CONTENTS
Thursday, September 21, 1995
Bill C-348. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 14681
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 14681
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn.) 14681
Bill C-45. Consideration resumed of report stageand Motion No. 1
14681
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 14682
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14682
Motions Nos. 3, 6, 8 and 12 14682
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14682
Motions Nos. 18, 20 and 21 14682
Motions Nos. 22 and 23 14682
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14683
(Motion No. 2 agreed to.) 14683
(Motion No. 3 agreed to.) 14683
(Motion No. 6 agreed to.) 14683
(Motion No. 8 agreed to.) 14684
(Motion No. 12 agreed to.) 14684
(Motion No. 13 negatived.) 14684
(Motion No. 18 agreed to.) 14684
(Motion No. 20 agreed to.) 14684
(Motion No. 21 agreed to.) 14684
(Motion No. 22 agreed to.) 14684
(Motion No. 23 agreed to.) 14684
Motions Nos. 4 and 5 14684
Motions Nos. 7 and 10 14684
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14684
Motions Nos. 11 and 17 14685
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14686
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 14686
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 14687
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred 14689
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred 14689
Division on Motion No. 7 deferred 14689
Division on Motion No. 10 deferred 14689
Division on Motion No. 17 deferred 14689
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14691
(Motion No. 9 negatived.) 14692
Motions Nos. 14 and 15 14692
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14693
(Motions Nos. 14 and 15 negatived.) 14693
Motions Nos. 24, 25 and 26 14694
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14695
(Motion No. 24 negatived.) 14696
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14697
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 14697
Division on Motion No. 16 deferred 14701
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 14701
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14703
Division on Motion No. 19 deferred 14705
Bill S-9. Motion for second reading 14705
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 14713
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a
committee.) 14714
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14714
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 14715
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 14716
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 14716
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14717
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14718
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14718
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14719
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14719
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14720
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 14720
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 14721
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14723
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14723
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14725
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14726
Bill C-102. Motion for second reading 14726
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a
committee.) 14737
Bill C-90. Motion for second reading 14737
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14743
Division on motion deferred 14745
Bill C-260. Motion for second reading 14745
14681
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, September 21, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
present to the House the report of the Canadian branch of the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the
Canadian regional conference from July 23 to July 28 in Halifax,
Nova Scotia.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-348, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (mines).
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce this bill
that will ban the production, export and import of land mines and
anti-personnel devices within Canada.
There are over 100 million land mines and anti-personnel
devices seeded throughout the world. The world produces over a
million of these land mines and anti-personnel devices every year
and over 100,000 people are maimed or killed by these devices
every year, 40 per cent of whom are innocent women and children.
The purpose of this bill is to have Canada take a leadership role
in banning these devices which have no place in modern warfare.
If we can pass this private member's bill which I know has a lot
of support from across this floor, we will be able to send a clear
message to other countries that it is unacceptable for these devices
to continue to be produced, wreaking havoc in so many areas of the
world and rendering millions of acres uninhabitable for decades.
I hope we will be able to have some cross-party support for this
private member's bill so that Canada can take a leadership role on
this very important issue.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis): Madam
Speaker, I would like to withdraw private member's Bill C-310,
which relates to resumption of work by certain workers at the ADM
mill in Montreal.
The reason for the withdrawal of this bill is that the matter has
now been settled. Therefore, the bill, for all intents and purposes, is
now not necessary.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Madam
Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 20 consideration of Bill
C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and
Reformatories Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act as reported
(with amendments) from the committee; and of Motion No. 1.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
14682
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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 Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
We are now debating group 2, Motion No. 2.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-45, in Clause 34, be amended in the French version by replacing
lines 15 to 19, on page 13, with the following:
``n'est pas admissible à la libération conditionnelle totale avant d'avoir purgé,
à la fois, depuis le jour où il s'est vu infliger cette peine supplémentaire:
a) le reste du temps d'épreuve relatif à la peine que le délinquant purgeait déjà
lorsqu'il s'est vu imposer la peine supplémentaire;
b) le temps d'épreuve relatif à cette peine supplémentaire.''
(1010)
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-45, in Clause 39, be amended in the English version by replacing
lines 13 and 14, on page 17, with the following:
``(b) serving a life sentence imposed otherwise than as a minimum''.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-45, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 46, on page
18 and lines 1 to 3, on page 19, with the following:
``(6) Where an offender receives a sentence to be served in a provincial
correctional facility and fails to earn or forfeits any remission under the Prisons
and Reformatories Act and is transferred to penitentiary, otherwise than
pursuant to an agreement entered into under paragraph 16(1)(a), the offender is
not entitled to be''.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-45, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 21,
with the following:
``(6) Subparagraph 129(5)(c)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) referred to the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph (3)(
b) after the
statutory release date has passed,''.
(7) Subsection 129(9) of the Act is re-''.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-45, in Clause 44, be amended in the English version by replacing
line 13, on page 26, with the following:
``subsection 130(3) or paragraph 130(3.3)(b),''.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-45, in Clause 45, be amended in the French version, by replacing
line 25, on page 27, with the following:
``pertinents dans leur évaluation du risque que le délinquant''.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-45, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 10, on page 34, with
the following:
``52. (1) Paragraph 140(1)(b) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the
following:
(b) the first review for full parole pursuant to subsection 123(1), including the
review conducted pursuant to subsection 126(4), and subsequent reviews pursuant
to subsection 123(5);
(2) Paragraph 140(1)(c) of the Act is''.
(b) by replacing lines 10 and 11, on page 36, with the following:
``propriate that an inquiry under subsection (1) be held or where an inquiry must be
held by virtue of subsection (1.1) a judge, supernumerary judge or former'';
(c) by replacing line 46, on page 37, with the following:
``member's office,''; and
(d) by replacing line 3, on page 38, with the following:
``the due execution of the member's office, or
(e) has recommended conditional release for a violent offencer and the violent
offender has committed a violent offence while on that conditonal release,''.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-45, in Clause 66, be amended by adding after line 6, on page 42, the
following:
``(b) subsection 108(2);''.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-45, in Clause 67, be amended by adding after line 21, on page 42, the
following:
``(a) the definitions ``day parole'' and ``full parole'' in subsection 99(1);''.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-45, in Clause 68, be amended in the English version by replacing
line 28, on page 42, with the following:
``68. The French version of the following provisions are''.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-45, in Clause 69, be amended in the English version by replacing
line 21, on page 43, with the following:
``69. The French version of the following provisions are''.
He said: Madam Speaker, the motions grouped for debate are
essentially for linguistic clarification purposes. In my view, these
motions do not require extensive debate, but only some
explanations.
14683
I myself will only deal with Motions Nos. 22 and 23, which
I had the honour of submitting and which were seconded by the
hon. member for Saint-Hubert.
Motion No. 22 seeks to clarify clause 68 of the bill. The
beginning of the current English version of that clause reads as
follows:
[English]
The following provisions are amended by replacing the
expression ``sans surveillance'' with the expression ``sans
escorte''.
[Translation]
The idea is to replace the expression ``sans surveillance'' with
the expression ``sans escorte'', which is deemed more appropriate
in French.
It would be more logical to say that, in the French version, the
expression ``sans escorte'' replaces the expression ``sans
surveillance'', so that the introduction to clause 68 would read as
follows, should the amendment be passed. The new merged version
would read:
[English]
The French version of the following provisions are amended by
replacing the expression ``sans surveillance'' with the expression
``sans escorte''.
[Translation]
The same logic is applied as in the case of the two preceding
clauses, where it is said, in regard to the English version, that:
[English]
The English version of the act is amended-
[Translation]
The same goes for clause 66. The logic is the same as that which
prevails throughout the bill.
The other amendment which I tabled, namely Motion No. 23
dealing with clause 69, is for the same purpose. I will spare you the
reading of the merged text which, albeit short, could nevertheless
be boring. However, the objective of that amendment is the same,
that is to say that the French version:
[English]
The French version of the following provisions are-
[Translation]
I respectfully submit these amendments to the House. As for the
other amendments, I do hope that they will be accepted without a
long debate.
(1015)
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, regarding the motion
tabled by the hon. member for Bellechasse, I wish to underline his
active involvement in the committee. I think it is in everyone's
interest to know how much the hon. member cares about his work.
He is always striving for perfection. The government and
especially the members of this House would do well to recognize
what an excellent job the opposition member did, in my opinion, in
this committee.
But I must stick to this text. We in this government support this
motion as tabled by the hon. member for Bellechasse.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
was not here but I imagine we are still debating Group No. 2.
I wish to repeat that the Bloc Quebecois understands and shares
the solicitor general's goal of reassuring the public about
conditional release, given the enduring climate of public
scepticism toward the federal parole system.
In particular, Motion No. 6 tabled by the government is aimed at
correcting a drafting error. This provision deals with the
calculation of the automatic release date of an offender sentenced
to a jail term in a provincial correctional facility who is then
transferred to a federal penitentiary.
As it now reads, clause 40 of the bill excludes those offenders
who were serving prison sentences on or before November 1, 1992.
The government's motion is aimed at correcting this oversight and
we support this motion.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on Motion
No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 2 agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The next question is on
Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 3 agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on Motion
No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 6 agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The next question is on
Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
14684
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 8 agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The next question is on
Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 12 agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The next question is on
Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, could you remind us which
motion we are voting on?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The vote is on Motion No.
13.
All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
(1020)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion, the nays
have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 13 negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The next vote is on Motion
No. 18. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 18 agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The next vote is on Motion
No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 20 agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The next vote is on Motion
No. 21. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 21 agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The next vote is on Motion
No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 22 agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I therefore declare Motion
No. 23 carried.
(Motion No. 23 agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We are now debating the
motions in Group No. 3.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-45, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 6, on page 18,
the following:
``(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to any offender who is serving a
sentence for the commission of an offence involving violence.
(1.2) For the purposes of subsection (1.1), ``offence involving violence''
means any offence set out in Schedule I.''
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-45, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 40, on page
18, with the following:
``(5) Notwithstanding any provision in this or any other Act of Parliament, no
offender whose parole or statutory release has been suspended or revoked under
section 135 is entitled to be released again on statutory release before the
expiration of the offender's sentence according to law.''
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-45, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16, on
page 19, with the following:
``41. Subsections 128(2) and (3) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(2) Except to the extent required by the conditions of any day parole, an
offender who is released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary
absence is entitled, subject to this Part, to remain at large in accordance with the
conditions of the parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence and
is not liable to be returned to custody by reason of the sentence unless the
parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence is suspended,
cancelled, terminated or revoked.''
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-45, in Clause 43, be amended in the English version
(a) by replacing line 32, on page 24, with the following:
``(3.1) An order made under subsection (3)'';
(b) by replacing line 36, on page 24, with the following:
``subsection (3) has been made, an offender'';
(c) by replacing line 39, on page 25, with the following:
``to an order made under subsection (3) or''; and
(d) by replacing line 2, on page 26, with the following:
``subsection (3) or paragraph (3.3)(b) not to be released''.
14685
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-45, in Clause 43, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 25 to 35, on page 25, with the following:
``(2) Subsection 130(4) of the Act is repealed''; and
(b) by deleting lines 1 to 9, on page 26.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-45, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 44, on page
33, and lines 1 to 9, on page 34, with the following:
``139. Notwithstanding any provision in this or any other Act of Parliament,
where an offender who is subject to a sentence that has not expired receives an
additional sentence, the offender shall serve the total of the unexpired portion of
the sentence the offender was serving at the time the offender received the
additional sentence and then shall serve the full term of the additional
sentence.''
He said: Madam Speaker, the majority of our amendments in this
section will address violent offenders.
Once again we see in Bill C-45 that there has been an effort by
the government to do something to address violent offenders, that
those guilty of child abuse, child aggravated assault or child sexual
assault should not be released. No one can disagree with that.
Once again here is an example of a government saying it will
move in the direction Canadians want, but it does not go far
enough.
Who is a child? If the child is 15 and is assaulted, does that
count? Do they have to be under 14, according to the age of
majority? What are the guidelines? Are we to say in the case of the
Bernardo trial to the French and the Mahaffy families that their
daughters were in their upper teens and therefore were not children,
and that Mr. Bernardo could be released some time in the future? If
that is what it is saying, it is totally wrong.
(1025)
Aggravated assault on anyone, I do not care what their age, when
violence is shown by these offenders in that fashion there is
absolutely no reason in the world they should be released at any
time until we are absolutely certain they will never do it again. If
that means we have to wait until they are 90 years old, so be it.
What the Canadian people want more than anything else if they
are to feel safe is to be assured by the government that dangerous
violent offenders will not be on the streets because of the bleeding
hearts of this country who say we cannot keep them behind bars
forever.
Let us make a separation. A lot of people in penitentiaries are
non-violent. Many of them should not even be in there. Let us start
separating these two categories. Let us help those who genuinely
made mistakes, who did no harm to individuals.
If they are non-violent let us treat them as such. Let us look at
what we can do to rehabilitate them back into the community.
Maybe we need to look at some alternative measures that would
prevent them from going there in the first place and let
communities deal with these problems, people who are closest to
the scene.
When it comes to individuals who hunt down children or women
or any kind of a victim with ball bats just to kill them, those are the
kinds of people we do not need in this country, certainly not on our
streets. If the best solution we have is to keep them behind bars, for
heaven's sake let us do it.
I am not certain how accurate some reports are. Recently I read a
report by Diane Francis who claimed she received her information
from the solicitor general's office, that 78 individuals were
released from penitentiaries and went on to murder. It did not say
how many people they murdered but if 78 people committed
murder, it was definitely no less than 78.
I remember a year or two ago when we first came to the House I
asked the solicitor general about a list we had compiled. Our little
research group had managed to find 46 individuals who had been
released who were violent and killed again.
In one of those instances I remember a quote in the newspaper
from the convict, and it was the first time I have been able to agree
fully with a convict: ``The only thing crazier than me is a system
that would let me out to do what I did''. Finally the whole truth is
spoken. It is plum crazy.
Special interest groups are running around all over the country.
They have the ear of the solicitor general and the ear of the justice
department. They simply will not accept that locking them up and
throwing away the key is the answer.
Probably 90 per cent of Canadians would agree with me when I
say for some individuals that is the only answer. There is a better
answer for some of these individuals. It is called capital
punishment. It is my opinion that should apply to some individuals.
Clifford Olson may be eligible. He will be heard in 1995, I
believe. Under section 745 of the Criminal Code he could be
considered for release, although I am quite certain he will not be. I
have a little more faith in our justice system than that, that they
would not let him out. Nevertheless, he can apply, and will because
he has been complaining and moaning and groaning over the last
few years.
(1030)
It saddens me that we even have to consider such a thing, that we
have to go to the trouble of having a trial and the expense of paying
individuals to sit and listen to the likes of these individuals.
14686
He killed once, then he killed twice, then there were three, four,
five, six. As far as we know, he killed about a dozen times. This
individual killed once and got life and 25 years. He killed 11 or
12 more times for free; it did not cost him anything.
Then he goes to our justice department and makes a bargain.
Give me $10,000 for every body I lead you to, put it in a trust fund,
and I will start telling you what I did with these children I killed.
And we fell into this bargain. We bargained with an individual like
that.
I dare anyone in the House to go to any community or any town
in the country and stand on a street corner and ask any Canadian
what he thinks of our justice system that made a bargain with
Clifford Olson to the point where he now has $100,000 in a trust
account for his family because he told us where to find the bodies
of the people he murdered. That is an example of what people do
not want.
The message should be loud and clear to individuals of that type,
these highly dangerous, violent offenders: You are not a welcome
segment to our society; we do not want you; we do not need you.
For heaven's sake, let us make our communities really safe. Make
the streets safe for our children who are walking home from school.
Why should we have to worry about the mother who has to work
at 11 o'clock in the evening in a convenience store and who was
kidnapped and murdered? We have to consider whether it was a
planned murder. Maybe it was just second degree or maybe even
manslaughter. It was a violent act, which is not acceptable in this
society. But the government will not show through its legislation
that it is not acceptable. It makes it look acceptable.
The motion is going to try to send a message to all Canadians
that we parliamentarians in the 35th Parliament are a little more
serious than they have been in the past about doing something with
those who commit a crime. We will continue our prevention
programs and do as much as we can. We will continue to try to
rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated. We will do all the right
things. But when push comes to shove and there are individuals
such as Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo, let us put an end to it.
Never again should those kinds of things happen. Send the message
and let us do it with these types of motions.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this is a very delicate
question. Obviously it will entail probably going into a very
thorough debate. I think we have had the occasion to do so in
committee.
I would like to remind the hon. member that all those witnesses
who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs in regard to Bill C-45 and Bill C-41 expressed the view that
statutory release plays a fundamental role in the protection of
society. This period of gradual and carefully planned and
supervised release is essential for assisting an offender to
reintegrate into the community and is preferred over an offender's
abrupt release at warrant expiry.
(1035 )
I should also add that there is a process in place. It takes a
required amount of time to serve. We should also keep in mind that
we do not automatically release people as the opposition likes to
contend.
The provisions in Bill C-45 and the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act already provide a balanced response to the concerns
posed by repeat offenders. The new sentence calculation model
would ensure that an offender who receives a new custodial
sentence for an offence committed while on conditional release
would be automatically returned to custody. New consecutive
sentences would always result in the offender serving a minimum
of one-third of the new sentence in custody before parole
eligibility.
I think we agree here in this House and I would imagine many
members in the opposition benches would agree that we need to
constantly seek ways of improving public protection. That is why
the government continues to focus its efforts on more effective
methods, which involve better identifying, assessing, and treating
violent offenders on a case by case basis. However, a blanket
abolition of statutory release for certain offenders would ultimately
harm rather than improve public safety.
In conclusion, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs recognized the value of statutory release when it voted
down a similar motion to abolish statutory release for all offenders.
I would also add that we will be opposing not only Motion No. 4
but also Motions Nos. 5, 11, and 17 as presented by the opposition.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I just heard that the member of the Liberal Party opposite is
opposing Motion No. 5 which deals with the revocation of parole.
Having been in many parole hearings and listened to all the cases
I have listened to, I wonder why this government would not be
prepared to back this. Let us say a prisoner is in for a crime that was
undertaken while on drugs or a crime related to drugs. This
individual gets out of an institution today and is caught in another
facility while on parole using drugs. His parole is revoked. He
comes back in and they say he has to serve more time. Today that
inmate is entitled to again go to a parole board and get out and do
his thing in the community.
We are saying that if a person is incarcerated in this country for a
crime and gets out and does something such that parole is revoked,
the person should serve the full term. That to me makes obvious
common sense. If we are letting somebody out of prison today and
14687
he is going to go out and commit another crime, he obviously has
not got the message.
As examples I will give a couple of instances where I have been
in parole hearings. One individual in this country was incarcerated
in excess of two years for very serious fraud crimes. This
individual was allowed to go out under UTA, unescorted pass, and
he was found to be in the middle of a fraudulent exercise, milking
someone out there out of their money. What did the parole board
do? They brought him in and told him: ``That is not a good thing.
You have taken anger management courses in here. You have taken
courses and by now you should know that is not the right thing, so
we will leave you locked up again''.
(1040 )
What happens? He says ``Well, I guess I have not learned the
lesson, so I am going to stay in here, but I will be back here to apply
to get out again''. This is obviously a serious problem. The fact is
the individual has not learned his lesson, and that individual should
be reincarcerated for the full term of his sentence.
Now to some more serious problems. I have been involved with
several cases. I am not a lawyer. I am an average guy who tries to
help out a lot of victims in an area where I have seven federal
institutions around my riding. I have seen people incarcerated for
rape. I spoke about this last night. Wayne Perkin is an individual
who got a young lady from Aldergrove, British Columbia, coerced
her into her garden shed, beat her over the head with a hammer,
taped her hands behind her back, injected her with cocaine and
raped her. In this country he gets all of six years for this heinous
crime. This young lady will never be the same again. He gets six
years for that, and is eligible for parole after two years.
What do they do? They let him out at around three years. He
goes right back at it again and gets another unsuspecting victim,
injects her with cocaine, but this time he does not just beat her over
the head with a hammer, he stabs her 20 times and kills her. The
family and the family's friends will never again be the same.
The system in this country does not work. For a Liberal
government that brought a lot of this mess upon us to stand here
and oppose Motion No. 5 is despicable. There are too many victims
out there. We do not have to talk about Clifford Olson or this
Bernardo fellow. There are all kinds of them across this country,
like those three guys who did their thing in McDonald's in Sydney,
Nova Scotia. Those are the ones who get national attention, but
there are all kinds of them.
I could talk about Jose Mendoza. I have talked about him more
than enough in this place. That little creep had 12 criminal
convictions in my community, including what they call sexual
assault but I call rape. He is escorted out of the country back to El
Salvador at our cost so we are rid of him, right? No. He says: ``I
like the Canadian penal system, the Canadian criminal justice
system; it treats me pretty good''. He got out early too, by the way,
on parole.
He comes back in illegally, past Guatemala, Mexico, the United
States, shows up at our door and says: ``Now I am a refugee, I am
not an immigrant, so take me back''. Just before that happened he
raped another woman, an 18-year old in my community.
Mr. Thompson: Shame. Who is responsible?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): This government has to
understand that this parole system works for some, but what we are
trying to tell this government is if an individual is incarcerated and
if they are allowed out under escort or unescorted and if they
commit another crime while they are out, they are obviously not
the best apple in the barrel. They should be brought in, their parole
should be revoked, and they should be in to the end of their
sentence, obviously.
There is good old Karel Kral, again in my community. Is this a
case of ``I have all these isolated incidents'', or is this just common
around the country? After speaking here last night I received calls,
letters and faxes from Ontario people saying that the same thing
was happening in their communities.
(1045)
Let us talk about Karel Kral in my town. Good old Karel, up on
cocaine, has been in and out of prison for about 14 years on
different occasions. Karel was hyped up on cocaine one night not
too long ago and attacked Joan in Langley, British Columbia. He
was charged with sexual assault with a weapon and convicted. Joan
is 65 years old. He used a needle with cocaine as the weapon. This
is a common weapon to use now, because if the victim is injected
with cocaine and the criminal is on cocaine it might be a good
excuse for the damage being done.
Karel has been out on parole time and time again: out, back in,
out, back in. Joan would not have been assaulted had somebody
said: ``Wait, there is a message here. This guy is a bad apple. His
paroles are being revoked. He is in and out, in and out. Stop it. Put
him in for a long term, give him a heavier term or call him a
dangerous offender''.
In the name of God, we have to listen to reason. The government
is listening to the very few Liberals in cabinet who want to push a
Liberal agenda. How much more can we say on behalf of victims?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I will make a few preliminary remarks before I directly
oppose the motions we are dealing with.
I am very concerned that as we sit in the House we do not feel for
the victims, for the people who are suffering from the crimes being
committed outside this place. We need to take more responsibility
for the laws we pass. I realize a lot of people are possibly watching
this debate on television, but we need to focus more on what we are
14688
putting through the House. I am very concerned with what is
happening here.
We are giving the impression to people out there that Bill C-45
will fix what is broken in the criminal justice system. It will not. It
is one small step in the right direction. Why do we not have the
courage to do it right, right now? That is the problem we have.
Let us look at the things we are doing here. I look at a motion we
just put through. It was tinkering and playing with words. People
may look at this and say that the words life sentence are being
changed to imprisonment for life. It may seem innocuous at first; it
may seem like no big deal. However there is a difference.
