TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thursday, September 22, 1994
Bill C-51. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 6001
Bill C-52. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 6001
Bill C-272. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 6001
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 6001
Bill C-273. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted. 6002
Bill C-44. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and amendment 6004
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 46; Nays, 194 6005
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 6005
Bill C-44. Consideration resumed of motion 6008
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6018
Division on motion deferred. 6027
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 6028
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 6031
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6032
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6034
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6034
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6034
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6034
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6035
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6035
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6035
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6039
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6039
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6039
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6040
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6040
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6041
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 6041
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6048
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6056
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 6061
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6061
Division on motion deferred 6068
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.18 p.m.) 6068
The House resumed at 6.25 p.m. 6068
6001
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, September 22, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-51, an act to
amend the Canada Grain Act and respecting certain regulations
made pursuant to that act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and
Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-272, an act to amend the Criminal Code (gun
control).
He said: Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to introduce a
private member's bill to amend some of the more contentious
clauses in the Criminal Code pertaining to gun control.
This bill decriminalizes offences against regulations
respecting storage, display, handling and transportation of
firearms. It simplifies the FAC renewal process and allows
previous law-abiding gun owners to acquire an FAC without
going through the course and test.
It allows gun owners to bequeath grandfathered restricted
guns. It clarifies the legal obligation of this government to
provide compensation for confiscated firearms. It makes all
future and existing regulations subject to review by the House of
Commons.
(1005 )
Canadians are demanding crime control, not gun control. It is
time for the government to get tough on criminals, not create
more red tape for legitimate gun owners.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions this morning. The first one is from petitioners in
and around metropolitan Toronto and concerns the Young
Offenders Act.
It calls on Parliament to provide for heavier penalties for
those convicted of violent crime and to provide more funds to
police departments. I want to remind these petitioners that Bill
C-37 is currently before the House of Commons and will
address some of those concerns.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from 52 people in my riding of Scarborough
West.
They call on Parliament to immediately extend protection to
the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the
same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, my
third petition is from quite a number of the good citizens of
Belleville, Ontario.
They have asked me to present a petition calling on
Parliament not to amend the Human Rights Act or the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in any way to indicate societal approval of
same sex relationships or to use the undefined phrase sexual
orientation in any legislation.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition of
74 people from the areas of Osoyoos, Oliver, Okanagan Falls,
Penticton of my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
6002
The petitioners say that the majority of Canadians believe the
privileges that society accords to heterosexual couples should
not be extended to same sex relationships.
Therefore the petitioners pray and request that Parliament not
amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act
or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would
tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition this morning on behalf of the
Catholic Women's League from Kapuskasing.
Its members would like Parliament to review and revise our
laws concerning young offenders by empowering the courts to
prosecute and punish the young law breakers who are terrorizing
our society by releasing their names and lowering the age limit
to allow prosecution to meet the severity of the crime.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, I feel
compelled to present every petition from my constituents that
conforms with Standing Order 36 regardless of my personal
views.
I therefore present a petition requesting that this Parliament
maintain the status quo regarding the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act to avoid any
semblance of societal approval for same sex relationships.
The petition, which erroneously states that Canada has a
human rights code, is identical to many petitions that have been
presented in this Parliament over the past several months. I
suspect they are part of an organized campaign to deny a
significant group of Canadians equal rights.
I do not believe that we as parliamentarians have the authority
to extend or deny any person's right on the basis of petitioners'
personal convictions or beliefs. We have the important
responsibility of ensuring that all Canadians have the same
rights. Without this none of us has any true guarantees.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by
numerous residents of the city of Kingston and the surrounding
area.
These residents are concerned about injuries occurring to
young children in school buses. They call upon Parliament to
enact legislation that will require that all buses used to transport
children be equipped with individual seat belts, one for each
child, in accordance with normal practice in vehicles.
(1010 )
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from more than 300 workers at Heath steel mines and
Brunswick mines in New Brunswick.
These petitioners want to draw the attention of the House to
the fact that Canada's investment climate is forcing its mineral
industry to look for new opportunities elsewhere. The Canadian
Mineral Industry Federation has prepared a 10 point program of
action to be addressed by both the mineral industry and the
Government of Canada to keep mining in Canada.
It urges Parliament to take action to increase employment in
the mining sector, promote exploration, rebuild Canada's
mineral reserves, sustain mining and keep mining in Canada.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I believe a member of the Official
Opposition wishes to present a bill on behalf of another member.
Since we forgot to recognize the member earlier, I will ask for
unanimous consent to give him an opportunity to present this
bill now.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-273, an Act to amend the Interest Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to introduce
a private members' bill whose purpose is to reduce the fees or
penalties for renegotiating a mortgage for a period of less than
five years. There was considerable debate on the subject in
1983, just after the recession in the early eighties. I therefore
table this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 62 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 62-Mr. de Savoye:
In the Department of Health estimates, has the government provided for an
amount of money for Canada's anti-drug strategy and, if so, (a) what is that
amount; (b) what proportion of that amount is allocated to alcoholism
problems; and (c) what proportion of that amount is allocated to problems
involving drugs other than alcohol and tobacco?
6003
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): (a) $21.5
million. (b) and (c) Health Canada's role in canada's drug
strategy, CDS lies in the areas of prevention and control. For
many years prevention activities have been directed toward
alcohol whereas in the past 10 to 15 years studies show
Canadians to be poly drug users. Consequently, Health Canada's
prevention programming aims to address the factors associated
with drug taking behaviour in general without differentiating by
drug such as alcohol, benzodiazepene, cannabis, cocaine et
cetera. In addition, programming tends to be target group
specific where different combinations of drugs use affects
women, seniors, youth and natives differently.
Below is a detailed breakdown of Health Canada programs
funded by CDS.
INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT T
6004
INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE INSERT TABLE
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The question as enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6004
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and
the Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to
the Customs Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
Mr. Silye: Are we voting on the whole bill or just on the
amendment?
The Deputy Speaker: On the amendment. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 82)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-46
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
6005
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-194
PAIRED MEMBERS
Debien
Gagnon (Québec)
Harper (Churchill)
MacAulay
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Paré
Plamondon
Ringuette-Maltais
(1100)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost. The next
question is on the main motion.
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Debate.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to speak in the debate on second reading of Bill
C-44, which proposes amendments to the Immigration Act, the
Citizenship Act and the Customs Act.
Before getting into the details of this bill, I would like to offer
a few observations and comments that should make us think
about the impact of the decisions we will be asked to make ask a
result of Bill C-44.
In part I of Canada's immigration policy document, when
referring to the broad objectives, paragraphs (i) and (j) clearly
state the needs, and I quote:
(i) to maintain and protect the health, safety and good order of Canadian
society; and
(j) to promote international order and justice by denying the use of Canadian
territory to persons who are likely to engage in criminal activity.
Obviously, the party I represent fully agrees with this
position. These are principles and objectives that we support
because they reflect a broad consensus in a society that is based
on the rule of law.
There are also a number of concerns directly related to Bill
C-44 which remain essential to an understanding of the issues.
During the consultations on immigration conducted recently
by the minister, someone said that intolerance was the biggest
growth industry in Canada. Intolerance produces hysteria,
racism and fear, so that reality becomes clouded by one's
perception of reality. That is why the public has been led to
believe for some time that criminal immigrants are countless in
our society. It will soon come to think that crime is a
characteristic of immigrants.
(1105)
So, we must firmly oppose the spreading of deformed and
false information about immigration that prevents a trust
relationship from being created between the welcoming society
and immigrants.
Last year, an in-house study by the Department of Citizenship
and Immigration reminded us that there are no links between the
ethnic origin and a propensity to crime. Unlike what some
popular trend would lead us to believe, Mr. Derek Thomas, a
senior researcher with the department, confirms that people
born in other countries and now living in Canada are
under-represented in our prisons.
While 20.2 per cent of the Canadian population is comprised
of newcomers, these same people only represent 11.9 per cent of
prisoners or those on probation, that is half of that. Again,
6006
unlike some popular clichés, visible minorities were not
over-represented in criminal statistics.
Because of the many questions that are being asked by the
public and the concerns that it is showing, it is worth reminding
that the crime rate in this country has been reduced by 5 per cent
in 1993. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics:
``For the second consecutive year, the crime rate reported by
police services has dropped in 1993. The 5 per cent reduction
has been the most important on a year-to-year basis since
criminal statistics were first collected in 1962''. These are the
facts.
That confirms what I was saying earlier about reality and
perceptions. While the public thinks that the overall crime rate
has increased, that is not the reality. The same goes for the link
that the public is trying to establish between immigration and
crime. I do not intend in any way to trivialize criminal activities,
because they really do exist in our society and everywhere in
Canada.
I know that the public is concerned for its safety. Surveys are
showing that. However, let us get things straight. This House has
the duty to rely on facts and act accordingly. One also has to
wonder about and to denounce the source of these errors and
perceptions of the public. This House should not be a reflection
of papers like Allô Police or media sensationalism which
overexpose individual cases and give the impression that they
are now the norm in Canada.
It is unbelievable that after trying to blame young people for
every ill under the sun, we are now targeting immigrants. Should
we not ask ourselves whether social and economic conditions
have more to do with crime than immigration? The difficulties
that immigrant families and young people in particular have to
face-lack of money, lack of jobs, lack of training-have
probably more to do with crime than immigration as such.
(1110)
I now want to go back to the wording of Bill C-44 introduced
by the government on June 17 of this year. Its object is to tighten
the provisions of the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act to
reduce the legal recourse of immigrants and refugee claimants
found guilty of crimes in Canada.
First, I would like to stress that government has indeed the
right and the duty to protect its citizens against crime. In that
sense the Official Opposition is not against trying to make sure
that dangerous criminals do not prolong their stay or settle in
Quebec or Canada. We support the underlying principles of Bill
C-44, but we seriously question the nature of some of the
proposed measures.
The first question we have is about the rationale for such a
bill. Do we have specific reasons to seek to tighten the
legislation because of criminal activity, especially among
immigrants and refugees? How can we explain the increased
opposition to criminal immigrants in the public opinion in
English Canada? Could it be that a wave of disinformation has
influenced English Canadians, giving rise to fear and almost
xenophobic attitudes?
Mr. Speaker, beyond these apprehensions, there are specific
provisions in Bill C-44 that we are concerned about. The most
important of these provisions is the explicit intent to eliminate
the right to appeal for immigrants and refugees charged with an
offence punishable by a minimum ten-year jail sentence. This
seems to be contrary to the fundamental principles a so-called
``just'' society should be based on. We all remember who
promoted this concept. What we are demanding today is a
society as just as when it first became a buzzword. The Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms must apply to everyone when it
comes to fair and equitable proceedings.
There is another element of this bill which causes us some
concern; it has to do with sentencing. Bill C-44 only takes into
account the maximum sentence for a given crime instead of the
particular sentence handed down by the judge. Indeed, even
though under the Criminal Code a particular crime is punishable
by a ten-year jail sentence, the courts use the sentencing
principles to determine the penalty.
For example, break and enter in a private home is punishable
by life; offences such as being an accessory to counterfeiting
credit cards could justify the deportation of the accused to his
country of origin.
As you know, the sentences handed down are generally far
less severe than the maximum permitted. In some cases, instead
of a fine or a jail term, the sentence may even be suspended or
the accused put on probation. As a consequence, an individual
who receives a light sentence could still be forced to leave the
country.
This provision could contravene the Geneva convention. The
handbook of the High Commissioner for Refugees stipulates and
I quote: ``In evaluating the nature of the crime presumed to have
been committed, all the relevant factors-including any
mitigating circumstances-must be taken into account''.
(1115)
Bill C-44 should take these comments into consideration.
Another aspect not covered in Bill C-44 is the distinction
between a political crime and a crime under common law. We
find it disturbing that someone would be removed from Canada
for, say, political reasons, without regard for the risks awaiting
him in his country of origin. This sort of rule clearly lacks
6007
flexibility and humanity. Should we not weigh the risks
involved against the acts committed?
Other important questions come to mind. What will happen to
permanent residents who have been living in Canada for several
years? In some cases, they came to this country as children. Now
adults, they work here, have families here and barely remember
their country of origin. They no longer have friends or family
there. This is the reality. These people are in fact Quebecers or
Canadians. Is returning them to their country of origin a good
solution, the right solution?
Other aspects of this bill also deserve our attention. The bill
the minister has tabled proposes to grant immigration officers
the authority to seize and open all parcels and documents
suspected of being used for fraudulent purposes. Is this not
contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I
think it is. Under our legal system the accused is presumed
innocent. This right must apply to everyone.
The provisions for the seizure of mail reverse the burden of
proof. On what basis would a seizure be carried out and how
would the nature of the parcels be determined? These questions
are weighty ones.
The Bill also provides that certain decisions formerly taken
by the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB, will henceforth
be taken by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and his
officials. On the one hand, the minister is being given new
authority to appeal decisions made by adjudicators, and on the
other hand the board is being denied the right to review cases for
humanitarian reasons. Is this a case of the administrative
process being politicized? Is it an attack on the independence of
the IRB? Would it not be better to try to improve the operation of
the board? I think it would.
There are other aspects of this bill I could question. We will
have the opportunity to discuss it further in the standing
committee dealing with the issue. A study released by
Citizenship and Immigration Canada this summer showed that
the whereabouts of 1,888 foreign criminals slated for
deportation remained unknown. Is there no way of locating
these individuals and trying to prevent this kind of thing from
happening in the future without putting up yet more entry
barriers, and thus risk finding ourselves in embarrassing
situations like the ones described earlier?
Do missing foreign criminals constitute a specific problem?
In other words, are there more of these criminals than Canadian
or Quebec ones? How many Canadians and Quebecers is the
police unsuccessfully trying to locate at present? Are their
numbers substantially lower than those of immigrants who are
sought by police?
To better inform and reassure the public, the elected
government, this Liberal government, should release all the
information relating to the issue of foreign criminals.
(1120)
Immigrants and refugee claimants would not be subjected to
this witch hunt then. I wish to make it clear that the Bloc
Quebecois is aware of the problem created by foreign criminals
currently in Canada. We also know that criminal activity causes
turmoil and fright in local communities.
We will support the government in its efforts to find a fair and
lasting solution to this problem. We entirely agree with
immigrants and refugee claimants not being allowed to use our
immigration legislation or the reputation of Canada or Quebec
to flee their country of origin, where they have committed
serious crimes. We are in complete agreement with that.
However, we shall not let ourselves be distracted by
unfounded remarks which, as we pointed out, may not reflect the
reality. It seems that the Canadian government is presently
taking a more radical stance to appeal to a certain constituency.
Just think of the young offenders legislation passed this past
session. Think also of the stronger and stronger reservations
expressed by the Liberal caucus about gun control or concerning
Motion M-157 put forward by the Liberal member for
Scarborough-Rouge River to reduce immigration levels in
times of economic recession.
While on the subject, I might add that Bill C-44 like many
other government initiatives does not reflect the Quebec reality.
Public opinion in Quebec reacts quite differently from our
Canadian neighbours with respect to how crime and
immigration should be tied together.
As pointed out quite rightly in the Globe and Mail, last week,
the people of Quebec did not let a few sordid cases reported
recently in Canada, and which we deplore, influence their
attitude or behaviour toward immigration. Perhaps this is
another characteristic of Quebec's distinctiveness, is it not?
Immigrants are a fundamental addition to the Canadian and
Quebec society and they contribute undeniably to its collective
wealth. Legislation to deny the right of entry and asylum to
criminals should not put us in an awkward position.
There are sometimes discrepancies between the goals set and
the measures put forward to achieve them. Bill C-44 as tabled in
second reading seems to be so afflicted. In light of the questions
and comments raised by the members of this House, we express
the wish that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration improve this legislation and, in so doing, restore
the trust of the Canadian and Quebec public in their institutions.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker,I
certainly thank the member for his presentation. I believe it
lacks in some areas given the fact that, as the member must
realize, the accord Quebec has with the federal government
regarding immigration is substantially different from the rest of
the country.
6008
I do not know if he is aware of that. He might be to some
degree. He mentioned in his presentation that the attitude in
Quebec and that of Quebecers is different with reference to
immigration than it is in the rest of Canada. Does the member
realize that with the Quebec-Canada accord only 16 per cent of
the total immigration flow is into the province of Quebec? That
may be very inaccurate. From what I understand, substantial
numbers leave from year to year. Therefore the figure could be
closer to 8 per cent or 10 per cent of all immigration into the
province of Quebec.
(1125)
I believe that is a very realistic number going into one region
of the country and I believe that the rest of the country should
adopt a similar percentage.
Does the member realize that the attitude of Quebecers may
be different because of the fewer problems relating to
immigration due to lower immigration levels? Would the
member agree with that?
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank
the hon. member for Calgary Northeast for his comments. As I
said in my speech, there was a steady decline in Canada's crime
rate in 1992-93.
I am aware that Quebec's immigration law is different from
that in the rest of Canada but it is not so different. As I was
saying, I think we must be careful. We, as members of
Parliament, have a duty and a responsibility not to rely only on
what is written in the newspapers, on some journalists' tendency
to sensationalize this issue. The fact remains that there has been
a 5 per cent reduction in the crime rate.
It is true that today, some journalists may be tempted to make
more of a case than the facts warrant. When a vicious crime is
committed in a small town or community, there may be a
tendency to exaggerate because it is a highly emotional time.
But I think that, as members of Parliament, we must stay above
the fray. We must be compassionate but when we make decisions
on behalf of all Canadian people, I think me must first look at the
facts. As I was saying, the facts show a decline in the crime rate.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, a point of order. I wish to seek unanimous consent to
put the following motion:
That notwithstanding any order of this House any recorded division to be
taken on Motion M-150 on September 22, 1994 be deferred until 3 p.m. on
Tuesday, September 27, 1994.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I feel
particularly concerned about the immigration bill introduced by
the government. I must say that in my riding of Québec-Est
there is the case of a Mr. Chouaiby, who arrived in Canada from
Morocco in 1988. In 1989, he committed a robbery during which
he seriously injured a security guard and, in 1990, he strangled a
19-year old woman.
(1130)
He was sentenced to prison where he spent three years. In
1993, he got out and was allowed to remain in Canada by the
Immigration and Refugee Board. They accepted him. They
allowed him to stay in Canada for another six years, seven years
in fact, until the year 2000, on the grounds that he could be
rehabilitated.
However, I found their decision totally unacceptable because
the mother of the woman who was strangled met him on the
street after he moved back to the same neighbourhood. She saw
him again several times. What a shock it must have been to see
her daughter's killer in her own neighbourhood. She had to
move. The troubled mother then lost her job because of the
severe psychological shock she experienced. She then had to
move. She does not work any more and she is still afraid of
running into this man again in her neighbourhood.
I approached the minister of immigration to find out whether
it is possible to deport this young man who is still violent, who is
even considered by psychologists and psychiatrists to be very
violent. The Immigration Act as it now stands and even if it were
amended by this bill-although we may be in favour of this bill
in principle-contains many shortcomings. Here is one of them:
the bill does not deal with such cases, which are quite common
in Canada. I think there are about 150 similar cases in Canada.
We are unable to expel this young man from Canada, at least
until the year 2000, unless he commits another murder or
another serious crime. That is ridiculous. It is as though
Canadian citizens and especially the victim's mother were taken
hostage by a violent immigrant who may be about to commit
another act of violence. It is totally absurd. Totally
unacceptable. This person should have been deported the day
after he got out of jail. That is an example of the appalling
mismanagement at the Canadian department of immigration. In
fact, this case could have been invoked as a reason to tighten this
act.
Of course, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, totally agree with the
principle of this bill but it contains huge holes, unfortunately.
6009
The minister should review his bill and tighten it so that it can
tackle the real problems. That is the comment I wanted to make.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank
the member for Québec-Est for his remarks at this point. I think
that cases like the one he just described for us occur frequently.
You know, the question of refugees is in federal jurisdiction.
We in Quebec have always been open to foreigners. Now, of
course, cases can arise, as I just said. Now, even though there are
isolated cases, the law must still be applied. The law must be
improved, but we must not make a case of it when an immigrant
is accused. The law must be clear, but we must not make special
cases. I think it is dangerous to make special cases. That is why
we will support the bill on second reading; however, we will
present amendments to improve it on third reading.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
and an honour to take part in this debate on Bill C-44.
[Translation]
I think that the member for Québec-Est may be talking
through his hat.
[English]
There has already been some healthy debate in this House and
elsewhere on the important topics of immigration, the
enforcement of immigration issues, and the removal of a small
but dangerous criminal element that has managed to infiltrate
our system.
(1135 )
I use the word dangerous advisedly here. It works two ways.
Certainly a few of those serious criminals who have managed to
slip through the screening net are dangerous to our fellow
citizens, but they are also dangerous to the health of our entire
refugee and immigration policy.
For years our policies have been the envy of the world. Our
citizens have had justifiable pride in a system that has both
helped our country grow and has served as a bright beacon of
hope on the horizon of a world beset by suffering.
Lately there have been tales of abuse of the immigration and
refugee process. It is not widespread but it is enough to cause
concern and concern can be healthy. When we are concerned
about abuse and crime it is natural that the entire system comes
under scrutiny. I am sure it is healthy for any process to get a
periodic re-evaluation.
The danger we face now is that the repeated tales of
wrongdoing, stories in the newspapers about criminals using red
tape or quirky regulations to avoid departure, television stories
about senseless crime involving people who perhaps should
have been deported long ago are taking their toll on human faith
and on charity. We are beginning to doubt the validity of the
entire system. We cannot allow this to happen. A criminal few
should not shake our faith in a system that has been decent and
good and an example to the world. That is why this legislation is
so important. I would hope that the hon. member for Québec-Est
might see that and might possibly see his way clear to
supporting it.
Just the other day in one of the newspapers I saw a map of the
world reproduced. The headline on the map was ``Tracking the
tide of human suffering''. Almost every corner of the globe was
covered, from the slaughterhouses of the Balkans to the killing
fields of Africa with horror stopovers in between.
We are seeing borders erased, vast legions of humanity on the
move and migrations of people on a scale never before
witnessed in human history. Here we are in one of the safest,
healthiest and wealthiest nations in the world letting doubts and
uncertainty cloud policies that have helped make us healthy,
wealthy and safe and that have brought new hope and relieved
the suffering of millions. I might add those policies have
allowed all of us, or nearly all of us who sit in this House to be
here, either ourselves, our parents, our grandparents, whomever.
We have in our hands the ability to restore faith in a process
that has helped shape our destiny as a nation. The amendments
enclosed in these few pages will help us get rid of the hiding
places for criminals. I am not talking about criminal hideouts,
something you might find in the movies. I am talking about the
loopholes and anomalies of the law.
Changes to these points of law coupled with other parts to the
multi-pronged strategy to curtail abuse of our immigration laws
as outlined by the minister earlier will do a great deal to restore
faith in a system which needs some bolstering. Let me point to a
few of those loopholes and anomalies as I see them.
This legislation eliminates the possibility of one person
having a number of refugee claims at the same time. It allows us
to take serious criminals out of the refugee process. It also
means we will not have to go behind penitentiary walls for
hearings for convicted murderers who claim to be refugees.
Until these amendments came forward there was nothing
officials could do to stop the citizenship process when a person
was subject to an immigration inquiry and of course we cannot
deport a citizen. With these changes the citizenship process
stops cold until any immigration proceedings are concluded.
There is nothing here that should cause any alarm for real
refugees and most of the immigrants Canada has been receiving
over the years. Critics who say these amendments hurt real
refugees and upright immigrants should think again. They
should think of the tremendous waste of time and energy
tracking down scofflaws. No, these changes do not hurt the
6010
innocent but they will bring an increased sense of justice and
integrity to the immigration and refugee system.
The amendments take away a few legal hidey-holes that have
camouflaged a small criminal minority and they put some
integrity back in the system. It is actions like these which will
take us a long way toward restoring some of the faith in the
system, faith that may have been lost in recent months and years.
(1140 )
Before I close my remarks I would like to take a moment to
deal with an issue which has caused some criticism of the
legislation. That is the resolution to take the decision making to
allow a serious criminal to stay in Canada for humanitarian or
compassionate reasons away from the immigration appeal
division and put it in the hands of the minister.
This is not a plot to rob the appeal division of power, it is
simply making the system more accountable. The immigration
appeal division may still review these cases on questions of law
and fact. The way it stands now, the minister must deal with the
consequences of allowing a serious criminal to stay in Canada,
but the minister does not take part in the decision making that
led to those consequences.
If this legislation is approved, the government does not
project or predict that far fewer removal orders will be stopped.
What we do say is that our goal will be to protect Canadians who
might be a danger but to still recognize the fact that some serious
criminals should be allowed to remain here on humanitarian
grounds.
There is a chance with this legislation to restore some faith in
the system. Let us be honest here, governments do not get too
many chances. If we fail on this we may not get another chance.
That is why we take it so seriously. That is why we have zero
tolerance for this kind of behaviour.
Let us be very blunt about this. If Canadians turn their backs
on our refugee and immigration policies, the world will be a
much darker and bleaker place. None of us should be playing
politics with an issue which, if we look at the world around us, is
a life and death issue for far too many people.
I urge all members to move this legislation forward swiftly.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the parliamentary secretary. What in this
legislation addresses the concern of the member for
Québec-Est, removing violent criminals who are not citizens of
this country? What in the legislation deals with that problem?
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the hon. member for
Calgary Northeast is speaking for the member for Québec-Est,
who I am sure will manage to speak for himself as well.
At any rate I would suggest that the hon. member for Calgary
Northeast read the legislation. It is there in the bill. Perhaps if
the hon. member is having some difficulty with the
interpretation he could check with one of his female
colleagues-I am sorry but I forget the hon. member's
riding-who I know is a member of the bar. She or perhaps the
justice critic might be able to help him.
However it definitely is in the legislation. I am sure if the hon.
member for Calgary Northeast reads it quite carefully he will
see what is there.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, with great respect I think
members should try to treat each other with a little bit more
respect than was just given in that answer. I wonder if the
parliamentary secretary has any comment on that.
Ms. Clancy: No, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary
has no comment on that except to say she is mystified at your
remarks. I do not understand. Perhaps you could explain. I am
sorry.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments, the hon.
member for Bourassa.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the speech given by the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. She is a great
expert and very competent in the field. She did outstanding work
when she was in the opposition, but I admit that I do not follow
what she was saying in her speech today. On the one hand, she
talks a very humanitarian line, she always did, but on the other,
how can she justify this Bill C-44 which I think is contrary to
several principles of the Geneva convention?
For example, a political crime is not distinguished from a
common law crime. How can she justify transferring much of
the IRB's mandate to the department and the minister? For
example, how can she justify no longer allowing permanent
residents who have been here for 10, 20 or 30 years to appeal to
the appeal division of the IRB?
(1145)
She will expel these people because they committed a crime
punishable by 10 or more years in penitentiary but in fact were
fined, given a suspended sentence or put on probation. Why did
the parliamentary secretary not admit, as the member of our
party just said, that the crime rate has gone down in Canada in
recent years and fell by 5 per cent in 1993?
Why does she not admit that the crime rate for immigrants is
lower than the crime rate for Canadians who were born here and
6011
that on the whole immigrants are more law abiding than
Canadians born here? I do not follow her. I admit that she is very
competent, she knows the field well and she has always taken a
very humane position in this regard.
[English]
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I reassure the hon. critic for the
Bloc, the member for Bourassa, that we will not be deporting
people who do not break the law.
We agree with him very strongly that the crime rate for
immigrants and refugees in this country is indeed lower than the
national average, absolutely and no question. He could look it up
as I am sure he has.
I would like to correct a couple of things. It may have been a
difficulty in the translation but with regard to the offences it is
one indictable offence under the law and two summary
conviction offences.
Perhaps I did not get the question on that. If the hon. member
wants to rephrase it or ask me again, I will try to get it. It is fairly
straightforward. If there is a problem there I would be happy to
address it.
On the question of right of appeal, the right of appeal to the
appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board is still
there on questions of law and questions of fact. There is now a
humane and compassionate right of appeal to the minister. As I
said in my speech, the reason for it is that the minister deals with
the consequences. It is a question of accountability, as the
member knows. We as elected members of Parliament are
accountable to our electorate in four to five years.
In consequence, because the minister bears the responsibility
in the House but the Immigration and Refugee Board is as it
should be on questions of fact and law at arm's length from the
minister, the minister now has a place to make decisions based
on humane and compassionate grounds.
As I said in my speech as well, we do not expect the number of
appeals granted to go up in leaps and bounds, but this is yet
another safeguard of the humane and compassionate grounds
rooted in political accountability.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, to
give the member for Halifax a chance to redeem herself, I would
like to ask her essentially the same question that my colleague
from the Reform Party just asked her, which she did not answer.
Would she be so kind as to tell me how this bill will deal with a
case like the one I mentioned before?
[English]
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I get
into these waters again. The hon. member did bring up a specific
case in his remarks. I am sorry but I did not hear the full details
of the specific case.
It would not be wise, as I am sure Mr. Speaker would agree
with me, to comment on the specifics of a case. I would be
happy, as I frequently do for other members of the House, to
look at the file the hon. member is talking about. If he would like
to see me either in my office or in the lobby to deal with the
specific case I would be happy to look at it. However I think it
would be unwise to deal with specifics in the matter of general
debate.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to some of the debate that just
went on with the hon. member for Québec-Est. He cited
examples of abuse of the system. Even the answers of the
parliamentary secretary made reference to some concerns that
are purportedly in the legislation. Perhaps we will establish in
what I am about to say that they are not in the legislation.
(1150 )
I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on the
amendments to the Immigration Act contained in Bill C-44,
dealing with deportation and the strengthening of the
enforcement system to deal with the threat of criminals entering
into Canada. This is an area which has been in need of a serious
overhaul for a long time. It is an area which my party has
brought to the attention of the House and the minister on
numerous occasions. Reform members have been forceful in
their desire to see serious and strong amendments brought
forward in the area of immigration.
While I am glad to see our efforts finally being acknowledged
by the government, the bill is only a partial step forward. I
believe Bill C-44 may do more harm than good by luring us into
a false sense of security.
Canadians will be told that immigration has been amended
and that criminals will now be kept out of the country, but this is
not the case nor will it be. Canadians need to know the facts. The
issue must not be glossed over by the efforts of the government
to pretend that its stop gap measure will actually stop anything
at all.
The bill amending the Immigration Act falls short of its
desired goal because the system has not been redesigned to
accommodate the changes. It is the system itself that is at fault.
As we have seen in countless legislative examples past and
present, without a willingness to make core systemic change
tinkering with legislation will not work. There must not only
appear to be a willingness to address criminality in our
immigration process, but real will must produce some of the
results we see are lacking in the system.
