CONTENTS
Friday, February 10, 1995
Bill C-37. Report stage (with amendments) 9453
Division on motion deferred 9455
Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 9455
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9459
Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 9460
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9462
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9463
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 9465
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9465
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9466
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9466
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9466
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9467
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 9467
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 9467
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 9467
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9468
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9468
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9470
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9470
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9472
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9472
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9473
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9473
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9473
Bill C-301. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted. 9475
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9475
Motion for concurrence in 59th report 9475
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9475
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9477
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9477
Bill C-37. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotions Nos. 5, 6, and 7 9478
Division on motions deferred 9482
Bill C-61. Motion for second reading 9483
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9485
Bill C-224. Motion for second reading 9488
9453
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 10, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-37, an act
to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, as
reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Speaker: My colleagues, with regard to Bill C-37, an act
to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, there
are seven motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper
for the report stage of this bill.
[Translation]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 will be grouped for debate but voted on
separately.
[English]
Motion Nos. 5, 6 and 7 will be grouped for debate but voted on
separately.
I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-37, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 18, on page
10 with the following:
``(5.1) Where a young person elects or is deemed to have elected to be tried
by a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction with a jury, the youth court
shall conduct a preliminary inquiry and if, on its conclusion, the young person is
ordered to stand trial, the proceedings shall be before a judge of the superior
court of criminal jurisdiction with a jury.
(5.2) A preliminary inquiry referred to in subsection (5.1) shall be conducted
in accordance with the provisions of Part XVIII of the Criminal Code, except to
the extent that they are inconsistent with this act.
(6) Proceedings under this act before a judge of a superior court of criminal
jurisdiction with a jury shall be conducted, with such modifications as the
circumstances require, in accordance with the provisions of Parts XIX and XX of
the Criminal Code, except that''.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on
Bill C-37 regarding the amendments that are before the House
today.
As members are aware undoubtedly, numerous motions were
passed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
following very lengthy testimony on Bill C-37. We had before
the committee approximately 40 witnesses.
The government today has tabled further motions, eight to be
exact, to which I would like to speak. Seven of these motions
involve technical improvements to the bill and one addresses a
more substantive issue.
(1005 )
These suggestions have arisen as a result of further review of
the bill and from recent consultations with the provinces, the
territories and youth justice professionals.
The Minister of Justice recently met with his counterparts,
provincial and territorial, in Victoria, B.C. The provinces, as
members know, administer large aspects of the Young Offenders
Act. They requested changes that would be in their interests
primarily in the administration of this act. We were most willing
to comply because we want the act to work as well as it possibly
can.
Motion No. 1 serves to clarify which provisions of the code
will apply dealing with the preliminary inquiries where a youth
is charged with murder and the matter is going to be dealt with in
youth court.
The existing language of Bill C-37 speaks to proceedings
being regulated by the provisions of the Criminal Code relating
to juries and trials of indictable offences. The revised language
is specific as to the relevant provisions of preliminary inquiries
as well as the initiation and conduct of jury trials.
9454
The Deputy Speaker: The first group is dealing with Motion
No. 1. Ten minute speeches.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before I start my comments on Motion No. 1, I would like to say
once again that the Bloc Quebecois has always been opposed to
Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act.
It has always been our position, both in this House and in
committee, that Canada, and especially Quebec, where the focus
of Bill C-37 has no specific application, do not need this kind of
legislation.
Since the Young Offenders Act was first implemented a little
over ten years ago, the authorities in Quebec have done a good
job of harmonizing provincial legislation with the Young
Offenders Act. The Youth Protection Act is a case in point. The
same people are responsible for enforcing the same laws. I feel
that this particular measure is entirely unnecessary and
constitutes an unexpected shift to the right.
However, when we see 70 Liberal members rise to vote on Bill
C-226, we realize why this kind of bill was introduced. Our
young people need jobs far more than they need sentencing. If
they had jobs, if their future was not a dead end, there would be
no need for legislation to lock them up and refer them to adult
court so they will get longer sentences. What we have here is a
society that is running scared and a government that will not
admit it.
As for Motion No. 1, since that is our topic, it raises far more
questions than it answers. Perhaps I may touch on a few points.
The young person's right to elect is provided in the Act,
except in the case of murder charges. However, there is no
indication when the right to elect to be judged before a jury or
before a judge or a magistrate may be exercised. Will a young
person exercise his right when he first appears in court? Will he
exercise it at the preliminary hearing? Will he exercise it when
he applies for bail or release from custody? There is no
indication at all. There is absolutely nothing to go by. Does this
mean we go by the jurisprudence already established in adult
court? There is no indication where the law stands.
(1010)
I think the government will have to redo its homework on this
one. The steamroller approach may have to be moderated a bit.
One wonders also, in the case of a young person charged with
murder, to which court his request would have to be submitted
for release on bail while proceedings are pending. Would it be a
superior court, as is the case presently for adults, or would it be a
youth court? The rules are different.
If a young person must appear before a superior court judge to
request release on bail for the duration of the proceedings, there
are no safeguards against possible information leaks resulting
from the presentation of such a request. It might be covered by a
journalist, names might be published, although the Young
Offenders Act includes specific provisions to protect the young
person's identity, in large measure at least.
So the young person may very well appear before a youth
court, but be required to appear before a superior court judge to
request a release, just as adults must, and then the matter would
be disclosed even though it is maintained that the preliminary
inquiry would take place before a youth court. This poses a
serious problem. I think this needs to be reworked. I also think it
was done in a bit of a rush because it was only in a parliamentary
committee that the official opposition pointed out that, with
longer sentences, the young person would then acquire the
choice of proceeding to trial by judge and jury. This aspect has
evidently not been thoroughly investigated.
An attempt was made, of course, to link the right to trial by
jury, guaranteed by the Canadian constitution even for young
persons liable to a prison term of more than five years and Bill
C-37, which, originally, made no reference to it at all.
Departmental lawyers will have to look at the question more to
avoid having the courts establish jurisprudence on procedure
over the years.
I understand that, in substantive law, the courts have
considerable power to establish rights, but the procedure should
be established by the legislator in as safe and certain a context as
possible. Vague provisions such as these cannot be ignored.
Provision must be made at least for a ban on the publication of
the name of the applicant in an application for release, if the
application is to be heard by a justice of the superior court,
because this is absolutely not clear.
Currently, appearance is made before a youth court justice,
and the preliminary inquiry takes place in a youth court. What
happens, though, if a bail application is made in between the
two; where is it heard? It could be claimed that, since, at least
until this point, proceedings are held in a youth court, all
proceedings could take place there, but the legislation does not
speak on this. Provision must be made to permit everything to
remain in youth court, even the application for release on bail,
since it is made generally between the appearance and the
preliminary inquiry, which takes place in youth court.
Guidelines must be established and limits set on motions for a
referral order by the Crown. When can the Crown make such
motions? At any point before the trial? Immediately before
appearance is made? Following the preliminary inquiry?
Between the time of appearance and the preliminary inquiry?
Here again it is vague. We will have to rely on the precedents
that will be set to determine at what point the Crown will be able
to do it under the new legislation. I think it should occur between
the appearance and the preliminary inquiry or very shortly after
the appearance. Certainly not any longer than the three days that
the Crown already has to request that the release from custody
hearing be delayed. The legislation is not specific. This must
9455
absolutely be clarified, and surely the department's jurists could
help out in this area.
Since Part XVIII of the Criminal Code is referred to
specifically, in relation to Motion No. 1, as much for what it says
as for what it fails to say, I ask myself the following question:
Does the crown have the right to evoke preferred indictment in
cases involving young adolescents or is preferred indictment out
of the question?
(1015)
If preferred indictment can be used, young people will be
treated exactly like adults, at each stage. If the crown decides to
proceed by preferred indictment, the young person will appear
before a justice and then will be sent directly to trial by judge
and jury, without any preliminary inquiry.
At the very least, there must be a provision ensuring that
preferred indictment cannot be invoked for a young person
accused of a criminal act which is punishable by a prison term of
over five years, or, if it is used, certain procedures must be put in
place for the youth court, otherwise the Young Offenders Act
will have lost all meaning. By proceeding by preferred
indictment the crown will be able to sidestep the Young
Offenders Act and to send the young person directly to criminal
court.
I was already of the opinion that bill C-37 was extremely
regressive, considering all of the improvements made to
criminal law between 1969 and 1980. I believe that Motion No.
1 makes it worse and the opposition will vote against the motion.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
speak to Motion No. 1. We in this party recognize it is a step in
the right direction, but it is a small step. It does not accomplish
what the Canadian people want to see accomplished. It does not
accomplish what we in this party recognize needs to be
accomplished.
I will draw what may be a poor analogy. If you wanted to head
from Ottawa to Vancouver and you got on the 401 heading west,
you would say that you were going in the right direction but you
would not pat yourself on the back because you hit the outskirts
of town here. People do not want us to drive on a highway in first
gear. They want us to get to Vancouver in a hurry. They want us
to get on a jet and get there overnight.
That is what we find wrong with this legislation. It does not
begin to accomplish what we know needs to be accomplished.
For that reason my party and I have a great deal of difficulty with
this amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion 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: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-37, in Clause 31, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 34, on page 24, with the following: ``offence referred to in the
schedule shall, when the circumstances set out in subsection (1) are realized in
respect of the records, be'' and
(b) by replacing line 42, on page 24, with the following: ``tion 41(1) shall, when the
circumstances set out in subsection (1) are realized in respect of the records, be
transferred to that special''.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-37, in Clause 31, be amended by adding, immediately after line 3
on page 25, the following:
``(4) Paragraphs 45(1)(d.1) to (e) of the act, as enacted by subsection (2),
apply in respect of a record relating to a finding of guilt made before the coming
into force of that subsection only if the person to whom the record relates
applies, after the coming into force of that subsection, to the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police to have those paragraphs apply.''
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-37, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 24, on page 25,
with the following:
``to (d) may be kept indefinitely in the special''.
(1020 )
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the three motions which have been grouped
together are consequential in nature.
Motion No. 2 flows from the creation in Bill C-37 of two
additional repositories. One is the special records repository
which is referred to in clause 32, page 25, proposed section
9456
45(2), and the other is the fingerprint repository which is
referred to in clause 32, page 27, proposed section 45(3).
These two repositories will permit the RCMP to store records
for additional periods of time. The provisions however require a
more limited access than the general repository of the RCMP.
The amendment will clarify the point in time at which the
records may be transferred from the general repository to the
special repositories. The existing scheme already requires a
crime free period of behaviour before a youth's record may be
subject to destruction.
The scheme in Bill C-37 prolongs the period that records of
certain offences will be detained as further precaution. In effect,
the records from the general repository are moved to a more
restricted repository once the young person has met specified
conditions set out in section 45(1) as amended by clause 31 of
Bill C-37. The time periods for retention in the general
repository were amended in Bill C-37 to generally correspond
with pardon periods applicable to adults.
Motion No. 3 flows from the Bill C-37 changes to the record
provisions which allow for shorter retention periods for less
serious offences and require longer retention for more serious
offences. These retention periods will apply to the records of
young offenders dealt with prior to the coming into force of Bill
C-37.
The effect of the motion is to require young offenders who
have received absolute or conditional discharges or have been
found guilty of a summary conviction offence to apply for the
destruction of their records if they wish the shorter time periods
to be applied to them. The conditional discharges were not
legislatively provided for in the Young Offenders Act but were
introduced into Bill C-37. This motion includes conditional
discharges as some judges ordered them.
This measure will allow eligible youth the benefit of early
destruction of their records. It is also resource efficient and will
avoid the necessity of a mutual case by case search through the
existing data bank which could cost well in excess of one million
dollars.
For a youth whose records will come into existence following
implementation of Bill C-37, the process will be automated and
no application by the young person will be required.
(1025 )
With respect to Motion No. 4, like the other two it is
consequential in nature. It flows from the motion passed by the
committee at the committee stage which removes aggravated
assault from the list of offences which trigger presumptive
transfers. The option of seeking to have a case involving this
charge transferred to the adult court remains open to the crown
or course.
The effect of section 45.02(2) is that records relating to
murder and to any of the presumptive transfer offences may be
kept indefinitely in a special repository of the RCMP.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are indeed rather technical. Their
purpose is to improve an ill-conceived bill. By making technical
improvements to an ill-conceived bill, we are in fact making it
worse.
We will, however, agree to Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on
division without a recorded vote.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 2
merely provides further amplification and clarification but does
not materially change the bill. Therefore, we are opposed to this
motion on the basis that we oppose Bill C-37.
Motion No. 3 provides clear direction for the RCMP to
destroy records at set periods of time subsequent to conviction
of the less serious offences for which an absolute discharge, a
conditional discharge or a summary conviction punishment has
been imposed.
Motion No. 4 merely corrects a mistake or a typo in the bill
which states ``in paragraphs 16(1.01) (b) to (e)''. The list only
went up to (d) so there was no (e).
Once again, on behalf of the Reform caucus I oppose these
cosmetic changes. The only way I will lend support to anything
dealing with the Young Offenders Act is if it has teeth, if it does
something to reduce criminal activity among youth, if it
provides for the increased protection of society which is at the
heart of this debate and which is the objective of the traditional
role of justice in this country. This is an objective the Liberal
government and its predecessor seem to have forgotten in the
quest to have the rights of criminals supersede the rights of
victims, the victims' families and society at large.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just listened to the speech made by the member from
the Reform Party who says he will only support measures with
respect to young offenders or amendments to the Young
Offenders Act if they have teeth and will do something to
substantially reduce youth crime. If that is the case, I am
wondering why the Reform Party does not support measures
which will really be directed to the causes of crime and to the
real reasons young people commit crime.
Every time measures are put forward that will really do
something to reduce the rate of crime in this country, including
youth crime, Reform Party members are opposed to it. They are
opposed to spending money on serious social programs. They
are opposed to spending money which would really help youth
reintegrate into society. They are really opposed to programs
that would help youth re-adapt in society. All they want to do is
9457
put young people in prison and let them sit there by themselves
doing nothing.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Skeena will realize
that one can only debate once at this time, therefore, the hon.
House leader for the Reform Party.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to whether or not there is substantive
material here that we are dealing with, I would concur with the
hon. member for Skeena. What the amendments we are
discussing today really include is so minor it does not
substantially change the material beast of Bill C-37, which is
not even a half-baked measure, perhaps not even a
quarter-baked measure as far as solving the problems of young
offenders and their criminal activity are concerned.
I had the privilege in January before we came back to the
House to visit many schools in my constituency. In a free
question and answer period students were able to dialogue with
their member of Parliament.
They brought up the case of the Young Offenders Act. It was
not something I mentioned in my brief presentation to them.
They indicated it was insufficient. It has no support among
young people. They felt it was casting them in a bad light. They
were demanding change.
(1030)
When will this Liberal government realize that even young
people want reform of the Young Offenders Act? Give us some
meat. Give us something that is substantive and will change the
Young Offenders Act to protect the reputations of our young
people.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, we met with the Council of Churches and they totally
agreed with my Liberal colleague. We must address the root
causes of the problem. It is not by putting people in jail that we
will teach members of society how to live together, and that we
will spend as little as possible.
You know that prisoners cost a fortune, not to mention prisons
and penitentiaries. When our colleagues from the Reform Party
say that tough sentences are needed, almost suggesting that
criminals must be punished, I, on the other hand, say that we
must address the root causes. We must invest in prevention, in
education. We as a society should consider the issue thoroughly
and spend the money wisely.
A suggestion was made yesterday. Let us assume that the
judges are given the money they need for the year-let us say,
for example, $187 million per district. This money could be
managed jointly by the judges themselves and the citizens. If
that were the case, protecting society would not cost $187
million. It would only cost half as much and these people would
also make a contribution to society.
I think that we could make several suggestions like that one.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest when the
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce accused the Reform Party
of not supporting legislation that was going to solve some of the
problems of why young people commit crimes.
I suggest to the member that he had ample opportunity when
he was Solicitor General and in a position to bring in legislation,
to prevent the problems we have today. He did not. All he did
was bring in legislation that amplified the problems we now
have as a result of the Young Offenders Act.
Like my colleague here, I went into a number of schools in my
constituency over the holiday break. I heard the same things.
The young people in our country do not feel protected by this
legislation. They want some serious changes made to it, not just
housekeeping and not just changes in the way we say things.
They want to feel free when walking the streets, unhampered in
their schools and in their communities.
I do not hear that from the young people. What I hear from the
young people and the seniors in my community is that they want
protection. They do not see protection in what the government is
offering.
It concerns me when I see that the government, which has the
potential and the opportunity to put in legislation that would
keep pedophiles from wandering the streets, which would at
least let the community know who these pedophiles are in order
to protect the young people in our communities, fails to do that.
My party is waiting for the government to come up with
legislation that we can support. We are waiting for legislation
that will make a difference, not this kind of legislation that is
going to do nothing but take us further down the path of do
nothing legislation.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Smoke
screens, Mr. Speaker. That is what is coming from the Liberal
side all of the time. We see it from the justice minister on the
firearms legislation that is proposed. Because it is something he
cannot deal with, he comes out with this as a smoke screen to
suggest that he is doing something. This motion is no different.
(1035 )
People ask why we oppose something that is a step in the right
direction. The problem is that if they take a step they say:
``There, we have given you a solution'', but we never take the
full trip.
9458
The government is going to have to come out with something
substantive that will answer the needs of the public, answer the
needs of the young people. If it does not, we will never get the
final solutions which we require. Half measures have to stop.
They do not work. They are only being used as an excuse to
cover up the fact that the government does not know what really
needs to be done or it does not have the will to do it.
My hon. colleague from the Bloc said that we cannot make the
Young Offenders Act tougher, we have to get to the bottom of the
problem, find the solutions. Nothing says we cannot work on
solving the problems before they come to the justice system.
The bottom line is still to protect the rights of law-abiding
citizens and their property. Young Offenders Act problems are
created mostly against young people. It is the young people we
are defending, not oppressing.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
amendments before us today raise a larger issue and that is the
need, which is ongoing, to study the Young Offenders Act as a
whole and not to bring in piecemeal methods.
I heartily disagree with my Reform colleagues who would
simply lock up every young person in the hope that they would
not commit a crime. At the same time they would cut the social
programs and the kind of facilities available to young people.
We have a disturbing trend in this country of a very anti-youth
movement. The government has not addressed youth
unemployment. Why is it not doing that? It has not addressed the
need of young people to have better services for treatment and
for work in the communities. Instead it is contemplating cutting
some of those very services.