Imprisonment for life is always 25 years and a life sentence can be
as low as 10 years. The Liberals are going soft with the
amendments they are making, which is not right. People ought to
know it is not just playing with words. We are dealing with people's
lives. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley West just pointed out,
these criminals are being released when they should not be
released.
(1050)
I support Motion No. 4 which the hon. member for Wild Rose
put forward because it will prevent an offender convicted of a
violent offence from getting statutory release. We must enforce full
term sentences for violent offenders. That has to be the bottom line.
The message must go out that we will not tolerate this kind of
thing.
The Liberals believe in harsher sentences. They gave that
impression with Bill C-41 in which they made hate crimes more
punishable than other crimes. They give the impression that they
believe in harsher sentences and then they come up with this stuff.
It is inconsistent. Why should violent criminals not get harsh, full
term sentences?
What is the most basic function of government? What is the
primary function government should be performing? It is to
provide for the safety of its citizens. It is simply that. We are not
here to create huge programs, tax people to death, and do all this
wonderful stuff that gives the impression government is taking care
of its people. The basic function of government is to provide for the
safety of its citizens. That is why it is so important for us to debate
the bill.
We were here yesterday for the entire afternoon and I only heard
Reformers dealing with the substance of the bill. Are we the only
ones who care about the safety of people? Surely to goodness there
must be enough compassion in this place that we would begin to
seriously debate what should be the direction of our criminal
justice system.
Like I said before, it is not our job to create and run big social
programs and all kinds of other wonderful things. That may be
something people will ask us to do from time to time, but the big
picture is that government should first and foremost provide for the
safety of the citizens within its borders. We need to pay more
attention to crime, not just big crime but all crime.
On Motion No. 5 which the hon. member for Wild Rose put
forward, we do not support statutory release in general but some
may consider it for non-violent offences to be all right. The
amendment still allows some form of non-violent statutory release
but forces the offender to serve the full sentence if the statutory
release is revoked or suspended.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West has made the point, and
I will make again. If a person receives a sentence for a crime and
then commits another crime when on parole, not only should that
person complete the first sentence but the next sentence the person
gets should be tacked on. It should be consecutive.
Too often our courts do not add two and two to make four. For
them two and two equals two. What is that? Is it Liberal
mathematics? I am not sure. In my books two and two should equal
four and that is what such people should be serving. For every
single crime they commit they should be punished. They should not
be able to commit five crimes and be punished for only one.
I strongly oppose the motion previously put forth in which
offenders serving time at a provincial institution are transferred to a
federal institution and can be released from the federal institution
on the day they would have been released from the provincial
institution. Why should they get out early just because the federal
government is now paying the bill? That should not happen. They
should not be able to play within the system. It is not right.
We oppose Motion No. 10. The amendment will not allow full
term sentences for sexual offences against an adult female. The
point has been made previously that there should not be a great
distinction about whom someone commits the crime against. A
crime is a crime and it is serious no matter whom it is committed
against. We do not want statutory release.
(1055)
I have made the point already that sentences need to be
consecutive. If criminals recommit crimes they should serve those
sentences plus the full sentences for the crimes committed
previously.
We are moving in the right direction but we need to take more
seriously what is happening in the House. We need to deal with
these things and make sure we get them right. We need to provide
for the safety of our citizens so they can feel safer in this great
country of ours.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
14689
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We are voting on Motions
Nos. 4, 5, 7, 10, 11 and 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
Motion No. 4?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands
deferred.
[Translation]
The vote is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 17. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1100 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. The question will be put
if Motion No. 10 is negatived. We will now debate group 4, Motion
No. 9.
14690
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-45, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 29, on page
24, with the following:
``an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person or a sexual
offence involving a child''.
She said: Madam Speaker, we keep hearing that ignorance of the
law is no excuse. Still it should be intelligible. Bill C-45 is already
a very complex piece of legislation as far as calculating the period
of sentence and eligibility for parole is concerned. So if even the
drafters stumble over words and sentence structure, it will take a
clever person indeed to understand.
As the Barreau du Québec indicated in its brief on Bill C-45
submitted to the Standing Committee on Justice, and I quote: ``In
fact, although we brought together the varied expertise of a number
of professionals from academia, the prisons and private practice,
they were not able to conduct an exhaustive review of clause 34 of
the Bill and the related provisions because both the methods of
calculation adopted and the wording used seemed so recondite''.
Clause 34 of the bill is the key element of the methods for
calculating sentence and eligibility for parole. If experts have a
hard time making out what it means, how is a judge expected to
benefit from a reform that is far from being as crystal clear as
requested?
Motion No. 9, which I just moved, is not designed to amend
clause 34, which will serve as an example however, but to complete
in clause 43 of Bill C-45 the information that is missing in the
French version. I do not know if the drafters were making fun of us
or not, but there is a limit.
Francophone readers must refer to the subsections listed in order
to know what it is all about, while the English version mentions the
subsections and goes on to describe the offences in extenso.
Either the drafters assumed that francophone readers know by
heart the sections referred to in Bill C-45 and their content or they
were trying to make the clause difficult to understand in the French
version.
Either way, this is adding insult to injury. I will not stand for this
kind of abuse any longer, for myself or francophones in general.
There is a plethora of instances where federal legislation makes a
mockery of the language of Molière. Drafters are misusing the
French language under the pretext of simplifying.
The new section 120.1 proposed in the bill is another example. In
English, this section sets a basis for the computation of the
prescribed time, yet this information is missing in the French
version. It will be easier for an anglophone judge to understand
what it is all about. At any rate, in either language, the bench is not
likely to be able to make head nor tail of it.
That is why is important to set a start point, this point being the
day on which the additional sentence was imposed. This correction
is essential. However, this will only be a partial solution to an
endemic problem.
(1105)
The following is typical of Bill C-45, and I am referring to the
wording of clause 34. Let me first get my breath, because there are
no commas in the next paragraph, which is a simple sentence. And
I quote:
Le délinquant dont la peine d'emprisonnement n'est pas expirée et qui est
condamné à une peine d'emprisonnement supplémentaire à purger à la suite de
l'autre n'est admissible à la libération conditionnelle totale qu'à la date à
laquelle il a accompli le temps d'épreuve requis à la fois sur la partie de la peine
non encore exécutée au moment de la condamnation et sur la peine
supplémentaire.
If you understand this, Madam Speaker, congratulations. The
point is that the additional sentence was consecutive. In the English
version, however, we read:
[English]
-``commencing on the day on which the additional sentence was
imposed''.
[Translation]
We do not find these words in the French text. So in English, an
individual can find out when he is eligible for parole, while a
Francophone cannot because he does not know where to start
counting.
A judge who cannot interpret a legal text will have to judge in
equity and ignore the text, which is so convoluted that the results
would be absurd. That is how the rule of law ends up at the bottom
of the culture gap.
Another striking example may be found in clause 45 of the
English version, and I quote:
[English]
-``any factor that is relevant''-
[Translation]
The French version says, and I quote: ``tous les facteurs utiles''.
This must be corrected. The use of the word ``utiles'' in the French
version is not appropriate. This is about the relevance of the
information concerned, not about its usefulness.
For years I have tried to tell this House that respect for
Francophones starts with respect for their language. I find this bad
habit editors have of making their French translation a carbon copy
of the English extremely annoying. When will they realize that the
French language is not well served by a translation from a text
originally written in English? When can I expect to see federal
legislation drafted in correct French? Certainly not before October
30.
I have been a member of this House for nearly seven years, and
there have been few occasions when I could say that both the
English and the French versions of a bill were drafted with the
same care. Aside from awkward syntax or grammatical errors,
there is also the fact that the law may be interpreted in such a way
14691
that the intent of the legislator is obscured by semantics and our
work here in the House will be for naught.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: Madam Speaker, a point of order. I would like
some clarification. Is the hon. member speaking to the motions in
group 4 or has she moved to group 5? I am a little confused.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member is
debating motions in group 4.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: To continue, Madam Speaker, it is we who are the
legislators. In answer to my colleague who wonders where we are
up to-I imagine he had had to absent himself-we are indeed still
in group No. 4. It is our duty therefore to see that our intentions are
respected. The best way to do this is to make them intelligible.
In conclusion, I have a piece of advice to give those drafting
texts: they should take a look at the Quebec civil code and our code
of criminal procedure in order to learn how to write in French.
These are both bold pieces of legislation, the Quebec civil code in
particular, whose legislative texts have been able to stand the test of
Quebec's changing times, customs and habits without becoming
outmoded, ever since 1866. If only out of respect for the
francophones of this country, I am therefore requesting that this
House support Motion No. 9.
(1110)
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member for
Saint-Hubert is obviously raising an issue beyond the technical
scope of this motion. We have covered the role of French here in
the House of Commons, within the federal government. I would
like to point out to the hon. member that everyone tries to speak
and write proper and correct French.
What I am saying to you could certainly apply directly to
English speakers. Sometimes I myself go over and correct texts
that have been given me by anglophones, and that are full of
mistakes. There are syntax problems, and I often find these texts
completely incomprehensible as the hon. member for Saint-Hubert
claims happens in French. Unfortunately it seems to be the case for
both official languages.
However, I am keeping to this text and to the motion as such. I
do not think this is the time to politicize the debate and I do not
think this motion has anything to do with the probable results on
October 30, which will be, as we know full well, that a majority of
Quebecers will vote no.
By deleting the words ``serious drug offence'', the motion would
exclude serious drug offenders from the effect of the provisions on
detention. It would defeat Parliament's purpose in expanding the
scope of the provisions on detention to include serious drug
offenders.
The aim of this measure was to calm the growing concerns of the
public over the persistent problem of drug trafficking. In short, this
is to some extent what the work of the legislator is about-making
society as we know it safer. The measure is one of the initiatives in
the national anti-drug strategy.
Under section 232 of the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act, the provisions on detention shall be subject to a
comprehensive review by a committee of the House of Commons
three years after coming into force-which was November 1992.
So, very soon.
This review will be more appropriate for the consideration of an
amendment of this scope. I therefore invite the hon. members to
vote against this motion and I would like to remind the hon.
member that we are always careful in our use of French.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate on
Motion No. 9, group 4.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have a couple of comments. The previous speaker was talking
about the confusion in these bills, how they are written and how
they are having a difficult time trying to get the same meaning in
two languages.
There is one thing on which I can agree with the hon. member.
Not only with this bill but with every piece of legislation I see
coming from the government, whether it is the Income Tax Act,
GST rebates, transportation or whatever it is, it makes sure it words
these bills in such a way that a common, ordinary guy like myself is
not going to be able to understand everything. We have to hire legal
minds to give the proper interpretation. That is one thing to which I
certainly object. If we are going to make laws for ordinary
Canadians it would not hurt to put them in language that ordinary
Canadians can understand.
I have a comment as well for the parliamentary secretary to the
solicitor general who made the comment that now is the time not to
politicize. I would like hon. members from the Liberal Party to
realize one thing. What they are really saying is: ``Let us not get
these things on the floor any more than we have to because
Canadians might realize what the devil we are doing''. Not only do
we want to confuse them on how we write laws but let us conduct
the business of the House in a manner that anybody watching
television really does not know what is happening.
(1115)
I will take every opportunity I can to try and illustrate what is
happening so the people out there will know what is happening.
Reformers are the only ones willing to do that. The little puppets in
the back row in the Liberal Party wait until the cabinet barks so
they know who to bite. We do not operate that way. There are
things happening with documents coming through like Bill C-45,
14692
things the Canadian people need to know. No, let us razzle-dazzle
them with several hundred pages of a law and then we will pass it
off as doing our job.
We and the Liberal backbenchers will then go to our
constituencies and will be asked what we did in Bill C-45. Most of
them will be like me, struggling because we really do not know.
They will be able to pick up a few little things here and there but
they really do not know.
Are we living in a country where the whole idea is to confuse
ordinary Canadians so we can really run this show? If that is the
case it is time to change. What a shame to say we are trying to
politicize.
Motion No. 9 is dropping off drug offences. It states we should
keep dangerous offenders and murderers behind bars but let us drop
off the drug offenders. It so happens that drug dealers are a serious
and major problem in our country. We do not know how to treat
major problems.
What we want to do is take this member's motion and drop those
kinds of things off because the government is attempting to get a
little tougher. I applaud the government for its attempt. If it needs
some advice it should talk to Canadians. They will tell the
government what to do with drug offenders.
Listen to the old guy from Wild Rose, the old backwoods kid
who was born yesterday. He is not smart enough to pick up
legislation and say: ``My, my, is that not pretty''. All my little
lawyer friends over there in the justice department or the solicitor
general's department have put this wonderful document together
that nobody can understand. Try reading the Income Tax Act
sometime if members want some fun.
Back in the 1960s I used to teach how to do income tax. By the
middle 1970s I had to hire somebody to do my own. They are doing
a good job if they are trying to confuse people.
One thing that is really confusing is why the member who is
introducing this motion would think for a second that serious drug
offenders are not a problem and should not be classified in some of
these areas.
We will be opposing this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on Motion
No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion lost
on division.
(Motion No. 9 negatived.)
(1120)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We are now moving to
Group No. 5, which includes Motions Nos. 14 and 15.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-45, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 36, on page 27,
with the following:
``(iii) reliable information from recognized and dependable sources
demonstrating''.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-45, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 28, with
the following:
``(b) reliable information from recognized and dependable sources about the
offend-''.
She said: Before we start debating Motions Nos. 14 and 15 as
part of Group No. 5, Madam Speaker, I think that you would find
unanimous consent to debate Group No. 8 immediately after Group
No. 5.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent to go to group 8 after we debate group 5?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Motions Nos. 14 and 15 deal with a very important
clause of Bill C-45. Clause 45(3) of the bill amends section 132 of
the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by adding subsection
(1.1) regarding the determining by the Correctional Service and the
National Parole Board of the likelihood of the offender committing
a sexual offence involving a child.
Under the current legislation, a dangerous sexual offender who is
likely to commit, at the expiration of his sentence according to the
law, an offence causing death or harm to another person, harm
14693
being described as serious physical or emotional injury, can be
maintained in detention.
With Bill C-45, clause 42, the National Parole Board would not
be required to establish the existence or likelihood of injury, in the
case of a sexual offence involving a child. It would need only be
satisfied of the likelihood of the commission of a sexual offence
involving a child before the expiration of the sentence according to
the law.
In other words, where the board believes the risk is too high, the
prisoner remains behind bars. The onus is substantially reduced.
The message is clear: when in doubt, do nothing.
In the case of sexual offenders in particular, it seems to me that
the rule is sometimes applied in reverse. Release should not be
statutory; it should always be based on the absence of any
likelihood that a prisoner convicted of a sexual offence involving a
child will commit a further offence.
There is no sexual crime more contemptible and loathsome than
one involving a child. The very thought of it disgusts me.
Bear in mind that an individual who is eligible for parole or
statutory release was properly tried and found guilty by a court of
law and has exhausted all possible grounds of appeals.
This is an offender who has been jailed for the monstrous things
he has done. We are not talking about a defendant at this stage. This
is an individual serving time for the crimes he has committed. He is
paying his debt to society and to his young victim. As far as I am
concerned, this is not high enough a price to pay; he could rot in
jail.
The role of the parole board was questioned on several
occasions. I myself disputed in this House the validity of certain
decisions made by commissioners.
Repeat offenses must be denounced as unacceptable. The board
is duty-bound to make the right decision concerning those
convicted of sexual offenses involving children who are likely to
re-offend: keep them in jail. The safety of the public, and children
in particular, prevails over any right a prisoner may have if he or
she poses too great a threat.
(1125)
However, and this is the reason I tabled Motions Nos. 14 and 15,
it is necessary to specify the admissible sources of ``reliable
information'' which can be taken into consideration by the
Correctional Service and which are referred to in clause 45 of the
bill.
Police forces, prosecutors and probation services are examples
of ``recognized and dependable sources'', as suggested in Motions
Nos. 14 and 15. If the bill is not specific in that regard, there is a
risk that mere allegations could turn into conclusive evidence and
create a despotic regime or, conversely, and this is what I fear most,
encourage an interpretation which greatly favours the suspect and
which could therefore result in a premature release. This is why I
ask the House to support Motions Nos. 14 and 15.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Madam Speaker, before presenting our position on
the motion as it was tabled, I want to stress the good work of the
hon. member for Saint-Hubert, and her colleague from
Bellechasse. Indeed, the hon. member attaches a great deal of
importance to details, and I often agree with her on those details.
However, as regards her motion, I maintain that the word
``reliable'' implies that the information comes from sources which
are recognized and dependable. Moreover, the proposed wording is
not in line with that used elsewhere in the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act. Consequently, we feel that Motions Nos.
14 and 15 serve no useful purpose, and they will not be supported
by the government.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on Motion
No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion, the nays
have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare Motion No. 14
lost, on division. Therefore, I declare Motion No. 15 lost.
(Motions Nos. 14 and 15 negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Since there is unanimous
consent, we now move on to group 8, which includes Motions Nos.
24, 25 and 26.
14694
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-45, in Clause 72, be amended
(a) by replacing line 16, on page 44, with the following:
``741.2 Notwithstanding subsection''; and
(b) by deleting lines 7 to 12, on page 45.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-45, in Clause 83, be amended
(a) by replacing line 14, on page 52, with the following:
``743.6 Notwithstanding subsection''; and
(b) by deleting lines 34 to 39, on page 52.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-45, in Clause 83, be amended
(a) by replacing line 45, on page 52, with the following:
``743.6 Notwithstanding subsection''; and
(b) by deleting lines 17 to 22, on page 53.
She said: Madam Speaker, the motions I am submitting to this
House for approval are simply aimed at repealing subsection 2 in
section 741.2 of the Criminal Code as amended by Bill C-45.
It is surprising to say the least to see that incarceration is the
preferred way to deal with delinquency. But it is ridiculous to
suggest that society's denunciation and deterrence should be the
only guiding principle for sentencing.
To understand Motions Nos. 24 through 26, one must first
understand the guidelines set out by legislators to help judges
decide whether or not to suspend application of the usual parole
regulations.
(1130)
In 1992, legislators gave extraordinary powers to judges
imposing prison sentences of two years or more. In fact, section
741.2 of the Criminal Code as it now stands makes it possible to
disregard section 120(1) of the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act. Section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act sets the usual period after which an individual
becomes eligible for parole. This period usually amounts to a third
of the sentence. Thus, if the judge is convinced by the
circumstances of the offence, the character and specifics of the
criminal and the degree of denunciation by society, he may order
the criminal to serve half of the detention time imposed before
being eligible for full parole.
It may seem normal for inmates to have to serve half of their
sentence before being eligible for parole. It must be kept in mind,
however, that the sentencing judge has already taken into
consideration all of the circumstances surrounding the offence and
the criminal's individual and social characteristics, as well as a
presentencing report with a victim impact statement.
Thus, if he sets a four year sentence for sexual assault for
example, he has already weighed the aggravating and attenuating
circumstances in imposing this four year rating. Judges know very
well when they sentence an individual that he will become eligible
for parole after a third of the sentence has been served.
This factor is therefore taken into consideration by the judge. He
does a little mathematical calculation before sentencing, in order to
know how much real penitentiary time the accused who has been
found guilty will serve. If he considers that the real time might be
ridiculous in light of the offence committed, he will increase the
period of incarceration imposed and thus the length of time
actually spent behind bars.
In giving greater powers to trial judges, the legislator has
provided them with an important tool for setting a dissuasive
example. That tool must, however, be used with discretion and on
an exceptional basis. Section 741.2 should not be used as a matter
of course, as a sop to the frustration felt by most people when they
see individuals released on parole who are not ready for
rehabilitation.
By expanding the role of the trial judge and letting him go
beyond the procedure that is customary in dealing with the inmate,
the legislator is trying, and I say trying, to strike a balance between
the judicial power to judge and sentence and the powers of the
Board in the parole process.
The exceptional character of section 741.2 has been pointed out
a number of times by the Quebec Court of Appeal. In 1993, in the
Dankyi judgment, the judges of the highest court of the province
stated that the range of sentences for trafficking and possession for
the purposes of trafficking was normally adequate to cover both
minor and more serious cases. The trial judge did not have to resort
to section 741.2 of the Criminal Code to hand down an exemplary
sentence. Ordering the inmate to serve half of his sentence can only
be justified in exceptional circumstances.
In the Leblanc judgment in 1995, the Appeal Court maintained
its position and said this was an exceptional measure, to be used
only in specific cases that warranted such measures.
(1135)
Not long ago, in February 7, 1995, the Quebec Court of Appeal
reiterated its position, stating that the trial judge should have
formulated separate and distinct grounds for imposing a severe but
fair sentence while ordering the inmate to serve at least half of the
sentence before being eligible for full parole. The judges of the
Appeal Court decided that the trial judge's reasons for imposing a
sentence of 13 years in the penitentiary for robbery were based on
the same grounds as his order that at least half the sentence was to
be served. According to the judges, this was an error in law.
Grounds and reasons should be distinct, which is what the
legislator had in mind in section 741.2.
In Bill C-45, as amended and reported by the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the present section 741.2
appears on page 44, where the committee added subsection (2)
which reads as follows: ``For greater certainty, the paramount
principles which are to guide the court under this section are
denunciation and
14695
specific or general deterrence, with rehabilitation of the offender,
in all cases, being subordinate to these paramount principles''.
The Bloc Quebecois could never support such principles. The
Bloc members on the committee did not support them, and today, I
wish to reiterate our position on the use of these archaic principles
to deal with crime.
On the whole, Bill C-45 formulates principles and objectives for
sentencing that are supported by the Bloc. Nowhere in the bill does
it say that society's denunciation and deterrents are the paramount
principles which are to guide our courts. On the contrary, Bill C-45
tries to strike a balance between rehabilitation of the offender and
protecting society.
If new section 741.2 remains in its present form, Bill C-45 will
no longer be consistent. On the one hand, the legislator asks the
judge to consider the rehabilitation of the offender, while on the
other hand, he tells him to ignore it.
If this House sends ambiguous signals to the courts, we should
not be surprised to see a number of absurd decisions that will
become part of our jurisprudence. Therefore, subsection (2) of
section 741.2 should be repealed, and I ask this House to support
motions 24, 25 and 26.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the motion proposed
by the hon. member would delete from the provision an
amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs.
The provision to the effect that deterrence and society's
denunciation are principles, and in my opinion, fundamental
principles, guiding the courts and that rehabilitation of the offender
is subordinate to them was added to clarify Parliament's intent in
the matter of the courts' application of section 741.2 of the
Criminal Code.
As the hon. member for Saint-Hubert so rightly pointed out, the
thrust of Bill C-45 is to ensure that these individuals' return to
society is done in a balanced manner, and of course the aim of the
bill is to ensure greater public safety. However, I must
unfortunately advise you that the government cannot support
Motions Nos. 24, 25 and 26 as presented by the hon. member.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
once again we are seeing some proposals we cannot support.
Bill C-45 is an attempt by the government to try to show
Canadians that it is going to look at deterrence and punishment as
kind of paramount to rehabilitation. It was a feeble attempt I might
add, but at least it was an attempt.
(1140)
Then along come the separatists and their ideas. Believe me, if
you think the Liberals are left wing or bleeding hearts or whatever
else you want to call them, the Bloc far exceeds that. This is
another example of these kinds of motions: How dare us in Canada
make such a scene over heinous criminals and crime. Deterrence
and punishment is not how we operate in Canada; it is
rehabilitation and prevention. Agreed, but let us make them
paramount.
