion, let me reaffirm my very strong support for this
motion. I believe that if we could encourage the justice minister
and the government to pass this motion, we would go a giant step
toward making our country a safer one in which to live.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the two hon. members who contributed to this
debate.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley has
introduced a motion at the same time as her private member's bill
is before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for
further consideration. Admittedly, Bill C-240 pursues a somewhat
different angle on the subject. I want to commend her for her
dogged determination to change the dangerous offender legislation.
It is obviously a subject with which she feels very deeply. She has
done a lot of work in making her presentation both on the present
motion and in respect of the private member's bill.
Does the dangerous offender procedure need improvement?
Quite possibly it could be improved. I will start by addressing one
proposed change with which I disagree, a proposal that is central to
this motion.
(1810)
The motion provides that every time two psychiatrists determine
that in effect an offender poses a high risk of reoffending, the
attorney general of the province in which the offender was
convicted shall direct that the dangerous offender application be
brought. I do not believe it is appropriate to eliminate the discretion
of prosecutors in bringing dangerous offender applications.
The criteria for a dangerous offender finding are contained
within the Criminal Code. That is a concept created by criminal law
and supported by criminal procedure. It is certainly true these
criteria rely heavily on psychiatric prediction of risk, but medical
standards are not the only ones that have to be met.
Section 753 of the Criminal Code requires that the likelihood of
an offender causing further harm must be established to the
satisfaction of the court. This is not entirely or even primarily a
matter of medical or statistical prediction. Indeed it is a legal
decision made according to criteria legislated by Parliament. The
crown should possess the discretion considering all of the evidence
available to it to estimate whether an application will be strong
enough to meet this legal standard. I will return to the subject of the
role of prosecutors in this process.
I would like to review the history of part XXIV of the Criminal
Code in order to understand why the law is structured the way it is.
I am not saying that part XXIV should never be changed, but the
evolution of the dangerous offender concept and the restrictions the
charter of rights imposes on that concept indicate that we should
proceed cautiously in broadening it or oversimplifying it.
The dangerous offender provisions have their origins in the
habitual criminal provisions added to the Criminal Code by
Parliament in 1947. A person found to be such a habitual criminal
could be sentenced to preventive detention for life. The state had to
prove the offender on three separate occasions had been convicted
of an indictable offence for which he was liable for imprisonment
for five years or more and was persistently leading a criminal life.
If this sounds vague and ripe for abuse, it was. In 1969 a report
by the Canadian Committee on Corrections, the Ouimet
committee, found that a substantial number of these habitual
offenders constituted a social nuisance but were not really
dangerous. In 1948 Canada tried out the concept of a criminal
sexual psychopath law. In 1958 it was thrown in with the habitual
offender provisions under the name of dangerous sexual offender.
Once again the Ouimet committee found in 1969 that the dangerous
sexual offender legislation was capturing many non-dangerous
sexual offenders and was missing the dangerous ones.
17659
These provisions were repealed in 1977 and replaced with the
dangerous offender provisions we see now in the Criminal Code.
These amendments were designed to be more precise, to target
the most dangerous serious offenders and similarly to avoid
widening the net too much. In essence Parliament was saying:
``Let us target the worst offenders without sweeping in the low
risk or nuisance cases''.
The dangerous offender legislation contained in part XXI, now
part XXIV, passed a major hurdle in the Supreme Court of
Canada's decision of R. v. Lyons in 1987. The court ruled that the
dangerous offender provisions did not violate the protections in the
charter of rights and freedoms.
(1815)
I mention this case not so much for its support of the current law
as for the firm indication by the Supreme Court that any law that
seeks to sentence one of its citizens to an indefinite term in a
penitentiary must be well tailored and confined to the most serious
circumstances.
I offer one example from the judgment upholding the dangerous
offender legislation:
The legislation narrowly defines a class of offenders with respect to whom it
may properly be invoked, and prescribes quite specifically the conditions under
which an offender may be designated dangerous. The criteria in Part XXI are
anything but arbitrary in relation to the objective sought to be attained; they are
clearly designed to segregate a small group of highly dangerous criminals
posing threats to the physical or mental well-being of their victims.
The existing dangerous offender system contains three
components: a focus on the most serious offences, a focus on the
pattern of the offender's conduct, and an assessment of the
likelihood of the offender's continuing his serious offending. These
criteria have to be met if they are to justify locking up individuals
indefinitely.