Bill C-44 is a step in the right direction in that it will help
ensure that criminals are kept out of the immigration system
once they are identified. And once they are identified it does
limit the appeals they will have.
However the bill is impotent in that persons with a serious
criminal past can arrive and stay in Canada free to move about as
they wish with no restraints. Persons entering into Canada will
still not have a security check done on them until just prior to a
refugee hearing or when they fill out an application for
permanent residence. Yes, immediate steps will then be taken to
6012
ensure that a criminal is removed and that is good, but that is
very similar to someone drawing up a plan to get a fox out of the
hen house after the fox has had his run through the place. The
goal is not to set up a strategy to get the fox once he is in the hen
house. The goal should be to set up a system whereby we can
prevent him from entering the hen house at all.
We have the people on the frontline who are there to interview
those who make a claim for refugee status at the port of entry.
Why do we not empower them to make an inquiry as to whether
or not the applicant is a wanted criminal or someone with a
serious criminal past? We do not even equip them with the
necessary tools to make such an inquiry. We even go as far as to
leave the door on the hen house unlocked and open with a sign
that reads: ``If you are found to be a fox you may be asked to
leave''.
This summer I had the honour of meeting with a group of
police officers in the 12th Division B Platoon in Westside,
Toronto, the friends and co-workers of Todd Baylis. This
25-year old constable was brutally murdered in the line of duty
by a deportee designate on June 16, 1994.
What I saw and felt as I met with them was the grief of men
and women betrayed by the system they try to uphold. They told
of harassment, lack of information, lack of immigration
enforcement, manpower and training, continual imminent
danger and plummeting morale as they cope with life and death,
drugs and violence in a once peaceful community.
I read the new legislation and I paused to reflect on their grief
and anger on the one side and the response from the government.
The new rules would do nothing to prevent the very same event
from happening again.
I am amazed, as should all Canadians be, that after a senseless
death-and a full inquiry by the way placed no blame-and the
consequential drafting of the legislation that Todd Baylis would
be in the same danger today as he was on that fateful night.
Shame on those that have been part of this so-called solution. It
is too late simply to say this tragedy should never have occurred,
but for the friends of Todd Baylis it is a reality.
It is therefore imperative that we as legislators take seriously
the obligation to tighten up a system that needs a major overhaul
so that the memory of Constable Baylis will serve as a catalyst to
ensure that such mistakes do not happen again.
(1155 )
The minister has said that the immigration system was not
solely at fault in this particular case and the murder was as much
a product of our society as deserving deportation as an
immigrant. Unfortunately some truth may be here. This young
man's pattern of criminality was well established over many
years. Much of it was under the Young Offenders Act, another
government system of rules and excuses that destroys
accountability and creates a mockery of respect for the laws of
the land.
The government's tinkering in both systems-the
Immigration Act and the Young Offenders Act-does not reflect
the will of Canadians or the real need toward the security of our
streets and homes.
Bureaucrats and politicians must wake up and listen to
Canadians. I have met with shop owners on Queen Street in
Toronto who watch 100 crack deals a day in front of their empty
stores. I have talked with struggling immigrant restaurant
owners whose livelihood investment is being sucked dry by a
decaying criminal neighbourhood. I receive overwhelming
community feedback for changes to the age identification and
record keeping for young offenders. If the government wants
safe streets and homes, it should make those changes happen and
make them happen soon.
The legislation before us today leaves us with some very
serious unanswered questions which must be addressed. To
begin with, there are serious administrative questions. The
budget for the removals division for fiscal year 1991-92 was
$13 million. This increased to $23 million in 1993-94. This 77
per cent increase begs this first question: How was the money
spent in light of the fact that an administrative nightmare still
exists in the issuance and tracking of deportation orders?
Second, what has happened to the thousands of inactive cases
we heard about in the inquiry that were kept in boxes in
immigration offices because there were not enough officers or
administrative support staff to deal with them? Have they been
dealt with now?
What about the request for a shared database between police
and immigration agents to help track down those who have
effectively avoided deportation? Have the department's
computer systems been brought up to date with regard to
determining exact numbers of refugees and immigrants that are
out there facing deportation orders? Has a better system been
put into place to keep track of those who were supposedly ready
to leave voluntarily on their deportation orders?
Let me expand on the importance of getting answers to these
questions. This summer there were approximately 26,000
warrants outstanding on deportation orders. Of these, there were
approximately 11,000 immigration warrants in the Canadian
Police Information Centre system which alerts police across the
country to persons who are arrestable for immigration reasons.
There is a great discrepancy in these numbers. The main
problem is the poor administration in this crucial area. Police
are often not aware of whether or not the person they are dealing
with is under a deportation order. Those people in the system
and operating it are not even fully aware of the number of
6013
deportation orders that are still active because of all the
unknowns currently existing in the system.
For example, there is no way of currently knowing if a person
has indeed left the country, or even if they were requested to do
so, unless they were escorted out or informed the immigration
authorities that they were leaving. This must change. There
exists a serious flaw within the present deportation system
where great emphasis is placed upon personal compliance with
the order to leave.
In response to a request by the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. Hallam Johnston from the
department agreed to provide members of the committee with a
list of impediments to removal. I quote from his reply:
The most significant impediment to removal is the failure of persons to effect
their open removal from Canada. Some examples of this include (1) failure to
comply with the deportation order; (2) failure to show up for removal
arrangements (approximately a 40 per cent no-show rate experienced), and (3)
failure to appear at port of entry to effect the removal after arrangements have
been completed (approximately a 10 per cent no-show rate experienced).
The lack of travel documents is also an impediment in effecting removals.
Foreign governments require returning citizens to be in possession of a valid
passport or other re-entry document. The difficulty is to secure a document and
satisfy the foreign government that the person being returned is a citizen.
Nowhere within this amendment is there reason to believe
that this serious problem in supervising the deportation of those
requested to leave Canada has been addressed. It is ridiculous to
continue in this pattern. For the department to even admit that its
biggest obstacle in carrying out deportations is the failure of
people to remove themselves is incredulous. How can
Canadians feel their confidence in this government is well
founded when they hear reports like that? How can Canadians
feel reassured that they are safe and secure that criminals will be
deported when this government has been relying on the
criminals checking themselves out of the country?
(1200)
It should also not be of any surprise to us that foreign
governments are reluctant to take their citizens back when they
discover they are being deported for criminal activity.
The ironies of deportation of professional criminals was
pointed out this weekend in a national news report. It was
reported that Canada returned 227 deportees to Jamaica from
January to July of this year, one-quarter of the total from all
sources. It also pointed out that wealthy countries such as
Canada are viewed by some countries as dumping our problems
on them.
Does this government have a plan to assure Canadians that
proper and sufficient paper work will be available for needed
deportations even in the face of resistance or lack of
co-operation from receiving nations?
Once those criminals are deported, can this government
assure us through the integrity of our own system that those
same individuals will be made to stay out?
In most cases the problems should have been averted by
denying access of the criminals to Canada in the first place. This
could be accomplished by having the proper computer system
set up that is linked into the CPIC and Interpol systems and able
to do a criminal record check on anyone applying for refugee
status at the port of entry. This must be a priority.
There is also a problem with too few investigators doing the
job with very little training and lack of proper backup and
protection. Is it any surprise that a large number of deportations
being carried out each year are served against those who are
charged with overstaying their visitors' visas? These are
grandmothers and grandfathers visiting kids, not dangerous
criminals. Why should this change? Has the need for more
investigators, better administrative support and working
computer systems been established yet? Are police constables
like Todd Baylis walking the beat on our city streets better
informed now than they were in June?
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has stated there
are three main objectives to his removal strategy: getting
foreign criminals out of Canada, ensuring compliance with
removal orders, and ensuring that failed refugee claimants are
removed properly.
On July 7 the minister stated: ``This government has adopted
clear priorities for removals. Our top priority is to remove
criminals. Those who present a danger to Canadian society and
those who wilfully abuse the immigration system will be clearly
identified and we will take whatever action is necessary to see
that these people are removed from Canada. The legislation and
other measures I have introduced related to criminality will
allow immigration officials to take prompt, decisive action in
these cases''.
These are tough words. The minister must have a great deal of
confidence in his present system to believe that it can
accomplish these objectives without very major overhauls to the
system of which to date there has been no sign.
Is this minister willing to back up these words by putting his
job on the line? Will he resign his position as minister if his new
task force and deportation plan are ineffective in preventing any
more tragedies like those we heard about this morning and that
have occurred even in this last year?
The commitment made by the minister is not new. It has been
made in the past by other administrations but this minister has
6014
promised immediate action. How has his promise been
translated into action? This week there was a report in the Globe
and Mail suggesting that Pearson International Airport
authorities and facilities were unable to cope with new arrivals.
Criminals were slipping through desperately overcrowded
immigration facilities and given free access to our communities.
How can this minister believe we can have confidence in task
forces and deportation plans when the system he claims to be
adequate continues to justify the deep concern that Canadians
have about an immigration system that is not working?
Since the immigration-RCMP task force came into effect in
July it has identified 1,888 deportation cases involving
criminality. How effective has his prompt decisive action been?
Out of all the cases identified a total of 14 have been removed
from Canada. That is less than .7 per cent of the total number
identified. As a matter of fact the task force has discovered that
another 14 of the individuals being sought have been found to be
deceased. At least the task force is keeping even in its efforts in
this particular statistic.
(1205)
Another thing for us to remember is that a task force is a
temporary measure, not a permanent one. How can Bill C-44 be
properly implemented when the task force and its personnel are
no longer working on these cases? Where will the personnel
come from? Who will be serving the deportation notices? Who
will be monitoring the outcome and ensuring that those required
to leave are doing so? What permanent steps are being taken to
deal with the shortcomings in the system and the great need to
implement the changes being proposed.
When one looks at the numbers released by the task force in
August, it is interesting to note that 414 of these cases are
presently in the judicial system. Another 779 are currently
awaiting decisions on their claims for review of their cases.
Another 532 are under investigation. Does this mean they are
currently being looked for?
A major flaw in this legislation is that it presumes that
someone with a serious criminal past will come to Canada and
then appear at a refugee determination hearing where a security
check will finally be done. It presumes upon the criminal mind
that they will wait to be discovered instead of immediately
going underground to prevent themselves from facing automatic
deportation. There is nothing in the system or the amendments
to prevent them from doing so.
In conclusion, we must ask ourselves whether or not these
steps are a real solution to the problem or simply a reaction to a
crisis. For example, we have yet to see how the system will deal
with those who have criminal records for a string of offences
including assault for which a 10-year maximum sentence does
not apply. These are people who may be powder kegs ready to
blow and yet the immigration system will take no action against
them because they have not yet committed the ultimate crime.
This particular amendment, like the Young Offenders Act,
completely ignores repeat criminal activity to the peril of all
Canadians.
The fact that we need tough legislation in this area is apparent
enough to the people of my riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam.
Just mention the name of Michael Drake there to someone and
you can see the anger flare up as they realize the system is still
trying to deport this convicted child molester back to the United
States. Not only has Drake been successful in deferring his
deportation orders time and time again but he has been
successful in ensuring that he is free to roam the streets while he
awaits his hearing.
It is our responsibility to see that the laws are in effect that
will end these kinds of travesties. Bill C-44 in itself will not
make the necessary changes needed to right the wrongs created
by a system that suffers so greatly from neglect. But we as
legislators need to ensure that any changes we propose to the
system are aimed at the heart of the problem and not simply at
the needs of the moment.
We need to equip those in the trenches not just with a book of
rules but with the tools to do the job. We need to assure the
shopkeepers, the businessmen, the parents and the police,
Canadians by birth or by choice that they do not need to fear the
system that should protect them.
Bill C-44 regarding the amendments to the Immigration Act
is a step in the right direction. However this legislation alone
cannot make the system succeed. The government must go
further to demonstrate its commitment to the safety of all
Canadians in their homes and on their streets.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Port
Moody-Coquitlam for a very clear presentation. I would remind
her to look at the minister's remarks when he introduced the bill
when he said: ``Throughout the years immigrants have helped
build our country. The contributions of recent immigrants are
also widely recognized. But Canadians will not tolerate and I
will not tolerate those who abuse our generosity and violate our
laws''. That is what this bill is attempting to do, to remove any
immigrant or refugee who violates our laws.
We have heard from the Reform Party how we must reduce our
annual deficit and public debt. I agree with the Reform Party on
that. To do what the Reform Party wants in immigration will
require additional resources, additional personnel resources,
additional financial resources.
6015
(1210 )
I would like to ask the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam
where her party suggests we get the additional funds to
implement what the Reform Party would like to see in Bill C-44.
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. I would like to comment on what he said aside from
his question.
Certainly in my comments I sought to address the needs of all
Canadians by birth or by choice. All immigrants are not
criminals. In fact very few are. It is the same as with all
Canadians. Very few are involved in criminal activity. It is the
immigrants as much as Canadians who suffer from the abuse of
our immigration system. I want to make that very clear. That is
my purpose. The people whom I met in Toronto were
immigrants who were victims of what was happening by the
abuse of this system. I speak for them as I speak for all
Canadians.
What the hon. member says is true. We feel that for the sake of
the integrity of the immigration system for Canadians and new
immigrants the present system is not working. It is not working
in the criminal element. It is not working in the way that
immigrants are welcomed into Canadian society.
We need people who can come here who have jobs available to
them. We need to provide a future for people who come to this
country.
True, we need to get our fiscal house in order. We need to
make our economy work. We also need to provide those
opportunities for the people who come here. We have to select
the people so that they have the opportunity when they get here.
If we bring people here with no future for them, is that fair to
them or is that fair to the fellow Canadians that they join?
Yes, the immigration numbers need to be addressed so that we
have an economic mix that works for all Canadians new and old.
By doing that we will in fact be more than able to afford it
because it will work for all Canadians.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
have the greatest respect for my colleague from Port
Moody-Coquitlam. We serve on the same committee together.
She is well known for her carefully reasoned remarks on all
issues.
I must say that I was surprised that in her speech she
suggested this bill does not provide sufficient precautions for
keeping deported criminals from re-entering the country. I was
surprised at that remark because coming from a western
province she will know that Canada has one of the longest
undefended borders in the world and that it is traditionally and
always has been impossible to keep illegals of all sorts from
crossing the border at one point or another.
I would suggest to her that this bill addresses that fact by its
provisions for the seizure of false documents. The way our
security authorities keep track of illegals, be they criminals or
otherwise, is by the fact that their documentation eventually
comes under scrutiny and thus raises a red flag for the proper
authorities to take action.
I point out that we are talking here about criminals who as a
means of getting back into this country and staying in this
country falsify passports, drivers' licences, health cards, birth
certificates and so on.
I would request that my colleague opposite comment on this.
Surely she would agree that this is a fine and progressive
measure in this bill to close this loophole of false documentation
to get these illegals out of this country.
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his
comments and his question. I do commend this legislation for
the fact that it does close that loophole of allowing illegal
documents into the country. The fact that that was previously
allowed astounds me. It seems most appropriate that now there
is legislation in place which says no, these will not be allowed in
the country.
However I do not know if I have quite addressed the hon.
member's question.
(1215 )
That legislation is toward the boxes of illegal documents that
would come through our postal service and then be available
within this country for people to use here. The thing you were
referring to though was people coming across our borders from
outside with illegal documents. That part of the legislation
would in no way affect someone presenting themselves at our
border from outside with documents that were illegal or
falsified. It could not affect that particular case.
It is at that point where our present system has no check point.
We take a person's word for it. They come into our country and
then are not actually processed by a security system until they
then present themselves for a refugee hearing or some other kind
of a hearing.
I go back to the comment I made earlier. We let the foxes into
the hen house and then expect them to show up for a process that
will then check their validity. There is the problem and that is
not addressed by this legislation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, hon.
members of this House, I am proud to rise to support Bill C-44,
an act to amend the Immigration Act.
[English]
Canada is a great and generous country. Its doors have always
been open to welcome all people who dreamed of a better future,
6016
people who came for a better life in a country free of civil
violence or war in order to raise a family in one of the best
countries in the world, as the UN so honoured us not once but
twice.
These immigrants, people like my parents, became Canadian
citizens and participate actively in all facets of our society.
Canada's history is full of stories of immigrants who through
their hard work and perseverance have made this country what it
is today.
[Translation]
Throughout our history, immigrants have come to Canada.
These immigrants included some individuals guilty of serious
offences. Amendments must be made in order to put a stop to
this problem and to correct some flaws in the Immigration Act. I
want to discuss these changes, because Canadians rely on us to
protect them and their children. They rely on the department of
immigration as well as on Canadian police forces at the
municipal, provincial, territorial and national levels. But first
and foremost, they rely on the government to pass legislation
that will protect their interests.
In its present form, the Immigration Act contains complex
provisions as well as loopholes which allow criminals to abuse
the system.
Every day, you meet people who were not born in Canada.
These persons overcame various difficulties to come here with
more or less money, and they adapted to our society. I am one of
them.
If you ask these persons what they think of criminals and
individuals who abuse the system you will see that, like the rest
of us, they are frustrated, shocked and resentful. They also fear
that all immigrants will be assimilated to these offenders.
Bill C-44 is an essential piece of legislation if we are to meet
the expectations of all Canadians. It brings solutions to specific
problems. We must send back those who are not deserving of our
institutions and who only want to take advantage of our
generosity, while hurting the reputation of honest immigrants
and genuine refugees.
[English]
Canada's immigration policy plays a key role in our country's
future. We believe strongly that Canada must conserve this
policy and the changes which we are proposing today will help
to alleviate the abuses in the system and the problems that exist.
[Translation]
The minister of immigration said, on August 24, at the annual
conference of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: ``I
will not tolerate those who take advantage of our generosity and
violate our laws. No Canadian should put up with such an insult.
A good immigration policy is one that ensures a balance
between equity and tolerance, on one hand, and law
enforcement, on the other hand.
(1220)
I do not want to have to go looking for these people; I want
them out of the country''.
Remember that Canada has an immigration program that is
the envy of the whole world. We cannot let a handful of
individuals discredit it and take advantage of us. We have a good
program, but it needs to be changed and fast.
The problems in this area are long-standing. It would be
pointless to search for their causes. We need to act now and to
take whatever action is necessary.
I would like to take a few moments to go over the four-point
strategy announced by the minister of Immigration last June.
First, we want to amend the Immigration Act in order to
reduce fraudulent claims and improve law enforcement
measures, which should help us stop criminals from cheating the
system.
Second, we want to make some changes to the management of
the immigration appeal division of the IRB and improve the
decision-making process.
Next, we need to exchange information with the Correctional
Service of Canada on parolees facing deportation, if necessary.
Finally, guidelines are being developed to ensure that
immigration officers are better prepared when they appear
before the Board to discuss the files of war criminals or people
who systematically use an assumed identity.
Let us review the proposed changes to the act. Right now, the
immigration appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee
Board can allow serious criminals to enter Canada and to stay in
our country for humanitarian reasons. The immigration appeal
division will lose that authority and only the minister will be
entitled to allow a permanent resident, someone for example
who has lived in Canada all his life, to stay in Canada for
humanitarian reasons or to deport him.
[English]
We need to prohibit people convicted of serious crimes,
crimes punishable by a sentence of 10 years or more, from
claiming refugee status. This should apply whether the crime
took place in Canada or anywhere else.
Dangerous criminals will no longer be able to seek refugee
status in their goal to postpone removal from this country. We
need to ensure that criminals are not allowed to ask for refugee
status.
We also need to regulate the problem of multiple applications.
Last year over 800 people presented more than one claim for
refugee status. Under the proposed legislation only the first
claim will be studied by the Immigration and Refugee Board.
6017
We need to stop the flow of illegal documents used in claims.
That is why we are proposing to give immigration officers the
power to seize identity documents from the international mail
that might be used by impostors for fraudulent or improper
purposes.
[Translation]
The minister instead of the cabinet will be authorized to make
the decision in all cases of rehabilitation of former offenders.
Once the Federal Court has determined that a security certificate
is justified or not, it will no longer be possible to file an appeal
with the immigration appeal division of the IRB. Let us take
these measures seriously. Would we not all agree that we need to
have all the necessary information before we grant these people
Canadian citizenship? That is exactly what another of these
changes will ensure.
The proposed provisions are reasonable and fair. Contrary to
what our colleagues opposite have said, these provisions are in
keeping with the Geneva Convention relating to the refugee
status where crime is concerned. This is a question of justice, a
question of democracy.
That is why our government is committed to maintaining an
immigration policy which would truly put a stop to illegal
immigration and ensure effective control of our borders.
(1225)
In order to do that, we must establish a close co-operation
between the various agencies involved in dealing with frauds
and crimes, for example immigration officers and members of
the RCMP and of the various police forces.
We need all the men and women of local, regional and
provincial police forces if we are to better enforce the law. Only
with their co-operation shall we improve our effectiveness in
getting rid of undesirable elements. We created a partnership
with the Correctional Service of Canada for that matter and
foreign offenders will not be allowed to remain in this country
once they have served their sentences.
[English]
In addition, the minister of immigration will be working
closely with the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice.
We are all partners when it comes to maintaining the security
and prosperity of our country and in preserving our quality of
life. These measures we are introducing will ensure the integrity
of Canada's immigration and refugee system.
[Translation]
I will say it again, not all immigrants are criminals.
Immigrants have been a part of the development of this country
since the beginning of our history. Today, in this changing
world, there is a constant movement of populations and the high
number of immigrant applications poses crucial problems.
I am sure you will be surprised to learn that our officers have
interviewed more than three million persons last year. Clearer
legislation would make their work much more efficient. We all
know that among the immigrants who come to Canada, some set
up small businesses and contribute to job creation. We would be
wrong to think they come here to steal our jobs. This is not my
own saying; it has been demonstrated by statistics. Immigration
is good for Canada and it must continue to be so.
[English]
Our intention in proposing this legislation is to eliminate the
small percentage of abusers in our system who profit from the
loopholes in our law. All immigrants should not have to be made
to pay for the few individuals who take advantage of our
country's generosity. Unfortunately this small group of
immigrants is drawing the attention of the media and of course
of the opposition which in turn sensationalizes these events and
causes Canadians to question the integrity of our programs.
My experience of 15 years in dealing with immigrants has
shown me that the large majority of immigrants want to live a
peaceful and productive life. Just look around this Chamber and
see how many hon. members are of ethnic origin. Many on this
side of the House are children of immigrants, including the
minister of immigration himself, who are now giving back to
this country what this country gave to them.
[Translation]
Bill C-44 that we are bringing in today fulfils our
requirements. It does not penalize those who wish to make an
honest living in our country, but it will prevent abuse of our
system. It will not have any impact on those individuals who, in
good faith, make application to the Immigration and Refugee
Board. As I said at the beginning of my speech, Canada is a
generous country. Help us maintain that image of generosity and
keep our reputation in the eyes of the world and help us prevent
abuse.
Therefore, I trust that you, as members of the opposition
parties, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, will support
us. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that you
will give your general support to this important bill.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, as I said
before, you can count on the Bloc Quebecois as far as the
6018
principles of the bill are concerned. Canada must protect itself
against immigrant criminals. There is a very real problem, but
this bill is not the appropriate way to deal with it. I think many of
your constituents will be astonished by this legislation.
(1230)
In St-Denis there are a lot of immigrants, a lot of Latin
Americans whom I know personally and who will be astonished
by your speech today, which does nothing to help the cause of
immigrants or refugees. You said that Canada is generous, but
its generosity is waning, unfortunately, like that of all
industrialized countries, and I was surprised the other day when
I heard the minister of immigration say that he would favour
European immigration.
There are a lot of people who do not come from Europe, and
they feel a little insulted and hurt by the minister's words. The
other day I said there were a lot of socio-economic problems,
which are often the reason why Canadians and a number of
immigrants commit crimes. There are enormous problems in
Canadian society as a result of a lingering economic recession,
unemployment and problems experienced by young people. I do
not think the bill provides a solution to these problems.
You say that the bill does not violate the provisions of the
Geneva Convention relating to refugees. I have here a document
that has just been released by the Canadian Council for
Refugees, and it says the exact opposite. The Council is a
respected organization in this country, and I would appreciate
your comments.
Mrs. Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, it is true that my riding
includes constituents who belong to various cultural
communities. These are the people who voted for me, and I want
to thank them again for doing so.
I have had the privilege of working with these people for
fifteen years. The hon. member for Bourassa knows that I have
been working with immigrants for 15 years. In fact, these very
same people agree that we must do something to deal with the
abuse in the system.
I will repeat what the minister said, which is that we are not
trying to penalize immigrants who have not committed serious
crimes. We are only trying to eliminate the abuse that exists in
the system and ensure that criminals are deported from this
country.
You said something I thought was very interesting. You said
that we favour European immigrants. I do not think the minister
of immigration ever said that this government only favours
European immigrants. It is not this government's policy, and it
should not be, as far as I am concerned.
I repeat what I said in my speech: We are a generous society
and we want to keep it that way. Genuine immigrants who are
not criminals are aware of this. Canada will continue to keep its
doors open.
[English]
What we want to do is close the loopholes in the law.
I find it rather unusual that we have one opposition party
saying we are going too far and the other one saying we are not
going far enough. This indicates to me that we are doing the
right thing somewhere along the line.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member says that the vast majority of immigrants are law
abiding and contribute to Canadian society. Of course that is
true. I am an immigrant myself and am making a contribution.
However when my wife and I immigrated to Canada in 1979 it
was a pretty tough process. We had to apply three times from
outside the country, even though we had money to buy a house
here and we had jobs to come to in Canada. On entry we had to
sign away our rights to UI and welfare for five years and we did
not think that was a hardship. We felt proud that we had earned
the right to come here. I do not personally see anything wrong
with setting high standards.
When the hon. member accuses us in the Reform Party of
sensationalizing some of the absolutely dreadful situations that
are occurring with the immigration system, it would not be
necessary if there were some sort of strict control like there was
at the time when I immigrated in 1979.
I would like the hon. member to address that and answer the
question as to what is wrong with establishing some reasonable
standards once again.
Mrs. Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are
trying to do. We are trying to establish reasonable measures in
which to make sure that the few-and I want to repeat that
constantly, because the image the opposition party gives to the
general public is that these few people are in fact vast numbers.
(1235 )
I do not want to say that all Reform members stand up and
speak about immigrants in a negative way. I really do not want
my words to be misinterpreted in that way. All I want to say is
that there are a few examples which are exaggerated by the
media and some opposition members. Unfortunately, because
members of the general public may not have the same
opportunity to be in contact with members of our cultural
communities across Canada, they may be left with that tainted
image of someone having abused our system.
The reason I support Bill C-44 is that we are trying to do away
with the loopholes and close the doors that lead to the abuse of
our system and to also get rid of those criminals who take
advantage of our system.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly share some of the comments the member just related.
However, the growing concern for many Canadians as they learn
more about our immigration policy is that certain matters should
be addressed.
There is the Immigration and Refugee Board which spends
over a billion dollars of taxpayers' money every year. We have a
system that does not adequately screen individuals who come
6019
into the country. There is the expedited process in the
Immigration and Refugee Board which allows people with very
questionable backgrounds to enter and a system of sponsorship
where immigrants are self-selected. I know that is being
tightened up now. However this is a system that has been in
place and certainly one that the people in this country question.
The integrity of the government's program has to be questioned.
I believe it has failed the test.
I would like the member to speak to those particular issues.
The taxpayers are here. The taxpayers are paying the shot and I
think they have a right to know. Would she not agree?
Mrs. Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House
are just as concerned as the hon. member about the costs of our
system. The minister has stated publicly that he is reviewing the
whole process. We are taking measures to make sure the public
purse is not being overly burdened by the system.
I would also like to say that no system is perfect. There will
always be people who will find a way to abuse the system, any
system. That is exactly why Bill C-44 is an important piece of
legislation. We are trying to do our utmost as a government to
plug those loopholes that do exist. However, no law is perfect
and there are always people who will get around the law.
However we are doing our best as a government to make sure
there are fewer ways of getting around the law.
As far as sponsorship is concerned, I think the hon. member
answered the question himself. The minister has tightened up
those rules and will continue to do so.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, this bill
has serious, serious problems. Reform Party members elevated
this issue of crime and immigration. We focused the public's
attention and anger. We forced the minister who began his term
as minister by stating there was no problem with crime and
immigrants to introduce these measures. It may seem a bit ironic
that after doing that, we are now opposing this bill.
I can assure this House and all Canadians that the Reform
Party does not oppose getting tough on newcomers to Canada
who break our laws. We do not oppose many of the specific
measures in this bill. What we do oppose is the minister's
attempt to sell this package of minor reforms as a package that
will significantly address the problems of undesirable
immigrants in Canada. We oppose the notion that this bill will
somehow fix any of the major problems that are plaguing
immigration to Canada.
We need to look no further than a few very recent high profile
instances of criminal immigrants to see what effect this
legislation would have. I will give away the surprise by telling
members that Bill C-44 would have done nothing to prevent
these tragedies.
(1240)
First is the much publicized case of Clinton Gayle who is
suspected of the murder of Constable Todd Baylis. Mr. Gayle
came to the country legally. Mr. Gayle had a removal order
issued against him. Mr. Gayle evaded that deportation order not
by running and not by tying up the system with appeals. Rather,
Mr. Gayle avoided removal because his file was lost. Mr. Gayle
avoided capture and removal because the system was
overworked, because priorities for removal were confused. It is
more likely than not, although we will never know, because
someone dropped the ball.
Bill C-44 does nothing to change the priorities of
immigration enforcement. It does nothing to ensure that the
system is less overworked than it is now. It does not address the
problem and this problem is just as fundamental and
troublesome as the actual issuance of removal orders, namely,
the capture and physical removal of those who are issued
removal orders.
The second case that has outraged Canadians and has
illustrated the deficiencies both in immigration and in the
priorities of this government was the very recent case of one Mr.
Forbes. He is currently being sought for the senseless shooting
of several people in Toronto over the weekend.
Tragically two of those people died at the hands of this
individual. Mr. Forbes who is also from Jamaica came to Canada
on a visitor's visa, as so many illegal entrants do. He overstayed
that visa and a deportation order was issued. Rather
surprisingly, he was removed from Canada.
I say surprisingly because the numbers of people who are
removed because of an overstay on a visa are very small indeed.
These cases while important tend not to receive a high priority
from an overworked immigration enforcement bureau.
One must keep in mind that this took place in the mid-1980s,
during a time when the number of immigrants to Canada was
roughly one-third of what it currently is. Those reasonable
numbers actually permitted the immigration department to do
its job.
Nonetheless Mr. Forbes returned to Canada. He was again
ordered deported and he again left the country. To no one's
surprise he came back again and the results of his return have
been tragic.