Of course we have to deal with those young people who are
committing crimes. We have to deal with the communities and
the parents who are dealing with those young people. However
we will not do it by the government's policy of an anti-youth
campaign which this legislation is.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is about time that we got back to reality.
I have heard inflammatory comments from members of the
Reform Party, and in her effort to correct the record I think the
hon. member for Yukon only made things slightly worse, but in
the other direction. She referred to things such as treatment,
which fall under the authority of the provincial government, as
she knows. I really wonder how hon. members can make
statements such as that.
I heard a Reform Party member ask why are we not addressing
in this bill issues dealing with pedophiles. This is an amendment
to the Young Offenders Act, made prior to the comprehensive
10-year review. This amendment is designed to be an interim
measure until we have more comprehensive review of the
legislation. It is not a substitute for the review. As a matter of
fact, the review is going to start very shortly. All members of
the House know that.
Only a few days ago a member of the Reform Party was
sending letters to Canadians, telling them that members did not
care about such issues and that the only way to get things fixed
was to buy a membership card for the Reform Party. That is the
kind of nonsense and fearmongering that we have been hearing.
It is victimizing Canadians, trying to take advantage of fears
which they might have.
It is about time we had a little bit of honesty surrounding this
and other issues involving social policy and justice.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I notice my comments are
generating a bit of heckling. I am glad. The purpose of this bill,
first, is to make sure that 16 and 17-year olds who have
committed a violent crime can be shifted to adult court in a more
expeditious manner. It has to do with information sharing and it
has to do with stiffer sentencing, when required. But let us not
portray all young people or even most people as being members
of that group.
(1040)
I am the father of two adolescents. I too hear from them the
concerns that they have about people in their age groups who do
things that are improper. However, at the same time let us not
pretend that we live in the most crime ridden society on earth or
that locking everybody up would necessarily make us safer.
After all the United States would be nirvana for everyone if
locking people up made society such a better place.
We have just lived through a terrible economic recession. We
know it. But we know that right now there are 424,000 more jobs
than there was at this time last year. These are statistics this
morning from Statistics Canada. We know that those are the
kinds of measures that will help to reduce crime; helping
Canadians to have jobs and hope.
Simply locking people up the way the Reform Party members
pretend is the solution, is not so. Deep in their hearts they know
the truth. It is about time they said it instead of the nonsense we
are hearing from them.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have been
listening to what our friends in the Reform Party have been
saying in the House, and I get the impression they are asking us
to live in a world where the rich get richer and the poor go to jail.
What exactly does the Reform Party want? They say we need
less government and fewer taxes. So what will that mean? It will
9459
mean less government, fewer social programs to benefit the
poor, the sick, the elderly and aboriginal people.
That is the kind of world they would have us live in. They say:
cut spending, cut taxes. Sure, Canada may be spending too much
and sure, we have to pay taxes, but today I read in the paper that
Canada ranked fourteenth among industrialized countries in
terms of the tax burden on its citizens. So there is a fallacy
somewhere. They say we can no longer afford to spend, so let us
look into this. They say we are overtaxed. Well, I am not crazy
about taxes, but I wish they would stop and think before saying
we should let the neediest in our society go hungry so we can
reduce the tax burden on people who just want more money than
they already have.
Today, we are talking about young offenders, and sadly, in
most cases, people who go to jail are anything but wealthy.
These are usually people from disadvantaged families who for
all kinds of reasons became involved in crime, but the point is
that we want to do something for these people and if we want to
do something for our country in the process, we should try and
prevent youth crime. We should try and give them some hope,
and putting security people in our schools and having armed
police officers controlling places where young people get
together is not the answer.
In any case, I hope our friends in the Reform Party, especially
as far as this legislation is concerned, will stop and think what it
would be like if their children were in prison at the age of 15, 16
or 17, without much hope for the future and without much hope
of being rehabilitated. I think they would change their tune. It is
all very well to talk about these things and make certain
suggestions and even go along with them here in the House, but
out in the real world, in the schools and the prisons, when we see
what young people are up against, I think the issues are far more
fundamental than what we have heard today.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have heard a lot of rhetoric this morning from the opposite side.
Lots and lots of rhetoric. The Liberals need to remember that
when they attack the Reform Party they are attacking the people
of Canada because poll after poll shows that people are upset
with the Young Offenders Act. They want changes made to put
some teeth in it.
Like my hon. colleagues I also visited a number of schools
during the break. I got the same message from the students as my
colleagues did. The students are fed up with the Young
Offenders Act. They feel unsafe. They do not even feel safe
going to the McDonald's in North Vancouver because of the
gangs that cannot be arrested, that cannot be touched by the
police.
When the police approach a gang outside McDonald's on
Lynn Valley Road the gang swears at the police. ``F-off'' they
say to the police. What sort of control is that? People feel unsafe
in their communities. They feel as if the government is letting
them down. It is time the Liberal government dropped its
rhetoric. Of course we need to get to the source of crime and to
help the people at the beginning to prevent crime, but we also
have to address the problem of the criminals who are already
there, the ones who are making society unsafe.
(1045)
We have to put those people away so that we can protect
society. We have to put the rights of victims ahead of the rights
of criminals.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion 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.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion 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.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 4.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
9460
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion 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.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 will be
grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-37, in Clause 35, be amended by striking out lines 17 to 20 on page
29.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-37, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page
30 with the following:
``waiver shall be videotaped or be in writing, and where it is in writing it shall contain
a statement signed by the young person''
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-37, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on
page 30 with the following:
``or waiver would otherwise be admissible.''
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 5 is the substantive amendment I
mentioned at the beginning of my remarks.
This issue revolves around the obligation of police to advise
young persons before taking a statement of the possibility of the
youth being dealt with as an adult.
Bill C-37 proposed an amendment to require police to so warn
a youth where applicable. The language in the bill has been
criticized for being vague and for possibly resulting in the
exclusion of statements that would otherwise be admissible.
The effect of this motion is to rely on the common law
principles articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the
case of R v. ET, 1993. This option will allow the courts to
examine the specific circumstances under which the statement
was given to determine the relevance of the warning relating to
the possibility of transfer.
Proceeding in this way will also allow broader study of this
and other evidentiary issues in the broader review of the youth
justice system and the Young Offenders Act.
(1050 )
Motion No. 6 is technical in nature. Its effect is to clarify that
the requirement for a waiver to be signed by the young person
applies only to a written waiver and not to a videotaped waiver.
One of the reasons for amending Bill C-37 to allow for
videotape waivers is that some youth are willing to waive their
rights to consult counsel and/or an adult and to make a statement
but are unwilling to sign the waiver. Currently the Young
Offenders Act does not provide for oral waivers.
Motion No. 7 is technical in nature and intended to clarify an
ambiguity. Bill C-37 provides in subparagraph 56(5.1)(c) for
the situation where a youth misrepresents his or her age and then
subsequently seeks to rely on the evidentiary safeguards for
youth provided in section 56.
The bill would permit a judge to rule a statement admissible
under specified circumstances even where the normal
safeguards required for admissibility of statements have not
been met. One of the circumstances is that the statement would
be admissible in common law and under the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. The additional clause in subparagraph (c) which
states ``and its admission would be appropriate'' is vague and is
seen as unnecessary.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
sometimes it is almost ironic to listen in this House to my good
friend, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
criticize the Reform Party, and especially the hon. member for
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, as if Bill C-37 had been
tabled by the Reform Party. This government whip who made his
people rise to vote in favour of Bill C-37 is at the same time
criticizing our Reform colleagues for not going far enough. He
should find a logical niche to call his own.
Bill C-37 shows us that the Liberals only have a right wing.
For a government to remain in the centre, it must have a left
wing to balance things out from time to time. The Liberal Party
is now siding with Reform, and we see the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell criticizing the Reformers'
current position, even though this bill was initiated by the
government.
I would like to know what the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce think about the standing committee's
proposed amendment to Motion No. 5. The standing committee
simply proposes that the admissibility of a statement given to a
person in authority or a peace officer be subject to an additional
requirement, namely that the person in authority or the peace
officer inform the young person that he or she may be dealt with
as an adult and could therefore face the same consequences as an
adult.
9461
A 15-year-old who gets arrested under a new law does not
always know what the consequences may be. However, the
person who makes the arrest or who has authority over the
young person as far as the statement's admissibility is
concerned must know that the young person may be tried in
adult court and face extremely harsh sentences. Why not
maintain the standing committee's proposed requirement to
inform the young person of the seriousness of the charge that
may be laid against him or her? This would make the young
person think for a moment instead of trying to recant later and
having previous statements ruled inadmissible.
The young person may want to consult first his parents and
then perhaps a lawyer or another person as provided for in
section 56 of the Act before making statements that would be
very easy to obtain, as young people are much easier to
manipulate and draw confessions from. These statements would
not really be made freely and voluntarily, as they would be
obtained under false representations or through promises or
threats.
(1055)
I think that the provision proposed by the standing committee
should be maintained. Consequently, we will vote against
Motion No. 5 aimed at removing this requirement.
As for the other amendments, they are technical in nature, in
our opinion.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have a great
deal of difficulty with these amendments as with the other
amendments because they do not go nearly far enough in
addressing the real issue.
I must say that I appreciate the remarks my colleague in the
Bloc just made because he was right on the money. The
problems that we are dealing with in the Young Offenders Act
were created by that party and specifically by the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who stood a few minutes ago and said
that the reason we have problems with young offenders in
Canada is that we do not spend enough money. He is saying that
we should spend money.
If money were the criterion by which we could fix our
problems, with the spending that has gone on here in the last 20
years we would be living in a nation of saints. However we are
not because that is not human nature. Human nature requires
accountability and deterrents. We do not get them with the
Young Offenders Act or with these proposed amendments.
I suggest that the government should examine the real causes
of crime in society and the Young Offenders Act and put teeth
into the act so that young people understand there is a real price
to pay for the transgressions they commit.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I want to put a question to the parliamentary
secretary or to the minister with respect to Motion No. 5 that
would strike out lines 17 to 20 on page 30. Those lines state that
when applicable the young person may be dealt with as an adult
and if dealt with as an adult could face the same consequences as
an adult.
In accordance with the portion I just read, the officer who
would be advising a young offender would have to tell him that
those were the possible consequences before he signed a waiver.
The amendment that is now being presented by the
government would strike out the requirement to advise the
young offender there is a possibility that he could be dealt with
as an adult and could face the consequences in adult court and go
to an adult prison.
I do not quite understand why the government is now making
a motion to strike that advice to the young offender. Therefore,
when the parliamentary secretary makes his concluding
remarks, I would like him explain further why they are now
striking out that section which would require the police officer
or the official to advise the young offender of that possibility.
I also want to take up again the remarks of the Reform Party.
To begin with, let me say that the problems with youth crime
cannot be attributed to the sections of the Young Offenders Act.
Yes, I bear a lot of responsibility for the Young Offenders Act,
but the reasons for youth crime are not with the Young Offenders
Act. That is where members of the Reform Party err over and
over again. They think that if we amend a few lines in the Young
Offenders Act, if we make the penalties tougher and do a few
things like that, everything will be fine. They are living in a
dream world.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member will have
the floor after question period. We will now go to Statements by
Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
9461
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health has frightfully mismanaged her portfolio,
hidden behind her staff to camouflage her total lack of
leadership and vision and, thus, has lost all credibility.
Overtaken by events, the minister lacks the compassion and
passion that moves mountains and softens the Treasury Board.
At present, seven community organizations that are devoted
heart and soul to supporting people with AIDS have been
waiting since October for the minister to trouble herself to
follow up on their cries for help.
9462
(1100 )
After giving her the benefit of the doubt for several months,
after seeing her refuse to give Canadians a real inquiry into the
tainted blood issue, continue to act irresponsibly regarding the
hepatitis C issue and sit idly by while women with breast
implants were treated with contempt, we must admit the
undeniable truth: this minister must resign, out of decency, out
of respect for her position and in the best interests of Quebecers
and Canadians.
Madam Minister, you have made too many errors.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, our national public
broadcasting service, is attempting to obtain permission to
televise the Paul Bernardo trial later this year.
The people of St. Catharines have lived with the loss of a
young student, friend and beloved daughter. Respect for the
families that are the victims of violence and our own sense of
decency tell us that what the CBC is doing is totally wrong.
Concerned citizens are calling for a stop to this
Americanization of Canada and they are signing petitions. They
are angry that taxpayers' dollars are being wasted by the CBC.
I hope the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Canadian
Heritage understand this waste when reviewing grants to the
CBC.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the secretary of state in a recent interview stated that we have no
national culture. I would like to take this opportunity to respond
to that statement.
Most Canadians believe, as my party does, that we must
uphold the right of citizens and private groups to preserve their
cultural heritage using their own resources but are opposed to
taxpayer funded multicultural programs.
An ideological conception of culture is that as Canadians we
believe we have something that others do not. Collectively we
see ourselves as a tolerant, peaceful and independent people.
Canadian culture is not insular but rather has an international
consciousness that embraces the ethnic richness others have
brought to our shores.
The difficulty is that we continue to debate our
self-conception. We need to stop struggling with our self-image
and accept who were are.
Visually our culture is a kaleidoscope of images, finely
integrated and ever changing. Visual symbols such as our flag,
the uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the fleur de
lis and the ice flows of the north all connect us to one another at
the deepest level of our consciousness. This is our Canadian
culture.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, while Parliament was in recess a very important
date passed that I would like to acknowledge today.
On behalf of all Canadians of Norwegian descent I would like
to congratulate the Sons of Norway which celebrated its 100th
anniversary of January 16, 1995.
The organization has come a long way since its 18 founding
members pulled it together 100 years ago. There are today more
than 70,000 members and more than 400 lodges in Canada, the
United States and Norway.
Continuing what they began in 1895, the Sons of Norway
provide its members with the opportunity to care for themselves
in times of sickness or death and to advance their language and
cultural heritage in North America.
I am particularly proud of my own Nisse Lodge No. 567 in
District No. 4 which accepted my application for membership a
number of years ago.
I am sure the members of this House would join me today in
extending our warmest congratulations and best wishes to the
Sons of Norway in this, its centennial year.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the port of Churchill is the prairie's own grain outlet
and an integral component of Canada's transportation system.
Therefore it is essential that prairie farmers continue to have
access to this cost effective outlet for their grain and that the
port is used to the best advantage of prairie farmers.
A recent report released by the Churchill task force
demonstrates the enormous potential of the port and the benefits
of a rational, long term approach to the revitalization of the port
and bayline.
As the report noted, it would be irresponsible to allow these
facilities to deteriorate from neglect when they could continue
to make an important contribution to the Canadian economy.
9463
An investment in Churchill is an investment in northern
Manitoba, in the Spaceport Canada project, in tourism, in jobs
in an area of chronic high unemployment and in the future of
prairie agriculture.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec minister of industry said Wednesday, at
the hearings of the North Shore regional commission on Quebec
sovereignty, that equalization payments represent only $500 per
person annually, or a twelve-pack a week.
(1105)
I would point out to Mr. Paillé that equalization payments,
that is the amount the federal government transfers to Quebec
annually, are on the order of 3.7 billion dollars.
To describe the contribution made by the Canadian
government to redistributing the collective wealth of this
country to those in greater need, the minister has used an image
that reveals the growing obsession of the members of the Parti
Quebecois and the Bloc with concealing any positive initiative
by Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while
the Prime Minister is strutting about telling everyone that
Canada is the best country in the world, according to the United
Nations, the quality of life of Franco-Ontarians is comparable
to that of citizens in the Third World. This was the finding of a
study made public yesterday by a group promoting the
development of French in Ontario.
It also revealed that if the UN were to take the rate of
functional illiteracy among Franco-Ontarians into
consideration in calculating the human development index,
Canada would be a long way from first place.
How can the Prime Minister crow about a superficial rating
and close his eyes to the despicable treatment of the French
speaking minority by English Canada? If Statistics Canada were
to supply the UN with the real figures on illiteracy among
francophones outside Quebec, the Prime Minister might be
more circumspect.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to urge the federal government to renew the
federal-provincial woodlot development program with the
province of Nova Scotia.
In my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants there are many
private woodlot owners who have worked extremely hard to
develop a feasible and financially viable industry. This
agreement plays a key role in promoting a sustainable,
economically sound forestry industry.
By renewing our commitment to this program we can help
ensure more long term jobs through better use of all the
resources in our forests, a healthier and more productive forest
through improved methods of harvesting and better trained,
more entrepreneurial woodlot owners.
I believe through this agreement our government can play an
important role in promoting economic growth and
environmental sustainability in Nova Scotia's forestry sector.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Human Resources Development continues to
call attention to a quote attributed to me regarding the
thoughtfulness of Reform's dissenting opinion to his
committee's report. I make no apology for the content of our
report. I wholeheartedly endorse Reform's dissenting opinion.
Our response to the committee's recommendations was
hastily written only because we were given two days to craft a
response, a little less than the four months the minister's office
had to write the report for the committee in the first place.
If the minister would think through his own recommendations
and come to grips with reforming Canada's social programs
without spending more money, especially borrowed money,
Canadians would not be so worried about their personal security.
If there were ever a time for leadership it is now.
I say to the minister rather than distorting the position of your
critics, you would serve citizens better by crafting a position of
your own; not one for your own political purposes, but one that
is in the best interest of Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Durham is
home to Durham College, which from 1992 to 1994 was the
fastest growing community college in Ontario. It now has over
42,700 students learning technical skills which will ensure that
Durham and Canada will be world class competitors in the
future.
Durham College is very much community based. I am pleased
to say that I have used its facilities to bring constituents together
to discuss issues dealing with government. The most recent was
9464
a forum on the future of Canada's social programs hosted by the
president, Mr. Polansky.
A number of weeks ago the students started a protest with
respect to a possible rise in tuition fees which may result from
program changes regarding federal funding of post-secondary
education. Instead of throwing macaroni and being generally
disruptive, these students raised money for a local food bank,
making a positive contribution to their community while getting
their point across.
I have received their initial petition of over 600 signatures. I
am sure more are on the way.
I would like to thank the students of Durham College and
assure them that I appreciate their mature attitude and I further
assure them I will be relaying their concerns directly to the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
* * *
(1110 )
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1993
Liberals campaigned on the promise to reform MPs' pensions.
We committed in the red book to end double-dipping and the
Prime Minister has effectively done that for all appointments he
has made; witness Romeo LeBlanc and Ed Broadbent.
We told Canadians we would change the age at which MPs
could collect their pensions. No more Perrin Beattys should
leave this House.
