TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 19, 1994
Bill C-238. Motions for introduction and first readingagreed to 3193
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3193
Bill C-9. Report stage 3194
Motion for concurrence 3194
Motion for third reading. 3194
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 3199
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 3201
Division on motion deferred 3209
Bill C-7. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading. 3210
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 3227
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 3228
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 3229
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3232
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3232
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3232
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3233
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3233
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3233
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3234
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3235
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3236
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3236
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 3236
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 3237
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3237
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3238
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3239
Bill C-7. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 3239
Division on amendment deferred 3246
Bill C-11. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 3247
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.04 p.m.) 3247
The House resumed at 4.10 p.m. 3247
Bill C-11. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 3247
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee.) 3250
Bill C-17. Consideration resumed of motions 3258
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 146; Nays, 95 3259
Motion agreed to on the following division: Yeas, 146;Nays, 95 3259
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto committee.) 3259
Consideration resumed of motion 3259
Motion negatived on the following division: Yeas, 43;Nays, 197 3260
Consideration resumed of motion 3260
Amendment agreed to on division: Yeas, 191; Nays, 48 3261
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 188; nays, 51 3262
Bill C-7. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 3262
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 95;nays, 146 3264
3193
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 19, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
several petitions.
* * *
(1005)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-238, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child
support payments).
She said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the
Income Tax Act so that child support payments can no longer be
deducted from the income of the individual paying child support
and are no longer added to the income of the person receiving
the payments. The bill ensures that child support payments are
covered by the definition of earned income included in the
provisions on deductions for child care expenses.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36, I present a petition on behalf of the constituents of
Erie. I wish I did not have to present this petition because I wish
that the circumstances around this issue did not exist. However,
they do.
A growing number of Canadians are fiercely opposed to the
importation of killer cards. This petition adds 475 names to this
list. These cards are contrary to moral and ethical standards.
Canadians abhor crimes of violence against persons. Killer
trading cards offer nothing positive for our children or adults to
admire or emulate. Rather, they contribute to violence.
Not only do these cards glorify murder and the criminals who
commit horrific acts of violence, but they act as a daily reminder
to the victims, families and friends of the brutal violence that
has struck down their loved ones as well as their security and
faith in humanity.
A clear message must be sent to any printing company and/or
distributor that this material is not acceptable to Canadians. A
great number of Erie residents are opposed to this product and I
join them in calling for an amendment to the laws of Canada
prohibiting the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture
of killer cards.
* * *
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, question No. 23 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 23-Mr. Taylor:
Will the government implement recommendation No. 3 in the fourth report of
the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, entitled: ``A Time for Action''
(34th Parliament, third session), which calls for the transfer of control of
housing programs to aboriginal people and, if so, when and how, and, if not,
why?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): The federal government plans in the near future
to consider a new housing policy that would improve housing
conditions as well as strengthen aboriginal control and
accountability. As stated in its Liberal plan for Canada entitled
``Creating Opportunity'': ``The government will work with
aboriginal peoples to develop an approach to housing that
emphasizes community control, local resources and flexibility
in design and labour requirements''.
The new policy would also reduce the gap in the availability
of adequate, affordable housing; increase self-reliance through
greater employment and business opportunities, including those
3194
identified in recommendation No. 3; encourage broader
participation by private sector business and financial
institutions; and promote skills development initiatives.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3194
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, an act
to amend the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment)
from the committee.
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be
read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1010 )
Mr. Anderson (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the
bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
lead off the debate on third reading of Bill C-9. The bill
proposes to implement a number of amendments to the Income
Tax Act that were announced by the previous government.
Legislation to implement these measures was introduced last
June but the bill died when Parliament was dissolved. For these
measures to have legal effect new legislation must be passed
now by this Parliament.
Let me be clear at the start by explaining why we are going
ahead with this legislation. Simply put, these past tax measures
were introduced some time ago and many were said to be
effective immediately when announced.
Many thousands of Canadians took the government at its word
and relied on these announcements when making important
personal decisions. Many have, for example, used their RRSPs
to buy or build houses. Other Canadians have relied on these
announcements in making significant investments or hiring new
employees.
The commitments these taxpayers have made are for the most
part irreversible. Consequently, if we were to reverse course
many people would be put in a difficult position, an unfair
situation, and the trust that Canadians have in their government,
a trust that we must always strive to keep and enhance, will be
dealt a powerful blow.
However, we do not approach this question as prisoners of the
previous government's actions or inactions, to put it more
precisely. We have carefully reviewed the measures in this
legislation and believe we can support them in their own right.
With this in mind, let me review briefly the measures in this
bill. First of all, there are measures that affect individual
taxpayers. One is the extension of the homebuyers plan by one
year through to March 1, 1994. As I mentioned before, to renege
on this program would cause undue and unfair difficulties to
many thousands of Canadians.
As well, the legislation provides that starting next September
certain higher income Canadians will have to make quarterly
instalment payments on their taxes. At the same time some
300,000 low income filers will be excused from quarterly
payments and required to pay only once a year.
Another area addressed by this legislation is one of the few
small attempts of the previous government to foster job
creation. The December 1992 economic statement announced a
one-year program of relief for unemployment insurance
premiums for increased employment by small businesses.
This program has come and gone unnoticed by the far too
many Canadians who are unemployed in this country.
Nevertheless, a number of small business people have taken the
government of the day at its word. We shall honour the bargain
as a matter of public trust.
The same considerations also apply to other measures
targeted at small businesses. These include the temporary small
business investment tax credit for purchases of eligible
machinery and equipment from December 2, 1992 to December
31, 1993; the extension of the small business financing program
to the end of this year, allowing small businesses in financial
difficulty to refinance up to $500,000 of debt at low interest
rates; the removal of any limits on holdings of small business
shares in RRSPs and RRIFs; and the extension of the 35 per cent
investment tax credit available to small Canadian controlled
private corporations for eligible research and developmental
expenses.
In addition, this legislation will give effect to some general
improvements in the tax credit incentives offered to encourage
Canadian research and development. As well, it removes the
annual limits on investment tax credits. This limit introduced by
the previous government in 1987 reduced the effectiveness of
3195
the ITC incentives for rapidly growing firms, one of the engines
of job growth in this country.
The bill also assists resource companies by allowing 100 per
cent of the first $2 million of oil and gas development
expenditures to flow through directly to shareholders and be
deducted by them. As well, it gives these companies greater
flexibility in managing their affairs by removing the mandatory
deduction of Canadian exploration expenses.
(1015)
Finally, the bill puts in place new, more flexible rules for
investments in labour sponsored venture capital corporations.
We did not hold out the measures in the bill as any solution to
the challenge of job creation, but we do recognize the attempt.
Of equal importance we recognize the commitments made by
Canadians who have relied on these proposed measures.
This bill should be viewed simply as a question of
parliamentary housekeeping and therefore I urge members to
support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate on third reading of Bill C-9. Previously, I had an opportunity to speak to this bill during the debate on second reading.
At the time, without in any way denying the benefits of certain
measures contained in Bill C-9 as described by my hon.
colleague, the Secretary of State for Finance, I warned the
present government not to make the same mistakes as the
previous government. These mistakes are, in a way, reflected in
Bill C-9. Let me explain.
When we look at Bill C-9, we see that it contains measures
which, although beneficial, indicate a lack of vision on the part
of the previous government in dealing with a world that is
becoming increasingly globalized. We often talk about
globalization and opening borders, and we need measures to
help our companies and workers adjust to these changes. These
measures must provide a framework within which companies
can be confident about developing their competitive potential.
During the debate on second reading of Bill C-9, I also
warned the present Canadian government about the kind of
measures it should take. The budget had not yet been tabled, and
I asked the Liberal government not to make the same mistakes as
the previous government, which had failed to take steps to bring
public finances under control, and as you know, our public
finances are a disaster.
So what has happened since the second reading of Bill C-9?
First, the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed,
but the present government failed to put in place measures to
promote Quebec and Canadian companies or help them adjust to
this new agreement, which includes Mexico. Instead, a big show
was made of signing and implementing this Free Trade
Agreement. The Prime Minister and his Minister for
International Trade played their part, just to say they had
managed to reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement
and introduce certain provisions on labour standards and
protecting the environment.
Our analysis indicates there was nothing of the sort. There
was no bilateral or trilateral agreement with our U.S. or Mexican
neighbours, no measures that would ensure protection for our
social standards, our labour standards, and so forth.
Despite all that, the Prime Minister and his Minister for
International Trade bragged that they had obtained everything
and that they were now quite ready, with appropriate measures,
to face the challenge of the North American free trade.
Meanwhile, and I had raised the issue at the time, the world
was signing the biggest international trade deal since 1947, the
eighth GATT Agreement. Once again, while the Prime Minister
and the Minister for International Trade were boasting, sticking
out their chests and thinking they had made exceptional gains on
the North American level, they were losing on all fronts on the
international level. The fact that this government did not
shoulder its responsibilities could be very costly to Quebecers in
the next few years.
(1020)
For example, there is the farming industry, where Canada,
despite all it was saying, and in the middle of a debate on Bill
C-9, lost clause XI.2c)(i) of the GATT, which had made
flourishing milk and agricultural industries possible.
The Liberal Party, when in opposition denounced the
Conservatives for not having taken all the necessary measures to
protect that clause. Well, the Liberals did exactly the same
thing.
They bragged that they had obtained everything, even though
one of the fundamental pillars of Canadian agriculture had been
discarded by the GATT settlement.
We are not against the GATT settlement; quite the contrary.
We are free-traders and we have always said so.
We are for improvement of trade on the international level.
We are for economic growth linked precisely with our capacity
to produce, to export and to capture international markets.
But it is almost indecent for the Liberal Party of Canada to tell
us, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that we are all intelligent
people, that Canada won everything, at that time, and that
3196
Canada, faced with market globalization, has put in place more
consistent measures than those that are in Bill C-9.
Mr. Speaker, we also asked the Liberal government, when we
considered Bill C-9 at first reading, not to repeat the mistakes of
the past, not to repeat the mistakes of the Conservative
government and to apply such a restrictive monetary policy, that
at the peak of the recession, between the end of 1990 and the
beginning of 1991, there was a 5 point difference between
American and Canadian interest rates.
It was an unacceptable situation.
Therefore, we suggested that the government review the
whole monetary policy to ensure a fairer balance between the
desire to control inflation in the long term-which is a very
commendable objective-and our short-term need to create
permanent jobs that about 1.5 million Canadians, including
500,000 Quebecers, are still awaiting impatiently.
But instead of that, since first reading of Bill C-9, the
government of Canada, that is to say the Minister of Finance,
has appointed Mr. Thiessen, the right-hand man of John Crow,
the former Governor of the Bank of Canada, as his successor.
At the time of this appointment, the Governor of the Bank of
Canada restated the monetary policy of his predecessor, which
consisted in struggling against inflation at any rate no matter if,
in the short term, we were following the same pattern the
Liberals had denounced before. And yet, the need for jobs is
desperate.
Mr. Speaker, from the first through the second readings, we
have been asking the government not to repeat the errors made
in the previous budgets, the Conservative budgets and in the
present one, which shows a lack of long-term vision.
Not only did the Liberal Party of Canada repeat the same
mistakes, but it has done worse and that is where the actions of
the government are most reprehensible.
When I discussed Bill C-9, I would never have thought that
the first Liberal budget would be so terrible, so outrageous, that
it would be even more so than the most dreadful Conservative
budget.
Let us recall the facts. I think it is important when considering
a budget, when one is about to pass budgetary measures, to
remember that this government without vision has taken similar
measures, sometimes harsh ones, as a result of Bill C-9.
(1025)
First, cuts of $5.5 billion in unemployment insurance over the
next three years, by reducing the number of insurable weeks of
employment and by targeting the poorest in years to come.
As you know, for years members of this government
denounced, not lightly but in the strongest possible terms, any
Conservative initiative that they deemed antisocial. For years,
Liberals have practically portrayed themselves as leftists. They
portrayed themselves as champions of the poorest in our
society; yet, as soon as they came into office, they slashed
unemployment insurance by $5.5 billion. Since last week,
desperate workers, unemployed people actively seeking
employment and trying to regain their dignity, have come to
realize that they have been fooled by this government. I
understand that the budgetary measures reducing the number of
insurable weeks have really been applied only since last week.
Since then, in my own riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, I
have met desperate people. Those people are desperate because
they had put some hope in this government and in the measures
announced in the red book, but mainly measures announced
elsewhere because the red book is nothing but a rag when
assessed on its own merits. Those people had a lot of hope and
saw this government, unlike the previous one, as a government
that had a long-term vision, one that would create permanent
jobs and would give them back their dignity.
For instance, I think of Yan, 20 years old, who wants to finish
high school but who, because of this careless government, its
laxness and the fact that it tends to consider every request of
Quebec regarding decentralization of labour training as a whim,
because of that, Yan, 20 years old, living in the riding of
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, will not be able to finish his job
training. There is also the case of Jean-Yves, 45 years old, who
will not be able to get training this year because of red tape and
delays. He was told perhaps next year or in two years, depending
on the federal financial support that has already been cut in
several areas.
Claude, 25 years old, has a university degree and is looking
for a job, but he has just been penalized by the unemployment
insurance reform. Claude, 55 years old, who lives in Quebec, is
the victim of a plant closure, is unemployed and has been on
social assistance for a week. Last week, I was really shocked by
the story of Jacques, 35 years old. Unemployed, he was given
training by the federal government, but by the time he entered
the labour market, the training he had received was completely
outdated and would not meet business needs. I met many people
in that situation. Every week, the movement Action-chômage
meets with many people in that situation, such as Rachel, 40
years old and a mother of two children, who is on welfare.
Instead of helping those people by introducing humane
measures such as the ones we need right now to allow these
people to go back to work, to get adequate training and to obtain
permanent jobs, the members opposite, the Liberals, who were
saying that they wanted to give back their hope and dignity by
creating
3197
jobs, instead made cutbacks in unemployment insurance. I
consider them antisocial.
Another measure that I did not expect from a first federal
budget, following the speech that I delivered about the Senate, is
the lack, in that first federal budget, of concrete measures to
promote job creation, except for the infrastructure program. We
have nothing against the infrastructure program, but that
program only meets about 3 per cent of market needs. There are
1.5 million unemployed in Canada, including 450,000 in
Quebec, and all we have to offer them are 45,000 jobs. Mr.
Speaker, these 1.5 million unemployed Canadians will fight for
the 45,000 jobs available; there will be violence.
(1030)
I also noticed that since the first and second readings of Bill
C-9, this government has taken no concrete measure whatsoever
to create jobs, permanent jobs in reasonable quantity and of
reasonable quality. Everything concerning the creation of jobs
has been dealt with in a shameless fashion. I am talking here
about the Job Development Program where the government
recently made some cuts.
Another measure in the first Liberal budget which I could
never have imagined coming from the Liberal Party of Canada is
the abolition of the age credit. This government, those Liberals
shamelessly reduce credits for seniors, they who used to
denounce in the strongest possible terms any intention on the
part of the Tories to take away from the seniors or any attempt to
de-index their pensions or even cut them as was the case in the
beginning. I thought these people were sincere and I now see
that they never were. Under the guise of a social democratic
approach, a humanistic approach, they have fooled the people of
Quebec and Canada, and they will pay for that.
Nor was I expecting a $2.5 billion cut over three years in
Established Programs Financing, especially in the portion
earmarked for post-secondary education. Members on the other
side of the House-I am looking to see who is present
today-keep talking about education, they keep telling us that
education is of extreme importance in order to face present
challenges, to face the growing competition that results from the
globalization of trade. But they cut into funding for
post-secondary education.
Nor did I expect that the government would renege on a
commitment made at the beginning of last year by the Liberal
Party of Canada, maybe even in 1992 if I remember correctly the
first statements regarding social housing. When the
Conservatives cut the $600 million budgeted for the
construction of new social housing units, the Liberals said that
they would restore this financing, that they would start afresh
with a new social housing development program. When they
assumed power they quickly forgot that promise, and ignored
the 350 persons who demonstrated in Ottawa three months ago
to ask for decent housing conditions, for a dignity they lost a
long time ago. These 350 persons were spending anywhere from
30 to 50 per cent of their income on housing, at least. This is
intolerable, and even more so when you hit a stone wall like the
one that the Liberals put up.
After giving hope to low income people I consider it indecent
that the Liberal government is not coming through with a
program, thus dashing the hopes of these people.
Analysing Bill C-9 at third reading gives me a chance to
discuss, as I did at first reading, the whole vision of the
government that tabled this budget. I realize the government
does not have a vision and will never have any. Why? It is the
same basic question over and over again. Everywhere in the
world, in any democracy, when there is no clear and democratic
law providing for public financing of political parties, there is
always the risk that the ruling party, upon taking control, will be
unable as a government to make real decisions, good decisions
such as abolishing all the fiscal inequities of our system.
(1035)
I remember very clearly that when Liberals were the Official
Opposition they denounced almost daily the inequities of the
federal fiscal system. They denounced tax evasions. They even
denounced family trusts. They were probably trying to win over
supporters of the New Democratic Party, which has almost
disappeared since then. Along with members of the New
Democratic Party, Liberals denounced the fiscal inequities of
the Canadian fiscal system.
However, since the last budget, nothing was done to redress
the situation. Family trusts still exist enable very rich families
to avoid paying between $350 million and one billion dollars a
year to the federal Treasury. The same is true of numerous
agreements between Canada and countries considered tax
havens. They still sign the same kind of agreement; they still
have regulations allowing businesses with parent companies in
such tax havens to pay hardly any taxes on their profits, while
the losses they incur in these tax havens can be deducted from
profits made in Canada.
Knowing what the position of the Liberal Party of Canada has
been in the past, I cannot understand why they are doing the very
thing they were denouncing when they were the Official
Opposition, and why, after deceiving us for so many years, they
are now totally lacking in vision and concern for social justice.
In his recent budget, the finance minister did nothing along
the lines of what we recommended during the first debate on Bill
C-9. Worse yet, he managed to do even worse than all the
previous Conservative budgets. Within three months, his
budget, totally devoid of any sense, lost all credibility; even
3198
thoughhe cut $7.5 billion in social programs, the financial world
reacted very negatively to his budget.
This budget harms the poor and the financial world. In
financial circles, people say that the government has lost control
of the public finances, that it will not be able to bring the deficit
down to 3 per cent of the GDP as it has been promising for so
long. Finance people are not disconnected from reality, they
have a very good analytical mind, just like the Bloc Quebecois.
They know that the tax revenue projections in this budget are as
unrealistic as those contained in all of the previous
government's budgets. They know full well that since 1988 or
thereabouts, each time Canada's GDP increases by 1 per cent,
federal revenues do not increase by 1 per cent, but only by a
mere 0.4 per cent.
In other words, given the growth of the underground economy
and the whole range of factors tied to the elasticity of tax
revenues compared with the rate of taxation-I will spare you
the technical details-economic growth in Canada results in
lower tax revenues. Financial circles have their own highly
skilled analysts who also know full well that this budget is not
realistic and they have proven this over the past month. On
reviewing all of the short-term and medium-term financial
data, one can see the extreme volatility of interest rates, for
example. The spread between interest rates on 90-day Canadian
Treasury Bills-in my view, the most telling indicator of how
the budget was received, of the economic situation and of the
government's state of indebtedness-as compared to U.S. bills,
was 213 points yesterday, when a mere two months ago, prior to
the release of the Finance Minister's budget, the spread was only
40 points.
It is also clear that foreign investors have lost confidence in
the Canadian dollar. A similar loss of confidence was
experienced while the Conservatives were in office, but the
situation has taken a turn for the worse under the Liberals.
(1040)
On the one hand, then, the budget contains some extremely
unpopular measures which target the least fortunate, persons
who should not have to suffer any more than they already do,
while on the other hand, it caters to financial circles. The
Canadian government will have to pay an additional $3 to $5
billion at the end of next year in extra interest charges. The
government is responsible for the increase in interest rates. It
has turned its back on those who have recently renewed, or who
will be renewing their mortgage shortly, by allowing interest
rates to creep upward. All of this stems from the lack of
credibility of the latest Liberal budget. This budget is as lacking
in credibility as any of the previous Conservative budgets.
The situation is very sad indeed, Mr. Speaker, and others share
our opinion. The fact that the Dominion Bond Rating Service
Ltd recognized that with this budget, Canada had failed to gain
control over its public finances and that consequently, it lowered
Canada's rating from AAA to AA+ is significant indeed.
Considering that Scotiabank, Burns Fry Limited, the
Association des manufacturiers du Québec, the Bank of
Montreal, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, hardly a
proponent of sovereignty, Globe and Mail analysts and the
Financial Post all agree that the latest Liberal budget is as
damaging as the previous Conservative budgets and totally
lacking in credibility, then there has to be some truth in what we
are hearing, Mr. Speaker.
When you are down to saying, as the Prime Minister did in
this House on April 13, that the budget can be set aside, that
what will determine what cuts and what measures to control
spending need to be done and how public funds are to be
managed is not that budget, but non-budgetary measures, even
if the Prime Minister is somewhat disparaging about the latest
Liberal budget, there is a semblance of truth somewhere in
there.
This means that the most recent Liberal budget is not only as
bad as the Conservative budgets were, but actually worse,
because never had a previous Prime Minister of Canada run
down the budget tabled by his Minister of Finance as much as
this Prime Minister has.
So, and I will close on this, third reading on Bill C-9 has
allowed me to see the progress made in the implementation of
the measures, to see what actions this government has taken,
after the alarm I tried to raise in my speech when Bill C-9 was
read for the second time. I realize in the light of the actions
taken, and the last budget in particular, that not one of the
sensible, rational, well-thought-out recommendations made by
the Official Opposition, recommendations that were mindful of
social justice, human dignity, seniors, as well as young people
actively looking for work and the unemployed, were taken into
account for the action plan developed following the debate at
second reading of Bill C-9.
I was following the goings-on in the federal political arena
long before becoming a member of Parliament and before
having the privilege of debating with you and I used to think that
the Conservatives were the most right-wing politicians in
Canada's political history. I considered their actions to be
inhumane, senseless measures that did nothing to address the
problems resulting from overliberal budgeting or the Canadian
government financial difficulties. I felt that the social price of
these measures, especially the price to the less fortunate
segment of society, was too high.
Now I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Party of Canada is
even worse. Their ways are more underhanded. They cleverly
wrap up right-wing, inhumane measures that hurt the most
disadvantaged people in a progressive discourse, apparently
intended to be open, humane, conciliatory, a discourse with a
3199
distinctly economic flavour to it I would say, but based on
economics of the modern kind, where economic analysis is
combined with a profoundly humane sociological approach. It
takes an anti-poverty stand. It takes a very economic approach,
but a new kind of economy, which combines dollars and cents
with a very humane sociological approach.
(1045)
So it covers its inhumane acts with its very humane-sounding
rhetoric in order to deceive the people. From the election
campaign until today, we have seen that this government has no
shame about fooling the people as it has done.
I will quote you a passage from an article by Laurent Laplante
published in Le Droit on April 12. Speaking of the ineffective
measures being taken by the Liberal Party of Canada to support
economic growth, he says: ``The Conservatives, by
concentrating their whole attention on the inflationary threat,
finally dragged Canada into the first fully made-in-Canada
recession. Mr. Martin has decided to do better; he wants to make
this recession go on forever.'' I find that this passage says a lot
about the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals
and I hope that we will soon be out of this regime with our heads
held high, with dignity and a real plan for society, a plan to
create jobs, a plan for full employment in a sovereign Quebec
that is open to the world and takes a responsible attitude to the
challenge facing us in an era of global markets.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker for giving me this opportunity to talk
about what this government has done since the first reading of
Bill C-9.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, certainly it is a
privilege to be able to make a few remarks on third reading of
Bill C-9, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.
I must confess that I have certain mixed feelings about
addressing the bill. It introduces measures that were introduced
by a previous government, and here we are today putting the
measures into law. In a sense it is kind of a reverse process.
When a government enacts or wishes to carry on some type of
policy or objective it should move the legislation into the House,
pass it and then implement the programs. We are kind of
following a reverse procedure that certainly gives me mixed
feelings in my legislative responsibilities. However it has
happened and we are here today examining the bill as such.
On the one hand it would seem only prudent that we support
the bill. It is generally referred to as a housekeeping bill. As I
have said, much of the policy in it has been enacted during the
past year and we are just getting around to proclaiming the law
today.
In my presentation I will not pretend for a minute that it would
be anything but irresponsible of us to oppose these measures
merely on principle because of the circumstances. On the other
hand I wish to make clear there are some principles to which I
am strongly opposed, as is the Reform Party.
The Income Tax Act, as we all know, has become a very
unwieldy monster symbolizing what many Canadians see as the
problem with government in general and that in general there is
just too much government for all of us.
The last attempt by a government to amend the text and
change it led to other kinds of reforms. It led to an income tax
surtax, an alternate minimum tax, tax deductions, tax credits
and the complicated GST that is before the finance committee at
the present time. All these have rather confused the matter.
(1050)
We as Reformers believe it is time to review the Income Tax
Act and the variety of methods and means by which we collect
funds to operate government. We think it is most important at
this point in time. Even the forms need revision.
Today I was given an article from a newspaper about the fact
that Revenue Canada workers have been issued a memo inviting
them to consult with some of their colleagues in filling out their
tax returns. The memo says: ``The time for filing your income
tax return is approaching. Should you require any information or
assistance in the preparation of your return, you may contact one
of the employees whose name and location appear below''.
Not all citizens of Canada have that privilege, but the point we
want to make is made by the writer of the article and others who
have commented on it: if tax department employees cannot
figure out how to fill out their own returns, imagine how the rest
of Canadians feel. That is a very apt comment under the
circumstances.
An hon. member: Make all MPs do it here. That will help.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Right. That is what should
happen here, to see if we need consultation or not.
That is an impression. It is certainly a comment on the
complications of the Income Tax Act. I want to speak about that
in my remarks today and where we feel the process should go in
reviewing the tax collection system of Canada.
I would like to make clear there are some good aspects to the
bill. We would like to see the government continue with some of
these programs and certainly improve on them as we proceed in
the legislative session.
We know young people today cannot afford to buy homes
because they are paying too much tax. We should look at some of
the details. While total incomes per capita have increased 170
per cent in the last 10 years total direct personal taxes have risen
3200
some 235 per cent. How are we doing with respect to other
countries?
Canadian government revenues as a percentage of gross
domestic product have increased from 24 per cent in 1950 to
almost 43 per cent in 1990. Also six years ago the tax burden in
Canada was approximately 20 per cent higher than that of the
United States. By 1992 it had risen to 25 per cent and was
projected to increase to 30 per cent by 1997. My recent reading
of statistics indicates that we are at that point today. It is not just
young people who are feeling the tax burden; it is all Canadians.
The homebuyers plan that allows those saving for homes to
withdraw from their RRSPs to make down payments is and was a
good idea. It not only puts the dream of home ownership within
the grasp of more people. It provides economic spinoffs all the
way down the line.
A poll released in September 1993 by the Canadian Real
Estate Association confirmed that the homebuyers plan was a
big success. The Angus Reid poll was conducted in five major
Canadian cities. First of all it found that four out of five buyers
who used the plan said it was an important factor in their
decision. It was especially important for 86 per cent of first time
buyers.
Second, nearly half or 49 per cent said it would have been
unlikely they would have been able to buy their homes without
the plan.
Third, the plan helped a significant number of home buyers
surveyed: 22 per cent of all first time home buyers and 17 per
cent of buyers generally.
Fourth, repaying their RRSPs is a high priority. Eighty-one
per cent of respondents said it was important to repay. Fully 88
per cent said they would repay at least at the rate required by the
plan. Only 4 per cent said they would not repay and would
declare their withdrawals as income.
Fifth, home ownership was seen by 84 per cent of those
surveyed as being at least somewhat important to retirement
planning. Fifty-four per cent said it was very important. Owning
a home was rated by far the most important source of income for
retirement.
Sixth, the Department of Finance has already reported that the
numbers have been very impressive with nearly 200,000
participants to the end of July 1993. These are indeed impressive
numbers. As we well know the number of housing starts is a
reliable indicator of the overall health of the economy.
(1055)
The housing industry directly employs, to name a few, general
contractors, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, drywallers,
painters, landscapers, building product suppliers, real estate
agents and lawyers. We are encouraged by such measures as the
homebuyers plan and the results it has had. I am sure the limited
extension of that program will be of benefit to many other
Canadians.
In more general terms it is our hope the new government
makes meaningful, effective reforms of the Income Tax Act, as I
have already mentioned, with an aim to simplifying the process
and certainly making it less complicated and fairer.
We in the Reform Party support a taxation policy that has as
its principle the objective of raising funds to pay directly for
government programs. We support a balanced budget concept. If
we look at the history of the act it was originally intended to
collect taxes to ideally pay for the services provided by
government. Somewhere along the line we have lost the original
intent of the tax system and have allowed it to become a tool to
influence the behaviour of people. As well we have used it as a
social reform instrument rather than a means by which to collect
funds to pay for services. That is inappropriate and has moved us
away from a rational responsible budget process.
I say in a general sense now, and certainly some of my
colleagues will talk about it in detail as the weeks proceed. We
should be working toward a more simple, visible, proportional
system of taxation: the flat tax that many people talk about or the
single tax. We believe it could be fair, more applicable, more
easily administered and more easily understood by the people
who have to take responsibility for sending revenue to
government each year.
As we sit here today to assent to the amendments before us
that were proposed by the last government, I cannot help but be a
little cautious in my optimism. All of us in the House should not
need reminding of the resounding message sent to the last
government on October 25. We must be responsible in our
deliberations and make sure we are responding to the needs of
Canadians, not to our needs as either a government, an
opposition party or individual MPs. We cannot allow ourselves
to slip into those ways even in the slightest.
I call upon government members to assure us they will give
reform of the Income Tax Act the priority it deserves. In the
hearings of the finance committee on a variety of proposals to
change the GST, to fix the GST or on other options, one point
made by a major number of presenters was that we needed to
look at all taxing instruments of government and come up with a
plan that is fair, more co-ordinated and more responsive to the
needs of Canadians. At the present time they feel they are not
co-ordinated. Often because of that some people in our
economic system are taxed to a greater extent than others.
If the government makes a commitment to make the
reforming of the Income Tax Act a high priority, it shows us as
the opposition party that it is making good on its promise of a
new way of doing business. It also sends a strong message to the
provinces that they should follow the lead of the federal
government. Most important, it shows Canadians that there is
hope for a new way of government. We cannot let fear of media
or any
3201
other kind of pressure inhibit our effort at reform. We have to
try.
In closing I take a moment to remind my colleagues in the
House that there is a big, fast moving and exciting world beyond
these walls. In my brief experience in this House I am often
amazed at how this simple fact gets lost in the daily shuffle of
papers this institution is confronted with. We often get
distracted from some of our major causes or our major concerns.
However we have to recognize there is another world out there
where they are throwing around words and we are doing it in this
House as well. They are words like information superhighway.
We as legislators must strive to keep up and be ready for change.
(1100)
I leave this portion of the debate with this final thought.
Failure is not fatal, but in these times failure to change might be.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons) moved:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed
to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(5),
respecting the system of readjusting the boundaries of electoral districts for the
House of Commons by Electoral Boundaries Commissions, and, in preparing
the said bill, the committee be instructed to consider, among other related
matters, the general operation over the past thirty years of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act, including:
(a) an assessment of whether there should be a continual increase in the number
of Members of the House of Commons after each census, as now provided in
section 51 of the Constitution Act;
(b) a review of the adequacy of the present method of selection of members of
Electoral Boundaries Commissions;
(c) a review of the rules governing and the powers and methods of proceedings
of Electoral Boundaries Commissions, including whether these Commissions
ought to commence their work from the basis of making necessary alterations to
the boundaries of existing electoral districts wherever possible;
(d) a review of the time and nature of the involvement of the public and of the
House of Commons in the work of Electoral Boundaries Commissions;
That the committee have the power to travel within Canada and to hear
witnesses by teleconference; and
That the committee report no later than December 16, 1994.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise and speak in
favour of the motion to refer the issue of the electoral
boundaries readjustment process to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs.
The current process of adjusting constituency boundaries by
independent commissions has been in existence since 1964
when the Liberal government of Lester Pearson passed the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Before then the House
of Commons itself was responsible for electoral boundaries
readjustment.
The current process has been in place since 1964. After 30
years the time has come for a fundamental review of all aspects
of this process by the House of Commons which passed the 1964
law in the first place.