Madam Speaker, when you cross that line of breaking the law, it
is time to punish. And I hope the punishment will cause a deterrent,
because a deterrent is one of the best methods of prevention.
I congratulate the government members a little bit. The reason I
congratulate them a little bit, only a little bit, is because that is all
they have attempted to do, only a little bit. Tinker around, make the
people think we are really going to do something about this, that we
are going to get tough, and then along comes the Bloc saying: ``No,
no, no, we cannot be so cruel and harsh to our criminals''.
I am at a loss for words for people with that attitude. I sure would
like them to come to my riding of Wild Rose and stand before
crowds there, anywhere they want to go, and announce these
wonderful new ideas. They will not sell.
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): I will go.
Mr. Thompson: I will welcome the parliamentary secretary. I
welcome him to come out. It is an invitation. You want to sell my
people in Wild Rose all your wonderful solutions to crime? You are
welcome and good luck. If you think I am loud, wait until you get
out there.
The whole point is we have to get the message out to criminals:
You will be punished severely if you commit these kinds of
heinous, violent, dangerous crimes. We have to get that message
out. That is what Canadians are asking for when you see capital
punishment polls all across the country, all in favour, everywhere
you go, 70 per cent to 75 per cent everywhere. But no, we cannot
get the message. Besides, we are Parliament, we know better. We
are smarter than the rest of Canadians. Hogwash and baloney. They
do not know what they are talking about.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on Motion
No. 24, which will include Motions Nos. 25 and 26.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
14696
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it. I declare the motion negatived. I therefore declare Motions
Nos. 25 and 26 negatived as well.
(Motion No. 24 negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We are returning to debate
on group 6, which is Motion No. 16.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-45 be amended by adding after line 19, on page 28, the following
new Clause:
``45.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 132:
``132.1 Where the Board, under section 130 or 131, orders the statutory
release of an offender who was convicted of a sexual offence involving a child,
the Board shall provide the offender's name and date of release for inclusion in
the registry referred to in subsection 132.2 (1).
132.2 (1) There shall be kept in the automated criminal conviction records
retrieval system maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in a
registry kept separate and apart from other criminal records, a record of every
conviction for a sexual offence involving a child, which record shall include
(a) the name of the person convicted of the offence and the person's address, if
any, at the time of the conviction;
(b) the section of the Criminal Code under which the person who committed the
offence was convicted;
(c) the details that describe the manner in which the person convicted of the
offence committed the offence;
(d) the date that a person convicted of a sexual offence involving a child is to be
released on statutory release pursuant to an order made by the Board under
section 130 or 131; and
(e) any other information that may be prescribed by regulation.
(2) All the information included in a record kept in the registry referred to in
subsection (1) shall be made available to a peace officer who is investigating a
sexual offence involving a child where the officer requests such information.
(3) Where a person is convicted of a sexual offence involving a child, the
police force responsible for the investigation of the offence shall provide a
record of the offence, which shall include the information referred to in
paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (e), for inclusion in the registry referred to in
subsection (1).''''
He said: Madam Speaker, here we go again. Welcome to law and
order land.
(1145)
I know most of the members of this Parliament know or
remember a certain person. They will remember her from the past.
Her name is Monica Rainey. She worked hard for a group called
CACE which had to fold because it was not supported by
government funds like some other bleeding heart societies are. She
could not afford to keep going.
A major aspect of her fight was to do all she could do in Canada
to protect the children in this country, the youth, from sexual
assaults, abuse, et cetera.
Monica Rainey came to this building a number of times with
armloads of petitions calling for the government to do such things
as create a registry of all violent dangerous individuals so when
they were released and on the streets people would know who they
were.
She packed wheelbarrow loads of petitions and letters. All
members received letters supporting what she was trying to do. I
will be willing to bet a dollar to a doughnut that when we finish
explaining why there should be a registry the old Liberal strings
will be pulled and the backbenchers will be like puppets and jump
up and oppose it because it is something we do not do in Canada.
We could not dare put a child molester or a dangerous violent
offender who hurts children on a list so the public would know who
this person was. He might happen to be your nextdoor neighbour.
We do not do that. Perhaps the charter of rights will not allow us to.
There have been other documents from the Liberal government
that have caused more chaos. I am not sure which ones but some
have caused all sorts of things not to happen to protect people.
There is only one explanation for not wanting a registry of
individuals who are a threat to our society. It should not be limited
to children. However, my party and I will settle with that for now
although we would like a lot more. Why in the world should the
parents of our young children not know who these people are?
I am a grandfather and I have some little ones. I am disgusted
with a government that does not try to help me protect them. The
bleeding hearts over here sound like nothing more than cats-psst,
psst-which is all they are good for.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): They would rather spend time
talking about separation.
Mr. Thompson: They would rather spend time talking about
separation than protecting children. That is more important to
them.
Canadians are fed up. The Liberals do not think so but I know so.
Talk to any parent who has lost a young child. They would like to
have known that neighbour or that fellow at the end of the street
had the potential to do that. It might really have helped.
14697
We are steadily losing more and more faith in the justice
system. I will be perfectly honest. If anyone hurts my little child
please let me have them, do not give him to the bleeding hearts.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Vigilante.
Mr. Thompson: No that is not being a vigilante. That is being a
grandfather who really cares for the security of his grandchildren. I
would like to see some kind of action from the government that
will say yes, let us make sense. Why not help parents and
grandparents to protect the young people of our country? No, that
interferes with the rights of criminals. I am sick and tired of
hearing about the rights of criminals. That is all we ever hear. Not
once do we hear about the rights of victims, only about the rights of
criminals. It is so far outweighed it is sickening.
(1150)
I hope when these bleeding hearts get back into their
constituencies the people will send them a loud and clear message
for such things as setting up a registry of people who are on the
streets and have the potential to hurt our kids. Setting up that
registry makes perfectly good sense and would help make our
country a better, safer place to live, a good old red book promise.
Come on, get with it. Quit being a bunch of deadheads and start
thinking about what is really right. Is the cabinet pulling the strings
and will members be jumping up and voting no against this motion
as well?
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was no fan of the
Grateful Dead.
Mr. Hanger: Is that supposed to be funny?
Mr. Gagnon: I think the language used in the House has been at
times unparliamentary and the people from Wild Rose expect more
from their member.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In the past we have heard
many comments on decorum in the House and many comments that
the public is tired of seeing the House reacting in this manner. I ask
that we have order, please.
Mr. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your intervention.
This is a civil forum and it allows elected members from various
parts of Canada to exchange in a civil and correct manner.
I also thank the hon. member for Wild Rose for his kind
invitation to his constituency. I would be more than pleased to have
a civil exchange with the hon. member and with his constituents on
various issues of concern to the people.
The motion, which we will oppose, was raised during a clause by
clause review by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs. The motion was ruled out of order because it entailed
expenditure of funds and I believe cost saving measures are in
order.
However, the hon. member failed to recognize one of the major
accomplishments of the government, the establishment of the
Canadian police information centre, CPIC, announced in
November 1994. I assure the hon. member and his constituency and
all Canadians that CPIC basically provides a comprehensive
registry, including an offender's entire criminal history and
additional information such as whether an individual has a
restraining order, a peace bond or is prohibited from working with
children.
We have had a number of cases in which in minor hockey
leagues or when certain adults are called to supervise children, the
organizations have access to this information. We encourage all
volunteer service organizations in which children are involved to
contact CPIC to make sure the people willing to lend their help are
within the law and would not pose any danger to innocent children.
(1155 )
The motion in question is unnecessary. It would otherwise be
inappropriate for inclusion in a bill which deals with corrections
and conditional release.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I will speak to Motion No. 16.
It is interesting that my colleague from the Liberal Party spoke
about ruling one of the motions out of order for lack of funds. This
is the government in the process of spending $6 billion on
infrastructure. This is the government which allows convicts,
regardless of their conviction, to pick up old age security, the
Canada pension plan and GST rebates. The government wants to
move the motion out of order because it calls for an expenditure of
funds. That is laughable.
On a registry of sex offenders, the amending motion of my friend
from Wild Rose is right. I would have the registry circulated
throughout the country to all individuals, not just enforcement
officers. It is about time we did that.
I know Germaine is watching this. She is from my riding. If
Germaine were in the House she would likely not hold back on a lot
of the comments she has. Germaine was involved with a victim of
Alan Winter. He molested, as far as we can find out in my riding
thus far, in excess of 30 children over a number of years. They were
young kids. He undertook the most heinous activities with these
kids, which I shall not describe in the House.
What do we do with Alan Winter? After Germaine took him to
court a number of years ago we put him in prison and labelled him
a dangerous offender. That means he should stay in prison for quite
a long time. Along came more victims of Alan we did not know
about and they tried to press charges, only to find out that after five
years Alan Winter was let out unbeknownst to anybody. We also
found out Alan Winter was on unescorted passes while labelled a
14698
dangerous offender. No one knew the predator was crawling
through the streets of our communities.
Where did he go? Good old Alan, courtesy of Canada, went to
Britain. Interestingly enough a deal was made and he has dual
citizenship and can return to Canada. There is no registry. Very few
people know what he looks like. We have pictures of him. They are
up on my office wall and they may well go in my householder.
I want to read a letter from John Denham, an MP of
Southampton, England, about this case:
I am grateful for the assistance which you have given in providing details of
the parole conditions attached to the release of Mr. Alan Winter.
As you may know, we in Southampton recently became aware that Mr. Winter
was living in our community. People in Southampton were appalled to learn that
he has served only a small part of a lengthy sentence imposed for appalling acts
against children. They were equally concerned to learn that those agencies
responsible for child protection had no knowledge of his presence in this city.
The information which you have provided confirms that Mr. Winter was
released from prison on condition that he leave Canada and that he would be in
prison once again if he returned to your country.
That is actually not the case. He is a citizen of both countries and
can return to Canada. The letter continues:
I will of course be raising this matter with the British government's home,
foreign and commonwealth offices. I will be asking them to make strong
representation to the Canadian government to ensure that a situation like this
can never arise again and that there is a clear agreement between two countries
on the international application of parole conditions.
I would be grateful if you could make every effort to raise my concerns and
those of my constituents in the Canadian Parliament. I believe that if Mr. Winter
was not fit to be released into Canadian society he was not fit for release into my
country either and I hope that you can express this view in the appropriate way.
(1200)
No one in this country knows really what he looks like. There is
no registry. This guy is filthy scum. He has ruined the lives of
countless young men and women. Today they are around the age of
40. I have met with six of them in a room. Their lives are ruined.
There is not even a registry on this guy.
Some people are doing some things. Sandra Cunningham looks
after the tri-city child care guide. I have spoken with Sandra many
times. She has taken it on herself to put in this child care guide the
pictures and MOs of these predators, these pedophiles. She is doing
it at her own cost, her own risk.
Mr. Hanger: That is something the government should be
doing.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): That is right. My colleague
from Calgary says that is something the government should be
doing. It is opposing a motion that says exactly what so many
people are trying to do. They want sex offenders on some form of
registry. They want the registry to be available to everyone. They
want to know who is living next door. It does not much matter if
only the police know about it.
I do not have access to CPIC. It is a police system. If I have
children in my home I want to know who is living next door, if they
are serious sexual offenders. Today in this country we are not
permitted to know that, courtesy of this government.
An hon. member: And the parliamentary secretary over there is
laughing.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Yes, it is unfortunate, we even
get laughs at this kind of stuff here.
Let us take the matter away from the political sphere for a
moment. Let us see what CAVEAT has to say about this, Canadians
Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination. Its
members met and talked about this. In fact they have quite an
interesting document from recent meetings which people from
right across the country attended.
One such group that met with CAVEAT is the Community
Standards and Child Exploitation Committee. Its chairs included
people like Justice John McGarry, Ontario Court of Justice,
General Division; the London police were represented; the London
family court; the president of a group against pornography and so
on.
What did these groups say about it? Is it just the Reform Party
talking here? They state: ``We recommend the creation of a
national child abuse registry. Such a registry would work in the
same way as bonding at a financial institution. In order to work
with children in a position of trust, such as teacher or babysitter, the
onus is upon the prospective employee to produce an updated
recent certificate from the registry to prove that the individual has
no previous convictions for sexual offences against children. We
acknowledge that those who sexually offend against children are
highly likely to recidivate. Accordingly we recommend that if such
offenders are to be released in the community, measures be
undertaken to inform the community of the offender's release''.
It is not just the Reform Party. This is across the country. If we
are to err in areas of criminality we must err on the side of caution.
We must take the route of protecting our young at all costs. We
cannot afford to debate whether or not such things are as important
as the other. What we must do is protect our young.
14699
(1205 )
Therefore, can any Liberal in this House stand up and say that a
national registry for sex offenders against children and others is not
necessary for everybody? I keep hearing that we have one. CPIC
has one. Members opposite do not understand. That is a police
registry system. People do not have access to it. We must know
who are the child offenders and who perpetrates these offences. We
must know who they are, where they are and what their MOs are. It
is critical.
To listen to rhetoric like I just heard is just so Liberal. I cannot
think of anything else. They got us into this mess and we are still in
the mess. Notwithstanding CAVEAT, Victims of Violence, Citizens
Against Violence Everywhere, the Melanie Carpenter Society and
on and on, they do not listen.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I too would
like to think the government would realize the importance of
bringing in a child sex offender registry.
We have had the parliamentary secretary tell us this morning that
it is out of order because it will cost money. Surely the rights of the
innocent deserve a little bit of money. We seem to spend millions
and millions of dollars and all kinds of effort by the police to try to
convict people after the crimes are committed.
As we have heard the previous speaker tell us, even those who
are convicted of dangerous offences and should be in jail, not only
for a long time but perhaps as long as they live, are out on the
street. Perhaps it is not a Canadian street but the street of another
country, in order for them to continue to perpetrate these horrible
and horrific crimes to destroy innocent young children who are the
most precious people we have.
The government is totally and absolutely opposed to trying to
protect and help the innocent, not the criminals but the innocent,
our young and vulnerable. The government is not prepared to spend
any money whatsoever to help these people before they are
victimized, before their lives are ruined and before they are turned
perhaps into criminals themselves. The government would far
rather keep the money and spend it on recycling prisoners through
our jail system. They are out the door as soon as they are in to
continue on in their awful ways.
In the last little while I have been hearing about Gustafsen Lake
on the television and the fact that we now have the criminals in that
situation behind bars. It is said this is going to be the largest police
investigation in history. No doubt millions and millions of dollars
will be spent building a huge case against people who are obviously
guilty. It is going to drag through the courts for months and perhaps
years while the government says it has no money whatsoever to
protect our young.
In this House we have had debates covering weeks on setting up
a registry for guns and other firearms. The Minister of Justice is
prepared to spend by his own admission up to $200 million of
taxpayers' money to set up a national gun registration system so
that law-abiding citizens can be registered, fined and penalized if
convicted of not following the rules. This is $200 million of
taxpayers' money. The innocent law-abiding citizens are going to
be put through hoops time and time again. If they fail to register
their guns they are going to be subject to the Criminal Code,
imprisoned and everything else.
(1210 )
These are not people who have committed a crime. They are not
people who by and large will commit a crime. Yet the Minister of
Justice says it is perfectly A-okay to spend $200 million on the
effort. However there is no money to protect our young, our
innocent and our vulnerable.
Where is the government coming from? I cannot understand the
logic of the $200 million, the imposition of all kinds of rules and
regulations on law-abiding citizens. Yet the Minister of Justice
absolutely and completely refuses to take the worst criminals in the
country and put their names on a list to let people know who they
are, where they are, what they have done and what they could do to
children in our neighbourhoods.
An hon. member: Shame.
Mr. Williams: It does not make sense.
The charter of rights and freedoms is hauled out every time
somebody accused of a crime ends up in court. It is the criminals
who always seem to benefit from it. However the charter of rights
says we have the right to live free from fear, free from persecution,
free of assault by someone else. We have these rights and freedoms
and we should be able to enjoy them in a civilized society.
Presumably the government is committed to protecting the
charter of rights and freedoms and the rights and freedoms of the
innocent individuals but it is not. It would far rather spend the
taxpayers' money creating all kinds of rules for law-abiding people
and letting those who have abused the privileges, assaulted our
young, destroyed the vulnerable in society. The government is not
prepared to spend any money on the law-abiding people
whatsoever.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the parliamentary
secretary ruled this motion out of order because it will cost some
money. That speaks for itself and for the Liberal government that
has its priorities totally and absolutely wrong. I think the Canadian
people would agree with the Reform Party when we stand up and
say: We want to protect our children. We want to protect our
vulnerable, protect the innocent people in the land. If it takes a few
dollars-not $200 million-to do so then it is money well spent.
14700
I suggest that Mr. Rock cancel his gun registration program and
use that money, if necessary 10 times over, on a program that will
produce a child sex offence registry and the country will be far
better off.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues we are all recently back in the
House. I would ask all members to not refer to ministers by their
surnames, family names or first names, but by the name of the
ministry.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to the debate on the amendments and I felt I had to say something
on behalf of Canadians, particularly those in my constituency
whom I met with over the summer and Canadians in Atlantic
Canada whom I met with recently.
Canadians are saying they want our justice system changed to
give more protection to its citizens. They never talk about changing
the system to give more protection to the criminal. They do not
want that. They are not particularly concerned about spending more
money to rehabilitate criminals although most want rehabilitation
to take place where possible. Canadians want a justice system that
protects the people.
The amendments presented by the hon. member for Wild Rose
provide more protection at least for a certain group of people, in
this case, children. The amendment should certainly be supported
by all members of the House. I just do not believe that all members
of the House are not willing to put in place an amendment which
would allow more protection for children. I find it hard to believe
that they would not pass this amendment.
(1215)
Specifically these amendments would put information on a
police computer system, CPIC. It would allow information to be
entered in the computer system on the modus operandi used by
sexual offenders who commit sexual abuse on children. That is
what the amendment would provide. It would make this
information available to all peace officers across the country.
In that way, if police were investigating a sexual offence against
a child, they would have quick and ready access to information
across the country which would point out if a similar type of a
crime had been committed in another part of the country in the
past.
Also the amendment would give information to peace officers
again on CPIC. Specifically it would give the location of the
prisons in which offenders are imprisoned and the date of release of
any offender who has committed a sexual offence against a child.
Because the information would be on CPIC it would be readily
available to all police officers across the country.
Therefore it is very difficult for me to understand why the
amendment would not be supported by all members of the House.
For that reason too I thank the hon. member for Wild Rose for
bringing the amendment forward.
There is much more that can be done. It is necessary to clearly
redefine the priorities in our justice system. Through a conscious
effort made by Liberal governments starting in 1972 with Solicitor
General Goyer, the priorities of the justice system were shifted
from a system that put the highest priority on the rights of the
people in the country to be safe and to feel safe to the rights of the
victims. They shifted the priorities to a situation where the top
priority has become the rights of the criminal, the poor criminal;
we have to do everything we can to protect the criminal, the rights
of the criminal and the rehabilitation of the criminal. I do not think
most Canadians believe the criminal should be the top priority in
our justice system.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wild Rose
will do something to shift the focus back again to the victims. For
all the talk I have heard across the country about the need to care
for the victims, I have not seen legislation in the House that has
done much in terms of giving the victims more say, making them a
higher priority within our justice system.
The parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general has said that
the amendment cannot possibly go through because we cannot
afford it. We have to always be very conscious of spending. The
Reform zero in three plan which we presented across the country
during the 1993 election campaign laid out in some detail a plan
which would lead to a balanced budget in three years. In that plan
we allowed for spending in the justice area. If we are to have the
deterrents in place and the deterrents sometimes are longer prison
sentences-other deterrents can be used as well-it costs money. It
is a matter of priorizing spending. In our zero in three plan we did
that. Justice is such a high priority that we allocated money to it.
In our taxpayers' budget presented before the finance minister's
budget last February we put aside money to put in place systems
like the one proposed by the member for Wild Rose.
(1220 )
We are always conscious of spending money but we also know
how to priorize. It is important to know where Canadians are
willing to spend money and where they are not. In most cases the
government has those priorities completely turned around. It does
not know what is important to Canadians and it does not know in
what areas Canadians are willing to spend money and what areas
they are not.
It will take a continual reminder from us on this side of the
House for government members of what is important to Canadians.
It seems the government is out of touch. Perhaps I am being a little
unfair when I say that all members of the governing party are out of
touch, because I believe it is mainly the cabinet, the old boys who
have been around for years that are out of touch.
14701
Unfortunately in the old party system that is all that really
matters. If the leader of a party wants it done this way it will be
done this way. We have seen party discipline that is way beyond
democratic. It is anti-democratic. We have seen party discipline
used in the House over and over again, to the extent that the
members of Parliament who know what the people want are
completely ignored and are not even allowed to vote for what their
constituents want.
The system is in collapse and it must be fixed. Until the system
is fixed I suspect the legislation in the area of justice will do very
little to improve the system.
Positive proposals like those presented by the member for Wild
Rose will continue to be ignored in spite of the fact that many
members across the floor, those who are still in touch with their
constituents, know they should be passed. The Prime Minister says
that they are not going to support it, the whip cracks the whip and
those members have no voice.
I do not care much that members of Parliament have no voice,
but I do care that their constituents have no voice. It is time that
was changed. The changes to the justice system that we need, the
changes that Reform has proposed in the House over and over
again, will not happen until the system is fixed. We have to fix it.
We have to fix it quickly, but I am afraid it will not happen with the
government that is in place.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 16. 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(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will now deal with group 7.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-45, in Clause 56, be amended
(a) by adding after line 8, on page 36, the following:
``(1.1) An inquiry shall be held to determine whether any member of the
Board should be subject to any disciplinary or remedial measures where the
member has recommended conditional release for a violent offender and the
violent offender has committed a violent offence while on that conditional
release.'';
(b) by replacing lines 10 and 11, on page 36, with the following:
``propriate that an inquiry under subsection (1) be held or where an inquiry
must be held by virtue of subsection (1.1), a judge, supernumerary judge or
former'';
(c) by replacing line 46, on page 37, with the following:
``member's office,''; and
(d) by replacing line 3, on page 38, with the following:
``the due execution of the member's office, or
(e) has recommended conditional release for a violent offender and the violent
offender has committed a violent offence while on that conditional release,''.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Motion No. 19 concerns a difference of opinion about whether or
not there should be or may be a mandatory review of parole board
decisions if someone who is out on parole commits a crime.
Our belief is that there should be a mandatory review of parole
board decisions when it makes errors. I will give some examples. I
have mentioned it twice but I have to mention the Wayne Perkin
case again because it is so close to the real problem. This fellow
went into a home, coerced an individual in my community into her
garden shed, beat her over the head with a hammer, raped her, taped
her hands behind her back, injected her with cocaine and left her
for dead. He got six years, which is light, was put out on parole and
while on parole murdered Angela Richards.
(1225)
I always wondered in that particular case as I attended the
sentencing hearing where the parole board was. What
responsibility and what accountability are on the parole board for
the absolutely disastrous error it made? Had Perkin not got out on
parole the first time for such a terrible crime, Angela Richards
would be alive today. I have talked with Corrine and Ron about it,
Angela's sister and brother-in-law. That is one of the significant
questions they have.
Why is the parole board that made this terrible decision going on
with more decisions? Why is it not held accountable? Why was it
not brought in to listen to the whole court case? Surely we need to
have better answers.