All Canadians are going to be asked to share the pain equally
in the next budget. Members of Parliament must show
leadership. Let us join with men and women, our constituents of
all parties. Now is the time for pension reform.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Standing Committee on Transport has embarked on a
comprehensive study of the Canadian marine sector. The study
is being conducted to assist the Minister of Transport with a
broad review of the marine sector.
The marine study will include an examination of the port
system, pilotage services, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the
Canadian Coast Guard. The marine sector plays a vital role in
the Canadian economy. Consequently it is incumbent upon us to
ensure that Canadian marine policy is conducive to enhanced
levels of safety, efficiency, environmental protection and global
competitiveness.
Furthermore it should be noted that the Canadian marine
sector contributes almost $2 billion a year to Canada's gross
domestic product and moves over 225 million tonnes of
international trade every year.
As chairperson of the Standing Committee on Transport, I
encourage all members to inform individuals and organizations
involved in marine operations of the public committee hearings
to be conducted on marine issues.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
members of the official opposition were not in the least
surprised this morning to learn that the office of the Prime
Minister has set up a special referendum unit, just for
referendum activities. History is repeating itself. In 1980, the
Liberal government, as the great defender of Canadian unity,
used its spending power to fight Quebec sovereignists.
As usual, the federal government is not playing by the rules.
As it did in 1980, it is quietly pouring considerable financial and
human resources into the Prime Minister's political machinery,
away from prying eyes and embarrassing questions. However, in
1995, the people of Quebec will not be fooled by these typically
Liberal tactics. We have seen this before; it does not bother us
any more.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a fact that our debt and taxes have soared over the last 20 years,
but those are simply numbers.
What is really important is how the debt and taxes have
affected the lives of men, women and children across the
country. It would be a mistake to limit our calculation of the
damage to the numbers of people who have been forced out of
work because of business closures and plant shutdowns, as
tragic as those things are.
What we do not see are the jobs that were never created in the
first place because people who had dreams of starting their own
business were greeted by a government created business
environment that was hostile to business. High taxes, regulation
and big government; these three have conspired to crush the
incentive of thousands of Canadians who are desperately
searching for a sign that their hard work will be rewarded.
9465
While many people ingenuinely claim victim status these
days, the real victims are the great silent majority who have
done their best while successive governments have done their
worst.
No new taxes, cut spending is their message.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents are alarmed by the
Supreme Court ruling on extreme drunkenness as a defence. A
petition signed by several concerned people was recently sent to
me and I would like to draw it to the attention of this House and
the government.
The implication of this ruling for communities which suffer
from significant alcohol and drug abuse is extremely worrisome
and the impact on women and children is particularly serious.
My constituents do not believe that our legal system should
accept drunkenness as an excuse for violence and I agree. The
Status of Women Council of the Northwest Territories is also
urging a government response. It is asking the Minister of
Justice to take action.
Last November the Minister of Justice put out a consultation
paper on reform of the general part of the Criminal Code. The
paper asks for the public's views on many issues, including the
defence of intoxication. Extreme drunkenness as a defence is
not acceptable.
* * *
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, patronage appointments are alive and well within
the Liberal Party.
When the Conservatives were appointing from within the
Liberals called it unethical. The Liberals said they would open it
up and make merit the main operating principle. Opening it up is
exactly what they did if you belong to the Liberal Party.
(1115 )
The Liberals again have appointed one of their own, Marian
Robson, a former appointee of the Vancouver Port Authority, to
a comfy six figure salary job at the National Transportation
Agency, albeit with a bit of a twist: she did not even compete for
the job.
Other qualified candidates applied through the front door,
through The Canada Gazette. What a shame for these qualified
candidates that it did not say in The Canada Gazette that they
had to be a Liberal Party member.
The Liberals now feel guilty. They do not want to be known as
unethical, so they have changed the notice in The Canada
Gazette. It now reads: ``This notice has been placed in The
Canada Gazette to assist in identifying qualified candidates for
the position. It is not intended, however, to be the sole means of
recruitment''.
This is not unethical, it is flat out political corruption.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, January 13, the Acadian village
of Cheticamp and in fact all of Acadia lost a giant of a man in the
person of Yvon Deveau, who lost his life in a highway tragedy.
Teacher at the NDA school, frontline fighter for Nova Scotia
Acadians, manager of the Coopérative des pêcheurs-he wore
all these hats and many more. I worked with Yvon on a number
of occasions-on the thorny question of monitoring fishing
practices and on the importance of crab fishing. He was always
concerned for the development of his community and the
welfare of other people.
On the day he died, he was coming from a meeting in Moncton
in another effort to rescue the fishing industry from crisis and to
save jobs in his native village.
On Wednesday, another Acadian, the Right Hon. Roméo
LeBlanc, Governor General of Canada, paid tribute to the
extraordinary courage of Canadians.
Yvon Deveau's devotion and community spirit were examples
of such courage.
_____________________________________________
9465
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians from coast to coast had a chance to view two
videotapes showing particularly offensive behaviour on the part
of members of the Airborne Regiment in Petawawa.
The Minister of National Defence ordered an internal
investigation. He obtained a report from the chief of defence
staff which referred to the existence of a third videotape, and he
subsequently ordered that the Airborne Regiment was to be
disbanded.
Considering the particularly vivid scenes contained in the two
first tapes, what explanation does the Minister of National
Defence have for the fact that he decided to disband en entire
regiment against the recommendations of his chief of defence
staff, a decision with far reaching consequences, without taking
the elementary precaution of personally screening the third
9466
videotape that was mentioned in the report from General de
Chastelain?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
mentioned yesterday, in the report that was given to me a couple
of weeks ago mention was made of a video taken last August of
what was described as a beer welcome party where officers were
present. Compared to the earlier video it certainly was
innocuous.
Obviously had I had the information I received just before
question period yesterday, the existence of that video and some
of the untoward things on it, I would have made that public two
weeks ago. Obviously things in the video were unacceptable.
They were an infringement of the National Defence Act.
The report which I received two weeks ago was incomplete. I
want to know why it was incomplete. I want to know why the
chief of defence staff was not informed of the electric shock
experiments and why the head shaving was not in the report.
These all infringe the National Defence Act.
An investigation is under way to find out why we were not
informed. As soon as I have that information I will make it
available to my colleagues in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, instead
of dumping the responsibility for keeping this information from
him on all levels of command in the military, would the minister
not agree that he only has himself to blame, since he did not even
take the trouble to screen the evidence that was available,
evidence of which he had been aware since January 23 and to
which he had access? Is he not the author of his own misfortune?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think
the Canadian public expects the minister of defence to take the
role of a military police officer, to go to military bases and
interview people, to view all kinds of evidence and to be a one
man show.
We have a large organization. We have a chain of command.
The chief of defence staff was tasked with the report. That report
came. Obviously it is not complete because some of the military
police investigations are ongoing. I do not think anybody
expects the minister to be out there doing all of those things.
(1120)
With respect to the actual viewing of the tape, we never really
got to the bottom of it until I ordered the tape to be dispatched
from Petawawa following the question from the hon. member
for Charlesbourg on Wednesday.
The tape was viewed yesterday by one of our senior officers.
The chief of defence staff viewed it early this morning. He
concurs with the interpretation I gave in this House yesterday
that the behaviour was not innocuous, that it was offensive and
there was infringement. Action will be taken.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you will
notice the minister admits that the opposition is better informed
about what goes on in the military than the minister himself.
This is disturbing.
What are we supposed to infer from the minister's
explanations for his lack of information on the events in
Petawawa? Does this mean that General de Chastelain failed to
put all the information he had received in his report or does it
mean General de Chastelain himself was not aware of all the
facts about the situation in Petawawa?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said
subsequently to yesterday's question period that the chief and I
were not informed completely about that videotape. We are
quite open about that. We want to know why the chief was not
informed. I want to know why I was not informed.
I know this is a Chamber of thrust and parry where the
government is to be criticized. What really concerns me here is
that these events, however horrendous and however
unacceptable, are casting aspersions upon the thousands of men
and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and are
performing their duties in some of the toughest parts of the
world. These people serve with distinction. I am worried that the
kind of tone which is used by the hon. member opposite for
partisan purposes undermines the morale of the armed forces.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is no
question of taking issue with the position or activities of young
military personnel.
My question is to the minister of defence. Clearly, Canadians'
trust has been shaken by the backlash of the events at Petawawa.
Not only did the minister make hasty decisions without being
fully informed, but it appears, moreover, that not even the chief
of defence staff had all the information.
Now that it has been established that a lot of information had
been concealed from the chief of defence staff and from the
minister of defence, himself, can the minister assure Canadians
that he retains full control over the armed forces?
9467
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
somewhat amused by the question. Obviously if I had had the
full description of that tape when I gave the press conference
announcing the decision of the airborne, I would have made that
public. The existence of the tape with the unacceptable acts as it
has been embellished by the viewing by officials yesterday
actually confirms the government's decision to disband the
regiment.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, clearly
the minister is not aware of all that happens in his department.
Since we now know, based on the events at Petawawa, that all
levels of the Canadian military can keep information from this
House, does the minister not realize that it is absolutely vital in
order to rebuild Canadians' trust for him to order a public
inquiry, not only on the events at Petawawa, but on the entire
system that allows the army to elude parliamentary control?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member's question is somewhat rhetorical because we do have
an investigation. We have military police investigations. Now
the military police are investigating the tape on which we have
been speaking this morning.
(1125 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
January 23 the Minister of National Defence disbanded the
airborne regiment even though he had not seen the videotape of
the hazing incident. Apparently his department had not even
been in possession of a copy.
Several weeks ago DND obtained what is now reported as a
third hazing video. The minister says he was not informed. On
Wednesday he claimed he had no knowledge. Yesterday he
misinformed the House by calling the video innocuous.
After a year and a half, my question for the Minister of
National Defence is, why is it that the minister and the House are
continually informed of these incidents through the media? Why
does the minister not know what is going on in his own
department?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not
going to proceed with an answer until the hon. member obeys the
rules of this House and withdraws that allegation.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will ask the question again because it demands an answer.
Why is it that the minister does not inform this House of what
is going on in his department? Why do we have to learn about
this through the media? Why does the minister have to learn of
these activities through the media?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think
people know that yesterday I was somewhat agitated having
been informed of the extra charges in this video just before
question period. In fact as soon as I received the information I
informed my staff. I sent a message to the chief of the defence
staff saying that I would report this to the House. That was
within a few minutes of question period starting.
If hon. members want to proceed with detailed questions as
we have had earlier I will try to give the answers. However, if
they want to make silly procedural points then there really is no
use continuing the discussions.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think Canadians would agree there is nothing silly about these
incidents.
On November 16 and 17 I raised questions in the House
concerning the allegations of Major Barry Armstrong about
events in Somalia, irregularities in the investigation of those
incidents and reports that have occurred in Esprit de Corps and
other publications about alleged cover-ups.
What steps has the minister taken in the interim to personally
inform himself about the allegations of Major Armstrong or
others or to better inform himself about what happened in these
particular events?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said
before, all the matters dealing with the deployment of the
airborne to Somalia in 1992-93 will be the subject of an inquiry.
Therefore it is inappropriate for me to comment any further.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
According to the report on income security in Quebec, the
number of households that had to apply for social assistance for
the first time increased by three per cent last October, among
which a surprising number of young people under 25 years of
age.
In all regions, workers who had not yet heard about the
unemployment insurance cuts are learning about them the hard
way. All the while, surpluses, which will be used to reduce the
national debt, are continuing to accumulate in the
unemployment insurance fund.
9468
Does the Minister of Finance not realize that his last series
of budget cuts have had very dire consequences for the young
people who now have to rely on social assistance?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the situation in
which unemployed young people find themselves is certainly of
great concern to us, on this side of the House, like it is for the
hon. member.
Having said this, I believe that the Minister of Human
Resources Development's new initiative to help these young
people move away from passive assistance to a more active one
is something that even the hon. member will support. To
conclude, I must say that the unemployment insurance fund is
still in a deficit position and that we will have to find a way to
eliminate that deficit.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, young
people who participate in job training programs should not be
refused unemployment insurance benefits. That is the position
taken in Bill C-17 and in the reform proposal; it is the position
that was taken in the Liberal majority report.
(1130)
Does the Minister of Finance not realize that by cutting
unemployment insurance benefits he has increased the fund's
surplus at the expense of young people, making them pay an
exaggerated amount of the deficit? In such conditions, will the
minister commit to sparing young people, at least in the
upcoming budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development- Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will do
everything possible in the next budget to really create an
economic framework within which all Canadians, especially
young people, will be able to find work.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear. Well said.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, 0I should also
mention that the figures for this year show that the government
is making progress on this front. For example, this year, in the
month of January alone, just in Quebec, we created 16,000 new
jobs, and that will help young people.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the underpinnings of morale in the Canadian forces
have been under attack for a long period now. I was therefore
dismayed to read in yesterday's
Globe and Mail that when the
second battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment goes to Croatia in
April it will be without a Canadian surgical team, instead having
to depend on a Czech facility an hour's drive away.
The most fundamental support Canada has always given its
soldiers is Canadian medical treatment. Our soldiers are willing
to risk their lives. They will make do with equipment shortages,
but their morale depends heavily on the availability of adequate
medical support.
Will the Minister of National Defence take action to ensure
that a surgical team is maintained with our troops in Croatia?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the army
command in the former Yugoslavia recommended to the chief of
defence staff that it was unnecessary for the Canadian team to
continue in that particular theatre of conflict because they had
full confidence in the facilities supplied by the Czech armed
forces.
It is not unnatural in multi-operational theatres of war that
one shares expertise and functions. Certainly the best advice is
that the facilities available to Canadian forces in Bosnia and
Croatia are comparable to those that would be offered by
Canadian forces personnel.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, they are comparable but they are not Canadian. When
we have golf trips, inadequate housing, expenditures on
furniture and all sorts of mismanagement like that, let us not add
to it.
Will the minister agree that mismanagement of medical
support for our soldiers in the field must not take place?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with
the hon. member's question. There is no mismanagement of
medical facilities with respect to our soldiers in Bosnia and
Croatia.
If he has evidence that in some way the facilities we had
operational up until now have been mismanaged then I ask him
to please give us the evidence.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. For nearly a year now, the
Minister of Justice has told us every week that a bill on gun
control will soon be introduced. Last December, the Minister of
Justice confirmed that the bill would be tabled at the beginning
of the session. Last Friday, the minister stated it would be
introduced this week, but we are still waiting.
Since his bill is ready and he committed nearly a year ago to
introduce it, what is the Minister of Justice waiting for?
9469
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr Speaker, I intend to introduce
the bill next week.
(1135)
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): I hope we will be
sitting next week.
Does the minister not recognize that his inexplicable delays in
introducing the bill serve to maintain public uncertainty and
give rise to alarmist speculation?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, I do not.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario have
plans to advise citizens when a high risk sex offender is being
released into their communities. These plans are necessary
because the federal government has been unwilling to introduce
any legislation that deals with high risk offenders.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Why is it that the
minister is not showing leadership but rather is abdicating his
responsibility to the provinces?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the steps
announced yesterday by the province of Manitoba and by the
province of Ontario do not represent, as the hon. member has
suggested, an abdication of federal responsibility. Rather they
represent on the part of those two provinces an exercise of
jurisdiction that is specifically provided by federal legislation,
section 25 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
which enables provinces to take those very steps. I decline the
suggestion of the hon. member that this in some way represents
federal inaction. It is quite the opposite.
Second, the single highest priority for the government in the
area of criminal justice is the safety of Canadians. That priority
is reflected in the action taken by the government on a variety of
fronts.
Two weeks ago I presided at a meeting of ministers of justice
from across Canada in Victoria. We decided on specific action to
improve the Criminal Code, to introduce new sections and to
work with ministers of health to ensure public safety.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister mentioned the
conference in Victoria. At that conference last month the
Minister of Justice stated that he was opposed to post-sentence
detention orders because they may infringe upon the rights of
convicted sex offenders. I fail to see where this shows that the
federal government is more concerned about the protection of
society, as he has just stated.
Could the minister explain to the House why he believes the
rights of convicted sex offenders like Fernand Auger are more
important than the lives and the rights of victims like Melanie
Carpenter and Pamela Cameron?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, both the purported
quotation offered by the hon. member and the substance of her
question represent a marked departure from her usual standard
of fairness. I must say that is not what I said at all.
In Victoria when we discussed this issue first we identified
changes that could be made to the Criminal Code, upon which
we had agreement in principle, changes we will introduce to
enhance the existing provisions in relation to dangerous
offenders; second, adding new provisions to the code for long
term offenders so that we have long term supervision for people
who are at high risk to reoffend; and third, we had ministers of
health from across Canada present to work with us on those who
are mentally ill and who present a risk to reoffend.
We are taking action, very specific action. We understand that
going beyond that and into the criminal sphere represents
constitutional challenges, but we are committed to looking at
those strategies to determine whether there are other steps we
could take to enhance the safety of Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have a third question for the Minister of Justice.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice made a solemn
commitment to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. They promised to table a bill by June, then
September, then December, when the Minister of Justice told us
that we had to wait for the strategic moment.
My question to the strategically-minded Minister of Justice is
this: Can the minister tell us if he has completed his strategic
calculations and is now in a position to let us know when the bill
will be tabled?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, apart from the way I
have distinguished myself for my ability to predict the time at
which steps will be taken, I want to emphasize that in this
connection the important thing is the commitment of the
government to that legislation.
9470
(1140 )
I emphasize for the hon. member, in response to his question,
that the government is committed to the amendment to which he
refers and that legislation will be introduced.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Quebecers and Canadians have been hearing this
answer for over a year. Even businesses like Bell Canada, a
federal business, has announced today the adoption of an
non-discrimination policy.
Why does the Minister of Justice not simply admit that this
issue is blocked in cabinet because the government is unable to
convince many Liberal caucus members to stand by its election
promise?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. The
government's commitment to the amendment is exactly the
same. It is unwavering and the legislation will indeed be
introduced.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
In view of the alarming predictions made by the Public
Service Commission regarding the numbers of jobs that could be
cut in the public sector and, consequently, in the private sector,
can the minister tell us what kind of measures he intends to take
in order to minimize the impact the re-organization of the public
service will have on the national capital area?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the assumptions made in the study released by the
union are very questionable. The numbers it projects are very
much an extreme case. I would caution anyone with respect to
looking at that study.
May I say, as I said in the House the other day, that we want to
treat people who will be departing because of downsizing in a
fair and reasonable fashion. There will be various parts to the
departure packages that will help people to re-establish
themselves in the private sector.