(1105)
On April 13, 1994 this House adopted Bill C-18. It provides
for a suspension of the current electoral boundaries
readjustment process for a period of 24 months in order to allow
for a fundamental review of all aspects of the process. All
aspects of this matter should be reviewed by the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in a thorough and
thoughtful manner.
Some dissatisfaction has been expressed with regard to the
current process. I would like to take a few minutes to elaborate
on this.
For example, the commissions published their initial
proposals without having a chance to obtain input from
interested parties. When published therefore, these proposals
often come as a complete surprise.
From my former days as a political science professor at the
University of Winnipeg when I followed the electoral
boundaries review process in a more dispassionate way, I can
tell you those in the academic community who were watching
the process were indeed surprised by the results at times. They
were more surprised at how difficult it was to learn in detail
exactly how the new boundaries were set.
Although some commissions explain the reasons for the
proposals, they are not required to do so. It is therefore very
difficult for a person who intends to make representations, to
intervene with a commission, to know the reasons behind the
3202
proposal and to make objections or present alternatives in an
effective manner. In that respect the public participation process
is not what it should have been.
The criteria the commissions must use to set the boundaries
may have to be rethought. The criteria are quite general and,
depending on the approach taken by each commission, the
rationale for drawing electoral boundaries can differ
considerably from one province to another. That has created a
lot of controversy in this process for setting boundaries since
1964.
The continual increase in the number of members in the
House of Commons after each census is another issue of some
concern. Since Confederation the number of seats in the House
of Commons has increased steadily from 181 in 1867 to the
current level of 295. All of us have heard the electors express
frustration with the constant growth of government, the size of
the House of Commons and the cost associated with Parliament.
This issue should not be passed over lightly.
The above examples are but a few of the areas that should be
thoroughly reviewed by the standing committee. The
government has therefore decided to ask the House of Commons
to refer the electoral boundaries readjustment process to the
House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs for review and to develop improvements to the
current procedure.
The standing committee's terms of reference provide that it
can bring in a bill respecting the system of readjusting the
boundaries of electoral districts.
The committee shall consider the general operation over the
past 30 years of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act,
including the following major issues: whether there should be a
continual increase in the number of members in the House of
Commons after each census as now provided in section 51 of the
Constitution Act; a review of the method of selection of
members of the electoral boundaries commissions; a review of
the proceedings of the commissions, including whether they
ought to make alterations to the boundaries of existing electoral
districts wherever possible; and a review of the involvement of
the public and of the House of Commons in the work of the
commissions.
I may add to that if we make improvements, as this House
does in so many other areas in the way we deal with the country,
in the way we involve people, then many of the problems we
meet in a process such as we have in the last month in this
particular domain will be solved. It is incumbent upon all
parliamentarians to think of ways to improve public
participation, in the ways in which the general public influence
such major decisions such as the nature, shape and composition
of their constituencies.
(1110 )
This committee is to report no later than December 16, 1994.
Using one of the new procedures adopted by the House when
it approved the government's parliamentary reform package at
the outset of this Parliament, the committee will be authorized
to frame legislation implementing its proposals.
Again there are benchmarks in the new House where we try to
convince Canadians and try to show by example that we are
serious about the role of individual members, serious about the
role of people outside of the ministries doing work as
fundamental as preparing legislation. As I said, this will turn out
to be a benchmark in the way we redevelop this House and its
approach to problems.
This will be the first opportunity for a parliamentary
committee to initiate legislation in response to requests
submitted by the government. We are following through on our
commitment to strengthen the role of members of Parliament in
developing legislation.
The redistribution of electoral boundaries is an important
matter for the whole country. We are requesting the standing
committee to not only study the issue but to develop and
recommend legislative measures it feels may be required to
solve this problem.
In conclusion, the readjustment of electoral boundaries
touches important questions of democratic representation in the
House of Commons. Now is the ideal time to have a thorough
review of the process undertaken by the House of Commons
itself and to hear Canadians from coast to coast to coast through
the standing committee. The committee hearings will be public
and outside witnesses will be heard.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, previous
speeches made in this House pointed out the essentially
democratic nature of the Bloc Quebecois and, in this regard, its
willingness to respect the integrity and autonomy of the people
it represents in every county of Quebec.
One of our party's basic objectives, particularly in
anticipation of Quebec's independence, is to exercise the
democratic process as widely as possible.
Today we take this opportunity to support government motion
M-10 proposing that the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill
respecting the system of readjusting the boundaries of electoral
districts.
Our goal in supporting motion M-10 is, as you know, to
respect the regional integrity of these communities without
hampering the regional decentralization process currently
taking place in Quebec.
3203
However, the Bloc Quebecois will only support this
government motion on certain conditions.
First, we must denounce, once again, the arbitrary and
inconsistent new boundaries drawn up in recent years and, in
this regard, we must also mention the importance of
administrative divisions in Quebec.
Not only are these administrative zones strategically
important for Quebec but they are based on fundamental
geographical, economic, industrial and cultural elements.
As long as Quebec remains, in spite of itself, a member of the
Canadian Confederation, the federal commissions responsible
for readjusting electoral boundaries will have to consider
regional municipalities, counties and administrative regions.
As we said in a previous speech, our second reservation about
motion M-10 is that the decentralization of decision-making
powers should, in our opinion, be an essential element of
regional policy in the year 2000.
The Canadian policy advocated by a Liberal government big
on centralization lacks a socio-economic development
perspective.
We see the decentralization of political and economic
decision-making as essential to creating jobs in RCMs.
In line with Minister Picotte's reform and the consolidation of
regional development councils, the Bloc Quebecois has made a
commitment to direct political and economic decision-making
to the regions.
(1115)
The Bloc Quebecois proposes that the State of Quebec no
longer act alone in planning coherent economic development. In
our view, the general framework for this development must be
redefined, starting with the regions. Decentralization of the
bureaucratic monster which the central State has become
requires Quebec's political sovereignty.
The Bloc Quebecois wants to go beyond changes to the
political structure. We recommend regional self-management
based on fundamental democracy. We advocate the creation of
highly decentralized and antibureaucratic organizations. In
short, we reject the authoritarian social and economic
management policies which are pursued by the unified political
power representing central States and which are ruining the
public finances of Canada and Quebec.
A two-year moratorium, during which decentralization of the
decision-making process will be stepped up under the Parti
Quebecois in Quebec, will allow riding residents to concentrate
more on ensuring regional development rather than on building
a Canada that can never be.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois recommends that
the entire federal Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be
reformulated, and that the process be undertaken as soon as
possible within the framework of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs.
We must take advantage of the two-year moratorium on the
redistribution of electoral boundaries to weigh carefully all the
implications of adjustments of this nature to ridings.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I stand here
today as a very proud member of the House of Commons
representing the province of British Columbia. The reason I say
it that way is because with all due respect to my Liberal
counterparts from our province, they have remained silent on
this issue. It is an issue of great concern to the people of British
Columbia.
We received by fax a copy of a letter that our premier sent to
the Prime Minister. I will read part of it:
I am appalled that your government, with the support of six B.C. Liberal MPs,
has betrayed the best interests of British Columbia in introducing this measure
with closure. Your actions will deny B.C. its fair representation in the House of
Commons.
He goes on to point out:
As you know, with the defeat of the Charlottetown accord, B.C. lost gains it
made in that agreement which would have given this province five more seats
before the 2001 census. That was to build on scheduled redistribution for 1996
when B.C.'s representation in the House of Commons was to increase by two
seats. This was a clear recognition of B.C.'s severe under-representation in the
House of Commons.
At the risk of being branded one of those crazy BCers, here we
go all over again, let me also state that I am a proud Canadian
citizen. I stand for a united Canada as I believe the vast majority
of people in B.C. do.
However, why is it that every time we turn around in British
Columbia measures are taken in this place, even when we have
representatives on the government side, that we do not consider
to be rational and fair representation? We feel we are almost
being abandoned.
The leader of the opposition, Mr. Gordon Campbell, also
wrote to the Prime Minister. He states:
Mr. Minister, the bill makes no sense.
He is referring to Bill C-18.
Parliament does not strengthen the country by disenfranchising its fastest
growing region nor does Parliament strengthen its bond to the people it serves
by further weakening the principle of one person, one vote.
One of the interesting things I have found since coming to
Ottawa is that the amount of news that flows in this direction
into the awareness of people in central Canada about the
concerns of the people of British Columbia seems to be
minuscule. If I did not have my constituency office in Cranbrook
constantly feeding me information from the western press I
3204
would think that it did not even exist. For the interest of the
House I might mention that Mr. Mel Smith, former
constitutional adviser to the province of British Columbia, in
the lead paragraph in an article he has just written says: ``British
Columbians of every political stripe should be up in arms over
the current scheme by the government to subvert the most
fundamental principle of democratic society, representation by
population and in the process deprive British Columbia of seats
it is entitled to in the next House of Commons''.
(1120)
What can we do to get proper representation for the province
of British Columbia? We recognize that we do have one
particular anomaly with respect to representation by population
and that is Prince Edward Island where the average population
per seat ranges between 30,000 and 34,000. So be it. It is a fact
of history. It is an anomaly.
What about the province of Ontario? Under distribution as we
currently have it, seats range in population from 63,000 to
209,000. I would suspect that the constituents that are
represented by the member for Mississauga West must be
wondering why the Liberal government in absolute union stood
up en masse and said that was fine. For Mississauga West we can
have 209,000 population versus 63,000 population. It is all
right.
It is fair and good to say we are going to redistribute the seats
in Parliament. We are going to do things differently. We are
going to go into the process. However someone has suggested
that many of the processes in Ottawa resemble glacial time. An
ice age will come and go. We are going to be fighting the next
election based on 1981 census figures.
What has happened in metropolitan Toronto? What has
happened in Alberta? What has happened in Vancouver? In these
areas we have had an absolute explosion of population and now
these people are under-represented.
Let me also state that another problem is one of geography.
Coming from an area that is bounded by mountains I recognize
the difficulty in representing the number of people that I
represent versus the number of people that are represented in
constituencies in greater Vancouver. Again we have anomalies
or variances. It is something we will have to discuss when we are
talking about geography because of travel and distances. As a
consequence substantial dollars are spent. If I, as a member of
Parliament, am going to be representing more people we are
going to be into more costs.
The Reform Party stands for representation by population in
the lower House. We suggest that this motion is a tactic, it is a
fait accompli because the Liberal government used closure to
inflict on us these anomalies. Perhaps we even have to take a
closer look at the other place. We are currently represented by
people appointed there.
Canadians should be aware of the fact that Premier Filmon, as
I understand it, is presently taking a look at the possibility of
putting a ballot forward at the next provincial election in
Manitoba in the same way that the province of Alberta did
concerning the election of a senator.
I would suggest to all Canadians watching this broadcast that
they give serious consideration to writing the premier and
supporting him in the hope of getting proper representation
within Canada. In the lower House we would have
representation by population, if indeed we ever get around to it,
and in the upper House we would have at least one more of the Es
which would be an elected member in that Chamber.
I listened with interest to the Secretary of State when he
mentioned that the results of redistribution were published
without input. Perhaps some people would find it amusing that
he is bringing up the point just at a time when we will be having
public input. At the time when ordinary Canadians were going to
have the opportunity to have input to this most fundamental part
of our democratic process, the Liberals shut down the process.
That is rather interesting.
(1125)
However, to make something good of something bad, we
recognize there is a strong desire on the part of all Canadians to
see a cap on the number of members of Parliament. The
secretary stated that earlier in the debate. He said that Canadians
are tired of the continual increase. Canadians want to see a
change.
Therefore, I would like to move an amendment to the motion.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting the
following:
``(a) a formula to cap or reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons:''
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, in
my address I shall focus on the aspect of the motion of whether
the number of MPs should continually increase. In the course of
this I shall include some thoughts on the geographical and
electoral boundary concerns.
In keeping with the concept of representation by population or
each MP representing approximately an equal number of
Canadians citizens, two factors influence this. One is the
constant increase in the number of Canadians and the other
would be the movement of the population within our borders.
Two options present themselves as methods of achieving this
representation by population, the first one being that we could
establish the number of MPs we would have in the House and
divide that number into the total number of Canadians to obtain
the number of citizens that each MP would represent. This
representation number becomes the variable that would change
each time we address this process.
3205
The second option would be the reverse of the first. That
would be to establish the number of Canadians that an MP would
represent and divide that number into the total number of
Canadians. This would make the number of MPs the variable
that would change each time we reviewed and updated this
process.
Two points to note are that regardless of which option is
employed the electoral boundaries of constituencies will
change. In both options the existing boundaries within our
country do not influence the designating of federal electoral
boundaries. It is strictly on head count.
(1130)
Before moving on to the geographic concerns I wish to
comment further on these two options. I favour the establishing
of a given number of MPs, say 295, and increasing the number
each represents as required.
If we were to do the opposite and increase the number of MPs
each time we would be creating problems that would repeat
themselves each time we updated our electoral representation or
legislation and we would look for solutions each time.
The first problem that comes to mind is accommodation of the
added MPs. A possible solution to this requires an expansion of
this building or the room and that in turn would generate or
create the problem of finding the dollars to pay for it. The
expansion of this building or the room would not apply if we had
a cap on the numbers of MPs and increased the numbers they
represented each time.
A second possible solution to increasing the number of MPs is
to utilize the communication highway where we could all stay at
home and chat with each other from there. The ramifications of
this present a debate in itself and is best left for some other day. I
cannot help but wonder that if this ever came to pass considering
the size of our country the first obstacle that we would probably
debate would be the start and finish times of MP duty times.
A third possible solution to increasing the number of MPs,
and this would be taken over using this approach over a long
period of time, is that we could possibly end up with so many
MPs that the solutions to address that issue at that time may be
such things as shift work or breaking up into small groups of
MPs and rotating one or two of us through the House Monday
through Friday.
To get back to the reality of now, we have 295 members and
the House is full. There is probably not even enough room here
now to suggest a renovation activity to provide the same amount
of leg room for the MPs in the top three rows as in the bottom
two rows. We are that full.
If each member spoke for 20 minutes and then responded to 10
minutes questions or comments we would need 147.5 hours of
agenda time. Along with this we are in Ottawa approximately 26
weeks of 52, or half a year, and if each of these weeks were
allowed 25 hours of agenda time, we would have a total 650
hours. If we divided that by the number of MPs and each
participated, each one of us would be able to speak 2.2 times a
year.
By increasing the number of MPs we would decrease the
number of opportunities that each of us would have to
participate in the debates in this House and other business.
There is not time.
Keeping the number of MPs in the House constant and varying
the number that each represents can create some problems or
concerns. The most notable would be the inequity in the number
of square miles of each constituency. To achieve the numbers
involved in the two options the densely populated areas would
be geographically small and the less dense would be large to
horrendously large.
A possible solution to this and in keeping with representation
by population is to address the process aspect of this procedure
and adjust the MPs' constituency budgets to accommodate this.
For example, in small geographic areas one constituency office
is close enough to each constituent to allow them to visit their
MP when he or she is in the area. In large geographic areas two
or more offices may be necessary to achieve this same effect.
Along with the budget adjustments to accommodate the extra
offices we would probably have to look at travel expenses. This
implies a cost consideration. A cost consideration would also be
applicable if we increased the number of MPs. There may be
other possible solutions within the process area to address this
issue.
(1135)
Another possible concern in relation to keeping the number of
MPs constant would be the ability of the MP to adequately
represent the ever increasing numbers of citizens. I believe the
solution to this concern lies within the realms of communicating
and the availability of the communication vehicles to do so.
To comment on the electoral boundaries for a moment, we
seem to have restricted our approach to establishing federal
electoral boundaries by attempting to work within some of the
existing internal boundaries. We have three levels of
government and all are elected by the people and each have a
specific number of elected representatives. City and municipal
governments do not divide their areas into boundaries. Their
geographic areas are small enough not to.
Provincial governments have larger areas and do divide them,
not necessarily according to the city or municipal boundaries
but according to population numbers.
A possible approach to this on the federal scene is to consider
the boundaries on the federal scene as those of the country and
again the whole area would be divided according to population.
3206
In closing, capping the number of MPs in the House of
Commons and achieving the concept of representation by
population through the adjustment of the number of citizens
each MP would represent and establishing electoral boundaries
accordingly is the solution I favour.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I have
a few thoughts to add to this motion to refer the matter of
redistribution to a committee of this House and on the
amendment of the member for Kootenay East to look at capping
the number of members of the House of Commons. I have seven
short points to make on that, the perfect number for those in the
House who would like to have something to count.
First, we need to look at the cost considerations of increasing
numbers of members in the House of Commons. The Canadian
public is becoming increasingly critical of the cost of its
government, the inefficiencies it perceives in the allocation of
moneys that go to support government; the budgets, the support
systems, the salary costs, the pension costs. All of the liabilities
that we incur as a country because of increased representation
should be a factor because they concern the taxpaying public.
Second, and this has been mentioned, the physical limitations
of the House of Commons are a consideration for us and another
reason to support the amendment that has been brought forward
to this motion.
We have now a very full complement of seats in this House.
Many members, especially those members considerably larger
than I, have complained about the cramped space for the work of
debates and participation in the House. It is very clear that
adding more bodies and more physical demands on the space in
the House is going to be very difficult to accommodate.
Third, particularly in the system we have had to date there is a
very limited role for many of our members of Parliament,
particularly backbench members of the government. The
decisions generally are made and taken by cabinet and those
who advise cabinet. The purpose of the backbenchers in the
House seems to be to support those decisions. Simply having
more people standing up and voting for decisions that are taken
by a small group does not seem to be a very needed addition to
the way our system works at this time.
(1140 )
Fourth, it is fair to say that most Canadians would not see an
increase in the number of members of Parliament as being equal
to better representation for them. I believe from talking to
Canadians and from comments that many of us have heard
across the country that most Canadians would argue that they are
not as well represented today as they were 10 years ago, even
though the number of seats has increased. It is not the number,
the quantity of representation, it is the quality of representation
that is important to Canadians. It is clear that it is the quality of
representation that Canadians want to see addressed, not the
quantity.
Fifth, these points have been made and I think bear repeating.
Canada is over represented as a population compared with other
democracies. For example, in the United States members of
Congress number about a hundred more than in Canada with 10
times the population. They have only about 30 per cent more
representation with 10 times the population.
It is very clear that other democracies manage to give quality
representation with far fewer representatives per component of
the population. We need to look at that as well.
Sixth, it should be emphasized that Canadians want fewer
politicians. We do hear this over and over and this is not
disputed. All members of the House when we discussed these
issues agreed that the feedback they get from their constituents
and from other people in Canada is that they do not want to see
more politicians, they do not want to see more representatives,
they do not want to see more MPs. They want to see the ones who
are here be more effective, they want the system to be changed
so that decisions are more representative of the judgment of
Canadians. There is no cry for increased numbers of
representatives.
We should not forget who we are supposed to serve. Our
decisions should be taken in a way that meets with the approval,
that carries the judgment of the people who are paying the bill,
the people who are asking for the service that we provide. It is
very clear that Canadians do want fewer representatives rather
than more.
Seventh, when we talk about capping the number of MPs, how
do we address the problem of regional representation? In my
view it would be unwise to make regional representation too
strong a feature in how we structure the way our representatives
are chosen and the proportions from particular provinces or
areas. It is clear that we do have some anomalies like Prince
Edward Island, which has been mentioned, which perhaps need
special consideration.
In our view the principle of representation by population
should be adhered to as closely as possible in the way we
structure the choosing of our members of Parliament. Regional
representation and the need for that element in our political
system, in our law making bodies, should be addressed through
changes to the Senate rather than through changes to the House
of Commons to ensure that certain proportions are made and do
not change for different regions or provinces.
We have put forward as the Reform Party specific proposals
for the reform of the other place in order to achieve those
objectives.
The bottom line today when we consider whether to support
the amendments that have been proposed is whether we are
responsive as members of Parliament to the clear wishes of our
constituents and the citizens of this country, to the economic
3207
resources which they are able to provide for the operations of
government, and to considerations of fairness and practicality.
Canadians would welcome a commitment on the part of this
House to limit the number of representatives they must support
and instead work more on increasing the quality of
representation rather than the quantity of representation.
(1145 )
I urge members of the House to support the amendment that
has been put forward and to instruct the committee of the House
working on these issues on our behalf to factor into the
proposals it brings back to us at the end of its deliberations a
specific proposal to cap the number of members of Parliament
and, if possible, to reduce it.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member who just spoke were
very sensible and well thought out. Her predecessor in the
debate suggested that it might be worthwhile to say a word or
two in support of the concept of reducing the number of
politicians in the Canadian political system.
We have 295 members of Parliament in the House. Some
years ago we had a total of 181. When I was last a member there
were 265. With due respect to everybody in the House, I do not
believe the efficiency of a political body increases with
increases in numbers of members.
The member quite correctly, and with some precision, pointed
out that we were overpoliticized compared to some other
jurisdictions and that we had more politicians per capita than
many others. As I heard her words I made a quick calculation on
the back of an envelope and would like to suggest that the United
States senate would need 1,500 members to have the same
representation proportionate to population that we have in
Canada with the House of Commons. I suggest the hon. lady is
quite correct in saying that an attempt to increase the size of the
House depending on a formula in relation to numbers of voters
and representatives would ultimately destroy the efficiency and
effectiveness of the political body.
I suggest the United States senate with its 100 members is a
body that works quite effectively. To have 1,500 members would
create a body which would not work effectively. Therefore
within those two parameters we can all determine where the
appropriate level should be. The comments made are well
worthy of careful thought.
Canadians have legislatures with large numbers of people.
Over 15 years the legislature of British Columbia increased
from 55 seats to 75 seats. If we continue that rate of increase in
the legislatures of the provinces, if we continue the rate of
increase in the Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons of
Canada, we will wind up with quite ineffective chambers in
terms of rational, logical debate. That is one point.
These chambers are designed for one person speaking at one
time. The more people we squeeze into them, the more limits we
need on what they can say and the more rules about time limits
or their opportunity to represent their constituents. Those points
must be taken into account as well.
For example, with no disrespect, we are not many here today.
It was possible with an uncrowded House for us to listen to each
of the speakers. That happens when we are in smaller groups. We
listen to one another. We tend to go through the logic and say:
``Gee, that makes sense'' or ``Boy, that is dead wrong''. We tend
to listen. How many people in the House today have not risen,
made a speech and sat down afterward just a little irritated that
everybody was doing something else, that it was simply a speech
for Hansard, or that it was not part of the vital process of
democracy?
We must remember that as we constantly increase the size of
the House the effectiveness of the body is less and less, and more
and more we are simply speaking for the record, speaking for the
newspapers or speaking for some other purpose than a true
debate among members of the House.
Again with no disrespect to this body I believe, looking at my
experience in politics at both levels of government, that with 55
members in the British Columbia legislature we spent a lot more
time in debate thinking about what the other person was saying,
listening to what the other person was saying, and adjusting our
ideas in accordance with what the other person was saying.
Without suggesting that the House of Commons should have 55
seats, I simply say that smaller bodies tend to be more effective
political organizations from that point of view. I was most struck
by the words of the hon. member and the previous speaker from
another party. I am quite willing to say that I am in complete
agreement with much of what she said. The House is too big. My
personal belief is that it would be more effective in the range
between 220 and 260 seats rather than over 300. It will be over
300 if we do not adopt the process of cutting it back.
(1150)
I supported the process of putting the whole business of the
number of seats to a committee because I believed that the
300-member point was a tripwire. If we cannot keep the House
below 300 members we can kiss goodbye any real effort to cut
the costs of government in Canada at the political level. If we
cannot do something to cut back on the cost of government and
at the same time to increase efficiency, why bother asking other
elements of government such as the civil service to try it? We as
politicians should think very closely about the importance of
cutbacks on numbers.
3208
As we know this process is to send the whole issue of
redistribution to a committee. That was proposed by the
minister. That was spoken to very eloquently by the hon.
parliamentary secretary and spoken to, I might add, in general
terms very eloquently by members of the opposition.
I am not a believer in curbing the committee with caps,
restraints or limitations. I believe we should let the committee
decide what is appropriate after it has heard from people on the
issues involved. I trust the hon. member who has just spoken
will be a member of the committee. Her views on the issue are
very attractive to me. It may be that considerations will come
forward that will modify her views or mine as the case may be. I
do not believe we should be setting limits on the committee and
attempting to determine the outcome of its deliberations before
it actually meets to consider the issue of redistribution.
I do not wish to take any more time, except to say that the
concept of cutting back on the number of seats in the House of
Commons or the concept of cutting back on the number of
elected representatives in the provincial legislatures is
extremely attractive. Only if we start making these bodies more
effective can we make individual members more effective
parliamentarians and representatives of their constituencies.
Therefore I applaud the thrust of the argument of the previous
two speakers. I am attracted to it. I am quite willing to say that
while they may be on the other side of the House they have met a
very responsive chord on the government benches, as indeed
they know full well frequently happens. We wish to incorporate
their views on the issue of redistribution and on the issue of how
many seats there should be.
My final point, again in agreement with the hon. member, is
that when she stated there should be proper representation
across the country based upon population she was dead right. We
can make the odd exception. We have always made an exception
for P.E.I., but that is the exception that should prove the rule.
The rule is rep by pop. The general rule, given the limitations of
large areas of the country with very few people and making
allowances here and there for special circumstances, is rep by
pop.
Therefore I do not see the approach of turning over the
boundary commission proposals to a committee of the House to
be anything in the nature of taking something away from a
province. For instance, my hon. colleague from Ontario is
listening to me at the moment. I do not think our proposal is to
take four seats away from Ontario which would otherwise occur.
I do not think our proposal is to take two seats away from British
Columbia. It is a question of saying that we have reached the
point where the House will have over 300 seats and it is now
time to do something about it.
Mr. Pearson was probably right in the sixties, some 30 years
ago, to set up this type of system. However it has ground on
remorselessly giving the House more and more members and it
is now time for us to call a halt to automatic mechanisms that
simply churn out more expense for the public and perhaps
reduce the efficiency of the House. That is why I am happy to
support the government's approach in this regard and to
commend hon. members on their speeches.
(1155)
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I follow on the
heels of the Minister of National Revenue who pointed out that
there were some advantages in the proposals made by members
of our party. I appreciate his candour, his openness and his
willingness to enter into a spirit of non-partisanship on
something as important as this matter.
There is no question the cost of government is ever
increasing. The only way we can put a halt to it is through
attrition. We should not increase the size of the House. The
committee should be given direction. All we are asking in our
amendment is for the committee to be given enough direction or
encouragement to consider the possible downsizing of the
House of Commons and to consider the possible freezing or
setting of the cap at 295 for the House of Commons, as we are
presently designed now.
All we are asking in our amendment is that these points be
made to the committee for its consideration. If after due
deliberation the committee comes back and says in the spirit and
principle of rep by pop or in the spirit and principle of the act of
Confederation that it must continue its present course, so be it.
We happen to believe the committee should be given the
opportunity, the authority and the right to come back to the
House with a report reflecting and including representation by
population and the fact, as the member for Calgary North
pointed out, that increasing the size of the House does not
necessarily mean it will perform any better.
We have a government, a cabinet and what we call
backbenchers. Backbenchers are usually assigned to various
committees. They select the various chairmen of committees.
Sometimes cabinet gives good leadership and cabinet ministers
give those corresponding committees direction, responsibility
and duties. However that is in the minority.
In the majority of cases cabinet ministers give no direction to
their subcommittees or their committees, give no follow up to
those committees and give token appearances to the
committees. Sooner or later during the course of the Parliament
they lose interest and know they are there to vote on a partisan
basis.
In return for the support of the Minister of National Revenue
on this issue I would commend about four or five cabinet
ministers of the government who have given their various
committees direction, who have given them some authority to
report back and get the feel and the will of the people. I believe
3209
the chairmen of these committees and the members of
government on those committees feel like they are making a
contribution.
If that continues we can do some good for Canada and
Canadians. However, if they do not do it, that is where I say
increasing the size is just a waste of time and money. We have to
reduce the cost of doing business in Parliament. We have to
reduce the cost of doing business for government. We have to set
the example.
When the Minister of National Revenue proposed Bill C-2 he
indicated that he wanted to amalgamate two deputy ministers
into one. It was an effort to streamline and lower the cost of
doing business yet increase the efficiency and the effectiveness
of government. We will be watching to see if the new super
deputy minister of national revenue, taxation, customs and
excise lowers the cost of the department, improves the
efficiency and effectiveness of the services within the
department and achieves the aims and objectives of the bill. We
will be watching. Hopefully that will come about.
I would like to get back to representation by population. There
are two ways to continue the principle of equal representation.
We are not really on representation by population. We know that
on the principle of what was guaranteed to Prince Edward Island
in joining Confederation. It was guaranteed a minimum of four
seats no matter what its population became.
(1200 )
Therefore what we are trying to do is come as close to
representation by population as possible and emulate that
principle in theory. Right now there are two options available to
us.
The first option is to continue on the present course. Every
eight years when there is a redistribution calculation we would
look at the population shift and then increase the number of
seats. That is representation by population and we would be
giving everybody what they want. Consequently that is what
increases the cost and size of government and we wish to
diminish and reduce that.
The second option is to stray away from that philosophy, that
principle and that theory which is flawed. Let us try to improve
and accept a new theory that would look at redistribution and the
formula for both urban and rural areas.
Whether the size of the House of Commons is the current 295
or it goes back to 260 or in the range the Minister of National
Revenue recommended of between 220 and 260, whatever that
number becomes, the size would be capped. Then future
redistributions and future principles of following equal
representation or representation by population could be
accommodated in both rural and urban areas by simply
reallocating the ministers in those areas and changing the
boundaries to reflect the shift in population rather than adding
the number of people.
Let me repeat for the purposes of the committee and for the
purposes of my contribution to this debate. I am suggesting if
the size of the House of Commons were set at a fixed number we
could still be a democratic institution and still respect
redistribution on the basis of shifting the boundaries but not
increasing the number of people. That is something I hope the
committee looks at.
The other point is the problem with the Senate which has to be
addressed. We have to some day very soon look at this
institution which can be elected, equal and effective. We can
work together rather than always degrading that other House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I had
understood the amendment to read ``including the possibility of
a formula or cap to reduce''. Are those words not in the
amendment? That is what I had understood.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member
for Calgary North for her intervention. If she will give me a
moment, I will consult with the table officers and do a
verification of the amendment.
The amendment was correct in its first form. The question is
on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(1205 )
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Pursuant to
Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief
government whip to defer the division until a later time.
Accordingly,
3210
pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the division on the question
now before the House stands deferred until later this day at 5.30
p.m. at which time the bells to call in the members will be
sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from February 18, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-7, an Act respecting the control of certain
drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend
certain other Acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in
consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health tabled Bill C-7, an Act respecting the control
of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances, but this
legislation has nothing to do with public health.
The government is not being honest in tabling a bill under
such misleading pretence. This bill concerns criminal law and
nothing else. In its present form, it should bear the signature of
the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General.
Whichever way you look at it, it is hard to find in this muddled
document anything but a new criminal law to control drugs.
Therefore, for the purposes of this debate, I will assume that this
legislation is nothing else than what it appears to be. Obviously,
the government would want us to believe that this is a health bill,
and for one reason only: Criminal laws have to be precise, clear
and conclusive. They are passed by Parliament and leave very
little leeway to cabinet regarding the definition of their scope.
By making Bill C-7 look like an administrative measure, all the
provisions allowing Cabinet to establish regulations become
justified. This is perhaps the most comprehensive example of
legislation by delegation.
(1210)
There is no other reason why the government would claim that
Bill C-7 is a public health measure. The pretence is simply too
obvious. The Liberal government is trying to get full decision
powers on the most important aspects of the legislation. It has
neither the courage nor the honesty to tell Canadians that Bill
C-7 is merely an attempt to fight drug trafficking. Why not be
honest? Why is the government hiding its true motive? The
government should admit that it is so suspicious of this House,
that it tries to hide its real intentions. And those intentions are
contained in the wording of the legislation.
Police forces are currently enforcing two complementary
acts: the Narcotic Control Act which will be repealed by the bill
before the House and the Food and Drugs Act, which will be
repealed in part. The government maintains that the new act will
give more flexibility to police services, because provocation
and undercover activities will be authorized under the new
regulations.
However, the explanatory notes of the bill are silent on the
government's concerns regarding public health. The purpose of
this legislation is obviously to control the movement of drugs
and suppress trafficking. Why not clearly say so?