I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of all
Canadians to publicly offer my sincerest condolences to the
families of those two people who were struck down by this
madman and also to the other victims who were shot. I am sure
all members of this House join me in offering our sincerest
hopes for a speedy and full recovery.
Too often in the heat of political debate we forget about the
victims and concentrate only on the perpetrator. However there
6020
are victims here and they highlight the urgency that we must feel
as we look for solutions to the problem of violent non-citizens.
The Forbes case illustrates several things. First, it illustrates
the importance of enforcement in the immigration system. We
can issue removal orders until we are blue in the face. We can try
to stop the system from being abused. We can adopt a one strike
and you are out policy for those immigrants and visitors who
violate Canada's laws.
However what good does that do when we do not have any
officers to carry out those removals, and I can assure you we do
not. In the region of Toronto where a vast majority of deportable
criminals reside, there are a total of 30 investigation and
enforcement officers. That used to be 36. Before he decided to
get tough, the minister cut that number. He also cut overtime
staff in the Vancouver region. There simply is not the staff to
find deportables.
Currently there is a backlog of deportations that best
estimates put at around 40,000. Bill C-44 would do nothing at
all to ensure the speedy removal of those people. Bill C-44 will
probably just add to the backlog.
(1245)
Second, Bill C-44 shows the laxity with which visas and
immigration permits are granted.
It is my understanding Mr. Forbes came into the country for
the last time, sponsored by his wife, despite the fact that he had
been removed from the country twice before. I asked the
minister yesterday, and did not receive an answer, why would
someone who has been removed with a deportation order twice
for whatever reason be allowed back into the country. The
spokesperson for the department was reported as saying that Mr.
Forbes had been removed for reasons other than criminality in
the past.
Mr. Forbes had intentionally violated Canada's law by
overstaying a visa. He had intentionally violated and flouted
Canada's immigration laws. These violations do not carry a
sentence of more than 10 years. Thus, according to the terms of
Bill C-44 Mr. Forbes would not be found in violation of the act
to a degree that would warrant his permanent removal from
Canada. That simply does not make sense.
There are other very serious problems that the bill does not
address that undermine the very integrity of the immigration
policy in Canada.
Over the summer I released a document that came from the
department of immigration which outlined guidelines for fast
tracking through the refugee system various categories of
people who in the minds of some senior bureaucrats and refugee
advocates were self-evidently refugees. This included armed
insurgents, former and present guerrillas, former and present
members of such anti-democratic and even genocidal regimes
like the Mengistu regime and the former communist government
of Afghanistan, very choice members of Canadian society
indeed.
These people, I have to reiterate, are not only being allowed to
make refugee claims, they are being fast tracked after they admit
to participation in these regimes.
I know that these folks might face persecution in their home
countries and that is a good enough reason for some people in
Canada's immigration industry to invite them in. In the words of
one spokesperson for the Canadian Council for Refugees, it does
not matter if people are torturers or terrorists, if they face
persecution, they deserve refugee status in Canada. Those are
his words.
I am willing to wager that most of my fellow Canadians would
call that silly logic and certainly not agree with the idea that
these are the sorts of people who deserve to be at the top of our
list for refugee status, but currently they are.
Despite what some misinformed voices have said there are no
background checks for criminality, for war crimes or for crimes
against humanity done at the refugee hearing stage. Very
recently the Immigration and Refugee Board told its refugee
hearing officers that they were not even allowed to conduct
checks through Interpol or other such recognized sources. No
background checks can be performed on a refugee claimant until
after they have been accepted as refugees. Often that is when the
information comes forward, after they are in the system and
making an application for permanent residence.
Bill C-44 will allow a refugee hearing to be halted if a
criminal record is found but the bill does not give adequate
power to the refugee hearing officers to undertake a thorough
background check of all applicants for refugee status. It does not
override the orders of the Immigration and Refugee Board to
refrain from conducting background searches.
As with enforcement and as with the granting of permanent
residency, this bill proves itself to be on the right track. It even
displays good intentions but it does not have teeth.
If Bill C-44 is implemented I am willing to predict the
following. The effect will not have an increase in the amount of
deportations. It will not have an effect of clearing the system of
appeals and bogus refugee claims. It will not significantly
increase the onus on the refugees to prove that they have clean
histories before being allowed into Canada.
(1250 )
I know as a former police officer that laws are a good first step
but they only work when there are individuals who have the
means and the authority to carry them out, to make sure that they
are enforced. I have shown with only two examples of serious
6021
immigrant offenders that Bill C-44 would not have the effect of
getting rid of the people we most need to get rid of.
Further, I have shown that Bill C-44 does not address the
fundamental problem of an Immigration and Refugee Board that
is stacked with members of the immigration industry, political
appointees not working in the best interests of Canadians and
who, it would appear, have an agenda to accept as many refugees
without question as possible.
Bill C-44 does not do the job. If the minister had announced a
bill that tackled only one area of the Immigration Act, let us say
criminal refugees, and then revamped the working of the
Immigration and Refugee Board to add teeth to the act then it
would have my full support. The minister has taken a shotgun
approach and has hit in Bill C-44 a number of different areas of
immigration law, all of which are troublesome, but left huge
gaping holes in our system and has not backed up any of his
proposed changes with staff that have real power to make the
measures work.
I applaud the minister for listening to the people and to the
Reform Party. I only wish it had not taken so long. I truly wish it
had not taken tragedies to make him stop listening to those out
there who insist that there can never be problems in
immigration.
Further, I applaud the minister for taking the initiative to act
and to table legislation that at least takes a crack at toughening
up the system. I applaud him for stripping the power of the IAD
to overturn deportation orders on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds. I only wish he had not gone half way.
The minister knows how to toughen up the system. Starting with
cutting the numbers down to a level that our immigration
department can handle would be a good beginning, then
revamping the IRB, taking power away from the irresponsible
and unaccountable appointed members, giving refugee hearing
officers the ability to do full and thorough background checks
before refugee status is determined.
There are so many measures, not simple measures but obvious
ones, that could have gone into this bill if there had been the
political will to do so. There was not. I am not talking about
minor technicalities. The Reform Party would not oppose this
legislation if the problems were minor, but this bill has such
gaping holes it fails to address the most important issues that we
simply cannot give it support. We simply cannot allow the
Canadian people to be lulled into a false sense of security.
The minister's task force was a small step but he heralded it as
though the problems in enforcement had been solved. They have
not. The success or lack of success of the task force speaks
volumes to the insignificance of the measure.
With Bill C-44 the minister is trying to tell the Canadian
people that Canada is cracking down on those who violate our
laws and abuse our system. We are doing no such thing until we
address the real issues. We cannot support any immigration bill
that makes itself out to be the be all and end all of a strategy to
take care of the problems of criminal immigration.
I would urge all members of this House to send a clear
message to the minister. Vote against this bill, not because you
oppose specific measures in it, not because you oppose the broad
intent, but because you want real change in immigration law,
because you want to answer responsibly to your constituents
who have been demanding change, radical change, because you
want immigration to work once more, to be a boon to the country
and not a cause of grief.
I urge you to send a message to this minister that things really
need to change. This bill simply does not offer enough.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
have waited all morning in patient expectation to hear the
speech on this subject from the member from Calgary who is
well known for his knowledge on immigration matters, and I
have an almost subservient respect for his views on the subject.
(1255 )
I found myself disappointed in that his speech addressed
many examples of the failures of immigration and refugee
policy in the past. It never at any time-I think Hansard will
show this-offered a constructive criticism of any aspect of Bill
C-44.
I do appreciate that there have been abuses in the past. Indeed,
some of the horror stories he mentioned will be addressed in
other legislation and belong in other legislation. I was hoping to
hear specific criticism.
To help him in this regard, I would like to suggest that he give
us his views as a former police officer on the question of
identity, the use of false identity, false documents, as a
mechanism by which criminals get through the immigration
process, getting into this country.
Would he not agree that in Bill C-44 we are making a giant
step toward enforcement and for keeping out these
undesirables? Would he not agree as a former police officer that
this is an excellent step and this is an excellent bill?
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I would like to make a comment in reference to the
preamble that the member presented before his question. As far
as the bill is concerned and what the Reform Party is stating
here, it does not go far enough.
It still does not address the concerns that many Canadians
have when it comes to actual removals of individuals once a
deportation order has been issued. We have 40,000 individuals
right now under deportation orders. Why are they not being
removed? They are not being removed for problems within the
policy, the law. They are not being removed because there is an
6022
insufficient number of individuals assigned for removal to take
care of that specific problem.
The immigration department in so many areas is overworked
and understaffed in many respects. The question of finances
came up when reviewing staffing problems so that increased
staffing needs could be achieved to meet this demand.
There are not sufficient resources on the front end of
enforcement and too much for the administrative aspects of
immigration. There is increased cost to the taxpayers for having
to assign individuals to try to pick up the pieces afterward
through the courts as they prosecute individuals violating our
laws.
Those are the problems with the immigration department.
They go far beyond what this bill will ever offer or address.
When it comes to the point of documents, certainly I am not
arguing with the specifics that this will address part of the
problem. It does not address it all, as was pointed out by my
colleague. This deals only with those documents that may be in
the mail.
There is a major problem at the point of entry when it comes to
evaluating documents or to even questioning individuals who
enter at whatever the port of entry may be. No immigration
officer on the frontline questions those who pass through the
points of entry.
The immigration officers are pushed to the back of the offices.
When the customs officer addresses an individual who may
come into the country, he may refer him to the immigration
officer if there is reason to do so. You really have no frontline
protection there when it comes to immigration. That has to
change.
The borders are not secure. I can point to several other areas
as well. Specifically, to address the member's question on
documents, certainly C-44 is a start but it does not address the
whole problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member and I come from different backgrounds. You are a
former police officer, while I am a former refugee. We do not
share the same experiences, the same situations. You want to
have more stringent measures, while I find that the bill will not
solve the real problems. There are already three working groups
made up of the RCMP, the immigration officers and the local
police in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Do you think this is
enough?
(1300)
You also know that there are Canadian criminals abroad.
There are Canadians in prison in a number of countries. They too
need our protection and I have received several calls. Canadian
consulates are there to offer some protection to these Canadians,
who have usually been sentenced for drug trafficking. What are
you going to do? Are you going to ask these countries to deport
them to Canada?
[English]
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the member's second
question first.
As far as I am concerned if an individual enters another
country and violates its laws he should pay the price, and if he is
not a citizen of that country he should be expelled immediately. I
would venture to say that the majority of people agree with that
position, including the member across the way who asked the
question.
The problem is that in this country that does not happen. First,
it is lucky if they pay the price for the crime that they commit.
Second, who is going to remove them and why are they not being
removed? That is the problem and Bill C-44 does not address it.
Are there enough policing agencies or enforcement agencies
to deal with enforcement of the Immigration Act and the
Criminal Code? I would venture to say there are not. I am not
looking for Draconian measures. All we are doing is seeking the
best for the Canadian people to protect them in the best way we
can. There is an undesirable element slipping into the country.
There is no question about that. That undesirable element should
be removed. Bill C-44 does not go far enough to remove it.
My only suggestion is that the bill be voted down and that a
complete review be done of the immigration policy in the
country. The voice crying for a moratorium is getting louder. We
are not suggesting that but some people in society are. I suggest
we start to clean up what we have now before that voice gets
louder.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member a question and I would like to make a
comment.
Bill C-44 is a law that thinks about the victims in our society.
Despite what the hon. member said, we as a government are
concerned about the victims. That is why we want to introduce
the legislation.
I also want to bring to the member's attention that the minister
has said he will collaborate both with the Solicitor General and
the Minister of Justice to make sure that the law is enforced. If
the problem of enforcement is there the three will work together
to make sure there will be enforcement of the law.
I understood the hon. member to say that there were no
deportations last year, if I understood him. Perhaps I am wrong;
perhaps he could correct me. Does he have knowledge of how
many deportations were issued last year and how many
individuals were deported last year?
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her
question.
6023
There were 8,200 orders carried out; 1,200 of those orders
were criminals and a minimum of 3,000 orders were against
criminals who still remain in the country and cannot be located.
(1305)
The member spoke of the collaboration between the Minister
of Justice and the minister of immigration to deal with the
matter of removal. I agree that is what has to happen. Under the
terms of Bill C-44, however, removal will not occur at any
faster rate than it is right now.
The minister recognizes that in the fourth paragraph of page
5794 of his legislation. It will be a lengthy process and we will
be faced with the same problem that has been addressed by one
member of the official opposition.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired for questions and
comments. Actually the five hours of debate expired at 12.38 so
we are now into 10-minute speeches from all members and no
questions.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the subject of
Bill C-44 now before the House.
The bill marks advancement in the approach of the
government toward enforcing the Immigration Act. It marks an
advancement in our respect for people from around the world
who come to this country. It also marks progress in the way we
see Canada's role as a protector of individuals who are refugees
from oppression.
Canada has been and continues to be built on the efforts and
ingenuity of immigrants. They came, saw opportunity and
settled. New Canadians became second generation, third
generation or tenth generation Canadians. At some point in time
they stopped being new Canadians and simply became
Canadians.
The House has 295 members of Parliament. I submit 293 of
them are new Canadians. Some are newer than I am. Some are
older than I am. However new Canadians enjoy the prosperity
and happiness the country provides to all.
Today at every port of entry, at Canadian embassies and
consulates the world over, people ask to become the next group
of new Canadians. They hope to join the rest of Canadians on our
unique journey. They want to grow from who they are to whom
they could become, if given the opportunities that Canada
provides in abundance and that Canadians enjoy.
I believe that most people who have asked to become
Canadians want to share the same feeling of pride many of our
ancestors experienced when a judge, an immigration officer or a
postman delivered the news of their new citizenship. They want
to stand as Canadians and sing O Canada whether it is for the
first time or the thousandth time. They want to be one of us, to
contribute, to make a life, to create their future.
At this point I want to remind the House that every year April
17 to April 24 is Citizenship Week. This year for the first time
members of Parliament in the House and the Senate and their
staff gathered in the Hall of Honour to reaffirm their citizenship.
When O Canada was sung I was amazed and happy to see tears
in the eyes of many of the singers, including some members of
Parliament, who were born here. They really enjoyed the
atmosphere; there were tears in their eyes. That is the way
Canada wants to have it. That is the way Canada wants to keep it.
Being a Canadian means having an open mind and an open
heart. It means accepting each other's differences, celebrating
them and not condemning their differences. Being a Canadian
means sharing generously. Canada has much to offer those who
come here. Canada offers a potential for self-development that
exists in few other countries in the world. Tolerance, generosity
and potential bind Canadians together, attract newcomers to our
shores and brought our forebears to the country many centuries
ago.
The first step on the road to obtaining Canadian citizenship is
to become a landed immigrant or to be found to be a convention
refugee. If we do not protect our immigration and refugee
system from abuse we endanger the citizenship system, which
demeans the concept of Canadian citizenship.
(1310)
Bill C-44 is a manifestation of our government's
responsibility to protect new, old and potential Canadians from
hoodlums that would like Canadian citizenship under false
pretences. A Canadian passport is a very precious possession.
Inside the cover of every Canadian passport issued we can read
these words:
The Secretary of State for External Affairs Canada requires that in the name
of Her Majesty the Queen, all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer of
this pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance
as may be necessary.
And at the bottom of the facing page it reads: ``The bearer of
this passport is a Canadian citizen''. There are people for whom
these words mean nothing. The promise and protection they
offer means nothing to them. They seem to come to this country
to make deals, and they would abuse the system if they had the
chance to do so.
Fortunately these people are few and far between. The
overwhelming majority of newcomers to Canada see these
words as a source of protection, pride and hope. They see these
words as a chance to better themselves in a country that
welcomes new Canadians. They see these words as a promise of
freedom, both in Canada and abroad.
6024
However for a tiny group of people who do not share this
vision and who would abuse their status as immigrants the
country has laws. We want to prohibit any serious and dangerous
criminals from becoming fellow Canadians or from being able
to stay here. We want to give enforcement officers the power to
seize documents from international mail that might be used by
people who do not deserve to have citizenship here.
We want to change some of the responsibilities of the
Immigration and Refugee Board. We want to make sure that if
there must be exceptions to the rule it is the minister who shall
judge those exceptions and be accountable for them in the
House. We want to close the loopholes that have been exploited
by those who would pervert the process of becoming a Canadian
citizen.
The tools to accomplish these things are in Bill C-44. It is as
simple as that. By letting hoods and thugs into the country we
tarnish what it means to be Canadian. We must never let that
happen.
Canadians will not tolerate an abuse of our generosity. The
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said to Canada's chiefs
of police last month: ``No Canadian should have to accept such a
slap in the face''. Even a few abuses, and there are very few,
destroy the trust of Canadians in our immigration system. Abuse
erodes the acceptance of Canadians of a progressive
immigration policy.
I call on hon. members of the House to act as Canadians want
us to act, to apply the laws of Canada as Canadians want the laws
applied and to continue Canada's long tradition of a tolerant,
generous, progressive and enlightened immigration policy. I ask
that we move swiftly to protect the integrity of the Canadian
passport and give meaning to the words found inside.
To that end, I call on all members of the House to support Bill
C-44. We owe it to the people of Canada who have placed their
confidence in us as leaders and legislators. We owe it to our
neighbourhoods, our families and our friends.
The safer Canada of tomorrow is in our hands today.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk
this afternoon on Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration
Act. As members have heard, the member for Calgary Northeast
says that while the bill has made some small beginnings, it does
not go far enough to warrant our support and to vote in favour of
the bill.
(1315 )
The government seems to be sending out mixed messages. I
quote from page 5792 of Hansard dated September 19, 1994
when the minister was giving his speech on the introduction of
this bill:
The actions of a small group of people are causing Canadians to question the
very limits and the very merits of a system that has done much to build our nation
as we know it. In short, the deeds of a few have cast a shadow over the reputations
of many.
On the subsequent page it reads:
Abuse of the system by a few has been cause for alarm. While the numbers of
those causing the problem are small, the damage they have done is large.
We have read the reports, heard the stories, seen the pictures or maybe even
attended a funeral. A criminal minority has used the immigration system to its
own advantage. There has been slow enforcement and some of us have watched
with growing anger while a justice and immigration appeals system was used as a
stalling tactic to delay departure orders.
The minister says he is concerned about the criminal element
that has tainted and tarnished the reputation of our immigration
and refugee policy.
Earlier this morning the Reform Party presented a motion to
amend the bill that the minister introduced. We introduced a
motion to decline to give second reading to this bill and ``to
make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act because of
its failure to bar, prior to a refugee hearing and an application for
permanent residence, those who have been convicted of a crime
that would carry a sentence in Canada of 10 years or more and
those individuals who fall under the category of persons listed in
section 19(1) and (2) of the Immigration Act''.
That motion was defeated by the Liberal Party. The Bloc
Quebecois of course joined the Liberals and defeated any
attempt by the Reform Party to put some real teeth into the
minister's bill. That is why I say we have mixed messages
coming from the government where it talks tough. When the
Reform Party says that we want to really talk tough, the
government backs down and nothing really gets going.
The fundamental philosophy of the Canadian refugee policy
needs to be altered. The current philosophy seems to say that a
refugee is into this country unless we can prove at a later date
that he or she should not be in, at which point in time deportation
hearings begin.
That philosophy needs to be reversed to say that a person
cannot come into this country unless there are good reasons why
he or she should be allowed in. I know and I endorse a policy of
opening our doors to millions of refugees, the hundreds of
thousands of refugees who seek and have obtained a safe haven
in this country. Of the millions around the world there are few
who are brave enough, lucky enough or enterprising enough to
make it to our shores. However far too many times those who
were brave enough, lucky enough or enterprising enough were
actually the perpetrators of the prosecution.
The first thing we must be aware of when a refugee applies for
refugee status is that they need not necessarily be the helpless
and hapless victim of persecution. Refugees should not be
6025
allowed automatic entry into this country and move around
freely until three specific checks have been performed.
Number one, we should verify they are indeed helpless and
hapless innocent victims of persecution and not the perpetrators
of the persecution themselves. In the last couple of years all of
us have seen situations in the newspapers where we have
definitely found that refugee applicants are not refugees but the
cause of the refugee problem.
Two, we should also check that they are not criminals who
have a record of violent crime in the countries where they come
from.
(1320 )
Number three is that we have not barred them entry for failing
to meet the first two criteria or for abusing the privilege of being
in Canada and carrying out criminal activities. This is basically
saying that if we have deported once, why go through the hassle
of even thinking about it again. Let us call the situation as it is.
Only after they meet those three checks should we consider
that Canada would be available as a safe haven for them.
This bill has some positive features such as stripping the
Immigration and Refugee Board of its ability to overturn
deportation orders. It is long overdue. We have had appeal after
appeal after appeal, when it is absolutely obvious there is no way
we should even be considering the application. The minister
himself referred to the embarrassment of the appeal board
having to go to a Kingston prison to hold hearings with
convicted murderers to find out whether or not they should be
allowed entry.
The bureaucratic process grinds on spending money, when I
know and everybody else in this country knows that the answer
is to let us get them out and get them out now.
The bill also ensures that someone convicted of a crime in
Canada which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years or more
will automatically be subject to a deportation order that can only
be appealed to the minister. That is one of the better parts of the
bill, but as I say it does not go very far in our point of view.
One thing we are concerned about is that the bill does not
identify criminals before they are allowed into the country. No
criminal checks are performed on the claimant until his refugee
status has been determined. I had to scratch my head to
understand the logic here.
Ordinary Canadians are telling me that surely this is putting
the cart before the horse. Why would we allow a refugee in if we
are going to find out subsequent to granting him refugee status
that he is a serious criminal from wherever he came and does not
deserve refugee status? Then we have to turn around and get the
process in order to ship him back out, when we could have
stopped him long, long before. This seems to be an example of
the refugee and immigration industry cranking through the mill
just to keep the system going and keep them all employed.
We say the criminal checks should be front and centre of the
review process, not after the fact. When it comes to deportation,
it seems that this bill is a tiger without teeth. There is a major
difference between a deportation order and a deportation itself.
Last year 25,000 deportation orders resulted in only 8,200
deportations. So we have a law that is being laughed at, ignored
and ridiculed by people who we find undesirable in the first
place and who we want out of the country.
Canadians I have spoken to also want the assurance that once
an individual has been deported he will not be allowed into
Canada again. That seems a fairly simple and straightforward
thing. Once someone has been deported immigration officials
should be able to say no at the border, long before the individual
sets one foot on Canadian soil. If we have been through the
deportation order once, why would we even think about doing it
again? Millions of dollars are wasted as the whole industry
churns on to arrive at a decision that should be obvious and
already concluded. Once someone has been deported they are
out to stay out. Out should mean out.
I think I can congratulate the minister for his about turn. He is
halfway around the U-turn from his position this spring when
Parliament first sat. At that time he was quite satisfied in many
ways with the immigration department and the levels of
immigration in this country.
However this bill demonstrates he has been listening to
Reform members and this House and to Canadians across this
land and he has discovered there are many more Reformers in
Canada on the immigration policy than there are Liberals. It is,
however, unfortunate that he did not listen more closely and
complete the entire U-turn. If he had paid closer attention some
of the problems and the deficiencies that are still present in this
bill would have been cleared up.
(1325 )
It is also unfortunate the minister did not act more like the
ordinary Canadian. It makes perfect sense to everyone I have
spoken to, although I have to admit I have not spoken to the
minister, that we should ensure that individuals are not
criminals before we allow them into our country. Something that
simple seems to be beyond the minister's comprehension.
In conclusion this bill represents a small first step, but such a
small first step that we cannot support it. The minister should
listen more attentively to the wishes of Canadians and to Reform
members in this House.
While the bill deals with some of the issues, it does not tackle
the fundamental problem of criminals entering into Canada. It
does not resolve the process that allows refugees to be in limbo
6026
for years while they build a social case for staying in Canada that
has nothing to do with why they left in the first place.
If the minister wants my support he has to go all the way
around the U-turn and make a serious attempt at solving
Canada's definitely serious immigration problems.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-44, which is an amendment to clarify
and codify changes to the Immigration Act.
The people of Canada will not tolerate the abuse of our
generosity. Even a few abuses destroy the trust Canadians have
in our immigration policies of fairness and tolerance. It also
means that Canadians' acceptance of a progressive immigration
policy is compromised.
Bill C-44 will further the government's commitment to
control illegal immigration and control our borders. This bill
also provides further evidence that we take our commitments of
the trust of the Canadian people seriously.
There are four main areas where Bill C-44 will improve the
Immigration Act.
This bill will assist our frontline people to intervene in
situations where someone is using the system to his or her
advantage. As an example, a person who can have more than one
claim before the Immigration and Refugee Board means the
system becomes clogged with overlapping, repetitive, frivolous
claims. The IRB is spending too much time investigating the
already investigated and assessing the already assessed. Under
Bill C-44 the first claim will take precedence and all subsequent
claims will be terminated.
This bill will help to keep serious criminals out of the refugee
determination system. At any time in the refugee determination
process if senior immigration officials discover a serious
criminal offence either in Canada or abroad, they will be able to
suspend and terminate the process before the Immigration and
Refugee Board makes a final decision.
Claims for refugee status can be dismissed for a number of
reasons. The amendments in Bill C-44 will prohibit people
convicted of serious crimes from claiming refugee status.
Under the Geneva convention on refugees, criminality is a
valid basis for refusing a refugee claim. Bill C-44 will
encourage this, as well as provisions for the exclusion of war
criminals. As well the IAD will no longer have the power to
allow serious criminals to remain in Canada on humanitarian
and compassionate grounds. The minister will assume the
authority to decide humanitarian and compassionate exceptions.
Of course the IAD will still have the jurisdiction to grant stays of
removal for reasons of law or fact or a mix of law and fact as it
does now.
Finally, immigration officers will have the authority to seize
identity documents sent by international mail. There is a
disturbing trend toward the distribution of genuine counterfeit
visas, passports and identity documents as part of attempts to
bring illegal immigrants to Canada.
To that end customs officers will have the authority to
examine international packages for documents like passports,
visas, health cards and other documentation. The suspect
material will be referred to an immigration officer who will
determine if these documents might furnish evidence relevant to
attempts to get around the immigration policy.
(1330 )
There are other pertinent amendments contained in Bill C-44.
These specifics can be found in the relevant documents you have
before you, Mr. Speaker. However, the central theme of my
remarks is to endorse the spirit of the changes proposed in Bill
C-44. The people of Canada want to see laws applied with some
consistency and fairness. Where persons have broken the law or
have misinterpreted their claim as a refugee or are trying to
manipulate the system and the spirit of the Immigration Act we
want to have the ability to act in the best interest of Canada.
If that means throwing a person out then it means throwing
that person out. If it means convicting them of fraud with jail
time then it means a conviction for fraud and jail time. It also
means that we are going to enforce the laws reasonably, fairly
and equally. The system is going to be changed for the better
with this bill.
I call on all hon. members of this House to act as Canadians
want us to act, to apply the laws as Canadians want the laws
applied and to continue the tradition of fair, progressive and
enlightened immigration that Canadians have grown
accustomed to. To that end I call on all hon. members of this
House to support Bill C-44.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, I too am very
pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the
Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make
consequential amendments to the Customs Act.
Bill C-44 goes a long way to address the concerns of many
people. It provides the necessary tools and authority to maintain
the integrity of our immigration and refugee system. There are a
number of key points to the bill which merit highlighting. I
would like to highlight a few.
Immigration officials, for example, would be given expanded
powers to seize suspicious documents for inspection.
Enforcement officers would have the authority to prohibit the
shipment of documents which could be used to circumvent the
rules and regulations of the Canada Immigration Act. These
papers are the documents used to establish false identities to
enable persons to enter and travel to Canada illegally.
6027
Last year during a five-month period over 120 packages
containing one or more status or identity documents were found
in major Canadian cities each week. These packages had to be
returned to the mails because there was no authority to seize
them.
Under the provisions of Bill C-44 serious criminals will be
prevented from using the refugee process to delay their removal
from Canada. It should be noted that this is not a violation of
their human rights. The United Nations convention on the status
of refugees recognizes that some individuals are not deserving
of protection because they had committed serious criminal
offences.
This bill would also transfer from the immigration appeals
division to the minister of immigration the authority to disallow
permanent residents convicted of serious crimes to remain in the
country on humanitarian grounds.
As many hon. members in the House are aware the
immigration appeals division has recently been involved in a
number of controversial decisions that allowed certain people to
stay in Canada in spite of the crimes they previously committed.
This amendment will place this important and controversial
duty squarely in the hands of the minister, which I believe makes
the system more accountable to Parliament.
Nevertheless, the immigration appeals division will retain
jurisdiction to stay removal orders on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds for permanent residents convicted of
minor offences.
There are a number of serious other provisions in Bill C-44
that I believe will have a positive impact on our immigration and
refugee system. For example, a person who is found to have
made multiple claims will not be able to pursue a claim of their
choice once the series of claims has been discovered. Instead,
the first claim will now take precedence and the Immigration
and Refugee Board will be notified to terminate all subsequent
claims.
Senior immigration officers would also have authority to
make removal orders besides the powers they have now at ports
of entry and inland. In addition, all permanent residents who are
ordered removed will lose their permanent resident status.
(1335)
Abuse of Canada's immigration system and the existence of
criminal immigrants and refugees are real serious concerns to
many people in my constituency of Nepean. During the summer
months I held a forum in my riding to garner the views and ideas
of my constituents regarding Canada's immigration policy.
Throughout the evening a number of topics with a wide range
of opinions were examined. One of the underlying themes of the
discussion was a tremendous concern about newcomers who
undermine the integrity of our immigration and refugee system.
The people of Nepean recognize that crime in Canada is not a
result of any particular ethnocultural group of immigrants or
refugees. They do however clearly feel that we must take steps
to prevent criminals from entering Canada, expel those who
commit crimes while in the country and impose barriers to those
who have been able to cheat the system, attempting to enter
Canada under false pretences.
A copy of the full report on the thoughts of the participants at
the Nepean forum has been filed with the minister of
immigration.
I firmly believe that Bill C-44 will work to tighten up our
enforcement system and help to restore not only the faith of my
constituents but of all Canadians in the integrity of our
immigration and refugee system.
I am confident that hon. members in this House will see the
merits of Bill C-44 and join me in supporting this legislation.
We owe it to the people of Canada, both native born and
newcomers alike, to ensure that our country is a nation where
peace, prosperity and safety prevail.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the main motion. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the division bell having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I
have been asked by the government whip to defer the division
until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded
division on the question now before the House stands deferred
until daily adjournment on Monday, at which time the bells to
call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
6028
(1340)
[English]
Mr. Boudria: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you
would find unanimous consent, notwithstanding any order of
this House, to have the vote which you have now announced as
being deferred to Monday at 3 p.m. deferred to Tuesday at 3 p.m.
at the same time as the other vote previously announced earlier
this day.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from September 20 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
today I address this bill before us on sentencing reform. These
proposals fulfil a commitment made in the red book by the
Liberal Party.