I met with the mayor of Ottawa this morning to discuss ways
in which we could work with the municipal governments to
ensure that we minimize the impact on the region. I do note, I
might add, that the region within the last year has increased jobs
by some 16,000 in number, despite the decline in the federal
public service. There is a lot of opportunity now with four out of
five jobs in the national capital region being in the private sector
to help people move into new opportunities. Certainly we are
committed to doing everything we can to help them do that.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General.
Once again members of my party have brought to the attention
of the House and the minister cases of dangerous sexual
offenders who have been released into society only to reoffend,
or in the tragic case of Melanie Carpenter to claim the life of an
innocent victim.
One such individual, Mr. Harold Irving Banks, was recently
transferred to a halfway house in Victoria right next to one of his
victims, then transferred to a halfway house in Abbotsford three
blocks away from his terrified daughter.
Is it the policy of the government to have dangerous sexual
offenders released into communities where their victims reside?
Will he take immediate action to have Mr. Banks moved far
away from his victims?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not the policy to operate in that way as far as I am
aware. I will look into this case immediately and I thank my hon.
friend for bringing it to my attention.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Solicitor General for looking into the
matter.
I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I am glad that he
reiterated his commitment to having the safety of Canadian
society as his single highest priority.
I have a very simple question. Will the minister immediately
bring forth legislation to incarcerate violent sexual offenders
beyond their original sentence if they are deemed to pose a risk
to society just before their release?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, part XXIV of the
Criminal Code already provides that a person who represents a
high risk and can be called a dangerous offender within the
meaning of that term in the code can be kept in prison
indefinitely.
It is up to the provinces to lay those charges in appropriate
cases and to see that any such persons are kept in jail
indefinitely. That is already on the books.
(1145 )
In addition, we discussed in Victoria and will be introducing
changes to the code to add a category of long term offenders who
may not be dangerous as in the meaning of that section, but who
pose a threat to reoffend which endangers the public. The court
will be enabled in such a case to impose as long as 10 years'
9471
supervision after their release from jail for the safety of the
public.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People finally
produced its report on suicide among young natives. The
situation is disastrous. Young natives commit suicide at a rate
eight times higher than young non-natives. The Pikangikum and
Davis Inlet reserves are tragic examples of this.
Does the minister recognize the seriousness of the problem
and what drastic measures does he intend to take to deal with
this problem?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has brought to the
attention of the House a very tragic situation that is of great
concern to the Ministry of Health and to the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development.
The situation of mental health and suicides as is pointed out in
the report has been well-known and is an issue of major concern
to our department. Last fall we quadrupled our funding for
community mental health efforts among aboriginal
communities.
The issues are complex. They not only deal with health, they
deal with social problems, housing and economic development.
We are going to respond to the report as soon as we meet with
stakeholders that understand the issues so we can take the right
steps to prevent it.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
heard the same speech in the House a year ago.
How can we trust the minister when, a year ago, he had
pledged to take positive steps to improve the dreadful conditions
of natives in Davis Inlet, and he did not deliver on his promises?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as is shown in the report, the issue is
extraordinarily complex. It crosses a lot of boundaries. There
are spiritual issues, housing issues, economic development
issues and social issues.
Issues that have gone on for a long time cannot be dealt with in
one day. We want to do the right things. That is why we are
studying the issue, working with the communities to make the
changes necessary.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are serious reports from the Stony Reserve in
Alberta of logging activity which is illegal and harming the
environment. The reports also state that a few are getting
wealthy, tax free, as a result.
Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development ensure that violations of the Indian timber
regulations in the Indian Act are quickly dealt with and the
legislation and departmental policy strengthened to prevent a
repeat occurrence?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the question. We are aware, as is everyone in that area, of what is
going on at the reserve. Logs are being taken illegally, without
permits either from the First Nation band or from DIAND.
We have asked the RCMP-we cannot direct them-to go in
and bring the situation under control. I understand it has
stopped. We have asked them to seize the logs and any inventory
that is being used illegally.
The negotiations are ongoing with the three Stony chiefs to
reach agreement on a viable plan for management of the First
Nations' inventory.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this has been an ongoing problem. It only ceased this
week. This is happening because DIAND has abdicated its
responsibility with its policy of devolving authority to band
control.
In this case the Indian timber regulations are the legislation
that control the forestry activity. This is giving loggers,
taxpayers, the band and the department a black eye.
Will the minister ensure this legislation is enforced?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question
is utter nonsense, showing how ill-informed he is.
It has nothing to do with devolution or dismantling. It has to
do with people who are operating illegally. The chiefs do not
want it and we do not want it. We will work together
constructively in the spirit of dignity and respect to resolve the
issue.
9472
(1150 )
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
As we are all aware in the 1980s under Tory rule, the top
personal income tax bracket was lowered from 34 to 29 per cent
and the corporate tax rate fell from 36 to 28 per cent. While
recognizing the confidentiality of the budget, would the
minister assure the House that he is fully addressing the lack of
fairness inherent in the taxation system we inherited from the
Tory government.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the
member on his question and on the degree to which he is well
informed.
The previous government did lower the rates at the top end. It
indicated a preference which we began to clear up in the last
budget.
The member will remember that in the last budget we
eliminated purchase butterflies. We eliminated the preferential
tax rate for larger corporations. We eliminated the $100,000
capital gains tax exemption and we brought in new and tougher
rules for foreign affiliates.
I can assure the hon. member that the same spirit of fairness
that was shown in the last budget will be shown in this budget. I
would like to congratulate the member for his desire to see
fairness and equity in the tax system, unlike certain of those
opposite.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, these last few days we learned that the Minister of
Justice is appointing Liberal friends as legal agents-in the
riding of Brome-Missisquoi for example. However, patronage
does not seem to stop there.
According to his own officials, during the first seven months
of the Liberal government, the department signed 129 service
contracts with a total value of $5 million. Could the Minister of
Justice explain to us why Quebec individuals and companies
obtained only 6 per cent of the total value of these contracts?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the
question concerning legal agents first. When the government
took office the process by which legal agents were appointed by
the Department of Justice was criticized by the Auditor General.
In the months since the government took office, we have
introduced important changes to that process to ensure its
fairness, its efficiency and to ensure that we are getting high
quality services throughout the country. Those changes are very
significant.
In terms of the numbers to which the hon. member refers I am
not familiar with his reference. If he provides me with details, I
will be happy to look into it and to respond to his question.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that the total value
of the contracts given to Ontario is eleven times that of contracts
given to Quebec.
Does the minister really believe that Quebec individuals and
companies have equal opportunity when it comes to offering
their services to the Department of Justice?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said I am not
entirely sure what the hon. member's reference is. I will respond
when I have the particulars of his question.
If the hon. member is referring to the value of contracts for
legal services, they are affected by such things as the size of
regional offices. We have a large regional office in Montreal and
it may well be, although I do not know, that services that are
performed on contract elsewhere in the country are performed
through in house lawyers in justice in Montreal.
When I find out what the member's reference is, I will
respond in detail to his question.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the latest
budget rumour among many is that Canadians will be forced to
invest all of their RRSP savings in Canada.
If the government wants Canadians to invest money in this
country, it has two choices. It can force them through
regulations and legislation or it can encourage them by getting
its fiscal house in order, which this government should do. That
would create some confidence.
(1155 )
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister
prepared to force Canadians to invest in Canada or is he going to
give them the opportunity to invest freely, as a Canadian should?
9473
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that I
am not in a position to reveal details of the budget. But I would
like to remind the member opposite that we have made it very
clear that we are going to get this nation's finances in order.
I would also remind the member opposite that this nation's
great resources are not only deep in the ground but they lie in the
skills and the talent of those who walk on it. The government
will always encourage Canadians to invest in their own country.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I can
certainly appreciate what the minister has said, but what we
want in this country is the opportunity to have the freedom to
invest without the intervention of government. Less government
is what we want.
The minister wants to take all of the credit for the growth of
the economy and the improvements in this country, but I think
the provinces have something to do with it. For example,
Alberta has the lowest taxes at the current time in the country.
We have unemployment at 7.2 per cent. We have a surplus
budget and we have investor confidence which is something that
is necessary for all of Canada.
In his considerations and responsibilities as the Minister of
Finance in creating an investment climate, is he considering the
Alberta model as one that should be followed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty
understanding where the member is coming from. His initial
question appeared to be a representation on behalf of foreign
bankers. His second question appears to be a representation on
behalf of the Conservative government of Alberta. I am
delighted to see, however, that the twain have now come
together.
Certainly I congratulate any province that has succeeded in
getting its fiscal house in order. I would extend to the
governments of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, Prince
Edward Island and New Brunswick, in fact mostly the Liberal
provinces, our congratulations.
However, I would point out one thing. There is criticism of the
way in which the Government of Alberta has gone at that in
terms of its health system and its education system. One must
wonder whether it makes sense to get short term financial results
at the expense of the long term human capacity of the country.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The government is proposing massive cuts to public services,
to social services and to health services. These cuts seem to have
gone through the Liberal caucus relatively quickly. However,
when it comes to something such as MPs' pensions the
government seems to be unable to get its act together as indeed
the previous government could not get its act together.
I want to ask the Minister of the Treasury Board why inaction
on this issue has been allowed to take on a symbolism which I
think is both unrealistic and far beyond the reality. To put an end
to this will the minister bring in legislation on MPs' pensions
before the budget?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I understand it, the hon. member has also had lively
discussions on pension reform matters in the past. Certainly we
are going through a discussion of the matter. As the Prime
Minister indicated yesterday, there will be an announcement
either during the budget or before the budget.
We will live up to our red book commitments with respect to
pension reforms.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Two new hyperdestructive handgun bullets were recently
developed in the United States. One is designed to do maximum
damage to human tissue while the second can penetrate body
armour. This rhino ammunition is designed to break into
thousands of razor-like fragments when it hits flesh and death is
almost instantaneous.
(1200 )
I want to ask the minister whether the import and sale of these
bullets will be prohibited in Canada and whether the sale of all
ammunition will be subject to control under his new legislation
to be tabled next week?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians were
horrified to read of the production and potential sale of these
bullets in the United States.
That news story has seemed to solidify the vast majority
opinion in this country that steps must be taken to ensure that in
relation to firearms we do not go the way of the United States.
9474
Ammunition of that description has already been prohibited.
Order No. 10 of 1992 makes the import or sale of that
ammunition unlawful.
The new registration system which the government proposes
will permit the tracking of any such prohibited items and ensure
that they do not come into Canada.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The right of management to employ replacement workers
balances the right of employees to withdraw their labour. The
effect of tipping this balance through legislation in favour of
employees will destroy the balance between management and
labour.
Is it the intention of this government to drive business and
investment out of Canada to jurisdictions without such
legislation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, absolutely not.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal.
A week ago during a public debate, the minister admitted that
between 10,000 and 12,000 federal public servants would lose
their jobs in the Ottawa-Hull region, including 4,000 in the
Outaouais, which represents more than one-third of the total
cuts.
Could the minister explain why, as he was reported to have
said in Le Droit, more than 33 per cent of these cuts will affect
the Outaouais, which provides only 25 per cent of the federal
public servants in the Ottawa-Hull region?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all the issues concerning the budget's impact on the
public service have been dealt with from the outset by the
President of the Treasury Board. I believe we have said many
times that we will treat our public servants fairly.
That is exactly what transpires from the proposals released
last week by the President of the Treasury Board. Both sides of
the river will be treated fairly, there is no question about that.
9474
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 59th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedures and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the joint committee on the Library of
Parliament.
[Translation]
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in
the fifty-ninth report later this day.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official
languages the ninth report of the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development regarding Bill
C-60, an act respecting the agreement between Her Majesty in
right of Canada and the Pictou Landing Indian Band, without
amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts.
This report deals with tax revenue and the resource companies
allowance, following a dispute between the Department of
National Revenue and Gulf with respect to the interpretation of
certain tax deductions for the 1974 and 1975 taxation years. The
Department of National Revenue issued a reassessment, which
Gulf appealed. The court ruled in favour of Gulf. The
government appealed the decision and lost in 1992. The
government then sought leave to appeal, which the Supreme
Court of Canada refused, and has continued to refuse since 1992.
(1205)
Following the court decisions, 40 other companies in the
resource sector sought a refund based on their tax returns since
1974. Negotiations are continuing between the government and
these companies. The final amount of the refund, including
accumulated interest, could reach two billion dollars. In order to
offset this substantial risk of erosion of the tax base, the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts is recommending a
series of measures designed to avoid a repetition of the Gulf
affair and to make possible a judicious assessment and
management of the risks to the federal government.
9475
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that
the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-301, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (violent crimes).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to put forth this private
member's bill to serve notice to those individuals in society who
choose to continually victimize society; for those who wish to
continue to commit violent offences on those who are innocent
civilians.
This is a three strikes and you are out bill, which gives notice
to those individuals who wish to do these things that if they
commit three violent offences they are in for 25 years.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move that the 59th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this
day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by 33 residents from London,
Ontario, whom I met recently. The petitioners point out that acts
of discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians
are an every day reality in all regions of Canada. This kind of
discrimination is unacceptable in a country known for its
commitment to human rights, equality and dignity for all
citizens. Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to act
quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured
to rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a
petition with several hundred names on it.
The undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the
House to the following: that because the inclusion of sexual
orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act will provide
certain groups with special status, rights and privileges; that
because these special rights and privileges would be granted
solely on the basis of sexual behaviour; that because inclusion
will infringe on the historic rights of Canadians such as freedom
of religion, conscience, expression and association; therefore
the petitioners call upon Parliament to oppose any amendments
to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
I support the petition.
(1210)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36,
from the Plessisville seniors club, one of the largest seniors
clubs in my riding.
The vast majority of members of this club pray that
Parliament will defer its intention to install voice mail systems
to reply to inquiries from senior citizens. I myself did a test run
this week, and it is very difficult for seniors.
I support totally the petitioners from the Plessisville seniors
club.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions
to table. They are both regarding the Latimer case in
Saskatchewan.
The petitioners want to draw to the attention of the House that
Mr. Latimer was sentenced to life in prison for second degree
murder with no chance for parole for 10 years. These petitioners
request that Parliament grant Robert Latimer of Wilkie,
Saskatchewan a pardon conditionally or unconditionally for his
conviction of second degree murder in the death of Tracy
Latimer, his daughter.
There are 1,672 signatures on these two petitions. The case is
under appeal and I will reserve my comment until I find out what
the results of that appeal are.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions which I would like to
table this morning.
The first petition is against the serial killer board game. It is
signed by 684 people, making a grand total of petitions in that
regard of 119,440 which I have tabled thus far.
9476
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to the issue of
assisted suicide, asking Parliament not to consider assisted
suicide and euthanasia. It is signed by 102 people. This brings
the total for this kind of petition to 22,963.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by a number of
Canadians who are objecting to this House's having changed the
prayer in Parliament.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition in which people object to
homosexual relationships.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, another petition wants a referendum on
bilingualism.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
The next petition, Mr. Speaker, has to do with violent offenders.
I wish to table all these petitions this morning.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present a petition.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to act quickly to amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all necessary
measures to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships
and families in federal law.
I also have four petitions in which signatories are opposing
any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to provide for the
inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
last petition requests a referendum on bilingualism.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I would like to present
this morning.
The first one is in recognition of volunteer firemen. These
volunteer firemen protect our communities without any
financial compensation. There is a deductible, a tax exemption
of $500 that is recognized.
My petitioners are humbly praying that this tax exemption be
raised from $500 to $1,000 because no change has been made in
this tax exemption since 1980.
I would like to support this request from my petitioners for
Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the contribution of
the firefighters.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is from petitioners who
are registering their concern about the Young Offenders Act and
how it is unable to prevent crimes by young people. They feel
changes need to be made.
My petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to
review the Young Offenders Act in an open and accountable
process which addresses the following principles: deterrence of
the offender, the accountability of the offender, and the rights of
the victims.
It is my pleasure to present this petition to Parliament.
(1215 )
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my honour this
morning to stand and present petitions. These names add to the
thousands already submitted over the last five and six years.
The request is to amend the Divorce Act, to give grandparents
a standing in the courts, to ask for access to the grandchildren. It
is important we recognize that our grandchildren in this country
are the innocent victims in all of this.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure to present a petition signed by 732 senior citizens of my
riding stating that they, naturally, feel powerless in the face of
the technology of voice mail systems, that they have the right to
suitable service, especially in regard to their income security
applications, and who pray that Parliament will please ask the
government to give up the plan to implement voice mail systems
for seniors.
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions today.
The first one deals with the basic service pensions for men and
women who served in the armed forces during the war and calls
on the government to introduce such a pension.
9477
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition has to do with the proposed
amendments to the human rights act. My petitioners are opposed
to that.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first petition with 29 signatures requests that Parliament
ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of
Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be vigorously enforced and
that no changes are made in the law which would allow the
aiding and abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition I present to the House is on the
subject of abortion with 28 signatures.
The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately by
amending the Criminal Code to extend to the unborn the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings in Canada.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition with 25 signatures requests that
Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
the undefined phrase ``sexual orientation'' in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of petitions today.
The first is from a number of people in my riding calling upon
the government not to amend the human rights act or the charter
of rights and freedoms that would indicate in any way societal
approval of same sex relations or homosexuality.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, another petition requests Parliament to refrain from
implementing more restrictive controls of firearms that affect
only law-abiding citizens. They request that more effective
prosecution and tougher sentencing of criminals be carried out.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, another petition asks the government to revise our laws
empowering our courts to be stronger on prosecuting young
offenders.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, another petition calls upon the government to disallow
the use of recombinant bovine growth hormones unless proven
completely free of harm to animals and consumers.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, another petition calls upon the government to ensure
that the present provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting
assisted suicide and the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or
passive euthanasia does not come into play.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions
today which it is my honour to table under Standing Order 36.
The first one contains 122 signatures mainly from the
communities of Aneroid and Vanguard in my riding.
The petitioners state that whereas there is no evidence that the
incidence of criminal or suicidal misuse of firearms is impeded
by restrictive legislation, they call upon Parliament to desist
from passing additional restrictive legislation with respect to
firearms or ammunition. They also ask for the repeal of those
sections of the Criminal Code of Canada pertaining to the
firearms acquisition certificates. I endorse their petition.
(1220 )
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition I
have is with respect to the amendment of the human rights act
and the charter of rights and freedoms to in any way indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality.
This petition is signed by 61 people primarily from the city of
Swift Current.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present.
The first one is signed by Charles Kingston and 30 others from
North Vancouver praying and requesting that Parliament reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement
a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by 46 petitioners requesting that
Parliament of Canada amend the human rights act to include
9478
sexual orientation as a basis for protection against
discrimination and to include recognition of relationships based
on financial and emotional interdependence.