This is nothing but a new Narcotic Control Act, framework
legislation, unique in itself, criminal legislation which gives
cabinet exceptional discretionary powers as to its scope and its
implementation, not unlike the former War Measures Act. This
is the context in which we have to consider Bill C-7.
Having said so, I agree with the majority of Canadians that we
have to provide police and judicial authorities with the tools
they need to efficiently suppress drug trafficking. Therefore, I
support the purpose of Bill C-7, to the extent that it tries to put a
stop to the movement of drugs. From massive importing to
individual possession, the legislative drafters covered all social
problems associated with illegal drugs.
On this particular topic, I want to say that I am very pleased
with the way the various stages of trafficking are dealt with. The
bill considers separately such issues as drug production, and
importing and exporting, offenses which carry a maximum
sentence of life imprisonment. The exemplary nature of such
sentences and deterrence must continue to apply. Harsh
sentences such as those will not shock honest citizens.
Zero tolerance for illegal drugs means suppression by police
and judicial authorities at all levels of distribution. So, I am
pleased with the new classification provided in this bill.
Offenses, like simple possession, trafficking, possession for
purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting, production of
substance, possession of property obtained by trafficking and
laundering are now very well identified. Each category is treated
according to the seriousness of the offence and carries
proportionate sentences.
I do have some reservations about the way possession of
cannabis is handled, but that issue can be reviewed by the
parliamentary committee, and I look forward to the testimony of
experts in this field.
This bill could meet with our approval if it were to lead to
some true legislation, but unfortunately it is not the case. Bill
C-7 is essentially the same as Bill C-85 which was brought in by
the late Conservative government. The government party cannot
claim to have created this initiative.
It would be a mistake to try to make people believe that this is
a new measure, inspired and motivated by recent circumstances
3211
and designed to give the police effective emergency powers of
investigation on trans-border Indian reserves.
(1215)
This is misinformation. This piece of legislation has been on
the back-burner since Bill C-85 died on the Order Paper in the
last Parliament. It was revived by the Liberals who have just
missed an opportunity to produce a bill that would be easy to
read and to understand and that would respect the jurisdiction of
the Confederated States, which are still called provinces.
I am disappointed, because if the legislation is passed as it is,
it may well miss the point, above all because it will be torn to
shreds by the courts on the account of its lack of clarity and of its
possible unconstitutionality.
I am disappointed also because we are again faced with a
botched and improvised measure. Indeed, if Bill C-7 were to be
passed exactly as it is, it would not be understandable for most
Canadians, who have no legal training and who would need
whole legal essays to distinguish all its subtleties and references
to other laws.
Allow me to read two quotes taken from an outstanding study
conducted by professors Usprich and Salomon, of the School of
Law of the University of Western Ontario on the old Bill C-85,
which I myself apply to the current bill. I think these comments
are as valid for C-7 as they were for the old C-85, and I quote:
It would not be exaggerated to say that the bill reads generally as if it had
been drafted by people who are not familiar with criminal law and who have
acquired their experience writing legal texts on income tax-
In general, the legislation is badly written and even if we disregard several
blatant mistakes, it is uselessly complex and generally difficult to understand.
We consider this bill to be a step backward.
And yet, if it were only for the inaccuracy of the text, it would
still be possible to send the minister back to the drawing board,
but there is more. The federal legislator uses a style that is
confusing, complex and twisted to describe and define very
simple cases of trafficking, production and possession of illegal
substances.
The bill often refers to other legislation for its interpretation
and this makes for an obscure text with countless legal nuances
and exceptions, a text so incomplete as to need Cabinet
regulations before its final scope can be known.
We all want the bill to achieve its underlying objectives but
we denounce the insufficient means it proposes to fight drug
traffickers, who will successfully challenge it in court at the first
opportunity. This is an amateurish piece of legislation, Mr.
Speaker, mere window-dressing.
This bill should be sent back to the minister, not the Minister
of Health, but the Minister of Justice, to be completely rewritten
and brought back to the House as soon as possible. We will give
our unconditional support to a complete, simple and effective
bill in the same spirit, but not this one which was drafted by
people who are completely out of touch with reality.
We are told that this would be an improvement compared to
the present legislation, and that the bill is needed to control
illegal activities on the Mohawk reserves. Nothing is farther
from the truth. I challenge anyone to find something in this bill
that gives the police more effective power than the present
legislation does.
Finally, this bill is unacceptable because it is outright
interference in provincial jurisdiction over civil law procedure
and the administration of justice. In the disguise of a bill on
public health, the government is actually trying to impose a real
code of legal and administrative procedure. The administration
of justice inside a province is its exclusive jurisdiction, as is
public health, by the way.
(1220)
Whether you approach the constitutional study of this bill
from either of these aspects, namely public health or the
administration of justice, the conclusion is the same: it is an
unacceptable encroachment upon areas under exclusive
provincial jurisdiction.
In order to ensure compliance with the forthcoming
regulations, the bill allows the Minister of Health to designate
inspectors who have considerable powers. As long as these
inspectors do nothing else but examine stocks of designated
substances held by licence holders, there will not be any
problems. I think that the minister responsible for enforcing the
legislation must have the administrative means to fulfil his or
her mandate. But the bill authorises these same federal
inspectors to contravene any provincial legislation regarding
the confidentiality of medical records.
Quebec's privacy legislation, particularly with regard to
access to medical records, serves as model. Through its Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, its new Civil Code and its privacy
legislation, Quebec has become a world leader in this area. In
particular, medical records in Quebec are better protected than a
fortress. Now, the Minister of Health introduces a bill that
would authorize any federal inspector, whose qualifications
could be inversely proportional to his or her partisan activities,
to enter the place of business of a physician or a pharmacist, to
demand access to records and computer data, to make copies of
this information and to distribute it to all kinds of people within
the federal government. We do not accept that.
Nor do we accept that, in a much more insidious way, the
legislation authorizes the cabinet to make compliance
regulations that will manifestly go beyond the scope of the bill
and that will constitute new attacks on provincial jurisdiction.
The minister has done her homework poorly, and, moreover, she
leaves it to Cabinet to finish the job. Clause 54 empowers
Cabinet to make regulations on what the legislation does not
cover. Not only does the legislation say nothing about important
3212
aspects of its implementation but we do not even know which
minister will be responsible for it. This will be up to Cabinet to
decide.
Even the professional corporations that should be the first to
be concerned by this new legislation do not know whether their
members will be affected by the bill. Again, it will be up to
Cabinet to decide whether pharmacists, veterinarians, doctors
and dentists will have to get a licence to sell and distribute
designated drugs. If this were not legislation in the field of
criminal law, we might be willing to leave it to Cabinet to make
regulations. As in the case of several other pieces of legislation,
we would only have to define parameters in framework
legislation and give Cabinet extensive regulatory powers. In
administrative matters, there is no great risk in proceeding that
way. To the extent that Cabinet does not go beyond the powers
with which it has been entrusted by Parliament, the regulations
are generally valid.
It is quite another thing in criminal matters, for the citizen
ought not to be forced to read every order in council to
understand the content and the import of the bill. Yet with this
legislation we are asked to give the cabinet the power to impose
its will. Who can believe that we will accept, for instance, that
Cabinet could use its regulatory powers to legislate on the
conduct of members of the professions governed by the Quebec
Professional Code? The activities of doctors, pharmacists,
veterinarians and dentists in Quebec are exclusively regulated
by legislation that controls the practice of their professions.
In addition to being submitted to their organization's
monitoring, professionals in Quebec are governed by the
Professional Code. When the government proposes that the
cabinet be given the authority to determine the conditions of
practice of certain professions, it is asking us to make a clean
sweep of provincial jurisdiction in that matter, to disregard the
exclusive privileges of professional corporations and to grant
itself supreme authority over the main fields of activity of
pharmacists.
(1225)
We cannot tolerate that this government would take advantage
of a piece of criminal legislation to give Cabinet regulatory
powers that so blatantly intrude into provincial jurisdiction on
professional practice.
Here are two examples.
When the bill, in the preamble to clause 54, entrusts to
Cabinet the regulation of the medical use of drugs, it deals with
medical practice and not drug control.
When the bill gives to Cabinet all powers over the sale, supply
and administration of drugs, it deals with the provision of
pharmaceutical, dental or veterinary services.
When the bill gives to Cabinet the power to deliver licences
for the sale of controlled substances, its affects the provision of
all pharmaceutical services.
When the bill hands over to Cabinet the authority over the sale
and storage of those substances, over professional qualifications
of people authorized to sell them, over records those persons
should keep, over the dealings of a professional corporation
with its members, it is really a code of ethics and a whole set of
regulations that the government is trying to impose to
pharmacists.
We could go on for hours about this bill, which ignores the
fact that the Constitution of this country is based on a division of
powers.
Two recent initiatives confirm our misgivings.
The bill has still not been passed and debate at second reading
has yet to be completed and two ministers, with contempt for
basic decency, announce enforcement regulations which show
how much power Cabinet seeks.
I said that this bill was incomplete. I now add that it is only a
general and confusing preamble to a series of regulations that
Cabinet will be empowered to adopt at its whim and for any
reason.
The Solicitor General announced, in a tendentious press
release that the police would have a clear and definite legislative
basis for engaging in clandestine activities.
What the minister does not say is that this clear and definite
legislative basis for new police powers will be in the regulations
and not in the law.
This technique could be called legislative trickery.
It is a blatant lack of respect for Parliament. As if we could not
legislate intelligently in this House as the cabinet can behind
closed doors.
And the Minister of Health announced through the media that
growing cannabis could be allowed for commercial purposes.
This government is trying to acquire full powers. It is
presenting a bill only for the sake of appearances.
It is not surprising that the Minister of Health, who is
apparently sponsoring the bill, announces without batting an
eyelash that she is already trying to amend the law without going
through the House.
That shows what little consideration this governement has for
the elected members of this House.
We will vote against this piece of legislation which is badly
written and thrown together and cannot hide the ambitions of the
government to regulate professions that fall under exclusive
provincial jurisdiction and gives Cabinet unacceptable and
excessive regulatory authority.
3213
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to some of the speech of the hon. member opposite. Perhaps my
reading of the bill is different than hers but my understanding of
the bill is that it is basically a codification of regulations that
currently exist under two other acts.
I know that in the last Parliament when the Liberal Party was
in opposition we fought very hard against government by
regulation on many bills that were put before this place. We
believe that when measures impact on the people of the country
by way of regulation, wherever possible they should be codified.
If flexibility is needed that is fine, but the place to debate major
changes is certainly on the floor of the House of Commons. It is
my understanding that we are not going in the direction of
further regulation but we are going in the direction of
codification of existing regulations under some acts.
(1230)
She spoke for a bit about the pharmaceutical industry. I can
certainly tell her that when Bill C-91 hit the floor there was
great debate on all sides about the impact of that bill on both
sides of industry plus consumers in the health care sector of
Canada. One of the major things that this side fought for, and we
had a particular point of view on it, was that the regulations
inherent in that piece of legislation had to at least go before a
parliamentary committee to be debated.
I do not know what the position of the members on her side
was. I think they did support the bill but we did not. That was one
of the reasons. We believe strongly that when we are dealing
with things such as C-91 and indeed when we are dealing with
enforcement under the Narcotics Control Act or the Food and
Drug Act the place these regulatory changes should be debated
is here on the floor of the House.
I would like to get her comments because she did mention the
pharmaceutical industry. I would like for her to sort of broaden
that out because I did not quite buy her argument insofar as it
related to the pharmaceutical industry in Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are talking about the
regulations which cabinet makes from time to time, as I said in
my speech. In fact, cabinet may propose regulations in the case
of administrative laws but not in the case of criminal legislation.
However, the present wording of the bill gives the government
or cabinet the right to make criminal laws.
We had a similar case in the debate on gun control legislation,
and at the time it was said that the regulations would have to be
tabled in the House 30 days before adoption and publication,
during which time they could be discussed in the House. That is
what we decided, and that is what will happen in the case of our
gun control legislation.
As for the second part of the hon. member's question in which
he referred to the lack of response on the part of pharmacists and
the general public, who do not see these things the way I do, I
simply want to say there is no response at the present time
because they do not feel concerned by this legislation. They are
not mentioned in the bill. Why should they respond? The same
applies to dentists and physicians. At the present time, no one is
responding and no one is concerned by the bill. Why? Because
for the time being, the individuals and professions that will be in
this bill have not been identified.
So this is one way to get legislation through Parliament
without people realizing what is going on, until the regulations
are tabled and people are told these apply to veterinarians,
physicians and dentists, and then they will react, but it will be
too late.
That is why, as a member of the opposition, I see it as my duty
to condemn these practices the government is trying to get
through the House.
[English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inform the House that the Reform Party members
will be dividing their time.
This bill deals with substances as listed in schedules I through
IV and involves those substances that: ``when introduced into
our bodies produce a stimulant, depressant and/or
hallucinogenic effect''.
I have some concerns regarding the clarity and the continuity
of the intent in some areas of this bill. It is a large bill and to
illustrate my point I will select a few sections to indicate this
lack of clarity or continuity.
Commencing with section 23 and a few thereafter, this section
involves the disposing of controlled substances. The bill states,
and I paraphrase, that any person may apply to the justice in
writing and within 60 days of the seizure date of the substances
for their return. If the justice is satisfied a person applying is the
lawful owner or legally entitled to possession of the substance,
and if the minister does not have reasonable grounds regarding
the safety of the substance and the justice agrees that the
substance need not be disposed of, then the substance will be
returned to the legally recognized owner.
(1235 )
The minister can do this also in another situation and in that
case the legal owner gets paid for the amount of the drugs.
Considering this disposal when a legal owner is recognized, if
the substance here is not required as evidence, the bill provides
for the owner, if he or she wishes, to give consent to have the
minister dispose of the substance.
3214
On the other hand the bill does not appear to provide this
option to the owner if the substance is required for evidence. He
or she gets it back. This could be an oversight or it could be an
intent.
Other areas lacking clarity are sections 28 and 25. In section
28: ``The minister may cause to be destroyed, on notification of
the Attorney General, any illegally produced plant from which a
substance under schedule I, II or III may be extracted''. The
decision is made by the minister and the plant can be disposed of
by informing the Attorney General before any controlled
substance is produced from it.
It is assumed that in this scenario the plant has been seen by
the minister as a potential public health or a safety hazard. In
section 25, if the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that
the controlled substance constitutes a potential security or
health and safety hazard, notice is given to the Attorney General
again but at this point a justice is required to be satisfied with the
minister's belief before the substance will be ordered forfeited
to the crown for the minister to dispose of. In this case it appears
that a justice is making the decision to have the drug disposed of.
Here it appears that the minister has the authority to dispose
of the plants before the components become controlled
substances. Once they become controlled substances the
agreement from a justice must also be obtained. This may be the
intent and if so I recommend a little more clarity or rationale to
eliminate the questioning of this concept.
To leave the disposal section of the bill, I would like to look at
the first few sections, specifically sections 2 and 3. These seem
to allow for some substances not listed in the schedules to fall
within the jurisdiction of the proposed act based on either their
chemical composition or their effect on the human body or both.
This could be the beginning of potential problems in that the
medical practitioner or the pharmacist or some other medical
person is left with the decision as to whether the particular
substance not listed in the schedules could or would not be
considered a controlled substance.
Making this decision based on the chemical composition of
the substance may be straightforward. Making the decision
based on the effects on the human body is not. An example that
comes to mind would be a substance that may on occasions in
some people produce side effects that could be seen to fall
within the parameters of the bill as stated now and may on the
other hand not produce those side effects in other people.
I assume the intent of these sections of the bill is to provide a
control mechanism for those substances created between the
updating of the schedules, that those substances that may indeed
end up as being classified as controlled substances when the
schedules are updated. In this regard, I recommend that
mechanisms be built into the bill that allow for frequent
updating of the schedules without having to review or address
the entire bill or act each time.
One possible solution may be the removal of the schedules
which list the substances by name, which are from the actual
content of the bill and appended to the bill and yet have a
detailed description of the types of substances that would be
listed on the schedules. Have that within the bill.
There are a couple of other aspects that I would like to address
quickly. I am running short of time. One is the monitoring of
prescription records and this is presently being done by
Canada's bureau of dangerous drugs. I believe the data are
submitted once every 60 days. The bill tends to suggest they
would be submitted every 30 days.
(1240)
I would question or wonder about the feasibility of this as an
increased workload for both those submitting the data and those
receiving the data, and if indeed receiving the data more
frequently would enhance the effectiveness of the monitoring
of, and thus more control over, these adverse situations.
The second clarification needed is in relation to criminal
charges. Apparently the bill provides for criminal charges to be
laid if a person is in possession of drugs that are in schedules I
and II. If they are in possession of drugs that are in schedule III
the intent for trafficking would have to be proven.
In closing, I would have to oppose this bill based on lack of
clarity in a number of areas.
Also at this time I would like to propose an amendment to the
motion. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words after the word ``that'' and
substituting the following therefor:
``Bill C-7, an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other
substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in
consequence thereof, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged,
the bill withdrawn and the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs.''
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The amendment is in
order.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for New
Westminster-Burnaby.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to respond to Bill C-7
presented by the Minister of Health.
This bill is a near duplicate of Bill C-85 from the 34th
Parliament. From my counting it is 71 pages, a considerable
piece of legislation. I understand that this bill, like all bills, is
not the beginning of something. It is more correctly seen as the
end product, the result of much deliberation, consultation and
thousands of hours of work by many.
3215
This bill is a major realignment of drug control legislation,
specifically an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their
precursors and other substances, and to amend certain other acts
and repeal the Narcotic Control Act. The first flag of concern is
that this bill is presented by the Minister of Health. It amends
the contents of the Criminal Code of which the Narcotic Control
Act and federal drug act have traditionally been part. It is now
seen as health legislation rather than behavioural control
legislation that is commonly known as the criminal law.
(1245)
I am directly suggesting that there is joint responsibility
between the Standing Committee on Health and the Standing
Committee on Justice. When this bill gets to committee the
significant and traditional Criminal Code and justice nature of
the bill must not be forgotten.
This begs the question: What is the government saying about
the drug problem in Canada? What philosophical flavour made
this bill be presented as health legislation? Certainly that should
be a concern to the community.
The assignment category for legislation into health sends a
message to the country. I am not so sure I like that message. Is
there a misguided softening on law and order with this
government? Has the government given up on the aggressive
police enforcement side of dealing with the drug problem? I
hope not. Certainly I do not think it has the political mandate for
that either.
May this legislation receive the significance and priority that
it deserves. For all its hoped for improvements let us hope that
changes in the criminal law will not be weakened by Bill C-7's
regulation to be seen merely as a health issue.
The role of the federal government in combating drug abuse is
long established. Within Canada the Narcotic Control Act, the
Food and Drugs Act and the Criminal Code provide the basic
legislative structure for the control of psychoactive substances,
narcotic stimulants, depressants and hallucinogens.
Enforcement of these federal statutes is the responsibility of
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who work closely with
customs authorities, provincial and municipal police forces to
combat illicit drug activity.
Health and Welfare Canada's bureau of dangerous drugs has a
dual role in the implementation of the statutes. It provides
administrative support to law enforcement agencies such as
disposal of seized goods and assets, training assistance and
scientific expertise. The bureau also administers the regulations
covering the legitimate use of psychoactive substances for
medical and scientific research purposes.
These provide for distribution procedures, security measures,
record keeping and prescribing practice among others. There
must be a balance between control over drugs and their
availability to meet legitimate medical and scientific needs.
The health care community must also be accountable for its
shared role in achieving this balance. Since practitioners,
physicians, veterinarians, dentists and pharmacists are licensed
by the provincial government where they practise, those
governments are also responsible for ensuring that standards are
met by health professionals under their jurisdiction.
Close and ongoing liaison among federal and provincial
authorities is the key to an effective drug control program.
However it must be sustained by bold, clear law that actually
works in the courtroom and does not become a retirement plan
for lawyers.
Drug control law must also send the right signals for general
deterrence. It must work technically but it also must teach. It is
symbolism and advance warning of what the community will
tolerate.
My reading of the community mood is that it is looking for
political leadership and courage concerning our drug laws. The
attitudes of zero tolerance are increasing as the community
comes to comprehend the long term debilitating effects that
illicit drug use has on society, especially among the young.
Bill C-7 replaces a large part of the Criminal Code book
which I have on my reference shelf, for the Narcotic Control Act
and the Food and Drugs Act have traditionally been known as
criminal legislation. Law enforcement agencies are involved.
The courts regularly impose sentences on those duly charged
under it, fined and given jail terms. This is the character and
seriousness of the legislation.
Drugs are also related to organized crime. Yet this bill to
amend the Criminal Code is introduced by the Minister of
Health. Health is an issue for sure but Bill C-7 is clearly
criminal law in tradition and substance. Therefore when we push
this bill on to the next stage, I ask the government to send it to
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, not the
Standing Committee on Health.
I want to talk for a moment about marijuana. A survey a few
years ago revealed at that time that 4.5 million Canadians 15
years old and over had tried some form of cannabis. The same
survey showed that 1 in 15 Canadians used cannabis in the year
of that survey and the numbers were rather astonishing.
Approximately 700,000 Canadians have tried some form of
cocaine. More than 800,000 have tried LSD, speed or heroin.
(1250 )
Since the drug problem seems to accelerate each year, there is
no question that there needs to be a coherent, workable and
3216
strong response by Parliament. We must give our front line
people, who struggle valiantly to protect the community, the
tools and legal terms to do their job.
I notice that in the first version of this bill, the Conservative
one from the 34th Parliament, the amount of cannabis that is to
be considered the demarcation line between schedules-serious
consequences or not so serious consequences-in Bill C-85,
schedule VI, it was one kilo of cannabis. That was the amount.
Now in the same section of Bill C-7, that demarcation amount is
raised to three kilos. What is the message here?
Maybe there are some arguments, such as fewer cases leading
to jail terms, a cost saving measure. Perhaps pressure has come
from certain social groups who believe in using pot as their
religion. Whatever the reckoning, it is quite a message to send to
the community.
What are the effects of the proposed legislation with reference
to schedule VI? Those dealing in drugs could do so in shipments
under three kilos. Should they get caught it would mean not as
heavy a penalty as it would if they were caught with a quantity
exceeding three kilos. This change might embolden what is
happening on the street, especially in our high schools, and
result in an increase in the drug trade. Traffickers will think that
the law is getting soft.
How much is three kilos? It is three bricks, three bundles,
about 6.6 pounds. It is about the size and weight of my newborn
son, 6.6 pounds. What will 6.6 pounds buy or bring the children
of our nation? Three kilos or 6.6 pounds would make an awful
lot of joints.
As a criminal justice professional I have seen firsthand clients
who have lost business careers because of closet marijuana
habits. Years ago I saw a cabinet minister of the provincial
government light up. How sad. I have dealt with sexual
offenders on probation. Some of their excuses for molesting the
children in their household was that they were high on cannabis.
The car accidents, the industrial accidents, the misjudged
business deals leading to bankruptcy and many needlessly
unemployed, the loss of general social judgment, the loss of the
desire to work, the loss of the desire for academic excellence,
these I have observed firsthand as a probation officer, officer of
the court and family court counsellor, the direct result of the
relatively tolerant attitude toward marijuana use. There we have
some of the underlying principles of Bill C-7. These are the
flags of direction that the bill takes.
In summary, first I say clearly that Bill C-7 is criminal law.
Let us not slip it by as merely health legislation. Second, what a
signal is sent by the threshold of three kilos for cannabis. This
bill on that specific seems to go in the wrong direction.
The government may try to send a signal that we now are a
mature, sophisticated society and that we can handle drug use in
a tolerant and enlightened way under the guise of health but the
community knows otherwise. The school authorities in my
riding are not looking for a loosening of drug enforcement. The
local crown counsel is looking for clear, tough, workable
legislation that holds up in the courtroom.
My community wants legislation that gives clear authority to
the duty constable when he pulls over a driver. It should give
appropriate powers of search and seizure for drugs. I say it is not
technically hard to do but it requires political will to send a clear
signal which way we are going with this legislation. Let the
community absorb what is being proposed. Let witnesses come
forward. Let the people speak, not just the experts.
I challenge the government to not only proceed with its top
down attitude telling the community what is good for them but
let the implications of this bill simmer in the community and
then have the courage to adjust its efforts into what the
community expects from its leaders.
In closing, Bill C-7 is significant legislation. It is 71 pages
worth. It remains to be seen what is the essential thrust, where it
is going. I look forward to seeing it referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice and give it the character and the intent that
it deserves.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member made reference to marijuana and a particular
threshold of three kilos without making reference to that as
being simply a procedural matter in the act and having nothing
to do with substance.
The new legislation in dealing with cannabis, which is
marijuana, puts the substance into the same schedule, schedule
I, that opium, codeine, morphine, cocaine are in, some of the
worst drugs that we have. Marijuana and its derivatives are in
the same schedule where reference is made that marijuana, its
preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic preparations are
all included in schedule I.
(1255)
How can the hon. member indicate that this legislation is not
legislation that adequately deals with marijuana when that
substance is put into the same schedule as other drugs such as
cocaine, codeine and opium?
Mr. Forseth: I understand the point. There is a demarcation
on schedule VI concerning the three kilo mark, over three kilos
or under.
I know the pressure of the court system in the province of
British Columbia and elsewhere. If the charge is simple
possession of marijuana or a small amount for trafficking, and if
there is an option to proceed summarily they are going to chose
that option. Raising the amount to three kilos is, I think, sending
the wrong signal. The criminal law must act and be functional
and stand up in the courtroom, but it also is an educated and
symbolic role. I think the bill sends the wrong signal to the
community.
3217
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, I think we
may have had a problem with translation. I apologize for my
lack of proficiency in the other official language but when the
Bloc Quebecois member of the Official Opposition was
speaking, the translation I believe was coming across that she
was concerned about consultation and that pharmacists and
other people in the industry should have more time for
consultation.
I was reading it through translation as pharmaceuticals and I
could not quite figure it out. That is why I asked the question I
did. If the hon. member is listening, we probably had a little
problem either with translation or my understanding of what the
translator said.
I have listened with some interest to what has gone on this
morning. We have had the two official parties in opposition, the
Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, both speak on this
legislation.
I thought that seven or eight months into the mandate
members opposite would have remembered what they said in the
first few days of this House. I know that the Bloc Quebecois has
a mandate, or so it sees it, in the people who elected them. I think
the Bloc members will find out that the mandate is not quite
what they thought it was, if ever there is a referendum in
Quebec. However, they believe that they have a mandate, first
and foremost, to see the separation of the province of Quebec. I
may disagree with that but they were democratically elected and
I am sure that when they debate issues such as this, they are
trying their best to represent the interests of the people of
Quebec.
When we first came into this place there was a lot of talk that
people were not going to become wildly partisan just for the
sake of being wildly partisan, and that when good legislation
came forward, members opposite, particularly in the Bloc
Quebecois and the Reform Party, would do their best to support
it.
This place works on confrontation. It works on opposition.
When legislation comes forward the role of the Official
Opposition and other opposition parties is to oppose. But I
thought that we had gone beyond that and that no longer was it
opposition for the sake of opposition.
This is one of the bills where the members opposite in the
Reform Party and the Bloc could have shown that they really did
want to make this a different Parliament, and that they really did
want to co-operate to bring forward non-contentious
legislation.
I do not know where some of the members from the Bloc are
coming from, but the people in my community spoke loud and
clear prior to the last election. They said they wanted a
government whose number one concern was the health and
safety of the communities.
The people in my community said it very loudly two years ago
when I had to go to Portland Estates because we had a gang
problem and people no longer felt safe in their communities.
They did not want their politicians to get up here and dance on
the head of a pin. They wanted real debate about reforming laws
and striking the proper balances so that our criminal justice
system reflected the reality and the needs of our communities.
(1300 )
There was a lot of talk about the Young Offenders Act. We
heard how it had to be strengthened but at the same time we
could not just punish; we had to try to reform. The emphasis had
to be on rehabilitation not strictly punishment.
There is no question a level of consultation is needed. But I
would say to my colleagues opposite when dealing with this that
this is an uncontentious bill. There may be a few items here and
there they may wish to change or I may wish to change but surely
we can get some agreement that this type of legislation is
progressive.
The legislation codifies some of the regulatory regimes
dealing with the two acts in question. It makes it a little easier
for our law enforcement officials and other people in the judicial
system to actually enforce what it is we want. That is safer
streets and harsher penalties for those who deal in death with
narcotics. They do deal in death and narcotics destroy our
communities.
I thought we would have gotten a little agreement but perhaps
they slide too easily into old patterns. This was quite interesting.
The Reform Party more than the Bloc has indicated that only
the Reform Party can talk about family values. I can say that I
would get somewhat nauseous listening to some Reform
members leading up to the election.
Members of the Reform Party would condemn past and
present members of this place as simply not being able to
understand what the people in their communities wanted. They
literally contributed a great deal to the feeling that this place and
the people who practised the profession of politics somehow
lived on the underbelly of life and that we simply looked after
self interests and not the interests of the community.
Reformers would always say that they were the law and order
party: ``We are the only ones who can bring law and order
back''. I remember debating with my Reform opponent in the
election campaign. I can say that party would have locked
everybody up and thrown away the key. That is what the Reform
Party thought would save communities.
I would have thought that when they got into this place they
would have also listened to the other little piece of rhetoric they
spiel out occasionally. That is that they are truly different and as
Reformers they are the only ones who can reform the way
Parliament works.
3218
Over the last few weeks we have seen their types of reforms.
They give back cars but take 75 cents on the dollar from
taxpayers to pay for their leader's car, haircuts, shoe shines, all
the things they condemned us for. However I want to put that
aside.
The Reform Party has fallen into the old patterns they so
easily condemned. I have not seen them come in and support a
government motion, except for maybe on one or two occasions,
but not many.
This is a major piece of legislation. Surely to goodness there
is some consensus that the government must move forward. It
must simplify for law enforcement agencies and for the public
the laws dealing with health and safety in our community. In this
case it is Bill C-7 dealing with controlled substances.
This bill was before the last Parliament but did not get through
for whatever reasons. Our government is holding true to our
promises in the red book of coming in with progressive
legislation and the changes necessary to respond to what
Canadians want. They want healthier, safer communities.
Therefore we have come forward in the first few months of
our mandate with a bill that was worked on in the previous
Parliament. We did not think the bill was all bad so we have
changed some of the things. We have modernized it again. We
have tried to put some order into how we deal with some sections
that without this bill are currently under the Food and Drug Act
and the Narcotic Control Act.
I cannot think of anything that should bring more easy support
from the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois. If anybody out
there is watching, the Reform Party is the one that said
everybody had to vote their conscience in this place.
I am not prone to attacking the opposition. I am getting a little
fed up with their positions on things like this though. Every day
they come into this place and they vote like robots when the
government says it is coming in with a piece of legislation. They
automatically all have. I cannot believe the Reform Party whip
tells them how to vote because they told us during the campaign
that was corrupt and bad. They must all be struck by some
stardust in that each and every one of them every time a bill
comes in finds it bad and they all vote the same way.
I wonder how their constituents who are really concerned
about law and order feel about the hoist motion. For those out
there watching we debate legislation in this place. We try to
make the regulatory and statutory environment society works in
a little better. We constantly have to try to modernize our
legislation because our own morality as a society changes with
time. It is interesting.
(1305)
The hoist motion just proposed by the Reform Party in the
amendment by the hon. member for Surrey North effectively
says it does not want the House of Commons to deal with this
issue. That is what a hoist motion does. The Reform Party came
in with an amendment which, if passed, would hoist the whole
issue of drugs, safe streets, crime as it relates to illegal and
illicit drugs in our communities. We would not deal with it. That
is what the effect of her amendment would be.
If there are any Reform supporters left after the last few weeks
of revelations about internal party conduct of that party, I think
the hair on the back of their necks should be bristling. They sent
their members here to show this place could work differently
and that members should support good legislation when it came
before the House. More important, they did not want us to get
into these games that they used to criticize. Members of the
Reform Party criticized the games of Parliament well, such as
hoist motions.
Now let us get real here with the Bloc Quebecois and also the
Reform Party. Their mandate is to try to get some ink. They do
not want the government portrayed in a favourable light because
it is probably going to have some impact on their sagging
popularity. I understand that. Opposition parties have to take
that into account. I am a realist. We were in opposition and I
know how the game is played. However, when we deal with
these fundamental issues of safety and modernizing our
legislation there should be some degree of consensus that we
work together.