The hon. members opposite should take note that we are
keeping our promise. The main goals of this bill are to ensure the
rehabilitation of offenders to become law-abiding citizens, to
separate offenders from society when necessary and to promote
a sense of responsibility in offenders by making restitution and
acknowledging harm done.
To achieve these principles the bill sets out a number of
fundamental principles to guide the courts. These principles are,
first, to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the
responsibility of the offender. Second, the courts must consider
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Third, similar
acts should receive similar sentences. Fourth, the principle of
sentencing totality is upheld. Fifth, the offender should not be
imprisoned if other options are appropriate. Sixth, all
reasonable alternatives should be considered. I mention this
especially because of the aboriginal offenders.
There are a few features of this legislation on which I would
like to focus. The use of alternatives for aboriginal offenders is a
very important principle of this bill. In my province of
Saskatchewan the aboriginal population is the fastest growing
segment of society today. It also represents a disproportionate
percentage of offenders incarcerated.
The courts in Saskatchewan have started to experiment with
sentencing circles. A sentencing circle brings together elders of
the community and also includes members of the non-native
community and professionals such as lawyers and police
officers.
The emphasis is not on retribution but rather on returning the
community to its sense of harmony as defined by the aboriginal
population.
Recently in Saskatoon an accused, a Saskatoon Metis, was
sentenced in this manner. The sentencing circle was convened
after this individual had robbed a gasoline station in my city.
The sentencing circle met and decided that this individual must
perform certain punishments to return its community harmony.
He was instructed to do voluntary work for the gas station he had
robbed, a certain number of hours of work or days, to volunteer
at the Metis society and to admit his guilt to the community.
Over and above this he was also sentenced to a penitentiary term
of imprisonment.
The gas station owner was hesitant at first but has publicly
said that he believes that justice has been served by the
sentencing circle. This is an important part of criminal justice,
the belief by members of the public at large that justice has been
served, has been fulfilled.
We must resist the urge to incarcerate everyone who commits
a crime. It costs more money to keep someone in jail for a year
than it does to send a student to school.
Another important function of the bill is to provide for
victims' impact statements at early parole hearings held under
section 745 of the Criminal Code.
Section 745 is the section that allows for review of the
mandatory life sentence without parole for 25 years to
determine whether the person should be paroled after 15 years.
(1345 )
I have strong feelings on this issue. Constable Brian King, a
constable in the RCMP, was killed in Saskatoon. Constable King
was a personal friend of mine. He was ruthlessly killed in the
line of duty in 1978. Last year the individual convicted of killing
him made an application for early parole under section 745.
Imagine for a moment the frustration and sense of
helplessness of his family as they were forced to sit in a
courtroom in Saskatoon and hear witness after witness give
evidence but were not allowed to say a word themselves to the
court. They were not allowed to bring the victim's voice to
confront the person who had done the wrong.
Death, thanks to the current provisions, has not only silenced
Brian King, but it has also silenced the memories of his family in
the courtrooms of the land. Is this justice?
Finally, I would like to say a few words in support of the
restitution provisions of the bill. When a criminal is sent to jail,
does the store owner he robbed feel better? Maybe he does. Does
the sentence imposed upon the criminal help the store owner
make ends meet at the end of the month? Restitution provides
the opportunity to make criminals pay for their crimes.
6029
The legislation makes allowances for restitution for people
who unwittingly buy stolen property. Currently if one buys
stolen property and it is confiscated by the police, one loses
what one has paid for it. Now restitution can be ordered by the
courts and innocent victims of crime will be compensated.
This bill shows that the Liberal government is committed to
showing criminals that crime does not pay.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the member's speech. I have one question that I would
like to ask. It is whether or not he would favour extending the
right of individual groups to sentence people in their own group
to groups beyond the aboriginals?
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, the contributions of the aboriginal
community in the area of sentencing and sentencing circles to
the rest of society can be very important. We should be looking
to many of the provisions that the aboriginal community has,
one of them being sentencing circles.
That method of sentencing may be far more beneficial than
many of the provisions that we presently incorporate into our
criminal justice system. My answer is yes.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, this past
week I attended a conference in Hamilton sponsored by
Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its
Termination otherwise known as CAVEAT.
There were 185 delegates present, Canadians from all across
Canada representing all walks of life including victims, police,
educators, law societies, politicians, members from the other
side of the House. Numerous others were present at this
conference.
At the conclusion of the conference many recommendations
will be forwarded to the government, recommendations that I
fully support-that must frighten some of them on the other side
of the House-and believe would create an atmosphere that
would make Canada a safe place for its citizens.
In comparison, I look at the various proposals put forward by
the government from the justice department, proposals like Bill
C-41, Bill C-42, Bill C-44, Bill C-45, Bill C-37. While they
are all small steps, and I emphasize small, in the right direction,
all of them are a far cry from what Canadians are calling for and
what these recommendations are going to represent.
(1350)
In my final analysis, I believe these proposals, including Bill
C-41, will not produce the means to reduce violent crimes in
this country to any significant degree. I listened to speeches
from members of the Liberal caucus who say these bills are
nothing more than a small step in the right direction. I am also
aware of petitions put forward in the House calling for serious
amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, amendments to
the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act, petitions I
might add with over two million signatures from all across
Canada.
The only result that all the proposals for change that this
government is producing will be an attempt to convince people
all across the country that another promise by the red ink book
has been fulfilled when in fact these proposals will do little or
nothing to improve the safety of Canadians regarding violent
crimes.
Now is the time and the opportunity for the government to
bring forward legislation that announces zero tolerance for all
acts of violence, and this is a far cry from that. What is wrong
with zero tolerance? Why do we want to continue to live in a
country where we have to be afraid for our children and
grandchildren? What is the point? Let us continue to work hard
in the area of prevention, but for heaven's sake draw the line in
the sand and let all violent offenders know immediately that
crossing that line will result in harsh meaningful punishment
that they would regret.
The Minister of Justice is anxious to introduce new gun laws
to make Canada safer. Why has one of these bills not been
legislation that deems the use of a weapon in any crime will
result in immediate incarceration to be served consecutively
with any other sentence to a crime? Is the justice minister saving
the gun issue to bring in legislation that will create a burden on
law-abiding people? That is exactly what it will do when you
start presenting legislation like I have seen. The criminal
element will look at this legislation, they will laugh, make a joke
and enjoy life.
What is wrong with legislation that says life means life and
repealing such sections as 745 of the Criminal Code? Remember
the victims. You seem to forget the word victims. Remember
that victims of all violent crimes are affected for life by these
crimes so why should punishment for the criminals be any less?
I agree with the Minister of Justice when he says that we need
to reduce the population in our prisons. There are better ways to
deal with some non-violent offenders. But to suggest that
violent offenders should be considered for release from a life
sentence in 15 years is totally ridiculous. I shudder to think that
Clifford Olson and his type may be on the street again some day.
That is why we have to ensure that sentencing guidelines are
clear and consistent with the feeling of Canadians as represented
by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The preamble to the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms states in section 15 that every
individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to
the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without
discrimination. Bill C-41, clause 718.2, subclause (1) states
that: ``When a court imposes a sentence it shall take into
consideration the following: That the evidence that the offence
was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race,
nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical
disability'' and
6030
now they want to include sexual orientation ``of the victim shall
be taken into consideration''.
I cannot understand what is the difference between murdering
a white man, a black man, a heterosexual or a homosexual.
Violence is violence. Why do we want to make it tougher
because they happen to believe something different than the
rest? There is no way in the world that inclusion of sexual
orientation, for example, in this legislation should make one
iota of difference as to how severely the criminal should be
treated.
I personally believe that this clause conflicts with section 15
of the charter. There is no reason to say that a sentence should be
tougher because of violence or hate. Violence is violence and
hate is hate. There should be no exclusion when it comes to
sentencing. The whole point of sentencing is protection of the
victim and punishment for criminals based on severity of the
crime.
(1355)
In summary I would like to say this. This country is alarmed,
people are alarmed. If we think that 2.5 million signatures to this
government can be ignored then we had better think again. I can
promise that from what I have seen from the recommendations
of those petitioners, that is exactly what this government has
done. It has ignored their recommendations. The government
better open its eyes, read them when they are received and
adhere to them or one day we will truly regret it.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
there has been reference made to the question of mandatory
sentences when the firearms are used in the commission of an
offence.
A close review of the provisions of the Criminal Code will
show that that is already the case. There is a mandatory jail
sentence for the use of a firearm in the commission of an
offence. The minimum sentence is one year. The problem that
arises is not one of legislation. It is enforcement of the code by
the provincial attorneys general.
Further, there was reference made to zero tolerance. Zero
tolerance of what? Police officers now lay charges when a
person commits an offence. I would like to know from the hon.
member what he means by zero tolerance in charging.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, apparently we are running into
the same problem we always run into with these people. When
your head is in the sand and your eyes and your ears are buried
you do not hear or see what is going on. When you get a petition
with 2.5 million names and you cannot hear the message, you
should get your head out of the sand.
I do not have to defend zero tolerance. Canadians will do that.
The Speaker: My colleagues, as you have seen, I have just
come into the Chair. I noticed that when the hon. member was
saying ``you'' that he was looking sort of in my direction. I
presume the remarks were for the Chair and I take them as such.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
6030
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, September 16 our government teamed up
with the province of Nova Scotia to announce Success Nova
Scotia 2000.
This five-year project under the strategic initiatives program
will assist 3,000 young Nova Scotians gain valuable work
experience in leading industries. The objective is to develop and
implement new opportunities by promoting internships as an
integral part of our learning culture. Success Nova Scotia 2000
is a reflection of our government's commitment to finding better
ways to help young people secure jobs in their chosen field.
I am confident that the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants
will seize upon the opportunity to make this program successful
for our youth.
By providing leading edge job opportunities for our young
people, we will enhance Nova Scotia's position as an economic
leader in the years to come.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in Montreal, the president of the Council for
Canadian Unity embarked upon the referendum campaign trail,
stating he entirely approved of the absence of any new federal
offers.
For the Council, unity is tied to the status quo. The renewal of
the Canadian federation is not longer an option.
After 30 years of lamentable failure, in this show of honesty
the Council is revealing its true colours.
The Council for Canadian Unity which-let us not forget-is
subsidized by Ottawa, confirms that Quebecers are to expect
nothing better from Ottawa than more duplication, more
overlapping and more squandering of their tax dollars. In other
words, more of the same.
6031
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice
should be aware that opposition to gun control is not just a
preoccupation of rural westerners.
In the past few weeks I have received more than 100 angry
letters from urban Ontario residents who do not share the
minister's jaundiced opinion of the competence and integrity of
Canadians, or the patronizing view that gun owners need to be
protected from themselves.
I have advised these people that I am one of the good guys and
that they should direct their anger where it belongs: at the
minister.
A few of these correspondents are probably part of that huge
crowd out on the lawn today. They are sending a clear message
against statism. I hope the minister is listening and perhaps
rethinking his elitist prejudices.
Tough gun controls have proven ineffective in many
jurisdictions including New York, Illinois and the United
Kingdom. Why must we continue down this-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Guelph-Wellington.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, individual Canadians manage their responsibilities
every day with enthusiasm and dedication and slowly make their
mark on the people around them.
One of these individuals is Terry Lynch, director of education
for the Wellington County Board of Education. Terry is bright,
amazingly energetic, and has much to offer in common sense
and determination. He has worked relentlessly to succeed in
order to ensure that the board is the finest in the province of
Ontario. I am proud to call Terry a friend.
As children across Wellington County return to school from
their summer vacation, they should thank educators like Terry
who work hard behind the scenes with endless energy to make
their education experience rewarding and first class in order to
prepare them to succeed in their future.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, fear
of violence and violence itself is a severe restriction to equality
for women. This sad reality of our society sees women and
children at risk of danger in many situations, including the most
fundamental action of walking safely after dark.
The federal government is committed to addressing the
widespread problem of violence against women by working in
partnership with local communities to find solutions. I send my
support to the London group, Women for Action, Accountability
and Against Violence Everywhere, and to all women as they
march to bring an end to violence in the Take Back the Night
rallies happening this week across the country.
I encourage Canadians to get out and support the right of
women to walk freely within our communities.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, this summer I was a
guest of the International Nickel Company of Canada. The tour
was arranged through the Parliamentary, Business and Labour
Trust. I visited the research centre in Mississauga and the mine,
smelter and refineries in Sudbury. I met with the CEO,
vice-president, managers, miners and union officials.
What impressed me most were two things: the commitment of
everyone in the corporation we met to compete internationally
by virtue of research, new technology, enlightened management
and downsizing; and, second, the corporation's ongoing
commitment to the betterment of the communities where it is
situated and to the preservation of the ecosystem by the
reduction of pollution.
Sudbury and the surrounding region is no longer a
moonscape. The air no longer smells of sulphur. Thanks to the
forward looking, sustainable environmental policies of Inco and
its co-operation with the local municipalities, the region is now
a green landscape again.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just shown once again his
lack of understanding and respect for Quebec. The appointment
of Mrs. Sharon Carstairs to the Senate reinforces the idea that
the government of Canada knows how to reward those who
publicly attack Quebec.
(1405)
Making no secret of her anti-Quebec feelings, Mrs. Carstairs
has worked relentlessly to sink the Meech Lake Accord. She
tried to put Quebec in its place, and for her trouble, she is
rewarded with a seat in the Senate. She who used to
enthusiastically support Senate reform now considers this
institution necessary because its members are better educated
than those of the House of Commons.
6032
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, please bear in mind that
sometimes an attack on colleagues from the other place can also
be an insult to the Senate as an institution. I trust this will be
taken into consideration in the future.
Some hon. members: Order.
The Speaker: Order. After Question Period.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, in failing to
balance its budget the Liberal government believes its dilemma
is the lack of revenue when clearly the real problem is out of
control spending. The same confused thinking has resulted in
the emphasis on more gun control rather than getting tough with
criminals.
The earlier decision to give in to the tobacco smugglers only
shifted the emphasis to guns and alcohol. Our borders are
leaking like a sieve when it comes to stopping the guns that are
coming in.
The Ontario Provincial Police found during Project Gun
Runner that 94 per cent of the guns on the black market were
smuggled from the United States.
No amount of gun control is going to solve this problem. We
need a government that is willing to start enforcing the laws that
are here now rather than adding new ones if we are ever to stop
violent crime.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
On Monday, the 1994 Country Music Awards for Canada were
handed out. Among those honoured that night was Susan
Aglukark, a young Inuk singer and songwriter from Arviat in my
constituency.
In 1990 Susan's video called ``Searching'' won the top
cinematography award from MuchMusic. Her first recording
entitled ``Dreams for You'' was followed in 1992 by the
critically acclaimed CD ``Arctic Rose''.
At Monday's awards ceremony, 27-year old Susan won the
Rising Star trophy.
Susan and her music are special. Susan sings in her native
language Inuktitut as well as in English. She sings about life, its
problems and its joys. While celebrating the Inuit language and
culture, Susan's music transcends cultural boundaries.
Congratulations, Susan. We are all proud of you.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to congratulate the parish of St.
Maximillian Kolbe in the city of Mississauga, a parish that my
family and I belong to, on the official opening of the Pope John
Paul II Polish Cultural Centre.
The centre was built by the parishioners using volunteer
engineers, designers and site supervisors. It was built entirely
with funds raised over the past eight years. It was completed for
just over $2 million and carries a very modest mortgage. Not one
dollar came from any level of government.
The centre will serve more than 8,000 families of Polish
descent and will throw its doors open for use by the whole
Mississauga community. This is an excellent example of
multiculturalism for the nineties: a self-sufficient ethnic group
reaching out to welcome members of the Polish Canadian
community while sharing its facilities with the surrounding
neighbourhood.
Again my sincere congratulations go to the founders: the
president Lottie Misek, Father Stanley Bak, Father Ted Novak
and to the 8,000 families that have worked so hard to see their
dream come true.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to Mrs.
Gabrielle Tourangeau and her children on the death of her
husband Marcel.
(1410)
Marcel was well known in Saint-Laurent for his many
activities as a volunteer and his tireless involvement,
particularly as the founder and chairman of the Montpellier
seniors group. Among other activities they could be seen
playing pétanque every day of the year, whatever the
weather-outdoors in the summer, indoors in the winter.
Marcel will be missed by all and especially by his family and
his many friends. We have lost a great Canadian.
* * *
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, on Tuesday, September 20, the hon. member for
Central Nova made hateful comments about the gay community,
associating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia. The
Liberal member shows partisanship and a serious lack of
judgment by objecting to the fact that an offence motivated by
hate, based on sexual orientation-
6033
[English]
The Speaker: Order, please. In the last few days we have been
bordering in some of our comments and some of the attacks on
getting perhaps a little more personal than the House is willing
to accept in the normal give and take of Parliament.
I would ask all hon. members to consider that whenever we
attack one another directly like this it is not always in the best
interest of the House. I would ask hon. members to look over the
statements they will be making so that they are not referring in
any way to what has transpired before.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Prime Minister left the impression that the Reform Party was
profiting from the national unity issue with a 1-900 phone call.
Let me set the record straight.
From September 26 to October 3 we will be conducting a
cross-country telephone referendum on Canada's future. The
phone company, not the Reform Party, charges $1 a minute for
each call. The Prime Minister appeared shocked at this.
``Unbelievable'' was his response.
What is unbelievable is the national debt. It is growing by
$88,410 a minute. We believe ordinary Canadians should have a
say. Canada's future is too important to be left in the hands of the
political elite.
I encourage English speaking Canadians to voice their
opinions by calling 1-900-451-4841 et, pour mes amis français,
1-900-451-4032. It is the best value on the Hill.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate Jo Wells, one my
constituents from Burlington, who this summer became the first
woman to run the full length of Canada.
Jo began her incredible journey in May leaving from St.
John's, Newfoundland, and arriving in Victoria, B.C., 111 days
later. Along the way, a long way-some 7,295 kilometres-Jo
was greeted, cheered and encouraged by many Canadians in all
regions and by many members of Parliament.
Her goal quite simply was to show that it could be done, that
anyone who sets goals for themselves however big or small can
accomplish them. Jo was especially running to raise awareness
about the abilities of women, to show that there are no limits to
what women can do.
We can all learn from Jo's extraordinary determination and
enthusiasm. Please join me in congratulating an amazing
woman, a terrific Canadian.
* * *
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to offer my support to the Minister of
Justice and his initiative to draft legislation on gun control. The
minister is striving to strike the right balance. He has told the
House that his bill will focus on three areas: stopping illegal
firearms, toughening the criminal justice system for firearms
offences, and improving the regulation of firearms with a goal to
enhancing community safety.
The minister has also assured the House that he is keenly
aware that hunting has a long tradition and is an important
economic activity in many parts of Canada. His proposals will
reflect not only the need for a safe society and a strong criminal
justice system but will also respect the legitimate interests of
hunters, farmers, and those who use firearms for subsistence.
(1415)
This is the kind of balanced approach to gun control that
Canadians need and deserve. I encourage the minister to stick to
his timetable and table new legislation in November.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, today on
Parliament Hill there are thousands of people protesting the
proposed gun laws that the government is considering.
While the government has been talking about legislation to
restrict guns, it has also been cutting back on the resources to
enforce the existing laws that we have.
For example, since 1992 the RCMP budget has been cut by
$33.4 million. This means a reduction in prevention services,
community services, enforcement services. I would urge the
government to restore adequate funding to the RCMP so that
crimes can be prevented and the laws we have enforced. It must
be part of any overall approach to making our streets safer.
The Speaker: Before we pass to Question Period, I know we
have just been back for three or four days. I wonder if we might
consider putting our questions a little more quickly, especially
in the supplementaries, and cutting down and making almost
non-existent the preamble. I would urge all hon. members who
are answering questions to perhaps come to the point a little
sooner so that we might get on more of our colleagues in the
question and answer period.
[Translation]
That said, we now move on to Oral Question Period with the
hon. Leader of the Opposition.
6034
6034
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the government promised to reimburse Quebec for the
expenses incurred in the referendum on the Charlottetown
Accord. On Tuesday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
said that his government was not bound by this commitment and
that Ottawa would therefore not reimburse Quebec. I remind you
that the commitment in question was entered into by one first
minister with another.
I put my question to the Prime Minister. What is the
commitment of a Prime Minister of Canada to the Premier of
Quebec worth if his successor can go back on it so shamelessly
and with such impunity?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
asked senior officials in the Privy Council to check whether
there had been commitments. I even discussed it at one point
with current and former senior officials and we could not find
any commitment made by the previous government in this
regard. Under the circumstances, it must have been understood
by the persons involved at the time that there was to be no
compensation.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, if requested, I will file a statement from the public
accounts of the Government of Quebec showing that the federal
government still owes $47 million for this item. Furthermore,
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest, a Liberal, who was Mr. Bourassa's
principal advisor at the time, said yesterday that Prime Minister
Mulroney had made such a commitment to Mr. Bourassa. I
would remind the Prime Minister that he is less scrupulous than
his Minister of Heritage, who on a mere rumour honoured a
commitment made by some unknown person to allow an
unacceptable transaction with Ginn Publishing to proceed.
Does the Prime Minister know that his refusal to reimburse
will force Quebecers to pay twice for the referendum? Does he
realize that the injustice is even more flagrant because the
Charlottetown referendum dealt with a question formulated and
presented by the federal authorities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
as I said, we will respect the commitments made by the
government. If someone can clearly establish that the
Government of Canada made a commitment, we will respect
that commitment. We were not there, we were not part of the
discussion and I asked senior officials to verify whether
commitments had been made between the two levels of
government.
(1420)
No trace of any commitment was found. Therefore I conclude
that we have no obligation and that the Government of Quebec at
the time knew very well that if it held a referendum under
provincial law, the expenses would be incurred under that same
law.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, in the Ginn Publishing case also, it was an anonymous
verbal commitment made under a previous government-we
never found out who had made it-and it was supposedly
honoured.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister seems to be making a
strange distinction between the Prime Minister, the head of the
federal government, and the government, as if the Prime
Minister did not have authority to commit his government when
he gives his word of honour to another first minister. There must
also be honour among first ministers.
Is the Prime Minister not ashamed to punish Quebecers in this
way for rejecting the Charlottetown Accord?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
am quite surprised that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is
asking me to keep a commitment made by someone else, when
last week, he asked the leader of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec
not to keep his word about holding a referendum within eight to
ten months.
If the Hon. Leader of the Opposition could just give us a
document showing that there was a commitment between the
Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada, we will
honour the government's commitments. However, I have been
unable to find any commitment of that kind. It is not mentioned
anywhere in the minutes of Cabinet or in any documents.
Gentlemen, give me proof that my predecessor and the
previous government made a commitment and we will gladly
pay.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, instead of
going on about the Quebec government's referendum, which is
none of his business, perhaps the Prime Minister should start by
paying his bills, and I am referring to what he owes Quebec.
On January 28, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said
in the House that he was looking into the request from the
Government of Quebec. On May 4, the minister stated that the
government had not yet reached a final decision. Yesterday, he
said in passing that the government would not pay, which has
been confirmed by the Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister trying to say that the federal
government's refusal to pay the $26 million was motivated by
the election of a sovereigntist government in Quebec, which
would
6035
confirm what was said by the Deputy Prime Minister on
Tuesday: ``That is the price of separation.''?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member claims that what the Province of Quebec does
is none of our business. What were he and his leader doing
during the provincial election, when they went on the hustings?
They are federal members, and federal members should stick to
federal business. But he went around the province and ended up
looking like a Don Quixote tilting at windmills.
We did not cross the line between our jurisdictions. However,
Canada's future is the Prime Minister's business.
(1425)
I am a citizen of Quebec, and Quebec's separation is my
business, and I will do everything that is necessary to keep this
country united.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime
Minister of Canada wants to know what we were doing in a
federal election, we were getting elected. He still does not
realize that.
Is the Prime Minister's attitude, which deliberately and for no
good reason is depriving Quebec of the $26 million to which it is
entitled, is that attitude supposed to reflect this new spirit of
co-operation with the new Government of Quebec? Will the
Prime Minister of Canada, from now on, take the position that
agreements do not count and he is the boss?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
am not going to say the same thing twice. If the Bloc Quebecois
can establish that there was a commitment, we will abide by that
commitment. I cannot make it clearer than that. However, we
have worked very hard to find any evidence of such a
commitment, and there is none.
At the time, the Premier could easily have asked the Prime
Minister to put it in writing, but we have found no indication
whatsoever that any commitments were made.
You said ``we were getting elected'', but I think it is now clear
you got elected under false pretences.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Oh, yes. Mr. Speaker, they
said: ``We are going to be the real power in Ottawa'', but they are
all in the opposition, and not for more than four years. There will
be no repeats.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to point out that while the Prime Minister and the
Bloc were arguing about the cost of this referendum and the bill
from Quebec, the total debt of the country just went up by a
million dollars.
The minister of immigration has been giving tough talk and
proposals to the House that purport to tighten up the loopholes
that allow criminal immigrants to remain in Canada. At the same
time his department has been giving the Immigration and
Refugee Board guidelines that specifically expedite the refugee
claims of such dubious characters as Algerian double agents,
members of the former Ethiopian dictatorship and guerrillas
from Latin America.
The minister gives the appearance of shutting the door to
undesirable immigrants on the one hand, while allowing the IRB
to open it right back up again.
How does the minister plan to resolve this glaring
contradiction in the implementation of immigration policy?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that there is no
contradiction. The editorials across the country, after your critic
spoke on that, talked about the fabrication of the words spoken
by your critic. Certainly that-
The Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. minister to please
direct his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Marchi: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I think that put the
matter to rest.
(1430 )
Pursuant to the Hathaway report, we have made it very clear
to our case presenting officers that they have a duty to
aggressively, regularly and consistently produce information to
those applicants that would suggest that they either have a
criminal background from the country they came or in Canada
itself. Second, I made it very clear that the refugee case
presenting officers have a duty to put forward the same
information.
The only question at the heart of those guidelines is that both
my officers and the independent officers to the refugee board
should not get involved in the adjudication of that case but they
very clearly have the obligation to provide that information. If
the information sticks then that will be carried out in the case of
the adjudication.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the fact is that the system does not work. When the minister
denigrates the critic from Calgary Northeast he should
remember that he is a 20-year veteran of the Calgary police
department who with his colleagues has spent years dealing with
the defects of the department's processes and the failures of its
processes.
His perspective on this issue is not an academic or an interest
group perspective, it is a street level perspective to which the
minister should pay more attention.
6036
The minister's department used to handle all dimensions of
immigration including the refugee dimension. Since the
quasi-judicial IRB was set up and populated by members of the
immigration industry the minister denies responsibility for the
defects of the-
Some hon. members: Order.
The Speaker: Order. I would ask with all respect that the hon.
member please put his question.
Mr. Manning: My question, Mr. Speaker, for the minister is
this. When is the minister of immigration going to assume full
responsibility for immigration policy?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that on this subject
matter this leader is out of his depth because he does not know
what he is talking about.
First, neither I nor my government have ever abdicated policy
for either the IRB or immigration policy. For you, sir, there is a
difference between-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask you, my colleagues, to please
address your remarks through the Chair.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Perhaps the
minister is out of depth on parliamentary procedure, Mr.
Speaker.
We are talking about depth, Mr. Speaker. The real reason, and
the minister knows this, for the difficulty in keeping illegal
immigrants and foreign criminals out of Canada is that the
Canadian courts ruled some time ago that the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms applies to anyone who is physically present in
Canada regardless of how they got here or their criminal defects.
Surely this is not what the Parliament of Canada nor the
legislatures intended. They did not intend that the charter would
undermine the ability of Canada to protect the integrity of its
own boundaries.
We can think of two ways to rectify this situation.
Some hon. members: Order.
The Speaker: This is quite a day. Welcome back to
Parliament. I wonder if the hon. member would please put his
question.
Mr. Manning: Does the minister have any proposal for
getting to the root of this problem?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, through you, the hon. member is as
convoluted as his party's policy on this. He moves from Charter
of Rights and Freedoms to the IRB to immigration policy. He is
changing his adjectives.
This minister has not abdicated policy for the IRB. What I
have said time in and time out is that this minister and this
government will not get involved in the day to day adjudication
of cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board regardless
of how many times its critics get up and give us the blood and the
guts and the gore of individual cases. We are responsible for the
general policy framework under which the IRB operates.
(1435)
Second, you want a tangible way as to how to get at the root
problem.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
Lobbies of gun owners and manufacturers have stepped up
their pressure on the government to go back on its election
promise regarding firearms. Just today, these lobbies are
holding a major demonstration on the Hill in order to sway the
minister.
Will the minister abide by the commitment made in the red
book and resist pressure from gun owners and manufacturers,
and undertake unequivocally not to water down his party's
promise to tighten up control of the circulation of handguns and
semi-automatic weapons?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, last May the Prime Minister
asked me to prepare proposals for the fall with a view to
strengthening firearms legislation, and I will do so.
I spent most of the summer consulting Canadians throughout
the country and I listened to what they had to say. We are
currently examining a full range of possibilities and I will be
tabling a bill in the House within a few months, probably in
November. Our primary goal at all times will be the safety of
Canadian citizens. We are, I believe, at the point where we must
decide what kind of country we want to live in.
[English]
We will have substantial changes in gun control for the safety
of Canada in the months ahead. Make no mistake about that. In
the preparation of that package we are taking into account the
legitimate interests of firearms owners. I spoke this afternoon to
the crowd gathered on the Hill and I emphasized-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Rock: -that in complying with the Prime Minister's
request of me I would assemble proposals that both take their
legitimate interests into account and serve the interests of all
Canadians who want a safe society.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, if the
Minister of Justice still recognizes the need to strengthen
controls on the circulation and possession of firearms, why does
he not tell us today, right now, how he intends to do so, instead of
6037
making us wait, diverting our attention and letting us think that
he is faltering?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the process in which I am
engaged has taken me across the country to speak to people
interested in this subject. I have consulted with my colleagues in
the Liberal caucus who come from every province and territory
of the country.
Rather than tell the House today what it is that is going to be
done, we are developing proposals through that consultation and
we are being respectful of the legitimate interests of firearms
owners.
I can tell the hon. member, as I emphasize on each occasion
when I am given the opportunity to do so, that our fundamental
objective is a safer society, that we are going to deal with illegal
firearms in this country, that we are going to toughen the
criminal law in its response to those who use firearms in the
commission of offences, and we are going to deal with the
regulation of firearms in the hands of lawful owners in a manner
consistent with safety in our society.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I can see clearly
from the last exchange that the law-abiding gun owners from
Quebec out here on the lawn do not have a representative here in
the Bloc.