This is what the motion is talking about. It wants a mandatory
review of its decisions. I am for the termination of employment of
those people when they make such drastic decisions. What we are
14702
asking for seems realistic. It seems the Liberal government should
agree that there be a mandatory review.
Let us talk a bit about parole for a moment. Most of us are aware
that we have a legal system and not a justice system in Canada. It is
fraught with lawyers who have made it so convoluted, so difficult
to understand and so complex that the average person has lost his or
her way throughout the system.
Since 1975, 240 murders have been committed by parolees.
They say 70 per cent of those on full parole are successful, but it is
the 30 per cent who are the problem.
Not too long ago I received a call from a parole board member
who was upset at my making these kinds of comments. He said that
in his region there was an 87 per cent success rate. I said: ``While
that is nice, I wonder if the victims take much consolation in the 13
per cent failure rate''. We cannot tell Corrine and Ron that
everything should be a bit better for them because we have an 87
per cent success rate. They are a part of the 13 per cent failure rate,
and that is what we have to concentrate on.
In 1977, 85 per cent of parole board members had experience in
the justice system; in 1988, just 10 years later, 53 per cent. It went
down. Why did it go down? It was because that party and the other
party from Jurassic Park started appointing their friends to parole
board positions. How do I know? In 1993, 16 of 22 full or part time
members were either defeated or failed politicians.
What kind of decisions do we get from them? They are their
friends. They are party hacks. They collected money for your
campaigns. The cost of doing that business results in people like
Angela Richards being stabbed 22 times and murdered
unnecessarily. This is not much consolation for Corrine and Ron, or
Mrs. Richards.
(1230)
Do we have any solutions? What do we do when they let these
people out and they ruin the lives of thousands of people? There is
no question that parole board members need more training. If the
Liberals are going to run this country by a majority and they are
going to put all their friends into these important jobs, then they
should at least have the courtesy to the rest of us to train them.
I was in a parole board hearing not too long ago and received
some information from an administrator who said that the
psychologists' reports, which are relied upon for decisions by
parole boards, are going to be given to them in a précis. That is just
a short capsulation by a civil servant who makes a judgment as to
what a psychologist says on five or six pages.
I can say that when people like Wayne Perkin go up before a
parole board I would really like them to have a full psychologist's
assessment and not a précis. Listen to what we are saying. The
safety of the public is the number one concern.
While the heads are down and they are all quiet over there I
cannot understand why they would oppose a mandatory review.
Just exactly what is wrong with a mandatory review of a parole
board and its members for making bad decisions?
It is understandable why we stand here in frustration and say this
is absolute common sense. What is the problem? Who are you not
listening to?
I would like to give some recommendations from another group.
The Deputy Speaker: The member has approximately two
minutes left, but when he says you and looks across the Chamber
the poor Speaker is left thinking that nobody cares whether he or
she is here at all. I would ask the member to please look this way
when he says you.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I will talk through you,
Mr. Speaker. It is difficult enough talking about this over here,
because it does not register in here.
We have to bite the bullet in this country and remove bad
decision makers. The bad decision makers were in part responsible
for a young lady losing her life by allowing a terrible criminal out
on parole, and they walked away unscathed. They did not even get
a reprimand on their job performance sheets. Nothing happened.
Maybe one said: ``I am sorry''. A hell of a lot of good that is to
Corrine, Ron, or Angela.
Some day either they are going to have to listen over here or they
are going to be replaced. The time is coming because these Liberals
are not listening to a major groundswell in this country.
Since I only have a minute, I am going to give you one
recommendation from CAVEAT, Canadians Against Violence
Everywhere Advocating its Termination. ``Allow discipline of
parole board members short of termination to be carried out by the
chairman of the National Parole Board, a procedure akin to the
Federal Inquiries Act, allowing for private or public inquiries. A
mandate for a maximum five-year term of appointment for parole
board members''. They are not going to listen.
(1235)
The Deputy Speaker: I must tell the member that his time has
expired.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I wish I had an hour.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was watching
the debate on television outside the Chamber and heard the
member who just spoke use unparliamentary language. I would like
to draw it to your attention and to his and request that you ask him
to withdraw the comments he made and refrain in future from using
that kind of language in the House.
14703
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. Perhaps we
should all remind ourselves that there are certain words that are
unparliamentary. We all know which ones they are. There is a
fairly short list now.
The first test is that the language does not cause an uproar. I did
hear the expression the member referred to and I noticed that there
was no uproar caused by the expression. Frankly, I was surprised
by that. I would ask all members that since we are starting afresh
this fall to please, if they hear something offensive, get up and put
the objection on the floor immediately rather than waiting.
I am sure the hon. member will take note of what has been said. I
would ask then if we are ready for the question.
The member is entitled to reply.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, I would like to know what I said that was offensive.
The Deputy Speaker: It is a phrase we have all heard many
times involving a word that begins with h and ends with l. I do not
think the Chair should string this thing out.
Is the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general rising on a
point of order or on debate?
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr.
Speaker, it is on a point of order and it could very well lead to a
debate.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. parliamentary
secretary has to choose. If it is on debate, it is the turn of the Liberal
Party and the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the last
motion raised by the opposition, Motion No. 19.
We heard a number of things here this morning and indeed most
of yesterday afternoon about Canadians having a constant worry
about the apparent rise in criminality in the country. I think we
should keep in mind that criminality in Canada has been somewhat
stable for the past 20 years. The statistics are there. There have
indeed been a number of cases that were brought to the attention of
the public and many of those were indeed heinous crimes and very
disturbing. That is why the government and we on this side of the
House have done considerable work to try to reduce criminality and
make Canada a safer place.
I found it interesting when I heard a number of members claim
that the federal government is not putting any money whatsoever
into trying to protect Canadians and especially our youth. I would
like to point out that the Ministry of the Solicitor General of
Canada is one of the few departments that has seen a slight
increase in its expenditures.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, a while ago we
were talking about the finances. Now we are on Motion No. 19
dealing with parole. I would like the member to stick to the subject.
The Deputy Speaker: All hon. members will understand the
relevance rule. It is even more important since we are discussing
motions and perhaps second reading. I am sure the hon.
parliamentary secretary will make his remarks relevant very
quickly.
(1240 )
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard from the opposition on Motion No. 19, on
Motion No. 16, and on all the other motions. I think we have been
patient enough on this side of the House by giving these people the
chance to express themselves. What we have heard all day is a
well-founded concern about the safety of Canadians. However,
after hearing a number of those debates it is my opinion and that of
most members of the House that often the information that was
introduced by the opposition was not entirely correct.
We have the obligation to explain to these people, as it concerns
Motion No. 19, that we have done a number of things to make
Canada a safer place. I will make this point very briefly. I think that
members sitting on the opposition benches should know that
money has been put into the system. We are out there protecting
Canadians. We are now spending considerable amounts of money
building new facilities. That was a concern raised by the
opposition. Five new facilities are going to open in the short term
here in Canada in order to accommodate the incarcerated members
of our society.
There was also talk about CPIC, the screening mechanism we
now have in place. We should also inform the hon. members of the
opposition that they have the right through various service and
volunteer associations, for instance the brownies, the scouts, minor
hockey and what not, to screen volunteers in these organizations
for a previous criminal record to avoid endangering the lives of
many young innocent Canadians. We have instituted that. It is a
tangible benefit from the Liberal government. We are concerned
about the safety of the younger members of our society.
We also spoke about gun control. If opposition members are
concerned about the rise in criminality, why did they oppose gun
control? That is a fundamental issue. Most crimes committed in
Canada are committed with guns and rifles. Often these weapons
are acquired illegally. We are trying to make Canada a safer place,
and this is all we have heard all day. The opposition benches are
supposed to be the law and order side of government, but we have
done the tangible thing. We have done the right thing. We pushed
14704
through the gun control law because it was the will and the wish of
the Canadian public, as numerous polls have suggested.
I could continue. We have made amendments to the Criminal
Code to tighten up the intoxication defence. We were referring to
cases where someone was under the influence of certain drugs and
alcohol and had committed a crime. That will no longer be
admissible in court. That is very tangible. I think the ministry and
the Government of Canada should be applauded for their efforts.
We have set up the task force on high risk, violent offenders. We
are reviewing that with our provincial and territorial counterparts.
We have experts in the field looking into this. Of course more can
be done, but we do have the commitment of the government. We
have the commitment of the Solicitor General and the Minister of
Justice to do something about it.
There was also Bill C-37. They made no mention of it. We have
tightened up the Young Offenders Act. We are making it more
difficult for youngsters to come out. We are imposing different
rules and regulations in order to make Canada a safer place. The
public should know that. The public has a right to know what we
are doing, instead of going on with these debates and these
unfounded arguments, which are not based on fact. Factually, I
think we have done a commendable job.
We have also created a national crime prevention council. The
Government of Canada, after two years, with its so-called liberal
values as members opposite like to call them, has proven to the
Canadian public that it is taking these concerns very seriously.
Another one is the DNA legislation.
Mr. Thompson: Yes.
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Exactly. I
am happy to see that the hon. member for Wild Rose is approving
our initiative. We are trying to do what was never done in the past.
The previous government did not measure up and that is why it was
soundly defeated.
(1245)
We on the government side after two years in the House are
starting to show Canadians we are taking very seriously these
concerns. That is why I have a duty as a parliamentarian and we
have a duty as a government to explain this to the public, to explain
this to, I must admit, the misinformed and ill-informed members of
the opposition.
Another private member's bill came to our attention, the witness
protection program. Again we are trying to encourage Canadians
who in some cases are in difficult situations and we are asking for
their help in trying to find the criminal elements in Canada and to
bring them out to public view in order to try them in a court of law.
What we have done over the past two years is quite
commendable. There are a number of instances where we can do
more no doubt. The various accomplishments of our most
competent Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada
prove once again the the Liberal government is taking Canadians'
concerns very seriously.
This is all within the purview of Motion No. 19. Why we are
opposing the hon. member's motion is that in our opinion, and
given these recent accomplishments by the Government of Canada,
there is sufficient inquiry powers under the Inquiries Act and
Corrections and Condition Release Act to address instances where
a conditionally released offender commits a serious crime. The
disciplinary inquiry should not be misused for that purpose.
In all fairness to the government, in all fairness to the people of
Canada we are very concerned about their security. I regret to say
the opposition benches have not been paying much attention to our
accomplishments. That is why in Reform country and in other parts
of Canada we are trying to reassure Canadians we are taking their
concerns in a most serious sense.
I am very pleased the hon. member for Wild Rose has invited me
once again to his wonderful riding. I have never had the privilege
of going to that part of Alberta. It is one of the most beautiful
provinces in Canada, especially with the Rockies. During the
referendum debate this is an issue we would like to bring up.
However, we will not support this opposition motion and I would
gladly like to debate this a little further with the hon. member for
Wild Rose in his constituency.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, quite a
bit was said by my colleague from Fraser Valley in terms of giving
examples of why Motion No. 19 is on the floor, why we want this
review in place when there has obviously been something that did
not go right. Simply asking for a review makes sense.
If we parole a killer and he kills somebody again, it is only
common sense that we look at the results that brought us to that
decision. How many times do we have to say that? It is called
accountability. It is time all of us became accountable for that for
which we are responsible.
We have the charter of rights and freedoms. We really need a
charter of responsibilities. It should apply to everyone, including
members of parole boards.
I believe in this past year there have been some improvements.
One improvement was the firing of the previous chairman of the
parole board and the hiring of the new one. I compliment the
present chairman. I have had many visits with the present
chairman. He wants to ensure to the best of his ability that the most
competent people, the most able, the most knowledgeable are
placed in those positions.
14705
(1250 )
The biggest fear I have for him is that patronage goes on and on,
another patronage appointment. I read not too long ago that 11
people were put on the queen's bench across the provinces; failed
Liberal candidates, party hacks and fundraisers to fill the benches
across the land. Mr. justice minister and his 11 disciples are now in
place.
Making patronage appointments is not the way to fill these
positions. The present chairman of the board wants competent
people. He is very knowledgeable. If we allow him the authority to
run it the way he feels appropriate it will be better. Nevertheless,
regardless of whether they are judges or whatever else, everybody
has to be responsible for what they are expected to do.
Mr. Speaker, being from Edmonton you will remember Daniel
Gingras. Good old Daniel Gingras, the guy who was awarded a
birthday pass. Remember how it blew everybody's mind that this
killer, this dangerous offender, could be awarded a birthday pass.
He had been in for a long time and the parole board decided he
should have a birthday pass. Not only that, it allowed him to pick
the guard to go with him because it was supposed to be a supervised
day.
I do not have to say he sized the guard up. He did not pick the
most powerful, biggest one he could find. He picked the one he
thought he could overcome, and he did. How many women died
that day, two or three? And nobody is accountable.
Surely with something like that it would make sense to review
the whole thing to make sure it never happens again, which is all
this motion is asking for. It will not create a huge expense. It will
not do anything except accomplish one thing, an effort to make
sure we are accountable to the people of Canada when we are
drawing money from them and filling our pockets with
paycheques. If we are being paid by the people we should be
accountable to them. This motion will allow that.
Once again it blows my mind how anybody can oppose such a
common sense motion. I heard rhetoric a few minutes ago by the
parliamentary secretary about all of the wonderful things this
genius of a justice minister has done. He has not done anything.
There has been nothing accomplished. Wait, he fixed the Young
Offenders Act. No he did not. Wait, let us talk about guns,
remember? He has fixed that. He has gone after duck hunters, deer
hunters and rabbit shooters. Give me a break.
I forgot about Bill C-41. Now we have done it. We will get tough
on those who commit crime based on hate. We will let them have it.
However, if we ask them to get tough on all crime they say that is
not the Liberal way. They talk out of four sides of their mouths.
Sometimes I do not know what they do want.
I have one last appeal. It is time people who are paid by
Canadians are held accountable for the decisions and the jobs they
do. This motion would help that happen.
(1255 )
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House read for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion. No. 19. 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: The motion stands deferred according to
the standing orders.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: A request has been made by the deputy
whip of the governing party. Divisions on the matters before the
House stand deferred until Monday, September 25 at 6 p.m.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (on behalf of the Minister of Finance)
moved that Bill S-9, an act to amend the Canada-United States Tax
Convention Act, be read the second time and referred to
committee.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in
support of Bill S-9 to ratify the recently-signed revised Protocol to
the Canada-United States Tax Convention.
This is work-a-day legislation that addresses the dual issues of
fair taxation and good international relations. In fact, Canada
currently has double-taxation conventions in force with 55
countries, including the U.S.
14706
This particular agreement was originally signed in 1980. The
protocol being ratified under S-9 will be the third formal
modification enacted over a 15-year period.
A substantial amount of the protocol deals with technical issues
of definition and clarification of existing rules regarding taxes on
income and capital. But there are also a number of important
changes which should deliver real benefits to Canada and
Canadians, or that enhance the fairness of the two tax systems as
they apply to non-residents.
One of these important elements is that the protocol reduces or
eliminates the rate of witholding tax that each country will apply to
interest payments, direct dividends and certain royalties.
Canada and the U.S. already enjoy the most extensive trade
relationship of any two industrial nations in the world.
(1300)
And our exports to the U.S. are a critical component of Canada's
1994 economic growth, which was the best in the G-7.
[English]
By reducing tax withholding rates this protocol should ease and
encourage the continuing growth of this trade and investment
between our two nations. I should mention that it brings these rates
into line with those provided in the OECD model tax convention,
rates accepted by a majority of the 25 member countries of that
organization.
Let me outline the specifics of these changes. Under the protocol
the general rate of holding tax on direct dividends will be reduced
to 5 per cent by 1997 from the current 10 per cent. In consequence,
the protocol also drops the rate of the branch tax to 5 per cent again
by 1997.
Regarding the withholding tax on interest payments, the protocol
will see the rate reduced to 10 per cent from the 15 per cent rate that
applied under the previous 1984 protocol. As well, the new
agreement ensures that interest paid between a buyer and an
unrelated seller will continue to be exempt from the withholding
tax in the source country, even if the indebtedness has been
transferred to a third person.
Finally, this agreement will eliminate completely the
withholding tax on royalties on computer software and on patent
and technological information. Let me remind this House that this
bilateral relief will have very beneficial effects: first, by reducing
the cost to Canadian companies of accessing technology and
know-how from the U.S.; and second, by enhancing the ability of
Canadian high tech firms to sell their products and services in the
U.S.
Let me move to another area where Bill S-9 will have a
beneficial impact: it will restore fairness regarding the impact of
U.S. estate taxes on Canadians holding property there. I should
acknowledge right off that there have been some concerns raised
about this aspect of Bill S-9. Let me be blunt. Anyone who thinks
that this is an unwarranted tax gift to the wealthy is mistaken and
clearly does not understand the legislation and the changes in U.S.
law it addresses.
Under current U.S. law enacted in 1988, Canadians who die
holding U.S. property valued at over $60,000 U.S. may be subject
to U.S. estate taxes. This is a much lower threshold than American
citizens face. Once the protocol is ratified by our two nations
however, Canadian residents will be entitled to treatment that is not
less favourable than that available to our American neighbours. In
other words, this means Canadians will generally not be subjected
to estate taxes unless the value of the individual's worldwide gross
estate exceeds $600,000. In addition, a special marital credit will
be available with respect to property transferred to the spouse of
the deceased.
There is a further change, again to enhance fairness in the way
our two tax systems operate, involving U.S. estate taxes and their
Canadian equivalent. Under the protocol our government has
agreed to provide a credit against Canadian taxes on U.S. source
income to the estate of a Canadian citizen in those cases where U.S.
estate taxes are also levied. The United States will grant a
reciprocal credit for Canadian income taxes levied on a deceased
American.
Incidentally, it is also important to note that this provision is
effective retroactively for death occurring after November 10, 1988
when the major changes to the U.S. estate taxes affecting Canadian
residents were introduced.
Let me reiterate that these changes do not represent a gift of any
sort to any Canadian. Given the fiscal challenges facing our
government, we have no interest in helping the affluent escape
paying their fair share of taxes. But fairness equally demands that
no Canadian, whatever their means, should be cavalierly subject to
the bane of double taxation. This is what this tax treaty protocol
works to do, eliminate double taxation.
(1305 )
The changes agreed to by our nations recognize that while both
Canada and the United States impose taxes regarding death, these
take two separate forms. The U.S. applies an estate tax, but in
Canada the levy takes the form of an income tax on any
appreciation of a deceased's property over his or her lifetime. It is
these different forms of death tax that have created a problem.
Canada, like most countries, has rules to prevent double
taxation. However, these rules do not cover a situation like this
where the taxes are imposed in different forms. As a result, unless
the dilemma is corrected cases could arise where the estate of a
Canadian with U.S. property would face combined Canadian and
14707
American taxes conceivably exceeding the property's value.
Obviously, that is absurd.
Our revised Canada-U.S. tax treaty corrects the problem. It does
so by allowing Canadians to credit U.S. estate taxes against
Canadian income taxes on U.S. income. In parallel, it allows
Americans to credit Canadian income taxes against the U.S. estate
tax liability.
I have covered the two most important areas of the tax treaty
change that this legislation will ratify. There is another aspect to
the protocol that I would like to review briefly. This deals with
social security payments made by one country to someone who is
now a resident of another country. Under the existing convention,
such payments are not taxable in the source country. In other
words, an old age security or Canada pension plan payment to
someone who now lives in the United States is not subject to
Canadian tax and only one-half of the benefit is taxable in the other
country. Once the protocol is ratified however, social security
benefits paid from one country will be taxable exclusively in that
country. They will no longer be subject to tax in the other country.
I should point out that once the protocol is ratified our
government will be proposing amendments in the Income Tax Act
to apply the non-resident withholding tax to these payments. These
should take effect next year.
The issues I have highlighted represent the most important and
substantive changes to the existing tax convention between Canada
and the United States. Now let me flag some of the more technical
amendments the protocol also addresses.
There is a provision allowing for a better working of the rules
concerning charitable contributions to tax exempt organizations of
the other state.
Another provision covers an arbitration mechanism for the
settlement of difficulties over the interpretation or application of
this convention.
The protocol also introduces an article providing for assistance
in the collection of taxes of the other state and to improve the
exchange of tax information between our two countries.
These are small but useful steps for improving our country's
ability to collect taxes owing, something the Minister of Finance
pledged loud and clear in the February budget.
In conclusion, Bill S-9 is the result of carefully considered
negotiations between Canada and the United States and I ask the
House for its support as soon as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as far as
Bill S-9, whose purpose is to amend the August 31, 1994 tax
convention between Canada and the United States, is concerned,
we do not see any major problems with these amendments to a tax
convention that was first signed with the U.S. in 1980, if I am not
mistaken, and then amended in 1983 and again in 1984. So this is
the third time we are amending this tax convention to make it better
with time and facilitate trade between Canada and the U.S. to the
maximum extent possible. I will get back to these trade relations
between Canada and the U.S. and between Canada and its other
trading partners toward the end of my speech.
Of course, since this is my first speech in this House since
Parliament reconvened, I cannot help but point out that our
legislative agenda is extremely modest. The bills we are reviewing
are anything but controversial or would have very little impact in
the short term. In other words, we are trying to dispose of our
leftovers.
(1310)
While we might have expected, upon returning to the House, to
be able to debate the reforms announced by the government that are
late in coming with respect to unemployment, the old age pension
plan, the human resources investment fund as well as the
long-awaited GST reform that the Liberal Party promised in the
election to carry out within two years. Time is running out; we are
almost there. We now realize that this will not happen. There is
absolutely nothing on the table indicating this can be done within
the next two years.
Since these matters are not on the table, we are debating those
bills that were tabled. However, we can deplore the fact that a
government which claims to be concerned with job creation and the
real problems has put so little on the table for the people of Quebec
and Canada to enable us to discuss the economic and social future
of this country as seen by this government. Instead, we are debating
other important issues. There is no denying that tax conventions are
important, but we would have liked to be able to discuss other
topics as well.
Coming back to this convention and the subject of tax
conventions in general, the purpose of tax conventions is to avoid
double taxation, that is to say the levying of taxes in two different
countries on foreign investments. This fosters the free movement
of capital without putting tax barriers in the way of investing in
other regions. And this fits in with the strong world-wide trend
towards free capital flow. This is a good thing in that it allows
resources to be directed where they will be the most useful to make
better use of often scarce resources. In time, this will enable us to
improve our economic system, provided of course that we manage
to incorporate the other factors.
So, avoiding double taxation and ensuring that fiscal constraints
are not created fosters trade between countries. Bilateral trade
between Canada and the United States is constantly growing. As
well, trade between Quebec and the U.S. is also on the rise,
particularly since the free trade agreement, which received strong
support from Quebecers, came into effect. In fact, Quebecers were
14708
the instigators of this agreement. Therefore, we are dealing with a
strong tendency.
We know that a north-south pattern, that is commercial trade
between the U.S. and Canada or Quebec, is often much more
natural than an east-west movement.
We often overlook the fact that it is very appealing to trade with
several northern U.S. states, given their huge potential market, both
for Quebec and for Canada. The same is true for western provinces
in particular, but also for Ontario. There is a huge market out there
and this is why we must ensure the best possible movement of
capital, goods and services between the two countries.
I am pleased to see that the Liberal Party finally changed its tune
regarding international trade. As you remember, the Liberals were
strongly opposed to the free trade agreement. Even during the
election campaign, they still had some reservations. However, once
they came to office and saw the benefits of that treaty, common
sense prevailed. I am glad to see that when the government is
confronted with economic reality, common sense prevails. And this
will always be the case in the future.