There is a red herring out there. There might be a cod with it
because we cannot seem to find any of them on the east coast. A
red herring has been thrown out a couple of times and I am not
about to let it go by.
They are saying we cannot let this debate go on about the
merits of the legislation, we have to talk about procedure. The
real problem is that this stuff comes under the Criminal Code
and should have been introduced by the Minister of Justice.
When it comes to cleaning up the streets in Dartmouth, I do
not care if it is the janitor who introduces the legislation as long
as it gets thoroughly debated and the impact on my community
is that it is safer. If the people in Backwater Gulch somewhere
are having a problem with drugs in their community, I do not
think they particularly care who puts the legislation forward. So
let us clear that one off the agenda.
If that is the biggest complaint they have maybe everybody in
here will jump up and say they support the legislation. By the
way, the Minister of Justice supports the legislation. Just
because he did not move it does not mean he is opposed to it.
Maybe that is what it was with Reform members and why they
3219
could not support it. Maybe I have clarified it. Maybe they will
support the legislation this afternoon.
On committee referral, I know most members of the Reform
Party with the exception of their House leader are new here.
Most members of the Bloc Quebecois are new here. However,
the reality is that committees basically are masters of their own
destiny in this place. We do not have the legislative committees
the Tories did. We want to make sure we are building up
expertise in certain areas on committees by all members of the
House.
There is some agreement in this place that we have tried to do
what we said we would during the campaign about making
Parliament work better. We said we wanted the role of individual
members to be heightened. We wanted to make sure they could
provide input into the system.
I am the committee chair on fisheries and oceans. The way I
run my committee is with the co-operation of members opposite
and my own side. That is different from what the Tories did. We
actually try to drop our partisanship at the door and come up
with better legislation, if that is what we are dealing with. When
we did the cod adjustment package, the Atlantic groundfish
adjustment, everybody on my side was happy with the report.
We showed that this government is putting its money where its
mouth is in allowing committees to have as broad a latitude as
they think they need from maximum input by members.
The second Reform Party red herring is that we have to get
this over to the justice and legal affairs committee. Nonsense. If
the Reform Party members in that committee are interested in
trying to bring forward better legislation then they can ask the
chair. When this legislation goes before that committee it can be
put to a vote to have officials from the Department of Justice if
that is who they want, or the janitor, appear before the
committee. They can do whatever they want.
(1310 )
I want to strip away some of the nonsense that is being put
here and to appeal particularly to the Reform Party. Start reading
your own campaign material. You ran on law and order. You ran
on trying to make sure this place ran better. You ran on trying to
strip partisanship and gamesmanship from the House.
On an issue that deals with law and order which cleaned up the
streets in my area, you are doing everything that you criticized
past members and parties of this place of doing. Wake up. Read
the polling numbers. I want to tell you, some of the problems
you guys have over there, Mr. Speaker, those individuals-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I guess I rose a little too
quickly. I see the member recognized the Chair. I just did not
want to be forgotten in this debate. If we get too personal with
the ``you this'' or ``you that'' we could allow our debate and
discussions in this Chamber to degenerate. Of course we are all
committed to the most vibrant, animated and forthright
discussions possible but please do not forget the Speaker.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding me. I
slipped. What I meant was ``they''.
Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps what those
individuals on the other side should do is go back and read their
campaign literature. They have slipped a few times. They have
come to this place having raised themselves on a high holy
pedestal. They have found it is a long fall when knocked off.
Indeed their leader found that out a few days ago. I hope they
recover. I hope they do find a way to contribute, and I mean this
sincerely, to the debates in this House.
They may laugh. I happen to have a great deal of respect for
every member of this House no matter what their political
affiliation, even if they are separatists. They have a right to have
a say in this place. I am trying my best in this new Parliament to
show we can work differently. I have dulled my tongue of its
partisanship. However on an issue like this I am not prepared to
because the public has to know what goes on here.
I have a problem in my community up on Hester Street in the
north end of Dartmouth. The prostitution problem is driving this
neighbourhood into decline. It is an old residential
neighbourhood. It is not downtown in an industrial or
commercial area.
The reality is the problem for the residents up in the north end
on Hester Street and Albro Lake Road is not just prostitution but
is drug related. In and around that area there were a number of
known crack houses. These prostitutes are victims of the most
despicable types of individuals when dealing with the pimps.
Many or most of these young girls in the situation of prostitution
have a drug problem. The pimps get them addicted to drugs.
Drugs are far too easily available in every community, every
junior and senior high school, even elementary schools, in this
country. The reason we have the problem on Hester Street in the
north end is because there were two crack houses nearby. The
prostitutes who were addicted to crack were plying their trade
primarily because they could make some money and get a hit of
crack. The police have found the laws would not allow them to
take the type of action necessary to clean up the streets. That is a
problem.
I will support any initiative this government or the opposition
puts forward that would move in that direction. I know Bill C-7,
which should not be a controversial bill, does all of those things.
It moves in the right direction.
It will not be the last time this government comes forward
with amendments to the Criminal Code, to health and welfare
legislation, the Food and Drug Act, or other acts. We will
respond as necessary. We will take the steps we believe will lead
to safer communities and will allow law enforcement officials
and the judicial system to deal effectively with those seeking to
3220
destroy our communities and rob many of our youth of their
lives and if not their lives, their usefulness in life.
This bill should be soundly debated in the House on the facts.
The time to raise the concerns the Bloc Quebecois have had, and
they are legitimate concerns I might say, about too much
regulation without notification of this Parliament is when it gets
to committee. We did that in opposition.
Pharmacists and people who legitimately have to use
controlled substances in their legal work should be heard from,
but the place to do that is at committee.
I ask members on all sides to see this piece of legislation for
what it is. It is not a big piece of legislation. I think there should
be unanimous consent on the intent of the legislation. Let us
work if there is a problem through the committee structure to
make it a better piece of legislation so that our streets are a little
safer after it is passed.
(1315)
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the
member has dulled his partisan tongue. If he had not dulled it I
expect we might need an ambulance over here.
I would like to ask the member, since he spoke so eloquently
about non-partisan comments on this specific bill, would he
reflect back to the 34th Parliament upon the comments made by
the Liberal members of the committee when they were
reviewing this bill. I am sure he will know about that.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do know about it. I
want to say that the member is very fortunate, as are you, Mr.
Speaker, to have lived through the last Parliament.
In the last Parliament things did work differently here. I think
one of the reasons that the Reform Party has been so successful
across this country is that it was a negative response to the way
things were done here. One of the reasons the Liberals so
successful in the last campaign is that we recognized that the
Canadian public no longer would allow Parliament to work
basically by fiat, by a small number of individuals and
mandarins to make all the decisions, that consultation was not
real, that it was phoney, and that bad legislation and special
interest legislation got passed.
I think the member opposite and even you and I, Mr. Speaker,
have benefited by the past government's excessive partisanship
and lack of consultation when it came to legislative process.
Some of us did try to make this a better place. I can say that in
the last Parliament one of the few committees that did work
effectively was the government ops committee led by Mr.
Holtmann, who is no longer a member here, and John Rodriguez,
a New Democrat who was the NDP critic. We worked together
with the groups there to try to come up with better legislation. I
think we were a bit of a model in the way we were trying to do
things.
The hon. member is right, there may have been some members
in the past. We participated in the venue that was drawn for us by
the government. We have drawn a different venue. We have put
different rules forward. We allow members of this place to have
their say.
I would urge the member not to live in the past, to look at the
future, to look at reality. He will see that there is plenty of
opportunity without falling into old patterns to allow members
of all sides to have their say when it comes to formulating
legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting to see the member who just spoke try to
do a psychological analysis of the opposition's intentions, in
particular regarding Bill C-7. However, I would like to remind
him that when the Liberals were in opposition, they did exactly
what we are doing.
As long as we think that a bill fails to reach its goal or is
poorly written and is unclear and ambiguous, we will oppose it
regardless of what the government says. I believe it is our
responsibility, as the official opposition, to do so not only for
Quebecers but for all Canadians. This bill is unclear and we
oppose it in many respects. I will have later on the opportunity to
dwell on a particular point.
But I am concerned by some statements made by the
government members opposite regarding this bill. On February
15, the Sollicitor General of Canada stated to the press that it
was important to amend the Narcotic Control Act as well as
some parts of the Food and Drugs Act in order to be in a better
position to fight the cocaine traffic organized by the Warriors on
the aboriginal reserves.
I would like to know if the member agrees with this statement
and, if so, if it means that the present Narcotic Control Act does
not provide any means to control that traffic? Does the member
agree with this statement and, if so, could he explain why?
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time I have had an
opportunity to respond to a question which is so specific that it
deals with not just one region of Canada but actually with a very
special people in Canada, the native community.
3221
(1320 )
The member does his side and his cause a great disservice,
constantly focusing on problems that the native community or a
native community or any minority community in Canada may
have. If the member wishes to ask some questions dealing with
the impact of this legislation across Canada, I would be pleased
to answer. I am not prepared in any way, shape or form to allow
the member opposite to put questions forward like we heard over
and over again in question periods over the last two months in
this place that deal specifically with the native community or
any other community.
This bill is not meant to just strike out at people who violate
the law, the norms of society, when it comes to trafficking
controlled substances. I do not really care if they are Gaelic, if
they are Cape Bretoners, if they are from the province of
Quebec, from the Gaspé or if they happen to be natives. The way
this government operates is that it legislates for all Canadians
without noting which region they live in or which ethnic group
they come from.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory notes in Bill
C-7 specify that the proposed enactment consolidates Canada's
drug control policy to fulfill Canada's obligations under
international conventions.
That consolidation, which is no doubt necessary, brings about
major consequences, the most important of which is the repeal
of the Narcotic Control Act, as well as of Parts III and IV of the
Food and Drugs Act.
In the guise of that consolidation, the legal and statutory
approach to a major problem is dramatically changed and this,
without prior consultation. Yes, without consultation, and in a
strange heavy context which raises concerns on this side of the
House.
As you did, Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments that were made
to the media by the Solicitor General of Canada on February 15,
as I mentioned earlier. If it is true that there is an emergency, as
if the present Narcotic Control Act could not allow the RCMP to
stop the lucrative traffic of cocaine and other hard drugs, there is
a problem with the system.
A country can have all the useful and necessary laws in some
activity sector, but if the political will to enforce these laws in
some areas of that country does not exist, they will be useless.
So, we believe that it is necessary for Canada and for Quebec to
have efficient and stringent legislation that responds to the
present and imminent need to stop this plague. But, most of all,
the police forces must feel that they have the support of those
who will vote for that legislation.
From this House, we must give a clear message to anyone
engaged in that black market that the legislator is serious in his
or her willingness to counter narcotics and all other drugs. In
order to do so, we should step up our effort and enforce the
present laws while waiting for the updating wished for by Bill
C-7.
In that regard, it might be useful to remind the Solicitor
General of Canada of certain provisions of the existing Narcotic
Control Act compared to provisions found in Bill C-7 dealing
virtually with the same issue. If you read the bill, you will see
that the legislator's intent was to criminalize the trafficking in
designated substances as well as their import and export.
However, the legislator does not criminalize trafficking since
trafficking, and importing and exporting of narcotics are already
considered a criminal activity under the existing Narcotic
Control Act.
I could mention a whole list of provisions contained in Bill
C-7 that are identical or similar to those contained in the
existing Narcotic Control Act, but since I do not have the time, I
will simply mention to this House that there is already an act that
can efficiently counter cocaine trafficking or trafficking in any
other narcotic, provided it is enforced everywhere in Canada.
As regards the statement of the Solicitor General of Canada
who said that Bill C-7 would allow police forces to make sales
under surveillance, which means that double agents could
infiltrate smuggling networks and catch criminals by proposing
deals, one can also question that novelty.
When the Solicitor General made that statement, he was
referring to clause 54(2) of Bill C-7.
That provision reads as follows:
(2) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Solicitor General
of Canada, may make regulations that pertain to investigations and other law
enforcement activities conducted under this Act by a member of a police force
and other persons acting under the direction and control of a member and,
without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations: (b)
exempting, on such terms and conditions as may be specified in the regulations,
a member of a police force that has been designated pursuant to paragraph (a)
and other persons acting under the direction and control of the member from the
applications of this Act or the regulations;
(1325)
There is absolutely nothing new in this bill. Something
similar exists in the current Narcotic Control Act. The
investigative power of police officers already allows them to
infiltrate a group that they are watching and further, section 18
of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act already provides for
that procedure.
3222
Then, why does the Solicitor General of Canada need the
powers under clause 54(2) of Bill C-7 when the investigative
power of police officers already provides for such measures?
Furthermore, infiltration is aimed at gathering information on
dealers or on trafficking.
However, in the case quoted by the Solicitor General, the
RCMP and the Sûreté du Québec-and I must emphasize that it
is the Solicitor General of Canada who referred to the groups
that I talked about earlier-mentioned that they were aware of
the cocaine trafficking done by the Warriors.
So, this bill does not set forth anything new, nor does it
provide any additional powers. We have to admit that the
Solicitor General could act immediately to put an end to
trafficking everywhere in Canada. That statement makes us
believe that the Solicitor General is behind the anticipated
passage of Bill C-7 in order to gain time and delay any
intervention in those territories.
If the bill were so essentiel to the fight against drug
trafficking in Canada, does it mean Canada never offered any
resistance to drug dealers before the passage of the bill we are
now studying? I hope this is only an extrapolation and that Bill
C-7 is presented to this House with a view to modernizing a
police procedure already in place and consolidating the
Canadian drug control policy, as mentioned in the explanatory
notes to the bill. However, one fact still remains: the
government is not reaching its objective with this bill, it is
presenting a faulty bill, one that is badly written, confused and
difficult to enforce.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, to convince you, I think it would
be appropriate to stress one of the points raised on Friday,
February 18, by the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois for
Portneuf when he discussed Bill C-7. You will remember he was
explaining to the House the deficiencies of Bill C-7.
After studying the bill, the Bloc Quebecois classified its
deficiencies under four categories. I will review them briefly.
First, the legitimate activities of doctors, pharmacists and
veterinarians; were these people adequately protected by this
bill? Second, the enormous powers given to inspectors
designated by the minister; are they not of such nature as to
allow, if not induce, mistakes which will unduly penalize health
professionals and their patients?
Third, how will the confidential nature of medical records be
respected when the law allows just about anybody designated as
an inspector by the minister to copy the files held by health care
institutions and to seize all their computer files? The last
question is why does this bill call criminal and throw in jail
individuals who, in fact, are drug addicts in need of treatment?
As the Official Opposition critic for the Solicitor General, I
will deal mainly with the third question regarding the
confidential nature of medical records.
I do think that, should this bill be passed without amendment,
it will jeopardize the confidential nature of medical records.
Under the provisions of the bill, the lawmaker will make it
harder for policemen to search the home of a known drug dealer
than for an inspector appointed by the minister to carry out what
would amount to a seizure in a hospital or at the corner
drugstore.
One has only to refer to Part IV of Bill C-7 to realize how
far-reaching are the powers of an inspector designated by the
minister to enforce the act.
(1330)
Under clause 29 of the bill:
29.(1) The Minister may designate any person as an inspector for the
purposes of this Act and the regulations.
The expression ``any person'' send shivers down my spine because this
person is given a lot of power.
Under clause 30. (1) of the bill:
30. (1) Subject to subsection (2), an inspector may, to ensure compliance with
the regulations, at any reasonable time enter any place used for the purpose of
conducting the business or professional practice of any person licensed or
otherwise authorized under the regulations to deal in a controlled substance or a
precursor and may for that purpose
We are dealing here with professionals, not smugglers or
pushers, but real professionals who are licensed for this very
purpose.
This small paragraph therefore entitles anyone designated by
the minister pursuant to clause 29 to enter at just about any
time-clause 30 even specifies at any time of the day-a
doctor's office, a pharmacy, a hospital, an LCSC, or the office of
any other health professional who has obtained the required
licence.
What are the powers of an inspector doing an inspection? I
will tell you. Among other things, he can:
(a) open and examine any receptacle or package-
examine anything found in a place that:
(b) -is used or may be capable of being used for the production,
preservation, packaging or storage of a controlled substance-
(c) examine any labels or advertising material or records, books, electronic
data or other documents found in that place with respect to any controlled
substance-
And the list goes on and on.
The inspector can even:
(e) reproduce any document from any electronic data referred to in paragraph
(c) or cause it to be reproduced, in the form of a printout or other output;
3223
(h) examine any substance found in that place and take, for the purpose of
analysis, such samples thereof as are reasonably required;
As we can see, Bill C-7 gives the inspector powers that even a
peace officer does not have to fight the most serious threat of all,
cocaine trafficking. Obviously, we are off the track!
Even more disturbing, should Bill C-7 be passed as it is, the
inspector can gather evidence which could be used against a
pharmacist, a physician, a nurse or anyone else in criminal
court, whereas normally any action likely to lead to a trial in
criminal court cannot be undertaken without a warrant, except
under very special circumstances provided for in the legislation.
I was saying a moment ago that the law is a lot more
demanding for police officers than for these inspectors, and to
prove it, I will read to you clause 12, subclauses (1) and (7) of
the bill.
Under the title Search, Seizure and Detention, clause 12 says:
12. (1) A justice who, on ex parte application, is satisfied by information on
oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) a controlled substance-,
(b) any thing in which a controlled substance [-]is contained or concealed,
(c) offence-related property, or
(d) any thing that will afford evidence in respect of an offence under this Act
is in a place may, at any time, issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer, at any
time, to search the place for any such controlled substance, precursor, property
or thing and to seize it.
Subclause (7) provides that:
(7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection
(1) -without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by
reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one.
These two subclauses of clause 12 clearly show that a police
officer cannot act without a warrant, except under special
circumstances.
As for clause 30 of the bill, it provides that an inspector can
act, visit, seize, etc., as indicated, at all times and without a
warrant. Thus there is a clear difference between the two.
The only time an inspector needs a warrant is when he wants
to visit a dwelling, a private residence. It is normal to require a
warrant in such a case. For the rest, there is a clear difference
between a government inspector and a police officer doing his
job, fighting against smugglers.
I find the wording of clause 30 quite strange, especially when
referring to superior court judgements on the importance of
search warrants under the Canadian Charter of Rights.
We must not forget that certain previous provisions of the
Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act authorized
searches without a warrant anywhere but in a dwelling, when a
peace officer had reasonable reasons to believe that narcotics
were to be found there.
(1335)
There were no such open-ended authorizations in the defunct
Bill C-85, a bill similar to the one before us today, because they
had been ruled inoperative and contrary to section 8 of the
Charter.
Yet, subclause 12(7) would authorize, under exceptional
circumstances, a peace officer to conduct a search without a
warrant when the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but it
would be impracticable to obtain one. It could be that the time
required to obtain a warrant would jeopardize the life or safety
of a person or the very existence of capital evidence. Under the
circumstances, a search without a warrant would be justified and
could not be challenged under the Charter.
To wrap up, I sincerely think that the legislator would be
giving far too much power to the inspectors if clause 30 were to
be passed as is, as it has no foundation in law.
As the past gives us some indication of things to come, we
know that it is not good to give this kind of discretionary powers
to a person or group of persons without providing a restrictive
framework, legally speaking. The War Measures Act is a good
example of this. Never again must we relive such excesses.
In no time, these superinspectors would be living in a glass
bubble that would promote excesses.
Furthermore, the powers of the inspector run counter to the
provinces' jurisdiction. For example, Quebec has granted
inspection powers to the Professional Corporation of Physicians
of Quebec, as well as to the Quebec college of pharmacists and
dentists. The corporation's or organization's inspector can show
up, provided proper notice was given, at the office or place of
business of doctors, dentists, pharmacists and others to ensure
compliance with the principles of medical practice.
The Government of Quebec also allows the corporation's
trustee to examine the practice of any physician, dentist or other
professional with respect to a complaint to the effect that he or
she has prescribed a hazardous substance to a patient.
It seems obvious to me that this part of the act once again
enables the federal government to interfere in provincial areas
of responsibility, which the Official Opposition considers both
costly and unacceptable.
In closing, I suggest the government go back to the drawing
board and come up with a bill that would be much more in line
with the realities of modern-day life, one on which everybody
3224
would have been consulted. I suggest that it holds consultations
on this subject, as part of the multiple consultations it is
carrying out these days. I think that consultation in that area
would definitely be in order, considering the implications for
future generations.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
in his speech the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm said that
Bill C-7 and the Narcotic Control Act currently in effect
contained many similar provisions. Could he please give us a
few examples?
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, yes, I could give a few
examples. First I must point out, as I said in my speech earlier,
that criminalization of drugs is nothing new as it was done in the
Narcotic Control Act, but I will give you three examples.
Clause 6(1) of Bill C-7 reads as follows:
No person shall traffic in a substance included in Schedule I, II or III or in any
substance represented or held out by that person to be such a substance.
Clause 4(1) of the current Narcotic Control Act says this:
No person shall traffic in a narcotic or any substance represented or held out by
the person to be a narcotic.
Another example, clause 7(1) of the bill before us provides
that:
Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall import into
Canada or export from Canada a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV or
V.
The current Narcotic Control Act says this: ``Except as
authorized by this Act or the regulations, no person shall import
into Canada or export from Canada any narcotic.''
I could give you other examples. Clause 9(1) of Bill C-7 is the
same as clause 9(1) of the Narcotic Control Act with regard to
the commission in Canada of an offence.
As I said earlier, I think the idea is to update the legislation;
however, we want, through this House, to send the message that
the law we will adopt on food and drugs will be enforced in
every part of Canada. And I am saying that, at this time, the
Narcotic Control Act is not being enforced everywhere in
Canada.
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to speak to this bill.
The problem of the use of illicit substances and addiction and
those who profit from it troubles the nation, troubles my
constituents and, speaking as one who is elected to represent
those same constituents, troubles me.
(1340 )
The use of illicit drugs has eaten away at the fabric of our
society like a leprous plague. The illicit drug trade and those
who live off its avails exact a heavy toll. They prey on that
segment of our population that is most vulnerable, our youth, a
prime target for those who deal in these drugs.
Drugs destroy families, they destroy careers, they destroy
futures. They also destroy young lives. Perhaps most
reprehensibly of all, while doing so they put cash into the hands
of criminals.
In my practice as a physician I have personally witnessed
many young people in families trapped in the cycle of drug
dependency. I have worked with many of those families and
young people to help them reclaim control of their lives. It is a
difficult, frustrating and heart-rending struggle. I am therefore
extremely sensitive to the consequences of drug dependence. It
is not only a criminal issue, it is a health and social issue.
Realizing the need for action and recognizing that a
widespread problem such as this requires a broadly based
solution, the federal government launched Canada's drug
strategy in 1987.
Canada's drug strategy is a comprehensive set of programs
implemented with the collaboration of a multitude of partners
and stakeholders. It was the first comprehensive step toward
reducing the devastating and costly effects of drug and alcohol
abuse to individuals, to families and to communities.
Canada's drug strategy was designed to address drug abuse in
a balanced and co-ordinated manner. Emphasis was not only put
on treatment and rehabilitation but it also addressed education
and prevention.
Part of the strategy contains legislative components in the
form of legislation intended to strip traffickers of their
ill-gotten assets, legislation that recognizes the obligation of
Canada as a signatory under three international conventions,
and legislation that consolidates parts 3 and 4 of the Food and
Drug Act and the Narcotic Control Act.
All components of phase 1 of the drug strategy are now in
place with the exception of the legislation implementing the
convention. This controlled drugs and substances bill is the final
component of our drug strategy.
Canada's drug strategy is based on the recognition that we
must maintain a balanced approach when dealing with substance
abuse. Two hundred and seventy million dollars over five years
have been dedicated to the reduction of use and to the reduction
of supply.
The strategy allocates 70 per cent of its funds to reduction
among users. This covers treatment initiatives, rehabilitation,
education and prevention. The other 30 per cent is dedicated to
enforcement activity.
3225
Bill C-7 provides the necessary legislation to support the
resources dedicated to enforcement. Bill C-7 is the third and
final significant piece of legislation to ensure that the strategy
succeeds. It must therefore be seen as part of the whole strategy
and not in isolation.
Within my department alone programs have shifted to focus
on new target goals. The federal component of the strategy falls
under the responsibility of many departments, health, justice,
Solicitor General, finance, external affairs, and national
defence.
Canada's drug strategy secretariat is co-ordinating the
promotion and evaluation of programs among these
departments.
The community support program allows community groups to
develop solutions specific to their substance abuse problems
and we also have programs to address the unique problems of
our native peoples, especially solvent and inhalant abuse, and
the department has also introduced the national native role
model program.
While the controlled drugs and substances bill constitutes a
necessary tool to prevent diversion of drugs it also contains
provisions to ensure that drugs intended for medical, industrial
or research purposes are made available to those who need them.
This bill would be beneficial to all Canadians in that it would
provide them with additional protection against the serious
consequences of drug diversion.
Without such legislation drugs would be more subject to
thefts and robberies. Drugs would be more easily accessible in
the streets. People would be more vulnerable to the
consequences of illicit drug supply.
Contrary to some assumptions, this bill is not indifferent to
treatment programs, especially for those who are drug
dependent. As a physician I support the availability of help and
appropriate tools for those who seek to get back to a normal life.
(1345)
My government is sensitive to the medical and social
consequences of drug addiction. The department of health will
continue to grant methadone authorization for the treatment of
drug dependence. Methadone is a controlled drug and its use
well recognized in the medical community.
The methadone program has the full support of the
government. This is an initiative directed at use reduction. It
assists many opiate abusers to re-establish a constructive life by
promoting rehabilitation, reducing health risks and costs to the
community.
The department of health will continue to encourage and
make available methadone treatment for appropriate patients.
Bill C-7 was criticized for not providing drug dependent
persons who have committed criminal offences with access to
treatment. My government is very supportive of rehabilitation.
Although the bill does not provide for mandatory
rehabilitation treatment, the courts have always taken into
consideration as part of a sentence the rehabilitation aspect of
persons convicted of drug crimes.
The bill does not go against such a practice. It is commonly
accepted as a criminal law notion. Rehabilitation has been
identified by jurisprudence of the last decade as being an
integral part of any sentence rendered in Canada.
We must also take into consideration the necessity for patients
first to be referred to qualified health care professionals so that
sound assessment and appropriate treatment programs are
available to meet their needs.
Drug dependence is a complex health issue. It requires
professional diagnostic treatment and rehabilitative
interventions. Motivation on the part of the patient is a crucial
element in the success of treatment. The bill itself cannot
determine who is a good candidate for treatment and who is not.
The courts have the opportunity and responsibility to exert
discretion and to refer candidates for treatment to qualified
health care professionals.
However my government is supportive of all programs aimed
at decreasing the dependency and disastrous consequences of
illicit drug use.
The department of health is responsible for the national AIDS
program. A great deal of thought has therefore been given to the
spread of AIDS through intravenous drug use. We are convinced
that the strategies used to curb the spread of HIV among drug
users will enhance our efforts to reduce drug use in Canada by
linking drug users with health professionals and treatment
programs.
Needle exchange programs were used successfully by many
communities to reduce the spread of HIV. Sections of the
Criminal Code dealing with drug paraphernalia have
specifically been excluded, such as medical devices such as
needles, from the statutory definition of instrument for illicit
drug use, thereby allowing for the distribution of sterile needles
by health professionals to known drug users who are at risk of
AIDS.
It therefore follows that the critical path for a drug free future
lies in prevention and rehabilitation, but we also have an
escalating problem today that must be recognized and dealt with
promptly. We must give law enforcement professionals the tools
they need to deal effectively with those who continue to prey on
the addicted and on the young would-be addicts.
If we are serious about advancing the broader social goal of
maintaining safe and peaceful communities, we must promote
law enforcement now. The youth of Canada are of primary
importance in my government's platform. They are the key to
our country's future.
My practice as a physician has put me in constant contact with
our youth. I am also the mother of three sons. I understand the
daily difficulties our young people face, their hopelessness and
their vulnerability. This makes them prime targets for those in
3226
the drug trade who prey on that vulnerability. It is in order to
protect our youth that I support the bill.
The controlled drugs and substances bill addresses the
problem broadly. It broadens the scope of controlled substances
with certain other provisions and consequently will make it
more difficult to reach children. Drug dealing in and around
schools, sales to minors and use of the services of a minor during
a transaction will constitute an aggravated factor at the time of
sentencing. This means that judges will have to justify their
decisions for not imposing a jail sentence on a dealer.
Right now as we debate the bill designer drugs have the
identical basic properties of the more familiar substances such
as stimulants, tranquillizers and pain killers. Only their
chemical properties have been slightly altered. The result is that
these substances are not covered by the existing legislation and
can be sold with impunity. They cannot be subject for
prosecution until they are included in the schedule of drugs.
Under the bill law enforcement officials will no longer have to
wait for these drugs to appear on a statutory schedule in order to
stop criminals from selling them.
(1350)
Then of course there is the problem of so-called precursors
which are legal substances used in the manufacture of illicit
substances. They can be obtained right now in large enough
quantities through various legal means. My government is
concerned about the current lack of legislation governing
precursor chemicals. We are concerned that Canada may be a
conduit for precursor chemicals. We have become a weak link in
the chain of drug control among the signatories of the
international conventions because many of these precursor
substances are not yet controlled in our country.
Lack of effective control over benzodiazepines is another
issue of concern. There is more pressure than ever from our
co-signature countries for Canada to bring on more effective
legislation. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is the
much needed legislation to respond to these issues.
I would like to respond to the other criticisms raised by
members of the opposition during recent debate of the bill with
regard to its perceived impact on certain health care
professionals.
The absence of regulations for these groups was identified as
a fundamental impediment to obtaining the full impact of the
legislation. The activities of pharmacists, physicians, dentists
and veterinarians are currently subject to regulations under the
Narcotic Control Act and under parts III and IV of the Food and
Drug Act. The regulations under the new legislation will not
differ substantively from those that currently apply to
prescribing activities under the existing legislation.
One of the purposes of the regulation making power in the bill
is to enable the government to respond quickly and
appropriately to changing professional practices. Any
substantive changes in regulations will only be made following
full consultation with all affected professional parties, using a
regulatory consultation process that has been used for years by
the department of health.
Both the Official Opposition and the Reform Party members
suggested that there would be inconsistencies between various
provisions of the bill and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
particularly with regard to the powers of inspectors. We do not
believe this is so. Inspections referred to in the bill are
inspections conducted to determine whether regulated persons
are complying with the requirements under which they must
carry on their business or their professional duties.
There are many acts, both federal and provincial, which
confer broad powers of entry on inspectors in the interests of
ensuring public health and safety. These are not criminal law
provisions; they are really administrative provisions.
For example, an inspector performing an administrative
seizure under section 30 of the act would not be able to use the
seized substances as evidence before the courts. Similar
provisions have been in force in Canada under federal drug
control legislation for over 80 years. They effectively establish
a federal regulatory scheme that governs the distribution and use
of schedule drugs in Canada in a manner that limits their
diversion to the illicit market and consistent with Canada's
international obligations under the United Nations drug control
convention.
I would also like to respond to the concerns raised by both
opposition members of Parliament about the powers given to the
minister. All hon. members should be aware that one of the
ultimate goals of the department of health is to ensure the safety
and to protect the health of all Canadians, and to reassure them
that they are protected by giving Parliament the means to do so.
To that effect the legislation must contain the appropriate
prevention measures.
For example, as a member of the opposition mentioned, the
minister may make an interim order cancelling or suspending an
authorization when the minister is of the opinion that as a result
of a contravention of a designated regulation there is a
substantial risk of immediate danger to the health or safety of
any person. This has been going on for years. The legislation
protects not only the population; it also protects the health
professionals.
Contravention of designated regulations gives rise to a
hearing before an adjudicator. This is indicated in part IV of the
bill. It may result in a ministerial order which should effectively
prevent a recurrence. A person who is believed to have made a
3227
contravention is given the opportunity to set out a date of
hearing and to make representation. This adjudication
mechanism would protect the rights of individuals, show
respect and allow transparency.
(1355)
A breach of these designated regulations would not result in a
criminal type penalty of fine or imprisonment. Administrative
sanctions would be handed down by the minister and not by a
criminal court.
Another area of criticism relates to the impact of the bill on
physician-patient and pharmacist-patient relationships and
confidentiality. Both opposition members identified access to
the confidential files of patients as an unacceptable interference
in the private lives of honest Canadians, and I agree. However
there is very little new in the bill that gives rights to the minister
that have not been there before.