In broadening the target group so much, the motion before us
runs a serious risk of conflicting with the decision of R. v. Lyons. It
would broaden Part XXIV to capture any sex offence against a
child. This would include cases of sexual interference under
section 151 and an invitation to sexual touching under section 152
of the Criminal Code. While these crimes carry a maximum
penalty of 10 years imprisonment, individual offences usually do
not receive such lengthy sentences, nor do they typically involve
the degree of violence envisioned by Part XXIV.
I doubt the Supreme Court would tolerate this net widening,
particularly when, given the new rules prescribed elsewhere in this
motion, crown attorneys would be forced to launch so many more
applications. The court, as in the Lyons case, is vigilant to the
potential for abuse in the overall structure of the procedure.
Returning to the issue of prosecutorial discretion, the Supreme
Court in the Lyons case also stated it was important for the crown
to have some discretion in bringing dangerous offender
applications and that the absence of any such discretion could lead
to a conclusion that the law was arbitrary.
I have raised several objections to the concept in this draft. In the
interest of perspective, I point out how successful Part XXIV of the
Criminal Code has proven. Between 1977 and 1995 approximately
143 offenders were found to be dangerous offenders and sentenced
indeterminately to Canadian penitentiaries. Of that number, 134
remain incarcerated.
There are signs now that the provinces are using the procedure
more often. Successful applications usually average eight or nine a
year. In 1993 there were 15 successful cases; in 1994 there were 13,
and we will all remember the recent designation of Paul Bernardo
as a dangerous offender.
We can improve the dangerous offender legislation but not with
the elements in this motion. I look forward to the review of the hon.
member's private member's bill the standing committee, to which
this motion is quite similar.
I would like to deal with this private members' bill and I am
hopeful this motion will not be successful to allow us the
opportunity to deal with these things one at a time.
(1820 )
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I simply want to
express my support for the private members' bill from the member
for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. It is timely, the right bill
at the right place at the right time. I cannot imagine that anyone
would not accept that.
Mr. Milliken: It is not a bill, it is a motion.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): A heckler across the way.
In my life I dealt with sexual predators. This motion is exactly
what we need and I express my support for it.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I speak to the motion as someone who is not a lawyer,
someone not involved in police work and never has been. Perhaps I
can offer a slightly different viewpoint and hopefully a constructive
one.
The member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley tended to
mix together two types of offenders, the sex offender, a paedophile
and so on, and the psychopath. These are two very different types
of people with different problems.
In the cases of the sex offender and the psychopath it is
acknowledged that both know right from wrong. However, some
sex offenders, no matter how horrendous their crimes, feel
remorse. They may be driven by a form of compulsion. The
difference between that type of person and a psychopath is there is
no remorse. Sometimes there is no compulsion either.
17660
I cannot accept that a Paul Bernardo necessarily will offend
again. I cannot accept that he is necessarily driven by compulsion.
There are instances of people driven by compulsion who know
remorse and are a danger in the sense that they will repeat the
crime. However, it may not be a crime as horrendous as we saw in
the Bernardo case.
The motion is deficient and does not serve as an adequate
deterrent factor. We run the risk by giving so much power to
psychiatrists of incarcerating some sex offenders indefinitely.
However, we still will not stop the Paul Bernardos of this world.
These people commit those crimes because they lack any basic
human compassion. Whatever the crime, it may be for fun, not
compulsion.
Passing a law which increases the probability of putting people
away indefinitely is not the way to deal with the Paul Bernardos of
the world.
My Reform colleagues may be surprised when I suggest that in
the case of the genuine psychopath, the serial killer and the person
who stalks and kills children deliberately for games, for fun, the
only deterrent is a capital punishment deterrent.
These are the people who must be defined very carefully. I do not
want to see capital punishment come galloping back into the the
House as an issue. However, This type of legislation does not get at
the type of person I believe the member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley is really after.
(1825)
The genuine serial killer, the person who does it for fun, is not
worried about going to jail indefinitely. This will not stop the
person at all, whereas capital punishment very narrowly defined for
this type of person would fit the bill perfectly.
When we look at it that way we have to question whether to
bring in legislation that addresses the type of sex offender who does
know remorse but can reoffend. As we heard from the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, the current
legislation does not address that type of person. He is required to be
judged by the courts about whether he reoffends.
It is very dangerous when one starts to look at people who have a
genuine sense of wrongdoing, a genuine sense of remorse. We run
the risk of giving them no hope whatsoever of coming back to
society. The motion goes too far in one way and not far enough in
the other.
If it were possible to define capital punishment that narrowly, as
in the Paul Bernardos of the world, I do not think the member's
motion would be sufficiently constructive at this time.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this motion is typical of the Reform Party and the nonsense we
have had to put up with from this group and its obsession with law
and order issues. It is obsessed with the notion that if we lock
people we will solve the crime problem of the country; lock them
all up and we will not have any crime.