I am also pleased to see that the Prime Minister's views on
international trade, which seemed so irresponsible to me during the
election campaign, have now been adjusted in light of reality.
Sure, we can criticize someone who says one thing during the
election campaign only to act differently once in office. However,
that irresponsibility is not related to what is said or done once in
office: rather, it has to do with the promises made to Canadians
during the campaign and the resulting expectations.
The government's attitude is now much more responsible. And
that is true in the case of international trade. We are pleased to see
that Canada is prepared to accept Chile as a party to the North
American Free Trade Agreement. Indeed, we are glad to see that
when there are real opportunities to promote economic trade, the
government leaves politics aside and strives to promote the
development of new markets.
(1315)
All this leads me to believe that, if Quebecers decide, as they
will be asked to do very shortly, to opt for political sovereignty and
be in charge of their own political agenda, their tax system and
their economy, logic and common sense will prevail. I think
Quebecers realize that. My riding is right on the border with
Ontario, and I think people are well aware of the day-to-day reality
of this when they go and buy or sell goods outside the province. So
the economy is one thing and, in many cases, the interests of
partisan politics are something else altogether.
As far as tax treaties are concerned, I must say that although it is
not the first time we have discussed tax treaties since the beginning
of this session-there were a number of other occasions-we never
really tackled a problem mentioned by the auditor general, when he
said that tax treaties were a very good way to avoid double taxation
but that in some cases, when tax rates differed substantially in each
country, they could lead to a tax haven. It could be very attractive
for some people to put their profits on the books of a foreign branch
instead of letting them be realized by parent corporations which are
often located in countries with higher tax rates.
This is quite a problem. The auditor general gave 16 examples
which could be considered tax havens, to varying degrees. Some
very slight changes were made in one of the finance minister's two
budgets, but they were not more than that. There have been no
further discussions on the subject since that time, but we will have
to do it sooner or later.
Trade is expanding between countries throughout the world. The
free trade movement is spreading and covers all of North America.
If you go to South America, each country has its own tax system.
Increasingly, multinationals are using the so-called butterfly
system, in which certain components are manufactured by one
company and other components by another company. They are all
connected to the same corporation which, in the process, manages
to pay the lowest possible tax rate.
Companies do that, they hire tax experts to check the various tax
rates and best locations for booking losses and profits. These
companies sell goods to each other, to their various branches, and
they can often artificially change their prices so as to channel their
profits to the country with the most attractive tax rate and their
losses to another country. Furthermore, in Canada, interest
payments on loans are tax deductible.
So a company can decide it is attractive to borrow money here,
to use our tax system to deduct interest costs, and then try to
channel profits to another location. We must not forget that capital
losses are also deductible in this country, which is normal, so they
can declare their losses here, take advantage of the deduction on
interest payments and channel their profits abroad. This is quite a
problem.
It is less of a problem with our biggest trading partner, the
United States. But that does not mean it is not a problem in the 16
cases listed by the auditor general. As I said, we must not
necessarily assume that the same degree is involved in all 16 cases,
but an extremely thorough analysis would need to be done, looking
at each situation closely.
The government has undertaken no action in this connection.
The finance minister has even been questioned on this matter on
several occasions and has never even admitted that it was a
14709
problem for him. Under such circumstances, we have a long way to
go. It is like denying reality. As you know, in solving problems the
first step is admitting there is a problem. I therefore hope that my
colleagues in the government who are present will be able to make
the minister aware that there is a major problem he will have to
address. It is certain that our Parliament can pass tax conventions
piecemeal, one at a time, as they are modified and adopted. Others
will need to be adopted in future with other countries with which
we might create economic ties.
There is much talk of Canada's turning its eyes to Asian markets.
One day there will also be talk of agreements with them, and that
will have to be looked into. It would therefore be rather appropriate
for somebody, somewhere, who is concerned with real problems
and admits to being concerned with real problems to say that this is
something that needs further examination.
(1320)
There is no denying it could become a financial problem, at a
time when we are continuing to tighten the screws on society's
most disadvantaged, claiming rightly that public finances are in a
sorry state. Socially, however, it is becoming hard to accept,
because the same people are always being hit.
I understand that these things are complex and not easy to
explain to the public, but it is our job to follow them.
According to a newspaper article I was reading, there is even a
Liberal member challenging this and other tax conventions and
other government actions, on sometimes legitimate and sometimes
debatable issues. So, as we can see, even within their ranks, things
are not unanimous. It would be worthwhile discussing this
seriously.
The Standing Committee on Finance would be an appropriate
venue, but this must not become simply a matter of passing a hot
potato on to the committee so the minister does not have to deal
with it. We have to give some quick thought to the situation.
This bill is at second reading and will go to the Standing
Committee on Finance between second and third reading. There is
one aspect of this convention, which the parliamentary secretary
talked about earlier and which we will be wanting clarification on.
It has to do with the fact that an amendment in 1988 in the United
States reduced the non taxable amount of estates for foreigners
from $600,000 to $60,000. This tax convention re-establishes the
non taxable amount of foreigners' estates at $600,000.
As, today, we are correcting matters and returning to the 1988
figure, it appears that the amendment is retroactive. In a number of
cases, therefore, it will mean expenditures, because at the same
time a deduction will be allowed for amounts paid as taxes on
estates.
This point requires some technical clarification. I am not sure I
have hit on the effects of the provision, but we would be happy to
clarify this in committee and to have a better look at what it is
about. I noted that the parliamentary secretary indicated this was a
good thing to do. I know that the matter was discussed in the Senate
as well. We in the finance committee can seek clarification from
department officials and make sure that, if it is done retroactively,
there is some logic behind it and that the government does not lose
a lot of money to people who might be able to afford these taxes.
It is a sensitive issue. I have some problems with it. It is difficult
to accept such changes on a retroactive basis. This is something
governments are increasingly resorting to and it is a rather
dangerous trend. It would be better if retroactive amendments were
to the people's advantage, but that is not always the case. We have
been through this before. I remember in particular the cool
reception given the rather important retroactive amendment made
by the former government of the current leader of the No side in
Quebec.
It is difficult because individuals are being asked to act more
responsibly, to plan for their retirement, and so on, while the
government can decide to change the rules of the game from year to
year. The retroactive effect of one provision of the amendments to
the convention is something that should be clarified in committee.
In conclusion, may I remind you that this tax convention is
nothing new. These are simply amendments to a convention that
was signed with the U.S. 15 years ago. This is the third time it is
being amended. That is quite normal. Things evolve with time,
allowing us to improve economic relations, especially since the
1988 free trade agreement with the U.S., which is an important
instrument of future trade for both Quebec and Canada.
I am happy to see that when the government side does something
concrete for the economy, common sense prevails over last year's
electoral stand on the U.S. They must be pragmatic enough to make
sure that businesspeople in both Quebec and Canada can do
business and be as profitable and efficient as possible so they can
contribute to the country's economic growth.
(1325)
I hope they will take the same attitude during the Quebec
referendum campaign, although I doubt they will because of their
partisan politics. But common sense will prevail again the day
after. The economy is one thing, but politics is something else.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to support Bill S-9 amending the Canada-United States Tax
Convention Act of 1984 for a third time, as mentioned by the two
previous speakers.
14710
For all intents and purposes the act is already a done deal as
its contents were agreed on in a protocol signed by trade
representatives from both countries on March 17, 1995. The
protocol bill became Bill S-9 and the Senate subsequently
approved it on May 3, 1995. That leaves it up to members of the
House of Commons and specifically members of the Standing
Committee on Finance to give it one last good look.
Basically tax treaties and their amending protocols have two
main objectives, the avoidance of double taxation and the
prevention of fiscal evasion. Since they contain taxation rules
different from the provisions of the Income Tax Act they become
effective only if we give them precedence over domestic legislation
by passing bills like Bill S-9 through Parliament.
I want to make sure Liberal members opposite understand what
that means. For Canada to simplify its tax rules with regard to trade
with the U.S. its politicians pass bills like Bill S-9 that bypass the
convoluted, complex and complicated Income Tax Act. With all
due respect, what a treat that must be. Canadians sit at home trying
to figure out their T4s and their T4As and phrases such as
discernible loss while a few trade representatives sign a tax
protocol not subject to any aspect of the Income Tax Act.
The primary objective of most tax treaties is the avoidance of
double taxation. Bill S-9 makes a number of important changes in
this area, including bilateral reductions and withholding tax rates
on dividends, interest and royalties reflecting the rates now
accepted in most countries, a complete withholding tax exemption
for payments for the use of U.S. technology, relief for Canadian
residents from the application of U.S. estate taxes, increasing the
maximum estate tax exemption from $60,000 to between $600,000
and $1.2 million U.S.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance will be bringing in estate
taxes in Canada in his next budget, making this section of the bill
an exercise in futility.
With regard to double taxation, Bill S-9 expands the exemption
from U.S. tax for the income earned by RRSPs, RRIFs and the
Canada pension plan.
In the area of fiscal evasion the bill gives authority to impose
withholding on CPP and OAS payments made to American
residents. The 1984 treaty only allowed the American state these
former Canadian residents lived in to tax such payments. Now we
can withhold the money at source if it is being collected illegally.
There is also a provision in Bill S-9 for a mutual assistance in the
collection of taxes owed by a citizen of one country who resides in
the other.
These are very positive measures which our party fully supports.
However, what disturbs me is that we can accomplish these
changes internationally but not internally, not domestically. For
example, we can agree to chase tax evaders north and south of the
Canada-U.S. border yet nothing has been done by the government
to chase those who evade things like child support across our
provincial borders. It is a double standard.
Another example of this can be seen in reductions and
withholding tax rates on the dividends, interest and royalties held
in Canada and the United States. What about the continuing double
taxation of domestic dividends in Canada? This is a double
standard. Our trade representatives seem to be able to negotiate
what our domestic politicians and representatives cannot.
The question that begs to be asked is why. The answer is because
bills like Bill S-9 take precedence over the Income Tax Act. They
are not governed by it. Maybe it is time Canadians did not have to
be governed by the Income Tax Act either. Maybe it should be
repealed. Maybe it is time to get rid of it altogether, start from
scratch and build up a whole new base to create a simple, visible
and fair system of taxation such as the flat tax.
(1330)
Philosophically, certainly it is in tune with the times. Practically,
it would be keeping in step with what is going on in the United
States. A protocol bill like this one seems to solve all our problems.
Many Republican representatives in the United States are looking
at a flat tax. They are looking to simplify their system. They are
looking to make it more fair, where people who make the same
level of income pay relatively the same amount of tax. They are
looking to reduce the high compliance costs of tax collection.
What is frustrating to me is that the majority of Canadians have
to hire accountants to do their personal income tax returns. Our
corporations have to hire accountants to do their tax returns.
Businesses have to figure out their GST calculations and submit
them to the government. In other words, the private citizens and
businesses are paying to keep track of taxation for the government,
and it still costs Revenue Canada $1.2 billion to collect our taxes. It
still costs $400 million to $500 million for the GST revenues to add
it all up. That is almost a cost of $2 billion when the people in the
businesses are doing the work. Implementing a simplified taxation
system would reduce that cost. It would be in line with what we are
doing with protocol agreements such as we have in Bill S-9.
It is so obvious and so clear that I do not know what the
government has to fear. The Liberal member for
Broadview-Greenwood is proposing a flat tax. He has been
ignored for 10 years. I do not know why. What is it that makes
politicians when they form government afraid to look at a new,
clear and fair system of taxation? Why not send the trade
representatives who negotiated the deal into the House and let them
negotiate in the standing committees a new system of taxation?
Businesses would be better off and individuals would be better off.
14711
We have to get rid of the intertwining of our social and
economic programs through the Income Tax Act, separate them
and have a system of taxation that collects the amount of money
we need to pay for the programs Canadians want, be it child care,
be it health care, be it education, or whatever it is they want. It
could be a megaproject that we would cut but the government
would probably continue. Then we would know what the rate
should be. Then we would know whom to tax. Then we would
know how much to tax. It would be there for us. It would be within
our grasp. It is a system of taxation whose time has come; there
is no question.
If we can agree on issues between two nations such as how to
avoid double taxation, why do we not look at an internal system
that would avoid double taxation within our own country? Why are
we being so foolish in keeping the burden and the cost of
calculating income tax and in keeping the burden and cost of high
taxes?
More bills will be coming up later today and tomorrow that
concern excise taxes. Some will be decreased; some will be
increased. Bill C-90 will increase taxes all over the place. We do
not need that. We need tax reduction, not tax increase. I will be
talking more about the flat tax in future speeches, so I will drop the
analogy of the good things in Bill S-9.
I see the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister. I am
encouraged he is somewhat willing to look at what the flat tax has
to offer. He has made no commitments, but it is a start in the right
direction because it will benefit all Canadians.
In conclusion, once again I repeat that we are in favour of Bill
S-9. However we are opposed to the fact that the government will
not negotiate the same type of deals at home as it does abroad. Our
government cannot continue to smile at the neighbours, make good
deals with them and not make the same good deals at home. It is
engaging us in fights at home. The separation fight is all about
power. It is all about taxation, who should be taxing and at what
levels, and getting rid of the double taxation system and the
duplication of services. Why not tell the province of Quebec that it
can handle x, y and z, that the federal government will get out of
that business and that it can collect the taxes for it? That is
something which shows that federalism works, but no, the
government would not do that.
(1335)
People in Canada need change in a big way. As we have seen
today, positive change can only come about through bypassing,
ignoring or disregarding the Income Tax Act altogether. If we had
to continue to abide by the rules of the Income Tax Act to negotiate
with other countries, we would not get anywhere because no one
would understand it.
We have tax lawyers and accountants in this country who are
intelligent and highly educated. They give advice to individuals
and corporations and at the end of the day sign a disclaimer:
``Notwithstanding all the advice I have given you, everything in
here might be true or might not be true. My interpretation should be
accepted by Revenue Canada, but if it is not it is not my fault''.
They do our tax returns. If it is in a grey area, Revenue Canada
says: ``No, you cannot have that''. Then the department charges us
and we have to pay. If we do not pay we end up having to pay
double interest. A person has more rights as a criminal-and I do
not want to go back to Bill C-45-than one who misses the filing
date of the income tax return.
The government goes after us. It is arbitrary. It leads to conflict
between citizens and the bureaucrats. We do not need that. We do
not need the department to be frowned on, to be cursed at, to be
sworn at. We can simplify the matter and make it better by having a
simple system of taxation that everyone understands. Then we
would not have taxpayers fighting the department over appeals,
over treatment or over rulings. We do not need that.
In conclusion it is time that we start giving Canadians in Canada
the same types of rules and rates governing Canadians outside
Canada.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was going to
let the matter go to a vote but I was encouraged by the previous
speaker to say a few words.
It is clear that Bill S-9 is a result of a complex process flowing
from a tax treaty signed between Canada and the United States in
March 1995. The Senate quickly got on to this important matter in
its judgment and decided to give it top priority over a number of
other pieces of legislation. As far as the Senate is concerned it
requires top priority. The bill passed in May before the summer
recess. Now, in the first few hours of this session of Parliament, the
government also says that this is a priority. This tax measure has
taken priority in Parliament over all kinds of other initiatives.
I can talk about the high levels of unemployment that are not
being addressed. I can talk about all sorts of social, economic and
cultural issues that are simply being ignored. The government is
saying that this is a priority, that we must bring in a tax provision
changing the Income Tax Act to benefit basically a handful of the
wealthiest families of Canada.
That is what we are talking about. Let us be perfectly clear. This
tax measure will not benefit many people in the constituency of
Kamloops or the constituency of Okanagan-Shuswap. I could go
through the entire country.
The legislation has been written, drafted or designed to assist the
financial concerns of a handful of very wealthy Canadian families.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has
argued, it is a matter of equity. I suspect that is true in the
14712
government's eyes. Changes are required in the Income Tax Act so
that they are not double taxed on U.S. investments and the fact they
live in Canada. The whole matter of tax protocols, tax treaties and
the resultant changes in the tax act is something anyone would
support.
It is the process that troubles us. We are talking now about the
principle of the bill. This is second reading. We are talking about
the principle of the bill, that the government and the Senate feel
that the matter is of top priority and that we have to do something
to facilitate the financial concerns of a handful of very wealthy
Canadian families. I doubt it. I doubt if Canadians would recognize
it as a top priority.
(1340 )
I find it surprising that my friends opposite, including the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, would have the
courage to stand in the House of Commons to say that we have to
spend hours today, if necessary, to help a handful of wealthy
Canadian families get a better financial deal on their tax bills.
There is something cynical about that.
No wonder Canadians are cynical about the government. It is the
same members who said to all Canadians not many months ago that
if they elected the Liberals they would abolish the GST. That was
said from coast to coast to coast, constituency to constituency
throughout the lower mainland of British Columbia, throughout
southern Ontario, throughout the province of Quebec, et cetera.
Liberal contenders in the election said: ``If you elect us we will
abolish the GST''.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that if the GST were not
abolished within the first year she would resign her seat. To be fair,
I wish we could believe these folks. Canadians are saying that they
believe they are actually telling the truth. When my friends from
Toronto said to their constituents: ``You elect me and I will abolish
the GST'', they believed them; they said yes.
Bringing some financial tax pain relief to every Canadian is not a
priority. As my friend says-and I believe what he says-we will
eventually get to it. I suspect that rather than abolish the GST they
will abolish the name GST and keep the tax. They might do a bit of
harmonizing and so on to broaden it even more so that more items
would come under taxation. We could refer to the province of
Alberta. Albertans will now have all goods and services taxed as
opposed to none.
Changing the GST is not a priority but Bill S-9 is. I wonder how
many of my Liberal friends across the way actually know what is in
the bill or how many Canadians will benefit from it. Those people
that have $600,000 or $1 million in investments coming from the
United States will benefit. How many Canadians does that account
for?
Mr. Silye: One per cent.
Mr. Riis: My friend from Calgary says 1 per cent. I doubt it is
one per cent. We should not be giving priority to tax policy that
addresses the concerns of less than 1 per cent of the Canadian
population.
My hon. friend from Calgary Centre made a point that was well
taken. He said that most times when we are trying to change the
Income Tax Act we use the normal process through the finance
committee and various other subcommittees to look at tax
exemptions and ask whether they are of benefit to Canada. My
friend from Toronto will know about this; he has been working on
them for many years. Do they result in some benefit? Often when
we have done a cost benefit analysis we have found that they have
not. From time to time the government has eliminated tax
exemptions or what some of us call tax loopholes. Even the
Minister of Finance is using the term tax loophole more frequently.
We ask ourselves how we got into this debt problem. I know it
seems to be a jump from Bill S-9 to the debt problem. Let us
recognize that Statistics Canada did us a great favour back in 1991
when it identified that 44 per cent of our accumulated federal debt
was the result of tax exemptions over the years, the drainage of
billions and billions of dollars through tax loopholes.
We might say that some of the tax breaks, tax loopholes or tax
exemptions are beneficial. Some are absolute boondoggles and
some are debatable. Do Parliament and government give priority to
a process that would see the elimination of some tax exemptions
and as a result take a major step toward reducing the accumulated
debt and deficit? Is that where we devote our attention, energy and
time? No. Time is given to Bill S-9 that will benefit a handful of the
wealthiest families of Canada. We will send this off to the finance
committee now for thorough study where its advantages and
problems will be identified.
In summary let us acknowledge what we are doing today. We are
taking up valuable House of Commons time at a crucial time in our
economic history, when we have 1.4 million Canadians who are
jobless, another two million Canadians who are underemployed,
probably many more than that who are working in low paying jobs
and are barely getting by. We are seeing that a priority for this
government is to assist a handful of wealthy families with their tax
problems.
(1345)
What about the tax problems of every other Canadian? What
about the tax problems that every small business person in this
country is struggling with today? My friend from Calgary Centre
indicated that people are struggling through their tax returns and so
on and need a tax accountant, a tax adviser, a tax lawyer for the
simplest type of taxation situation.
It is with regret that we have this debate today, because of all the
priorities facing this country this has to be almost at the bottom of
14713
the bloody list. However, the government says this is a priority, so
to them it is and we have to deal with it.
Let me say that on the principle of this bill we in the New
Democratic Party will be voting against it.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for
Kamloops for his commitment to total comprehensive personal and
corporate tax reform. I too share with the member and also the
member from Calgary Centre the view-and there are many other
Liberals on this side of the House who share their view-that this is
an issue the people of Canada want us to address. Canadians are
hoping we address this issue of personal and corporate income tax
reform in the next little while.
The Minister of Finance over the next 90 days will be preparing
a budget statement and preparing for a budget obviously early next
spring. This will be our window. This will be the time for all of us
in this House to deal with this very important issue.
I am not going to get into a long debate on this. I do not think that
is where I am coming from today, but I would like to ask the
member from Kamloops a very specific question. Over the next 60
days, could we count on the support of the member and the New
Democratic Party to roll up their sleeves and work with us to see if
we could, as a bipartisan effort in this House, come up with a
package that deals with the whole notion of comprehensive tax
reform, both on the personal and the corporate side?
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, this could be one of the happiest days of
my life, responding to this question.
If there is an issue facing this country right now, one of the top
issues that is frustrating Canadians is the matter of our unfair,
unjust, biased tax system at both the corporate and personal levels.
A major overhaul is required. For us to go into the details of why
that is the case, they are all well known. I suspect we have all had
constituents lined up 50 or 60 deep some days explaining their
problems with the tax system.
I can commit to my hon. friend from Broadview-Greenwood
that there is nothing I would enjoy more than to sit down with him
and others in a non-partisan effort to examine every tax provision
that presently exists on a cost benefit basis to the people of Canada
and come up with a comprehensive system of tax reform that would
bring fairness back into the system. People would see the tax
system as being fair to both them and others, where there would be
nobody who would obviously benefit from that system.
(1350 )
I know some of my friends are very keen about the flat tax
system. I am not sure what they mean by the flat tax because there
are all kinds of definitions of that, as my friend from
Broadview-Greenwood has explained in his publication and
others beyond what he said. However, it is something we need to
look at among a whole set of alternatives and various proposals to
have a fairer tax system so that the most popular book come the
new year is not on how to avoid tax.
When we go into bookstores across Canada, no matter what
bookstore it is the front counter now has issues and issues and
various publications on how to beat the tax man. The reason they
are popular is because every single person and business person
knows that the tax system is unfair.
I will use one example to measure the unfairness in how the tax
system is being used. The audit division of Revenue Canada tells us
that for every $1 it invests in an audit procedure it collects $6 back.
It is not necessarily that people are all breaking the law, but they
are certainly hedging on that. In other words, they are saying that
this does not seem to be clear so I am going to make my tax
decision in this grey area. As a result, the treasury of our country is
losing billions of dollars that would normally be collected.
However, because of a tax system that is so vague, so grey, so
biased, so unjust and so unfair, people are revolting against it in a
number of ways.
Let us not forget that the obvious way the people are revolting is
to participate in the underground economy. What are the losses
there? The experts will tell us that anywhere from $40 billion and
$160 billion are lost each year because of transactions that are not
registered and not taxed as a result of the underground economy.
Therefore, I say with enthusiasm, in response to my friend, yes, I
will be willing, with my party very strongly behind me, to
participate in any measure that will result in a fairer tax system
than we have today.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member for Kamloops a question. If he believes
that the current system of taxation is unfair, that the current
taxation system is too high, what does he think about the current
level of government spending?