For over 30 years under the narcotic control regulations the
Minister of Health has had the legislative authority to require a
practitioner to provide information concerning a patient treated
with narcotics to the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs. This
information could include the diagnosis, history or prescribing
information relevant to the patient. This has been going on for
years.
We have now given inspectors the appropriate tools they need
to ensure that health professionals comply with the regulations
and to ensure that the public is protected from the hazardous
consequences of drugs. The inspectors are also health
professionals bound by rules of confidentiality. They are
important resources for the department of health and for the
Canadian population. They also ensure that the facilities used in
the distribution of drugs are secure.
Legitimate program activities required under the current and
proposed legislation to protect public health and safety will
ensure that patient confidentiality is fully maintained. Any
information obtained is subject to the Privacy Act. This
prohibits its use or disclosure by any official, except in
accordance with that act. The Privacy Act ensures that all
information collected by the federal government for program
purposes is treated confidentially.
Concerning so-called doctor shopping or double doctoring
offences official opposition members cited evidence given by
the Canadian Medical Association to the legislative committee
which examined Bill C-85. They argued that Bill C-7 would be
unsatisfactory to doctors. This criticism from the Canadian
Medical Association was accepted by the committee and the
provision in the bill was changed, in essence to revert to the
existing section found in the Narcotic Control Act. As a result
the revision now refers only to persons who receive
prescriptions from doctors. The act of providing the prescription
in this circumstance is not considered a trafficking offence.
We understand the use of illicit substances is a complex
problem and requires a multifaceted approach of prevention,
treatment, rehabilitation, legislation and punishment. The
complete Canada drug strategy addresses all these issues. Bill
C-7 deals with the legislative components.
We all understand the regulation of controlled substances is a
complex matter which requires a carefully constructed legal
basis in order to be effective, judicious and fair. I believe the bill
is the most appropriate instrument for administering the laws
and regulations we need. We are dealing with an aspect of
societal problems which demands proper protection of the
innocent, the inexperienced, the young and the vulnerable. It
also demands forceful prosecution of the exploitative, the
criminal and the ruthless.
I believe the bill strikes just the right balance between these
two requirements. While we continue to minimize harm through
education and prevention and while we continue to show
compassion for victims through treatment and rehabilitation, we
must also strike at the criminal heart of the problem. In passing
the bill we as parliamentarians would be making our
contribution to the battle against drug abuse now and well into
the future.
The Speaker: The hon. member will have a few moments
after question period for questions and comments.
[Translation]
It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the
House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
3227
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul): Mr.
Speaker, along with all cycling enthusiasts, I am extremely
pleased that the bicycle path between Nuns' Island and Verdun
will be built very shortly.
Cyclists have been waiting 15 years for this path to be
completed.
I want to thank the Minister, Mr. Doug Young, and his
department for the consideration they have given to this project.
The proposed bicycle path will link the paths on the South
Shore and on Nuns' Island to the path in Verdun.
3228
The City of Verdun has agreed to build a segment connecting
these paths to those along the Lachine Canal. Therefore, all of
the major bikeways on Montreal Island will be linked.
Over 20,000 cyclists will thus be able to enjoy some
wonderful outings thanks to this initiative on the part of the
Government of Canada and the municipality of Verdun.
[English]
Co-operation always accomplishes more than confrontation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Since the
Tiananmen Square massacre, human rights in China have been
repeatedly violated.
Yesterday, representatives of agencies defending Chinese
refugees in Montreal expressed their outrage at the
government's decision to review the status of 4,500 Chinese
nationals living in Canada under the threat of deportation to
their native country.
It has been announced that the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration will make a final resolution on these cases this
summer.
According to information gathered by the newspaper Voir, of
the 827 cases reviewed by the Immigration and Refugee Board
since the Tiananmen Square massacre, 663 applications, or a
full 80 per cent, have been rejected.
Under the circumstances, the minister's stalling tactics are
unacceptable.
Once again, the government is making a mockery of human
rights and giving in to this simplistic approach whereby if one
wants to do business, one turns a blind eye to fundamental
rights.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, who is
speaking for Ontario? This new Parliament is six months old and
no one is showing concern for the biggest engine that drives
Canada's economy.
While we are all interested in what is good for Canada, the
role of Ontario is being overlooked. What is good for Canada is a
healthy and growing Ontario economy.
The red ink book made a major issue of infrastructure and
jobs, yet Ontario's largest and most important piece of
infrastructure is being allowed to deteriorate. No much needed
jobs and the delay are jeopardizing a number of job creating
projects.
Ontario was forced to reduce tobacco taxes due to pressure
from one province. Because of this Ontario taxpayers face an
additional tax loss of $500 million.
Toronto loses out as the obvious choice for the NAFTA
environmental office for purely political considerations.
The silence is deafening. What did Ontario do to deserve such
rejection?
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I
stand in the House today to say that the Ontario members of the
Liberal caucus are working very hard on behalf of Ontario.
Globally and nationally there is much talk about sustainable
development, but a shared understanding of what it means does
not exist. To some it is a phrase that suggests development can
be sustained at any cost.
In my opinion sustainable development will not work as a
vision goal or a process unless it includes equity. Equity is
served when people from different lands, the north, the south,
and people from different classes in the same land are treated
with respect.
Equity is served when the natural environment is respected.
Equity is served when our intergenerational responsibilities are
acknowledged and when our global roles and commitments are
honoured.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, the
recent increase in violent crimes has raised the concerns of
people all across Ontario and all of Canada.
As part of its efforts to reduce violence in Canadian
communities, the government should without a doubt ban the
importation of serial killer cards. These cards are a perverted
twist on children's hockey cards. They feature psychopathic
killers with a detailed description of the crimes they committed.
The lives of the victims of violent crimes should be
remembered, not the killers and their actions.
This government is committed to measures to get at the root
causes of violence and this should include the banning of these
offensive cards that glorify murder and reduce victims to
anonymous statistics.
On behalf of the constituents of London-Middlesex in
Ontario, I call on Parliament to amend the customs and tariffs
legislation to ban the importation of serial killer cards, ensuring
that they will not continue to be sold in Canada.
3229
(1405 )
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt): Mr.
Speaker, members will remember that on March 8, International
Women's Day, I rose in this House to pay tribute to the
accomplishments of the four Saskatchewan women making up
the Sandra Peterson rink on winning the Scott Tournament of
Hearts which all good Canadians, at least from the cold parts,
will know as the national women's curling championship.
I am pleased to report to this House that once again the
Peterson rink has distinguished itself by winning the Women's
World Curling Championship in Obersdorf.
Lest members conclude that only the women of Saskatchewan
can curl, I would add that the Canadian men's rink also became
world champions this weekend, skipped to victory by former
Saskatoonian Mr. Rick Folk.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, the findings of
a study conducted by the employment forum and made public
yesterday show that the very high rate of unemployment cost the
Quebec economy $30 billion and the Canadian economy $109
billion last year.
This situation cannot go on any longer. The members of this
forum unanimously reaffirmed the consensus in Quebec: one
solution for the problem of unemployment is to give Quebec full
and complete responsibility for labour force training. This
solution is a necessity, not a whim.
In the daily Le Devoir, Jean-Robert Sansfaçon wrote: ``If Jean
Chrétien's Liberals stubbornly ignore this, it means that they
have learned nothing about the dynamics of Quebec society.
Sooner or later this error will turn against them.''
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, during the election
the party now in government made much of promises to have
more open government and freer votes. Today the government
and all members of this House have an opportunity to vote for a
good idea and to leave party discipline behind.
Later today we will be voting on a Reform amendment to put a
cap on the total number of MPs elected. I believe that essentially
every Canadian supports the idea that we do not need more than
295 MPs. Many believe we need fewer. I urge all MPs to vote in
favour of this amendment, to vote in such a way that
undoubtedly represents the majority view in each constituency.
I am expecting that this evening we will see a clear indication
of the Liberal Party's commitment to deliver on its promise of
freer votes.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I think that the
Reform Party's recent statements about Quebec are
disrespectful. They add to them by saying that Quebec is
imposing its will on Ottawa on the issues of lower cigarette
taxes, the establishment of the environmental secretariat in
Montreal and the postponement of the federal-provincial
conference on labour. Such allusions are out of place.
I ask the government to act diligently to solve the manpower
issue with Quebec and the provinces concerned. It is time to
reduce overlap. Perhaps this obstinacy is due only to some
over-centralizing officials. The government would show
flexibility by understanding Quebec's traditional demands and
adopting an updated federalism that is more acceptable to all
provinces.
Under the Constitution, we certainly agree that labour force
training is an educational issue and education is within
provincial jurisdiction: it is their responsibility and they would
provide training more economically. That is what the people of
Beauce think.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, the
senseless acts of violence in the past weeks have caused
communities all across the country to cry out for stricter
legislation regarding gun control.
Yesterday I met with 120 students from all across Canada as
part of the Encounter with Canada program. During our
exchange these young Canadians expressed their concerns over
the recent developments regarding the Young Offenders Act and
stricter gun control laws.
A concerted effort between government and community youth
organizations along with the introduction of stricter gun
enforcement laws are required to effectively deal with this
problem.
[Translation]
I strongly support a total ban on handguns in Canadian cities
to ensure that incidents like those which occurred recently in
Ottawa and Toronto do not recur.
On behalf of the people of Saint-Denis, I ask our government
to seriously reconsider the Firearms Control Act in order to end
acts of violence in our cities.
3230
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to express my concern about the importation of serial
killer cards into Canada.
(1410 )
I, like many colleagues, am opposed to these shameful cards
entering our country. I have hundreds, maybe even thousands of
constituents from Victoria-Haliburton in Ontario who have
signed a petition stating that the killer cards not be allowed in
Canada.
We live in a violent enough society, evidenced by senseless
shootings in the last few weeks, and we do not need to send
another violent negative message to our youth by allowing these
cards to circulate in our schools.
I echo the petitions which are circulating throughout this
country and urge this House to amend the laws of Canada to
prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of
killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that
their product, if destined for Canada, will be seized and
destroyed.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
I was accused by the member for Richelieu of being hypocritical
in presenting a petition to the House while opposing its content.
I would like to say to that member that I shall on occasion
oppose certain views some of my constituents may hold but I
will not oppose their right to express them or to have their voice
heard in this place.
[Translation]
I want to tell those who claim that I do not respect the
bilingual status of our country that I am the first member of
Parliament for Simcoe North to provide services and to send out
householders in both official languages.
[English]
The Bloc Quebecois has often said it was given the
democratic right to sit in this place despite its fundamental goal
to break up our country.
[Translation]
I find it despicable on the part of Bloc Quebecois members to
claim that they want to protect the principles of democracy and
freedom of expression when, in fact, they are trying to deprive
others of those rights.
[English]
We believe in democracy whether it suits our political agenda
or not.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, we have
obtained from a reliable source a working paper on a
government strategy designed to massively privatize Transport
Canada's services.
This strategy, which was developed in secret, will not only
have a disastrous impact on employment in that department by
eliminating 15,000 positions: it will also have serious
consequences on the economy as a whole, through an increase in
transportation costs.
This withdrawal by the government from its responsibilities
in the field of transport illustrates the confusion of a federal
system which is about to crumble.
Moreover, the government's policy in the transport sector
clearly shows that it is not serious about job creation. This
hurried reform could result in a setback for Quebec and Canada,
since the transport industry has always been an essential
component of their economies.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
thought when this government was elected that they might hear
and witness something new.
Much to the disappointment of millions of Canadians all they
got was the same old thing.
We have a government that announces with greatest fanfare a
rehash of the Company of Young Canadians, basically
Katimavik II; a great concept but are our youth willing to pay the
bill on this borrowed money?
Ministers go to Atlantic Canada to tell Canadians there are no
bold new ideas, just the usual tired old programs through which
borrowed money substitutes for innovative job creation
initiatives.
The experiments in judicial reform that have proved
unsuccessful since their introduction in the 1960s and 1970s are
another sign that creative solutions are not being found.
I would remind the government that yesterday's answers will
not work when applied to today's questions; old songs by new
singers are still old songs.
We need a new song for the new Canada. Reformers together
with Canadians are working on the lyrics and the tune for ``O
Canada, New Canada''.
3231
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West): Mr. Speaker, today the
ministers of fisheries and human resources announced a new
five-year $1.9 billion package to assist east coast fisherpeople
and plant workers.
This government has taken a long term approach to ensure the
future prosperity of the people of Newfoundland, including St.
John's West. The money will be an investment in their future,
the future of the fishery and the future of the people.
Training programs and green projects will allow people to
improve themselves and their working environment. The people
of St. John's West can take comfort in the fact that this
government has listened to their concerns.
I want to commend the ministers and this government for the
manner in which they have so humanely dealt with this difficult
problem.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont): Mr. Speaker, today, I
would like to take advantage of my allotted time to talk about
economic growth.
This morning, Statistics Canada announced that, after
growing by 0.9 per cent in February, the composite index had
continued to progress in March with an increase of 0.7 per cent.
Seven economic components out of ten showed a marked
improvement. It is a very positive sign for our country.
I would like to add that Canadian production remains very
strong. Today, Statistics Canada reported that our exports to the
United States, our main trading partner, reached record levels.
This proves that our government's economic recovery plan is
working and that the finance minister's budget was right on
target.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Mr. Speaker, it is
with a great deal of pleasure that I offer congratulations to the
Canadian men's and women's world curling champions in
winning the 1994 global titles.
Residents of Saskatchewan, and all Canadians, are especially
proud of the Sandra Peterson rink of Saskatchewan which gave
Canada its second consecutive world curling championship.
Sandra Peterson, Jan Betker, Joan McCusker, coach Anita Ford
and lead Marcia Gudereit, who lives in my riding of
Regina-Lumsden, are top athletes that deserve our praise and
admiration for their accomplishments, the only Canadian
women's team to win consecutive world championships.
These women have worked hard and their dedication to
curling has paid off. They have developed a controlled defensive
style that has brought them the victories they deserve. This team
is named the Rat Pack because their mascot is a rubber rat.
I know all members of the House will join with me in
applauding the efforts or our world class Rat Pack in winning the
world championship.
_____________________________________________
3231
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Although several provinces were opposed, the federal
government decided to go ahead and announce its youth strategy
last Friday. The Quebec Minister of Education, who also chairs
the Conference of Education Ministers, called this an example
of unacceptable intrusion by Ottawa in the education sector and
even considered challenging the government's decision before
the Supreme Court.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his strategy is not only an
intrusion in an area under provincial jurisdiction but also that
Quebec and several other provinces have agreed to oppose the
government, since the strategy will create further costly and
unnecessary administrative duplication and overlap, which
means less value for money?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, no one questions the jurisdiction of Quebec and other
provinces over education. Of the three programs announced last
Friday, the first is a program to help students. Quebec opted out
of this program in 1964.
The second program, which targets young people, is not really
about education but about promoting youth employment. The
federal government had and still has a number of different
programs in this area, like Katimavik, for instance, and we have
made every effort to ensure that the federal program is
complementary to the provincial program.
The third component, the national apprenticeship program,
helps young people make the transition from school to work, a
problem that is both federal and provincial. Both governments
3232
are active in this area and should continue their programs, in
order to help young people find jobs.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the problem is that the Quebec government does not
share the federal government's views and intends to bring a
formal challenge before the Supreme Court to protest this new
intrusion by the federal government in areas under provincial
jurisdiction.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, and I hope he will answer
himself this time around, since he made a commitment to
effective management and reducing overlap, why he has
reversed his policy by launching a federal offensive on
education and manpower training which increases the overlap
and duplication he wanted to get rid of?
(1420)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, as I pointed out, this is not another intrusion in an area
under provincial jurisdiction. Our programs are not like that.
The two programs I mentioned, the youth program and the
apprenticeship program, are about promoting youth
employment and not about education, strictly speaking.
Furthermore, they complement provincial programs.
Constitutionally speaking, when a problem is national in
scope, like the problem of funding jobs for youth, the federal
government shares and will continue to share jurisdiction with
the provinces in dealing with this kind of problem.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, we have just witnessed a blatant example of
bureaucratic obtuseness.
The fact is that the federal government will duplicate what is
already being done and spend money unnecessarily, so that we
can hardly expect a good return on this investment. I want to ask
the Prime Minister whether he has now made it his policy to
provoke court challenges on all fronts?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said earlier, we
have a national responsibility in the area of job creation, and it is
one of this government's priorities to find ways to help youth
find jobs.
If the Leader of the Opposition spent any time reading the
Liberal Party's platform in the red book, he would see that it is
all there, and the people voted for this platform, and that is why
we are governing the country today.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Finance clearly stated his intention to
make massive cuts in transfer payments to the provinces in his
next budget. Failing agreement with the provinces, the Minister
of Finance plans to impose his solution regarding the cuts to be
made. The freeze in transfer payments is already saving Ottawa
$1.5 billion over two years.
Are we to understand that the Minister of Finance has given
up on trimming federal operating expenditures and has chosen
to reduce his deficit on the backs of the provinces, without any
compensation, through a massive reduction in transfer
payments for health and education?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, what I said is that the
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal intends to
review all federal programs and that review is already under
way. So we are certainly looking at our own spending.
I would like to quote a document of which I am very fond, the
budget: ``It is essential that social security reform leads to
programs that are more affordable and work better for
Canadians. For the federal government, transfers must be no
higher after reform than they are now. We want this reform
process to be a co-operative one. We are providing a two-year
period of predictability and modest growth in social security
transfers to provinces while reform goes on. As promised by the
Prime Minister, we will build towards a five-year period of
stability in transfers.''
That is what I said in the budget, that is what I said yesterday,
that is what I discussed with all provincial finance ministers:
co-operation. They agreed on it in January.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
how does the Minister of Finance explain that for lack of money,
he is cutting transfers to the provinces, but at the same time his
government has chosen to intervene brazenly, to say the least, in
fields of provincial jurisdiction like youth and training
programs. Does he not agree that when you have no money, you
should mind your own business?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the member refers to the
fact that we are cutting-I cannot remember the expression that
he used-our transfers to the provinces.
In fact, in the month of January, we settled equalization
payments on a basis that had been deferred for a number of years
by the previous government. The payments were very generous
to the seven provinces that were receiving them.
3233
At the same time we met with the provincial finance ministers
and told them we would not decrease the payments for a two year
moratorium. It is the first time that has been done in a long time.
They are used to the previous government simply cutting at will.
(1425 )
Then we said to the provinces that together, co-operatively,
we would begin to reform the social programs that Canadians
wanted reformed so that we could deliver the services more
effectively and at less cost.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
Canadians are now beginning to see some of the details of the
government's legislative program and their initial reaction is
disappointment, not enthusiasm.
For example, when Canadians examine the human resources
project announced last week to help unemployed youth, they
find that 70 per cent of the funds are not for job creation at all
and that most of the program is simply a rehash of old programs
and Liberal ideas from the 1960s and 1970s.
Does the government not have any bold new ideas for
assisting young people, and if it does, what are they?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have a program to assist young people.
Perhaps the hon. member does not agree with the idea that the
federal government should spend money to help people,
especially young people, but now I hear him say that we should
spend money.
I am very happy he might find better ways but I am delighted
for the nation to hear the leader of the Reform Party tell us to
spend more money on young people. I take notice of that.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
we are talking about allocating money that is ready to be spent.
The Prime Minister's reply simply illustrates my point that there
is nothing new or creative or bold being said.
Real Reformers have been calling for a portion of federal
educational transfers to be paid directly to young people through
education and training vouchers and for immediate revamping
of the students loan program to make repayments
income-contingent.
These are bold and new ideas for encouraging youth
preparation for the new economy. Could the Prime Minister tell
us why new ideas like these are not an integral part of the
government's thinking or announcements on this subject.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is exactly what the Minister of Human Resources Development
is doing at this time. He is talking with the provincial
governments about it and he is exploring a lot of these ideas.
Some provinces think we are moving too fast.
The hon. leader of the Reform Party would move without
talking to the provinces.
We want to make some changes. We would like to have a
better system. We know that it would be preferable not to do it
unilaterally so we are having discussions at this time. There was
supposed to be a meeting yesterday. The provinces were not
ready. We have postponed the meeting in order to give them
more time.
We think it is the right thing to do. All the premiers are asking
us to consult with them and it is something the hon. leader's own
father used to ask of the federal government; that before moving
we should consult with the provinces. We are consulting with
them. We will see what they have to say and will advise the
House.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
think we are living in the past. The government's lack of new
and bold ideas is not only evident in this field but in agriculture,
the approach to the fishery and most seriously in the defence of
federalism itself.
So far the government's only response to the threat of Quebec
sovereignty is to promise a few more handouts like the
headquarters of the Commission for Environmental
Co-operation being put in Montreal. This is a tired,
old-fashioned approach to winning support from Quebec voters
by promising to pave roads and build buildings.
I ask again, does the government have some bold new ideas
for Quebecers and all Canadians, in particular with respect to
the revitalization of federalism?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
think that the hon. member knows the policy of this government.
The best way to convince the people of Quebec to remain in
Canada is to have a good administration in Ottawa and have
members of Parliament who show tolerance and not play on the
prejudices of people.
* * *
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The situation in
Bosnia has seriously deteriorated. The UN has lost all control
3234
and authority in the Moslem enclave of Gorazde, which has
fallen to the Bosnian Serbs. Ignoring UN ultimatums and
systematically violating ceasefire agreements, the Bosnian Serb
army relentlessly pursues its attack on Gorazde despite that
city's designation as a safe area by the UN.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs bring us up to date on the
situation currently prevailing in Gorazde and confirm that the
Bosnian Serbs' sustained attack has put an end to the peace
process?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, at lunch time, the Minister of Defence and I spoke with
the Vice-President of Bosnia, Mr. Ganic. We reviewed the
situation and we certainly deplore the escalation that seems to
have taken place around some safe areas or enclaves where the
Moslem population is at the mercy of Serbian troops' artillery.
We cannot, of course, remain insensitive to this situation. There
will be discussions with the representatives of allied countries
to find as quickly as possible a solution to this situation that
seems to be getting worse.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the UN asked NATO to stand ready to launch air strikes.
Can the minister indicate if Canada is actively participating in
the development of a strategy for the Western countries and the
UN, in order to respond to the intractability of the Bosnian Serbs
who chose to further their cause with weapons instead of
negotiations?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, certainly, Canadian representatives at NATO and the
UN consulted one another and are participating in meetings to
develop a common strategy. A first meeting at the level of NATO
ambassadors was held yesterday and another one will take place
tomorrow to decide on a common position in response to the UN
Secretary General's written request.
We continue to think that negotiations are still the safest way
to achieve lasting peace in the former Yugoslavia. We will not
solve the problem by aggravating the military conflict. On the
other hand, we are aware that we cannot remain indifferent to a
handful of Serb fighters who ignore the ceasefires negotiated on
all sides. We think that considerable efforts have been made by
both the Croats and the Moslems, and it is now time for the
Bosnian Serbs to come to the table and agree with the other
parties on a peaceful solution to this conflict that has lasted for
too long.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Prime Minister.
I listened closely to the $1.9 billion fisheries announcement
this morning. Could the Prime Minister tell the House why there
was no economic diversification component to create real long
term jobs in Atlantic Canada anywhere in the announcement?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question on an important subject but he is wrong.
Part of the package announced by the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans and the Minister of Human Resources Development
has a component dealing with regional disparities and how we
might be able to facilitate the private sector, particularly small
and medium sized business, to take advantage of economic
opportunities in that region.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, a careful reading
of the package failed to reveal the items to which the minister is
referring. In our view the package failed to address the critical
issue of economic diversification in Atlantic Canada. Does the
Prime Minister not realize that his actions speak louder than
words?
(1435)
The absence of the Minister of Industry at the announcement
only creates the impression that the government considers
Atlantic Canada, particularly Newfoundland, a region without
economic hope. Why was the Minister of Industry not present at
this announcement?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes
reference to the fact that the Minister of Industry was not in
attendance. The hon. member should also say that the Minister
for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was not in
attendance either.
I want to assure the hon. member that in view of the
commitments the Prime Minister has made and we made during
the election campaign, each and every member of this cabinet,
each and every member of this caucus, and each and every
member of this party are firmly committed to assisting those
who are in need, whether they be in the Atlantic region, in
Quebec, western Canada or Ontario, to try to provide some
economic assistance where possible.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the youth
program announced by the Minister of Human Resources
Development a few days ago duplicates a number of programs
that already exist in Quebec, including
Jeunes volontaires,
Jeunes
3235
promoteurs, and Chantiers Jeunesse, plus all the training related
to education.
In fact, the federal strategy will merely add to the overlap and
duplication which already cost $300 million annually in the case
of Quebec alone.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he realize
that by doing this, he is not only failing to deliver on his promise
to eliminate duplication but actually adding to it, and that a
substantial share of the funds that should go to youth will be
used to support the federal bureaucracy that will be needed to
administer the program?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government is at least as keen as any other
government-and the Official Opposition-to eliminate
duplication and overlap.
In the youth sector we have had federal programs that helped
young people and will continue to do so. I said earlier that we
have made every effort to avoid any duplication of programs
that already exist in Quebec, especially the Jeunes volontaires,
when setting up programs in that province.
It is also true that the youth unemployment problem is so
serious that both governments must try to find appropriate
solutions. They keep repeating that program overlap costs
money. Of course it does, but probably not to that extent. Studies
indicate that the costs of overlap is quite different from the
figures that were mentioned. Of course, overlap can be reduced
more readily in some areas than in others-
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. member for
Roberval has the floor.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, once again,
we have seen that the government, despite its concern for
eliminating overlap, goes ahead and puts in a six-part program
on top of what we already have in Quebec. I wonder where the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is at.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): You had better listen, over there,
since this is your business, and you voted for these policies,
without considering the consequences. If $10,000 is to be spent
on each of these young people, did the minister consider how
much money should-
The Speaker: Questions and answers are something we all
care about. I would therefore ask hon. members on both sides of
the House to keep their voices down, when they ask questions as
well as when they give answers.
(1440)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, I will simply repeat that the party currently in office is
as intent as any other party on reducing overlap.
As far as our youth program is concerned, we have carried out
extensive consultations and it is clear that our program meets
the current needs of young people. And we do not intend to give
up our right to help Canadians in need. In the case in point, there
are Canadians in need who are not getting help from any
provincial program. This is an area of shared jurisdiction and we
have programs to implement in that area.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to interrupt the theatre that is going on here to actually ask a
question of the Minister for International Trade.
First, I would like to take a little different tact and
congratulate the Minister for International Trade on the
successful signing of the GATT in Morocco. While in Morocco
the minister said that he would not yield to pressure from the
United States on the question of Canadian wheat exports.
Is the minister willing to hold his ground until the world trade
organization is up and running and let it decide that our wheat
exports are not unfairly subsidized?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind comments.
The situation with regard to wheat is that we have engaged in
continuing discussions with the United States for some months,
culminating in some meetings in Marrakech where we had
hoped to resolve the issue. However the United States and
Canadian positions remain far apart.
It is open to Canada and to the United States to continue those
negotiations or discussions if the United States chooses to
pursue them. The United States has indicated that it had hoped to
resolve the issue by Friday. We will have to see whether the
decision of the United States by Friday is to proceed with
discussions or to take some other action.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the same minister.
Many concerned Canadian wheat farmers feel they are doing a
good job, are being competitive and have adjusted to the new
reality of free trade. Would the minister allay the fears of wheat
farmers by saying that their interests will not be traded off to
3236
protect supply management in order to cut a deal with the
United States in this area?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, most emphatically, yes.
Despite persistent United States efforts to link agricultural
problems, there are agricultural differences between our two
countries. We reject any such linkage. We shall deal with each
issue on its merits. Certainly in the case of wheat we very much
share the point of view just outlined by the member opposite.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance and Minister responsible
for the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec.
Yesterday, officials from Opération Dignité 2, an organization
which promotes regional economic development, appealed to
the government for help. They are asking the government to
postpone the UI reform for one year, as it will severely affect
regions with a high proportion of seasonal workers, in Quebec as
well as in other provinces.
Given the disastrous impact of this reform on the economy of
predominantly rural regions, will the minister pledge to delay
for one year the UI cuts announced in the budget, and actually do
it?
(1445)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because
we are very much aware of the enormous problem which
unemployment represents everywhere in Canada, and certainly
in rural areas, that we want to proceed with a reform of the
unemployment insurance program. We want to really lower UI
contributions so that small businesses can hire new workers,
protect the poor, including single-parent families, and have the
money to educate and train the workers of the future.
We made those decisions because we are keenly aware of the
unemployment problem in Quebec and in rural Canada.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): My
supplementary is for the Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development in
Quebec.
Is the minister prepared to come and sit down-and not
merely go through the area like he did during the election
campaign-with residents of the Gaspe Peninsula and Lower St.
Lawrence region to find, with them and with provincial
officials, ways to make better use of current income security
funds and create real jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): In the context of the social security
reform undertaken by my colleague, I will certainly do so.
However, I will not be the only one; other ministers are willing
to go too. Nevertheless, as I have already said, I can tell you
unequivocally that I am quite prepared to go and meet your
constituents this summer.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for housing.
The budget announcement that $100 million over the next two
years will be available to improve the housing of low income
Canadians is being well received, particularly in rural Canada.
Reinstating RRAP will create jobs and improve living
conditions for low income Canadians.
Could the minister advise the House when the funds will be
made available? What interest has there been from the provinces
and territories to become partners in this program?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his unexpected question.
We have had numerous deliberations with the provincial
governments across the country. A number of them have agreed
with us that there is a necessity for cutting out duplication and
overlap. However a number of them for a variety of reasons have
not wanted to proceed with us. For instance, in the province of
Ontario there has been no sharing of that common vision.
Moneys under RRAP will be made available later this week.
Applications can be processed in the coming weeks. I hope we
will be able to have a fair amount of money in the system in
order to provide the necessary repairs for the homes in need.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister admitted that the gravy train is
already at the station picking up loyal Liberals for well paid
government jobs. It appears this government is prepared to pay a
premium to get the gravy train to stop at Liberal advertising and
polling stations. It is my understanding cabinet is considering
guidelines to grant government contracts to Liberals even if
their fees are 10 per cent higher than non-Liberal competitors.
3237
Will the Prime Minister commit to this House that his
government's new guidelines, whenever they are released, will
not consider old style patronage as an acceptable method of
making hiring and contract decisions?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the
hon. member gets his information with regard to the context of
guidelines which are to be released by the government.
I want to assure him however that the Prime Minister made a
clear and unequivocal commitment to Canadians that this
subject matter would be reviewed. The matter has been
reviewed. We are in the throes of releasing those guidelines to
the public. Members will then have an opportunity to assess
their effectiveness.
I want to assure the hon. member the principles of
competency, fiscal responsibility and transparency will be seen
throughout those guidelines.
(1450 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious
the ethics counsellor is long overdue. Can the Prime Minister
tell us when this appointment will finally be made?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
soon.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Public Works, and it is a
real question.
Strange things are happening in the Department of Public
Works. In the procurement contract for flu vaccine purchased
for the provinces, the minister, acting on his own initiative, split
the contract equally between Connaught in Ontario and Bio Vac
in Quebec. The minister says he found a Canadian solution to a
Canadian problem. However, the contract share awarded to
Connaught will be produced in the United States.
Since BioVac is offering these vaccines at $1.70 per unit, why
does the government insist on paying more-$1.85 per
unit-with its decision to purchase part of these vaccines in the
United States, so that Quebec loses 26 high tech jobs and an
investment project worth $32 million will be cancelled?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question. Obviously the hon. member does not have all of
the facts.
The hon. member should be aware that in previous years the
amount of the contract awarded to the company from the
province of Quebec was approximately 38 per cent over a three
year average.
This year because of the representations made by the hon.
member and her party, all of which we took into consideration,
we were able to have an agreement in principle where both
parties, Connaught industries from Ontario and BioVac from
Quebec, would be able to split a contract on a 50:50 basis. Keep
in mind that the Government of Canada purchased less than 1
per cent of the vaccine and 99 per cent of that particular contract
was purchased by the other provinces across this country.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, are we to
conclude that the contract splitting was the result of pressure
from ministers in Toronto, who prefer an approach that is more
expensive and risky in terms of security and supply, to drum up
business for a Toronto distributor, as opposed to awarding the
whole contract to a Quebec manufacturer?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, again I thank the hon.
member for such a wonderful question.