(1440 )
The Speaker: This is a very far reaching Question Period we
are into. I know the hon. member is going to put his question
forthwith.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the justice
minister as well. In his 1993 report, the Auditor General
indicated the previous government's Bill C-17 was not
formulated upon a sound statistical basis and that the
government proceeded for reasons of public policy.
I ask the Minister of Justice this. Will his proposed
amendment to the gun control legislation be based upon
statistical information that clearly demonstrates whether or not
the current controls are meeting their objectives which is to
reduce the criminal use of firearms in society or are we again
proceeding simply for the purposes of public policy?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice
has indeed commissioned studies. It has received factual
research information about the situation with firearms in this
country.
We have read with interest some research information
released yesterday by the Toronto police about the incidence of
the use of handguns in the commission of crime in that city. We
read the report recently about the defects in the present
registration system for restricted firearms and the need to
improve the registration system.
We have read studies about the need for change in the criminal
law to send the message that if one uses a firearm in the
commission of an offence, one will get a stern response from the
justice system.
Our proposals will be based upon fact. They are going to be
based upon research. But they are going to be based more than
anything else upon the policy of this government which is to
take steps that ensure the safety of our society.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
minister for that response. I am sure that he will submit those
reports to the members of the standing committee on justice.
My supplemental is this. In describing Canada's current gun
control legislation, the courts of Canada have used the terms
such as vague, uncertain, invalid, inconsistent with the charter,
convoluted, fictitious and twice removed from reality.
I ask the minister this. Will he put aside any proposed
legislation and immediately undertake a complete re-evaluation
of the current legislation to ensure it is clear, consistent and of
direct effect upon the criminal element to provide the protection
needed by our society?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the exercise in
which we are now engaged.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
While Canadians are, with good reason, asking themselves
serious questions about the blood supply system, the minister
told the Canadian press that the reason Canadian standards are
not as stringent as those in effect in the U.S. is that Canadian
donors are volunteers.
How can the minister make such irresponsible comments
when the tainted blood scandal of the early 1980s occurred
under the volunteer donor system?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am always happy to clarify the hon member's question and to
inform all Canadians that our regulatory system is different. The
reason it is different is that it is based on a different philosophy,
on a volunteer donor system instead of a paid donor system.
(1445)
This does not mean that one system is better than the other. In
fact, we are working to harmonize the two systems so that blood
donor centres can meet the standards established. We will take
the best from each system. We will adjust our system according-
6038
ly. We will not lower our standards in order to meet those of the
U.S. system.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, this does
not make any sense any more.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Picard: In fact, I noticed that we are quite different. I
asked a new question and I heard the same thing again today for
the second time because I asked yesterday. I would like to get a
clear and precise answer.
How can the minister seriously claim that people are fully
informed of the risks of blood transfusions when we have
learned that the Montreal centre's director general had to
request operational and procedural directives in French, if you
please, which she is still waiting for?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
will answer very clearly.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Marleau: Our blood supply system is among the best in
the world. We are always looking for ways to improve it. Every
day, every hour, in every hospital in the country, we save lives
thanks to our blood supply system. We must continue to
encourage our volunteer donors to give blood.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, this
summer the results of a very revealing immigration poll were
released. Sixty per cent of Canadians believe immigration levels
should be lower. Sixty-nine per cent said sponsorship should be
limited to immediate dependent family. Ninety-six per cent did
not want people admitted with terrorist or anti-democratic
backgrounds.
Will the minister of immigration admit that his policies of
high numbers and extended family reunification and his recently
released guidelines that fast track those with violent and
anti-democratic backgrounds fly in the face of what an
overwhelming majority of Canadians want?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the member missed out one
number. Only 10 per cent support his party and the number is
dropping.
I was trying to tell the leader of the Reform Party that the
critic was as wrong on the information he spread about the fast
tracking procedures as he was yesterday when he talked about a
specific case. I reiterate to the hon. member that the things he
said about the fast track procedures are absolutely wrong.
Also I know, as my party in government and all members do,
that no Canadians would like to invite terrorists or criminals to
be within their midst. No one in this Chamber or across this
country would like that.
With Bill C-44 we have taken precisely the common sense
approach to try to fix up the removals and tighten up the refugee
system. My question is: Why is that party playing politics and
not supporting the legislation?
(1450 )
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's bureaucrats want numbers cut. They want family
reunification rationalized and refugee determination tightened.
The minister's department, the overwhelming majority of
Canadians and even a significant number of backbenchers in the
minister's own party want Reform policy implemented.
When will the minister stop standing alone, stop pandering to
special interests and do what everyone wants him to do:
implement Reform immigration policy?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, over the last eight months this
party has put in motion an unprecedented consultation process
with Canadians, the very grassroots, which is what the hon.
member suggests we did not do.
In fact the hon. member told our departmental officials at the
two-day conference how impressed he was with the breadth of
the consultation process. I challenge the member to deny that.
Not only are we putting in train, putting in the one room the
individuals who accentuate one particular line, but when was the
last time a minister of a government invited the Immigration
Association of Canada to participate so that government could
have the purview of Canadian public opinion?
Before November 1 this government will table those levels. I
know the levels will be in the best interests of Canada and not in
the best interests of the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
last June several provinces rejected the proposal to replace the
GST with an alternate tax put forward by the Liberal members of
the finance committee. Faced with this absolute refusal, within
24 hours, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had
disowned the report tabled by their own people, thereby
throwing people into total confusion with respect to their
intentions.
Will the Minister of Finance recognize that, in response to
this deadlock, he is now offering two choices to the provinces:
either replace the GST with an 11 per cent Canadian tax on
6039
goods and services, including food, health care and drugs, or
increase instead the income tax rate of individuals who are
already overburdened by taxation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, first of all, we did
approve the main finding of the finance committee regarding the
need to harmonize federal and provincial sales tax to better
serve consumers as well as small and medium-sized business
and indeed save a lot by reducing duplication and overlapping.
This being said, we had talks with the provinces and
discussions are ongoing. As a matter of fact, we intend to look at
what our officials have done over the summer at the next finance
ministers meeting.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance is telling us that he actually resolved the
matter with this proposal, but nothing was resolved. The
proposal was brushed aside as soon as it was tabled. So, it solved
nothing.
When will the minister recognize that the solution, the only
one, is to get rid of the whole sorry mess, eliminate overlapping
and respect the fiscal autonomy of the provinces, particularly
that of Quebec? This would involve abolishing the GST, yet
another commitment the Prime Minister failed to fulfil, and
transferring this entire field of taxation to the provinces. That is
the only solution and the Liberals have already reneged on their
promise to eliminate the GST.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is so
anxious to see the GST disappear, I certainly would expect him
to tell us at the same time where we are supposed to find the
money it used to generate. We have waited, week after week, for
the hon. critic opposite to come up with constructive
suggestions for us, but he has refused to make any.
(1455)
Canadian taxation is too important a matter to depend merely
on speeches made in this House. The hon. member had his
chance, but if he is prepared to sit down with us and make some
constructive suggestions, we are certainly willing to listen.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Justice. Today we hear strong voices
speaking out on gun control. In his statements the minister has
recognized there is a legitimate role for firearms in rural
communities. Can he also assure this House that he is prepared
to take the necessary measures to ensure the security of our inner
cities and urban communities where gun related violence is
becoming a serious problem?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I hope it is evident from my
responses earlier today that the approach we are taking will deal
with just the issue the hon. member has described. We will deal
with the presence of illegal firearms in the country in a
comprehensive and effective way. We will toughen the response
of the criminal justice system to those criminals who use
firearms in the commission of offences.
However I am not one of those who believes this issue is rural
or urban in its division. I believe, as I think many others do, that
those persons who live in rural areas are just as concerned as the
urban dwellers with their personal security and safety. The facts
establish that the per capita homicide rate from firearms over 10
years based on 5,000 deaths is higher in the rural areas of this
country than it is in the urban areas. So we must pay attention to
both the urban and the rural setting. Ultimately the bottom line
for this government is the safety of this society.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I have
been given a list of refugees allowed into this country by the
immigration department. According to the report one such
individual who is believed to reside in Toronto is reported to be
trafficking in munitions.
Has the Minister of Justice considered talking to the minister
of immigration about removing such individuals as a means of
real effective gun control, rather than concentrating on our
law-abiding citizens?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to take it up
with the minister. I am certain he is aware of it.
But I do not think we should conclude for a moment that the
question of gun control applies uniquely to people trading in
munitions or robbing the cornerstore with a handgun or hunters
who perhaps might be careless on occasion with a rifle. It
pertains to all of that and more and we are taking a
comprehensive look at the entire subject.
I do not suggest for a moment, nor have I ever, that the
question is narrow. I suggest it is broad. It involves illegal
firearms in the country and we should do something about that.
It involves criminals using firearms, and we must do more about
that. But we cannot forget either that 1,400 people per year lose
their lives in this country as a result of firearms, 1,100 by
suicides and one-third of those are in the age group of 15 to 22
who perhaps act impulsively on a single episode.
Let us look at the whole question. I will take up that matter
with my colleague in cabinet but I shall work away at proposals
that deal with the whole question.
6040
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I am
very disappointed. At this late date the Minister of Justice is
saying he will be happy to take it up with the minister of
immigration. He should have already taken it up.
There is another such individual according to immigration
intelligence or lack thereof. He is an international black
marketer in weapons. Does the minister of immigration
understand the link between criminal refugees marketing
weapons and crime and gun control, or is this just one big fog?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, indeed we do
understand the link very clearly. That is one of the reasons Bill
C-44 was brought in today.
Consequently because of the hon. member's concern with
matters like this, because of his concern about crime and justice
issues in this country, those that relate to immigration and those
that do not, I hope he will rethink the issue and support Bill C-44
on Tuesday.
The Speaker: It is three o'clock p.m. I would simply bring to
your attention that it was a rather unusual day. We did not get in
as many questions and answers as we might have. I am hopeful
that tomorrow we will be able to get more questions and answers
in.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this afternoon you asked me to refrain from
continuing a statement that I wanted to make about certain
comments made by my colleague, the hon. member from Nova
Scotia.
There are two points on which I would appreciate clarification
from the Chair. What I wanted to say faithfully reflected what
was said by the hon. member. I now wonder whether the Chair's
response to my statement was an indication that there are two
kinds of parliamentarians in this House, and why the Chair
tolerates such comments.
The Speaker: Order, please. My dear colleagues, as you
know, in the course of a debate, when we make speeches, we
may use some pretty strong language. I would like to read to the
hon. member what it says here in the Annotated Standing
Orders: ``What is acceptable depends largely on the
circumstances, but personal attacks, insults, obscene language
or words which question a Member's or a Senator's integrity,
honesty, or character are not in order. To reduce the possibility
of personal references, convention further requires Members to
refer to each other by title, position or constituency names.
Likewise, the Senate is usually ``the other place'', and Senators,
``Members of the other place'', although generally references to
Senate debates and Senators are discouraged altogether. A
further long-standing practice also protects the judiciary from
disrespectful or offensive attacks.''
That is why I interrupted his statement.
* * *
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, you made certain remarks following the statement by
my colleague from Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead during
statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
I would like to make sure I understand what you meant by
your remarks on my colleague's comments who was merely
quoting, and I will quote her myself, Senator Carstairs as stating
that the Senate was necessary because its members-
The Speaker: Again, I will give my colleague for whom I
have a great deal of respect the same reason. I reacted because I
thought the remarks were directed against the Senate as an
institution and the senator in particular. That was my rationale.
This is not open to debate. When the hon. member spoke, I
figured he was breaking that rule. I wanted to leave it at that. Is
there another point of order?
Mr. Duceppe: By quoting these remarks, my colleague
certainly offended no one, Mr. Speaker, while the senator who
made them did offend this House.
The Speaker: Honourable colleagues, perhaps I misheard. I
shall check what the hon. member said and, if need be, refer to
the Standing Order.
* * *
(1505)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to rise on a question of privilege on behalf of my 53 colleagues
from the Bloc Quebecois.
Based on the precedents you just mentioned, I am sure you
will understand that we have no choice but to demand an
apology for an unacceptable, in my opinion, and
unparliamentary accusation made by the Prime Minister during
Question Period, when he accused members from the Bloc
Quebecois of having been elected under false pretences.
It is not only the most serious insult than can be levelled at a
member of this House but also an attack on the democratic and
electoral process itself that allows us to sit here. Bloc members
were elected with a very clear mandate, a very well-defined goal
6041
within a very structured approach that was explained many
times to Quebec voters.
Under these circumstances, out of respect for all 53 Bloc
members, for the millions of Quebecers who voted for us and for
all those who share our vision of society, I ask the Prime
Minister to apologize and withdraw his comments.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I think that after reading Hansard, as you probably will
in a little while, you will find that the quote just brought to your
attention is only part of the sentence. You will clearly see, as
will the members opposite, and you will tell us tomorrow that, in
fact, the Prime Minister quoted a whole sentence and that taking
words out of context distorts the meaning of the whole sentence.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I will certainly go over what
was said today, I will look at what was said in context and, if
necessary, I will get back to the House.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I would hate
to deprive my colleague, the government House leader, of the
opportunity to tell us about the business of the House for the
coming weeks. So, as is the custom, I would ask him to tell us his
priorities for the coming days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
for a few moments I thought I would make parliamentary history
by asking myself to provide the weekly business statement to the
House. I thank my colleague, the opposition House leader, for
permitting me to stick with the longstanding tradition of the
House, that is to give the statement only after being asked for it
by the opposition House leader.
This is the weekly business statement. Today we will continue
with second reading of Bill C-41 regarding sentencing.
Tomorrow we will call the report stage and third reading stage of
Bill C-25 amending the Canada Petroleum Resources Act
regarding Norman Wells, followed by second reading of Bill
C-49 to reorganize the department of agriculture.
On Monday the order of business will be second reading of
two more of the departmental reorganization bills, C-46
respecting the Department of Industry, and C-48 respecting the
Department of Natural Resources.
On Tuesday the first business will be the second reading stage
of Bill C-50 regarding the Canadian Wheat Board followed by
the resumption of any debates begun but not yet completed of
the bills I have mentioned.
(1510 )
On Wednesday the House will commence with the
consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-22 with
regard to Pearson airport.
Finally, I wish to designate Thursday, September 29 as an
allotted day. I believe it is a day that will be in the hands of the
Official Opposition.
That completes my statement of business for the coming
week.
_____________________________________________
6041
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other
acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, we are considering Bill C-41, an act to amend the
Criminal Code with respect to sentencing.
While this bill has several good provisions, it also has some
that concern me. It is evident that it is difficult to properly
consider Criminal Code provisions with respect to sentencing
without also considering the substantive provisions of the code
or even to consider sentencing without relating that to the prison
system or the parole system.
In other words, if we are deciding on whether to change our
sentencing procedures and our sentencing policy, we have to ask
ourselves how these changes will impact on our prison
populations, on how they inter-relate to our parole system and
how they will affect our treatment programs in prison.
If the sentencing provisions, if they are provisions that will
lengthen sentences, will result in more people in prisons, then
there will be an impact on prison populations. If there is an
impact on increasing the prison populations, then it will also
relate to the level of programs that we have in prisons to treat
inmates, whether there are enough resources for those programs,
enough spaces, enough teachers, enough counsellors, enough
psychiatrists and so on.
My concern is if we adopt a policy of lengthening sentences
and at the same time become tougher on parole, make parole
more difficult to get-I refer members to some parts of Bill
C-45, which was before us yesterday-and if at the same time
we provide fewer resources for our correction and prison
systems as a result of our campaign to cut the deficit, then we are
going to have a situation in which we have more people going
into the prison system for longer periods of time where those
6042
people will stay in longer because parole is becoming more
difficult to obtain and at the same time fewer resources to
provide accommodation and programs for those inmates.
At the present time our prisons are extremely overcrowded.
During the summer I had the opportunity to visit prisons in the
Kingston area. There were prisons that were built to
accommodate 450 inmates which now have well over 650
inmates. There is double bunking and even triple bunking in
cells that are narrower than I can stretch my arms, and I am not a
big man. There are very small cells in which there now is double
bunking.
There have been reductions in the educational programs
available to inmates and a reduction in recreation programs
available to inmates. This goes back to the previous government
from which there were continual cuts over the last nine years. I
raise it now. We have come to government recently but I raise
this very important matter that must be considered when we are
considering sentencing and parole.
(1515 )
We have to ask ourselves what the result will be if we continue
on that policy line where inmates go in for longer periods of time
and do not have the same access to parole or who are not
prepared for parole, and there are no programs to occupy and
help those inmates when they are in prison because we are
overly concerned with the deficit and we are cutting here and
there and everywhere.
We can look to previous periods that had similar situations.
There were hostage taking incidents. There were riots and there
were higher rates of recidivism.
We must remember that the great majority of inmates who are
sent to prison are there on limited sentences. They are not there
on life sentences. They are there for armed robbery or assault or
fraud or theft and so on for which they get sentences of five
years, seven years, ten years. Sooner or later they have to be
released. If we are truly concerned with the safety of the public
surely we want them to be released in a situation, in a state
where they are of less danger to the public than when they went
in.
If we continue on this drift which is being suggested by some
quarters in our society and which is principally put forward by
the Reform Party in this House, I must ask whether we should
simply have longer and harsher sentences and tighter parole and
cut the moneys available for our prisons. What is the result with
respect to the protection of society when the great majority of
those inmates are released into society?
I suggest that this will leave us with a much more dangerous
situation for our citizens. Inmates will be released into society
without education, without training, without treatment, who
have been through an experience of tension, violence and so on.
We just have to look at the American experience where they
have adopted those kinds of policies. Look at some of the
southern states, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia where they
went ahead with such policies. They had longer and harder
sentences. It was more difficult to get parole and they cut back
on resources.
I read recently of a situation in which a judge in a particular
community had no prison space to send an inmate to because
there were no places available. The prison was so full and there
were so few people coming out, so many people had gone in, that
here was an inmate who was convicted but there was no place in
the prison for that individual. The lawmakers had not considered
when changing their provisions with sentencing and parole that
maybe they have to also provide resources.
We may have to build new prisons if we keep on lengthening
the sentences and cutting down on the parole. We may have to
build at a much greater expense than we would otherwise have to
to accommodate these individuals.
Where they have done this in the United States, where they
have pursued those policies, they have not protected the public.
The rates of violent crimes are much higher than they are here.
In those states that have brought back capital punishment, for
example Florida, they are executing people in the morning and
in the afternoon somebody is killing an innocent citizen simply
to get his car. There was a citizen from Montreal who flew to
Florida. He rented a car at the airport and was murdered simply
for the automobile when there had been an execution that very
same day. We hear the same thing with respect to other
individuals.
Let us think out our policies on these matters very clearly and
examine the interrelationship between sentencing, our
correctional system and our parole system.
This bill also deals with certain amendments to section 745 of
the Criminal Code. Section 745 is the article that I am in part
responsible for because it deals with the review of parole
eligibility for convicted murderers at 15 years. This bill would
allow for certain victim information to be provided at those
hearings which are meant to determine whether parole
eligibility should be reduced from 25 years to 15 years.
(1520 )
I certainly agree that we must have more programs to help
victims, that we must consider victims more in our criminal
justice system but I have some doubt if this is the right place to
provide for victims' statements.
I say that because section 745 says that upon receipt of an
application under this section the appropriate chief justice shall
designate a judge to empanel a jury to hear the application and
determine whether the applicant's number of years of
imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced
having regard to the character of the applicant, his
conduct-that is, the
6043
inmate's conduct while serving his sentence-the nature of the
offence and such other matters as the judge deems relevant.
I have to ask myself whether the information of the victim's
family-it will have to be the victim's family in this case, the
parents, the wife, the husband of the person who has been
murdered-put on the record would relate to the character of the
applicant because that is what the judge has to consider, the
character of the applicant, his conduct while serving his
sentence and the nature of the offence. I ask how the victim's
family might have something to say after 15 years about the
character or the conduct of the inmate applying for early parole
eligibility.
In any case, I presume that the victim information statements
would have to be relevant to the matter that is before the court
and not to matters that are irrelevant.
Let me explain the background of these provisions. Prior to
1976 those convicted of non-capital murder or whose sentences
were commuted from the death penalty who had committed
capital murder were eligible for parole at 10 years. I should
point out that we have had no executions in Canada since 1962.
Until 1976 when we had parole eligibility at 10 years there were
very few errors. I think at the time we introduced the bill in 1976
in the history of the country there had been four individuals who
had been released on parole and committed murder again. The
10-year parole eligibility experience had not been one which led
to disaster in this country.
When capital punishment was abolished in 1976 we provided
a life sentence for first and second degree murder with parole
eligibility at 10 years for second degree murder with the
possibility of the judge and jury increasing that up to 25 years at
the time of the trial or the judgment. For first degree murder it
was a 25 year parole eligibility period but with the opportunity
of applying at 15 years for a reduction of the parole eligibility
date from 25 to 15.
Some commentators and some members of this House have
referred to that 15-year provision as a loophole. It was not a
loophole. It was in the bill. It was debated in this House. It is
clearly in the legislation. It is expressly provided for. It is not
something that the government or the authorities have found and
dropped between the boards, so to speak. It is there positively. It
is a positive statement in the law that one can apply at 15 years to
have one's parole eligibility reduced from 25 years to 15 years.
If the court reduces your parole eligibility from 25 to 16 or 17
years you still have to go to the parole board and argue in favour
of your parole.
You cannot be paroled unless you prove to the parole board
that you are completely rehabilitated and no longer a danger to
society. This is not automatic before the parole board or before
the court on the 15-year review. As a matter of fact, most
applicants on the 15-year review have been turned down. Even
when people get before the parole board many of the cases are
rejected. They are not granted parole because they are not able
to establish that they are totally rehabilitated and no longer a
danger to society.
(1525 )
I have proposed that we do away with the 15-year review and
have parole eligibility at 15 years. Some people have
misrepresented that proposal and have said that I am proposing
that the sentence for murder be 15 years. That is totally false.
The sentence for murder is and was a life sentence and should
remain a life sentence.
One must also remember that when you are on a life sentence
even if you are on parole the sentence continues. You may be
serving the sentence outside the institution, outside of prison,
but you are still under that life sentence. If you break the
conditions of your parole-you do not even have to commit a
crime-you can be sent back to prison to continue serving the
life sentence. If you commit a minor offence of criminal
negligence, theft or whatever, you can be put back into prison
not only for the minor offence but also to continue serving your
life sentence for murder.
It is not a question of changing the sentence for murder. The
sentence for murder is life. I am not suggesting that it be
otherwise. What we are talking about is the eligibility for
parole, whether it should be 15 years or 25 years. We are not
suggesting that the sentence be changed. It is a question under
our system of whether you serve your sentence in a maximum
security institution, in a medium security institution, in a
minimum security institution or outside an institution altogether
but under supervision in the community, which is parole.
There are various ways of serving sentences but you are still
under sentence. For murder it is always a life sentence and
nobody has suggested changing the sentence.
I simply want to say I was pleased that the minister did not do
away with the 15-year review in the case of convicted
murderers. I have some concern about how the provision he has
put in the bill will apply and be relevant to the question to be
decided at 15 years. My preference would have been that we get
rid of the 15-year review and have parole eligibility at 15 years.
Not everybody would be granted parole. They would still have
to prove that they were no longer a danger to society and were
totally rehabilitated. Therefore, people who are dangerous
would not be released. They would still be kept in prison. It
would give an opportunity to those who have served 15 or 16
6044
years who were totally rehabilitated, who are ready to work and
support themselves and their families to go back into society
under supervision, serving their sentence in society, in the
community.
I want to say again that any policy on sentencing must have as
its principal goal the protection of the public. The purpose of
criminal law is to protect the public from that behaviour which
we categorize as criminal. That is the goal. If that is the goal of
course then once we have people within the prison system our
goal there has to be to rehabilitate or correct those individuals
because the overwhelming majority of them will be on limited
sentences and returned to society. If they are going to return to
society the goal of the system has to be to rehabilitate, to
correct.
We cannot expect the Criminal Code or the criminal justice
system or our sentencing policy to be the principal means of
preventing and reducing crime. Those policies can only relate to
individuals once the crime is committed, once the damage has
been done.
If we are really interested in reducing and preventing crime
then we have to direct our attention to the causes of those
crimes, whether they are social or economic, whether they are
psychological. We have to ask ourselves why these individuals
whether they are young people or adults are committing those
crimes, and what can we do to prevent them.
Maybe we can have better gun control. I fully support more
gun control and will support the minister when he brings in his
bill because the fewer guns available the fewer crimes we will
have with guns.
It could be that we have to do something about children who
are abandoned or mistreated, whose parents are alcoholics or
drug addicts who have abandoned their children and they grow
up in a system of complete neglect without belonging to any
family or group and who become very anti-social.
My point is those people who think that we can simply make
amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to sentencing or
the substance of a criminal offence will solve the problem and
give the public the impression that will bring about a safer
society are deluding society, are fooling society. They are not
being honest with society.
(1530)
We could amend every section of the Criminal Code. We
could make it as hard and tough as we wish. That would not
solve the problem. We have seen that, as I have said, in certain
states of the United States.
If we are truly serious about protecting the public from crime,
reducing crime or preventing crime, we must address the causes
of crime. It is not simply a question for the Department of
Justice or the Department of the Solicitor General. It is also for
health and welfare, human resources, employment and
immigration, provincial governments, school boards and
municipal governments. We all have to play our role in dealing
with society and the causes that give rise to crime.
I will bring my remarks to a close. As I said, the bill contains
some very good provisions, some better alternatives for
sentencing. It sets out a charter or a goal for sentencing policy.
However there are a few provisions in the bill with which I have
concern and I will be pleased, with the permanent committee on
justice, to examine the bill to see if it can be improved in
committee.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great
interest to the presentation just made by the member opposite. I
share some of his concerns with respect to the legislation and the
whole problem of how we solve the crime situation in the
country. We have heard recently that the crime rate in Canada is
now going down. If that is really true then we ought to be truly
grateful.
I have concern with respect to the whole idea of probation and
the elements of section 745. It seems to me that people who enter
the criminal justice system are those who already are
demonstrating they are not good in and of themselves or they
have failed. Somehow it seems we have to kick in an extra gear
of the administration of justice in this case so that they will learn
the harder lesson they have failed to learn before.
I would really be interested in a comment from the hon.
member. He indicated that he would like to see automatic parole
at 15 years instead of merely the eligibility to apply for it despite
the crime. It concerns me a great deal that there should
automatically be a right to say: ``My punishment is over even
though I have taken someone's life''. That is heinous and
serious. We ought to be strengthening it rather than weakening
it.
I would like to hear some further justification if he has it.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder whether we
all are speaking the same language even when we are speaking
English. I thought I said-and I have said it over and over
again-that I am opposed to automatic parole. There is no such
thing as automatic parole in the country. I never suggested at any
time in my entire life that anybody be paroled automatically.
What I was saying and what I continue to say is that I believe
at a certain date people should be eligible to go to the parole
board and present their case. They would have to show they were
totally rehabilitated and no longer a danger to society. If they
cannot demonstrate it then they are not paroled. The last thing I
would recommend would be releasing into society on parole
people automatically, simply because they had reached a date.
At the end of a sentence is a different thing which I will deal
with in a moment. I have never recommended automatic parole
for murderers and I will not. I assure the hon. member of that. He
may have read things like that, but I have never recommended
that.
6045
I have recommended the right to apply for parole at 15 years,
just as they have the right to parole at one-third of sentence. For
example, if they have a six-year sentence they can apply at two
years. It does not mean they are going to get it. The parole board
will hear their case but it may say no.
We hear of certain cases where people have gone before the
parole board six times and were turned down six times because
they were still bad actors. All the evidence that comes in on
them with respect to their case before the parole board is that
they are not ready for parole. I support that. I do not believe in
automatic parole. I want to put that to rest.
(1535)
The member raised a good point when he said that some
people have demonstrated by committing their crimes that they
are not good and need some time in prison. I agree with him.
Violent individuals who committed crimes of violence should
be kept in prison, but they should be given a system of treatment
or correction which, when they go back on the street, will mean
that they will be safer. They will be less likely to commit the
crimes that they went in for.
There are provisions. We find, for example, that the rate of
literacy in prison is very low. People have a very low rate of
literacy, very low education. They do not have trades. If we can
help them in prison to learn trades, learn how to work, learn to
live like ordinary people who get up in the morning, go to work,
save their money, and learn the skills of ordinary people who
live in society, we will be doing a great deal.
If we have a system of release whereby they are released with
support when they go back in the community, whereby they have
parole officers who will help them get jobs, get settled,
reintroduce them to their families and so on, we will have less
chance of crime when they return to society.
I believe in keeping people in prison, but when they are in
prison they must be given a program that will help them do
better when they get out.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, I know the
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has a great deal of
experience in this matter having served as Solicitor General of
the country.
He describes to us the American system which most of us
regard with a considerable amount of concern and is obviously
not providing a sensible solution by building more prisons and
having longer sentences. It seems to be an infernal industry in
the United States. They create the crime. They create the crime
chasers and then they create the incarceration. There is no end to
it.
The member gave a very cogent description of the problems in
Florida and the juxtaposition of a death penalty in the morning
and a murder in the afternoon. I understand his point about the
lack of deterrence.
We also have the problem of the Canadian public desperately
trying to understand what we can do. In our inner cities today we
are confronted with serious problems. In my own riding of
Rosedale I have serious problems in downtown Toronto. At a
time 15 years ago gunshots did not ricochet off downtown
buildings. Now there are women and children who are afraid to
walk around at night in parts of downtown Toronto. It is no good
to say we will seize all the guns. Admittedly that is a start but
only a start. There will always be guns there.
Has the member found another model? Does he know of
somewhere else? Is there some other model that he can draw to
our attention from the depth of his experience that we could be
looking at, something concrete to which we as Canadians can
turn to address the problem of the violence that is getting worse
in our inner cities and not react in the American way?
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Rosedale. As I said there is no quick fix for increasing
criminality. If we delude our citizens into believing there is a
quick fix we deserve condemnation.
If we suggest to them that we can solve the problems of crime
in the streets in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver simply by
amending provisions of the Criminal Code or by making the
sentence 20 years instead of 10 years which they have done in
certain American states, if we suggest that is a solution and five
months later there is even more crime, we are not serving our
public very well.
We must show leadership in the House on these issues. We
must deal with the causes of crime. We must make sure that we
have child protection acts that intervene at an early age when
children are being abused or when they start going wrong,
whether it is eight or nine. They have such an act in Quebec
called the Child Protection Act. I am sure they have one in
Ontario which deals with children under 12 who are lower than
the age for the Young Offenders Act.