The third petition signed by 40 people in North Vancouver
humbly prays and requests Parliament to enact legislation to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination against persons based on their sexual
orientation. It further calls upon the Liberal government to pass
Bill C-41 which gives tougher sentences to those who commit
crimes of hate against others on the basis of sexual orientation.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table a petition containing approximately 100
signatures forwarded to me by constituents in my riding of
Cambridge.
The petitioners pray and request that the government not
amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act
or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would
tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality.
I am honoured to present my name with this list as well.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be
allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, we will allow all questions to
stand. However, I would point out that a number of the written
questions have been on the Order Paper for a very long time.
This indicates either an inability or an unwillingness to answer. I
would implore the government to respond as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I will take the representation
from the House leader of the Reform Party.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9478
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-37, an act to
amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, as
reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motions
Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, before question period I was replying to members of
the Reform Party who continue to propose simplistic and
unworkable solutions to the problem of crime, especially youth
crime. When they say they want something meaningful and
effective what they really mean and what they really want are
longer, harder sentences to prison without additional resources
for correction and rehabilitation.
That model does not work. It is now being tried in several of
the United States and violent crime in those states is among the
highest in the western world. Those states with ``three strikes
and you are out'' laws, those states with capital punishment have
among the highest murder and violent crime rates in the western
world. Look at Louisiana, Texas, Florida and Mississippi. Those
states are executing people in the morning while in the afternoon
murders take place during the theft of an automobile.
The approach being proposed by the Reform Party does not
work. To begin with there has not been a general increase in
youth violent crime in recent years. To give an example let us
look at homicide rates among young offenders. The highest
number of homicides for youths between the ages of 12 and 17
was 68 homicides in 1975 before the Young Offenders Act,
whereas the low rate was 35 homicides for youth in 1987 after
the Young Offenders Act.
(1225)
Second, the Young Offenders Act is not, as alleged by the
Reform Party, the cause of youth crime. While the Young
Offenders Act might be a federal law it is fully and totally
administered by the provinces. Some provinces do much better
than others.
For example, my province of Quebec dedicates a lot of
resources to the Young Offenders Act and has a much better
record and much greater satisfaction with the act than other
provinces. In some provinces youth crime and youth recidivism
is much lower than in others, with the same act right across the
country.
If there is violent youth crime in Canada the cause is not the
Young Offenders Act. If we want to do something meaningful
about youth crime, then we must make a greater effort in
prevention and rehabilitation. Yes, certain amendments are
required to the Young Offenders Act and we are doing that in
Bill C-37, but they alone will not solve the problem of youth
crime.
Certain Reform members just said that they met with youth
during the Christmas recess and that those youths want
significant amendments to the Young Offenders Act. Well,
during the recess I also had a meeting with youth in my
constituency at Concordia University in Montreal.
Those youth understood that the real problem is principally
one of prevention and correction. They also knew that this year
9479
the Parliament of Canada was going to make a thorough review
of the Young Offenders Act, a thorough review of youth
correction programs, and a thorough review of the situation of
youth crime in Canada.
Let us have some honesty and seriousness with respect to this
debate. To suggest to Canadians that changing a few lines in the
Young Offenders Act is going to solve the problem of youth
crime in this country is not correct. I would like my friends in
the Reform Party to acknowledge that and be honest with the
situation as it really is.
I also would like answers from the parliamentary secretary on
the question I asked at the beginning of my remarks.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member perhaps does not
know that the parliamentary secretary has already spoken on this
series of motions and he is therefore not able to speak again.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find it amusing that a person who had the
ability to bring in crime prevention programs over 20 years ago
is now talking about the need for crime prevention programs to
prevent this kind of youth crime.
If that is the solution and the answer, why did this individual
not work that kind of a concept into the Young Offenders Act
years and years ago? Why did that person who was in the
position of instituting crime prevention programs not do it 20 or
25 years ago? Is it not just a little bit late now?
I would suggest that the Reform Party does not disagree that
we do need to look at crime prevention and try to keep young
people from committing crimes. That does not mean when they
do commit crimes that we absolve them of all responsibility and
let them return to the street without any kind of recourse for
what they did.
Not only did I visit schools back in my constituency, but I also
visited the young offender detention centres that are run by the
provinces. I cannot say I was pleased with what I saw. What I
heard from people working with young offenders is not only the
need for accountability and all other things, but the need for
government legislation that allows them to work with a federal
system in identifying and sharing information on these young
people so they know who will be serious problems as adults. The
system does not allow for that kind of interchange of
information.
The federal government has the responsibility to implement
programs and legislation that will allow communities to look
after the problem of young people who are falling into criminal
patterns.
(1230 )
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, when the Young Offenders Act came into force in
April 1984 it replaced the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908. The
old Juvenile Delinquents Act was informal and attempted to
respond like a wise parent wherein dependent children had few
rights.
In April 1985 the maximum age of 18 became uniform across
Canada because of the new Young Offenders Act. In fact, many
provinces formerly had 16 years as the upper age limit for young
offenders.
The main issues that are significant for the average citizen are
age limit, transfers to adult court for serious crimes and the
privacy provisions.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will be
conducting a 10-year review of the entire act. The situation we
are left with is ``get it right next time''.
The government is proceeding with Bill C-37, an act to
amend the Young Offenders Act. Its main thrust is to lengthen
some penalties but not to touch on areas about which the Reform
Party and the majority of Canadians have been asking.
The Reform Party believes that the justice system should
place the denunciation of crime and the protection of
law-abiding citizens and their property ahead of other justice
system objectives. The principle should apply to the Young
Offenders Act and the general operation of the Criminal Code.
We believe that the criminal justice policy toward young
offenders should be guided by the principles of individual
responsibility and system accountability. Young offenders
should be held individually responsible for the harm caused by
their acts. The justice system should be held accountable for
how it handles young offenders. The results that the system
delivers should be measured against clearly stated objectives.
I want to provide some alternatives to the criticisms of the
previous member of the Reform Party's suggestions. Here are
some meaningful proposals that are not simplistic but are
reasonable and considered and, most of all, are what mainstream
Canada wants.
Lower the Young Offenders Act age definition of young
persons to 10 to 15 years inclusive from 12 to 17 years inclusive.
Any young offender who commits an indictable offence could
possibly be transferred to adult court. Remove extra privacy and
secrecy provisions of the Young Offenders Act and treat all
YOA records, access to information and ability to publish in the
same manner as for adults.
Sentencing must emphasize victim compensation,
community service, skills training, education and deterrence to
others. In custodial facilities, opportunities for rehabilitation
must be
9480
emphasized in a disciplined environment and medical and
psychological treatment orders should not require the consent of
the offender.
Above all, parents of young offenders should be held
responsible for compensating victims of property crime if it can
be demonstrated in court that they have not made a reasonable
effort to exercise parental control.
The consensus among average Canadians is that the Young
Offenders Act is too soft and that stronger, more predictable
consequences are needed. Serious and repeat young offenders
should be transferred to adult court. Young offenders have to be
held accountable for their actions.
A recognition that crime prevention occurs best within
nurturing families and early intrusive social services outside the
justice system are much better than sentencing.
The public's right to know must take precedence over the
rights of an offender for privacy and for general deterrence to
work.
It is not a Reform plan to incarcerate all those who commit a
crime, only those who commit serious crimes. We encourage
community involvement with volunteers supporting alternative
measures under the Young Offenders Act.
In summary, the legislative changes previously done and
currently planned arise because the original Young Offenders
Act was misguided concerning its age of operation. We are
therefore not supporting the government's inadequate
amendments to the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make two or three comments.
I have listened to the remarks of members opposite. All of it is
well-meaning. Some of it borders on the rhetorical but I
understand where they are coming from. I do not find any of this
a new issue. I think we can make some headway in this
Parliament.
As we know, the amendments being proposed to the Young
Offenders Act and the amendments we are debating today do
principally three things in response to the election commitments
of the government in the last election. The government has
moved to expedite the transfer of 16 and 17-year-olds to adult
court when they are accused of committing the more serious
crimes. We have again proposed lengthening the sentence for
homicides committed by young offenders. This is the third time
Parliament has done this. Last, we have taken steps to deal with
the sharing of information between agencies, police, educators
and so on involving young offenders.
(1235)
Underlying all of this is the recognition that the way to reduce
crime among young offenders, and I suppose throughout the rest
of society, is through crime prevention techniques. Once the
crime is committed the issue is done. The crime has been
committed. We all recognize that. We have commenced a
national crime prevention council in the hope that we can
engender the kinds of crime prevention techniques, ideas and
concepts and put them into place.
Having failed hypothetically with crime prevention
techniques to prevent a hypothetical young offender from
committing a crime, and having arrested the young fellow, we
are then faced with a societal intervention. We have decided as a
Parliament, as government policy, that we will not simply take a
young offender and drop him into the slammer for a couple of
years.
We want an intervention that is appropriate to the
circumstances so that the young offender does not commit a
crime again. There are several ways to go about it. We have
heard different suggestions across the floor of the House and
there is plenty to read about it in the media. We want to intervene
so it does not happen again. The intervention must be prompt.
I have noted even in the amendments that we propose now and
in the existing structures of the Young Offenders Act there is too
much potential for delay of that intervention. The secret in
applying the justice system to the needs of that young offender
so that the young offender will stay straight is that society
intervenes promptly in an appropriate way.
Even the youth transfer provisions to the adult court involve
procedures. The intervention of the state following the offence
of a young offender that takes a year or six months is absolutely
useless. Could we please stop and take note that if a 16 or 16 and
a half year old commits a crime and we wait a year before we are
able to convict and intervene we have wasted a whole year. That
young offender is 17 and a half years old. He or she is almost an
adult. We have blown the entire window of opportunity to
intervene.
We also have to remember that the interventions are not done
by the federal government. Interventions following the
commission of crimes by young offenders are by provincial
jurisdictions. Young offenders are dealt with by provincial
procedures following conviction.
This House edicts that there will be an appropriate and a
timely intervention by a provincial government. We cannot do
it. We have to negotiate it. We have to have the provinces on
side. This is a fairly complex undertaking in a country like this.
These jurisdictions have been successfully dealt with in the past
and we can continue to make progress.
It is important to remember as we consider these amendments
to this act that the government is committed to reviewing the
entire operation of the Young Offenders Act, even the
amendments that we are dealing with today, in a review which
will probably take a number of months but which will be
intensive. I know that review has the commitment of all
members. We intend to do a very good job of producing a report
that will
9481
indicate the directions for reform if any. I am sure there will be
reform proposals. I am certain of it.
This House and the justice minister may be able to make
further proposals with provincial counterparts in the weeks to
follow.
(1240 )
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
noticed there are really two main themes in this debate on the
Young Offenders Act.
The first theme seems to be that we should deal with the root
problem, the cause of youth crime. The other theme is that
filling the jails is not going to be the deterrent that we should use
to prevent crime, that filling the jails is not the only answer, is
not the whole solution to the problem.
I would like to talk a little about these two issues. First I agree
absolutely with those who have said that we must deal with the
root cause of youth crime. I do not think members would find
anyone who would argue with that position.
If we look at the legislation that this government and past
governments over the past 20 to 30 years have passed, we find
that the role of the family has been weakened by laws, including
changes to the criminal justice system and the tax system. These
changes have certainly done nothing to get at the root causes of
crime, in fact just the opposite. The weakening of the role of the
family and the increasing of the role of the state have weakened
and added to developing the root cause of crime. It has allowed
crime.
The other thing I would like to talk about is the issue of filling
our jails as really not being a good deterrent to crime. Jail is part
of the answer and jail does provide a deterrent but I too am
concerned if we only look at filling the jails as deterrence to
crime, including of course crime committed by young offenders.
We have to look at all possible options as deterrents. For
example, we have to seriously look at boot camps and other
types of set-ups where there is strong discipline. This could be
used with young offenders.
Let us also look at something that was removed as an option
for deterrence from the Criminal Code in 1971. I am talking
about the use of corporal punishment not just with adults but
with young offenders. We have to examine the possibility of
bringing back corporal punishment as a very effective deterrent.
Before I was involved in politics the first time in 1975 I heard
from a constituent who told me about his personal experience in
the use of corporal punishment.
This gentleman was at a coffee table in a local restaurant when
we were talking about how the criminal justice system had to be
improved and how criminals were not being dealt with very
well, not firmly enough. One person got on to the suggestion that
we reinstate and use corporal punishment in our system again.
One gentleman who had been saying nothing until this point
said: ``I am going to tell you something that I have never told
anyone before. When I was a young man I committed a violent
crime''. We never asked what the crime was. It was not
important in the discussion.
He said: ``As a result I received a prison sentence of about two
years and I received the lash''. This gentleman said that because
he received the lash going in and going out of prison that he
believed a deterrent had been provided that kept him from a life
of crime. He believed that if it had not been for that corporal
punishment, he would have been a lifetime criminal.
When members opposite talk about the harshness of corporal
punishment in our criminal system, I would like to ask them this
question. Which is more harsh? Which is more kind and gentle,
using corporal punishment to prevent a life of crime or not
having sufficient deterrents and having an individual become a
lifelong criminal?
(1245 )
This gentleman who had received the lash said that he
believed it kept him from a life of crime and he also believed
that was far less harsh than the alternative of being a lifetime
criminal and living every day, every year of his life knowing that
he would go back to crime again and again.
Therefore when we are talking in this House about being kind
and gentle, let us look at it from a factual and real point of view. I
ask again, which is more kind and gentle?
I heard a very similar story from another gentlemen in my
riding at an Elks meeting a few years later. This gentlemen had
personally received the lash. He received the lash going into jail.
He had a longer sentence. He said if he had his choice he would
have stayed in jail for life rather than receiving that corporal
punishment. This came directly from the person involved. He
would have stayed in jail rather than receive the lash on his way
out.
I think that says a lot about using corporal punishment as a
deterrent. There are many different degrees of corporal
punishment that could be used. Certainly with young offenders I
think the degree of corporal punishment should be far less.
I know from personal experience throughout my life as a
young person growing up that pain was a terrific deterrent. I
believe that pain through corporal punishment should be
seriously considered in this House as a deterrent to prevent
young offenders from reoffending.
When I asked the parliamentary secretary a question in the
House last year whether his government had even considered
9482
corporal punishment as a deterrent, the parliamentary secretary
stood up, looked at me in a scoffing manner-
Mr. Stinson: That is the Liberal look.
Mr. Benoit: Maybe that was the Liberal look. He said no and
sat down. I believe that it is important that we discuss all options
and I believe that we should look at the option of corporal
punishment in our criminal justice system generally as a
deterrent and in our penal system, including for young
offenders.
In closing, I would like to make one more point and comment
on how corporal punishment was removed from the criminal
justice system. An ominbus bill I believe in 1971, a part of this
omnibus bill was not debated, only spoken on by two speakers
and that removed corporal punishment as a deterrent in our
criminal justice system.
As a result of this bill under a Liberal government back then
corporal punishment was removed without debate, without the
consideration it deserved. I believe that now we should have the
debate in this House and among Canadians to see if other
Canadians feel the same as people of my constituency. This
issue has been brought up again and again. Then maybe we will
see that there will be or is a place in our penal system, including
under the Young Offenders Act, for corporal punishment. Let us
find out. Let us have an open debate.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short comment.
I listened with interest as the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River talked about crime prevention. I
think this relates quite specifically to Bill C-37 which we are
discussing today.
I will make my point very brief. He talked about crime
prevention and the need to focus on crime prevention more than
the punishment of crime. He considered that important.
(1250 )
I would ask this House to consider whether the Young
Offenders Act as it currently stands, even in light of the
amendments in Bill C-37, encourages crime simply because the
criminal element over 18 years of age is able to coerce young
people to carry out criminal acts because of the lack of harsh
offences and consequences that are not enforced under the
Young Offenders Act.
What Canadians and even young people are telling us, those
who represent them, is tighten up the Young Offenders Act so
that these older criminals, the criminal element, are not
harassing, coercing and bribing young people to do the dirty
work for them because there will not be serious consequences as
a result. That is crime prevention, that is what we should be
dealing with and that is not in this bill. It is not in the red book
and it is not in anything I have seen from the Liberal government
to this point.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An hon. member: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 5. All
those in favour of the motion 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.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 6.
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.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 7.
All those in favour of the motion 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.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: Normally at this time the House would
proceed to the taking of deferred divisions on report stage of the
bill. However, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded
divisions will stand deferred until Monday, February 13 at6.30 p.m.
9483
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it
you would find unanimous consent to further defer that vote
from Monday at the time of adjournment until Tuesday at 5.30
p.m.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give unanimous
consent to this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved that Bill C-61, an act to to establish a
system of administrative monetary penalties for the
enforcement of the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Feeds
Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Meat
Inspection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Plant
Protection Act and the Seeds Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has tabled Bill C-61 introducing the Agriculture
and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, a major
component of our program to reform enforcement of the
regulatory system for agriculture and agri-food products.
This bill introduces an option to enforce agriculture
regulations outside the courts when domestic or imported
products do not measure up to Canada's excellenct standards for
health, safety and quality. A system that allows for equal
treatment of domestic and imported products has been requested
by the industry.
(1255)
The administrative monetary penalty system, AMPS, would
allow government officials to issue monetary penalties for most
breaches of eight federal statutes and regulations under those
acts in cases involving both domestic and imported products
instead of proceeding through the criminal justice system as has
been the case in the past.
The use of the criminal justice system would be reserved for
serious breaches warranting high fines, a criminal record and
the possibility of imprisonment. The move is in keeping with the
government's overall plan. This overall plan will include that
we ensure our high standards, apply those standards consistently
to both domestic and imported products, increase the rate of
compliance and perform our important regulatory function in a
more efficient and cost effective manner.
The administrative monetary penalty system means precisely
what it says. Monetary penalties will be imposed for violations
under eight acts and their regulations, including the Canada
Agricultural Products Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizer Act, the
Health of Animals Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pest
Control Products Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Seeds
Act.
The system we are proposing today was developed in
conjunction with the Department of Justice through the
regulatory compliance project, a cross government initiative
looking at alternatives to criminal prosecution of regulatory
violations. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food and I are
acutely aware that food safety and quality have been and must
continue to be our top priority.
Our reputation for safety, quality and the competitiveness of
Canadian products is vital to our domestic consumers. It gives
producers and processors a critical advantage in the
international marketplace. Doing a better job as regulators
means protecting that reputation both at home and abroad. That
is tied to our overall government commitment to jobs and
growth by making the most out of liberalized world trade.