Unfortunately we have lots of experience in world affairs in the
last 300 or 400 years, and probably a good deal longer, indicating
that policy does not work.
The Reform Party, however, sticks its head in the sand, goes
back to the middle ages and takes the view that if we lock people
up, whip them, chain them and beat them to death, somehow we
will solve the crime problem.
Crime has been a problem throughout human experience. It is
not something that just happened in 1995. It is not something that
just happened in 1993 or whenever it was the Reform Party formed
itself. It has been a problem with human existence since Cain and
Abel.
Hon. members opposite might have forgotten the story of Cain
and Abel, but I will not recite it for them tonight. There was a
murder then. There was no death penalty. I do not recall that Cain
got the death penalty. He got punished but he did not get the death
penalty.
Hon. members opposite rant and rave about locking people up
and throwing away the key. The hon. member for Wild Rose stood
up this morning to introduce a private member's bill that would
take away the right of parole, the right of statutory release and all
kinds of things that are what we call carrots to try to get people to
improve their behaviour while in prison. He wants to take that
away, lock them up for the maximum time we can lock them up and
hope that when we spring them on society after 12 or 25 years in
prison somehow they will be reformed and that society will not
suffer.
Some of us happen to know better than the hon. member for Wild
Rose. If he would listen to some reason once in a while instead of
spouting the constant nonsense he does from his seat he might learn
something from the experience others have had with the criminal
system.
Mr. Thompson: Not from the likes of you.
Mr. Milliken: He says he will not learn it from me. All right.
Never mind taking it from me. Take it from the experts, the people
who work in the system. If the hon. member would listen to them
he would not be spouting the nonsense he is spouting now and that
he was spouting earlier.
He has obviously convinced the very gullible member for
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley who has swallowed his line,
hook, line and sinker. The poor soul has been totally distracted by
the hon. member for Wild Rose and his silly nonsense on locking
people up and throwing away the key. That is all we ever get from
17661
the Reform Party. We had it earlier today. Now we have got it in
this motion.
(1830 )
Let me turn to the motion before the House. What we have now
is a system where under the Criminal Code if a person has
committed a particularly serious offence and is known to be a
dangerous offender or there is some risk that the person may be a
dangerous offender, we give a discretion to the attorney general of
the province in which the prosecution is taking place to bring an
application to have the offender declared a dangerous offender.
That discretion is given to the attorney general of each province
who is an elected official, a member of the cabinet in the province.
Presumably, he or she is a person who has won the trust and
confidence of the people, and a lot more trust and confidence than
has been earned by the hon. member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley. The hon. member's party has not been
elected as a majority party anywhere and is not likely to be, so she
may not have the advantage of being elected attorney general. I
must say I would pity the people in the province in which she ever
became an attorney general.
Nevertheless, the discretion is now given to the attorney general
of the province to decide whether to bring this application. The
hon. member wants to take away that discretion. She wants to put
the discretion in the hands of a group of psychiatrists and if the
psychiatrists say the person cannot be cured or has a particular kind
of problem, bango, you lock him up and throw away the key.
The hon. member for Calgary Southeast wags her head. I am
correct in what I am saying. The hon. member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley is not wagging her head. She knows I am
right. She knows I have accurately described the motion she has put
to the House. Frankly, it is a very sad commentary in this day and
age, considering that the age of enlightenment which took place
200 or 300 years ago came upon mankind and gave us some notion
of justice and fairness, that members of Parliament are now giving
this idea that locking up people solves the problem.
I know the Minister of Justice will likely come out with some of
these figures in his speech a little later. However, I want to point
out to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley
that the United States take the policy that she advocates fairly
seriously. They lock people up and they throw away the key.
The hon. member will find, if she looks at the figures and I know
she does not like to do this because facts are always a problem for
the Reform Party. Mr. Speaker, you know that as well as I do. There
is nothing worse than a set of facts to face some of the hon.
members opposite. It makes them quail and shake because facts are
something they do not want to know about.
In the United States the imprisonment rate for persons convicted
of criminal offences is four times what the rate is in Canada.
Ms. Meredith: Do you mean like Carpenter and Dailey and
Cameron?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Clifford Olson. Paul
Bernardo. Think about what you are saying, Peter.
Mr. Milliken: If the hon. members opposite would stay quiet for
a minute and listen to some facts, they might learn. Instead, when
they are confronted with facts they yell and shout and try to pretend
that they cannot hear them because it hurts them to hear facts.