Whether these are children going from foster home to foster
home, whether they are abandoned by their families, or whether
they are caught up in drugs or whatever, we have to intervene
quickly to try to prevent these things. We also have to make sure
that we have proper educational systems, employment policies
and so on that help turn people to productive ways of life and not
criminal ways of life. That is the model I suggest but it is not a
quick fix. It means we have to spend some money but it is money
that will show dividends. If we have safer communities in the
long run it is money that pays off.
6046
(1540)
There may have been some terrible crimes in Toronto in
recent years but I have looked at the statistics. Toronto had
somewhere between 50 and 60 murders last year. It is a city of
over three million people. If we compare it with Detroit,
Cleveland or New Orleans, those communities have over 500 or
600 murders per year. Toronto is a safe city compared to those
others.
I do not show any sort of toleration for the terrible murders
that took place in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or wherever,
but the rate of crime is much lower than it is in the United States,
maybe because we have traditionally taken an approach that was
not simply a criminal justice approach.
We have had broader social programs and better educational
programs. When we talk about the United States, criminal law is
a state matter unlike here where it is a national matter. Some
states in the United States have much better programs and
systems than others. I referred to the ones that were very
punitive and did not take a preventive or rehabilitative
approach. There are some states that do and do much better, by
the way.
If we look at states like Minnesota, some New England states
and some other states there are much lower rates of crime per
100,000 than some southern states with very tough, long
sentencing policies.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member from
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley and the other members of
our caucus will be on during the time allotted for 20 minutes.
It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to address
some remarks on Bill C-41 that deals with sentencing in our
criminal justice system. The Minister of Justice is to be
congratulated for bringing the bill forward at this time and for
his other attempts to deal with young offenders and with
restrictions on firearms.
While we may not always agree with the minister's proposals
on this side of the House, there is no question that he is giving us
food for thought. I cannot help but think that if the current
Minister of Finance was working this hard on behalf of the
Canadian people the deficit would be well under control.
In any event, we are here to address the various aspects of Bill
C-41. I would like in my remarks today to address some of the
positive aspects of the bill and then deal with some of the
deficiencies-at least deficiencies as I see them-that hopefully
can be cured when the bill is dealt with in committee.
As my colleagues have pointed out, one of the most
important, positive elements of the bill is that for the first time a
statute will contain a statement of the purpose and principles of
sentencing.
There is nothing new in this statement, but it does codify the
existing law and will provide explicit direction to judges in our
criminal courts on the principles that must be applied in each
individual case. While this is a positive aspect to Bill C-41,
there are a number of negatives that I hope will be addressed in
committee.
When I talk to my constituents about the criminal justice
system the comments I hear most often concern the lack of
predictability about sentencing. This lack of predictability can
range from comments on different lengths of sentences being
imposed for similar crimes, to comments that sometimes
express outrage at the short amount of time some criminals have
to spend in prison.
People feel that like crimes should be treated alike. That is, if
a white collar criminal steals through breach of trust he or she
should receive the same sentence as any other person convicted
of theft. I know that in some cases white collar criminals do
receive stiffer sentences than others, but because of the way our
system operates most of the sentence is served on the street and
not in prison.
White collar criminals should spend their sentences in prison.
This is the deterrent aspect of sentencing: accountability or
being held responsible for our actions. Our criminal justice
system must send a clear message to all who are contemplating
the commission of a crime that if you do the crime then you must
do the time. It is time spent in incarceration with no special
treatment.
The second issue raised by constituents deals with the length
of time served in incarceration. We are all aware of anecdotal
evidence of people being sentenced to long prison terms and
then in a very short time they are back on the street. Our system
seems to be full of opportunities for criminals to manipulate it
so they do not spend nearly as much time in jail as the judge or
those who are victims originally believed the convicted person
would spend in jail.
Bill C-41 addresses this issue to some extent by allowing
victims to make representations at early parole hearings.
(1545 )
Why should we put victims through this trauma? Indeed, why
should there be early parole hearings at all? When a person has
been sentenced to 10 years in prison, what is wrong with that
person serving at least seven or eight of that 10 years before
looking at parole or other means to put the person back on the
street?
This raises a question. Should offenders of violent crimes be
paroled at all? Should their sentences be reduced? Today more
than ever before we are made aware of the anger of all Canadians
when offenders of violent crimes are out on day passes or
paroled at a very early date or receive a reduced sentence and a
violent crime is the result. One death from the hands of a violent
6047
offender who should not be out on the streets of our country
before his or her sentence is up is one death too many.
The people of Canada want to see some measure of certainty
in the system and this bill does not provide it for them.
Another point that I take issue with is the aggravating factor
of hate in relation to the sentencing for some crimes. We in the
Reform Party believe that we are all created equal. No group
should have more rights than others. It makes no sense to me to
grade severity of punishment on the basis that the victim
belongs to a protected class. Can it be any worse to kill or wound
a person of a protected group than to kill or maim someone who
is not in a protected group? I do not think so. If a crime is
committed, the criminal should be punished and the public
should know that if you commit crime x then you get y years.
Maybe that is too simple for our seemingly complex society
today but it is the way we see things on this side of the House.
I heard Tuesday in this House that if a crime is perpetrated as a
result of hate against the individual, there should be a harsher
sentence, a stronger sentence. As I understand the example
given, it was a member of the gay community who was brutally
beaten causing death.
I ask the House to consider the senseless death of a 31-year
old Coquitlam man, I believe it was Mr. Niven, who outside a
convenience store was brutally kicked and beaten to death just
recently. Is there any difference in the savagery of such a crime?
Can we really state that one is worse than the other?
Does one deserve a harsher penalty than the other? Has not in
each case a man been brutally beaten to death? Is one life worth
less than another? I sincerely hope not. Is not all life precious
and of equal value? I sincerely hope so.
We are also concerned that this bill allows provinces to
establish alternative measures programs. Again, such a system
while in theory its goals may be laudable will create unevenness
in the system. Some crimes in some provinces will be treated
differently than similar crimes in other provinces. Again, there
is enough uncertainty in the system. Let us not introduce more
uncertainty.
One glaring omission from this bill is that when a crime is
committed and a firearm is used, a longer sentence should be
automatically required. The Minister of Justice talked about this
in relation to gun control. So have those who are lobbying for
stronger restrictions on the use of firearms.
At this point, I want to refer to the recent report released
August 25, 1994 by the Correctional Service of Canada. After it
had completed its investigation report into the escapes from
Ferndale Minimum Security, which happens to be in my riding,
two prisoners, Timothy Denis Cronin and Michael Kelly
Roberts, walked away from the institution May 3.
They were subsequently picked up in Salem, Oregon and
charged with the murder of an American, all within the short
time they had been free. Both men had been convicted of violent
offences, each having used a firearm in criminal offences for
which they were convicted. Why were these two inmates in a
minimum security institution?
One of Robert's psychologists in 1979 stressed that Roberts
should remain in a maximum security institution.
These are the findings of the investigation: ``The board
concluded that, notwithstanding the best judgments of staff and
the advice of psychologists and psychiatrists in the cases of
Roberts and Cronin, their placement in a minimum security
institution was inappropriate and in one case was based partly on
an assessment tool being incorrectly applied''.
I am pleased that the error was admitted to and
recommendations made to try to prevent such happenings in the
future. I quote statement number eight of the report: ``The
Correctional Service of Canada should adopt an approach which
incorporates both intensive supervision and clinical service for
new arrivals and higher risk cases in minimum security''.
This is the action plan: ``No offender who is generally of high
risk should be in minimum security''. I wish it had ended there.
It went on to say: ``However, it must be recognized that some
offenders who are suitable for minimum security require more
attention than others''.
(1550)
I find problems with that. Upon reviewing the percentage of
the types of crimes committed by the inmates of Ferndale I
found that 43.8 per cent of the inmates in Ferndale institution
are still there and they are violent offenders. I would presume as
murder or violent death formed over 29 per cent of these
offences that many of these crimes would involve a weapon,
more than likely a gun.
Who will be the next high risk offender to walk away from
Ferndale? When will we start to put the rights of law-abiding
citizens ahead of the rights of criminals? Again I stress that if
one more high risk inmate walks away from Ferndale minimum
security prison in Mission, as they can easily do, and another
death of an innocent victim is the result we are paying too high a
price.
This bill would have been the ideal place to put in a provision
which requires longer, harsher sentences for crimes committed
with a firearm. This is perhaps the only restriction on the use of
firearms which directly affects those who use firearms the most,
criminals. It is high time we addressed this part of the gun
control issue. I hope the government will make the bill stronger.
6048
In closing I believe it is time that we had a comprehensive bill
dealing with sentencing and, as I have said, this is a good start.
In the months to come I look forward to receiving other
initiatives from the Minister of Justice, perhaps in the areas of
appointment of judges and proposals to reduce the tremendously
high cost of our legal system. These will have to wait for another
day.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has indicated that people engaging in
white collar crime should do the time. Earlier today her
colleague from the constituency of Wild Rose indicated that
perhaps there are mechanisms other than incarceration to deal
with non-violent offenders.
How does the hon. member explain the inconsistency that has
been brought forward by her party on a single day?
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
for his question.
Yes, I did make that statement. I do think that all people who
commit crimes must pay for those crimes and must be
incarcerated. However if the occasion should arise, and I say if
the occasion should arise, that in our institutions we are
overcrowded then the logical thing would be to look for avenues
to relieve that overcrowding. Logically we would then find a
way for non-violent offenders to spend time in another way.
Within the community would be an excellent way to do it but
only if we find we do not have places in the prisons for them.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested in the
comments made by the hon. member. We are informed that there
are fewer resources now available for incarcerating people in
our prison system. We are aware that it costs approximately
$50,000 a year to keep a person in prison.
We are faced with overcrowded prisons. We are also talking
about the possible increase of 30 per cent over the next few years
of incarcerated people in our prisons. However we also know
that in the United States where they have reduced actually the
levels of liberté conditionnelle, as we say in French, that their
levels have not been very satisfactory, that is to say that even if
they are not allowing them to leave prison, the crime levels in
these states have not decreased.
I am also curious to find out why the Reform Party believes
that by not having gun control as we propose that crime levels
will actually fall. I find it very curious that we are more
concerned about sentencing when we should be concentrating on
trying to control the use of firearms in society. If we were able to
register firearms in this society we would have better control,
but now we are more concerned about sentencing people who
have already committed a crime. This is what I found illogical in
the arguments presented by the hon. member.
(1555)
I would like to know how they can reconcile the fact that we
do not have to control the use of firearms as proposed by the
minister, by this government, but we are better off trying to
spend more in terms of sentencing and throwing people into
prison when we could simply reduce the murder rate in this
country if we had a real serious and comprehensive bill and law
controlling the use of firearms. I would like to hear the
member's comments on that.
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
You mentioned two or three things. First, I was very
concerned every time you mentioned control of firearms. What
you are really saying is that we prevent law-abiding citizens-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would just like to
remind members on both sides of the House that when
intervening to direct your comments through the Chair.
Mrs. Jennings: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to
the hon. member opposite.
What I would like to stress is that I find this whole situation
very disturbing because I have respect for every member in this
House. I try to think that you say what you honestly mean and
you honestly believe, as I try. When I say that I mean we have in
Canada today responsible gun owners. Every time we put laws in
force on firearms we hit at them one more time. That is not
acceptable. We have to find another avenue. You can never
justify putting more laws in place that will withdraw rights from
law-abiding citizens. You cannot justify that in a just society.
As far as this business of overcrowded prisons goes, is the
answer because we have overcrowded prisons to open the doors
and release them? Did that not happen in Russia in 1917? Are
any of you aware of what happened in the small villages around
the steplands in Russia to all of the innocent people? Think
about it for a minute.
No, we do not open the doors. We do not let prisoners out. We
try to convince even the young people of today who because they
are under age can go ahead and commit any crime they want
because they cannot be held responsible. We do not start a new
slogan: ``Do the crime and spend less time''. Instead of that we
stick with what we have and we make it better. We show that
people have to be responsible. There is only one way and that is
to serve your time. If you are not guilty of a violent offence then
it is possible to look at other avenues of serving. I think we can
do that but we have to work together seriously on it.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could be as generous as my colleague in
commending the government for Bill C-41, but I find it is like
many other pieces of legislation. It is a mere camouflage. It is a
6049
life sentence tinkering instead of truly changing a system that
needs to be changed.
I feel that Bill C-41 will not make those substantive changes
that Canadians are expecting of this government. However, the
true value of Bill C-41 will be and must be measured by whether
it will provide safer streets for Canadians. I personally do not
think that it will.
I would like to concentrate most of my talk this afternoon on
one aspect of the proposed legislation and that is crimes that are
motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. I agree with everybody that
we need to condemn that type of crime, but we should not be
creating a hierarchy of victims in doing that.
Section 15(1) of the charter of rights states that every
individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to
equal protection. I feel that Bill C-41 is going to change this. It
will say that there are certain crimes against classes of victims
that are worse than the same crime against other classes of
victims. I would suggest that is against the fundamental
principles of the charter of rights and that is that every Canadian
has the same equal right to protection under the laws of Canada.
(1600 )
An example of how this could be applied happens more
regularly than I would like to see. That is the home invasions
which are occurring in the Vancouver area. Individuals, either
alone or in a group are breaking into homes and terrorizing the
occupants. They are not waiting until the homes are empty. They
are breaking in when people are at home and they terrorize the
homeowners and steal all the valuables. Many of these home
invasions are committed by Asian youth gangs and they are
targeting Asian members of the community. That is bias and it is
victim selection. That would be considered an aggravating
factor under Bill C-41.
In another instance there is gang activity. They
indiscriminately invade homes, again harassing the victims and
stealing all of their valuables. There is no aggravating factor yet
that crime is just as serious and just as damaging to the victims.
They are two equally deplorable crimes. But one gang would
get stiffer sentences because they were more selective in their
choice of crime.
Judge the act. Judge the criminal activity, not the motivation.
By judging the motivation we are delving into a risky
proposition and it smacks of Orwellian thought policing. We are
treading on very dangerous ground when we start to invade what
we think are people's thoughts.
I would like to know whether this is there for the profit of
lawyers and self-styled psychologists and psychiatrists who
will soon become legal experts on this subject. Why should
senseless assault be viewed as any less serious than one that is
biased, based on bias, prejudice or hate?
We would have fewer problems with considering crimes
where offenders abuse the position of trust with the victim to be
considered aggravated. The Minister of Justice used adults and
children, doctors and patients as examples. I would hope that he
would also consider lawyers who abuse their position of trust
with clients and politicians who abuse their position of trust
with the electorate as other examples of breach of trust that
should be considered aggravating circumstances.
Not only special mention of classes of victims but special
consideration of aboriginal offenders also concerns me. This
seems to offend the equality section of the charter. I am not
suggesting there is an over-representation of the native
population in our prisons, but I do not think this is the way to
deal with it.
I spent 15 years in northern Alberta living in a native
community. I have more experience than most on the
inequalities and injustices that our aboriginal people face. They
would be the first to agree that the problem is not solved in
legislation. The problem is solved in the administration of
justice.
I would like to give another example to consider. Suppose two
individuals with identical criminal records participate equally
in a crime, but one is aboriginal and the other is not. Does this
legislation mean that the aboriginal offender would be given a
lesser sentence even though he participated equally in
committing the crime? What about an aboriginal offender who
commits a hate crime? Does the mitigating factor of being
aboriginal cancel out the aggravating factor of it being a hate
crime?
We should not even be asking those questions. It is not for us
to question the motivation of a crime. We must judge it on the
act itself and make sure that every Canadian is treated equally
under the law, that the law is not looking at race, colour or
gender.
(1605 )
Generally I agree with incarceration being the last resort. I am
well aware of the potential overcrowding in our prisons and the
ongoing concern of what that will mean, but to suggest that we
only want violent criminals in our jails only addresses part of the
problem.
However, this bill does not in any way deal with white collar
crimes. In those cases financial penalties may not be enough in
themselves to deter fraudulent behaviour by corporations or
people who ought to know better. Those people can easily pay a
fine and need a more substantive deterrent than just paying some
money.
I had hoped for more in the sentencing package. I had hoped
for a greater recognition of the concern of Canadians that we
need to have more control over violent offenders, that we need to
6050
have some measure of deterrent, and that we need to consider
that all Canadians should be treated equally.
The prime purpose of sentencing should not only be to have a
penalty for the act but there should also be a deterrence factor.
We cannot omit the deterrence factor in our sentencing
legislation.
Sentences, like probation and prison terms are effective in the
short term but long term supervision is needed. When a person is
given a prison term of two years as the appropriate sentence for
the committed crime, they should serve two years and an
additional sentence of community supervision should be added
on to that.
One might say that is similar to what parole is now. However
there would be a greater acceptance and understanding by
Canadians if they knew the courts deemed the penalty for a
crime was x number of years and then deemed that the criminal
would be assisted in getting back into the community under a
period of supervision to be determined by the courts. If that
happened there would be much greater acceptance for some of
the sentencing that is handed down.
Serious violent offenders should have a lifetime of
supervision. People who have committed murder or vicious
assaults against another person should be under lifetime
supervision in addition to their sentence. If Canadians were
assured that long term supervision was being provided they
would be a little bit more willing to allow offenders back on to
their streets.
Although Bill C-41 is giving direction, it certainly does not
go far enough. I wish this government would have a little bit
more strength and a little bit more courage in making the tough
decisions that have to be made.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, I feel constrained to make a couple of comments on the
content of the last address. There are some fundamental errors in
terms of what information has been promulgated in that
argument.
First of all, it is very important when discussing parole and
the issue of when or whether someone might be paroled to
understand that parole is, in effect, a community based
continuation of the sentence. A person who commits first or
second degree murder is sentenced to prison for life. If he or she
subsequently is paroled, they continue serving their sentence in
the community under the supervision of parole officials.
It is misleading to suggest that a person who receives parole
after 15 years is suddenly absolved and walks away. There are
limitations on that individual's behaviour which are set out
under the terms of the parole. His or her life is supervised. They
can no longer simply live wherever they want or associate with
whomever they want. They have to report regularly.
That part of the system may have strained resources. There
may be other ways to strengthen or improve that system, but a
person who commits murder is punished for life by the
combination of incarceration and ongoing community
supervision. It is misleading to suggest there is any other
structure that somehow absolves that person at the conclusion of
their jail term.
(1610)
I would also like to point out that a false example was given of
the amendments which relate to crime which is affected as a
result of hate. In the example the hon. member gave of a home
invasion perpetrated against members of a particular ethnic
group, there would not be an automatic increase in penalty, nor
would the issue of the victim's race come into play unless the
prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the
satisfaction of the court that the crime itself was motivated by
the hatred of a member of that group. To invade the home of a
person of a particular ethnic group may not be motivated by
hate. It may just have been the most convenient place to hit on
that particular night.
It strikes me that the government is absolutely right in
recognizing that crimes motivated by specific hatreds of race, of
sexual orientation or any of the other specified classes is
particularly heinous in our society.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I am little concerned. I am
hearing the government suggest the same crime may be
considered more heinous simply because it has a bias or hate or
prejudice attached to it. I would like to think the crime itself is
heinous no matter what the motivation or no matter who the
victim is.
One thing I would like to address is there are people who have
killed. Perhaps they did not get murder one or murder two.
Perhaps they got manslaughter for the convenience of the courts
or whatever reason, but the point is there are people who have
killed and have been sentenced for five or six years. With
mandatory supervision or the legislated statutory release they
will be out on the streets after two years.
Canadians do not like to see that. They want some sort of
protection. Maybe this person made a mistake and did not mean
to do it but surely to god there should be some supervision to
make sure it is not going to happen again.
Canadians are concerned because there are people who do get
out and are on the streets without any supervision. May I
mention the name of Mr. Larry Fisher who is out wandering the
streets without any supervision because the law does not allow
that supervision. I would suggest that is what Canadians want
this piece of legislation to do: make sure the streets are safer by
protecting them from people like him.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-41 is yet another fulfilment of Liberal red book
promises. It is part of this government's safe home, safe streets
policy. This policy in connection with our plans and our actions
in the direction of job creation and our fundamental respect for
6051
human rights-I see the member to whom I was addressing my
remarks is leaving in any event-gives Canadians the comfort of
the quality-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Regrettably I was
not possibly paying as close attention as I normally would.
Certainly with regard to the presence or absence of members in
this Chamber, we well know the demands on our time for House
duty, committee duty and so on. Therefore, we should all be
mindful and respectful of one another in terms of our coming
and going, presence or absence in the House. I would ask all of
us to keep that in mind in our interventions.
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, these policies dovetail together
rather nicely to give Canadians the comfort of a better quality of
life.
(1615 )
Canadians trust our right hon. Prime Minister and our
government to deliver on our promises. That is evident by our
presence in the government and our strength in the government.
Indeed we published these promises in the red book and
Canadians can literally check them off as we deliver on them.
Our job creation programs can be seen across the country in
our infrastructure works which are completed and which are in
progress. As promised by the Prime Minister the country is
starting to feel better about itself. I might point out that nowhere
is this more evident than in Windsor, Ontario where
unemployment is down, welfare claims are down and crime is
down.
Jobs mean prosperity and prosperity reduces the stress in our
society. Sometimes as is the case today it is necessary to deliver
legislation which seeks to aid Canadians to feel safer and to
correct inadequacies in the system where they exist. This is the
reason for Bill C-41.
Canadians need reassurance. Canadians need comfort. I
would suggest that Canadians do not want this reassurance and
this comfort to be at the expense of human rights. The
government has consulted Canadians across the country and
found out that Canadians are concerned about certain aspects of
our criminal justice system. Canadians are not hysterical.
Canadians are not narrow minded. Canadians believe that there
are some injustices in our system. Canadians believe that
aboriginal people for instance receive inappropriate sentences
disproportionately.
Canadians believe that poor Canadians are sometimes treated
more harshly by the courts or by the system than Canadians of
financial substance. Canadians think that we should seek some
alternatives to custody in certain circumstances. We also know
that Canadians do not want all crimes to be treated the same way.
Canadians recognize that the quick fix is not possible.
They recognize that there is a difference between crimes and
they draw that distinction often based on the presence or absence
of violence in a criminal act. They know that there are often
compelling reasons to promote an offender's rehabilitation over
his or her punishment. At the same time they want consistency
in sentencing and a rationalization of the process.
This bill comes to grips with these expressions of public
opinion through amendments to the Criminal Code. First and
foremost, these amendments set out a general statement of
principles and purpose in the sentencing process which covers
rehabilitation, the segregation where necessary from society of
certain offenders. It covers restitution. It covers the actual
promotion in a convicted criminal of a sense of responsibility
for his or her acts and it denounces unlawful conduct while
deterring both the offender and others. At the same time it
recognizes certain fundamental principles that Canadians have
told us they are interested in upholding.
The sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence. The
sentence must reflect the degree of responsibility of the
offender. The sentence must take into consideration aggravating
or mitigating circumstances. The sentence must at least consider
alternatives, especially for aboriginal offenders. When a crime
is motivated by hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion,
sex, age, disability or sexual orientation Canadians want it to be
punished accordingly.
The Minister of Justice has considered all of these factors and
has presented a bill which respects the wishes of Canadians and
the rule of law. There is no quick fix. Our friends opposite would
like us to think that there is a quick fix, a year is a year and a day
is day. There are always circumstances that require flexibility.
There are always circumstances that require us to take off our
punishing hat and put on our rehabilitating hat.
(1620)
I would suggest to our friends opposite that as they consider
the fiscal bottom line they consider the difference between the
cost of rehabilitating someone over the long term to our society
versus keeping that person indefinitely incarcerated with no
programs and no opportunity to recover.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce spoke eloquently
this afternoon about attacking not only the results of criminal
activities but also the causes of criminal activities. We hear
nothing about that aspect from the benches opposite.
Members opposite make it all sound so easy. Just throw them
in a cell and throw away the key. This I would suggest is the
result of simplistic thought and, quite frankly, knee-jerk
reactions. The funny thing is it is not even what Canadians want.
6052
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, I would suggest, hit
the nail on the head when he said that crime is not just a justice
issue, it is a health issue, a human resources development issue
and it is a human rights issue.
In Canada, sadly, some groups do not enjoy the same
advantages as others because of social class, colour or a variety
of other reasons. Canada is a much better and freer country than
many others, most others for these people, but we have to
recognize that not all of our citizens have the same advantage.
Canadians have recognized this and Liberals have recognized
this. That is why we do not offer these amendments in a vacuum.
When we look at Bill C-41 we also have to look at the movement
that we are making to rationalize the national health care policy
and the extensive social safety net reform that will be introduced
shortly. This social safety net reform is intended to deliver
better social security in our country. The rest of the country can
then follow the example of the greater Windsor area, less
unemployment, lower welfare payments, fewer welfare cases
and a lower crime rate.
It is not as easy as our friends opposite make it. We cannot
jerk our knee and solve the problems with a simple saying or a
simple quote. We have to be versatile and we have to be flexible.
I would suggest to members opposite that is exactly what the
hon. Minister of Justice has done here and that it is consistent
with what Liberals do and it is consistent with what this
government has done and will continue to do in the future.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make
a clarification with respect to allegations made toward the
Reform Party's view of this.
I do not think that any of us have ever made the statement or
even intimated that it is a simple thing, you just throw them in
jail and throw the key away, as the hon. member stated. That is
not an accurate description of the feelings or convictions of
people in our party.
I challenge the member opposite to think about the real issues
that are involved here as we are trying to do. How do you solve
the problem of crime? One of the most fundamental areas in
which we have failed our young people, who then become older
and at whatever age become criminals, is that we are no longer
strongly teaching them by example and by word what is right
and what is wrong. I am finding that even in present law making
there is this intimation now that we are going to have laws that
will prevent parents from spanking their children.
I do not in any way condone violence against children but
children will learn to obey and respect authority if they are
taught in a loving way with firmness.
(1625 )
That is how I was taught and that is very important. That is
where we need to work in order to empty our jails. We need to
make sure we have strong, loving families. I would like to see
this government really emphasize that end of it. Perhaps the
member has some comments on what I have just said.
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, one way we can ensure Canadians
develop a strong, loving base in the home is to provide homes
that are safe and prosperous. One of the problems we have that
we see time and time again in our society is as there is less
prosperity, as the economic and other stresses are placed on a
family, when they cannot find food, when they do not have
sufficient warmth, when they do not have sufficient shelter,
when they do not have the basic, fundamental things that
families require in which to thrive, then other things develop.
Parents become busy working harder or trying to find ways to
bring food into the home, to raise money to support their
children. They have less time for their children. It is important
to accept that the issue here is not the result of crime or the
criminal act itself.
The issue is making that go away, making this a better society,
so we do not have to deal with it anymore. If we can do that by
reforming our social safety net, by creating jobs and by making
it a better country in which to live economically and socially, by
acknowledging for instance that some crimes are motivated by
hate and by trying to come to grips with those types of problems,
then we can make it a better society, a better country, stronger
families.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of whether I could get
up twice in these situations, so thank you for that lesson.
I am wondering if one of the pressures that we have control
over-when I say we I mean the Government of Canada-is in
the area of financial pressure. There are many parents who are
forced to work because of the huge tax load they face among
other things.
Perhaps what we need to do as a fundamental root, way down
deep solution to this problem is to manage our financial affairs
to reduce the tax burden so that in those families where those
stresses occur they could be reduced. Perhaps those who choose
could then remain home with their children to provide them with
a good, secure, solid, loving environment in which to grow up.
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I happen to agree with the hon.
member in terms of the basic premise that there should be lower
taxes. I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber who would
not like to be able to help lower taxes right away.
I also agree there are families now forced to have two incomes
in order to make the same sort of home that our parents perhaps
made with one income. There is no question about that. Let us
not cross that line. Let us not assume that all families have two
working parents because one of them is being forced to work.
6053
There are many families that exist today because two parents
want to work and have careers. That is a part of our changing
society. I see heads nodding. I see some agreement, which is
pleasant.
I must point out that without the social safety net we cannot
provide the atmosphere in which these parents can work. That is
why we need-this will be a little segue here-to have some
form of national child care standards so we can make sure that
families with two parents who want to seek careers can have the
type of support they need for their children. Then they will know
their children are secure and living in a healthy and safe
environment and they can continue to pursue their total goal as a
family unit.
(1630 )
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I stayed down long enough to give
everyone else an opportunity. I really want to challenge that
because it is undoubtedly true that if we do pursue this goal of
national child care, nothing is going to do more to drive taxes up
and put pressures on families higher. We are defeating ourselves
and I strenuously object to that.
Certainly in the other areas, there are some families-I am
thinking particularly of single mothers because we have so
many of them now in our society-who have no choice. We must
bend over backward to do what we can for them.
I do not, however, buy into the premise that the only way it can
be done is by the taxpayer being plucked by the government to
provide the service. There have to be many other ways to solve
those problems.
Coming back to the bill that we are discussing, I would like to
also say with respect to criminals that when they finish their
time, we need to recognize that we are not going to put
everybody in jail for life, no matter what they do.
I agree certainly that we must do something to get them ready
to integrate back into society. Here again I would have a very
good low cost solution to propose, particularly for people who
are guilty of non-violent crimes. I would propose that they be
placed into the keeping of good loving homes. It is a
requirement. It is their sentence. They would spend their time
there instead of in a jail so that they get a model of how life
ought to be lived.
With that, I am going to quit this time. I promise.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Do not make too many
promises now just for this time. Certainly I sense if this dialogue
and debate went on between the two members who have been
rising on the floor that we would find some points of
disagreement.
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am going to a dance
here. I thank the member opposite for allowing an opportunity to
engage in this dialogue even though it is in a very structured
environment.
I must say that I cannot think of very many acquaintances or
friends who would want to open their houses to persons such as
my friend is suggesting. However, it is not an idea that should be
dismissed.
These are the types of creative ideas that I suggest this bill
envisions. These amendments provide for great flexibility and
versatility in terms of sentencing arrangements.
In Windsor, which is where I am from as members know I am
sure by now, we have some very creative and excellent judges on
our provincial court and our general division benches. Some
have worked very hard to find alternative sentences within the
limits of the current legislation.
As a result, we have seen in our community many
community-based solutions that have been promulgated by
those judges and by some programs and social workers whom
we have in our community. The result is that we have had an
opportunity in our community to look very closely at alternative
sentencing structures.
This has been an eye opener for me as a criminal lawyer, both
as prosecutor and as defence counsel. These have been very
productive types of programs. I would suggest that my friend
opposite has an idea that is worth exploring.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, in a
document published in May 1993 from Ottawa the Prime
Minister, in an election mood at the time, said: ``Safe streets and
homes should be a basic right of every Canadian''. As he noted
Canada's 40 per cent increase in violent crime he said: ``Since
1984, the Conservative government has done almost nothing to
combat the growing crime rate except half measures and lots of
macho talk''.