A year ago this government made a number of commitments
to the people of Canada. I am pleased to say that within our first
year of office we have made a great amount of headway on a
number of fronts. Improving the regulatory system is one of
those areas.
In reforming the way we enforce regulations we have asked
some basic questions. Does what we do now make sense
practically and economically? How could we do a better job of
regulating? What does the industry want? What about
consumers and what about our international obligations?
Under the present conditions penalties for regulatory offences
are dealt with under criminal law. That means they are
prosecuted in the courts. This is costly. It can cause delays and
means that strict requirements of criminal procedure must be
followed. This places a considerable pressure on our limited
resources.
As a regulatory department we are not dealing with crimes in
the order of murder, theft and assault. We are dealing with
regulatory contraventions that fall outside true criminal law
such as misleading labelling of food products, improper
sanitation procedures in food processing and failure to follow
market requirements for federal inspection or for packaging.
This legislation, AMPS, will allow us to treat most of these
regulatory violations outside criminal courts in a manner that
requires less formal procedures and lower costs for proceedings.
It will allow us to allocate our scarce resources to uses with the
highest value.
9484
This legislation is far more efficient than prosecution, as it
allows for the settlement of penalties without going through a
hearing process. It is also a much fairer process for violators,
as it removes the criminal stigma with these violations.
The use of the administrative monetary penalty system would
widen the array of options available to the department in
responding to non-compliance. We now prosecute essentially in
situations of serious non-compliance such as actions that
introduce a foreign disease or a pest into the country. Those are
the main areas in which we follow the present process because of
the cost and time involved.
A suitable alternative to prosecution that provides suitable
deterrents to non-compliance is needed for effective regulatory
enforcement. AMPS is such a system.
(1300)
AMPS would provide the government with a much needed
method of enforcing compliance with our regulations. The
United States uses a monetary penalty system for exporters, yet
we have not had this option to ensure that imports meet our
standards in Canada. The United States department of
agriculture and most other regulatory agencies in the United
States use a system of monetary penalty.
Currently we have federal inspectors in plants and
establishments in Canada and we generally have effective
enforcement options in these situations to deal with
non-compliant products. We can seize and detain the product in
establishments or stop the processing line until the product is
brought into compliance. For imported products these options
are not possible. However, the monetary penalty system would
give us an effective response to non-compliance in the market
of these products.
The system would allow for the use of consistent enforcement
practices against importers and domestic companies marketing
products that do not meet Canadian health, Canadian safety or
Canadian quality standards. Consistency of consequences for
non-compliance combined with a greater rate of compliance
increases the competitiveness of Canada's agri-food sector.
The recommendation to move to an administrative system
came out of the department's regulatory review, where industry
associations pointed out the need for active enforcement of
domestic standards to imported products. They want a level
playing field. This system would lead to equitable enforcement
of regulations for domestic and imported products. Further
consultation with the agri-food industry would take place in the
development of regulations for the system.
The system emphasizes compliance, not punishment. In
general, warnings would be issued before an administrative
monetary penalty is proposed. In those situations where a
penalty has been imposed, the system would allow officials with
the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to negotiate
solutions with companies when the product violates an act or a
regulation. Penalties may be reduced or indeed waived if
corrective actions such as processing modifications, staff
training, the purchase of new equipment or whatever it takes to
ensure future compliance, are made by the industry.
This kind of immediate corrective action results in a better
product. It also results in improved health and safety and, in the
end, more effective enforcement. Negotiated solutions to
non-compliance are not now available.
With the monetary policy system being administrative in
nature, it would replace most prosecutions and decriminalize
violations of the various acts, as there is not a possibility of
obtaining a criminal record or of being imprisoned. The system
represents a further step toward decriminalizing our regulatory
violations. We would retain the right to prosecute offences
committed with intent that have the potential to cause
significant harm. As well, we would ensure the effective
regulation of health, safety and quality of both domestic and
imported products.
The system would also allow us to issue tickets at ports of
entry to Canada and allow us to issue those tickets for minor
violations committed by the travelling public that try to illegally
bring meat or meat products or plants or plant products into
Canada.
The problem of that type of thing happening has the potential
to be serious because of the possibility of introducing plant or
animal diseases into the country. For example, the introduction
of foot and mouth disease a number of years ago resulted in
millions of dollars in damages and costs for its control and
eradication. The current system based on prosecution before the
courts is generally inappropriate for these violations unless
significant harm is done.
Along with an education component developed by the
department to increase awareness of important requirements
called ``Beware and Declare'', we expect the monetary penalty
system to solve the problem efficiently and effectively.
Through these initiatives major airlines will be showing
travellers coming into the country a video on the restrictions
surrounding the importation of agriculture and agri-food
products and the possibility of receiving a penalty if they
attempt to bring meat or plant products into the country without
declaring them.
(1305)
The use of the monetary penalty is not a new concept in the
federal regulatory system. The AMPS being proposed in the bill
borrows on the system used by Transport Canada to regulate
activities under the Aeronautics Act as does Human Resources
Development Canada for enforcement under the Unemployment
Insurance Act. Other departments are as well considering a
system for use in their regulatory areas.
9485
Under the administrative monetary penalty system we expect
a higher rate of compliance simply because the system is
flexible, faster, fairer, and sends a clear message on what the
response to non-compliance will be. We believe the system
makes sense as we move toward a partnership with industry and
as we shift many of our inspection activities away from hands
on inspection and move more toward a monitoring role.
New enforcement options are needed to address this shift in
responsibility as industry will take on a greater ownership of
ensuring that agri-food products are in compliance with
regulations.
The administrative monetary penalty system provides
alternatives to both overly strict and weak enforcement. As I
said earlier, our main enforcement options at the present time
are to seize and detain a product and to prosecute. In addition,
we can suspend and cancel licences, deregister plants and
withdraw services. Because these last three options stop
business operations either temporarily or permanently, we have
used these sanctions sparingly and only as a last resort. As well
these sanctions are not available for imported products.
A monetary penalty would generally be considered
appropriate when the violation posed actual or potential risk of
harm to health or safety and would cause economic harm or is a
threat to the environment.
Administrative monetary penalties would be imposed on the
basis of absolute liability, that is the penalty could be imposed
without proving intent or negligence. The concept of absolute
liability is appropriate to the administrative enforcement of
regulations with modest levels for penalties and no threat of
imprisonment.
We expect to begin implementation with penalties that will be
broken into three basic levels ranging from $50 to $6,000
depending on the severity of the offence. The proposed
legislation, however, would allow us to set maximum penalties
at $15,000. This built-in flexibility would help to accommodate
future increase that might be due to inflation and other causes.
The amount of the penalties could be adjusted higher or lower
based on several mitigating or aggravating criteria, including
seriousness of the violation, the compliance record, the degree
of intent to commit a violation, the amount of harm done
including harm to health and safety and economic and
environmental harm.
As part of the system a review process would be set up to give
an opportunity to be heard to those who believe they did not
commit a violation. That review would be carried out by an
appropriate government official, or a violator could request a
hearing before an independent tribunal with recourse to the
Federal Court of Canada as the final level of review.
Again in keeping with the emphasis on compliance, not
punishment, the proposed act would authorize officials to enter
into negotiations, if requested by the offenders, for the amount
of penalties and for concluding compliance agreements. Under
the compliance agreements, fines can be reduced or waived if
the industry takes the necessary steps to ensure future
compliance.
As well, under this system fines will be reduced by 50 per cent
for offenders who pay the fine within the time prescribed by
regulations without asking for a review. Doing a better job of
regulating makes sense for the consumer, for the industry and
for government.
The administrative monetary penalty system would provide
for a quick response to most non-compliance situations.
Combined with other enforcement measures, this should have
the effect of improving compliance with the regulations. In turn
this is expected to reduce the government's exposure to liability
resulting from the underenforcement of statutes and regulations.
To conclude I would like to say that to introduce this system
initially requires the passage of this omnibus legislation that
would amend the eight acts I listed earlier. Implementation of
the administrative monetary penalty system is an important step
in our overall plan. It is important in order to improve the
agriculture and agri-food inspection system. It is important to
apply our standards of high quality, high health and high safety
equally to products coming into the country and to products
produced in Canada. It is important to stop the travelling public
from bringing in illegal plants, animals or products made of
plants and animals, and to bring an overall greater sense of
fairness and expediency to the enforcement of regulations.
(1310)
We are working in close co-operation with the industry. We
are adapting to the changing business environment. We are
finding different ways of doing business that do not compromise
on the world renowned standards of excellence in Canada.
I recommend members of the House approve Bill C-61 as
expeditiously as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-61, immediately
after the presentation by the hon. member for Prince
Edward-Hastings, especially since the hon. member, until
quite recently, operated a big farm in his own riding and is an
expert on the subject.
The purpose of the bill before the House today is to provide
enforcement options to deal with persons who violate certain
laws that regulate health standards and the quality of
agricultural products sold in Canada and, of course, Quebec.
This legislation, as we just pointed out, will affect eight acts
and their regulations, including the Canada Agricultural Prod-
9486
ucts Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Fertilizer Act and the
Health of Animals Act. With Bill C-61, the government
establishes what are referred to as AMPS. AMPS stands for
administrative monetary penalties system. Throughout this
debate, when we refer to AMPS, that is what we mean. The
purpose of Bill C-61 is to extend the range of enforcement
options available in legislation administered by the Food
Production and Inspection Branch.
Under this system, an inspector from the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food will be able to impose penalties
when regulations are violated. This procedure would obviate the
need for going to court, so this is also a matter of alleviating the
burden on the judiciary system.
After reading the Auditor General's comments on inspection
procedures, it is clear changes were necessary. I realize that
these changes are not directly related to the changes
recommended in the Auditor General's report, but this may be a
first step.
I may remind the House that in his latest report, the Auditor
General of Canada pointed out that resources were being wasted
as a result of the incredible confusion with respect to inspection
standards. A document from the Food Production and Inspection
Branch tells us that the government expects to cut $44 million in
this sector over five years, including $22 million in the next
budget, which the minister will be bringing down a few weeks
from now. After the by-election in Brome-Missisquoi, of
course.
(1315)
It would be worthwhile knowing the savings, which my
colleague from Prince Edward-Hastings did not mention, the
amount of the savings generated by this new approach and
whether these savings are included in the cuts mentioned earlier.
We must be very careful to avoid imposing drastic cuts that
could affect the quality of inspection services. At the risk of
digressing briefly from the context of the bill we are currently
considering, that is Bill C-61, I will take the liberty of adding
that I have received a lot of mail from small meat-packing firms
concerned about possibly having to pay inspection costs
themselves.
The members of the Bloc quebecois will be keeping a close
watch, at the appropriate time, to ensure the government does
not dump the costs onto small businesses. That is the end of my
brief digression, Mr. Speaker.
The fact remains that the AMP system provides for the
imposition of fines, but through an administrative process. An
AMP cannot lead to either a criminal record or imprisonment.
The main objective of the system is to ensure compliance with
the law, it appears. It is not intended to impose heavy fines as the
result of an offence.
The system invites negotiation much more than severe
penalties. In fact, to my understanding, it provides an
alternative to public officials who must ensure compliance with
legislation. The principle is clear: the intention is to reduce the
number of legal proceedings and to provide more satisfactory
solutions to carrying out the law.
Representatives from the agricultural sector have already
pointed out that overly excessive fines were sometimes imposed
for offences and that officials sometimes had to simply overlook
certain mistakes. The flexibility of the AMPs could lessen the
problem.
What Bill C-61 provides that is new is an alternative solution
for the offender. Once an individual is found guilty, he has a
number of options open to him. He can contest his guilt with the
minister within a prescribed time frame and under certain terms
of the regulations. If, on the other hand, he accepts the guilty
verdict and pays the fine, the amount of the fine is automatically
cut in half.
In our system of justice, the presumption of innocence is a
fundamental right. By giving the offender this option, the
accused is in effect threatened with having to go to trial and
having to hire a lawyer to defend himself, with all that entails.
He is simply told to pay up and be quiet. We oppose this
principle which would require the less affluent to admit their
guilt even though they would like to proclaim their innocence.
The implementation of this measure could create a dangerous
precedent.
I would like to compare this possibility to a personal
experience of mine. I was stopped by an officer of the Sureté du
Québec; I was certainly at fault, driving at 141 km per hour. The
officer said, very kindly, ``Sir, you were doing 141 but we will
say 135, that will save you this much, you will save that much''.
(1320)
Once he gave me the ticket, I of course wrote out the cheque as
soon as I got home and sent it off right away and, in so doing,
admitted my guilt. As another example, one of my friends was
once ticketed in a different but similar situation, for failing to
come to a stop, although he was sure he had stopped properly.
He decided to plead not guilty but he too, poor fellow, should
have written out a cheque as I did to get some peace of mind. He
had to appear three times in court in Thetford Mines. The first
time, the case was postponed because the judge was not in a
good mood. The second time, the officer failed to appear. He had
informed the court, but there had not been enough time to inform
my friend; the third time, he won.
Yes, he won, but the money he saved did not make up for the
costs incurred since he missed nearly three full days of work, not
to mention his travel expenses and what he paid for his defence.
9487
So, you see, I am more or less convinced that many of our fellow
citizens will simply pay, even if they are not at fault, they will
pay immediately to receive the 50 per cent reduction. What a
deal!
You know that for a $2,000 fine, the fine is reduced by 50 per
cent if paid in cash. So, for that reason, I strongly suspect that
many people will pay forthwith to avoid costs which, in my
opinion, would be much greater. It is a basic right and it must
still be respected. As the hon. members opposite have said so
well, we live in the world's most democratic country, so we must
not let this wonderful democracy run wild, even though it
sometimes seems, in my opinion anyway, to only hobble along
in some cases.
Therefore, we are against the principle which obliges the less
well-off to admit their guilt, even though they would rather
claim their innocence. Applying this measure could set a
dangerous precedent because the other available option, if the
fine is $2,000 or more, is to reach an agreement with the
minister. Applying this alternative solution is simple. If the
minister accepts-the decision is discretionary-offenders can
considerably reduce or even cancel their fines if corrective
measures are taken to comply with the regulations in the future,
that is individuals or businesses will see their fines reduced by
$1 for each $2 they invest to improve their methods, businesses,
ways of doing things or working, whether they buy new
equipment or give new training to their employees.
Therefore, for each $2 invested in their businesses, $1 is taken
off of their fines. This means that for each investment made to
comply with the department's regulations, their fines are
regularly reduced by 50 per cent. Thus offenders are able to
negotiate their sentences. Our judicial system does not lend
itself, in my opinion, to this kind of negotiation. When people
make mistakes, they must bear the consequences.
This method constitutes a form of economic discrimination in
the sense that individuals and businesses with bursting wallets
will barely feel the impact of the sanctions, while people who
are innocent, but have less financial means at their disposal,
could pay bigger fines than their rich neighbours, sometimes for
lesser violations.
(1325)
We also have no idea of how the offenders' compliance costs
will be estimated, or of what will happen if suppliers inflate
prices. If we want to give businesses incentives to invest, let us
do it through tax programs or through other means, not by
negotiating sentences.
Another thing that bothers me is the power given to the
minister and, by extension, to his employees. The minister will
use his own employees to ensure compliance instead of the
courts. They will be the masters of the destiny of those who have
committed violations. They decide if there has been a violation,
label it as minor, serious, or very serious, set the amount of the
penalty, decide on the cases in which the tribunal may intervene
and approve or reject compliance agreements. It seems to me
that this is being done and that it could be detrimental and could
lead to the obvious risk of political interference, not to say
barefaced patronage.
These officials will have full authority to determine whether
or not there has been a violation, and if so, the degree of fault.
Who will decide if the fine is $2,000 for a minor infraction,
$10,000 for a serious infraction or $15,000 for a very serious
infraction? The decision-making process is therefore
decentralized and the minister claims that the regulations
remove any risk of arbitrary decisions. Because they are seen by
the department as essential to an equitable application of
penalties, it goes without saying that a draft of the regulations
must be made available to the members of the committee
studying this bill.
I am also somewhat bothered by the independence of the
tribunal responsible for hearing the complaints of those named
in notices of violation and for reviewing the decisions made by
the minister or his officials. This reminds me, if I may digress
again, of the meeting last week of the 19 Quebec Liberal
members with the president of the CBC to discuss coverage of
the referendum campaign in Quebec. It is terrible, Mr. Speaker,
the political interference of this government in information.
When we speak of democracy in a country such as ours, the first
thing this should call to mind is the right to accurate, truthful
and unbiased information. When a Liberal party caucus meets
with the president, it is not to tell him: Cover the referendum,
but do not slant it in favour of the Yes side, slant it in our favour
because we are the ones who pay you, who set your budget and
who will reappoint you to your position. And, for that matter, we
are the ones who appointed you to it in the first place.
I also heard in the fall in this House that the minister of
heritage had written to a quasi-judicial body, the CRTC, which
reports through his department. The minister had written so that
one of his constituents could obtain a licence. And the Prime
Minister excused him by saying that he was not alone, that eight
other ministers had written-
The Deputy Speaker: I am very sorry, but the time set aside
for government orders has expired. The hon. member can
continue next time.
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
9488
9488
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-244, an act to require charitable and non-profit
organizations that receive public funds to declare the
remuneration of their directors and senior officers, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and pleasure to rise today
to speak on behalf of Bill C-224, an act that would require
charitable and non-profit organizations to declare once a year
the salaries and benefits of their directors and senior officers.
This is a votable bill. If passed into law it will have a profound
effect on all Canadians. It is a first step in bringing public
accountability to a huge sector of the Canadian economy that
has never been under meaningful public supervision.
I am speaking of the not for profit sector, the charities and
non-profit organizations that pay no taxes and yet account for at
least $120 billion in revenues and expenditures each year, about
one-sixth of Canada's gross domestic product. Let me repeat,
$120 billion, a sixth of GDP.
Incredible though it may seem, Canada has had few rules of
public accountability governing this huge sector of the
economy. The financial affairs of charities are but thinly
disclosed to the public while those of non-profit organizations
are entirely beyond public scrutiny. Even though charities and
non-profit organizations are funded directly or indirectly by the
taxpayer, they have been allowed to operate at whatever level of
secrecy they choose.
Oh, yes, they will argue, they have to keep books. They have
to be prepared for an audit by Revenue Canada. However there
are 70,000 charities and 60,000 plus non-profit organizations.
What are the chances of a spot audit? Even if an organization is
audited, the Income Tax Act forbids public disclosure of the
financial details or the results of the examination. The public
has no right to know even when a charity or non-profit
organization is discovered to have failed to keep the public trust,
neither right nor opportunity.