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my friend. He might
be playing a little bit of politics here, but I think it is a question that
deserves a serious answer on my part.
How has our accumulated debt occurred? Fifty per cent of our
accumulated debt comes from the result of compound interest
because of our high interest rate policy. Forty-four per cent of our
compound debt is as a result of tax exemptions. Six per cent of our
compound debt is as a result of government expenditures.
Let us recognize that in some areas we have overspent, but in my
judgment in some areas we have underspent. There are some areas
where we should be spending now to encourage people to find
ways and means of getting back to productive work. Let us
14714
recognize that the best social program in this country is for
someone to have a decent paying job.
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Is the
House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The Speaker: My colleagues, it being almost 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by
members.
_____________________________________________
14714
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, GFI
Control Systems Inc., located in the riding of Waterloo, is the
world's leading designer, manufacturer, and supplier of
technologically advanced natural gas and propane automotive fuel
systems. GFI holds the coveted ISO 9001 quality certification for
its entire facility.
GFI products are now being exported to the U.S. and to over 10
other countries and to dozens of original equipment manufacturers
that are moving to alternative fuels.
As a result of legislation in the U.S. and Bill S-7 in Canada, GFI
is looking forward to additional sales and employment. In order to
accommodate this growth, GFI is enlarging its facility. This
expansion will produce several advantages. The new and improved
facility will accelerate the development of leading edge technology
for markets worldwide. It will allow GFI to operate an inhouse
emissions control laboratory. It will also offer opportunities for
more extensive training of dealers and technicians. The centre will
create 50 new jobs.
The success of GFI is good news for the consumer, the
environment, and Canada. To all the people involved with GFI we
send our congratulations and thanks.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in July 1948, barely 52 per cent of Newfoundland
voters taking part in a referendum agreed to join the Canadian
federation. In November 1994, 52 per cent of Swedish voters
supported their country's entry into the European Union. Two
weeks later, 52 per cent of Norwegians voted against joining the
EU. And in France, the Maastricht Agreement was approved by
50.9 per cent of voters.
In fact, the simple majority rule as applied to referendums is
universal because it is the only democratic rule. The official
opposition did the right thing by reminding the Prime Minister of
this fact this week, as Robert Bourassa did in Washington
yesterday. The only one who does not admit that Quebecers have
this right is the Prime Minister of Canada, who should know this
basic democratic rule.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to draw attention to the weakness of this government's agenda, an
agenda so thin the government House leader's closest relatives
would have trouble getting excited about it.
This thin soup agenda is creating a tremendous leadership
vacuum. The provinces are losing faith in Ottawa as a force for
social change. Individuals are losing faith in Ottawa as a catalyst
for jobs and economic growth. The country is losing faith in
Ottawa as a source of fresh innovative ideas.
Reformers are not going to wait for this government any longer.
It is time to put some meat in the soup. Earlier today the Reform
Party took the first step by outlining the national Reform agenda
for Canadians.
From the day we arrived in Ottawa, Reform has acted as the de
facto official opposition, but the Liberals' continued silence on
important national issues has convinced us we have to act as the de
facto government as well. As Canadians will see, that is the role we
are prepared to play.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday CN laid off 266 people at the CN shops in my riding.
How hollow the 1993 promises of the Liberals now ring about jobs
and preserving Winnipeg as a rail centre.
Workers are being let go to improve the books for privatization
purposes. The government now says it will not be trying to sell CN
until after the referendum. Where I come from, we still say there is
no need to sell it at all.
I can tell you what else is being said, Mr. Speaker. People
wonder why Montreal is being guaranteed the headquarters of a
privatized CN when all we seem to be guaranteed in Winnipeg is
14715
more and more layoffs. In their view, CN headquarters should be
in western Canada, where most of the traffic is.
At the very least, the government should indicate that it will
reconsider the way it has bound privatized crown corporations like
Air Canada and soon CN to keep their headquarters in Montreal,
especially if the vote goes the wrong way on October 30. I am sure
that Canadians want privatized Canadian crown corporations to be
headquartered in Canada.
* * *
(1400 )
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Canadian
athlete and the community that honoured him.
On September 14 the town of St. Mary's, the future home of the
Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame, hosted 15-year major league
veteran Terry Puhl.
Terry, a native of Melville, Saskatchewan, spent 14 of his 15
seasons with the Houston Astros and holds a .280 career batting
average. Also known as a superb defensive player, Terry holds the
major league record for the best fielding percentage in baseball,
.993.
In six of his seasons he did not make a single error and he had
only 19 in his entire career. Terry Puhl is the first player to be
inducted into the new St. Mary's home of the Baseball Hall of
Fame and Museum.
This visionary and enthusiastic community of only 5,000 people
is undertaking to build an $8.7 million complex to showcase
Canadian baseball history and heroes.
I congratulate the people of St. Mary's for their hard work and
dedication toward this goal. I wish them success.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
16-year old Sarah Balabagan faces the death penalty in the United
Arab Emirates for the stabbing death of her employer.
Last June she was given a prison term but was awarded
compensation for the rape she endured at her employer's hands.
It was shocking that last Saturday her sentence was changed to
death. This is reminiscent of the hasty execution six months ago in
Singapore of another Filipino nanny, an execution deemed unjust
on subsequent inquiry, but too late.
I therefore urge the House to intervene on Sarah's behalf, to
allow a full and impartial judicial review of her case.
Canada has long prized human life and championed women's
rights worldwide, the theme of the U.N. conference on women held
in Beijing. Canada's support may well be the saving voice for this
young woman's life.
Canada's timely stand on this matter goes beyond the life of this
one young woman to the lives of all women of the world.
* * *
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week I
proposed the concept of a sacred assembly to consider aboriginal
issues from a spiritual perspective. This assembly will bring
together native and non-native spiritual leaders in the spirit of
healing and reconciliation.
I am pleased to report to the House I have received positive
responses from churches, spiritual leaders, communities, national
groups and also my colleague, the hon. minister of Indian affairs.
We are now in the process of assembling a working group.
I envision this assembly as a forum for sharing spiritual wisdom
on aboriginal issues and also as a forum for promoting
reconciliation between native and non-native communities in
Canada.
This must happen if Canada is to heal and grow strong. I know
many here have drawn on faith in our creator to guide and sustain
us in our work in the House. In the spirit of this faith I call on all
my colleagues in the House to offer their support on this initiative.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the tour
organized by women for the Yes side in Quebec allowed thousands
of women to find out about the choices in the upcoming
referendum: on the one hand, a federal system in which
unemployed workers and welfare recipients are seen as lazy and
higher education is reserved for the rich; and on the other, a
sovereign Quebec where women can help meet the challenges of a
modern society attuned to their needs and priorities.
For the increasingly numerous sovereignist women in Quebec,
history has clearly shown how federalism has become a barrier to
collective growth. And this government's policies are not likely to
make them change their minds.
What Quebec women want above all is a blueprint for society
that will finally meet their aspirations. The side in favour of change
is proposing such a blueprint. Women see sovereignty as an
14716
instrument of social change that will make it possible to fulfil all
their hopes.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, farmers across western Canada are frustrated with the
government's botching of the Crow buyout. Farmers who have
diversified are being disqualified from compensation.
(1405 )
The FCC and banks are reneging on giving a fair share of the
buyout money to producers. The government has failed to bring
efficiency into the grain handling and transportation system.
Furthermore, organic growers are penalized for marketing and
transporting their own grain. Domestic beef producers are
constantly harassed by arbitrary offshore beef imports.
For two years we have been promised a special crops act without
action. Instead of encouraging the industry the government is
putting small seed cleaner plants out of business with more
regulation.
While the government expends all of its energy on the
referendum question, farmers are forced to watch their problems
being ignored. It has become clear they can expect no action from
this thin soup Liberal agenda.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
surprised to read in this morning's
Daily News that the member for
Fraser Valley West will not be relocating to Atlantic Canada, for in
his own words, ``who the blank would want to run there?''
There are 32 members in the House who have worked hard every
day for years to represent the real concerns of real Atlantic
Canadians.
In his own words the member was ``trying to be nice'' because
he knew he would be quoted in the newspapers. This proves once
again Reform's only motivation is political expediency. The third
party is trying to score points on the backs of Atlantic Canadians.
The people in Atlantic Canada deserve better.
The leader of the Reform Party this weekend said he would keep
the fishery on the national agenda. This is the same man who told
Atlantic Canadians the fishery is dead. We are not fooled by the
publicity mongering of the Reform Party. Getting on the front page
is one thing; dedication to the issues we face in our regions
everyday is another. That is where the Reform Party falls flat. Its
agenda is bad news for Atlantic Canadians.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada is the best country in the world in terms of
quality of life. As well, it is the second wealthiest country.
As Canadians, the people of Quebec already share in this good
fortune, yet the separatists say they will give them more. What
more can they mean? What is better than best?
The people of Quebec must look carefully at the promises being
made. The truth is a yes victory guarantees the Quebecois nothing
whatsoever; the Canadian dollar, economic and political
partnership, Canadian citizenship, nothing would be guaranteed.
The people of Quebec and their forefathers shared in the hard
work and vision that led to the development of this great country.
They must not lose their stake in its future. Their children deserve
their birthright, Canadian citizenship.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as regards the use of the Canadian currency by
a sovereign Quebec, it is interesting to look at the recent case of the
Czech and Slovak republics. These two new republics had agreed
to use a common currency for a transition period of at least six
months following their separation. After thirty-nine days, the fear
and insecurity of capital holders, that resulted in a massive transfer
of assets to other countries, led to this laudable goal being
discarded.
The new Slovak republic only had three days to print its own
currency to put an end to the massive flight of capital. Today, the
currency of that republic, which is the smaller and more vulnerable
of the two new states, is worth 12 per cent less than the Czech
currency.
By separating from Canada, Quebec would also become
extremely vulnerable to such a massive flight of capital. Is the
separatist dream really worth the price that will have to be paid?
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
* * *
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Bombardier's senior management is resorting to pressure tactics to
force its managers to join the no side and make financial
contributions.
Such a practice is unacceptable in a democratic system. It seems
that the man behind all this, Laurent Beaudoin, did not learn from
the mistake he made in 1992, when he disregarded the Referendum
Act, to help the federalist side during the referendum on the
14717
Charlottetown accord. Clearly, to act in such a way is to show very
little respect for democracy and freedom of choice.
(1410)
What concerns us even more is that, in a document distributed to
businesses and entitled ``Businesses and Unity: Issues and Ideas'',
the Privy Council encourages business leaders to get their
managers on board for the crusade.
It would appear that Bombardier's senior management carried
out these instructions to the letter. Such practices are unacceptable,
in our view, and those who use them should think about what they
are doing.
* * *
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are asking why our justice system is not protecting
them.
In British Columbia a 10-year old was kidnapped from her home
and killed. In Calgary a fourth woman in seven weeks was
murdered. The justice minister still rules out any debate on the
death penalty. In Montreal a biker war claims innocent lives.
The justice minister uses the charter of rights as an excuse not to
act. Murderers can be paroled after only 15 years of a supposed life
sentence, yet the minister has failed to repeal this weak kneed
loophole in the Criminal Code.
The justice minister will spend millions on a gun registry but
does nothing to set up an effective registry of known child sex
offenders.
In Canada we should not be living in fear for our children's
safety and our own. The Reform Party has a clear and specific
program to fix the Liberals weak response to justice concerns. The
time for a safer Canada is now.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the past several weeks my Carleton-Charlotte
constituents have continued to bring forth the same message for the
House and for my government. The message conveys our love and
our respect for our brothers and sisters in Quebec and our hope they
will remain part of this country, the best country in the world in
which to live.
However, my constituents also wish to inform us they want the
number one priority of the government, the agenda for jobs and
growth, to continue.
We have made progress but there is still a long way to go and a
lot of work to be done. Continued economic growth and jobs for
our children and our grandchildren are the issues of major
importance to my Carleton-Charlotte constituents and to all
Canadians.
I urge my government to ensure economic growth and jobs, the
agenda initiated by the government, continue for the benefit of all
Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the separatists can no longer lead the
population of Quebec to believe that they will force all of the
foreign countries to their knees, as they said last week in
connection with Ontario, when it comes time to negotiate
economic agreements.
Contrary to their claims in their referendum agenda, a separate
Quebec will not be able to join the North American Free Trade
Agreement automatically. This claim they have been making, the
Leader of the Opposition in particular, has just been contradicted
by an American expert who took part in the Free Trade
negotiations.
According to him, accession by a sovereign Quebec would not
happen automatically and there might be a danger of the
negotiations reopening issues dear to the heart of Quebecers, such
as culture, the marketing of agricultural produce and even our
hydro-electric energy treasure, Hydro-Québec.
In conclusion, the Bloc's separatist agenda does not serve the
true interest of Quebec and that is why they will be hearing a
resounding no this coming October 30.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government
is walking very timidly, doing nothing at all in order to improve its
chances of doing nothing wrong.
While all eyes are on the delicate balance of power between
Ottawa and the provinces, especially Quebec, the government
pursues its thin soup, no issue non-agenda.
Where are we on the promise of a more responsive and
democratic Parliament? While the government is paralysed by the
Quebec question, Canadians wonder what has happened to the free
votes the government promised. There are at least nine hapless
Liberals in the House and multitudes of Canadians who are deeply
disappointed about that broken red book promise.
14718
Why should Canadians elect and pay for MPs who are totally
shackled to their political masters and who are unable to speak
for and vote for their constituents wishes?
I say to Canadians: Do not give up. The Liberals can be thrown
out and the Reform Party is ready to make this place work on the
democratic principles Canadians expect.
_____________________________________________
14718
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Privy Council took great pains to remove three
quarters of a document intended for the Minister of Labour from
the public eye. The document, which appears to describe the
activities of the operation unity centre, was obtained by the
opposition under the Access to Information Act. I say ``appears'',
because the government whited out most of the pages before
sending them to the Information Commissioner. Even the table of
contents is secret. Mr. Speaker, this is too much.
What lessons in transparency can the Prime Minister offer to the
Government of Quebec when he keeps three quarters of a Privy
Council document on the activities of the operation unity centre
secret?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, under the Access to Information Act, the government
makes public what has to be made public. Some of the
government's activities are not made public. The Privy Council
operates daily in connection with the referendum and the national
problem facing the country at the moment.
As you can imagine, it provides the Canadian government with
very effective information and advice on keeping the country
together.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am asking the Prime Minister what is so secret about the
activities of the operation unity centre-the information that
appears in the document in question-that it is being turned into a
real state secret? What is the government trying to hide from
Quebecers? This is the question.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, ministerial activities and communications in cabinet are
privileged. We try to release as much as possible to the press and
the public, but some matters of discussion in a government remain
privileged between members of the administration. There is
nothing cynical in this, particularly because it is an open campaign.
We are very open, and the burden of proof lies with the
opposition to say why Quebecers should separate from Canada. All
we have to say is that we who are defending Canada are defending
more than 125 years of history considered by the world to be a
great history of political evolution from a former colony to one of
the world's model countries.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the question is a very simple one: why is the government
hiding three quarters of a document on the hottest item at the
moment, the Quebec referendum? Since the Prime Minister says
the campaign is an open one, I am going to give him the
opportunity to show how open it is, since the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said in February that most of the funds
injected into operation unity would go to pay for studies on
eliminating overlap.
How then can the Prime Minister justify the fact that the Privy
Council has not made public these studies, which were conducted
and paid for with public funds?
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, on May 21, I wrote the chairman of the standing
committee of the House of Commons providing him with a
complete list of all those working in the unity group, identifying
their duties and indicating the amount of the budget.
I also told him then that, so long as the date of the referendum
was not known, we could quite likely spend more than the $2.5
million in the blue book.
Since then, the Parti Quebecois has spend more than $22 million.
This figure does not appear in the expenditures of the Quebec
government as referendum expenditures.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
simply repeat the question put by the Leader of the Opposition.
The minister accused another government of keeping studies
under wraps, although these studies are published regularly. The
problem, and that is the gist of our question, is this. He told us that
most Operation Unity funds would be used for studies of the
extremely costly duplication that exists within the Canadian federal
system.
(1420)
Our question is this: If he is so open, what about these studies
which absorb most of the funds of this organization? Tell us about
them, Mr. Minister.
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, I indicated at the time that members of the Unity Group
had been recruited to prepare analyses of the government's
situation, and obviously some of these can be released to the public
but some are
14719
clearly intended for those who make the decisions and are, by their
very nature, confidential.
But what is far more important is the difference with studies that
were kept under wraps, that were ordered from a separate
organization, and the fact that the PQ government, at the behest by
the Minister of Restructuration, refused to release a study of Mr.
Mathews unless Mr. Mathews deleted certain paragraphs. That is
controlling information, and we do not do that.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, perhaps
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would be willing to tell
us his criteria for keeping certain studies confidential and releasing
others.
I would appreciate if he would tell us and then explain how he
can decide to keep all these studies under wraps and then comment
on the actions of another government that really does not need any
lessons from him?
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, I think it is clear there is a difference between strategic
analyses, and the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois have
these as well, which are clearly intended for decision-makers, and
studies prepared for publication by scientific institutes and
published with the institute's stamp of approval.
What the Parti Quebecois did is unacceptable, and everybody
knows what happened. They prevented the release of studies that
contained conclusions they did not agree with.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is not a federalist in the House who does not want to
defeat the Bloc and its separatist allies in the referendum and bury
this secession issue six feet deep.
If this is to happen it is going to require some fresher thinking
and some bolder tactics than have been practised in the past by the
traditional guardians of national unity.
My question is for the Prime Minister. To what extent is he
consulting and involving federalists outside Quebec in improving
the federal government's response to the referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from time to time I am in communication with some
premiers and other people who call me to discuss the referendum
and make suggestions. Anybody who feels he or she can make a
contribution is invited to call me or members of my cabinet to give
good advice.
On many occasions I have been called by officials of other
governments and people in the private sector to ask for my views
on how we can make sure the country remains together. I welcome
the suggestions and the commitment of so many people inside and
outside of Quebec who just want to work hard to make sure the
country remains united so we can move on to the real agenda: the
creation of jobs, good administration and giving a real future to the
young people of the nation.
(1425 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure that the Prime Minister is consulting, but I
wonder whether he is hearing and absorbing the advice that he is
getting.
For example, the vast majority of Reform MPs are from the
west. What the west wants on this issue-and this has been
discussed for some 10 years-is not only national unity but
resolution of the issue, clarity in the federalist position, toughness
in calling the separatists' bluff and a better and more decentralized
federalism as an alternative to the status quo.
What is the Prime Minister doing to bring these elements into
the federal government approach: the resolution, the clarity, the
toughness and the better federalism that western Canadians and
many other Canadians want?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of western Canada, like everyone else in
Canada, want a good government in Ottawa that is going its job
properly.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): They know quite well it is very
seldom that I am applauded in this House by the Bloc Quebecois. It
is not the same thing in your case.
My view is that we are working very hard to make sure that some
of the aspirations of everybody are attended to. For example, the
minister of federal-provincial relations is talking about the work he
is doing not only with the province of Quebec but with all the other
governments in Canada on how we can end duplication. It has to be
discussed with all the provinces. Some provinces are willing to see
us moving out of some fields; other provinces do not want us to
move out of those fields because they do not have the means to
operate in certain fields.
The province of Alberta is richer than the others. As the federal
government we have to make sure that some of the poorer parts of
Canada receive the same quality of services as the people happily
can afford in Alberta.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all we have heard so far in response to these questions has
been the traditional approach to managing national unity that has
been carried on by often the same people for the last 32 years.
14720
Where has that approach led? It has led to two failed
constitutional agreements. It has led to two secession referendums
in 15 years. It has led to fostering the development of two full
blown separatist parties in the province of Quebec. The traditional
approach to national unity has not worked.
That is why we need fresh thinking. The west's contribution is to
bring resolution, clarity, toughness and a better vision.
Instead of ignoring these elements or worse yet labelling them as
somehow disloyal to Canada, why does the Prime Minister not
incorporate them into the federal government's strategy on the
referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member is ill-advised to raise the failure
of the Charlottetown accord which he opposed because the
Government of Alberta supported it, as did the Government of
British Columbia and so on. Don't blame it on us, blame it on you.
You are one of those who campaigned against us.
At this moment I think the burden of proof is on those who want
to separate Quebec from Canada. The preoccupation of the leader
of the third party should be to tell them because when it comes
from me they do not like it very much. Perhaps because you have
managed to get applause from them once in a while you could at
this moment tell them why you believe that what they are trying to
sell to Quebecers; that it is going to be easy for them after
separation to keep their citizenship, the dollar, the economic union
and political union, why in your judgment that is a dream they
cannot realize.
The Speaker: I know at times hon. members want to speak to
each other directly, but I would ask all hon. members to please
direct their comments to the Chair.
* * *
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In the wake of the car bomb that killed an innocent 11-year old
boy last August, there has been an alarming increase in the number
of bombings, with two more people killed in Saint-Luc, in the
Montérégie region, last night.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us if his government still thinks
that the current provisions of the Criminal Code are sufficient to
allow police forces to wage an effective fight against this kind of
crime?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the tragedy
of little Daniel Desrochers's death a few weeks ago in Montreal.
The problem of gang wars and organized crime is a very difficult
one and a major challenge for Montreal police forces.
This past summer, I had a meeting with the solicitor general,
Mr. Sangollo, Denis Asselin of the CUM, and the Commissioner of
the RCMP. We discussed in detail all the various strategies we
could use to deal with this problem. We decided to work together
and set up a joint committee that will go through the Criminal Code
to look for answers.
This is a very serious, very important matter to us. We are now
working in a very constructive and positive fashion and I am very
confident that we will find a solution to the problem.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the minister that bombs are exploding.
There have been thirty of them since the beginning of the year.
Casualties are mounting. In Quebec, 25 people have died. Police
forces have been calling for amendments to the Criminal Code for
a long time, and what is the minister telling us? That he is studying
the matter. The time for studying is over, the time has come for
action.
When will the minister table in this House amendments to the
Criminal Code that would meet police demands?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are quite aware that there is a
problem at this time, just as there was last week and as there will be
next week. It is not only in Montreal but also in Toronto and
Vancouver. It is the problem of organized crime.
There is no simple solution. When I met with the hon. member a
few months ago, I asked him: ``What do you suggest?'' He had a
suggestion, which we discussed, but it is not a real solution.
[English]
This is not an easy question of just passing another law.
[Translation]
In fact, the Quebec Minister of Public Security, Mr. Ménard,
clearly said: ``We do not need new laws. We need the police forces
to work on collecting evidence against organized crime''. So let us
work together to find a solution to this problem, this tragic matter.
As I said, I am confident that we will find a solution in the coming
weeks.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question for the unity minister.
Reformers had agreed with and supported the government when
it said that a yes vote was a one-way ticket to separation and that it
14721
would be respected. Without explanation that strategy was changed
on us and we have been wondering why.
We have obtained a letter written by the Liberal member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. It indicates categorically that the federal
government will not honour a yes vote. It states: ``The results of the
referendum will not be binding and have no legal consequences.
The federal government has no obligation to respond''.
Does this represent the real position of the federal government?
The Speaker: I am having some difficulty with regard to the
question because the preamble is making certain suppositions that
may or may not be accurate.