The Prime Minister has served Canada in this House for over
20 years. Perhaps some of the influence of the Conservatives in
proposing half measures has rubbed off on the Prime Minister
and his cabinet.
Bill C-41 in its intent and as far as it goes has many things that
are supportable. I submit, however, that with this as with other
legislation currently before the House, the Liberals are
consistent. They are moving. I believe that is because the
Reform Party members are listening to their constituents and are
saying things on the floor of the House of Commons that
typically have never been said here before. Through the pressure
of the voice of Canadians being brought to this Chamber by the
Reform Party the government is moving but, I submit, in half
measures.
(1635 )
Let us reflect also on what my leader, the member for Calgary
Southwest, was saying in 1992. While speaking in Belleville,
Ontario on the issue of reforming the criminal justice system he
proposed the two following things:
6054
Number one: Reformers believe that a better balance should
be struck between the amounts of public money spent on the
apprehension, care and protection of the perpetrators of crime
and the amount of public resource spent on helping the victims
of crime. Combined federal and provincial spending on jails
alone is about $2 billion a year. Police spending is $1.7 billion
for the federal government alone. The court costs another
several hundred million dollars each year, whereas the resources
committed to helping or compensating the victims of crime are
minimal.
The second thing he said was that sentencing and parole
procedures should be reformed. He said: ``We have proposed
that automatic parole be eliminated altogether; that 25 per cent
time off for good behaviour be the maximum amount by which a
sentence can be reduced; and that sentencing guidelines for
judges and juries be improved to ensure greater certainty and
consistency in sentencing''.
These proposals are in line with the recommendations made
by the Canadian Sentencing Commission in 1987 but largely
ignored by the federal government.
I believe that in 1993 when my leader made those comments
that they were reflecting the values and judgment of Canadians
just as they reflect those same values today in a more
substantive way than is evident in the bill currently being
considered by the House, which I have judged to be a half
measure.
On the first issue raised by my leader that there must be a
better balance struck between the money spent on criminals and
their victims, I would like to present a couple of ideas. First, I
think quite frankly that there is a problem in our wonderful free
and democratic society with our news gathering systems and
media. They have to set their own agenda and perhaps have to
sell their newspapers or their advertising time on television.
Unfortunately, we have articles, for example from the Ottawa
Sun on March 12, 1994, a two-page article outlining
communications telling of a complex person expecting to
emerge from jail as though her past and her crimes will be
erased. It published a whole series of Karla Homolka's letters.
In those letters there appeared, for example: ``That card fits
perfectly with my Mickey Mouse posters. Hey, I'm getting
Sesame Street towels and sheets on Friday. My room is going to
be the most juvenile in the whole institution but, hey, I like it
that way.'' Another letter: ``I'm growing bangs, or at least I am
trying to''.
This kind of sensationalism by the news media in my
judgment does a major disservice to this whole issue. I believe
that the fundamental tenets of our society are based on freedom
of speech and access to information. But I challenge the news
media in the way that it takes that information, distorts it, twists
it, sensationalizes it and sells more issues of its newspapers by
so doing. I do not think that is excusable.
However, there are responsible articles. I refer in the context
of this speech to one from the Toronto Star dated June 26, 1994. I
read in part:
Rick Sauve, serving a life term for murder, is the first lifer in Canada to earn a
university degree behind bars.
Friedman, one of the people who was an instructor to him and
who used to teach classes inside prison, said:
The greatest reward is when I talk to someone who has gotten an assignment
back and they have got a 65 per cent and they are pleased as punch and say `wow, I
can compete with those guys'. It literally brings tears to your eyes.
Claire Culhane of the prisoner rights group in Vancouver
believes strongly that the public should support prisoners'
attempts to get post secondary education. Our policy now is to
warehouse them. If you are doing 10 or 20 years, are you
supposed to sit there and vegetate? If they do not want tension in
prisons they have to provide something for everyone.
(1640 )
The second part of the article is that in May Sauve was granted
the right to apply for parole. A hearing will be held later this
year.
There are two fundamental problems here. I do not want to
comment on the issue of this prisoner receiving the ability to be
able to have the resources to get his university degree but I
suggest that it is hard to imagine that the family of Rick Sauve's
murder victim earned a university degree at government
expense as a result of the loss of their loved one. What has the
government been doing in terms of looking after them in the
same way that the offender is currently being looked after?
I am not discussing the issue of whether Rick Sauve should
have worked for his university degree. The issue I am raising in
this case, as in others like it, is how much time, money and
government resource is put at the disposal of victims versus the
money and resources put at the disposal of the perpetrators.
The second issue is what my colleague from Fraser Valley
West said on Tuesday. He made it very emphatic. Life is life, or
at least it should be. Yet we see from this article that Rick Sauve
was granted the right to apply for parole. We see a measure in
this legislation that victims will be allowed to make
representation at section 745 hearings.
While this is an improvement I believe that section 745
should be repealed in its entirety. The judge at the presiding jury
or judge trial should have the ability to be able to set the
sentence. The sentence should not be overridden at some future
6055
point in time by people who were not party to the case in the first
place.
This brings me to the second issue which my leader raised.
Surely there must be some ultimate protection for law-abiding
members of society.
In a paper produced by the MacKenzie Institute entitled
``Streets of Fear, the Failure of the Criminal Justice System'' the
author, Brode, cited some very interesting examples of the
problems with sentencing procedures in Canada.
Two Nova Scotia cases recently underline the inadequate
judicial response to attacks on women. In Regina v. Swinamer a
man forced his estranged wife into a truck and threatened to kill
her. She escaped. Charged with unlawful confinement he was
released on condition that he have no contact with his wife.
Again he captured her. He drove her to a secluded area and raped
her.
At his sentencing the court considered the offender's
situation, that he had already spent five months in custody and
had a good work record. His sentence, three months'
imprisonment and 19 months' probation.
In Regina v. Desmond the husband had severely beaten his
wife, thrown her out of the house. She suffered a fractured
shoulder and pneumothorax of the lung.
Again it was the offender's situation that mattered for the trial
judge considered that it was his first offence of this type and that
he could lose his job if in prison. His sentence, 90 days to be
served on weekends and two years' probation. This man except
by the grace of God would have murdered his wife and he gets 90
days' sentence and two years on probation.
In my home town of Cranbrook this past weekend there was a
march of citizens concerned about family violence. They were
looking for changes in the criminal justice system and to see that
inadequate sentencing for sexual assault is carried over into
sentences for spousal abuse.
At an Ottawa conference on women's safety a couple of years
ago Chief Brian Ford said that a first offence for assault on a
wife usually results in a suspended sentence. Those for drunk
driving are stiffer. Inexcusable.
What the government today is missing is the understanding
that the late Judge Les Bewley observed, and I quote: ``The
control or reduction of crime depends on three essential
elements: the certainty of detection of the offender; the
speediness of the trial; and the certainty of punishment''. He
goes on to say: ``These were all observed and taken for granted
30 or 40 years ago''. Not any more.
(1645 )
I would like to introduce for consideration of members today
the concept of retribution because the Liberal concentration has
totally smothered this concept.
Take for example events which occurred in 1989 and 1990 in
Perth, Ontario. Kenneth McLean, the convicted killer of Ruth
Moore, had originally been convicted of second degree murder
and sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for
13 years. McLean had told friends: ``If I cannot have her,
nobody else can''. He strangled her and then stabbed Ruth 24
times.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new trial because of
technical errors in the judge's rulings. At his retrial McLean
pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter and thereby
became eligible for parole in another 18 months or released on
mandatory supervision in three years. In effect, he would serve
six and a half years for Ruth Moore's death.
The victim's family was outraged and violence almost
erupted in the courtroom when the new sentence was imposed.
The presiding judge, Dan Chilcott, sympathized with the family.
He told them he understood their feelings of outrage but then he
added: ``Retribution plays no part in our system as far as I am
concerned''.
About retribution the Mackenzie Institute says: ``Retribution
is the root of society's motivation to punish those who seriously
breach our standards of accepted conduct. Retribution is not
revenge, for revenge is arbitrary and self-seeking. Retribution
is a measured response to a past offence imposed after due
process and it is proportional to the gravity of the offence. It
does not gratify individual loss. It enforces the legal order and
reflects society's abhorrence to violence. To grant lenient
sentences is to say that violent acts are acceptable and are not to
be truly punished''.
Again, there was a recent incident in my hometown of
Cranbrook. An individual had been sitting with his
ex-girlfriend. She decided to have a bath. Following an
argument he went in and shoved her face down in the water. She
smothered to death. I grant you he confessed to the crime, but
after both the crown prosecutor and the defence asked for a
five-year sentence for this murder, the judge in his wisdom said:
``Oh, no that is not good enough. We are going to give seven
years''. What is this? What is a life worth?
When we have lost the concept of retribution, of making the
penalty fit the crime, we have lost an essential element of our
judicial system. All judges should understand they are on the
bench to administer retribution. Courts do not exist to
sympathize with the criminal, but to adequately punish for a
wrongdoing.
The greatest deterrent to crime is not necessarily the severity
of punishment, rather it is the certainty of punishment. The
prevailing system of parole and automatic remission of sentence
has made punishment uncertain and in many cases unlikely. The
6056
danger lurking in the criminal's mind that he will pay the
prescribed penalty for his act simply is not there. He knows the
parole system will spare him even in so-called life
imprisonment. The criminal justice system therefore becomes a
deception. It leads the public into believing that criminals are
being punished and it shields the criminal from paying the
penalty.
I wish to introduce the major reason I will vote against this
bill and in conclusion I want to briefly address the declaration of
this bill, that where crimes are motivated by hate this is deemed
to be an aggravating factor. The minute this House strays from
the fundamental principle that all Canadians are equal
regardless of race, language, creed, colour, gender or religion,
we open up the entire Pandora's box of inequality.
(1650 )
Let me give an example which was reported in B.C. Report
magazine on September 12 of this year. George Mammolitti, the
32-year old NDP MPP from Toronto who spoke out forcefully
against Ontario's same sex benefits law before it was defeated in
June has been the target of harassment, abuse and threats.
The magazine reported that after the defeat of the bill Mr.
Mammolitti received about 300 abusive and threatening phone
calls often in the middle of the night. Many of the callers uttered
racist epithets and told Mr. Mammolitti to go back to Italy. He
was also sent a handwritten note containing a threat to kill him
in front of his children. Police determined the note had been
mailed near the legislature but were unable to determine who
had sent it.
Mr. Mammolitti has call display telephones in his office. As a
result, Craig Smith, assistant to the associate culture minister,
Shirley Coppen, was found to be responsible for at least some of
the abusive calls Mr. Mammolitti had received. When Mr. Smith
was approached he admitted to making the calls. He was
suspended with pay for three days and no criminal charges were
laid.
The hate provision strides into very dangerous territory. It pits
members of supposed majorities against citizens of appointed
minorities. A victim is a victim and a perpetrator is a
perpetrator. If the shoe had been on the other foot, if Mr.
Mammolitti supposedly representing the majority of Canadians
had been going after Mr. Smith supposedly representing the
minority of Canadians, Mr. Mammolitti would have been in
serious trouble. As it is, it does not work that way.
What are we doing getting into this with this kind of judicial
law? When a person's head is kicked in, it is kicked in. Curbing
is a very gross action which I believe is coming out of the slums
of New York or the American inner cities. The victim is put
down with the back of his head to a curb and then someone
applies boots to his forehead with great force. Something has to
give. A murder of that type occurred in Coquitlam within the last
three months.
Now I ask: What possible service does this law serve? If the
people going through due process are convicted of that crime,
what possible service does it serve our society? Does it serve the
victim's relatives? Does it serve the offenders if the judgment of
the penalty is based on whether the victim was an identifiable
minority? Clearly these people did it out of hate. Was the victim
just an ordinary guy and these were a bunch of goofball fools
who took this person's life? Well that is okay, we do not have to
give them as tough a penalty I suppose but remember, the victim
is still dead.
We are entering into very dangerous territory with this
particular provision in the bill. I truly understand the
motivation, but my father said it best: You cannot legislate
morality.
In conclusion this is a situation of half measures. It is
dangerous because it raises expectations of citizens. That leads
to lost hope which when these half measures do not work leads
to loss of faith in law and order.
If I could have the attention of members opposite I will make
them an offer. I will provide the Q-tips for cabinet if they pledge
to use them so they can hear what ordinary citizens are saying.
Canadians want an end to the half measures this bill represents.
(1655 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before proceeding to the
period of questions and comments to the hon. member for
Kootenay East, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to
inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Yukon-Transport.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the rather
sensationalist comments made by the hon. member when
describing the various cases which have taken place either in his
riding or elsewhere across Canada.
What I heard in his exposé is that there is a lack of
understanding of what kind of population we are dealing with.
We are often dealing with illiterates. We are often dealing with
people who never had a chance in life. We are not actually
looking for solutions. Actually the only solution the Reform
Party is looking for is basically to throw the key away and leave
them to rot in prison for the rest of their lives.
One of the best deterrents to fight crime in this society is
education. Does the hon. member know the figures of illiteracy
found among the incarcerated in Canada?
Mr. Williams: So what are you doing?
Mr. Gagnon: I am asking him the question, Mr. Speaker. Can
he tell us why there is a disproportionate number of aboriginals
in our prisons? In many cases these people have been treated like
6057
second class citizens. In many aboriginal communities more
than half the population is 18 years or younger and have been
given very few chances. Many of them regrettably have turned
to crime.
It is not only the aboriginals. They are also pointing to
immigrants, new arrivals to Canada, people who were not really
given a chance. It is regrettable the hon. member does not look
into greater detail on ways to prevent crime. That is the basis of
the bill: To reorient our young Canadians or older Canadians for
that matter to try to set them straight in order to make them
better and more productive citizens.
Obviously I am not going to hear the voice of reason and
compassion on that side but they should recognize that those
who are incarcerated in Canada today are often those who were
not given the privileges of education, who were not given work
in some instances and have had to turn to crime in order to
pursue their lives. That is what is regrettable.
As a government we are trying to turn this society around. As
we very well know the rates of incarceration in Canada are
second to those in the United States and they are much lower in
Europe. These are things we have to look into. We should start
looking into what is happening in Europe, not quoting Russia of
1917 as one of his Reform associates did earlier. We have to look
at what is happening elsewhere, what we can do and how we can
improve the system.
Of course being a compassionate society we understand what
the victims are living through. I am sure it is a living hell for
many of them. We cannot turn around and say: ``No. The only
way we are going to solve this question is by throwing the key
away''. There is the question of education. There is the question
of trying to encourage Canadians to find other ways and means
of earning their living.
This is what we have to do as legislators, as members of this
proud Parliament. We have to try to find ways to set the course
straight for many of these people who regrettably turn to crime.
What percentage are actually illiterate and what percentage
come from different classes and different backgrounds? Could
the hon. member come up with those percentages?
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that virtually every
time we have a debate on criminal justice reform we keep on
hearing that the Reform Party is just talking about the
sensational.
We fully recognize there is a segment of the population that
has gone through an unfortunate situation in terms of education,
economics, or their upbringing which will have an impact.
Everyone of those people who is in a disadvantaged state in
Canada has the opportunity to move forward and get ahead.
(1700 )
Not all of them fall through the cracks. With respect to the
specific question, of course I do not have that answer at my
fingertips. With the greatest respect, I would suggest that
probably the member having walked into this House as I did at
some point in time today probably also does not happen to have
those numbers at his fingertips.
If this Parliament really wants to focus on reason and
compassion, I wonder if just once this government might be able
to have reason and compassion for the victim. I wonder if just
once this Parliament would talk about bringing in the same kind
of resources.
I said in my speech very clearly that I was not critcizing the
fact that this criminal behind bars had ended up getting his
university degree. I was not criticizing that. I was asking what
resources were made available to the victims of his terrible
crime. I would suggest not many.
The last time I spoke on this issue I believe we were talking
about the Young Offenders Act. It was a Thursday. Perhaps some
of the Liberal members will recall that this was immediately
preceding their convention here in Ottawa.
It was very instructive because we brought up what the
members consistently called sensational things, that we were off
base, that the only place where there is any problem with the
Young Offenders Act is in the constituencies that have a Reform
Party member, that we were completely out to lunch is exactly
what we are hearing from the other side the entire day.
It was really quite instructive that at the conclusion of their
tête-à-tête in Ottawa the Prime Minister stood up and said: ``We
have suddenly discovered on the basis of the input that we have
received from these Liberal members that we have a problem
with crime. Therefore this is what we are going to be doing''.
It turns out that maybe the problem was not isolated to the 52
constituencies that are represented by Reform. Maybe it is a
problem with the balance of constituencies that do perhaps need
the Q-tips I was offering.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, my
hon. friend from Kootenay East suggested in his remarks that
retribution is not vengeance. I looked it up in the Concise Oxford
Dictionary. According to the dictionary, retribution is
vengeance.
He was indicating that one of our members was treading on
dangerous ground. When the member stands up and suggests
that we should be basing our criminal justice system on
retribution as opposed to basing it on the rule of law, he is
treading on very dangerous ground.
6058
I want to make one other point, his arguments with respect to
hate crimes. He is arguing as have other members of the Reform
Party that we should not be drawing any distinction when it
comes to crimes based on hate.
We should all remind ourselves that this great country of ours
is a multicultural country. It is made up of peoples from all
around the world and that is one of the reasons why this country
is so great and so strong. We have the best peoples from all parts
of the world.
We also have to say to all these people from all parts of the
world that they are equal, they will not be the targets or objects
of contempt, hate or prejudice, and that when we witness
contempt, prejudice and particularly the acts of hate, the acts of
violence of hate, we will express our dissent and our loathing in
a very strong fashion.
There are different kinds of violence and different kinds of
crimes. Surely my friend from Kootenay East would not suggest
that violence that comes from a drunken brawl is bad and no
worse and no better than violence that comes from hatred.
It seems to me that whether it is a woman, whether it is a
person who belongs to a religious group or a so-called ethnic
group harmed, and they are the victim of terrible violence only
because that person belongs to a particular group, we as a
society have to condemn and contend that strongly. That is why I
disagree with the member from the Reform Party.
(1705 )
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I understand the motivation of the
member and that behind this legislation. The motivation is to
work against discrimination, to protect people who are of a
visible minority within our society. I understand that
completely.
What Canadians want are safe streets. A person who is beaten
up, a person who has cracked ribs, a person who has his teeth
jammed down his throat with an iron pipe has his teeth jammed
down his throat with an iron pipe. The minute this House walks
away from the fundamental principle that all Canadians are
equal regardless of race, language, creed, colour, religion or
gender, and we make more worthy victims than others, we are on
absolutely indefensible ground.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We have exhausted the
five-hour segment of the second reading of this piece of
legislation. We will now go to the next stage of debate which are
10-minute interventions without questions or comments.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-41 with all its original and recommended
revisions is a manifestation of objectives, directives, purposes,
even hopes and wishes that have been produced through a
demanding problem solving process. By its very nature it can be
classified as a democratic one, one in which information is
gathered from a multitude of sources, from publications,
studies, research, reports, individual and group experiences,
input from all aspects of society, each being driven and
governed by their own agendas, personal beliefs and value
systems-an extremely complex process which produces a
declaration of intent, purpose or direction; in other words a
statute, a measure, a rule, a regulation, a law.
This government has used this complex democratic process to
produce constructive reforms found in Bill C-41.
As we listen to members of the opposition parties we hear
their subjective presentations, each believing that they possess
some segment of the perfect law. No law made by man is
absolute or perfect. No law is safe from the forces of change in a
dynamic society. Each change brought about democratically
brings us closer to the more perfect solution.
The justice department has heard the voices through the great
country of ours and the outcome is a Criminal Code which is
more balanced, fairer and rational than the codes of the past.
The section of Bill C-41 that lifts the Criminal Code to loftier
heights is the proposed statement of purpose and principles of
sentencing. For the first time direction is to be provided to the
courts on the fundamental purpose of sentencing which
contributes to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe
society.
Revenge is no longer the basic purpose of sentencing one who
has committed an unlawful act. Although this may be judged to
be true by some, a sentence will still reflect the seriousness of
the offence.
To diminish the criticism of unjust sentencing the courts
throughout the country must give similar sentences to offenders
who have committed similar acts. A just law is one that is
perceived consistently to be just and fair in every court of the
land.
Significant is the statement of principle that states when an
offence is motivated by hate based on the race, nationality,
colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual
orientation of the victim, the offence must be considered as a
more serious offence than in the past, thus demanding harsher
sentencing.
(1710 )
This bill provides the courts with more options to distinguish
between serious, violent crime requiring incarceration and less
serious non-violent crime that could be dealt with more
effectively in the community.
It is in this area that I feel the most positive strategies can be
created to rehabilitate the perpetrators of minor offences.
Community service options which have been determined
co-operatively with officials of the judicial system, community
leaders
6059
and agents from various facets of society will without doubt
produce the most effective results.
Rehabilitation programs which keep the offenders from any
semblance of normal societal structures, in other words
segregated or isolated, rarely are permanently successful. The
position of segregation or isolation has built in connotations of
inferiority of being a second class citizen. The proposed changes
within this bill will reintroduce the minor offender to the normal
patterns of community life.
Too often the poor are victimized by well intentioned rules or
regulations. The 18th century law that jailed the offenders who
could not pay their fines no matter how small the amount is
finally being revisited and revised. Such offenders will be
subject to other options such as community service or probation.
This proposal will result in less crowded, safer prisons as well as
decreased costs. Also, more human and financial resources will
be free to deal with the more serious offenders.
Many of my colleagues have expressed their opinions
regarding section 745 of the Criminal Code. Here violent crime
victims are being provided the opportunity to present
information which may influence parole decisions pertaining to
the offender, a very worthy initiative that is also supported by
police chief Karl Ratz in my constituency of Thunder
Bay-Atikokan, as well as many others in the law enforcement
segment of society.
There is much that can be said about the proposed revisions in
the Criminal Code and the relationship to a safer and more just
society. Many assumptions can be made and shall be made
regarding the various sections of the Criminal Code without
seeing their relationships to other forces in society.
It takes more than the breaking of a law to make a criminal.
Criminal behaviour is precipitated by a myriad of social causes
and ills. Desperate people often resort to desperate means in
order to survive or to maintain the family unit. We must address
the roles of poverty, racism, family violence, depression, plus
many other factors to determine the relationship to criminal
behaviour.
We could add a million more laws to the Criminal Code and
operate under the illusions that the more we have the better and
the closer we will be to the utopian crimeless society. That is
nothing but an illusion.
Society must be proactive in the most aggressive manner to
prevent crime, thus diminishing the need for impulsive,
knee-jerk reactive measures. We must stop pretending. We must
stop applying solutions of the 1930s to the problems of the 21st
century. This bill brings us one giant step closer to a safer
society.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, I too am very
pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-41, an act
to amend the Criminal Code with respect to sentencing of
criminal offenders.
Since the opening of the 35th Parliament on January 17, 1994
this government has set in motion a number of initiatives to
reform and strengthen Canada's justice system.
(1715)
Amendments have been tabled in the House of Commons to
revise the Young Offenders Act to crack down on violent youth
offenders. Legislation has been introduced to reform the
corrections and parole systems in order to improve our handling
of sex offenders and, in particular, those who victimize children.
Today we are discussing the initiative announced by the
Minister of Justice to reform the sentencing process in the
Criminal Code. Bill C-41 is a well balanced, wide ranging bill
that not only reorganizes but rationalizes the sentencing system
in Canada. These reforms provide a number of options that
address the public's concern for safety and the victims' demands
for restitution. They include an important principle that serious
offenders should be treated differently from minor or first time
offenders.
Currently Parliament's role in sentencing is limited to setting
maximum penalties for specific offences. The court systems in
each province have been responsible for determining the
purposes and principles of sentencing. As a result the values in
sentencing structures in Canada's judicial system have varied
from province to province.
Under the proposal a statement of purpose and principles
would be added to the Criminal Code to provide guidance to
judges from coast to coast in the sentencing process. The
statement describes the objectives of sentencing as follows.
They help in the rehabilitation of offenders as law-abiding
persons, separate offenders from society where necessary,
providing restitution to individual victims or the community,
promoting a sense of responsibility by offenders including
encouraging acknowledgement by offenders of the harm done to
victims, denouncing unlawful conduct and finally deterring the
offender and other people from committing offences.
This provision would allow the federal government to take a
lead role in directing the courts on the fundamental purpose of
sentencing, that is to contribute to the maintenance of a just,
peaceful and safe society.
Furthermore the proposed statement of principles would
direct the courts to hand down sentences that reflect the
seriousness of the crimes. The proposed statement of principles
would meet the concern about hate motivated crime and crime
committed by those in a position of trust or authority in society.
It would state that these types of crimes must be considered
aggravating circumstances, therefore carrying heavier weight
when handing down a sentence.
6060
Bill C-41 also provides amendments to the Criminal Code
that would improve both the effectiveness and the efficiency of
the sentencing system. First it needs to amend the probation
provisions of the Criminal Code. The proposal would encourage
the transfer of important information to the courts during
sentencing hearings.
The Criminal Code would be amended to specify that basic
information be included in pre-sentence reports, including the
offenders' juvenile records, their criminal records, information
about the offenders' employment and social history and active
steps taken toward rehabilitation.
Furthermore the bill seeks to strengthen the penalties for
breach of probation. Strict time limits for reporting to a
probation officer, for example, will be added to the Criminal
Code. The penalties for breaking these conditions of probation
would also be increased to bring more credibility to the
probation system.
Second, if the bill is adopted by the House it will work to
decrease the work load of Canada's already overburdened court
system. Like most Canadians, I shudder every time I hear of a
case that has been thrown out of court because of delays caused
by an exhausted court docket.
The bill provides alternative measures to court proceedings
that would prevent more criminal behaviour and would lessen
the harm that can sometimes be done when minor offenders are
dealt with through the courts. Furthermore alternative measures
would involve the community and put greater emphasis on
victim-offender reconciliation in court proceedings.
A final area of concern addressed by the bill is the impact of
criminal activities on the victims of crimes. I am pleased the
Minister of Justice has listened to the needs and concerns of
those citizens. Victims feel a sense of frustration and loss when
dealing with the criminal justice system. They want their voices
heard. In particular they want to be involved in the process and
have their interests taken into account during sentencing
hearings. Bill C-41 addresses these concerns.
(1720 )
In recent years our justice system has seen the development
and limited use of victim impact statements. The bill would
oblige judges in sentencing hearings to consider these
statements when handing down their penalties. This would
ensure that a victim has the opportunity to speak about the harm
inflicted upon them by the offender and would ensure that the
victim's experience was taken into account in determining
whether the parole ineligibility should be reduced.
We all know that crime is very costly not only to the judicial
system but more importantly to the victims I speak of. Often
expensive or cherished family heirlooms and personal
possessions are stolen, lost or damaged during the commission
of a crime. Currently if victims wish to seek restitution for
personal or property damages they must make a special
application to the court or seek recourse through costly civil
litigation.
While they should not lose their right to follow a civil course
of action, Bill C-41 would allow judges under their own volition
to consider restitution to cover property and personal injury
suffered by victims.
We can be proud of these proposals. They are indicative of the
government's commitment to the rights of the victims of crime.
I would like to take a moment to compliment the Nepean
Police Services victim crisis branch for the work it has been
performing for victims of crime since 1983. Staffed mainly by a
large contingency of trained volunteers from my city of Nepean,
the service provides direct crisis intervention assessment, short
term counselling and referral to suitable community resources
to individuals and families that suffer the effects of trauma due
to crime.
The mandate of the Nepean victim crisis branch not only
operates in the best interest of the client it serves but follows the
mandate set out by the Ministry of the Solicitor General of
Canada.
I am pleased to stand here today in support of Bill C-41. I
would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice for having the
heart and courage to listen to Canadians and for carrying out the
promises we on this side of the House laid out in our electoral
platforms. I am convinced that all who carefully examine the
provisions of the bill will recognize that it is in the best interest
of Canada and works toward restoring Canadians' faith in the
safety of their homes and streets.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak
on the Bill C-41 amendments to the Criminal Code respecting
sentencing.
It seems to me that the Liberal Party, as I mentioned earlier
today in another speech, has been listening to the Reform Party
but only with one ear. I say ``only with one ear'' because it has
made a bit of a U-turn and is only halfway around the curve. If
that party were to listen with both ears perhaps we would get all
the way around the U-turn, get the job done once and for all, and
get it done properly. As Reform members on this side of the
House we feel the job is not being done by this bill.
It would have been simple to get it done. Then we could have
moved on to other things of equal importance such as
unemployment and deficit control. Here we are talking about a
little change to the Criminal Code that could be so much better.
If I do have to praise the Liberals for their efforts in the bill it
would be so faint that it would never be heard above the noise
that sometimes comes from that side of the House.
As Reformers we are serious. We want serious changes to the
Criminal Code to recognize that victims deserve our sympathy
and criminals are to be punished. This is a relatively simple
statement of policy, but we find that the bill is into mind reading
6061
games in order to determine the state of mind of a criminal when
he commits a criminal act.
I ask the mover of the bill and the government that is
introducing the bill if they can tell me the difference from a
victim's point of view between, for example, someone who is
murdered out of hate or someone who is murdered because he or
she happens to be an innocent bystander when a bank is being
robbed and catches a stray bullet. In both cases the victim is
dead. Perhaps this analogy is not very good because the victims
in both cases are dead and their opinions would be hard to
obtain. However let us think about that particular point. A
victim is a victim.
(1725 )
As my colleague was saying just a few minutes ago, if we are
going to start differentiating between the motivation of the
criminal in determination of the sentencing and what went
through his mind when we determine sentencing, we are totally
and absolutely forgetting the fact that the victim and society are
what criminal law is here to protect. That is the number one
objective. Canadians are equal in every sense under the law. If
we are going to start differentiating between one class and
another class then I agree with my colleague from Kootenay
East that the country will have lost it.
My point is that whether it is motivated by hate or any other
reason the victim suffers. The whole reason we have criminal
laws in our country is to ensure that society and individuals are
protected.
Any attempt to vary the sentencing according to the mindset
of the criminal will not only do what I have just said. It will
cause more avenues of appeal by the criminal and more money
to be spent by the legal profession and the courts to review the
case ad nauseam while the innocent victim is ignored, helpless
and forgotten.
The Minister of Justice will tell us that he is introducing
victim impact statements. This is only a very small step in the
recognition that victims have rights. I am glad to see they are
introducing victim statements. It is the first acknowledgement
we have had. The Reform Party policy states that where there is
a conflict between the rights of the criminal and the rights of the
victim, the victim's rights shall prevail.