This is a situation that has gone on forever. The potential for
abuse is huge. The scope of the likely waste is difficult to
comprehend. If only one-quarter of this $120 billion is being
frittered away, soaked up in excessive salaries, improper
contracts or bureaucratic inefficiencies, then Canadians are
losing $30 billion annually, which becomes $30 billion out of
the economy.
No wonder Canada has a debt and deficit crisis. I must say it
never made sense to me that Canada, with all its resources and
given its fine entrepreneurial spirit, should be in the cellar with
Italy in terms of debt among the G-7 nations. Now it does.
No nation can possibly let an economic sector worth
one-sixth of its GDP run along without scrutiny, without public
accountability and not run up serious bills. And not have the
financial crisis that Canada now faces.
There is irony here. As the finance minister casts around for
spending cuts and savings crucial to the budget soon to be
tabled, he looks in every corner of the rest of the economy;
consumers, corporations, social programs, the public service
and so on. He does not look at charities and non-profit
organizations. Is there no waste here, no savings? Of course
there are. I can only guess at the reason why charities and
non-profit organizations have not yet come under the deficit
reduction microscope.
(1335)
It may well be because there has been no decent financial
overview of the not for profit sector. It has literally been a case
of out of sight, out of mind, for a generation of finance
ministers.
No doubt this is true of non-profit organizations. There were
60,000 of them in 1986 and up until two years ago they did not
have to file an annual financial information return equivalent to
that required of charities. They only had to file as incorporated
companies or trusts. If they were neither, they did not have to
file at all.
Consequently, as the Auditor General stated in 1990, Revenue
Canada ``has no effective check on the right to enjoy tax exempt
status''. He could have stated further that the public, private
citizens, journalists and even members of Parliament have no
opportunity whatsoever to see how they manage their affairs.
However, thanks to the information returns required of
charities, though very inadequate in terms of public disclosure,
we can at least glimpse the huge dimensions of Canada's charity
industry. I would like to refer my colleagues to an excellent
paper, ``A Portrait of Canada's Charities'' which was produced
by the Centre of Philanthropy, based on a study of 1993 charity
returns.
Briefly, here are some of its findings. Canada has 70,000
charities through which $86 billion passed in 1993 for 12 per
cent to 13 per cent of GDP. This amount is equal to the GDP of
the entire province of British Columbia and considerably more
than the entire agricultural sector. Forty billion dollars was paid
out by charities in salaries and benefits-a huge sum.
Government funding of charities amounted to $49 billion in
1993, slightly more than half of all the charities' revenues.
Hospitals and teaching institutions received 58 per cent of all
9489
revenues, or about $50 billion. By contrast churches received
only 6 per cent of revenues or about $5 billion.
Here is the problem. Anyone can find out how much a
minister of a church is making for 6 per cent of the charity take.
But it is usually impossible, right across this country, to find out
the salary of a hospital or university president for 58 per cent of
the charity take.
Why not? Hospitals and universities are all fully funded
directly or indirectly by the taxpayer. Why does the taxpayer not
have the right to know how much of his hard earned tax dollar is
being spent on the salaries of their chief administrators? Why
not?
The answer is, and I am sure that 90 per cent of Canadians will
agree, that the taxpayer should know. We do have the right. If
you are paying the bill you have a fundamental right to know
how your money is being spent. That is a given. That is what Bill
C-224 addresses.
It would require every not for profit organization to file a
statutory declaration showing the total remuneration and
benefits received by all directors and senior officers of charities
and non-profit organizations. The minister of revenue would
then make this information available to anyone who wanted it.
This I should add is no less than what is required now by
publicly traded companies in Canada. If for profit companies are
required to provide this kind of disclosure to shareholders, why
should not charities and non-profit organizations do the same
thing for their shareholders, the taxpayers of Canada?
It seems so reasonable, so obvious, so morally right. The fact
is, however, that hospitals for instance have often ferociously
defended the secrecy of their books and denied absolutely, even
to members of their own governing boards, details on the
salaries paid their top administrators. Indeed, trying to find out
how most hospitals run themselves is akin to trying to assess the
administrative practices of the government in Beijing from city
hall in Thunder Bay. Most hospital board meetings are held in
camera. The public and press are excluded.
This is all the more mystifying in that governments at all
levels are told that hospitals are hurting, that beds must be cut
back unless funding is sustained or even increased. Yet not even
the politicians deliberating the problem of health care spending
are entitled to know how much a hospital president is making.
Why not?
(1340 )
Some might argue that the current charity information return
already provides enough information about remuneration. It
does not. It only requires totals and sadly, some charities filling
out the form step around the spirit of openness.
For example, the charity return asks for the ``total
remuneration paid to employees who are executive officers,
directors or trustees of the charity''. Then it asks for the total
number of people involved, which invites division of that
number to get the average per individual.
Alas, often the trustees of charities are unpaid. Therefore the
number you are dividing by is inflated and the average
remuneration appears far lower than it actually is for key
administrators.
Sadder still is the fact that many charities simply skip the
remuneration lines altogether. The Canadian Cancer Society of
Ontario reports paying over $8 million in salaries and then
leaves the following lines on executive remuneration blank.
Therefore we do not even get totals.
This practice is common. Any random sampling of annual
charity returns will come up with many where the remuneration
lines are not filled out. There is obviously an unwillingness by
many charities to provide this elementary information. They get
away with it because there is no penalty for their omissions short
of revoking their charity status. There is no adequate screening
of the filled out forms either. Errors abound and some must be
deliberate.
Bill C-224 partially plugs this loophole. The legislation
provides a penalty for the failure to disclose. A fine of up to 50
per cent of the funds received from government is a law that has
teeth. Perhaps that sounds tough but in fact legislators in the
United States have been tearing their hair and trying to bring to
task not for profit organizations that have been giving
executives excessive compensation.
The lifting of charitable status is too slow, the ways of
concealing excessive compensation too intricate. I have to add
that the United States is years ahead of Canada in trying to tackle
this problem.
How bad is it? In the United States the information returns of
both non-profit and charities are available to the public. There
too, they have this phenomenon of organizations skipping the
lines pertaining to executive remuneration. Prodding by the
Internal Revenue Service has disclosed salaries exceeding one
million dollars annually, $300,000 or $400,000 is not unusual.
This is undoubtedly happening in Canada as well. Our charity
information returns are primitive in the detail they require in
comparison to those of the Americans. The Canadian public,
citizens, journalists or politicians cannot even see the returns of
non-profit organizations. While these are available to every
American on demand at the office of the non-profit
organization, the equivalent information in Canada is denied to
Canadians.
While my remarks have tended to focus on charities it is only
because there is at least some public information on them. There
is nothing on non-profit organizations. Nothing at all.
9490
Revenue Canada is not even sure how many there are. The
only figure I could obtain, 60,000, is nine years old and
nobody-I mean nobody-knows how much money flows
through them yearly. If it is even half that of charities, that is
$40 billion. I suggest that that figure is conservative. I suggest
that it could be considerably more. I suggest the combined
figure that I have been using, $120 billion, is also conservative.
Last week I received a visitor at my constituency office in
Hamilton-Wentworth riding. He was from Manitoba and while
on business in Toronto he drove over to meet me because he had
read in his local paper that I was investigating the not for profit
industries.
He told me that he headed a for profit company in the business
of recycling building materials. He said that he was being killed
by a non-profit organization in the same business which enjoyed
a competitive advantage because it did not pay taxes.
That same week, I received a call from the president of a
Toronto union local representing jail workers. His problem was
with a non-profit organization hired by the provincial
government to manage group homes for youths convicted under
the Young Offenders Act. The union wanted access to the
company's financial statements for the purposes of negotiating a
collective agreement. Denied. A non-profit organization does
not have to disclose financial details to anyone. Secrecy is
absolute, no matter how the taxpayer's dollar is being spent, and
so it goes.
(1345)
The real problem is that we do not know the net negative
effect non-profit organizations are having on the economy. That
many exist purely to pay inflated salaries to their principal
officers there is no doubt. In doing so, with the advantage of not
having to pay taxes, are they forcing out of business legitimate
for-profit enterprises which would pay taxes? How damaging to
a free market economy is a plethora of businesses which only
have to compete sufficiently to line the pockets of their
executives rather than sufficiently to show a profit to pay
shareholders? How much of Canada's deficit is rooted in
non-profit companies doing barely enough and no more?
There is only one quick way to get at this issue: require
non-profit organizations to declare the remuneration of their
principal officers, as Bill C-224 proposes, and the benefits as
well.
MPs are often accused of having a too rich pension plan. I
agree that is so and that it should be brought into line with
industry. Tax exempt charities and non-profit organizations are
dependent upon the taxpayer too, no less so than MPs. What
kind of pensions do their executive officers get? Chances are
given that this information has never been available, many of
their pension plans would make current MP pensions look
starved and stingy.
Just as the public demands accountability of its politicians, so
it should demand accountability of those organizations
dependent upon public and governmental generosity. There is no
excuse for secrecy when tax dollars are being spent, directly or
indirectly.
Finally, it is clear that the entire $120 billion not for profit
sector is urgently in need of review and oversight. However, a
problem of such magnitude cannot be solved overnight.
Nevertheless, something must be done immediately because
the loss to the economy is undoubtedly enormous. The
floodlight of public scrutiny must be brought to bear as quickly
as possible. That is the intention of Bill C-224. It cannot cure in
a stroke an industry that has been allowed to function
unsupervised for decades but it can bring into sharp relief the
fundamental nature of the problem. By forcing into daylight
those executive salaries and benefits which are obviously
excessive, it can show the greed.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my hon.
colleague for his speech, which I thought was rather well
researched and skilfully crafted.
I wish to tell him that members of the Bloc Quebecois are not
against this bill but would like to discuss it more thoroughly. I
want to take this opportunity to add my two cents' worth to the
discussion.
Today's debate is on Bill C-224, an act to require charitable
and non-profit organizations that receive public funds to report
the remuneration of their directors and senior officers, which
was introduced by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth.
This bill would require charitable and non-profit
organizations that receive, directly or indirectly, any payment
from the public funds of Canada to report the remuneration and
benefits received by their directors and senior officers. My Bloc
colleagues and I think that the objective of this bill deserves our
support.
It would be appropriate, in the name of openness, to require
organizations receiving funds from the federal government or
the public to disclose the remuneration and benefits provided to
their directors and senior officers. Canadians would thus be able
to ensure that public funds used to support charitable
organizations do not end up in the pockets of those who
administer these organizations, as we have seen recently at all
levels.
As a donor, the federal government would be entitled to
require that the remuneration and benefits received by the
directors and senior officers of non-profit organizations, at least
those supported by the government, be made public.
We support the principle of this bill for another reason: it will
always be difficult to assess with accuracy the voluntary sec-
9491
tor's contribution to Canadian society until we find out the
number of paid employees and their salaries, as well as the size
of the infrastructure in place to facilitate the work done by
volunteers.
(1350)
In these difficult times, understandably, volunteer work and
donations are more needed than ever. This is due to the fact that
voluntary organizations face an ever-growing demand for
programs and services, on the one hand, and a reduction in
government assistance and stiffer competition for private funds,
on the other hand.
We must recognize that volunteer work is an essential element
of society as well as a way of life and social duty. It is a
democratic gesture which plays a very important role in the life
of the community and compensates, as I just explained, for the
government's gradual withdrawal from a number of sectors.
However, the situation is more complex as regards non-profit
volunteer organizations, since they include various national,
provincial and municipal organizations which are active in
sectors as diverse as health, social services, the environment,
justice, education, international assistance to name but a few.
I have some concerns regarding this bill. First, as my hon.
colleague mentioned, line 16 in clause 3 reads as follows:
``-receives, directly or indirectly''. That wording is very
general and could include a vast number of non-profit
organizations which think they have nothing to do with the
federal government, or with direct funding from Canadian
taxpayers.
For example, a university research fund receiving money
from a provincial government would or could be affected by this
bill, since money received could indirectly come from
federal-provincial transfers. Consequently, that research fund
would have to disclose the salaries of its managers or directors.
As well, would an organization like the Knights of Columbus
in a small town be subject to this bill, since the vast majority of
such small charitable and non-profit organizations rely on
public donations and therefore on public money?
I am concerned that the objective of this bill might be altered
by the means used to achieve it. I fear that this bill might be
stalled because it is too ambitious and could generate a lot of red
tape.
This bill put forward by my colleague is commendable, its
purpose being to eliminate as much as possible frauds
committed by administrators and directors of non-profit
organizations who take money from the Canadian public and use
it more for themselves than for the great causes they claim to
defend.
In order to respect the spirit of this bill, I think that we need to
look more closely at its scope. We cannot treat in the same
fashion organizations that are responsible and those that some
people use to their own financial advantage, as can be seen
occasionally.
We must also make a distinction between most small
non-profit or charitable organizations and those that have large
budgets. What constitutes a large budget, $50,000, $100,000?
We do not know exactly. We need to have statistics on this and
discuss the issue.
We must also make a distinction between a person who works
hard all year long for a cause he or she believes in and who
receives, for example, $40,000 a year as executive director and
another person who would receive the same amount of money to
organize, for example, a fund-raising campaign lasting two
months. A mere report to the minister cannot make the
difference between these two cases.
There is also a problem of confidentiality, of course, when a
person's employment revenues are disclosed without the job
description or the length of employment being known. For all
these reasons, I think that the scope of this bill has to be limited.
First of all, only the organizations receiving directly any
payment from the federal government and major non-profit or
charitable organizations would have, for example, to file along
with their annual reports a statement of income and salaries
specifying the major positions and the remuneration of their
incumbents.
With this proposal, there will be no need to create more
bureaucracy, since companies already have to produce an annual
report to which the income and salaries annex could be added, as
would be the case for some charitable or non-profit
organizations that meet criteria which, I think, still have to be
defined.
(1355)
Hence, the remuneration and benefits of the directors and
managers of all major non-profit organizations would be
disclosed, which is the purpose of this bill, and the financial
institutions minister would be able to answer any legitimate
inquiry.
Knowing full well that the hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth is acting in the interest of the Canadian
population, for which he must be commended, we would be
prepared to support the principle of the bill if we could amend it
to abolish some of the pointless conditions it prescribes for the
vast majority of non-profit organizations whose staff receive
little or no remuneration and to avoid creating another useless
level of bureaucracy.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the
volunteers in Canada as well as in Quebec, who work day in and
day out to promote a cause they believe in.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak in
9492
support of Bill C-224, a private member's bill presented by the
hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.
I hope the journalists who cover the proceedings of the House
of Commons note that we as members are not always at each
other's throats. If the public only watches Question Period and if
Question Period is the only parliamentary proceeding that hits
the nightly news, a wrong impression of how this House
operates can and I submit has developed in the minds of
Canadians.
There have been numerous occasions in this Parliament
setting it apart from the previous Parliament when members
have agreed on the disposition of various subjects. When a good
idea is presented it deserves support. This is the view of how the
House of Commons should work which my party has tried to get
across since all members convened here a little more than a year
ago.
While we have not always been successful, politics by its very
nature being partisan, I believe we have on many occasions
raised the level of debate in the Chamber through mutual
co-operation on a number of issues.
The private member's bill presented by my friend from
Hamilton-Wentworth deals with an important issue in a way
which deserves our support.
This bill proposes that charitable and non-profit
organizations that receive public funds be required to declare
the remuneration received by their directors and senior officers.
In supporting this bill I want to make it crystal clear that the
Reform Party for the most part supports the work of charitable
and non-profit organizations in Canada. The Reform Party
supports the work of the voluntary sector in Canada. I would like
to point out along with the previous speaker of the Bloc that I too
thank all of the volunteers across Canada, many of whom give
many hours and are not always thanked as they should be.
We recognize the need for volunteers in many organizations
and we respect the right of these organizations to exist and to
carry out their functions.
However, what we are against, and this is the reason we
support this bill, is these organizations not being accountable. If
these organizations receive taxpayers' dollars then every penny
of every dollar received should be accounted for.
I do not think it will come as a great surprise to many that
Reform policy goes further than this bill. It is the policy of my
party that no funds should be given by the government to any
charitable or non-profit organization. It should be the
responsibility of the organization to fund itself. If there is a need
or a perceived reason for the existence of an organization then it
should be able to sustain itself without the need for government
handouts.
I also want to point out here that in my riding over the last year
I have been donating 10 per cent of my salary, not because I
think MPs are not paid enough or are paid too much, but because
I think it was an opportunity for me to show people within my
riding that if we are interested in a particular community project
or a service group or a food bank then we can show others that it
is up to us in the community to support those things.
(1400 )
Reflecting back on the last 15 years it seems to me that with
the advent of the charter of rights and freedoms Canada
gradually has become a society dominated by special interest
groups, each group advocating what it deems to be a worthwhile
cause. We all know to each of us the things we are involved in
seem more worthwhile than what someone else is doing and it is
an understandable feeling.
More often than not these groups receive seed money from
some level of government. Because the federal government
historically has the most money to give out, most of these
organizations end up receiving some handout from the federal
treasury.
The problem with this procedure is that the dependence on
government grants begins and carries on. It becomes difficult
for the organization to function without federal money. For
political reasons it becomes difficult for a government, any
government, to eliminate that funding.
It is the opinion of my party and it is my personal opinion as
well that we can no longer afford to fund these organizations
either totally or partially. If there is a good reason for the
existence of the organization there should be a good reason for
people to support it financially. However as long as these grants
continue it is the least we as legislators can do to ensure that
there is accountability.
It is shocking to think that not for profit organizations are not
required to disclose individual salaries. While I am not
condemning any of these organizations, surely the public should
know if the reason there is no profit is because a great deal of the
money received was spent on salaries or spent on programs.
There should be no ambiguity.
The only way to eliminate this ambiguity is for these
organizations to report fully on their disposition of funds
received. It should, as my friend opposite suggests, be broken
down so that there can be no misinterpretation as to which of the
organization's programs were funded and how much each
particular individual in the organization received as a salary or a
bonus.
Full and complete disclosure should also have a chilling
effect on any organization that uses the bulk of the contributions
it receives on salaries. Perhaps the mere fact that salaries have to
be publicly declared may result in more money being put into
the programs.
9493
The amounts of money we are dealing with here are not
insubstantial. This whole sector of the economy comprises
about 70,000 charities, as was mentioned earlier, which spent
$82 billion in 1993. There are also 40,000 plus non-profit
organizations which probably spent an amount proportional to
the amount spent by the charities.
The annual returns required by Revenue Canada are not made
public with respect to not for profit organizations. It is
important that salaries be disclosed in these organizations
because the amount shown will indicate if excessive profits are
spent or simply eliminated through the payment of high salaries.