Let me reiterate what I said. I said that in the United States the
imprisonment rate is four times what it is in this country. Their
crime rate is significantly higher and is rising. Our crime rate has
gone down in the last few years, thanks in part to the magnificent
efforts of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of
Canada.
Mr. Abbott: Oh, oh. And we have got gun control now too.
Mr. Milliken: Hon. members opposite oh and ah. I know they
would love to see the crime rates go up to bolster their arguments
that people should be locked up. The fact is the crime rate has gone
down.
We have had people locked up for longer periods, it is true. You
can ask the solicitor general about the fact that our prisons are
overcrowded, but I am saying to the hon. members opposite-
Mr. Hermanson: We are not talking about parking ticket
violations. We are talking about violent sexual offenders.
Mr. Milliken: I wish the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster would listen to what I say. If he would
listen to the facts instead of yelling all the time, he might learn
something. By constantly yelling he does not gain anything.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): It is not worth listening to.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast is
exactly the same. How can I continue with this constant yelling?
Could you please call for some order, Mr. Speaker. I leave it to you.
As I am trying to say with all this yelling that is going on, the
fact is the crime rate of the United States is higher than ours in spite
of the lock up policy and it is rising. In other words, any reasonable
person who approaches these facts would conclude that the policy
of locking people up and throwing away the key, as is advocated by
the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, would
result in an increased crime rate and more recidivism. That is
exactly the American experience.
17662
The hon. member wags her head now. Confronted with facts,
she says no, that cannot be right. But the fact is it is right. All
she has to do is look at the figures. Why does she not read these
figures? I have never heard her cite these figures in one of her
speeches. I have never heard the hon. member for Wild Rose talk
about this. I also do not hear the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast bother herself with facts in her speeches either. All we
hear are these opinions made up out of the air.
(1835)
What I am convinced the Reform Party members-
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In a
filibuster, does the member not have to use some reasoned
argument at some point?
The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order, but I would
ask the hon. parliamentary secretary, who is an experienced
member, not to associate the Chair with his remarks as he did
earlier. The Chair neither agrees nor disagrees with remarks of any
member.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have to address the Chair. I cannot
address hon. members opposite. I would not want to break the rules
by referring to hon. members and asking them if they agree. I can
only assume, Sir, that you have the good sense to agree with my
arguments because I have to put my arguments to you and not to
them. I cannot expect much on the other side.
Mr. Abbott: What arguments?
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says he is troubled because I
am not dealing with facts in my speech. If he had only listened he
would have heard facts. However, he did not listen. He was busy
yelling at me.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley in
her remarks has blatantly ignored all the facts that deal with the
incarceration of inmates.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I first want to acknowledge the
very significant interest shown by the hon. member for
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. For many months she has
expressed a great deal of interest here in the House and generally in
finding a way to protect society from the very highest risk
offenders. Her private member's bill is cogent evidence of her
commitment to that cause. She is to be congratulated on that
commitment.
May I also say that the hon. member for Calgary Southeast who
spoke to today's motion has also demonstrated that she is most
committed to finding ways of dealing with this risk to society.
I hope it is apparent from the speeches made on this side of the
House in this debate that the members of the government share that
commitment.
My colleague, the hon. parliamentary secretary, has developed at
some length the rationale behind present part XXIV of the Criminal
Code and its purpose. Part XXIV of the Criminal Code, the
dangerous offender provisions, is a unique advantage which we
enjoy in Canada and which sets us apart from many states in the
United States.
The question is what about the bill? Would the bill be an
effective way of improving public safety when it comes to high risk
offenders? Much as the government is in agreement with the
objectives stated by the hon. member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley, the government is not able to support this
motion. We have concluded that the means contemplated by the
hon. member's bill and by this motion would not be valid
constitutional legislation.
What efforts is the government taking to try to meet the
perceived need in a fashion that we believe would be valid or
effective? Let me spend a few moments in the sense of reporting to
the House what steps we have been taking in that regard.
The solicitor general and I have been working for some months
to develop proposals that will both improve part XXIV and add
other provisions to the criminal law which will equip our system to
deal more effectively with the highest risk offender.
In May of this year the solicitor general and I convened a
meeting here in Ottawa to which we invited officials of the
Correctional Service of Canada, high ranking police officers, both
from the RCMP and provincial forces, and psychologists who are
trained and experienced in dealing with the psychopathic
personality referred to by the hon. member. We also invited
representatives of the Ontario provincial attorney general's office,
police officers, defence lawyers and crown prosecutors. Involved
in the meeting as well was an attorney from Washington state who
has experience dealing with the sexual predator law in place in that
jurisdiction. We spent much of the weekend looking at the present
facts in Canada, the state of the law and the American experience in
trying to identify specific steps we would take by statutory
amendment or changes in practice to make society safer when it
comes to high risk offenders.