Here we have not only a small acknowledgement but the first
acknowledgement that we should be hearing from the victim,
that we should be considering what has happened to him. We can
deal with the criminal. We can lock him up. We do not advocate
that we throw away the key. We do advocate that we have
rehabilitation, that we have punishment and that society has to
be protected. That is part and parcel but let us remember the
victim is number one.
Talking about the review after 15 years, the very faint hope
clause, the government is going to allow a victim impact
statement when the criminal comes up for a parole hearing after
an automatic 15-year period if he is in for longer. Again I think
it is getting a bit late if we have to wait until then to hear what
has happened to the victim.
As I said, let us get the job done once and for all so we can
move on to other things that are equally important. We feel we
should talk about the debt and the deficit. Crime is important.
The debt is important. If we get the job all wrapped up at once we
could really improve the efficiency of the House.
Another thing I want to speak about is that the court will
become an offshoot of the credit bureau: if your credit is no good
you are off the hook as far as fines are concerned. Taking a look
at the bill, I quote from section 734.2 regarding fines: ``A court
may fine an offender under this section only if the court is
satisfied that the offender is able to pay the fine discharged
under section 736''.
We are only going to fine people if they can afford to pay. The
rich get it in the neck and the poor get off scot-free. Is that what
we are saying? Does this mean that destitute criminals are going
to get a free ride, commit petty crimes and small thefts and get
parking tickets and so on with impunity? If they have no money
they do not have to pay. It says it right there. That is the section.
Who is going to believe him if he is standing in dock saying:
``Your Honour, I have no money''? Is the court going to say:
``Let us set this case aside and launch an investigation into how
much money is in his bank account and how much money he
owes on his credit card''?
Let us be reasonable. The law has to be applied to everybody
regardless of their status in society. Not only are we talking
about creating different classes according to their mindset, but
we are talking about different classes according to their ability
to pay. More pay for it, more avenues are appealed and so on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
6061
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 6, 1994 consideration of the
motion and amendment.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, most
people have heard the expression if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This is what ran through my mind as I studied the wording of the
6062
motion before us and the previous debate which took place on
March 18, 1994.
If we were to limit solely to individuals the right to donate to a
federal political cause, we would surely want to do so for a good
and sensible reason. Frankly, I do not see that good and sensible
reason.
There is ample evidence that access to large amounts of
money does not in itself ensure success in an election or in any
other political activity for that matter. There is no need
whatsoever to restrict the size of political donations.
The traditional parties in this House authorized enormous
sums to be spent on the yes side of the Charlottetown accord
referendum but it was the no side with just a fraction of the
resource but with all the logic on its side that won the
referendum.
As a result of the money spent by the yes side, there was no
success in buying the result. As another example I use the
National Party, which formed prior to the past federal election.
It received a huge donation from just one person. I believe that it
may have been in the range of $4 million to $5 million.
I well remember the billboards going up all around Vancouver
several months prior to the election. It was very clear that the
National Party was being well funded and there was certainly no
shortage of funds for the individual campaigns.
Despite this abundance of funding, the National Party has in
the last week or so wound up its affairs without electing a single
member to this House. In contrast, if we look at the Reform
Party of Canada, information from Elections Canada shows that
Reform spent significantly less per person elected to this House
than any other party in the last election.
Reform also received virtually all of its funding from
individual small donations. In my riding we raised between
$40,000 and $50,000. If memory serves me only one donation
was above $200. Well over 90 per cent were below $90.
I see absolutely no need to limit the freedom of people to
donate any amount they wish to political parties. As I have
already said there are ample examples that money alone does not
affect the outcome of an election.
There is already full disclosure of donors to election
campaigns and that is all that is needed for interested voters to
track down the source of funds. The corporations and the
organizations such as the Federation of Labour, which may
donate to various political parties, are after all just groups of
individuals. It does not take much work to find out who is behind
the donations.
The present system works pretty well but let us suppose for a
moment that legislation were actually brought into this House to
do what is requested in motion M-150, that is, to limit solely to
individuals the right to donate to a political party.
The law could easily be broken by a corporation which, as
members will remember, is simply a group of individuals. All
that would happen is that the individual board members would
make individual donations to the party. Within organizations
other than corporations such as unions, the new law could be
circumvented simply by having the members make the
donations.
(1735 )
How would this avoidance of the law be detected? There is
absolutely no point in putting in place a law which could be so
easily ignored quite apart from the fact it would be an attack on
our individual freedom to contribute to the special interest
group of our choice.
The previous government with the full co-operation of the
opposition old line parties tried to muzzle organizations like the
National Citizen's Coalition with laws similar to the one
proposed in this motion. Thank goodness past attempts by the
old line parties to do this have been struck down by the courts.
Members in this House cherish their right to freedom of
speech but sometimes some of them give the impression they
would prefer if such freedoms were not extended to
organizations such as the National Citizen's Coalition. Why?
Simply because it could be embarrassing exposure of
government waste which this House could easily eliminate if
there were the will to do so.
To anyone who thinks that way I say tough luck. Maybe the
truth hurts but it is morally wrong to pass laws that attempt to
muzzle the free speech rights of organizations like the National
Citizen's Coalition. It is also morally wrong to try to control
elections and referendums by restricting the ability of people to
contribute financially to the parties or issues they support.
Of course the supporters of this motion will argue that the
corporations or the individuals making large donations are
expecting something in return. The inference is that the elected
person or government would reward with patronage or contracts
anyone who supported their campaigns with large donations.
The truth is that most people donate to parties and candidates
because they believe that the policies and promises are
consistent with their own political beliefs.
Of course they expect rewards. These are not necessarily
sinister or immoral in nature. For example, donors to the Reform
Party obviously want Reform to form the government. This is
because among other things they expect the reward of job
creation, lower taxes and more disposable income that come
with getting government expenditures under control.
6063
They expect the reward for their children to be a manageable
rather than an out of control federal debt. They expect the
reward of a return to sensible immigration levels and solutions
to the refugee and crime problems. They expect the reward of
direct democracy through the citizens' right to initiative
referendum and recall, recall of an MP who is not properly
representing his or her constituents. Are these causes not worth
donating to?
It is not the least bit surprising to me that people want to
contribute to a party which will give them such rewards. I will
not vote to restrict their ability to do so. I am prepared to let the
free market decide what is philosophically worth supporting. I
am prepared to let the free market then decide what is the
appropriate level of support.
My constituents can count on my protection of their right to
support the party and candidate of their choice to the financial
extent they believe is appropriate.
Finally, in dealing with the proposed amendment I have the
following comments. The amendment if passed could force
taxpayers to contribute $1 per voter to each candidate in the
riding. What a cash cow that would be. We would have
candidates and parties springing up all over the place to climb
into the trough for the guarantee of an $80,000 handout every
time an election was called. The worst part would be that
candidates would not have to earn the right to their donors'
support. It would be the worst example of grants using
taxpayers' money I would ever see.
To support this amendment would be to support more
government waste of tax revenues. How easy it is to give away
other people's money. I wonder whether the supporters of this
amendment would be prepared to give money out of their own
pocket to support the amendment.
I will vote against the amendment and the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of
the Reform Party who just spoke more or less supported the
amendment. However, we feel the amendment contradicts the
intent of the motion introduced by the hon. member for
Richelieu. I may recall the wording of the motion, which says
that the government should bring in legislation limiting solely
to individuals-that is the operative word-the right to donate
to a federal political party, and restricting such donations-this
is also very important-to a maximum of $5,000 a year.
(1740)
I would like to start by commending the hon. member for
Richelieu for introducing this motion in the House, because I
think there are two objectives here, the first one being to
improve our democratic system. I imagine and, in fact, I am sure
that members speaking for the various parties want to maintain
and improve our democratic system. The purpose of the motion
presented by the hon. member for Richelieu is to improve the
system.
The second objective is transparency, which ensures that we
know who contributes to political parties and how much,
because increasingly, people are saying that they feel cut off
from government and from the decision-making process.
Recently, Enjeux, a program on the CBC French network,
described the situation very well. The impression was that
although elected by their constituents, members were losing
their ability to influence the government, whether they were in
the opposition or not.
According to public opinion, governments are mainly
influenced by lobbyists working for big corporations. There is
another factor as well. Many people say that since they are
elected, members may be influenced by or mindful of the
contributions they received in their riding or the contributions
their party received.
So what can we conclude from the report of the Chief
Electoral Officer? The report now lists the names of those who
made contributions, including companies, so we know where the
money comes from. But I am not sure the general public is aware
of the main items in the report.
In the latest report by the Chief Electoral Officer, in the case
of both the Liberal Party now in power and the Conservative
Party, the statistics show that individuals are responsible for less
than 50 per cent of the campaign funds raised by these parties,
which alternated as the party in power. People wonder who is
influencing the government, and they wonder whether
contributions affect the way we are represented.
This debate took place in Quebec 20 years ago, finally leading
to the legislation referred to as Bill 2 on political party
financing. Since it came into force, this legislation, according to
many observers, has improved the public's confidence in
government. I say this for the benefit of my colleagues in all
political parties, because we all meet constituents in our riding
offices.
(1745)
I imagine that when someone who made a generous
contribution asks for an appointment, it is harder to say no
because these people probably think the way they used to in
Quebec: Now look, I helped to get you elected and contributed to
your party's campaign fund, so the least you can do is see me.
Rightly or wrongly, politicians get a lot of criticism nowadays.
It is often a matter of public perception, however. It may not
happen in every case, and I do not want to tarnish the reputation
of our parties, but my point is that it must influence what
members or ministers
6064
or governments do when they have to make a decision. At least
that is what the voters think.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the latest report from the
Chief Electoral Officer, which says, for instance, that in 1992,
the Progressive Conservative Party received only 41 per cent of
its financing from individuals and the rest from corporations.
The Liberal Party of Canada, the party in power today, received
only 53.4 per cent of its financing from individuals. In the case
of the New Democratic Party, only 41.1 per cent came from
individuals, since the left-leaning NDP, if I can describe it that
way, received more of its funding from the labour unions.
Amounts of up to $300,000 were contributed by one major union
and some smaller unions. Nearly 1,000 different unions made
donations to the New Democratic Party, which certainly must
have influenced the New Democratic Party's operations and
policies.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member of the
Reform Party objecting to the intent of the motion of the hon.
member for Richelieu, because in 1992, and I think this is an
important point, 90 per cent of his party's financing came from
individuals.
An hon. member: They agree.
Mr. Dubé: No, I am referring to the hon. member who said
that he was-
An hon. member: He was against the amendment.
Mr. Dubé: Ah, he is against the amendment. I must have
misunderstood.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was distracted by the noise in my
vicinity.
So, to get back to these figures, these are very substantial
amounts. Perhaps I may start with the party in power. I am
quoting again from the report of the Chief Electoral Officer for
1992, to look at the extent of these contributions. The SNC:
$78,417; Canadian Pacific: $63,000; Mr. John F. Bankes:
$48,454; Imasco: $47,000. I will go a little faster: Royal Bank of
Canada; $45,000; Bank of Nova Scotia: $42,000; CIBC:
$42,258; Toronto Dominion Bank: $40,872. There are other
banks as well, and banks certainly have a vested interest:
mortgage rates, and so forth.
As for the Conservatives, there was Bombardier: $70,480;
Canadian Pacific, playing it safe again: $64,233; Bank of
Montreal: $48,833; Bank of Nova Scotia: $42,000; Brascan
Ltd.: $30,000; Baton Broadcasting: $28,833; BCE Inc.:
$25,000; National Bank: $25,000. And there are more.
(1750)
The Reform Party also had a number of contributions over
$5,000, although not as substantial. I also have another example.
The Bloc Quebecois, although under no obligation to do so,
decided to act in the spirit of the legislation passed in Quebec,
when in 1993, it raised $3,500,000 donations from 70,000
different individuals, the average donation being $50.
When we talked about real power during the election
campaign, that is what we meant. We wanted to represent the
voters, first and foremost, and as far as I know, corporations do
not vote.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in support of this amendment which restricts individual
donations to political parties to $1. It sounds like an extreme
thing in the current political context and I guess it is, but I am
not naive enough to believe that I will witness something like
this happening in Canada in my lifetime. However, I do think the
debate this afternoon allows me to enunciate a few principles
which I believe in and which I believe should be applied to
political fundraising.
My friend from the Reform Party indicated a few minutes ago
that he does not think the system is that bad and that it should not
be fixed. He was not concerned about the use of money buying
elections or buying a referendum. He pointed out the
Charlottetown accord. We all know the yes side in the
Charlottetown accord referendum spent more money than the no
side. Despite that, it lost.
Anybody with an ounce of brains knows that the presence of
money in any election campaign is not a guarantee of success.
We all know that. Again, I think anyone with an ounce of brains
realizes that money can help and it can make a big difference
under many, many circumstances. That is why political parties
and politicians are constantly on the search for money. They
know it helps.
Let me ask my good friend from the Reform Party a question.
How many candidates were there in the last presidential election
in the United States? We know of three prominent candidates:
Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush and Mr. Perot. They all did fairly well.
Mr. Clinton won, but there were about 40 other candidates. How
come we never heard about the other 40 candidates for the
highest office in the United States? They did not have any
money to provide a profile.
The only person who could break that barrier was Mr. Perot.
That was because he is a billionaire. He was able to literally buy
a successful campaign, successful that is in the context of a third
party candidate. He could not beat the established candidates
from the Republican and Democrat parties, but he could put on a
fair showing because he had enormous financial resources.
Money can make a difference even in lost causes such as in the
case of Mr. Perot.
I support this amendment to the motion because I happen to
believe that the business of political campaigns is public busi-
6065
ness. I believe that public business should be paid for by the
public. It should be publicly financed not privately financed.
I believe that democracy works best when we involve as many
Canadians as possible and that includes the financing of election
campaigns. We should not as democrats and believing in a
democracy when calling an election turn that engagement, if I
can call it that, over to private parties or private donors.
(1755 )
When General Motors carries out certain private affairs, let us
say looking for a new board of directors, does it come to the
public and say: ``Gee, we have this little election campaign of
our own to find our new board of directors and we would like
you to help out''. General Motors does not do that. It does it on
its own. It expects that particular private engagement to be paid
for privately by the shareholders of General Motors. We should
apply exactly the same logic when it comes to political
campaigns. We should not be looking to private donors to
finance election campaigns. But we do it.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the system is fraught
with corruption, that it is all broken down. But I think that we as
politicians should constantly strive to do better, to improve our
institutions including the largest and most pervasive institution
that we have, the institution of democracy.
In this particular era we often hear the term level playing
field. We want a level playing field when it comes to politics and
especially election campaigns. But when we have private
donations there is an edge for those who have money.
I will use the old jargon that when it comes to licking stamps,
stuffing envelopes and knocking on doors and walking the
streets the poor, the modest people, average Canadians are on
equal terms with the rich. They are. They can walk as well and
they can knock as well and they can lick stamps as well as
anyone with a huge bank account. The one difference is that the
rich have money and they can exercise influence. They can bring
their clout to bear with money, something that most people do
not have because most of us are not in relative terms rich.
Therefore we should constantly look for a level playing field.
Then there is the whole matter of perception. There is a
perception out there that money does have a major influence in
political decisions in our politics, in our governing. I do not
happen to believe that it is as bad as some people believe, but
there is that perception that if you have money, if you are high
and mighty you are going to get a little closer to the politicians, a
little closer to the decision makers and you are going to have
access and influence that other people do not have. That is the
kind of thing that we should avoid.
Politicians and the people who work around politicians should
not be spending a lot of time raising money. We should be
spending our time governing the country, working on policy,
working on legislation. It is not so bad in this country vis-a-vis
the United States.
We hear horror stories about how much time politicians in the
United States have to spend on the road raising money. Is that
why Americans send congressmen or senators to Washington, so
they can spend 50 per cent of their time raising money? I do not
think the purpose of politics is to go around raising money. Yet a
lot of politicians in the United States have to do that.
In conclusion, I would say that by moving toward a more
publicly financed system in this country we would have a better,
stronger and more representative democracy.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak
on the Liberal amendment to the motion that is before us today.
The amendment is to reduce the $5,000 figure to $1. I thought I
was going to have the privilege of agreeing with the hon.
member for St. James. Unfortunately, as usual, they take an
entirely different point of view from ourselves.
(1800)
I was wondering if the hon. member actually understood the
main motion in front of us. We are not talking here about the
federal government financing political parties. If I read the main
motion, in part it says: ``the government should bring in
legislation limiting solely to individuals the right to donate to a
federal political party, and restricting such donations to $5,000 a
year''.
That has been amended by the Liberals down to $1. We are not
talking here about the federal government giving money to
political parties. We are talking about the right of Canadians to
donate to a political party of their choice. That would be
completely denied apart from one single dollar by the
amendment put forth by the Liberals.
Perhaps they have a problem raising money. I took a look at
some of the donations and donors in the last election. Some
constituencies had donations from 300 or 400 different
contributors. Multiply that by the money they are allowed to
give and of course they were able to finance their campaign.
Under this amendment the entire constituency split between
several different parties would be able to spend $300, $400 or
perhaps $500 in total.
If he thinks we can get through to the electorate, publish
brochures, purchase television advertising and split all that
between two or three parties with only $500, the previous
speaker must know something I do not know.
He was talking about the concern of raising money. In the last
election the Reform Party was able to raise almost $10 million
or $12 million from small donors. Perhaps the previous speaker
6066
may wish to run under a Reform banner. Then money may not be
that difficult to raise in future.
We as Reformers believe that the federal government should
not be in the business of financially subsidizing political parties,
which is in direct opposition to the previous speaker.
We believe that political parties and lobby groups should be
self-funding, raise their own money, and be self-reliant. The
level of financial support is going to be totally dependent upon
the generosity of the people who support their cause.
We had a demonstration outside the Chamber this afternoon.
Several thousand people showed up to support their particular
cause. There is no doubt that particular lobby is going to be
effective in raising money to advance its particular cause
because people support the cause.
That is what politics and political parties are all about.
Canadians say: ``This is the policy I want to see put forth. Here
is the money I wish to use to support them. Go ahead and
accomplish the objectives''.
We are against the tax credit that makes political donations
subsidized by the federal government. We hear so often in the
Chamber about how we should subsidize the poor and we should
subsidize the disadvantaged. However, when it comes to
political donations, it gets turned upside down and the subsidy
goes to the largest, the richest and the party that spends most
money which quite often is the party in power.
Mr. Silye: They overspend.
Mr. Williams: They always overspend. They overspend on
the budget. They overspend in every department. Now they
overspend in the campaigns.
Let us stop the federal subsidization of political parties and let
them get on with it. If they can get the support of the people that
way we will have a true representative democracy where people
are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. That is
what it is all about.
In 1991 the main estimates show that it cost the taxpayer of
Canada, whether he believed in politics or not, $11,503,800 to
subsidize political parties, and that was not an election year.
We do not have the numbers for the election in 1993, but I can
assure the House that it is going to be a lot more than the
$11,503,800 that taxpayers put out whether or not they think we
should all be thrown out of office.
(1805 )
I would suggest to the mover of the main motion and to the
mover of the amendment that they get their heads together and
come up with a real policy, a reform policy that gets government
out of subsidizing political parties.
Let us put money where our mouth is and let us introduce
some real legislation to get the job done.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to close this debate on the motion calling for political
parties to be financed solely by individuals who have the right to
vote, thereby excluding unions, profit and non-profit
organizations as well as corporations, so that only eligible
voters have the right to donate to political parties.
I think this is in keeping with the measures taken over the past
two decades. We will recall that twenty years ago, party
financing depended chiefly-95 per cent of the time-on
corporations.
Through changes to the election law, to allow tax credits for
example, improvements were made, with the result that 40 per
cent of the financing now comes from individuals. I think we
need to take one more step toward a fully democratic system, in
accordance with the electoral wish expressed by all the parties
represented in this House to strive for fiscal consolidation. It
seems to me that one way to achieve this is by limiting solely to
eligible voters the right to donate to political parties.
At present, the only purpose of the federal election law is to
imposes a ceiling on election expenses. Our public financing
proposal would complete existing regulations in that it would
apply before, during and after elections.
This motion is also consistent with the spirit of the bill. The
hon. members remember the bill on lobbyists, Bill C-43, that
the government introduced out of concern for transparency and
integrity. I would remind the government that there is much talk
in the red book of the need for restoring voters confidence,
promoting integrity within political institutions and limiting
conflict of interest and influence peddling. Would public
financing not be a good way to implement the principles set out
in the red book you brandished throughout the election
campaign? Would it not be a positive step toward achieving
these goals?
Over the past three hours of debate, government members
have referred repeatedly to the Lortie Report. Let us not forget
that this report was commissioned by the Conservative
government. Before the 1988 elections, Mr. Mulroney had
promised to institute public financing at the federal level, like in
Quebec. This announcement made the front page of La Presse.
Following the elections, he decided to establish the Lortie
Commission to release itself somewhat of its responsibility in
that regard. The commission, which was established on
November 15, 1989, and was presided by Pierre Lortie, tabled
its report in 1991. In this report, Mr. Lortie indicated that the
report itself showed that
6067
certain donations might be made in hope of obtaining some
direct material gain.
That is on page 448 of the Lortie Report and the hon. members
failed to mention it while on the subject of public financing.
I also wish to remind you that public financing would induce
many people who are in a conflict of interest position not to be.
Section 121 of the Criminal Code clearly states that making a
donation with the intention of receiving a favour from a
government is a criminal offence.
Consequently, every time someone gives $50,000 to a
political party, there is a risk of that person expecting the favour
to be returned. The Lortie Report makes that very clear.
The report goes on to say that limiting contributions to
candidates would have little impact on campaign financing but
would provide a kind of ``insurance policy'' against any attempt
to exert undue influence.
Again according to the report, studies done on the financing
of candidates' campaigns in 1988 show that outgoing members,
especially ministers, receive a greater number of large
donations than other candidates. Why do companies give more
to ministers than to others? There may be some influence
peddling.
In this regard, I would like to quote from an article in the
March 31, 1994 issue of Hill Times, which was itself quoted in
the April 8, 1994 issue of Le Soleil. It says that the largest
donations were made by the Seafarers' International Union of
Canada, which gave a total of $31,500 split among 11 Liberal
candidates. Six of them are now ministers or secretaries of state.
The seafarers' union is closely followed by Burns Fry, Onex
Corporation, Molson, three major communications companies,
namely Rogers, Canwest Global and Unitel, and then
pharmaceutical companies Merck Frosst, Apotex Limited and
Magna International.
(1810)
In all, some 24 ministers, including the Prime Minister, the
Deputy Prime Minister and six secretaries of state from the
Liberal government, benefited from these companies'
generosity. There is room for questions.
We recognize that there is a danger. There is a risk of
influence peddling, and limiting to individuals the right to
finance political parties would address that problem. Of course,
a lower ceiling could be justified, say from $5,000 to $3,000,
and I, for one, would be open to reducing the amount. Still,
$5,000 sounds pretty reasonable to me. We must draw a line
somewhere. Some have also invoked the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, saying it would not allow us to limit corporate
involvement.
It can never be said often enough: it is not companies or
corporate entities but citizens who vote in an election. The
motion confirms the primacy of voters over public finances. Is
this not in keeping with the spirit of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms? This is also aimed at giving all citizens a renewed
taste for getting involved in and controlling their political
institutions whose credibility has been greatly undermined in
the past, as we may recall.
The Chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada, Allan Taylor, in a
speech given on February 26, 1991, argued that corporate
funding of political parties does not contribute to the continuing
democratization of and popular participation in politics. This
quote is taken from page 446 of the Lortie report dealing with
Mr. Taylor, Chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada. It is
precisely this process of democratization and participation that
we want to restore by proposing popular financing for political
parties.
Restoring confidence means minimizing the dependence of
all candidates, whoever they are, on large donations and thus
limiting the risk of breach of trust. Is financing by the people
feasible now? Keep in mind that seven Canadian provinces and
Canada have legislated on financing. Four provinces limit
donations; four provinces and Canada require publishing the
source of donations.
Quebec is the most progressive in this regard since political
parties there are financed only by the people. It is not something
new, then, and in practice, one federal political party, the Bloc
Quebecois, has put popular financing in its bylaws. No
company, union or association gave anything to any Bloc
candidate or to the national party during the election campaign,
but we were still able to spend $3.5 million, with an average
donation of less than $50 per contributor.
Now, and I conclude with this, I think that two main principles
guide me and my fellow members in the Parti Quebecois, who
have been joined by our colleagues in the Reform Party, so that
popular financing will be enacted soon.
On the subject of transparency, voters want their elected
representatives, their members of Parliament, to serve the
common good and not vested interests. A voter who gives $20
has much less clout than a company that gives $50,000. If people
finance political parties, voters become important again and
parties are forced to be closer to their constituents and be
concerned about their needs. The membership is more valued
and has a greater feeling of belonging to the party; it invigorates
democracy in a society and also forces a party to decentralize its
authority.
I will close with this sentence, hoping that it might influence
members in power and in opposition: ``Tell me who finances you
and I will tell you whom you serve.''
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I think the bill introduced by the hon. member for
Richelieu reflects the general principles defined by the Parti
Quebecois when it came to power in 1976, which included a
more grass-roots approach to the way political parties operated
and to government in general. I believe this was a reaction to the
way certain politicians behaved in Quebec and in Canada, but
especially in Quebec, since the Parti Quebecois is a provincial
6068
party, when the public began to challenge the integrity of
politicians.
We all know the stories about the ``frigidaires à Duplessis'',
refrigerators used to buy votes, and bottles of gin handed out
during election campaigns. This was part of the political
folklore, but there was also the story of the Liberal Party's
Brinks trucks in 1970, in Quebec.
The Parti Quebecois wanted to clean up the system. I think we
have seen what happened since that time, and today, even the
Liberal Party of Quebec operates according to the democratic
rules now in effect in Quebec. That does not prevent them from
having a very substantial campaign fund, though it failed to win
them the last election.
The fact remains that all parties abide by this rule. Other
governments in Canada have tried to imitate the system but did
not go far enough, which is why the hon. member for Richelieu
presented his motion.
I think my time is up, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.16 p.m., is the
House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): 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): Pursuant to order made
earlier this day, the recorded division stands deferred until
Tuesday, September 27, 1994 at 3 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall we now suspend to
the call of the Chair and conclude the business of the day with
the late show beginning at 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.18 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 6.25 p.m.
_____________________________________________
6068
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, on June
16, I rose to ask the Minister of Transport about his plans for the
transportation system in this country which clearly seemed to
indicate in large measure that they were plans to dismantle a
national transportation system.
The irony is that while the Liberal government is very proud
of telling Canadians how much it has done in its infrastructure
program-sewer systems, roads and highways-it is at the same
time dismantling through the transportation policy that was
announced by the minister earlier this year the most
fundamental infrastructure system, the nation's air system.
I was pleased to have received a letter from the Minister of
Transport in which he stated in late June that he was interested in
all members of Parliament consulting their constituents on
transportation policy.
Before I was able to undertake that consultation process, just
three weeks after having received that invitation from the
minister, the minister made a speech whereby he outlined his
whole transportation policy.
It seemed to me that it was not a serious attempt to have
members of Parliament consult their constituents at all, because
there was certainly not sufficient lead time on that. It led me to
believe that the minister's objectives as he outlined in the
response to my question were less than what I had seen actually
happen in practice.
When this national airports policy-one part of the
transportation policy-was announced, it clearly demonstrated
where the government was going. It was a transparent attempt to
transfer responsibility for airports to municipalities, provinces
and territories. It seems to me there is nothing national about
that, leaving communities to fend for themselves.
As a northerner, as a Yukoner, this is a particularly important
question because it is very difficult for smaller airports in rural
and northern areas of Canada to be self-financing. If a
government is truly committed to a national air transportation
system, that must be taken into account in any policy. Alas, I had
not seen that in the minister's comments at the time of my
question nor in his subsequent comments.
6069
There are many questions about what the impact will be of the
national transportation policy on rural and northern areas, on
costs both to consumer and to carrier and of course on safety
costs as well.
The government has decided to do a little word play by using
the word commercialization instead of privatization but any way
you slice it, it is privatization.
I recently attended a regional consultation on the automated
air navigation systems being proposed. While it was certainly a
useful consultation by Transport Canada-I think it presented it
well-having listened to the arguments and to the people who
were there from the industry, it is clear there will be two results
of this policy. First, the air navigation system will be privatized;
second, the cost will go up to consumers and the cost will go up
to the owners of carriers.
There was no evidence to indicate this would cost less to the
consumer or the owner of the carriers or even remain the same.
There are many, many questions that have been left
unanswered about the transport policy of the minister. The
question that I am addressing tonight is one of them, but there
are many more to be addressed. I must say that I have a lot of
concerns that these are not being done in a fundamental way
with a full broad based consultation. Privatizing simply to lay
off federal employees is not the answer to the national dream of
a national transportation system.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I am sure
you will agree that an efficient, reliable, safe and viable system
of transport is absolutely essential for Canada's future growth
and prosperity.
What Canada must have is a national transportation system
that emphasizes safety and reliability, that is efficient, that
builds strong viable companies in all modes. It is time to give
the frustrated Canadian taxpayer a break. It is time for those who
use the transportation system to pay a fair share so that as a
government we can better allocate our scarce financial
resources.
The budget called on Transport Canada to review the potential
for the commercialization of a number of its major activities.
This will be done in consultation with affected parties with the
objective of improving efficiency and ensuring long term
viability.
Commercialization means users dictate what services they
want to have provided and how costs can be controlled.
Commercialization means that whatever option is selected it
must allow market discipline to lead to more efficient service,
greater flexibility and less dependence on tax dollars.
Commercialization means that the goal must be higher quality
and more efficient service to the user at less cost to the taxpayer.
For instance the Minister of Transport recently announced a new
national airports policy. Under this policy the operations of
Canada's largest and busiest airports will be transferred to
Canadian airport authorities made up of community interests.
These airport authorities will be able to make the most of their
airport's commercial potential and to explore new methods of
finding financing and to achieve greater efficiency and cost
saving and to match their services with the local demands.
Commercialization will not dilute Transport Canada's
priority ensuring and where possible enhancing the safety and
security of all Canadians.
Transport Canada does not have to be the owner and operator
of a service in order to make sure it is a good service. The
department's role can be defined by its role in policy and
regulation.
There is every reason to believe that carefully planned
commercialization will mean major savings to taxpayers and
better service to the clients.
As the Minister of Transport said in responding to the hon.
member's original question with commercialization: ``We will
maintain the involvement of the Government of Canada in a
supervisory, a regulatory and policy way''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.33 p.m.)