I informed the hon. member and this House that two years ago
in the province of Quebec BioVac did not get 50 per cent of the
contract; 87 per cent of the contract went to the province of
Ontario.
What we have provided under this particular regime is a 50:50
splitting of the contract. One per cent of that contract is
purchased by the Government of Canada; 99 per cent is
purchased by all the other provinces. If that is not equity I am
sure the hon. member might want to go back to math school.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
In Edmonton on April 17 in the early hours of the morning a
young couple, ages 36 and 37, with their two children, ages 9
and 6, were wakened by a noise. The mother, thinking it was one
of her children, went to investigate. Three young offenders had
broken into their house. When she confronted them they
promptly stabbed her to death.
When is this minister going to act by sending a clear message
to violent young offenders that the experiments of the seventies
were a failure and they will be treated henceforth as the vicious
criminals they are?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, we all read with shock and
horror the facts of the case to which the hon. member has
referred. I do
3238
not want to discuss that case because at least two people have
been taken into custody and that is a matter for the courts.
Let me speak to the broader point the hon. member has raised
not for the first time in this House. Let me say I have responded
not for the first time in this House that this government, from its
platform through to its present policy, has recognized the need
for changes to the Young Offenders Act. A thorough review of
the statute is needed to determine whether it continues to meet
the needs of the Canadian public.
(1455 )
As I have told my hon. friend in the past we are going to
introduce legislation in this House in June to make specific
changes to the statute. At the same time we will turn the Young
Offenders Act in its entirety over to the justice committee of
which the hon. member is a member for a thorough review to
ensure it meets the needs of juvenile justice in Canada.
That is the same response I gave last time. I shall give that
response the next time the hon. member asks the same question.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately I will probably have to ask the same question
about a new case. How many people have to die before this
government will realize the legislation they have had in place
for 16 years is useless? It is time to act.
This Young Offenders Act is inherently flawed. Any amount
of tinkering this government will do will not fix it. We need
completely new legislation for young offenders.
Will the minister replace this legislation? Will the minister
scrap the act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I have already said the
justice committee will be asked to look at the act to determine
whether it ought to be changed further, beyond the changes we
are going to introduce in June.
Let me add that it seems to me the hon. member is falling into
the error of assuming the tragedies to which he refers, the crimes
to which he makes reference in his questions, can be averted or
overcome by the simple expedient of changing a piece of
legislation. The difficulties and problems to which he refers run
deeper than that.
The approach this government is taking is not only to
introduce changes to statutes as required, and that we shall do,
but also to address the broader question of crime prevention in
this country, also a priority for this government.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
As the Canadian telephone sales and telemarketing industry
continues to grow, so has an increase in telephone sales fraud.
Telephone sales fraud has become alarmingly commonplace
with some studies estimating that it defrauds the public of up to
$100 million. These fraudulent practices affect all Canadians
but especially senior citizens.
What is the minister prepared to do or doing at this time to
protect Canadians from this telephone sales fraud?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member not only for his question but also for raising
this issue in the House of Commons at this time.
It is a very important concern not just of our department and
of the Bureau of Competition Policy but it should be a matter of
concern for all Canadians.
As he mentions senior citizens particularly have been
victimized by fraudulent telemarketing activities. For that
reason the Bureau of Competition Policy which is responsible
for enforcing laws respecting misleading advertising has
included a flyer with the old age security cheques. This notice
warns senior citizens of the danger of telephone fraud and of
making the appropriate inquiries when telephone calls are
received.
Also the Bureau of Competition Policy in co-operation with
the RCMP and provincial police forces will be increasing
enforcement activities to see that the laws on the books are
appropriately enforced.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board. On the issue
of pay equity, the media recently reported that the Government
of Quebec and the Quebec union of provincial employees had
come to an agreement. Some $90 million will be paid in
catch-up wages and another $25 million in pay equalization
adjustment in certain employment categories.
In view of the fact that the provincial governments in Quebec
and Ontario continue to consider pay equity a key priority, does
the minister intend to finally pay female employees of the
Federal Public Service the amounts owed them pursuant to a
ruling by the Human Rights Tribunal over three years ago?
3239
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
pay equity is a priority of this government. Indeed in the past the
federal government has reimbursed employees to try to ensure
pay equity.
There is a dispute currently before a human rights tribunal.
We are presently exploring with the unions the opportunity to try
to bring about a settlement in this matter. I hope that will be
achieved and I will further report to the House on the matter.
* * *
(1500)
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday in the House the minister characterized spending
cuts for next year's budget as massive. Last week the Prime
Minister said that any additional spending cuts would be
measured in millions not billions.
I would like to know, and members of the Reform Party would
like to know, if the finance minister means massive in millions
or does he mean massive in billions, or is he in agreement with
his Prime Minister.
Who is actually deciding how much the cuts will be for the
next budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the statements I made
and the statements of the Prime Minister flow directly from the
budget document. We said that the cuts that were made in the
budget were sufficient to bring us to the 3 per cent of GDP.
As well the budget talked about the large reform that was
going to be carried on by the Minister for Public Service
Renewal looking at it program by program.
That is the position of the government. It is very important to
understand that it has not only been set out on countless
occasions by the Prime Minister and by myself, it was also set
out in the budget, and it is a position that we set out in the red
book.
In other words what we said before the election we are
carrying through after the election.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Dr. Ejup Ganic, Vice President of the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of the Hon. Eduard Kukan, Foreign
Affairs Minister of the Slovak Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
3239
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the
amendment.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Madam Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the remarks the hon. member for
Vancouver Centre made before Question Period. In her remarks,
she repeatedly provided assurances to the effect that provisions
not included in the legislation, which were to be covered by the
regulation, would be appropriately covered. I am not quite sure
that I am satisfied with that, but at least I had the pleasure of
hearing her say that, in her mind, a solution may be found in
precedents created in previous pieces of legislation.
(1505)
More specifically, I would like the hon. member to assure me
that one way or another, the courts can, while not being legally
bound to do so, induce people charged with possession or use of
narcotics to seek rehabilitation and detoxification therapy.
At present, as we know, the law does not require a judge to
deal with a youth, for example, in such a way as to get him or her
rehabilitated or detoxified. It is left entirely to the discretion of
the judge. Unfortunately, judges all too often put behind bars
young offenders who really need treatment instead.
Finally, is it not unfortunate that mistakes of youth cause
young offenders, children, and teenagers to have criminal
records following them for the rest of their lives, when it would
be so much simpler to set them back on the straight and narrow
by decriminalizing offenses which are, by and large, minor and
fight the big-time drug lords instead.
I will conclude on this note. In the hearings on Bill C-85, the
ancestor of Bill C-7, members of the police forces themselves
expressed concern about the fact that the bill did not deal with
drug lords, but only small-time dealers.
I would appreciate it if the hon. member could comment on
this.
[English]
Ms. Fry: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member
for his question.
3240
I listened when he spoke to the bill in the House. He made
some very clear points which I tried to address in my speech
today.
For over a decade it has been almost a precedent within
jurisprudence that it has been a notion of the law that people
would be sent for rehabilitation.
However, one of the key things about rehabilitation that we
must remember is that you cannot force people to have
treatment. They must be assessed first and that does not require
a judge. All the judge needs to do is have the person assessed by
a health professional who then decides whether the person is
ready for rehabilitation or not.
That has always been done in jurisprudence over the last 10
years with regard to issues like this. I hope we will continue to
do it because then the person would be assessed properly and
treated if they so desire. As members well know, motivation and
acceptance of addiction is an essential part of treatment.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Madam Speaker, I wonder if the
parliamentary secretary could make a comparison between Bill
C-85 and Bill C-7. Could she comment on how similar these
two bills are?
Ms. Fry: Madam Speaker, the two bills are similar in that
they have the same principle. However since that last bill we
have talked with people like the Canadian Medical Association
and some of the groups who found some problems with some of
the clauses in this bill. As a result, we have dealt with some of
the issues, as I said in my speech, that the CMA had found
difficulty with, especially with regard to things like what you
use as drug paraphernalia and the difference between drug
paraphernalia and what is an essential part of some of our
preventive programs for HIV. For instance a needle is now
considered to be accepted and will therefore not be included in
drug paraphernalia but would be accepted as a prevention. Those
kinds of things are now eliminated from the old bill.
(1510)
Another thing that has been eliminated is the fact that
physicians are not going to be considered to be traffickers if they
are using a drug which they have been designated as being
allowed to use if they are using it appropriately. Some of these
things have been clarified in the bill. Therefore, some changes
have been made in the bill to satisfy old questions that have been
asked in the past.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Madam Speaker, I listened with
great interest before question period to the member for
Dartmouth. I must compliment him. I believe the member is an
accomplished orator and some of the words and phrases he used
I found a little stinging. My ears are still stinging with the
rebuke of the hon. member.
I was particularly interested when he spoke of the partisan
nature of the House, partisan in the sense that we should look at
the intent and purpose of legislation and be able to look well
beyond narrow party bounds.
I found this fascinating in regard to this bill. I would like to
state categorically that where Bill C-7 speaks of controlling
drugs and substances it gets the wholehearted support of the
Reform Party. For the member for Dartmouth, I cannot say that
strongly enough.
I want to go on from that statement but have it remembered
through this discourse. Not so long ago Bill C-85 was in the
House and the member and his colleagues were sitting on the
other side. I would like hon. members to judge the partisanship
that was registered about Bill C-85 at that time.
The member said that the present bill is simply codifying
regulations. What did the member and his colleagues say about
it not yet a year ago? I have gone back to the committee minutes
and have a few of them here.
The member from Winnipeg, a colleague that I value, said the
following: ``The subject has not been given any media attention
yet. I understand it was given first reading almost a year ago in
June 1992. To rush through it within a couple of months will not
speak well of Parliament at the least''.
The same member said: ``I do not want us to give any wrong
impressions to the Canadian public about this very serious bill.
It needs serious study''. That is not partisan apparently when
spoken by member of the opposition who was a Liberal.
I go on. This comment was not made by a Liberal but another
member of the committee and in response to a specific question.
``My understanding was that the bill would be passed to second
reading on the understanding that we give it a thorough
examination in committee. I agreed to that with one speaker and
we agreed to that within our party. Then it gets into the
committee and we are rushing through it to beat-'' and there
the member used an unparliamentary word, ``-and for what, so
Madam Sparrow can take on the Reform Party, is that it? I don't
understand. We'd be nowhere?''.
(1515 )
These comments go on, comments made by my colleagues on
the other side of the House now. I cannot say this strongly
enough. If the bill is flawed enough to cause them to create a
great stir in committee, surely the bill is flawed enough today to
listen to constructive-I say this loudly to the
member-criticism of this bill.
Maybe the member will look down at his feet and say
constructive criticism cannot come from a member on this side.
Surely it can come from a member on this side. It went on.
Members spoke about really getting worried. Here is a commit-
3241
tee with the government side trying to ram through the
legislation. It even talked about putting closure on.
This bill took months and months in the previous Parliament.
Surely it should not hurt to take a few hours of debate in this
House that would be listened to. I am almost at a loss of words to
listen to how partisanship could only happen on this side of the
House.
I wanted to go over other comments made by people who
appeared in front of the House. They were by S.J. Usprich and
J.R.M. Solomon when reviewing this bill. These are not
parliamentarians. They are individuals commenting on this bill.
They said that this was a poorly drafted, intentionally over broad
and vaguely worded piece of legislation. I agree.
I wanted to talk about some things in this bill that are good. It
is traditionally suitable to only complain. I wanted to say what
things I agreed with from the specific aspects that I am going to
talk about. These are the medical aspects.
With the attempts to curb abuse of designer drugs and look
alike drugs I agree. Stimulants, depressants, hallucinogenics,
these drugs have proliferated in the laboratories of our country
and our laws do not and have not kept up with those problems.
There is legislation in this act to prevent double doctoring.
There is a huge black market in prescription medications. One of
the easiest things for people to do is shop from doctor to doctor,
getting the same prescription filled over and over again. The
only way we have of preventing that is for our pharmacists to
have access to the computers and to be able to catch that.
Double doctoring is a significant problem, an issue that I
agree with fully. There are other things that would help this.
Triplicate prescriptions will help. The use of computers at all
pharmacies will also help but there are very specific provisions
in this bill that are very vague and broad.
I heard a member from the Bloc speak about the things that an
individual could inspect as they came into the practitioner's
office; for example, open and examine any receptacle or
package, examine anything found in that place, examine any
label, take records, books or other documents, seize and detain,
reproduce any document.
It was not so long ago that I had one of my colleagues say to
me that patient confidentiality was being eroded in our country.
Patient confidentiality is very important. Concerning the
woman coming in to speak with her physician about sexual
abuse when she was young, asking if these records are
confidential, will anybody be able to look at them, the answer if
this act is brought in will be no, your records are not
confidential. That is a problem.
I thought I would take a light hearted look at a bit of the
bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo in this bill. We talk about
bureaucratise. The governor in council may, by regulation,
designate any regulation made under this act as a regulation. In
other words, we can make regulations about regulations to
regulate whatever we want, including regulations. That is
nonsense.
The act is also full of very specific definitions of the subjects
and the substances covered in this bill and then goes on to say
the governor in council may amend any of the schedules by
adding to them or deleting from them any item or portion of an
item. That does not fit with the exactitude that an act like this
requires.
(1520 )
In our country I believe criminal justice needs a thorough
review. This bill should be part of that review. Gun control
issues need a thorough review. The Young Offenders Act needs a
thorough review. Victims' impact statements need a thorough
review. Let us listen to the Liberal members who sat on
committee a year ago and said that this act needs a very thorough
review before it goes to second reading.
Whether or not the government is willing to take this to the
justice committee or the health committee, I personally feel that
it should be in the justice committee. I listened to the Solicitor
General in this House agree to that. I also heard one of the justice
committee members saying he felt that this should go to justice.
I would ask the members to recollect again my comment that
in terms of the criminal justice issue with this act we are in total
agreement. The bill is poorly crafted, poorly worded and has
flaws in it that are almost too great to address in committee. I
would ask the government to review very carefully this aspect of
this act and to put it to the justice committee as we suggested.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Madam Speaker, I am
glad I am still here because the hon. member raised a number of
issues and I am pleased that he clarified his own position and I
suspect of his party. I am not sure if he speaks for himself or his
party on this issue.
This bill was before the previous Parliament and Liberals had
some difficulty with it. We believe there were some things that
were flawed. The context in which the previous government
pursued legislation was a closed shop. Conservative
government members went in to the committee like lambs with
rings in their noses and were led by the parliamentary
secretaries at the time. Even the worst bill, even the most
obviously flawed bill would not be changed once the minister
rose in his or her place and tabled it in the House.
We have given a commitment that we will not do that. We
have seen this on a number of issues that committees have
already started to examine. It was a different place and a
different time and the government was committed when Bill
C-85 was put in the last Parliament not to listen to any
substantive suggestions for change in the bill. That was clear
from the outset.
3242
I believe the member is sincere in what he said here today.
This is second reading debate. This is where parties and
individuals agree or disagree to approve the bill in its principle,
in its direction. Then it goes on to committee where we then
have report stage. I would urge the member opposite if he is
trying to make this place work better that if he agrees in
principle with the bill to vote in favour of the bill, refer it to the
committee with the concerns he has, which are legitimate, about
whether there are flaws that can be fixed, and work at the
committee level.
I can give a commitment from this side that our government is
quite prepared to listen to any reasonable suggestions as to how
legislation such as this can be made better. We are committed to
making this Parliament and its committee system work.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Madam Speaker, the rhetoric is great
and I do hope the member is telling it exactly as it is. However, I
feel and I sense that there is an ownership taken of a bill as soon
as the member switched to the other side. I wish that were not the
case. It does not seem fair to me that the bill can have changed so
much in this short period of time.
I read both of them, they are not significantly changed. My
sincere hope would be that this is in fact the way this Parliament
would work. I cannot say this any stronger than I have already.
When it went to the committee stage when those members were
in opposition there was a howl and a scream of it being rammed
through. I am not at all comfortable as I sit over here to see that
same process take place. I am speaking of this loudly and I will
watch with great interest.
I would also refer back to the member. If this is to be a
co-operative Parliament would the member not look very
carefully at the proposal to take this to justice? This is not, and I
cannot say this strongly enough, a health bill. This is a justice
bill.
(1525 )
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on some of
the things that the hon. member said.
There are some differences in this bill. It is not the exact bill
that was brought to the House last time around.
The word ``provide'' now in definition is changed so that it
specifically says traffic. That means that a physician or a
pharmacist's providing a drug to a patient is no longer in danger
of being considered trafficking. That was one of the very poor
things in the last bill that had to be changed.
There are a couple of other things. The fact that a patient goes
to a physician or a pharmacist and takes away and possesses
drugs also has been specifically defined in the bill so that we
now know that is allowable and that is not considered to be a
criminal offence.
There is one other thing I want to say to the member. It has to
do with the fact that he was talking about physician-patient
confidentiality. There is a great misunderstanding out there in
the real world about physician-patient confidentiality.
What the member should know is that there is no such thing in
reality; in no court or group or insurance company. In British
Columbia, for instance, the insurance company of British
Columbia that deals with traffic accidents can subpoena all of
the clinical records of the patient regardless of whether they
have to do with the accident. This is allowable and the physician
and the patient have no recourse.
There is a precedent already here that the information
between a physician and a patient is not that privileged as one
would expect. It is not like the information between a lawyer and
a client. Lots of laws so far have allowed for ministers of health
to look at records if they believe, and this is what this bill says,
that the physician and the patient were in agreement to use drugs
for purposes other than therapy and other than appropriate
physician-patient use.
This is going to be done by health professionals who are
governed by the Privacy Act and by confidentiality so that no
one should be able to see this but the particular minister and the
particular inspector.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to be able to rise today and speak on Bill C-11.
At the outset I would like to point out that I am certainly not
opposed entirely to Bill C-ll. There are some very good things in
it.
I agree that we must educate the public as far as smoking
hazards are concerned. I further agree that we should be placing
an export tobacco tax on-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, is the hon.
member aware that we are speaking on Bill C-7 right now? You
are debating on Bill C-11.
Mr. Johnston: I am on Bill C-11, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We are not yet at Bill
C-11. We are still debating on Bill C-7. Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Madam
Speaker, it is interesting to hear all the different members in the
House speaking on this legislation. It is interesting to hear that
there is consensus on many points and disagreement on some.
Everyone, it appears, agrees that there is need for legislation
for the control of drugs and that this be put into one statute. To
date we have two statutes that govern this. It is important to have
this in one statute; important for the public so that the public can
from this point on refer to one statute and know what is allowed
and what is not allowed and how the controls take effect.
3243
It is also important that our children be protected from the
parasites of society. The legislation in question takes that into
effect. We all have the goal of having legislation that will
control what many people consider to be a profession, a
profession at the price and at the cost of our young people in
society. We cannot have young people destroyed. We must not
allow it. Apart from educating the public we still need
legislation controlling, as I have indicated, these parasites in
society.
(1530)
We cannot take legislation such as the legislation that has
been proposed and rubber stamp it. Perhaps we have consensus
on that as well. The legislation is so different. It is not just
amending legislation but is new legislation which has been
drafted, trying to foresee all the problems that may arise. By
trying to foresee problems one tends either to overlook certain
matters or give it too great a scope.
We must be vigilant that we do not throw out human rights.
When we are dealing with legislation such as this innocent
people will also be involved. We must not trample on their
rights. In enforcing rights against individuals who breach the
law we sometimes come into contact with people who are
innocent and their rights are trampled upon. We must look at the
legislation in this light.
In other words we generally have to balance the rights of the
innocent people with the objectives of the statute itself. What
better way to do this but in committee. It appears all people in
the Chamber favour the legislation and its goals. We must be
careful as we look at the legislation not to get to the stage where
we in fact trample on the rights of individual people, innocent
people.
Let me just give an example in this respect. We must be
careful with the definition of trafficking. I am not saying the
definition in the statute is adequate or inadequate, but let us just
take a look at it. The definition of trafficking deals with selling.
Traffic means to sell, administer, provide, transport, send or
deliver.
Is that a definition we wish to have? Do we want people who
simply send or deliver an item or provide an item to be
trafficking? Then we have the definition of provide which
means to give, transfer or otherwise provide in any manner. Do
we want such a definition?
The problems we run into with such a definition of provide is
that we could have too many people covered. We could have
innocent people covered. We could have people who simply give
medication to others within a home, people who have a proper
prescription to a controlled substance, being guilty of
trafficking.
Let me give an example. An individual, a spouse, may have a
prescription for a controlled substance. The other spouse may be
requested to fetch that particular item. By giving that substance
to a child to bring to the other spouse the initial spouse is guilty
of trafficking. We do not want that. We cannot have that. We
must be vigilant that innocent people are not covered by the
legislation in this manner. In other words we have to balance
here again. The balance requires that the innocent people be
protected against the objectives of the statute.
We must also look at the provisions of the statute in certain
procedural matters where preliminary inquiries are taken away
from certain individuals.
The summary convictions portion of the statute is expanded
thus eliminating preliminary inquiries. This may not be
something suitable for the public. This may not be something we
require or desire in the administration of justice. Depending on
discussions in this area, discussions as to disclosure by the
crown to the defence, this may be reasonable but it may not be
reasonable. What better place to deal with it but in a committee.
We have to look at what the controlled substances are. What
are we looking at? Part of the definitions in the schedules refer
to derivatives and similar synthetic preparations.
(1535)
One has to look at the objectives of the legislation again
which are to prevent the designer drugs, slight alteration to
drugs and in that way getting around the legislation. We also
have to look at the innocent people who can possess these
particular items and not know that it is an offence.
Unless we have specific items indicated in the statute that we
know are offences or not offences, it is difficult to function in
society. We have to balance again. What better way to balance
but to discuss it in committee. Let the committee take a look at it
and thus be able to protect the innocent who may come into
contact with the statute and also see to it that those who are
trying to circumvent the legislation are duly dealt with.
One area that may create some problems is the area of
possessing property or proceeds of any property knowing that
all or part was obtained or derived directly or indirectly. I look at
this matter and I have problems. The problems that arise are that
individuals may have property they received. Store owners may
receive money from people who they believe may be selling
drugs but also have legitimate jobs. Those store owners are not
protected if they sell products to that individual. This particular
legislation might be too broad.
As well we have a problem with respect to legislation that
deals with the Governor General being able to exempt police
from the statute. Exempting police from the statute allows
police in the investigation of offences under the statute to
traffic. If police can traffic they can instigate offences. If they
can instigate offences and if it is allowed we may have a problem
in our criminal justice system with individuals who are too
vigilant or too aggressive in attempting to protect society, and
3244
by trying to protect society may in fact be pulling innocent
people into the web. I see that my time has run out.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the discussion of Bill C-7 today, the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In the long term it will be
one of the most important pieces of legislation considered by
this assembly. Canada needs a comprehensive drug strategy and
Bill C-7 provides it.
If we talk with community leaders in any of our cities we will
soon hear that our current laws are not effective in dealing with
the drug problems they face. Police forces across the country
have pointed out that new laws are needed to deal with the
techniques now used by drug offenders.
Neighbourhood groups are really frustrated because the law
seems powerless to do anything even when they and the police
know about drug dealings on their streets. Community workers
who are trying to help young people choose a healthy lifestyle
are discouraged because the law is not a partner in their cause.
Often it is a detriment. Ineffective laws also bring disrespect for
the law in general, and this is certainly true of current drug laws.
For all these reasons I welcome and support Bill C-7. It
provides important new tools for the police and communities to
use in fighting the drug problem in the country. This law will
make it easier for police to prosecute drug dealers and it
provides stronger penalties. It will allow the courts to consider
aggravating factors in sentencing such as the involvement of
children and the sale of drugs in school yards.
Bill C-7 is a comprehensive drug strategy and a major
improvement from existing laws. There is, however, one aspect
of the modern drug trade that is not covered. I would like to see
the bill amended to close this loophole. I am talking about the
use of fortified drug houses to avoid police prosecution. This is
already a significant problem in Edmonton and many other
cities. It will become an even greater problem as police forces
begin to use other features of the new law.
I will briefly describe the problems and propose possible
amendments for consideration by the committee in its review of
the legislation.
(1540 )
The first fortified drug house in Edmonton was appropriately
called the Fortress, and that is exactly what it was. The plan is
simple. Drug dealers rent an old house and fortify it through the
addition of cement walls, steel doors, false entrances, trap doors
and other obstacles. This delays police entry long enough to
destroy any evidence of drug trade. The element of surprise, an
important element in effective enforcement, is gone. These
houses also allow for the exchange of money and drugs through
trap doors. There is no human contact between the dealer and the
purchaser, eliminating other ways of catching dealers.
Over the years the Edmonton police service employed a
number of tactics against the Fortress with little success. An
appeal was made to the absentee landlord but he did not care as
long he got his rent. In fact he legally challenged any moves by
the city to close the place down.
The neighbourhood became very upset because the Fortress
became a centre of undesirable activity. It ruined all their hard
work to clean up their neighbourhood. Used syringes were
discarded in nearby playgrounds where children could pick
them up. Traffic noise and frequent street fights made the area
unsafe. Older residents and families were forced to move away,
adding to the cycle and the significant costs of inner city decay.
In response to the community the Edmonton city council tried
applying every possible law relating to property and land use but
ran into legal barriers at every turn. The fact is that there is no
legislation to deal with this situation effectively. Drug dealers
know it and openly flaunt the law.
I am told by the Edmonton police service there are now 12
fortified drug houses in operation in our city; some are sporadic
operations and some are permanent. All of them present a major
cost to communities and lead to more disrespect for the law.
In the United States the problem with fortified drug houses
had to be dealt with through specific legislation. Some states
like California have been successful. However we need to
address this problem in Canada.
In order to make Bill C-7 a truly comprehensive drug
strategy, I am proposing that it be amended to deal with the
problem of fortified drug houses. There are three possibilities
for amending the legislation to cover fortified drug houses. One
is to include real estate in the definition of offence related
property. Bill C-7 allows for the confiscation of property used
in drug trafficking, but the definition specifically excludes real
estate. Removing this exemption would be one way of
addressing the problem.
A second approach is an amendment to create a new offence.
The amendment would prohibit an owner, landlord or tenant
from knowingly permitting a place to be used for the primary
purpose of trafficking in illegal drugs. The Edmonton police
service has drafted a proposed amendment which I will be
pleased to provide the committee.
A third option is to establish a mechanism by which drug
houses could be confiscated by the crown under specific
conditions. Again the Edmonton police service has provided
some suggestions which I will provide in writing to the
committee.
Any of these amendments are consistent with the intent and
the spirit of the legislation. They will address the significant
problem of fortified drug houses which is not adequately
3245
covered at this time. If we do not address the problem now
fortified houses will spread as the way to avoid prosecution
under provisions of the act.
This is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss. Bill C-7
is a comprehensive drug strategy. Let us cover all the loopholes
and give communities the tools they need to deal with the
problem that creates untold damage in human lives and safety in
our communities.
I urge my colleagues to support Bill C-7 and to support an
amendment that will address the problem of fortified drug
houses at the same time.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Madam Speaker, I will
be commenting on Bill C-7 in my capacity as Official
Opposition health critic.
The Minister of Health has introduced on behalf of the
government Bill C-7, An Act respecting the control of certain
drugs, their precursors and other substances.
After reviewing this bill carefully and mindful of the
seriousness of the health issues at stake here, I have to say that
the bill misses the mark because of the underlying push to
criminalize certain activities and that it is a failed attempt to
modernize our approach to combatting this costly scourge on
society.
(1545)
At the outset, I wish to point out to this House that I, along
with the Bloc Quebecois, support the move to criminalize the
sale of illegal drugs. Adequate and effective measures and
pertinent legislation are needed to control mood-altering
substances. Not just any legislation, mind you and, from my
perspective as health critic, especially not legislation that
focuses only on the repressive aspects of the issue and
overshadows basic public health considerations. Such
considerations must be a key component of any legislation,
initiative or regulation aimed at combatting drug abuse.
In this respect, Bill C-7 needs to be radically amended.
Although this bill was introduced by the Minister of Health, it
does not contain any provisions designed to improve public
health or the health of the many people who abuse drugs. In
short, this bill proposes to fight one of society's ills through
coercion and relentless legal efforts.
In the next few minutes, I will show how illegal drug use is
much more of a health problem than a crime problem.
There are many reasons why a person turns to drugs. A person
may be searching for a high or a feeling of euphoria or seeking
temporary respite from the problems associated with depression
or stress. Others who may find it difficult to keep up with the
demands of our consumer-driven society see drugs as a way of
overcoming fatigue or increasing their productivity. Teenagers
in search of an identity often try drugs to defy established
authority or simply to conform to standards of behaviour
dictated by their environment. An unhealthy family
environment and pervasive poverty, violence and despair are
often a one-way ticket to drug abuse.
The one common denominator in all of this is that drug
abusers experienced health, emotional or social problems before
they actually started using drugs. The criminal activity, that is
obtaining and using the drugs, is secondary to their illness or
social failure.
Canada's Drug Strategy was adopted to spearhead the fight
against drug abuse.
A total budget of $270 million over five years has been
earmarked for the CDS. This works out to an average annual
budget of $54 million. So, to fight drugs, we will invest about
$1.98 per person per year. Yet, according to the revenue
department, drug trafficking in Canada generates some $4.6
billion, which represents $168.52 per Canadian per year. If you
invest $1.98 to fight an activity which generates $168.52, you
are going to look like David against Goliath.
In 1984, the Addiction Research Foundation estimated that
drug use led to additional medical care totalling $2.728 billion,
which is almost $100 per Canadian per year, while the monies
allocated for treatment and rehabilitation only represent $0.75
per person, or 38 per cent of the CDS budget, and the funds for
education and prevention are equivalent to $0.63 per person per
year, or 32 per cent of that same budget.
Every year, reduced productivity linked to drug use costs each
Quebecer and Canadian the equivalent of $37.54, while the costs
of implementing the law amount to $31.10. These figures are
self-explanatory.
(1550)
The amount of money spent to fight drugs is nowhere near the
health, social and economic costs generated by this plague, or
the profits generated by this traffic.
The bill which is before us has no long-term vision regarding
the fight against drugs, which is something we had to include as
parliamentarians. On the contrary, this legislation proposes or
suggests old and archaic recipes as an easy way out.
There is an explanation to that. By merely revamping the old
Bill C-85 tabled by the previous government, this government is
sending the message that initiative and new ideas are not its
forte when dealing with such important issues.
Personally, I deeply deplore the fact that a bill from the
Department of Health gives so little consideration to its own
field of responsibility, namely public health in Canada. Instead
of seeking to treat and rehabilitate innocent victims, this
legislation provides for criminalization and incarceration.
3246
What will our society, which claims to have the best health
care program in the world, do to an innocent young person, who
could be my child or yours and who is influenced by others into
using soft drugs? Our society will give that young person a
criminal record and give him a jail sentence. So much for our
social ethic and our value system.
Whereas enforcement measures must be maintained and even
strengthened to fight drug traffickers-those merchants of
dreams who make such fortunes-victims of these despicable
people must be helped, and that means being lenient and
offering education, prevention and rehabilitation programs, as
well as health care.
Is imprisonment an adequate solution, considering that 70 per
cent of federal penitentiaries inmates use illicit drugs? Is
making our laws more stringent a good idea, considering that
numerous studies have repeatedly shown that fear of
punishment or harshness is an insignificant deterrent among
drug users?
When comparing risks of punishment with risks to health for
drug users, concerns for health clearly win out.
I believe that Canadians are asking us to take effective drug
control measures. To do so properly, we must reduce both the
demand for and the supply of illicit drugs in a balanced way. A
good approach will combine health, prevention and
rehabilitation measures, and legal sanctions, too. Bill C-7, the
amounts spent on the Canada Drug Strategy and their allocation
do not effectively provide this balanced control.
That is why we must reject Bill C-7, review the Canada Drug
Strategy and use the results of recent research to update our
approach. Above all, we must give priority to values and
concepts that emphasize a better quality of life through better
public health.
You know, Madam Speaker, it is more mature to admit one's
mistakes than to stubbornly repeat them. Therefore I call on the
Hon. Minister of Health and the government to withdraw Bill
C-7 and start all over. I assure them of my full co-operation in
this.
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health): Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for
a very eloquent speech. She made some very strong points.
However, the member should know that the drug strategy is
also tied in with this bill and that 70 per cent of the money we
now spend on looking at drugs is spent on the drug strategy
which is the health component. It is the part that looks at
prevention and ways of treating and rehabilitating people who
are addicted.