(1840)
We came to a number of conclusions. I hope that many of them
will come forward in the near future in the form of statutory
proposals.
I would like to explain the general direction which we plotted at
that time and in the months since in order to assure the House that
we are both aware of the problem and working in good faith toward
solutions.
First, we concluded that part XXIV can be improved, for
example, by removing the requirement for the testimony of two
psychiatrists in these cases. Part XXIV can be improved by
17663
removing the prospect of a definite term of incarceration, leaving
only indefinite imprisonment as an option available to the court.
We felt that the whole process of identifying and assessing
accused persons to determine whether they might be the subject of
a dangerous offender application could be improved with better
protocols or assessment. We are developing specific proposals in
that regard.
Furthermore, it was felt that if part XXIV or the dangerous
offender provisions were to be effective, a flagging system should
be put in place throughout Canada so that police officers who are
investigating or charging and crown attorneys who are preparing
for trial and determining whether to ask the attorney general's
consent to bring a part XXIV application could identify on the facts
of any given case whether a specific suspect or accused is
appropriate for such a disposition.
The solicitor general introduced a national flagging system
which became effective in September of this year, which is
intended to achieve that purpose. So far the flagging system has
been well received. It seems to be working smoothly and
effectively. No doubt it will be improved operationally as time
passes, but I believe it is a significant improvement in the system.
Other proposals were discussed on that occasion which have
been under review since that time. I hope and expect they will form
part of the legislation which the government will put before the
House at an appropriate time. For example, earlier this year there
was a report delivered by a federal-provincial-territorial task force
on high risk offenders which made a proposal that we find very
attractive.
As the House knows, for a crown prosecutor, with the consent of
the attorney general, to bring a dangerous offender application and
for a court to declare someone a dangerous offender, with the
consequence that they face indefinite incarceration, requires that a
certain evidentiary threshold be crossed. Obviously, it is an
exacting one because the consequence is very significant.
However, there are those cases in which the public safety is at
risk because of the high likelihood of an offender re-offending and
yet the prosecution does not feel that it can meet the high threshold
now provided for in part XXIV. The federal-provincial-territorial
task force proposed that in circumstances such as those, there
should be a second category to which crown attorneys and courts
can resort to protect society, but which involve a threshold of proof
which is less exacting than part XXIV. They describe this as the
long term offender category.
In circumstances that were appropriate for such applications, the
crown might ask the court, when dealing with someone who has
some risk of re-offending, not only to impose a term of
incarceration for the original offence, but also to impose at the end
of that term a mandatory period of supervision for a duration as
long as 10 years after they are out of prison, during which time the
person would be obligated to comply with stated conditions,
whether they be complying with the reporting requirements, taking
treatment as specified, wearing electronic bracelets or whatever the
case may be. There would be some reasonable measure of
continuing knowledge and control of people after they are out of
prison when there is a real risk they will reoffend.
That suggestion from the FPT task force strikes the government
as constructive and practical. I hope to put legislation before the
House at the appropriate time which would codify that kind of
provision.
We have examined provisions already in the Criminal Code such
as sections 161 and 810.1 which empower the court to make either
restraining orders-
Mr. Epp: How come these guys keep getting out? How come
they keep getting out to reoffend?
Mr. Rock: The hon. member asks why people get out and
reoffend. Right now the orders provided for in sections 161 and
810.1 of the Criminal Code are very narrow in scope. They provide,
for example, that where someone has been convicted of a crime
involving sexual violence or interference with a young person, the
court can make an order prohibiting the person from going near a
playground or a school yard or some other such place. That is very
narrow and circumscribed.
We are examining the prospect of taking that jurisdiction and
broadening it so that if someone is released from prison where
there is a demonstrated high risk of reoffending, the court will be
empowered to make orders of more general application.
Ms. Meredith: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member on a point of order, but
I indicate to her that the debate ends in 35 seconds.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already spoken for
10 minutes and there is still a minute left in the debate, from my
calculations.
The Deputy Speaker: I always appreciate it when members tell
me the time is faster than it was otherwise. According to my clock
the time expires in 10 seconds. If the minister wants to get up for
another nine seconds, he is welcome to do so.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will conclude because
obviously the time has run out.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing
Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 6.45 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.45 p.m.)