(1435 )
I think the question in itself is hypothetical but I will permit the
minister, if he so wishes, to address it. If not, I will go to the next
question.
On the next question, the hon. member for Calgary West.
[Translation]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a supplementary question for the minister.
We still demand that the government show transparency. Did the
minister explain to Quebecers that, if the Yes side wins, and
especially if it does by a narrow margin, the Government of
Quebec, the PQ government, will be negotiating separation from a
position where Quebecers will be divided, weakened and isolated?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have always said and we still maintain that the choice
the people of Quebec are about to make is a major decision, a
serious decision regarding their future. It is not like choosing a
political party in an election. This is not the kind of decision about
which Quebecers will be able to change their minds four or five
years from now and say: ``We made a mistake; we want to be a part
of Canada again''.
This choice is very important, not only for us today but also for
generations to come. That is why we care so much about the
process currently under way in Quebec. We are going to put all our
energies into providing accurate information to the people of
Quebec.
* * *
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. At the federal-provincial
conference of health ministers, provincial ministers vigorously
denounced the federal government's decision to cut transfers to the
provinces for social programs, including health care, by $7 billion
over two years. These cuts can only have a disastrous effect on
health care provided to the public.
How can the minister claim to be the champion of a universal
and accessible health care system, when at the same time her
government is cutting $7 billion in transfers to the provinces,
thereby forcing them to cut back on the quantity and quality of
services?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there has not been one health economist, there has not been anyone,
who has said that there was not enough money in the system.
We must live within our fiscal means, our financial means.
Seven billion dollars are projected to be cut over the next few
years. Take, for instance, next year. When we consider the
provinces altogether spend $100 billion in health and social
programs, the cut for next year will be under 3 per cent. While it
will be a difficult challenge we believe it is manageable.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would
the minister at least admit that a $7 billion cut in transfer payments
will mean nothing short of scaled-down health care for the public?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
our health care system is continually changing. While we must
keep up with technological changes, we will insist that the Canada
Health Act ensure that Canadians receive adequate care based on
what they need and not how much money they have in their
pockets.
(1440 )
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to
talk to some of the provincial health ministers who had been at the
conference in Victoria. They told me frankly that this health
minister was mangling medicare.
The provincial ministers are here. Our federal minister is over
there. Her answer to them was no innovation, no to choice, no to
new thinking.
We call on the federal Minister of Health to get out of the sixties
and old-fashioned thinking and join us in the nineties with new
thinking for health care. Will she do that?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
had occasion to spend considerable time with the provincial
ministers of health. I do not know to whom the hon. member was
speaking but I can say nonsense.
We have done a lot of work together. We will continue to do a lot
of work together. We co-operate and we have moved forward
considerably. Obviously we do not all agree. We have said that we
14722
would be flexible. I have been flexible but flexibility does not
mean tearing up the Canada Health Act.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is sad. It is
almost like talking to a two-by-four sometimes.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Although we encourage colourful and diverse
language sometimes we transcend the boundaries. I would ask hon.
members to be careful in their choice of words.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, the provinces are asking for
very specific changes. What do they say no to? They say no to
uncertain funding. They say no to long waiting lines. They say no
to ``we care so much about medicare''.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: We get carried away in the heat of battle. The hon.
member probably inadvertently pushed the Chair to what it can
accept in the House as acceptable ways of speaking.
(1445)
I wonder if I might ask the hon. member to withdraw those last
few words.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): I would be glad to withdraw
any comments that could be misconstrued.
The Speaker: I accept the withdrawal and I ask the hon. member
to put his question now.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, will the minister join us in
unshackling our health care system, medicare plus?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have one thing I would like to say to the hon. member. I probably
have others.
One issue that has been spoken to is that I should respond to
provincial ministers of health. I do at all times. I would like to
remind the hon. member as well as anyone out there that I was not
elected by ministers of health. The government was elected by
Canadians, who value our medicare system, a system that works
for Canadians.
It is my responsibility as Minister of Health for all Canadians to
ensure that health care is available to all Canadians, based on need,
that we do not have a system where taxpayers subsidize queue
jumping by the rich, and that we offer the very best care in the
future, as we have in the past.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Health.
The Supreme Court finally rendered its decision on the Tobacco
Products Control Act. The court concluded that the total ban on the
advertising of tobacco products was unconstitutional, and it also
questioned the legality of forcing companies to display a health
warning on cigarette packages.
Since tobacco companies have decided, for the time being, to
comply with the Tobacco Products Control Act, when does the
minister intend to meet with these manufacturers, to ensure that we
do not go back to the situation that existed before?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the fact is that yesterday I informed manufacturers that I was going
to meet with them to discuss the decision. That was before the
decision was even known.
However, it goes without saying that we need some time to look
at this decision, which is 116 pages long and which took 7 years
and 21 days to come. Consequently, you will understand that we
need a bit of time to look at that judgment and decide on what to do
next.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
the failure of the previous government's strategy of excessive taxes
on cigarettes, and given the court's questioning of the obligation to
display a health warning, what is left of the tobacco strategy?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are in the process of studying the decision. We will use the
guidance of the decision to set the course and we will use those
powers that are appropriate to their fullest extent.
(1450 )
There continue to be 40,000 deaths that are directly attributed to
tobacco use, so it is a very serious matter for all Canadians. We will
do our utmost to continue in this fight against tobacco and the use
of it.
* * *
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, farmers depend on international sales, as does every other
sector of the Canadian economy. My question is for the agriculture
minister.
Following ongoing lengthy negotiations with the American
government, can he confirm that U.S. tariff rate quotas on wheat
14723
imports from Canada have been removed? Further, will the
minister indicate what stance Canada will take if the Americans
might attempt to reimpose a tariff rate quota?
The Speaker: Colleagues, once again we are getting into the
realm of hypothetical questions. The question as worded is
hypothetical. If the hon. minister wishes to respond I will permit it,
but the formulation of the question is not acceptable.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the
question that has been raised.
On the first part, I am pleased to confirm that the U.S. tariff rate
quota against Canadian wheat expired on time at midnight on
Monday, September 11, 1995.
On the point about future U.S. trade action, Canada fully expects
the United States to honour all of its international trading
obligations. Should that prove not to be the case, we have the right
to respond and we will do so firmly in defence of Canadian farmers
if necessary.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The provincial ministers of health are frustrated after yesterday's
meeting with the federal minister. She insists that funding will be
cut, but she also insists militantly that none of the provincial
ministers' policies to save money are acceptable. This policy
stance is not only arrogant, it verges on the irrational.
What precisely are provincial health ministers allowed to change
in the allegedly perfect present system?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many of the provincial ministers of health have done some very
good work. I have worked very closely with them and I encourage
them to continue with the good work.
There is one place where I and this government draw the line:
We will not allow a U.S. style two tier medicare system because it
does not work. It is not good for Canadians. It is not good for the
economy. That is what we are talking about here.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, of course the health minister's policy stance is not entirely
irrational. It is rational if she expects provinces to raise taxes to pay
for the financing deficit of the federally mandated program.
What does the minister say to those who see her policies as an
unwarranted violation of provincial rights that feeds the demand
for independence in Quebec?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this government spends considerable sums on health and social
programs. Under the spending powers this government has it can
set certain principles. That is what the Canada Health Act does.
(1455)
Oftentimes in this debate we are not aware of just how much
money this government does spend on social programs and health.
It is time to remind people.
I think it is important also to put this all in context. I used an
example yesterday. For instance, the cuts in transfers next year for
the British Columbia government will be minus 1.7 per cent of
their total revenues. The revenues are projected to increase by 5 per
cent. We still contend that this is manageable.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In his last
budget, the Minister of Finance announced that he would need to
proceed this autumn with the review of the Canada pension plan.
There is now some urgency for the government to submit a reform
plan for old age pensions. That document is close to a year overdue.
What is keeping the Finance Minister from making public his
government's intentions with respect to old age pensions? What
does the federal government have up its sleeve for older
Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in both departments,
Human Resources Development and Finance, we are still involved
in examining the document. We will release it as soon as it is ready.
The member across the way has my assurance that the Liberals
were the party that created our social programs and the Liberals
will be the party to preserve them.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, are we to understand from the attitude of the Minister of
Finance that he is doing the same with seniors as he is doing with
Canadians as a whole, that is putting off delivering the bad news
until after the referendum?
An hon. member: That is exactly it.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were very clear in
the last budget on the reforms that will be necessary. It is our
intention to consult Canadians on these reforms.
If the hon. member wishes to talk about concealing things, since
you bring up the matter, where are the Fluet-Lefebvre studies?
Where are the Mathews studies? Where are all the studies Mr. Le
Hir commissioned? If the hon. member wishes to talk about
14724
concealing things, tell us what the true consequences of the
referendum will be.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
Atlantic Canada I was told that 70 per cent of Atlantic Canadians
support a return to capital punishment and a June survey stated that
69 per cent of all Canadians agree.
The justice minister has continually stated that he consults and
follows the wishes of Canadians. The justice minister claimed high
moral ground on firearms control because he said police supported
this legislation.
Since Atlantic Canadians, police officers and all Canadians are
demanding a binding referendum on capital punishment, will the
justice minister be consistent in his operations and offer a binding
referendum to citizens?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder as a matter of logic if I
can deduce from the hon. member's question that he is now
prepared to support the gun control proposals put forward by this
government. Would he do that?
The fundamental objective of this government as we said in the
election campaign of 1993 is safe homes and safe streets.
Everything we have done in the justice agenda and through the
Solicitor General since we have been in this Parliament has been to
achieve safer communities in this country.
If the hon. member and the members of that party are truly
concerned about the safety of Canadians and their communities, he
will work with us on the proposals we are bringing forward to deal
with high risk offenders and to strengthen the criminal justice
system of this country.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
be more than pleased to vote on the gun legislation; it would be no.
I would be pleased to vote on the capital punishment referendum; it
would be yes, if he wants to know how I feel. Seventy-eight
convicted murderers on conditional release murdered again.
(1500)
This minister in Bill C-41 for hate crimes believes that getting
tough on crime is the answer.
Since the minister agrees harsher sentences prevent crime, will
he not prevent future murders by enacting the return of capital
punishment for first degree murder?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we
believe that the way to work toward increased public safety is
through proposals that have substance and that rely on real analysis
and get results.
We do not believe that the answer is simply to rely on bluff and
bluster or mean-spirited personal attacks or to exploit tragedies.
We are interested in real public safety. I invite the hon. member
to work with us on the proposals the solicitor general and I are
bringing forward to deal with high risk offenders and strengthen the
criminal justice system instead of going to what looks like the
simple answers to exploit the public mood.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday an editorial in the
Globe suggested that there are benefits
to be reaped from recent trends in climate change.
This conclusion is contradicted in a draft report by the United
Nations panel on climate change and a recent Environment Canada
report citing increasing summer temperatures.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Does the
minister agree with this editorial? If not, what does she and the
government plan to counter the human causes of climate change?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last summer we saw very
directly the potential devastating cost of climate change in the
forest fires that burned from east to west an area of commercial
forests equal to the size of the province of New Brunswick. We had
the second worst forest fire period on record.
The commercial loss in forestry alone last year was $3 billion.
The direct cost of the fires and storms caused by global warming
was $500 million. Contrary to the claims of the Globe and Mail, a
longer growing season for farmers will lead to less productivity
because the level of moisture is going to remain the same, putting
us in a position of facing further droughts.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The northern hemisphere's grain harvest is near completion,
indicating little change in global supplies that should dampen the
current, strong rising price trend. Because of the rising prices, can
the minister tell the House why the government persists in
maintaining wheat board initial prices for wheat and barley that are
about one dollar a bushel below the open market domestic price? Is
he trying to undermine the wheat board system?
14725
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will
recognize his last sentence as a gratuitous remark that is rather
out of place.
Like the hon. member, I too hope that initial payment levels in
Canada can be increased progressively throughout the current crop
year and from my point of view the sooner the better.
There are two factors that need to be borne in mind. First, even
though the North American harvest may be virtually complete, the
western Canadian harvest is now only about 60 per cent complete.
There are still questions to be answered about final quantity and
quality. It would obviously be premature on the basis of the amount
that is completed so far to move at this point with respect to initial
payments.
However, I fully expect the Canadian Wheat Board to make its
most favourable recommendations to me at the earliest possible
date.
The other factor the hon. gentleman should bear in mind is a
warning against any hasty increase in initial payments that could
provide the Americans with additional grist for their mill in their
ongoing, unwarranted attacks against the Canadian Wheat Board.
* * *
The Speaker: I would like to draw members' attention to the
presence in the gallery of the Hon. Nicholas Soames. Besides being
the minister of state for the armed forces of Great Britain, perhaps
my colleague, whom I met with earlier today, will permit me to say
also that in this very Chamber his grandfather, the Right
Honourable Sir Winston Churchill, addressed a joint session of this
House in 1941.
(1505)
I present to you the Hon. Nicholas Soames.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I have received notices of points of
order. I will take them in the order in which I received them.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during question period the member for Calgary West
referred to a letter which I had sent to one of my constituents who
had asked me questions about the referendum. As a matter of fact,
that letter was one of several letters exchanged with this same
constituent.
Since the hon. member for Calgary West only referred to part of
a point I was making to the constituent, I would like the entire point
to be on the record and I quote from the letter:
I might say in closing that the results of the referendum will not be binding
and have no legal consequences. It is simply a plebiscite in which the people of
Quebec will be expressing their preferences. As such, even with the best result,
the PQ government could only use it to negotiate a constitutional amendment
and even then the federal government has no obligation to respond.
I would ask the hon. member for Calgary West that since the
letter he sent over to me is incomplete, would he table the complete
letter in the House so that all members can read it.
The Speaker: We have a request by the hon. member. If there is
unanimous consent for the tabling of this letter then the Chair
would be prepared to receive it.
It there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in my point
of order I am referring to section 409(3) of Beachesne's with regard
to the question that was raised by my hon. colleague from Calgary
West. The question was whether it was hypothetical or not.
I would like to make a request to the Chair that the question be
reviewed. I listened to the question and I believe that according to
citation 409.3 questions can be asked for information with regard
to policy. I believe the question would qualify under that. I would
appreciate the Speaker's review of the matter.
The Speaker: I will take the Reform Party House leader's
request to heart.
It seemed to me at the time the preamble that set up the question
set it up to be a hypothetical question. I will look at it and if I find
there is reason to come back to the House I will.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as usual, I
will ask my hon. colleague, the government House leader, to tell us
what is on the agenda for the next little while.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to provide the weekly business statement.
Commencing today and continuing through next Tuesday we
will be calling business in the following order: Bill C-102,
amending the customs tariff, Bill C-90 regarding the Excise Tax
Act, then Bill C-94 on fuel additives. Following that Bill C-103
respecting magazines, Bill C-98 regarding oceans, Bill C-93
regarding cultural property, Bill C-62 with respect to administra-
14726
tive agreements for regulatory purposes and Bill C-84 regarding
the regulatory process.
Next Wednesday we propose to call third reading of Bill C-45
which tightens up the corrections and parole process.
When this is completed I would like to proceed with second
reading of Bill C-78, the witness protection legislation.
This is our weekly business statement.
(1510 )
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
things which occurred in the spring session was the heavy agenda.
Many of the important legislative items came in in the latter part of
the session, in the last three to four weeks. We were then faced with
time allocation. We forced through a number of readings of bills
under, I would say, duress, as members of the House of Commons.
I would ask the government House leader if there are pieces of
legislation which are planned and will those pieces of legislation be
made available to us, or at least will the House be advised that they
are coming within the next 10-day period?
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is other legislation
which we intend to debate in addition to the legislation which has
already been mentioned on the Order Paper. I will see what further
information I can provide my hon. friend. I cannot say that
everything we intend to introduce before the Christmas
adjournment can be made available in the next 10-day period.
There are things which we are working on within the government.
Some measures have not had the drafting process completed.
I would think there are measures which will be introduced before
the Christmas adjournment regarding which we cannot inform our
hon. friend within the next 10-day period. However, I will
endeavour to be helpful in responding to his question.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, yesterday the hon. parliamentary
secretary to the government House leader pursued the point of
order raised by the hon. member for Roberval on Tuesday,
September 19, 1995 relating to a question of the hon. member for
Vaudreuil.
[Translation]
At that time, the hon. member for Roberval asked me to review
the question the hon. member for Vaudreuil had put to the President
of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. The hon. member for Roberval was
wondering about the nature of this question and how it related to
the responsibilities of the federal government.
Yesterday, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government
House leader expressed the opinion that the question was in order,
as the minister is in fact responsible for intergovernmental issues.
I did review Hansard and I have come to the conclusion that, as
formulated, the question asked by the hon. member for Vaudreuil
does not strictly speaking meet the guidelines on oral questions. It
was seeking an opinion from the minister instead of information on
a matter coming within his administrative capacity.
The Chair should at least have cut in and asked that the question
be restated in terms that related more closely to the government's
administrative responsibilities. As a matter of fact, yesterday, the
hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi asked a similar question in a
way that meets the requirements of our rules.
[English]
All hon. members will no doubt sympathize with the Chair that
in the cut and thrust of question period sometimes certain questions
escape your Speaker. I take this opportunity to ask for all hon.
members to co-operate with the Chair and formulate the questions
so that they are strictly relevant to the administrative
responsibilities of the government, that they are not based on
hypotheses, and respect the dignity of this Chamber in the choice of
vocabulary.
_____________________________________________
14726
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-102, an act to amend the Customs Act and the
Customs Tariff and to make related and consequential amendments
to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
(1515 )
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to begin
debate on second reading of Bill C-102, an act to amend the
Customs Act and Customs Tariff.
14727
I will begin by going through the major points the bill touches
on. It provides for the enhancement to Canada's duty deferral
program, including duty drawback, inward processing and bonding
warehousing to improve the competitive position of Canadian
industry.
It provides for tariff reductions on a wide range of
manufacturing inputs and certain other goods requested by
Canadian manufacturers to improve competitiveness.
It provides for increases in travellers' exemptions on what is
called basket tariff items to facilitate the processing of travellers.
It provides for amendments to the Access to Information Act to
ensure confidential business information provided to Revenue
Canada and finance is protected from disclosure to third parties.
The conversion of the Canadian retailers duty remission order
1993 is changed for statutory provisions to improve the
transparency of these tariff relief provisions.
Certain regulatory tariff reductions will be introduced directly
into the customs tariff to improve the transparency of these tariff
relief provisions.
It provides for seasonal and non-seasonal tariff provisions for
dry shallots to ensure they are duty free when unavailable from
Canadian growers.
There are amendments to allow for possible future
improvements to preferential tariff treatments for the world's
poorest developing countries to improve their export opportunities.
It provides for the withdrawal of the duty free British
preferential tariff rate on certain rubber footwear to protect
Canadian production and jobs.
It provides for a clarification of various provisions in current
customs and tariff legislation.
It provides a number of other technical and housekeeping
changes to the customs tariff.
A number of these provisions, including the tariff reductions,
increases in travellers' exemption and withdrawal of the BPT, the
British preferential tariff on rubber footwear, came into effect on
the tabling of the notice of ways and means motion by the Minister
of Finance on June 13, 1995. The remaining provisions, including
the duty deferral amendments, are to come into force by order in
council after royal assent.
This bill contributes largely to the good government theme that
we have provided to Canadians since the election two years ago. A
number of the measures provided for in Bill C-102 build on the
government's review of Canada's tariff regime announced in the
1994 budget and are designed to ensure Canada remains a
favourable location for producing goods and for investment and
also that Canadian businesses, including small businesses, are
placed in a better position to profit from Canada's free trade
agreements.
Certain amendments, for example the enhancements to duty
deferral programs and tariff reductions on manufacturing inputs,
are designed to lower business' input costs and maintain and
enhance the competitiveness of Canadian businesses in Canadian
and world markets.
Bill C-102 also provides for a number of technical changes to
simplify and clarify and modernize the customs tariff and its
administration and make it easier and less costly for business to
access tariff relief programs. The amendments to facilitate the
processing of travellers at the border will allow Revenue Canada,
through its customs section, to focus on other important border
issues such as the smuggling and processing of growing
commercial imports.
Several of the amendments in Bill C-102 result from broad
consultations with the private sector and are at its request to
respond to competitiveness problems faced by Canadian
businesses.
The bill seeks to implement three major tariff amendments that
will deliver significant long term benefits to Canadian businesses
and individuals.
(1520 )
I will outline these. The first two will improve the competitive
position of Canadian industry by lowering input costs, thereby
creating employment opportunities for Canadians and lowering
prices for consumers. The two amendments to which I am referring
are the enhancement to Canada's duty deferral programs and the
reduction of tariffs on a wide range of manufacturing imports.
A third amendment, increasing travellers' exemptions, will
facilitate the processing of travellers. In addition to benefiting
consumers this will help our customs officers focus on real
priorities by processing our growing commercial imports and
combating the crime of smuggling. The legislation also contains a
number of technical changes that will help modernize the customs
tariff and its administration.
We believe the proposed changes will affect billions of dollars
worth of trade. Their impact then will be both beneficial and
significant in scope.
Because of the significance of these changes the government has
consulted on them, responding directly to problems Canadians,
whether in their businesses or as individuals, have identified. We
can say therefore with confidence the measures I am about to
describe will be welcomed by the great majority of Canadians
affected by them. I urge my hon. colleagues to bear this in mind
when they are asked to give their support to the bill.
Let me outline each of the three major amendments. I will first
talk about the enhancements to Canada's duty deferral programs. I
know duty deferral is not the stuff of everyday conversation and so
I will take a moment to provide some background.
14728
Duty deferral programs defer or relieve certain customs duties
and taxes on imported goods which are re-exported. Canada
presently has three duty deferral programs, duty drawback, inward
processing and bonded warehousing. Over the years Canadian
business has asked for improvements to these programs to make
them more competitive with similar programs of our major trading
partners.
The changes contained in the bill before us respond to that need.
They will enhance, streamline and consolidate these three
programs. They will provide as much up front relief as possible to
ease cash flow pressures and to reduce input costs on Canada's
exports.
The proposed changes will also make the program more easily
accessible for small and medium size businesses by reducing the
administrative restrictions currently in place. Other changes will
enable regions to market Canada's duty deferral programs more
effectively in competition with free trade zones around the world.
This will help attract and keep investment in Canada. The changes I
have described enjoy broad industry and regional support.
Mr. Speaker, for other members of Parliament in your area of St.
Catharines there will be a great deal of improvements through the
changes in these programs. The government is very proud of its
ability to help out areas such as the Niagara Peninsula in dealing
with the American market. In Winnipeg there are many proposals
being brought forward as a result of the changes we are proposing.
It is a key priority of the government to ensure Canadian
business has every opportunity to compete fairly and effectively
and profit fully from Canada's expanding access to international
markets.
Related to the enhancement of duty deferral is a change to the
Access to Information Act. This change will protect the
confidentiality of taxpayer information provided by the importing
community under the Customs Act, Customs Tariff and the Special
Import Measures Act.
Let me turn now to the second major amendment to Bill C-102,
the reduction in tariffs on a wide range of manufacturing inputs.
This amendment is also directed toward the relief of duties on
Canadian manufacturing inputs so that our producers compete
more effectively. This amendment will enhance the
competitiveness of Canadian producers both internationally and
within Canada.
In essence we will be removing a competitive disadvantage that
currently burdens Canadian manufacturers vis-à-vis with their
American counterparts. We will do this by reducing tariffs on some
1,500 imported manufacturing inputs dutiable at rates higher than
those of the United States. I remind my hon. colleagues this
measure was announced in the 1994 budget. It is being
implemented now following extensive consultations. The measure
enjoys strong industry support.