While the public and financial information returns of
charities have been available since 1977 they are not policed by
Revenue Canada for accuracy or completeness and contain little
financial detail. Public accountability requires us to do better
than this. The public should be able to know who gets how much.
I believe this bill accomplishes this goal. I am pleased to note
that by the wording of this bill all not for profit organizations are
affected. Even those administered by the provinces are affected.
Therefore, hospitals, universities, research organizations,
training schools and other institutions which receive federal
funds will be subject to disclosure.
This bill is a good first step in dealing with the issue, however
it is only a first step. It is important for us, perhaps in a
committee of this House, to review the conditions precedent for
having an organization declared to be a charity or not for profit
organization. In other words, we should review the conditions an
organization has to meet to receive the tax exempt status and to
give tax receipts for donations.
Perhaps we may conclude that only organizations which pay
their own way should have this status. If they receive a
government grant then they pay tax. Such a review could focus
on the role and value of purely volunteer organizations in our
society, organizations that use all of the money donated to them
for programs rather than for salaries.
On the question of grants and contributions by the federal
government to these groups, I stated the firm policy of my party
earlier. These grants and contributions are to cease.
In my position as the Reform Party's critic for literacy, I have
suggested this to my party and will be suggesting it to the
minister responsible for literacy, the government leader in the
Senate. Most if not all of the literacy budget is distributed in the
form of grants or contributions to charitable or not for profit
organizations which are involved in the literacy business. These
are organizations which encourage literacy through adult
training, raise awareness of the problems of illiteracy, or
perhaps are involved in family counselling where illiteracy is an
issue.
(1405 )
Those are all worthwhile goals. However, it is my contention
that they can be achieved without dipping into the public purse.
Let us face it ladies and gentlemen, today we have no more
money in the public purse.
Private enterprise, the business community, which stands to
benefit the most from a high level of literacy should assume the
task of training. It should assume this burden because business
will reap the benefits.
I have also suggested that in order to treat these literacy
organizations in a humane fashion, funding will be phased out
over three years. Yes, no government funding to any of these
organizations is my ultimate goal, but I appreciate the work
done by my colleague for Hamilton-Wentworth. His ideas on
this matter of salary disclosure deserve our support and Bill
C-224 deserves the support of this House.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure today to second and to speak in
support of Bill C-224, an act to require charitable and
non-profit groups receiving public funds to declare the
remuneration of their directors and senior officers.
This bill is the first important step toward reforming Canada's
not for profit sector. With the implementation of C-224 all
organizations with charitable or non-profit status receiving
public funding by direct grants, government transfers or by tax
exemption will be required to publicly disclose the amount of
the salaries and benefits paid to their principal officers.
This bill is about accountability. It is about allowing these
collectively funded organizations and agencies to be scrutinized
not only by government but also by the public. It sets the same
standard of accountability for not for profit organizations as
those set for individuals, businesses and government.
When government funds individuals and businesses, rules and
regulations are in place to ensure accountability. Why should
the rules be different for not for profit organizations? In difficult
economic times all precautions must be taken to ensure sparse
public funds are allocated according to real need.
The issue is of utmost importance given the absolute
necessity to control government spending today. We are forced
to re-evaluate the role of government in society generally. Now
more than ever we must closely scrutinize recipients of all
public funds.
There are two distinct advantages to achieving charitable
status in Canada. Once an organization is registered it is exempt
from paying income tax. Registration also allows the
organization to issue official donation receipts which donors
then claim as income tax credits. This results in a reduction of
tax revenues to the government.
9494
Currently, registered charities, including private and public
foundations and charitable organizations are required to file a
registered charity information return with the department of
revenue. These returns are also available for public release as
per section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Section D of the return asks how much remuneration is paid to
employees, executive officers, directors and trustees. The
question of how many people are paid from the total regular
employees remuneration is not asked. As long as the
organization files a return, even though it be incomplete, it
retains its charitable status. There is no penalty if required
information is missing.
The member for Hamilton-Wentworth's November 1994
report concerning special interest group funding contains
returns from selected charitable organizations. Of these, only 50
per cent specified the number of executives or their salaries. The
other half implied they had no executive officers, directors or
trustees and therefore did not have to specify how much money
was allocated for their salaries.
One wonders how an organization such as the Canadian
Council on Smoking and Health claiming receipts of almost $1
million and employee salaries of close to $400,000 can function
without directors or executives.
By simply including all salaries in the figures paid out to
regular employees, organizations avoid having to identify or
reveal executive salaries. The current charity information return
does not require detailed information about remuneration.
Canadians who are hard pressed to donate a simple $25 to a
charity may be appalled to find its executive director receives
half a million dollars in salary.
While the Income Tax Act requires charities to use at least 80
per cent of individual donations on charitable activities, it does
not mention what proportion of a government grant should be
used in this way. Moreover, when a charity is 80 to 90 per cent
government funded the current rules leave an enormous gap.
The situation is even worse for non-profit organizations.
They are generally not taxable. While non-profit organizations
cannot issue official tax receipts, they receive direct funding
from the government by way of grants and transfers and indirect
funding in the form of tax exemptions.
(1410)
Currently, non-profit organizations are required to file a
non-profit organization information return with Revenue
Canada detailing their financial information. Not every
non-profit organization is required to file a return. Only those
having revenue exceeding $10,000 per year or having assets of
more than $200,000. Only 4,960 of an estimated $40,000
non-profit organizations filed a return in 1993. Under the
Privacy Act and section 241 of the Income Tax Act all of this
information remains confidential.
A non-profit organization has absolutely no public
accountability. There is no way for any member of the public or
the government to adequately assess the financial operations of
these organizations. MPs are asked to approve grants for
organizations in their own constituencies having little idea
where that money is actually going. I have personally withheld
cheques from organizations in my constituency that have failed
to provide me with adequate financial information.
Bill C-224 requires a detailed public breakdown of all
salaries for all charitable and non-profit organizations. This
would eliminate a prime area of potential abuse in a largely
unaccountable sector.
The Consumers' Association of Canada lists three sources of
income on its information return with government grants
totalling almost $900,000, more than 70 per cent of its total
revenues. This organization pays one executive officer $96,000
a year. At least it reports this information. Most do not.
We can no longer allow any publicly funded organization to
remain outside financial scrutiny. Given the state of the
government's finances, the present situation is totally
unacceptable.
There are more than 66,000 registered charities in Canada, a
number which increases by 4,000 annually. We do not know
exactly how many non-profit organizations truly exist.
The Canadian Centre for Philanthropy reports approximately
$86 billion passed through registered charities in 1993, 13 per
cent of Canada's gross domestic product and equal to the entire
GDP of British Columbia. We can safely say that together
charities and non-profit organizations account for more than
$100 billion in cash flow. They pay out approximately $40
billion in salaries to 3.2 million people or 9 per cent of the
Canadian labour force.
Registered charities alone receive approximately 56 per cent
of their revenue directly from various levels of government, $49
billion annually; $5.5 billion comes from the federal
government in direct grants and transfers and $600 million in
forgone tax revenue, over $6 billion in total per year.
In our quest to control government spending, not for profit
organizations cannot be ignored. Accountability in terms of
salaries paid out by government funded agencies is the essential
first step proposed in this bill.
Other important recommendations in the bill also need to be
considered. The Income Tax Act must be amended to allow
public access to the financial statements of non-profit
organizations. Revenue Canada must scrutinize more closely
the activities of registered charities.
9495
Applicants for government funding should be required to
waive certain protections offered by the Access to Information
and Privacy Acts. Organizations should not receive significant
government funding without having had their annual statements
reviewed and approved by the granting authorities.
All of these recommendations establish accountability.
Current financial conditions demand close scrutiny of all groups
receiving government funding. This bill is only the tip of the
iceberg, a small but necessary step in reforming the way we
handle Canada's non-profit sector.
In the U.S., charitable and non-profit organizations must file
returns with the IRS which are available for public inspection.
Information must be filed by both charitable and non-profit
organizations, unlike the Canadian policy which keeps the
returns of non-profit organizations confidential.
The U.S. form is much more comprehensive and detailed. One
section asks for the names, addresses, compensation, benefits
and expense allowances of officers, directors and key
employees. If any receive annual compensation of more than an
aggregate $100,000 an additional schedule must be attached.
The organizations are thus held directly accountable to the
public.
We publicly fund charitable and non-profit organizations in
Canada which engage in activities unrelated to their charitable
status. Some participate in blatantly political activities by
donating funds to political parties.
The Canadian Labour Congress was given a grant of over $3.6
million in 1993 for its labour education program. The CLC
contributes none of its own revenues to this program yet was
able to give over $1 million to the New Democratic Party in that
same year.
(1415 )
The definitions of charitable activities are vague and open to
abuse. Activities in the public interest and those of special
interest are not clearly defined. As for non-profit organizations
there are very few guidelines. Some of these organizations such
as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council receive up to 80 per cent
of their revenue from sustained government funding. Many
could not survive without direct annual funding from the
government. We are talking about $49 billion in government
funding each year. We must get our act together.
I ask all hon. members to vote for the bill as a first step in
addressing a situation that both the public and the legitimate not
for profit sector should welcome. The taxpayer has a right to
evaluate the spending priorities of recipients of government
grants. Legitimate not for profit organizations have an interest
in knowing that both government and private funding is
allocated to those who need and deserve it most.
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague from
Hamilton-Wentworth on the effort he has put into studying the
subject of the accountability of non-profit organizations. This
debate is about accountability. It should in no way be perceived
as an attack on the numerous organizations that are making a
real contribution to public policy.
At the same time it is appropriate to reconsider the necessity
of government support for many not for profit organizations. I
do not buy the argument that government funding is required to
give a voice to people who would otherwise not be heard.
Instead I believe the process has usurped the role of members of
Parliament who are elected to speak for their constituents.
A look at the appointment diaries of MPs will demonstrate
very quickly that it is not the rich and powerful who come to see
us with their problems and concerns. Rather it is those who have
come up against the giant bureaucracy that is modern
government and have been stymied or frustrated by the
experience. It is people who want a solution to their individual
problems and would be unlikely to turn to another bureaucracy
in the form of a not for profit organization to take up their case.
That is a primary role of a member of Parliament: to act as an
advocate for those who feel they do not have a voice.
On the broader question of consultation it is difficult to argue
that governments do not consult. More often than not we are
accused of consulting ad nauseam, to the detriment of action.
Politicians are extremely conscious of the need to involve all
stakeholders in any discussion of public policy. A look at the
makeup of any advisory body on questions of wide interest will
confirm this point. Membership is carefully structured to reflect
linguistic, cultural, gender and consumer interests.
From time to time an issue will generate considerable public
interest. Citizens will want to be involved in the policy process
and will join with like-minded Canadians to galvanize public
opinion and encourage governments to act. That kind of activity
is perfectly legitimate and helpful.
The history of such grassroots activism suggests that
politicians do respond. Sometimes whole new government
departments are created, examples being environment and
consumer affairs. However too often those departments begin to
see their constituencies not as the people of Canada but as the
interest groups that establish permanent organizations. Long
after the public has decided that the original reasons their
activism have been responded to, the not for profit organizations
continue to exist as a mirror bureaucracy often supported by
taxpayers. An
9496
almost symbiotic relationship develops between the
organization and the governmental body, and the natural inertia
that exists in government organizations discourages change in
that type of relationship.
It is only when fiscal pressures force a review of program
spending that a reassessment takes place. We have reached or
surpassed that point today. Government can no longer justify
funding special interest groups that cannot demonstrate their
legitimacy through self-sustaining financing. This is not only
my view but also the view of many of my constituents who have
spoken to me about what they expect to see in the budget.
For the first time in many years governments are being forced
to make politically tough decisions about expenditures that have
a real impact on people's lives. In the last budget we announced
the closure of military bases that had contributed substantially
to the welfare of whole communities. That was a tough decision
but one that should have been made years ago. We are now about
to ask Canadians to sacrifice even more, as we recognize that the
deficit is the single overwhelming problem we face. As part of
that exercise a number of government programs will be cut,
resulting in significant job loss in the federal public service.
I mentioned earlier that many causes promoted by special
interest groups have their own champions within government. I
do not believe we should be cutting public service jobs if we are
not prepared to reduce or eliminate funding to those extra
governmental groups that mirror government programs and
initiatives.
(1420)
Another problem associated with special interest funding
relates to the lack of control elected officials have over the
process. Although politicians bear the brunt of public criticism
and are justifiably held accountable for the expenditure of
public funds, the real control of patronage rests within the
bureaucracy.
Ministers cannot possibly pay close attention to every grant
and contribution dispensed by their departments. Once budgets
and guidelines are set, it is also seen as inappropriate for
politicians to become involved in the disbursement of public
money.
Public servants are sensitive to political considerations and
this can lead to funding only for those organizations that are
deemed politically correct. It becomes impossible to criticize
such expenditures without being labelled as inappropriately
biased.
The problem for members of Parliament is that it is usually
not worth risking the disapprobation of powerful voices among
the media and special interest groups. Taxpayers' dollars
continue to be directed to organizations that may enjoy the
support of only a small minority of the public.
The amount of money involved is staggering. Approximately
$4 billion is directed to not for profit organizations in the form
of unconditional grants. Another $3 billion takes the form of
contributions for which accountability is demanded.
It should offend taxpayers that organizations which depend in
any measure on public financing, no matter how noble the cause,
can escape the normal accountability expected of any other
private or public enterprise. This situation only invites abuse.
It should also concern Canadians that their members of
Parliament have no right or ability to review how that public
money is spent. Canadians are very tolerant. We are proud that
so many of our fellow citizens involve themselves freely in
organizations that exist to better the lives of others.
However we also believe any organization that claims to have
the support of a large percentage of the population should be
able to demonstrate the support with corresponding levels of
membership and financial support. That is how one
demonstrates legitimacy.
Unfortunately the availability of public funding for special
interest groups has spawned many institutions that cannot meet
that test and could not continue to exist if they were forced to
depend on their membership and public appeals for support.
Again the motivation and objectives behind these groups may
sound compelling, but we are living in an era of hard choices
that will continue for many years to come.
My colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth has brought to our
attention a number of examples of how federal grants are
allocated which would, I am sure, surprise and upset many of my
constituents. I would like to single out one in particular because
it raises a number of questions. My colleague from Mississauga
has already referred to it. Over the past 10 years the Canadian
Labour Congress has received $41,370,247 from the federal
government. This funding results from a 1977 labour education
agreement with the government.
The CLC educational services program includes three courses
on occupational safety. The subjects taught in the other 32
courses include techniques of organized labour activism,
collective bargaining, grievance procedure, shop steward
responsibilities, something called facing management and
labour law.
I am not arguing that those are inappropriate subjects for
union education. I do contend the Canadian taxpayer should not
be funding the program with an average of $83,672 per person in
pay and benefits for the office and teaching staff involved when
we are facing cuts in other programs that will mean real hardship
for many individuals.
A more troubling aspect of public funding for the CLC relates
to its involvement in federal election financing. In the 1993
federal election the CLC donated $1,509,810 to the New
Democratic Party. That was by far the largest contribution from
any single source to a political party.
9497
The taxpayer paid again when Elections Canada matched that
contribution as provided by law dollar for dollar. Whether or not
the CLC can argue it administers separate funds for education
and political action, it is inappropriate for any organization that
receives direct government funding to make political
contributions. I would apply that rule to private industry as well.
This debate is important for a number of reasons. First, it is
unlikely that many Canadians are aware of how much public
money is channelled to special interest groups. Second, they
should be made aware of the need for accountability by those
organizations. Finally at a time of real fiscal restraint, it is
important that all non-essential spending be put under the
spotlight and justified.
I am pleased to support Bill C-224 and I am confident that it
will have the support of a great majority of Canadians.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to enter into debate on the very worthwhile bill being
presented by my colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth.
People throughout the country are telling us that they do not
want any more taxes. Taxes take various forms. They take the
form of writing cheques on April 30 but they take other forms as
well. Every time somebody receives a tax deduction for a
charitable donation it is a form of taxation. It means that person
did not have to pay tax on that transaction. He received an
exemption for it. In a sense, between taxpayers there is a transfer
of resources from one taxpayer to another.
(1425)
People are asking us for greater visibility and accountability
in government programs. One of my own initiatives, to be
presented in a private member's bill later this year, is to
basically try to focus on how much government programs cost
and taking them one step further to how much they are costing
each individual taxpayer in this country.
Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I stand in support of
Bill C-224.
The financial community has long regarded accountability as
being very important. Public corporations in this country
publicly trading shares are required to report the remuneration
of their top executives. The hon. member is asking for nothing
unusual. It is only something that should have been put in
legislation years ago.
One of my hon. colleagues from the Bloc mentioned that it is
possibly too wide in scope and possibly applies to organizations
that do not receive federal government funding. I do not really
think that is the purpose. If there is a non-profit organization or
a registered charity people want visibility whether governments
have funded it one way or the other. Therefore, I do not think the
scope is too broad. I think this could be something useful for all
government agencies and for the public in general to have access
to information.
Non-profit and charitable organizations do not have a profit
motive or the necessary overburden for efficiency. In a free
market economy, a capitalist system, obviously companies have
to make a profit or they die, they go into bankruptcy and become
insolvent. The whole concept of those organizations is how they
are going to meet the payroll.
When I was in private practice running my own businesses
every day I wondered how I was going to make the payroll. That
was a big feature of my daily life. If I did not meet the payroll I
would suddenly be out of business.
These organizations obviously have to meet the payroll but
they also do not have the incentive to have to make a profit. This
by itself creates inefficiency if there is not a constant focus on
the results of the organization. Most non-profit and charitable
organizations have a different focus. They are not trying to make
a buck. They have a specific and worthwhile function they are
trying to achieve. However, without having the restraints
required of turning a profit or being efficient they will have a
tendency over their history to build in inefficiencies. The
greatest inefficiency is in the area of wages.
If we allow these organizations to simply set their own wage
structure there will always be non-profit organizations
demanding more money just by the nature of the way they are
established. There is no requirement to be efficient.
I think the member has brought forward a very worthwhile bill
that will give these organizations an advantage to make them
more efficient because people will have the visibility of how
much people were remunerated. The question is whether it is
reasonable remuneration.
In conclusion, I certainly congratulate the member for
Hamilton-Wentworth for his very valuable contribution today
and I certainly support it. I would respectfully request that all
the parties of the House support this very worthwhile
legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: May we call it 2.30 p.m.?
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
[English]
Under Standing Order 93 the matter will come up for further
debate in the fairly foreseeable future.
It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday
at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)