I agree with many of the things the hon. member said about
public policy and understanding the root causes of addiction and
of people using drugs.
(1555 )
One must also be aware of the number of people who prey on
the vulnerable in our society. We have to find a way of dealing
with the people who traffic in drugs, who prey on our young
people and make them use drugs, knowing full well what they
are doing by bringing them into an addiction that is very
difficult for them to get out of.
This bill is aimed at some of those people. I wondered if the
hon. member felt that that was also needed as well as
rehabilitation and treatment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the hon.
member that I have no intention of not criminalizing drug
traffickers; it was not what I meant. Where I do not agree with
this bill is that the 500,000 young people arrested so far for
possession of drugs were given criminal records, fines and jail
sentences and are now being turned into users and criminals.
What I ask from this bill is that this policy be reviewed to
make it more helpful to young people, who are not criminals but
users. We should bring in policies to encourage them to get
treated for their addictions, to rehabilitate themselves and to
become good citizens. I condemn Bill C-7 because it does not
put forward such policies. What I find strange is that this bill
comes from the Minister of Health and yet deals only with
criminal offences.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I see no one rising for
debate. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(1600 )
And the bells having rung:
3247
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief government
whip to defer the motion until a later time.
[Translation]
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the
recorded division on the question now before the House stands
deferred until 5.30 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in
the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from February 22 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-11, an act to amend the Excise Act, the
Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I think
you would find unanimous consent, since we deferred the vote,
to go on to Private Members' Hour as soon as we find the
members who are on the agenda for Private Members' Hour.
Private Members' Hour will probably take us up to the time
for taking the vote. Instead of doing Private Members' Hour
after the vote, we will do it before. If there is unanimous
consent, we could suspend the sitting temporarily. As soon as
the whips find their spokespersons for Private Members' Hour
the sitting can resume. Then we could suspend and start the
votes.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The sitting of the House
is suspended to the call of the chair.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.04 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 4.10 p.m.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I think you have the
unanimous consent of the House to go back to government
orders, and proceed with Bill C-11. After that, we will see what
time it is and perhaps move on to private members' business
before the division. I will come back to that, Madam Speaker.
I apologize to the House. I misunderstood but we would
like-and I think there is unanimous consent-to move on to
Bill C-11 right away.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Do we have unanimous
consent to resume debating on C-11?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-11, an act to amend the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the
Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Madam Speaker, this is an
excellent opportunity for me to develop an issue in this House. I
attempted to do this when the government was talking about
rolling back the taxes or in fact went ahead with the whole
business of rolling back the taxes on cigarettes.
Subsequent to that time it has been interesting to interview the
interviewers, the people actually responsible for bringing the
news to Canadians. Basically they have told me if you cannot
say something and put your point over in 10 seconds it probably
will not be news. It probably will not get on television. This is an
opportunity then with a little bit more time than that to actually
raise an issue I attempted to raise previously.
My issue is that of corporate responsibility. It is the
responsibility the cigarette manufacturers and distillers have to
the people of Canada. I have some questions about the way in
which they are carrying out their responsibility.
During the time this whole issue was boiling another member
of the House approached me with two empty Export A cigarette
packages. Both of them had been purchased illegally. One was
purchased three weeks prior to the government taking its action
in bringing forward its measure on export taxes. The other was
purchased one week before.
Both packages appeared to me to be exactly the same, until I
studied them a little more closely. The first package given to me
had on it ``25 Class A Finest Canadian Filter Cigarettes'' and
very proudly ``Product of Canada''. The package that was
purchased one week later, approximately one week prior to the
government announcing its export tax, had on it ``R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., Winston Salem, NC, Under Licence from
R.J.R.-MacDonald, Inc., Canada''.
It appears what was going on here was that the company
expected there was going to be some form of export tax. Rather
than manufacture the product in Canada and selling it to the U.S.
where it would then be taken to a point where it could be brought
back into Canada, the company's concern was why would it pay
that export tax. It appears the company decided to manufacture
the product, which appears for all purposes by its packaging to
be exactly the same product, in Winston Salem, North Carolina
3248
thereby avoiding the action the government took about one week
later.
My point is Corporations in Canada should be responsible.
Corporations in Canada should not do things that will feed into a
situation such as we had prior to the government taking action.
(1615 )
We had terror, particularly in the area where the majority of
this product was coming through. We had fear and we had
murders going on and it was all surrounding the whole issue of
illegally smuggling cigarettes back into Canada.
Yet I suggest with greatest respect that it appeared to me that
none of these companies was taking any substantial action, they
were not contributing to this problem of terror, this problem of
fear, this problem of murder that was happening over these
things.
Furthermore, I found absolutely unfortunate the fact that at
exactly the same time the taxes were rolled back on the
cigarettes the distillers sent to all members of this Chamber a
plastic 750 millilitre bottle explaining that 83 cents out of every
dollar that is paid for that bottle one way or another go to taxes.
It might be instructive, granted this is only by my personal
recollection, to think for a second about how the taxes on
cigarettes and the taxes on alcohol were raised to the level they
were. As a youngster, as a young man and through my adult life I
can recall many times that people were saying they could get
away with adding more tax to cigarettes, adding more tax to
alcohol because people want these products and therefore are
going to pay it, therefore it is a good revenue source.
Granted this is only by my personal recollection but I do not
imagine too many of the members here or the Canadian public
would contest that. It was something that happened.
We do end up with the fact that on alcohol we have 83 cents
out of every dollar going to the tax man. This obviously works
against the corporate agenda. So it is that the Canadian public
naturally becomes cynical. It says obviously that if things are
working contrary to the corporate agenda what is going to
happen is that companies are going to take whatever action
required in order to protect their position.
We have now discovered through a process of market studies
and things of that nature that higher taxes do lead to lower
consumption, particularly on the part of young people. I suggest
it is the height of cynicism that it would appear as though these
manufacturers were not only feeding the product into the system
that included within itself the terror, the fear and the murder,
they actually took action to try to get around the fact that this
government, attempting to act responsibly on behalf of
Canadian people, brought an export tax in as was assumed.
If there is low public respect for politicians I suggest equally
that in Canada on the part of many Canadians there is low public
respect for corporations. I suggest to these and other
corporations that maybe within the sound of my voice, within
the sound of this speech, they examine their motives, take a look
at the whole issue of corporate responsibility. Rather than trying
to circumvent Canadian law, rather than trying to get around the
well intentioned actions of this and other governments, they
work with them and act in a socially responsible manner.
If we do not have respect on the part of ordinary citizens for
those corporations that put forward the capital to bring forward
the jobs, if we do not have respect on the part of ordinary
citizens toward politicians, the next step is not very far away and
that step is one of anarchy. I would hate to see that happen in this
nation.
(1620 )
I appreciate the opportunity to develop this story. As one
postscript, however, I suggest this story which I have just
narrated in this House was available to the Canadian news
media. I went around to many reporters and attempted to sell
this as something they could be bringing forward and none of
them paid any attention. It has been suggested to me the reason
for that is that it could not be explained in ten seconds on
television. If our newscasting has reached that point then maybe
the newscasters of today have to also be prepared to take a more
responsible attitude, as I am suggesting.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Madam Speaker, after one
false start maybe we will get right on with it this time.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-11 and I will
for the most part agree with the substance of Bill C-11. I do
think that it is extremely important that we educate the public
about the hazards of smoking and in that way I agree with the
bill. I further agree that the export tax on tobacco products is a
step in the right direction.
However, it is the companion motion to Bill C-11 that I have
difficulty with. I am going to speak along the same lines as my
colleague.
What particularly bothers me about relieving the taxation on
cigarettes and tobacco is the fact that we on this side of the
House are particularly in favour of stronger enforcement laws
against smuggling.
We have excellent police forces in Canada and we have laws
that certainly cover the situation. Why is this so much different
than any other lawbreaker would be? Let us take speeding for
example. If we have a lot of non-compliance as far as the speed
limits are concerned we never once consider abolishing the
speed limits and allowing anyone to drive any speed they want.
3249
In fact, we come up with some very ingenious methods, the
latest of which is probably the photo radar. If you break the
speed barrier you automatically have a picture of your licence
plate taken and you get the bill in the mail. Of course you have
no defence against that whatsoever.
Here we have a method whereby we can deal directly with the
problem rather than saying that we are going to change the rule
so that we will not be troubled with having to catch these
speeders anymore.
When we reduce taxes on cigarettes it is a little like the gas
war. When the guy across the street lowers his gasoline prices
then that behooves me to lower my gasoline prices to stay
competitive. It looks to me like we are actually getting into
competition with these smugglers and in fact allowing them to
set the government's agenda. I have a real problem with that.
The other thing about this companion bill is that we have no
idea how much money the government is foregoing as far as
reducing the taxation on these cigarettes.
We have heard over and over again that its policy is to broaden
the tax base. By its own admission it would like to see the deficit
reduced and that is either going to take reduced spending or
increased taxation and the term the Liberals have come up with
is broadening the tax base.
Here we have a contradiction to that. We have a voluntary
giving up of perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars. If taxes are
reduced in this area it would naturally seem to follow that they
will have to be increased in other areas in order to come up to
roughly the same level. That is a question in my mind. Where is
this foregone revenue going to come from? Obviously it will
have to come from somewhere.
(1625 )
As has been mentioned, any time that governments consider
raising the taxes on the so-called sins, alcohol and tobacco, the
sin taxes, it is always debated in this House and in fact right
across the provinces in the legislatures. Often times I am sure
the debate would go along the lines that we can certainly raise
these taxes because people should have to pay for their sins and
not only is it a good revenue builder but it is a deterrent for
people to actually partake in the so-called sins of alcohol and
tobacco.
We are doing two things by raising taxes on the so-called sins.
That has always been the argument as well as the fact that we
feel if you utilize tobacco and alcohol then the chances are you
will need the health care system more than the average person,
and so you should be paying your fair share in order to maintain
the health care system.
That this bill increases the age limit for the legal purchase of
cigarettes it is commendable. At the same time the government
is making the product more affordable to those people who do
desire to smoke.
Now that we are making it easier, or at least more affordable,
to buy cigarettes are we in fact going against the argument that
smokers should be paying a higher price for a health care system
that would probably see more usage because of their habit? We
are talking about a health care system that seems already to be
overburdened.
In my opinion there has been a very clear precedent set here.
How does this government plan to answer the question that my
colleague has raised as far as the Canadian distillers' request is
concerned, as far as lowering the taxation? According to my
figures, the taxation on a bottle of spirits is in the 87 per cent
range. That means that out of the 13 per cent that is left the
manufacturer must produce, bottle, advertise, label, ship and
pay all its personnel costs and take its profit.
What that also does is encourages a new generation of rum
runners. It is a kind of revisitation of the 1920s. Certainly there
is money to be made in the bootlegging of illegal alcohol.
Is this a problem in Canada today? I certainly believe it is.
According to statistics that I think all members of this House
received we estimate 17 million cases of spirits sold in this
country per year. Of those, 4 million cases of 12 bottles each are
illegally smuggled into Canada.
How do we arrive at the 4 million cases? It is through
communication with the provincial liquor boards, the
comparison of per capita sales in the United States, and
discussion with Revenue Canada Customs and law enforcement
agencies. Those figures are pretty reliable.
When we have a problem like this the solution, in my opinion,
is not a really simple one. A step in the right direction is a get
tough attitude with the smugglers. I think we also have to really
increase the profile of enforcement. We not only have to make
enforcement more effective, it has to appear to be more
effective. We also have to increase the penalties on smuggling. I
equate it with upping the ante, particularly when it comes to
smuggling cigarettes and alcohol for the purpose of trafficking.
I think we could also add into that the smuggling of guns.
Perhaps that is a subject for another day, and I hope to get an
opportunity to speak on that at a later date.
Another thing that is ultimately important and that this bill
does address is that we ought to be educating the public about
the potential health hazards of tobacco. If we agree with the
government's policy on reducing taxes and it actually reduces
the incentive to smuggle then we have to apply it to the alcohol
smuggling problem as well.
3250
(1630)
In conclusion, I believe that Bill C-11 has merit. In my
opinion it would have been a better bill if it had the budget
implications included in it. We are not sure just how many
hundreds of millions of dollars the Canadian government has
foregone in this instance and what the total cost of the program
is.
I find myself leaning toward supporting this bill but I would
have been much happier to see the financial implications.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, at this time, I think we will
do what we wanted to do at the beginning. I think you will find
there is unanimous consent to move on to private members'
business right away. We should then be finished in time for the
call of the bell.
So if you asked for unanimous consent, I think you would get
it.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Am I to understand that
the proceedings on the adjournment motion will take place after
the vote or will they be cancelled?
Mr. Gagliano: If we could have unanimous consent to move
on to private members' business, we will hold the necessary
consultations during the debate and decide whether there will be
proceedings on the adjournment motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 4.37 p.m., the
House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3250
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enter into an
agreement with the province of Ontario to expand Ontario highway 16 south
from Ottawa to highway 401 at Johnstown, into a four lane highway in order to
ensure road safety and enhance travel in and out of the nation's capital.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this
motion. I have been trying to move it along this far and get it
discussed at this level ever since I have been in the House of
Commons. I feel I have made one small gain on this.
I want to give a short history and geography lesson for the
people across Canada who may need some familiarizing with the
location of this highway and hopefully elaborate sufficiently so
that people will see that it does have a national interest.
Highway 401 is the main east-west highway through south
central Canada. If you have ever travelled through Ontario by
motor car you have probably been on the 401. That is the main
thoroughfare.
The 401 passes about 80 kilometres south of metropolitan
Ottawa, Ottawa-Hull. It is about 100 kilometres from where we
are right now to highway 401, the main busy thoroughfare that
passes through southern Ontario. The link to get to that highway,
however, is highway 16. My hope would be to some day see it a
four lane highway, a north-south link between this part of
Canada and the 401 and the northern United States.
(1635)
My riding is not very far away. It has two bridges coming in
from northern New York. I would like to think that some of the
people would be interested in the nation's capital. However
when they look at a two lane road, having been accustomed to
four lane roads, they would be more inclined to stay on the four
lane highway and move out of this area either to Toronto or
Montreal.
I want to make it clear that the northern stretch of this
highway, about 15 to 20 kilometres, is being constructed at this
time into a four lane highway but the remaining 60 kilometres
will be still only a two lane highway. There was pressure for the
highway to be built to four lanes about 15 years ago and the
layout is there for four lanes.
They have expropriated almost all the land that would have to
be expropriated. They have bypassed the towns and the villages.
Very often those are points of great dispute when one is
bypassing a community. That has all been done. The right of way
is there for four lanes. It just needs the political will to move on
with it.
The only way you can get from the nation's largest centre,
Toronto, to the nation's capital by a four lane highway is to go to
Montreal. Then you can come back to Ottawa on a four lane
highway. That lack of access to the nation's capital should be of
national interest because of the ever increasing traffic flow on
the existing road into the capital from the south. First and
foremost is the safety aspect.
In the seven year period from 1985 to 1992, there were 39
deaths on that highway. There were 721 reported accidents and
probably minor accidents that were not reported. Ninety per cent
of the accidents occurred in the southern portion of the highway,
in other words, the part that is not being constructed into four
lanes, the part where there is no plan currently to improve the
highway.
The federal government has some responsibility because it is
the road into the nation's capital. That is why I presented this
motion. There is nothing novel about spending federal funds to
construct highways. Indeed, we announced a great
infrastructure plan not too long ago. A lot of federal government
money has been spent on highways.
3251
I have a list here starting back in March 1993 during the
previous government, I will admit, of federal funds going into
the highways in Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. There were no funds for Ontario. No arrangement
was made for federal government funds to be spent on highways
in Ontario. That is what I am asking for now. I am asking
members to support the idea of a four lane highway into the
nation's capital.
I could support this motion with further documents if it were
appropriate. I could table those with maps and so on. I have
statistics showing the great increase in traffic flow that has
occurred on that part of the highway since the first part was
completed many years ago.
We hear a lot about the information highway these days and I
am sure it is very important to Canada. We hear a lot in eastern
Ontario about Pearson airport. It is the busiest-the best some
would say-and the largest in Canada. Its needs are very
important and they have to be addressed. I am sure they will be
addressed.
We have not heard very much about access into the nation's
capital by means of a four lane highway. A better access road
linking the capital area with highway 401 would make the whole
Ottawa area more accessible to all Canadians who travel by
road. Just as important, as a citizen of eastern Ontario, it would
make more accessible our biggest and best trading partner, the
United States. It is less than 100 kilometres away but you cannot
get to the United States on a four lane road from the nation's
capital.
(1640)
The infrastructure program was announced with great
enthusiastic support from all provinces. It was to create
employment, give jobs to unemployed Canadians and stimulate
the economy of the nation.
It is estimated that the completion of the highway from 401 to
the nation's capital would create over 12,000 person years of
direct employment. It would create an awful lot of jobs for a few
years while it is in the construction stage.
The infrastructure program is to get our country and our
communities ready for the time when the nation's economy is
moving ahead and a good deal of what constitutes a moving
economy I think in the minds of most Canadians moves by
highway traffic.
As far as I know the current provincial government in Ontario
has never even considered completing the access road from the
nation's capital to 401 except in the north end. Mr. Speaker, if
you examine the political map of Ontario you will understand
why that part is being done. The current Ontario government has
one MPP from this part of eastern Ontario and she is from
Ottawa. The highway is being built to four lane standards in this
part of Ontario but as far as I can tell no plan has been made to
extend it. The only part of the highway that is being done is
adjacent to Ottawa and it is for a political reason.
I know that the usual partnership arrangement with the three
levels of government does not quite fit the infrastructure plan.
The cost of one-third of the highway would be far too great for
the small rural townships. Small rural townships in Ontario have
never had to build major highways. They just do not have the tax
base to do it.
When I asked people to show an interest in my motion, a lot of
people from outside the Ottawa area were interested in speaking
to it. This suggests to me that fixing this highway has a broader
appeal than just to selfish people like myself who live in eastern
Ontario. It does have a national flavour to it.
Also with reference to the infrastructure program, the time
line would be far too restrictive. It could not be completed by
1997. I cannot imagine it being done that quickly. However that
is a minor thing. Apart from those variances the main criteria of
the infrastructure program would be met and far exceeded in
building highway 416; the creation of jobs-I have given the
statistics on that one-and accessing eastern Ontario to markets
both domestically and internationally.
The priorities of the current provincial government have to be
changed and that is the reason for my private member's motion.
I think perhaps one-third federal funds; I am not suggesting the
provincial government exceed the plan for more infrastructure
funds. I am suggesting it arrange its priorities differently,
one-third federal funds, two-thirds provincial funds. I am sure
that would make a satisfactory arrangement and there would not
be any more money spent. It would just be redirecting the
money.
The plans for the project have been in place for years. What
we need now is the political will in the province to move on with
this.
Before its defeat three years ago, the previous Liberal
government of Ontario had announced a plan. It said it would
complete the project by 1999. I was there for the press
announcement. The media were there and they said it was a long
way into the future, 1999. I will tell you it would look pretty
good to eastern Ontario right now if somebody said the highway
would be completed by 1999. That date would look extremely
good because it might still be possible, but do not hold your
breath.
Let me make it clear again, it is a rearranging of priorities that
I am asking for in the infrastructure program, with the federal
government's involvement being one-third. I am asking the
provincial government to be a little flexible, rearrange its
priorities and spend two-thirds on this much needed project. I
know how important and how very much needed the
infrastructure programs are to all communities, but we have
infrastructure
3252
needs beyond those local levels. I think this one warrants being
addressed as almost an emergency need.
(1645)
If the government of the province of Ontario misses this
opportunity by not putting highway 416 on its priority list, we
who live here and are interested in the economic development of
eastern Ontario will have to wait once again to see even the start
of a project which is already 20 years overdue. It has been 20
years since the original plan was set and nothing has been acted
upon since.
I am asking in my motion for the two levels of government,
the federal level and the provincial level, to get together to make
the infrastructure program fit the needs of eastern Ontario and
the capital region, the capital region of Canada being the fourth
largest metropolitan area in Canada, by constructing a four-lane
highway in order to ensure road safety and enhance travel in and
out of the nation's capital. I am sorry it is not a votable motion,
but I have sensed a great deal of support for it.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Mercier-Manpower Training; the hon.
member for Bourassa-Immigration; the hon. member for
Lévis-National Defence; the hon. member for
Drummond-Tainted Blood Inquiry; the hon. member for
Jonquière-Native Communities.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Madam
Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the motion. On its
surface I cannot find the normal things wrong with it.
The member for Leeds-Grenville clearly stated that he was
not requesting additional federal government funds, which I
appreciate. Certainly this side of the House looks for that in
every motion. He talked about the safety concerns on the
roadway. I appreciate the statistics that he presented in his
background material have borne out the cause of concern.
I am not going to take too long on this motion. If I have any
concerns it would be whether changing the rules of the
infrastructure program as laid out in the famous red book would
set any kind of precedent we might regret later on down the line.
The infrastructure program clearly calls for a sharing of
one-third federal government, one-third municipal and
one-third provincial.
If we are to spend this credit card infrastructure program
money anyway, I am wondering whether changing the rules to
accommodate a need in the member's riding will set a precedent
in the future throughout the life of the infrastructure program
that we may have to address later. If we make an exception for
one, we may find ourselves having to make exceptions for
others. Even though this particular one might have justifiable
merit in the minds of many, will the others who seek exceptions
to the general rules of the infrastructure program have merit?
Could they cause us any harm?
The member has stated that he would like to see the provincial
government pick up two-thirds of the cost. I have seen the
reports on the financial position of the provincial government. I
am wondering whether that is at all possible with the state of the
finances of the province of Ontario.
(1650)
Clearly the premier of Ontario has stated on a number of
occasions that they simply do not have enough money to go
around. On one project, highway 407 I believe it is, they have
sought financing from the private sector to help complete it. I
am wondering whether it might be an idea for them to do that in
this case.
Does the provincial government have $300 and some million
to invest in the project even if the rules were changed? My main
concern is whether we are setting a precedent both on making
the exception from the municipal contribution and on the
extension of the time limit of the infrastructure program
application to be completed. I am wondering whether the
precedent may cause us a problem down the road on other
applications.
We are not being asked to spend any more federal money, any
more federal funds than have already been allocated, the
one-third sharing. Apart from those two points I do not have any
opposition to the motion. Perhaps the member might be able to
explain the two points.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Madam
Speaker, as my hon. colleague just noted, the motion calls on the
federal government to enter into an agreement with Ontario to
widen Highway 16 between Highway 401 and Ottawa.
At present, Highway 16 links Ottawa to Highway 401, passing
through the Brockville area. The stretch of highway in question
is approximately 65 kilometres long. Traffic along this stretch
of roadway is heavy, but not excessively so. I have been told that
on average, between 15,000 and 30,000 vehicles travel this
highway every day.
The road is relatively straight and the danger lies in the fact
that drivers frequently pull out to pass other vehicles.
3253
The posted speed limit on this highway varies between 50 and
90 kilometres per hour. However, most traffic travels at a speed
of 90 kilometres per hour. Improved highway control would no
doubt enhance safety.
I have also been told that the Government of Ontario is
considering a project to expand this highway and that roughly
$15 million has already been spent on a study of the proposed
new route. It would seem, therefore, that Ontario has already
given considerable thought to this project. As my hon. colleague
noted, the timetable for completion would be rather long,
perhaps as much as 20 years.
Highway 16 runs through a portion of the riding of
Leeds-Grenville, which obviously explains my hon.
colleague's interest in the project. As he indicated, as far as the
northern stretch of the highway is concerned, costs would be
divided into two stages.
According to the Ontario Ministry of Transport, construction
costs would total $200 million, while the price tag for the
remainder of the four-lane highway would be $180 million.
I gather the federal government's assistance is being
requested because there is no four-lane highway linking the
Nation's Capital to the capital city of the largest province in
Canada. A four-lane highway would cut 30 minutes off the
travel time. However, Madam Speaker, if we go along with this
reasoning, then the federal government should be entering into a
similar agreement with Quebec to expand Highway 50 into a
four-lane highway linking Ottawa to another provincial capital,
namely Quebec City. A four-lane highway would knock not 30
minutes, but 45 minutes off a five-hour trip. Ottawa would then
be only four hours or so away from either Toronto or Quebec
City.
(1655)
If the motion carries, I would also call upon the federal
government to stop dragging its heels on participating in the
extension of Highway 13 so that Mirabel and Dorval airports can
finally be linked.
All things considered, I question why Canadian taxpayers
should have to pay for building four-lane highways in Ontario.
Ontario should use the money from the infrastructure program if
it wants federal funds to complete this project. My hon.
colleague explained that he was not seeking additional funds,
although this is not clear from his motion. I ask that the general
rules of the infrastructure program be applied without exception
and that no precedents which could be invoked later by other
ridings be set.
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Madam
Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on
Motion M-3 in the name of the member for Leeds-Grenville.
The highway 16 connection of Ottawa to highway 401 has
more to offer than just a few minutes off the drive. Making a
two-lane highway into a four-lane highway would allow for a
much safer route. There is only one nation's capital to deal with
and the access is poor unless one lives in Montreal.
Highway 7 on which I travel from Ottawa to the Tweed turnoff
is a very popular route for large trucks to and from Toronto and
Ottawa. That section of highway 7 is extremely overburdened
because of the poor access from Ottawa to highway 401. This
stretch of highway 7 is the most dangerous piece of two-way
highway in Ontario. A better, safer route to our nation's capital
is what we are asking for.
My trip to the House includes highway 7 usually four times a
week to and from my riding of Victoria-Haliburton which is
four hours from Ottawa by car, the only way I have to get here.
School buses, transport trucks, camper vans, motor homes,
motorcycles, cars pulling trailers, walkers and bicyclists all use
that stretch of highway 7 from Tweed to Ottawa. Completion of
highway 16 would ensure less risk to the people on highway 7
from Ottawa to the 401.
Highway 37 is very busy. It runs from highway 7, down
through the village of Tweed, to the top of Belleville to connect
with the 401. We could ask Elmer Buchanan, the MPP for
Hastings, about his unfortunate accident this past winter on
highway 37 from which he is still recovering. I am sure the
Ontario government would take that into consideration.
My thrust is not immediate on highway 16. My thrust is on
relieving the burden of the entrance to our nation's capital along
highway 7. In conclusion I urge all members to support the bill.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Madam Speaker, this issue
has been before the people of the nation's capital for a great
number of years. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton,
my colleague who just spoke on the issue, adequately explained
or visually explained the problems people have in trying to get
to the nation's capital. Whether they are coming to Ottawa on
the present highway 16 or whether they are coming on Highway
7, both roads are very dangerous.
In 1988 we were talking about the free trade agreement in the
House. It was the first bill I had to vote on having been elected in
1988. Madam Speaker, you will remember you were newly
elected at the same time. We sat in the House right up to
December 23.
(1700 )
One issue I raised in my maiden speech in the House of
Commons was with regard to the free trade agreement and
particularly highway 416. I raised the importance to the nation's
capital of having that four-lane link prepared and the effect it
would have on the economy. It is the only four-lane link that
would connect us to Toronto. It would be the only four-lane link
that we had to connect us to New York State. Presently we have a
3254
two-lane highway connecting us to both Toronto and New York
State.
I refer to the comments of the member from the Bloc
Quebecois who spoke earlier on why should we give it to
Ontario when we should give the same thing to Quebec. I would
like to correct the gentleman and advise him that federal moneys
have gone into roadworks in the province of Quebec.
We already have a four-lane link between the nation's capital
to Montreal and right through to Quebec City. If my memory
serves me correctly it goes right through to Rivière du Loup and
the Gaspé peninsula. I have travelled that route on many
occasions. Therefore the precedent has already been set.
I am looking at transportation infrastructure agreements. In
1993 the federal government put in a $10 million project in
roadwork infrastructure in the Northwest Territories. In B.C. it
put in $30 million; Saskatchewan, $35 million; Nova Scotia,
$30 million; New Brunswick, $130 million. I could go on and on
but there was not one penny that went into the province of
Ontario.
The province of Ontario has long been recognized as the
engine of growth in this country. We who live in Ontario are very
proud of that. We are very proud to help the provinces that do not
have the financial resources we have had historically up until
this point in time, to sustain not only ourselves in this province
but also the people in the other provinces. We have been pleased
to do that.
However the province of Ontario today is going through very
tough economic times. We no longer have the manufacturing
base we had before. We have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Whether it is the result of the free trade agreement I think the
jury is still out on that. We need to do things that are going to
increase economic growth. We need to do this not only in all of
Ontario but we need to do it specifically here in the nation's
capital.
Why should we put federal money into a roadway coming into
the nation's capital? For goodness sakes, it is the nation's
capital. The eyes of the country are on this capital city. We talk
about our Canadian dollar and how it flips up and down. Is it any
wonder it flips up and down when we cannot even put a
four-lane highway into the nation's capital? It is absolutely
disgraceful.
The argument of the gentleman from the Bloc Quebecois does
not wash with me and it does not wash with the majority of
Canadians.
The improvements to this highway are long overdue when one
considers the increase in traffic over the 25 years plus that I
certainly have been a resident of the Ottawa-Carleton region.
We have seen the traffic patterns increase. As a result of this
heavy traffic we see the accidents have increased in this area.
There is the commercial business, the recreation business, the
tourist traffic. This morning my colleague from
Leeds-Grenville and I were at a meeting. We met with the
tourism industry from eastern Ontario. What is happening to the
tourism industry? What is happening to the tourism industry in
the nation's capital? Do members know how many dollars from
the tourism industry support governments, support the federal
government, support the provincial government?
It is very shortsighted on our part not to recognize the
economic importance we as a nation as a whole would realize
from such a structure being expanded. The construction of
highway 416 to a four-lane highway is precisely the kind of
infrastructure we as the government are talking about. It is
something that is needed in the province of Ontario.
It would provide jobs and would improve jobs, which would
contribute to the productivity and competitiveness of area
employers. The four-lane link is vital to the continued growth of
eastern Ontario.
I cannot be dramatic enough in speaking to my colleague's
motion. Our future in eastern Ontario depends upon it.
(1705)
Even setting that aside, set aside eastern Ontario and think of
the nation's capital. You people from Quebec, think of your
capital city, Quebec City. How many times in the province of
Quebec have you heard Quebecers say: ``Oh, Quebec City gets
everything. We don't get anything in Montreal. We don't get
anything in Hull''. At that point in time you have a federal
government which has been especially kind to you, which has
helped with bridges, which has helped with roads and which has
helped with the infrastructure in the province of Quebec.
I say the same thing to Toronto, to Queen's Park. Look at all of
the beautiful roads in Toronto. I do not want to crap all over Bob
Rae and what he is doing. My colleagues would like me to, but
for goodness sake, Queen's Park is not any different from
Quebec City where they think of their own and they want to
make sure that the capital of their province is well looked after.
Would you not agree with me that Quebec City is probably
better looked after in terms of infrastructure as compared to
Montreal? Would you not agree with me on that? Or Ottawa?
This is the seat of our Canadian Parliament. It is the seat of all
our national institutions. Our museums, our arts centres, our
galleries, everything that is national in scope is here in this
region. Maybe we should do as Washington does. Maybe we
should make this little precinct around the nation's capital, on
both sides of the river. Make this a separate little province or a
3255
regional area or territory that could receive these special dollars
to ensure it is an area we can be proud of.
People come here from all over the world. My God, heaven
forbid if they are driving from Toronto and they have to come in
on the two-lane highway. They cannot believe they are on the
road to the nation's capital.
I believe my time is almost up. I have gone on in trying to
impress upon this House the importance of this issue to me, to
the nation and to the capital. All of us in this House should be
very concerned. I hope all members will support my colleague
from Leeds-Grenville on this issue.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity today to second and to speak
to this motion which calls for the government to enter into an
agreement with the province of Ontario to expand highway 16
into a four-lane highway.
This motion placed by my esteemed colleague from
Leeds-Grenville is meant to help increase road safety and to
improve travel in and out of the nation's capital.
Unfortunately this motion has been prompted by a series of
tragic accidents, including the death of one young woman from
the member's own riding. I compliment him on his attempt to
alleviate any future tragedies that may occur on this 40
kilometre stretch of highway which connects Ottawa to the 401.
I too would like to encourage both the federal government and
the province of Ontario to consider committing funds for the
national infrastructure program to improve and expand highway
16. Money spent on such highway projects is money well spent
and therefore I am pleased to support and to second this motion.
Many would think that such a motion does not directly affect
my riding of London-Middlesex. However numerous students
from London-Middlesex have left their homes to attend
university in the Ottawa area. Many of these people drive home
to visit their families for holidays via the 401. Obviously
Londoners are among many thousands of Canadians who yearly
come to the nation's capital to see the Parliament Buildings and
the other beautiful sites of this city.
When taking highway 16 to the 401 people are faced with a
busy exit out of Ottawa as they begin their six to seven hour
drive home in good weather. On a return trip after this drive they
are faced with driving on a busy highway that is used by all kinds
of vehicles from tractor trailers, to vans, to mobile homes and
motorcycles. By this time it is usually dark, which only adds to
the dangers.
If you are like me, Madam Speaker, you worry about the
safety of your children on the road. For many parents in my
riding that last stretch of highway 16 is extremely nerve racking.
Even the most experienced drivers are faced with the
unnecessary risks of this particular road.
Tourists also use this road when visiting the nation's capital.
Since 1985 over 700 accidents have occurred. Canadians from
every province and territory use this road. The roadways to and
from our nation's capital should be a source of pride to
Canadians and not a constant worry.
(1710)
This motion was put forward by my colleague primarily for
safety reasons. I live in a region that is served by a major
highway, the 401, as my colleague mentioned earlier. We have
all seen far too many people lose their lives on that dangerous
highway as well. As traffic has increased over the past decade so
too have terrible accidents. For this reason alone both the
federal and provincial governments would be wise to seriously
consider this motion.
As a member of this government I am proud we have made a
strong commitment to the funding of Canada's transportation
infrastructure. Safety is and should be the primary reason for the
expansion of highway 16, yet there is another vital reason for
completing this important project: economics.
Several of the members from the national capital region have
said in this House over the past several years that expanding
companies in the region such as the high tech industries are
faced with insurmountable transit problems when dealing with
markets beyond the region. I hear the very same concerns
expressed by businesses in my own riding of
London-Middlesex.
This is truly a national issue. Improving the roadways in
southwestern Ontario and across our country is very important
to people in all parts of Canada. Time and time again
constituents tell me of the need for better links with other
regions so that small business and other vital sectors are able to
benefit from access to other markets.
Good road systems open up new markets for existing small
and medium sized businesses, which in turn creates jobs for
people in all parts of Canada. In my riding, industry is steadily
expanding. Commercial markets are facing increased
challenges in dealing with markets beyond our region.
In speaking to this motion every one of us could easily draw a
parallel to our own particular ridings. As my colleague from
London East well knows, a number of surveys have shown time
and again that transportation problems are at the top of the list of
concerns of the people of the city of London. National surveys
indicate the very same concern.
It would be extremely shortsighted and parochial of anyone in
this House not to look at this motion with a view to supporting it.
Surely it is a national issue when it concerns the nation's capital.
3256
It is a great pleasure for me to support the motion and I ask all
members in the House to do the same.
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Madam Speaker, I too am
pleased to congratulate my colleague from Leeds-Grenville
and to speak in support of his motion.
I do not know if the infrastructure program is the best or only
way to fund the improvements to highway 416 which have been
needed for so long. However I do know that I recently saw a list
of announcements for funding of major transportation projects.
There was not one for eastern Ontario.
There was funding for the Go transit system in Toronto.
Supposedly it was a railway project but really it is an urban
transit development that is of assistance to the local community
in the metro Toronto region. In this region of eastern Ontario and
the nation's capital, we have not had that kind of co-operative
approach to meeting our transportation needs.
I do not think I need to tell anybody in this House that
government is undergoing a major transformation. That has
meant the economy of this region, our nation's capital, is
undergoing a major transformation.
It is a challenge to our regional economy which started back in
the mid-seventies with the decentralization of a number of
government operations and the removal of 15,000 jobs from the
downtown area to across the river to Hull. Personally, that is
something I support because I support the idea of an integrated
national capital covering both sides of our river.
I also support very much the idea of getting services to
Canadians out in the communities and getting a federal presence
across this country from coast to coast to coast. Anything that
builds national unity is important to all of us in this House and to
all Canadians.
Our community was presented with a major challenge back
then, nearly two decades ago now. We were suddenly left with
close to one million square feet of empty office space in
downtown Ottawa.
(1715 )
The local business community working together with our
board of trade, our Economic Development Corporation, our
businesses individually, building owners and managers, rose to
that challenge and addressed the issue of diversifying our
economy.
We are now facing another major change in our major
employer. I do not think it is a surprise to anybody in this House
that we are looking at a major rethink of what the role of
government is, how much service to the public we can afford,
what has to be done by government and what should be done in
other ways, what is the proper role of the federal government
and the provincial governments.
Again, for my community in this region of eastern Ontario
that is going to mean another major change to our economy. The
work that our business community in co-operation with our
public and municipal politicians particularly and the federal and
provincial politicians over the years has done to diversify our
economic base is a foundation on which we can face further
changes.
If the federal government as the major employer in this region
is going to have a significant impact on the community like
other major employers in other regions then there is also an
obligation to work in partnership with the community to help the
adjustment. We are doing that with National Defence, for
instance. Where we are closing bases across Canada we are
setting up processes to work with the local communities to
readjust their economies.
We need to look as well at how we co-operate with the
community in the nation's capital toward supporting that
community's efforts to diversify its economy.
Transportation is key to that. We cannot have a healthy
economy if we cannot get our goods to market, if we cannot get
to our customers and if we cannot get our customers here.
We have had a long battle about adequate air transportation
out of Ottawa, links to our markets and to the United States and
so on. However, road transportation is also important.
We have heard described the situation of highway 16 as a
funny little dumb-bell that has a magnificent expanse wonderful
interchange with the Queensway through this region on one end
and then it sort of dwindles off into a windy, curvey little road
that, as people have said, is dangerous.
Most important, it is of tremendous cost to people who want
to do business with this region, who want to do business out of
this region. It is a major inhibitor to the development of our high
technology sector which is one of the strongest in the country.
That is an issue not only for this region but for the nation.
This is one of the hubs of the future of high technology in
Canada and without that critical mass in locations like the
nation's capital, like my city of Ottawa, like the member for
Nepean's community of Nepean and throughout this region,
high technology in the nation is not going to flourish. We happen
to have built the beginning of that critical mass here. It is in the
national interest for that to flourish. Again, the transportation
link is important.
Others have spoken very eloquently of the importance of
tourism, our second biggest industry in this region. You cannot
visit it if you cannot drive to it or if you cannot get to it. I believe
that we have a responsibility to build a sense across this nation
that our capital is something that all Canadians should be proud
of. We seem to have done just the opposite of what most nations
have done and developed our nation's capital as a place to be
avoided, shunned and criticized.
3257
I think part of building a nation is building pride in your
nation's capital and part of that is the sense that many people in
other countries have that one thing you want to do as a citizen
during the course of your life is visit the heart of your nation,
your nation's capital.
(1720 )
We do not have that sense as Canadians. I am not going to
blame it on the poor condition of highway 16 from the American
border and from the great metropolis of Toronto to the nation's
capital. If we do want to build that sense of pride in the nation,
pride in our fellow citizens, pride in our nation's capital, then we
have to make it possible for people to get here.
Let me conclude by saying that this project for a long time has
had the full support of our business community, the
Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade, our Economic Development
Corporation, all municipalities in this region. It is just another
link not only for Ottawa, not only for the communities
surrounding Ottawa, but also from our neighbours in Quebec to
southern Ontario and beyond.
As I mentioned earlier, the federal government is an
important employer in this region. It accounts for about 20 per
cent of the jobs in our region. A fairly good job has been done of
spreading about 70 per cent of the public service jobs across this
country and I as a Canadian am proud of that.
Nonetheless, the public is still an important employer and I
believe there is an obligation for our government as it is making
changes in the local economy to consider all its decisions that
impact on us and to work with us as it does with other
communities across Canada in a period of economic adjustment.
Transportation, a good road link into the capital, is important to
do that.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):
Madam Speaker, I am rising in the House today to support a
motion proposed by my hon. colleague from Leeds-Grenville.
Motion M-3 moves that, in the opinion of this House, the
government should enter into an agreement with the province of
Ontario to expand Ontario highway 16 south from Ottawa to
highway 401 at Johnstown into a four lane highway in order to
ensure road safety and enhance travel in and out of the nation's
capital.
As a member of Parliament from the greater Toronto area I
feel that it is in the best interests of my constituents that I rise to
support this motion today. Countless travellers from my
constituency of Bramalea-Gore-Malton and other areas
around Toronto visit Ottawa on a regular basis. Naturally they
take highway 401.
On highway 401 they can travel in relative safety at their own
pace. Passing lanes provide the option of travelling at different
speeds. Motorists are not subject to the distraction of someone
riding their bumper, nor do they feel the frustration of driving
behind someone whose car is incapable of keeping up with the
flow of traffic.
The multi-lane design of highway 401 ensures a relaxed
frame of mind which seems to me is conducive to driving.
All of this is lost, however, when they turn on to highway 16 to
get to Ottawa; gone are the passing lanes, gone is the option of
travelling at their own pace, gone is the relaxed atmosphere in
which to drive.
Numerous accidents occur on highway 16 every weekend.
Frustrated drivers take risks they normally would not have to
take. In the period from 1985 to 1992, 39 deaths have occurred
on the road as well as 721 reported accidents with countless
injuries.
This is the main route for motorists travelling to Ottawa from
western Ontario. Thousands of tourists come from across
Ontario every year to see this beautiful city and its wonderful
sites, Parliament Hill included.
An overcrowded, single lane highway does not give a
favourable first impression of the city. This is clearly a well
travelled route. We owe it to all visitors to provide them with a
safe and sensible route to their nation's capital.
There has been support of this expansion since the road was
built almost 15 years ago. Now it is time to act.
As most of my honourable colleagues know, the federal
government in co-operation with provincial and municipal
governments has recently launched the two-year, $6 billion
Canada infrastructure works program. The program reaffirms
our commitment to get Canadians back to work by creating
50,000 to 65,000 direct jobs and represents a significant long
term investment in Canada's economic competitiveness. It also
represents an important step forward in intergovernmental
co-operation for the benefit of Canadians. Ontario has
committed $722 million to date toward the project.
(1725)
Good infrastructure is vital to a good quality of life. It helps
keep our environment clean and makes our cities liveable. Good
roads and transportation services reduce costs, reduce expensive
tie-ups and minimize wear and tear on vehicles. Cities that work
are central to the health of the economy.
At present the only way many of our industries can transport
their products into and out of the nation's capital using a four
lane highway is to go to Montreal first. This option is clearly
ridiculous. One of our government's goals is to make it easier
for small and medium sized businesses to succeed. As most
3258
small and medium sized business do not have access to air
transport, roadways are their greatest allies. Let us give them a
hand.
To summarize, I support the motion initiated by the member
for Leeds-Grenville: ``That, in the opinion of this House, the
government should enter into an agreement with the province of
Ontario to expand Ontario highway 16, south from Ottawa to
highway 401 at Johnstown, into a four lane highway in order to
ensure road safety and enhance travel in and out of the nation's
capital''.
This is the main thoroughfare for many visitors to Ottawa.
During a seven year period, from 1985 to 1992, 721 accidents
have occurred on this stretch of road, causing 39 deaths and
countless injuries. Highway 16 is also an important economic
lifeline for Ottawa. In a time when the government is committed
to rebuilding and reinforcing this nation's infrastructure,
highway 16 must not be overlooked.
The Speaker: There being no further members rising for
debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item,
the time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the
Order Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 96(1).
_____________________________________________
3258
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration fromm April 15 of the
motion that Bill C-17, an act to amend certain provisions of the
budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 1994, be read the
second time and referred to a committee; and of the motion.
The Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to order made on
Friday, April 15, 1994, the House will now proceed to the
deferred division to dispose of Mr. Milliken's motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 32)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
3259
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
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)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Williams-95
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Brien
Campbell
Crête
Debien
Guimond
Peters
Peterson
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Stewart (Northumberland)
D (1800)
[English]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will obtain
unanimous consent to apply the result of the vote just taken to
the main motion.
[English]
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 32.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
committee.)
* * *
The House resumed, from Monday, April 18, 1994, consideration of the motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should:
(a) amend the Official Languages Act to reflect the philosophy of ``territorial
bilingualism'', which holds that French should be the predominant language of
Quebec and English the predominant language of the other provinces, and that
federal government services should be available to official language minorities
in their own language in any part of the country where there is demonstrable local
public demand;
(b) continue to facilitate the use of English or French in the debates and other
proceedings of Parliament, in the records and journals of Parliament, in federal
courts, and as the languages of federal legislation; and
(c) refrain from expending monies on those aspects of language which fall
under the sole jurisdiction of the provinces.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House
will now proceed to the deferred division on the supply
proceedings.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are
going to vote on a motion that is very divisive for Canada, that is
very negative, in fact. The mover of the motion is not present.
Can we-
(1805)
The Speaker: With all due respect for the hon. member, I do
not believe that is a point of order. Order!
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 33)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-43
3260
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Zed-197
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Brien
Campbell
Crête
Debien
Guimond
Peters
Peterson
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Stewart (Northumberland)
Young
(1810)
[English]
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion; and the
amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the
amendment to motion No. 10 under Government Business.
The question is on the amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 34)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
3261
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Zed-191
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-48
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Brien
Campbell
Crête
Debien
Guimond
Peters
Peterson
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Stewart (Northumberland)
Young
(1820 )
The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I stood up and voted in the usual
manner and I sat down in the usual manner. There were so many
people shouting at me to tell me to stand up to vote I did not hear
my name. I just want to be assured that my name has been duly
recorded.
(1825 )
The Speaker: I know how you feel.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is
unanimous consent for proceeding immediately with the vote on
the main motion and for applying to the main motion the
division just taken on the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, if I understand correctly, it will be necessary for the
member for Yukon, the member for Saskatoon-Clark's
Crossing and the member for Regina-Lumsden to be recorded
as a negative vote on this motion.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
3262
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 35)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Zed-188
NAYS
Members
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-51
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Brien
Campbell
Crête
Debien
Guimond
Peters
Peterson
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Stewart (Northumberland)
Young
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7,
an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors
and other substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal
the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, be read the
second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
3263
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the
amendment at the second reading stage of Bill C-7.
The question is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is
unanimous consent for the results of the division on the
amendment to Bill C-7 to be applied in reverse of the division
on Bill C-17.
[English]
The Speaker: I am sure you all heard the motion and
understand it. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 36)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
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)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Williams-95
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Zed-146
3264
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Brien
Campbell
Crête
Debien
Guimond
Peters
Peterson
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Stewart (Northumberland)
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: If there is unanimous consent for the House to
divide immediately on the main motion on Bill C-7, I ask that
the results of the division be applied in the same manner as the
division taken on Bill C-17.
The Speaker: Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1830)
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 32.]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee)
_____________________________________________
3264
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Madam Speaker, on
April 14, I put a question to the Prime Minister and reminded
him that the Premier of Quebec said:
Job training is, according to Quebec's traditional position, a basic issue of
respect for our jurisdiction over what affects us directly.
And I asked him:
Given these statements...does the Prime Minister still think that Quebec's
demands are mere whims?
Madam Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly voted
unanimously in favour of the following resolution:
That the Quebec National Assembly ask Mr. Jean Chrétien and the federal
Liberal government to abide by the unanimous consensus of all parties in
Quebec on the need for Quebec to exercise exclusively its jurisdiction over
manpower training.
Madam Speaker, considering the current situation, this
unanimous resolution demonstrates the very serious concern of
all Quebec's elected representatives for the manpower training
issue.
There is more, however. Since then, we have heard statements
from other important sources in Quebec. This morning I read in
the Quebec media that the Forum pour l'emploi is opposed to
Ottawa's centralist policies. Who does the Forum pour l'emploi
represent? The Forum includes central labour organizations, as
one would expect, but it also includes Quebec employer
associations. It includes representatives of regional
organizations, the Mouvement Desjardins, and just about any
organization that is connected with job issues.
Finally, Claude Masson, a respected editorial writer in
Quebec, who seldom shares the views of the Official
Opposition, made some comments in La Presse which I would
like to read to the Prime Minister before he answers my
question. Mr. Masson said, in referring to manpower training:
If governments,as they keep repeating ad nauseam, really want to serve the
public and at the same time substantially reduce public spending, it makes good
sense to have only one government in charge of manpower training, and the
government that is closest to the workers, the unemployed and people on welfare
and knows best what they need and what it can offer them is the provincial
government, in this case the Government of Quebec. This is not a matter of
ideology but of common sense, not a constitutional choice but a practical and
realistic one.
Madam Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that by
reviving disputes between Quebec City and Ottawa on an issue
that is the subject of unanimous agreement in Quebec, he not
only gives his centralizing vision precedence over the interests
of the unemployed but also clearly shows to all
Quebecers-federalists and others-that the only federalism
possible for them is one of confrontation and scorn for their
people?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Madam
Speaker, clearly the federal government has exclusive
jurisdiction over unemployment insurance. Much of what we do
in the labour market area is based on that responsibility: for
example, employment services, counselling, training and labour
mobility programs.
Specifically our employment services and the programs and
services flowing from these are adjuncts to the UI program.
They go hand in hand with UI to reduce costs primarily by
getting claimants off UI as quickly as possible and keeping them
off UI as long as possible.
Continued federal intervention in this area is a legitimate
exercise of jurisdiction. Virtually every jurisdiction in the world
which has an unemployment insurance program has associated
with it an unemployment service as well as other active
programming to help the unemployed return to gainful
employment quickly. Federal interventions in the labour market
help people avoid claiming UI either in the short term or the long
term and reduce the costs of UI by shortening the duration of
claims either in the short term or the long term. This applies
regardless of
3265
whether funding is channelled through the UI account directly
or whether these programs are funded by tax dollars.
(1835)
Nevertheless all government have agreed that we need to find
ways to co-operate more in order to provide better service to
clients, to increase efficiency and to eliminate any duplication
that may exist.
The federal government is actively pursuing agreements to
achieve this end even while the reform of social security is under
way. Any major changes in labour market roles and
responsibilities of governments will be based on the outcome of
the comprehensive social security review.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Madam Speaker, on January
26 and March 10, I put questions in this House to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration concerning the plight of
approximately 50 Salvadorian refugees in Montreal who are
facing the threat of deportation to their native country. Despite
my pressing the point, no action has been taken and the problem
remains unresolved to this day.
Yet, my request that this group of individuals be granted
permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds was and
remains extremely legitimate. If these individuals were forced
to return to their country of origin, their safety and their lives
would be placed in danger.
Moreover, on December 19, 1993, the minister's colleague,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, recognized himself that
political violence was again on this rise in El Salvador. Several
reports by the human rights commission of this country, by the
UN and by Amnesty International have all reached the same
dramatic and incontrovertible conclusion: El Salvador's death
squads are still active.
I myself travelled to that country and stayed there from March
15 to 22 last as part of a Canadian mission to observe elections
that were taking place. My colleagues and I saw that life in that
country had by no means returned to normal. During the election
campaign, over 30 people were murdered.
Moreover, we saw firsthand that the peace agreements
concluded under the auspices of the UN had been violated and
that numerous election irregularities had occurred.
On March 10, I urged the minister to take the time to meet this
group of Salvadorian refugees to learn firsthand how grave the
situation had become. This group had taken the time to travel to
Ottawa from Montreal. Despite giving the minister prior
notification, he steadfastly refused to meet the Salvadorians.
I am asking the minister again today to grant permanent
resident status to these 50 refugees living under the threat of
deportation. I also want to take this opportunity to call to his
attention the apparently forgotten case of another young
Salvadorian refugee, Mr. Mauricio Flores Romero, who took
refuge five months ago in the basement of a Calgary church
where he has been living ever since under far from auspicious
conditions.
I visited this young man last February. Every member of his
family, except for him, has been granted refugee status. I was
deeply touched by this meeting. His application is very
legitimate. Once again, I ask the government to have some
compassion for this claimant.
(1840)
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Madam Speaker, officials with
the Department of Citizenship and Immigration met with
representatives of the Centre de Développement Salvadorien to
discuss this issue on three separate occasions: January 31,
February 15 and March 3.
As a result of these meetings we made two commitments to
the organization and to the Salvadoran community in Canada.
First, all Salvadorans facing removal from Canada would have
their cases reviewed to ensure they would not be at risk if
returned to El Salvador. Second, officials who conduct these
reviews would be in possession of the most recent, up to date
information on country conditions and political events in El
Salvador. We have delivered on these commitments.
All unsuccessful refugee claimants from El Salvador facing
removal from Canada benefit from an extra review in addition to
the current post claim determination review. Each case is
reviewed to ensure that they will not be at risk if returned to El
Salvador. In addition, we have ensured that officials are kept
informed of the country conditions through reports and bulletins
of human rights organizations, the United Nations observer
mission in El Salvador, and information from our
representatives in Central America.
[Translation]
We must not lose sight of the fact that the fundamental issue
here is refugee protection, not immigration. At some point, we
have to accept the decisions handed down in the course of this
process. Our refugee determination system is recognized as one
of the fairest and most generous in the world.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Madam Speaker, on March 18, I
asked the Deputy Prime Minister if she could promise on behalf
of the government to implement the recommendation of Canada
21 Council, a committee charged with reviewing Canada's
defence policy that recommends building in Canada three
support ships for humanitarian aid and peacekeeping. I also
3266
asked the Deputy Prime Minister if she could promise to give the
MIL Davie shipyards the mandate to develop the ``smart'' ship,
which could effectively support Canada's peacekeeping efforts.
Unfortunately for the thousands of MIL Davie workers
threatened with job loss who need a little hope, we only had a
vague answer like ``we are looking into it''. That is tragic, but it
is always the same answer with this government. We ask
questions, but they go unanswered. When we get answers, for
example in the case of the Magdalen Islands ferry, we are
promised an answer in two months, but the time goes by and still
no answer. I hope that in the ``smart'' ship case, the government
will be diligent for once.
You should know that the Canadian navy's AOR-type supply
and logistical support ships are coming to the end of their life.
Moreover, these three ships are not equipped for humanitarian
support and peace missions. For example, Canada must now rent
foreign ships to transport the vehicles, equipment and supplies
needed to support our troops overseas. It usually takes several
weeks before these ships are available to begin to take on the
materiel our soldiers need.
The MIL Davie shipyard already has a solution for this
problem with its project for a versatile strategic transport and
supply ship, known as the ``smart'' ship. For peacekeeping
operations, a single ``smart'' ship can carry a mechanized
battalion group including 70 armored troop carriers, 21 tanks,
96 trucks, 8 M-109 armored self-propelled howitzers, 50 jeeps
and 50 trailers, together with 300 tonnes of munitions and the
fuel required for the vehicles.
In another configuration, a single ``smart'' ship can provide
the support needed for airborne operations with 600 infantry
soldiers and 24 transport helicopters that can be used for refugee
evacuation in particular. With a different configuration, the
``smart'' ship can transport everything required to operate an air
base for 24 CF-18s, which would have been very useful for our
forces during the gulf war, for example.
(1845)
In the event of a natural disaster, the ``smart'' ship can be
quickly modified to transport a range of vehicles such as
ambulances, trucks, materials, construction equipment, water
tanks, fuel and bridge-building equipment. Up to 192 containers
can fit on the main deck and be loaded with food, clothing, tents
and other supplies. These ships would have been very useful in
Somalia or when Hurricane Andrew hit Florida a few years ago.
In case of a spill at sea, the ``smart'' ship can carry small
clean-up boats to do the job. It can also carry clean-up
equipment such as chemical dispersants and material to contain
and absorb the spill. Its huge storage tanks can also be used to
hold the recovered hydrocarbons. It can accommodate a
600-person clean-up crew and be used as a command, control
and communication ship.
I hope that this time, faced with these facts, the federal
government will stop dragging its feet when we propose a
project that meets the new realities of today's world. Above all,
do not give us answers like the one from the Minister of
Transport in a letter sent a few weeks ago to the City of Lévis,
talking about a business plan that had already been filed a year
ago.
So we hope that the person representing the minister today
will be able to give us a clearer and more definite answer.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question and the
interest of where he is coming from.
He is out to get support for the hundreds of workers in his
riding. As somebody who has over 6,000 fishermen and plant
workers unemployed, and it looks like they will be for the next
five years, I can certainly identify with the thrust of his
question.
I responded to the first part of his question the day he asked it
in March. What gave rise to his question was one of the
recommendations made by the Canada 21 report. The Canada 21
Council submitted a very thought provoking report which is still
being reported on in the media and is among the first of many
submissions the government hopes to receive over the course of
the defence policy review.
The hon. member's question concerned the recommendation
that the planned acquisition of three submarines be cancelled
and replaced by the purchase of three peacekeeping support
multi-role replenishment ships, that he so adequately describes,
from domestic shipyards. His proposal of course is to give MIL
Davie a mandate to develop these ships.
The Canada 21 recommendation is a very complex one. The
report is complex, and this particular recommendation prompts
questions abut the need for peacekeeping and more specifically
the future of Canada's defence policy.
As I stand here this evening the special joint committee is
meeting in an adjacent room. They are addressing the future of
Canada's defence policy and precisely this kind of question.
As the Prime Minister suggested and indeed stated in
November when speaking of the defence review it is on the basis
of the conclusion of such a review that the government will best
determine the long term requirements, including equipment, for
our forces.
3267
There are some recommendations in the report that simply
must await the outcome of the policy review and this is one of
them.
Certain things about the report are of a different nature. For
example the government was in total agreement that a defence
policy review was necessary and indeed had embarked on it
before the recommendation was made. There are some other
recommendations, for example in the case of the defence
infrastructure and the reduction of the headquarters staffs where
the government is in basic agreement with the council and has
already taken action.
The response to the hon. member is that I can understand
where his suggestion is coming from, but he will have to wait
until the defence policy review is completed by the end of this
year. I would say there will be decisions forthcoming in the new
year after the review.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Madam Speaker, I have
spoken in this House many times to express my growing concern
about the lack of financial resources needed by the commission
of inquiry on tainted blood for Mr. Justice Krever to get to the
bottom of this outright scandal.
Judge Krever himself told the daily La Presse on November
24, 1993, that the funds granted to the commission and to the
Canadian Hemophilia Society were clearly insufficient and that
it would be difficult to show what really happened in this tainted
blood affair.
The time has come to give more money to this commission
and the Canadian Hemophilia Society.
(1850)
But every time I spoke in this House to ask the minister to act
or to grant the funds essential to the proper operation of this
commission, she always repeated the same thing, that the
request was being considered by Treasury Board and a decision
would be made as soon as possible.
How can the minister justify the government's slowness to
allocate more funds? What are the minister's intentions on this?
These questions are unanswered.
The minister should realize sooner or later that her inaction
has and will have a major impact on the work of this commission
and its findings. For example, the Canadian Hemophilia
Society, the only real defender of the victims of the scandal, is
now financially unable to send one of its members to follow all
the proceedings of the commission of inquiry.
Who is in a better position than a member of the Canadian
Hemophilia Society, which knows every aspect of this affair, to
follow it up and properly inform the lawyers on location?
However, the inaction of the minister and her government does
not allow it and deprives the least fortunate victims of an
opportunity to defend themselves in the same way as those who
hold economic and political power.
The democratic principle whereby all are equal before the law
is being violated, this time with the consent of the minister and
her government. Even worse, neither the minister nor the Prime
Minister have seen fit to act on the many distress signals from
the Canadian Hemophilia Society.
Do the government and the health minister really care about
their citizens' welfare? Indeed, do they have something to hide
about this shameful saga, one unworthy of a modern society?
Why are the minister and her department systematically
obstructing the repeated requests of the Canadian Hemophilia
Society and thus making any openness in this case impossible?
Need I remind you that lack of openness will leave a bitter
memory for all the victims of tainted blood and their families.
These victims are entitled to know the circumstances
surrounding this scandal and this is the government's and the
minister's responsibility. No one has a right to hide the truth and
to silence anyone who could clear up this horrible nightmare.
It would be in the minister's interest to speak out clearly and
as soon as possible on granting additional funds for the inquiry
on tainted blood and for the Canadian Hemophilia Society, as
requested by Mr. Justice Krever, so that justice can be done.
My question is simple: what is the minister waiting for to act?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health): Madam Speaker, the hon. member is the health critic
for the opposition and therefore she is aware of the complexity
of the issues surrounding the blood inquiry by Justice Krever.
She is also aware that it was the federal government and the
Ministry of Health that has with the provincial governments put
forward the money initially and has helped and assisted in every
way for the Krever commission to occur.
Therefore, we are very supportive. We are anxious and we are
willing to find out what the commission has to say.
The commission has been meeting in many cities across the
country and is still doing so. It is getting very valuable
information. Therefore, at this time the commission is not in any
way impaired due to lack of funds or due to lack of resources.
While we are speaking now officials from the Ministry of Health
are discussing what to do for future funding.
3268
In the meantime I would like to stress that the commission is
carrying on. It is still able to listen to evidence with all the
resources that are necessary for it to function at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Madam Speaker, on March
18, after the tabling of the annual report of the Canadian Human
Rights Commissioner Mr. Max Yalden, I put a question to the
Deputy Prime Minister, whose reply was unsatisfactory.
(1855)
In his report, the Human Rights Commissioner was very
critical of the way native people were treated by the Government
of Canada under the Indian Act.
I do not think one has to be an expert on Amerindian issues to
realize that aboriginal people in Canada often suffer job
discrimination, that they live in a state of forced dependency on
the federal government as a result of the Indian Act and face a
number of social problems that merely reinforce the prejudice
against native people. We do not need learned studies to realize
that significant changes are urgently needed to improve their
living conditions.
In response to my question in about the strategy and concrete
measures the government had in mind to correct a situation that
was both deplorable and well known, the Deputy Prime Minister
merely replied that her government was negotiating agreements
with aboriginal peoples aimed at granting them a form of
self-government, and that as a result of this process the
department of Indian affairs could ultimately disappear.
Aboriginal nations, Quebecers and Canadians expect more
specific answers from the government when discussing issues
that are so important to the future of these communities.
Although it has plans to conclude an agreement with aboriginal
peoples involving their inherent right to self-government, the
Government of Canada, through its minister of Indian affairs, is
dragging its feet, avoids answering the questions and refuses to
be specific about the form aboriginal governments will take.
Will these governments be constituted along ethnic lines?
Will they have specific and exclusive territories? Will they have
legal and fiscal powers? Will they be able to sign agreements
with other governments? There is complete confusion and
uncertainty about these issues which are extremely important to
the country, and that is because the government just keeps
repeating that negotiations are under way with various
aboriginal nations.
We want to be informed about the negotiating process. We
want to know about the Government of Canada's definition of
native self-government.
Finally, considering the recommendations of the Human
Rights Commissioner who indicated in his report that the Indian
Act encourages the dependency and marginalization of
aboriginal peoples, could the Minister tell the House what
specific measures he has in mind to put an end to the social and
economic problems created by this paternalistic legislation?
[English]
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
I am pleased to respond to the question raised by the hon.
member for Jonquière on March 18. The answer to his question
about the federal government's strategy for implementing the
recommendations made in the Human Rights Commission's
report can be found in the red book, otherwise known as
``Creating Opportunity: the Liberal Plan for Canada''.
He has to understand that it took many years to get to the stage
where we are now starting to discuss self-government issues
with the aboriginal groups of Canada. It is going to take some
time to get agreement from the different aboriginal groups
whether they are Indian, Inuit or Métis. He has to understand it
is going to take some time. It took us an awful lot of time to get
to the stage of what he calls complete confusion. It is going to
take a while to try to sort out that confusion. I ask the hon.
member to be patient and assure him that we are working on
those things.
The federal government's red book has identified many of the
same issues as those outlined in the commission's report: the
aboriginal right to self-government, land claims, the Indian Act
and aboriginal justice. These are priority areas which the federal
government has dedicated itself to working on in partnership
with aboriginal people. Together we must find solutions that
will lead to improvement in the economic and social conditions
in First Nations communities.
The federal government is acting on the premise that the
inherent right to self-government is an existing right in the
Constitution. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, as I said earlier, has initiated a discussion process
with aboriginal leaders and leaders of the provincial and
territorial governments.
Following these discussions the federal government intends
to translate its policy intent into concrete action. When
aboriginal people assume more control over their own lives, we
will be in a much better position to make the kind of changes that
will work best in our communities.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 7 p.m., this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)