(1525)
To appreciate the significance of this measure hon. members
should be aware that one third of Canada's imports are
manufacturing imports. Since American tariff rates are on average
about 3.2 percentage points below ours, 5.4 per cent versus 8.5 per
cent, U.S. producers enjoy a significant advantage.
Right now this discrepancy negatively affects Canadian
manufacturers, principally in the domestic markets. That is
because exporters are entitled to receive reimbursement of their
input duties through what is commonly known as duty drawback or
inward processing.
However, as of January 1, 1996 under the NAFTA drawback will
be subject to certain restrictions. Therefore to ensure Canadian
exporters enjoy the full benefit of Canada's free trade agreement
we must bring our most favoured nation status tariffs on input in
line with those of the United States. The 1,500 inputs covered by
this amendment account for over $2.5 billion in trade.
The third amendment is the increase of duty exemptions for
Canadians travelling abroad. Traveller exemptions are adjusted
periodically. However, our exemptions have not been increased
since 1983. As a result they are currently out of line with the
exemptions provided for by our major trading partners. Our current
limits are $20 after a 24 hour absence, $100 after 48 hours and $300
after seven days, but only once a year.
U.S. limits in a striking contrast are $400 once a month with a
general exemption of $200. Residents of the European Union can
bring in about $300 Canadian in dutiable goods after any absence.
The status quo is hard on consumers and customs officials alike.
It also runs counter to Canada's and the United States' commitment
under the accord of our shared border to permit travellers and
goods to move easily across the Canada-U.S. border. For these
reasons the bill will raise the levels of exemptions to as follows: to
$50 from $20 after a 24 hour absence; to $200 from $100 after 48
hours and to $500 from $300 after seven days, with the once a year
limit being dropped. Naturally Canadian travellers will welcome
this change. It also benefits customs administration because it will
ease border congestion.
As I said earlier, this will enable Canadian customs authorities to
concentrate more effectively on real priorities like cracking down
on smugglers and processing commercial imports. These have
increased by 43 per cent since 1992.
I am aware some of my hon. colleagues may be concerned about
the possible impact on retailers in border areas. I too care about
14729
these retailers but I am convinced this legislation will not have a
negative impact on their operations.
In short, this should be regarded as a simple updating measure
with minimal economic or revenue loss and a potentially positive
impact on trade, business and tourism. It is already operating
without disruption.
In addition to the three principle amendments, the bill contains a
number of other changes of a largely technical or housekeeping
nature. Most will serve to clarify the intent of existing custom and
tariff provisions.
Also included in the legislation is a measure that will, like the
increase in traveller exemptions, work to streamline Canada's
customs clearance procedures under what is known as a basket
tariff item basis.
Under this travellers measure the government is proposing to
replace the thousands of existing categories of goods with as few as
12 categories. This will speed up collection of duties from
travellers at the border by more than 50 per cent.
The bill also provides for tariff reductions on certain finished
goods. These reductions have been made at the request of Canadian
manufacturers on grounds of competitiveness.
There is only one tariff rate increase in the package. The British
preferential tariff is being withdraw from certain rubber footwear,
thereby restoring the 20 per cent most favoured nation tariff rate.
(1530 )
This change is consistent with the permanent removal last year
of a general preferential tariff on rubber footwear from developing
countries. It will prevent countries from circumventing the general
preferential tariff withdrawal action and thereby jeopardizing
production and jobs in the Canadian shoe industry.
Former British preferential trade tariff exports will still have
access to the Canadian market. They will simply have to compete
on the same basis as other foreign suppliers.
At the same time the bill allows for possible future
improvements to preferential tariff treatment for the world's
poorest developing nations. I am confident that Canadians support
the goal of enabling these countries to improve their export
opportunities. Such changes could also result in lower import costs
that will benefit Canadian consumers.
Some of my hon. colleagues may ask about the revenue
implications of all these changes as I am outlining them today. As I
have already said, the decision to increase travellers' exemptions
has minimal implications for government revenues. As for the
revenue impact and other measures, we are confident that any cost
will be more than outweighed by the long term economic benefits
of the proposals: improved competitiveness, increased exports and
enhanced employment prospects for Canadians.
In short, the legislation is about providing a meaningful, long
term boost to the Canadian economy. It will help ensure that
Canada maximizes its benefit under the free trade agreement we
have entered. It enjoys the support of business and consumers
alike.
Last year alone, Canada's merchandise trade surplus with the
U.S. was over $28 million, our largest ever. The benefits to
Canadians of such a healthy export sector are beyond doubt, and
the government is committed to ensuring that they continue and
expand. I urge all my hon. colleagues to join me in sustaining that
commitment by supporting the legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-102 is rather complex but can be summarized easily by
explaining that it seeks to lower custom duties, in compliance with
NAFTA's most-favoured-nation tariff.
This bill includes some 100 pages of tariff items which I will not
list, for obvious reasons. We will support this legislation because it
is consistent with the opening up of our borders, something which
the Bloc Quebecois has always promoted and which reflects the
situation that has always prevailed in Quebec, particularly since
1988, when free trade was a major issue in the federal elections. At
the time, Quebecers massively supported a party which was
promoting free trade. The 1988 election was essentially a vote on
free trade and the Conservative party won.
Quebecers showed their strong desire to be part of the major
economic blocs. They felt confident that they could do well in the
context of a global market.
Bill C-102, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Customs
Tariff and to make related and consequential amendments to other
acts, is essentially in line with the recent North American Free
Trade Agreement.
Some provisions of this bill seek to amend amounts and increase
exemptions, depending on the length of the stay abroad, when
goods are brought back to Canada.
These amounts vary depending on certain factors, including the
length of stay. In fact, these provisions have been in effect for
several months, since a ways and means notice was passed before
the end of the last session.
This is all part of promoting trade with our economic partners in
the United States and now Mexico, and increasingly, there are
plans to extend this free trade zone to other countries, Chile, for
instance, and then we would have a vast economic zone covering
North America and gradually extending towards South America.
This is now the policy of a government that, since it came to power,
has been won over by the arguments of certain ministers, including
14730
the Minister of International Trade who was pro free trade,
although his leader was far less enthusiastic, at least during the last
election campaign.
(1535)
But once they came to power, common sense seems to have
prevailed. We now see on the government benches a party that is
very pro free trade and very open to international trade, which
corresponds with the interests of the Canada they represent and the
interests of the Quebec we represent.
You can see what I am driving at. Of course I am going to draw a
parallel with what is going to happen. I just want to say I am
surprised at what people say outside the House or even in the House
when they talk about the political situation in Quebec. As we know,
in Quebec there will be a referendum in which Quebecers will be
asked to speak out on sovereignty, and also on an offer of economic
and political partnership which, to use the terms of this bill, is
aimed at maintaining the free circulation of goods, persons, capital,
a customs union, a monetary policy, manpower mobility, and so
forth. All measures we are trying to take now.
Canada today, especially with respect to the free circulation of
goods and services, capital and individuals-admittedly not as free
in the case of individuals, but consider the other three-especially
with the Americans and the Mexicans and soon with the Chileans,
and there is also a whole strategy of trade development, which is
more important for provinces like British Columbia or the other
western provinces where they are looking at the Asian market for
business opportunities.
However, behind all these rules for trading with these countries,
we have to look at the figures and the nitty-gritty. Today, trade
between Quebec and Ontario is very substantial. Trade in goods
and services between the two is around 40 to 45 billion. I would
like to say to those who are listening to us that when I see a
government, the present federal government, adopting a measure
such as this which is aimed at facilitating trade with the United
States, I have trouble understanding why the same thing would not
be done with a partner just on the other side of its border, that is
Quebec, instead of saying ``Between us and you trade will be
restricted''.
I was listening to the parliamentary secretary's interesting
statement, in which he said that it would make it possible to reduce
input costs. That when you reduce input costs, it makes it possible
to create employment opportunities and stimulate exports. That is
absolutely true.
The input referred to is the material used to produce a finished
product. For example, the wood used to make a piece of furniture is
an input. So, the items used as an input in production, that is where
customs tariffs are reduced progressively on inputs, tending toward
their eventual elimination in order to create employment. This is
the same logic which gave rise to the goods and services tax. That
system of taxation resulted in no tax on inputs used in
manufacturing. That is what the previous government did.
The members of this government vigorously criticized this tax,
which they labelled as new but which replaced an old one. It did not
necessarily replace it because they are very much aware that this
tax is totally in line with the principles they are defending in this
act, that is to encourage our exports. Yet the GST is not perfect.
There will be a chance to discuss it when taxation is discussed a
little later this afternoon. We are still waiting for the amendments
the government intends to propose and implement in order to make
good on its election promises. It does not have much time left. I
doubt it can do so but we will have an opportunity to discuss this
later.
Saying that we must promote our exports and ensure that the
materials used in our exports are as cheap as possible is quite
consistent with the trade logic of 1995 and the next decade.
Political decisions matter little. However, if Quebecers decided
to take control of their political future while maintaining economic
links with Canada, why would an entrepreneur from Ontario, for
instance, who buys materials from Quebec because they are
cheaper there say, ``In the future I will buy more expensive
materials; I want to be less competitive because the Prime Minister
of Canada tells me we should not do business with Quebec''?
(1540)
Do you think this kind of logic will prevail? No way. What will
prevail is the same capitalist business logic in effect today. These
people will look for the cheapest materials and products available.
They will continue to buy and to sell to all those willing to buy their
products. No one will refuse to sell goods and services to those who
want to buy them. This is not the way our economy works.
I do not know any entrepreneur in Quebec or Canada who would
refuse to sell their products to anyone because of their political
affiliation or the political system in which they live. Even Canadian
business people invest in South Africa despite its very
controversial political system. Although that country does not have
the most stable political system, people still invest there because
they see business opportunities in mining and gold among other
sectors.
The people who will invest here know that it will be more
profitable for them. It will be the same thing the day after the
referendum. They invest here because they see the best market
opportunities.
That is why I am quite puzzled by the Prime Minister's political
stand. His Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the referen-
14731
dum in Quebec, seems out of step with the bill before us, which is
aimed at promoting Canada's foreign trade.
It seems to me that this government is committed to promoting
trade so Canadian businesses can export as much as possible. I
would be very surprised if, after October 30, the government
decided to put a brake on this direction for all kinds of political
reasons because its stated priority, although it is still hard to
believe, is job creation. If job creation is a priority, would it be in
the government's interest to act in a way that will hinder job
creation? I think not.
The people of Quebec and Canada can clearly see the economic
conditions we are in. In Ville-Marie, where I live, if I look across
the lake as I wake up in the morning, I can see Ontario. All that
separates us is a lake just a few miles long. So, on not too foggy
days, we can see the other side of the lake. On week-ends, people
often go across to buy goods and services in Ontario; out of habit
for some, but also because a certain type of service-based economy
has developed over there. The same thing goes for the other end of
my riding, in the City of Témiscamingue, where 200 Ontarians
come in to work every morning at a very successful pulp and paper
operation we have there. These people will want to keep on
working in Quebec, I am sure. They will also want Quebec
customers who buy their products in their shopping centres and
businesses to keep doing so. Coincidentally, Témiscamingue is
also located in the riding represented by the Premier of Ontario,
who just got himself elected on the promise of major tax
reductions.
I am convinced that he will want to look after the interests of his
constituents, protect their jobs and business opportunities for the
local business community. There will be discussions, negotiations
and agreements. Everybody will keep working according to the
spirit of the legislation before us today and which we support. It is
intended to foster foreign trade. The days of closed, self-centred
economies are over. Around the world, all markets are becoming
increasingly open, forming into major trading blocs, be it in
Europe, here in North America, in South America or Asia.
Last year, a parliamentary delegation travelled to Australia. It
became clear that this country wished to integrate the Asian
economic bloc. Everyone is trying to join a bloc without
necessarily losing their own political identity in the process.
Australians remain Australians, even though they are trying to join
the Asian economic market place.
The same choice is being put to the people of Quebec, who will
have to decide. What I want to do is to reassure them by showing
them that, when we see people act like the government today, we
realize that when the time comes to take concrete action, the
economic reality prevails over the strategic political line designed
to sow fear, confusion and doubt in the people's minds. I often say
that economics are one thing and politics another. I was involved
with economics before getting into politics, and I may revert back
some say, who knows, but it is quite clear to me that trends-
Mr. Silye: Six weeks from now.
(1545)
Mr. Brien: We will see. If Quebecers say yes, it will indeed be
soon. Otherwise, we will see. There is an economic logic which all
political parties, regardless of their position, have had to recognize
in recent years. I doubt there are many in this House who are
opposed to the opening up of our borders and to the fact that we can
now help our businesses have access to foreign markets.
The American market is extremely appealing and will be even
more so in the years to come, given the natural interest that
currently exists for a north-south trade corridor. Over time, we did
manage to develop an east-west economy in Canada. We built a
railroad network and developed infrastructures to promote
interprovincial trade. We can now see what is happening with the
dismantling of the railway system. The more natural corridors are
now emerging. The government can no longer afford to try to
create artificial corridors.
Nevertheless, east-west trade developed over time and will
continue to exist, but there is a natural need for a north-south
movement of goods and services. The northern U.S. states
immediately come to mind, but there is also the whole American
market. Some very interesting business opportunities currently
exist and will continue to exist after October 30.
We will do well if our entrepreneurs are able to manufacture
products which offer a good quality-price ratio. If we are good
today, we will still be good in a month. Canadians will still be good
in a month and so will Quebecers, in those sectors where they
already do well. However, we will not instantly become good in
those sectors where do not already do well. We will have to work
hard. But we will continue to do business on the basis of the logic
that governs business activity.
At some point, we will have to stop getting the public confused
by saying that business activity develops according to the political
opinions of politicians. The business community will be there long
after this government is gone. The logic that governs free trade will
probably prevail longer than this government, at least I hope so,
thus offering interesting development opportunities.
Later on this afternoon, I will have the opportunity to address
another bill dealing with taxation. However, the bill before us,
which contains some 100 pages of amendments designed to reflect
the international agreements and treaties signed by Canada,
promotes economic development and is also in line with the
economic logic that currently prevails and that will continue to
prevail in the future. I am pleased to see that the government is
headed in the right direction. When it comes to the economy as a
concrete reality, the logic that applies will still apply in six weeks.
14732
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today we
are discussing and debating Bill C-102, an act to amend the
Customs Act and the customs tariff and make related and
consequential amendments to other acts. It is a fairly large bill and
there are some pretty good items in here. I would like to address a
few of them.
The Reform Party favours and supports Bill C-102. This bill
reduces tariffs on a broad range of goods used as inputs in Canadian
manufacturing and operations and on certain finished goods. It
enacts changes to streamline and consolidate Canada's duty
deferral programs and make them more accessible to all
manufacturers. It increases the amount of goods that Canadians can
bring home from abroad. I will get back to that more specifically
later.
Overall, this bill reflects all Canadian tariffs where previously
the tariff was higher than the U.S. level. This of course was a
requirement in the NAFTA agreement and allows us to compete on
an equal footing with the United States.
This bill sets the framework for establishing free trade zones
within Canada. By streamlining regulations regarding tariffs, cities
or other regions are now able to provide additional incentives to set
up a free trade zone. This allows free trade zones to be set up and
funded under the auspices of local rather than the federal
government, that level of government closest to the people. It is a
philosophy and a theory we support. It eliminates the duplication of
services among federal, provincial and municipal governments. It
even gets communities involved and is something that is headed in
the right direction.
(1550 )
Other tariff reductions in the bill are part of a biannual review of
Canadian tariffs and are a result of ongoing consultations with
various industries and other requests to lower tariffs to increase the
competitiveness of Canadian exports.
I would like to say to the taxpayers who are listening to the
debate today that this bill gives effect to what they have already
been enjoying. It often baffles me how we can be doing things
when the law has not yet been passed, but we are out there in the
marketplace doing it. I do not know how it works. Nevertheless,
this is a measure my party supports.
For those taxpayers who are listening, this is a bill that increases
the limits when they go to the United States. If Canadian citizens
are out of the country for not less than 24 hours they can bring
home $50 worth of product. If they are out for 48 hours it is $200,
and if it is not less than seven days it is $500.
Reformers support Bill C-102 because it reduces tariffs and
makes Canadian business more internationally competitive. It is in
favour of free trade, as our party has been all along. It started that
way and it always will be that way, unlike the government.
Government members argued and said that they were against the
NAFTA. They argued and said that they would renegotiate the
NAFTA. They argued and said that it is not in the best interests of
Canadians. Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops might have a
few more words to say on that topic. However, when they formed
the government they reneged on that promise. I recall that they
indicated in the red book that they would look at the NAFTA. I
believe the government made the right decision. It was wise for
them to change their minds. It was wise to break that promise. It
did Canadians a favour and we will benefit from it in the long term.
Of all the tariff changes, and there are well over 1,500, there is
only one increase in tariff; all the others are decreases. In case the
finance minister wants to buy a pair to present his next budget, the
increase is on rubber boots imported from Great Britain. I think he
needs a pair of rubber boots. We all know how he keeps digging our
debt hole deeper and deeper every day. He believes in digging
deeper. He is committed to digging deeper. He is only adding at the
rate of 3 per cent of GDP. That is much less than the Conservative
government, but it is still in the billions and billions of dollars. He
keeps adding to the problem, not solving the problem. I think a pair
of boots rather than a pair of shoes might be ideal for the next
budget. Why not, in light of our economic situation?
This is an opportunity for me to put in a plug for something I
think has to happen. It has to come about. The time has come.
There are members on the other side who agree with this and there
are members on this side who agree with this. I believe there are
even some members of the Bloc Quebecois who agree with it.
Whether they are in this country or in another country, they will
probably have to look at this as well.
Why not look at the total reform of our taxation system?
Simplify it by redistributing the tax base. Broaden the tax base so
that we can introduce the lowest possible rate. This sort of taxation
system that is being bandied about is called a flat tax. A flat tax is
something that should be debated. It is necessary.
The underground economy is growing. We know how strong the
underground economy is in Atlantic Canada. We have just come
back from there and we know it is operating. We know that it
operates here. I know it operates in Calgary. I know it operates in
Edmonton. There is no need for that to happen.
Businesses are losing out to American companies. Bills like Bill
C-102 help to restore faith in imports and exports. It helps to bring
us back to competitiveness. However, because of our complicated
income tax system investors are investing outside of Canada at a
faster pace than ever before. I hope the government listens and does
something about it.
14733
The United States is also looking. The United States initiated the
free trade discussions and is looking at ways and means to improve
their tax system. The United States already has a lower tax regime
than we do. It already has governments that spend less than we do.
Our problem is still high spending in this country, and the
government will not reduce it fast enough. Eventually, when we get
over on the other side, we will be able to solve that problem.
(1555 )
If the United States is going to be looking at a flat tax, we should
be doing the same. If we are not working in parallel, if we are not
working in unison, we will become uncompetitive and our
businesses will not be able to compete. If we do not address this
and soon, it will hurt an awful lot of Canadians and this country.
We encourage the government to continue further down the road
established by this bill and continue to reduce tariffs to facilitate
international trade. The federal government has extensive powers
to reduce tariffs further and should continue to do so.
There is one item I just remembered. When the parliamentary
secretary to the Minister of Finance addressed Bill C-102 he
indicated that this bill and also Bill S-9 would help the customs
people do a good job and represent us well. When he made that
point he gave the impression that our customs officials are right on
top of it and doing a good job.
I would like to point out to him two issues and two stories. We
read about the spray story in the media where Bob and Ramona
Edgerton got rapped on the knuckles for bringing that in. This is
another one that sadly distresses me. This happened to a couple
who came to Canada on a holiday. It happened at the
Huntington-Sumas border crossing. They are in their sixties. They
were driving through customs. The official asked if they had
anything to declare. As Mr. Edgerton says in his own words:
The sin was, of course, honesty. While files of cars with Canadian plates
streamed north unimpeded, I told the customs agent that we had a bottle of wine
and a six-pack of beer in the trunk.
He asked what kind of bottle and I told him a ``jug''. This immediately
excited him and he was out of his border hut in a flash-well more like a waddle.
Sitting for hours and harassing geriatric tourists doesn't keep one physically fit.
Anyway, he seemed puzzled by the word ``jug'' (perhaps the term is unknown
in Canada) and demanded to see it. I opened the trunk and pointed to a paper sack;
therein was a jug of cheap white wine. The agent examined it at length. It was as if it
was the Holy Grail had fallen into his hands.
The man replaced the jug and started to scribble on a pad. I started to close the
trunk, but he stayed my hand, demanding to examine the six-pack of beer. This
he did with the bedazzled look of a person who is viewing a six-pack for the first
time.
Then he announced that I could pay duty or abandon these items. I foolishly
opted for duty. Inside the office, I encountered another agent who examined the
first one's citation and asked if I had a receipt for the wine and beer.
Back I went to the car and after some rummaging actually found a grocery
receipt. All this time scores of cars with Canadian plates were streaming
northward at a mighty clip. Not a truck was opened, hardly did they pause at the
checkpoint.
We know that smuggling of guns and liquor is also a big item
with these trucks, so we should have been checking a few of them.
I took the receipt inside, handed it over. The beer and wine had cost just under
$12. The agent inside said the duty would be $18. I couldn't believe it! A duty of
150 per cent.
It was then I decided to abandon the potables to the customs people, who next
asked me-demanded, actually-that I sign a receipt. I signed something that
was written partially in French. I don't read French. I may have agreed to give
up my possessions and spend my few remaining years in a penal colony outside
Yellowknife. I know not, nor do I care.
What I do know is I shall never willingly return to Canada, which will no
doubt please most Canadians. The question then is how to recoup my $12. I
thought of poaching a few salmon from the mighty Fraser or spray-painting a
police cruiser.
But no. Instead, my plan is to avoid all western Canadian games events,
cancel a trip to Vancouver, begin dieting and get out of Canada post haste.
Actually, the customs people-who even now are drinking cheap white wine
and quaffing economy beer-have not cost me $12, but saved me hundreds. Oh,
Canada.
Doug Walker has gratefully returned to his home in Asheville,
North Carolina.
I would not want this government to think that everything it has
done, the way it has done it, and how it has done it is perfect. It is
not a perfect world. There is work out there to be done. To gloss
over events like this hurts Canada and its reputation. I see no need
for that kind of action and activity. That division and that
department should be looked at.
(1600 )
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-102. As a member of
the St. Catharines promotion task force prior to my election as MP
and one who had worked on free trade zones in the U.S., it gives me
great pleasure to be able to speak today as a member of Parliament
on the bill.
I would be remiss if I did not give credit to a number of
committee members in St. Catharines: Don Chambers, Don
Johnston, Don Wiley, Ian Spraggon, James Wakil and Mike Haines
who helped in the work on free trade zones.
Free trade zones in the U.S. are right across the border from us.
There are six free trade zones with which the Niagara area has to
compete. It is not only the fact that they are free trade zones but the
Association of Free Trade Zones meets directly across the border in
Buffalo.
While doing some research and working on the committee it was
interesting to note the advantages of free trade zones that were
published in the U.S: land and store imported goods quickly
without full custom formalities; wait until goods leave the zone to
pay duty; display goods in showrooms in the zone and have buyers
inspect and sample merchandise; process, assemble and otherwise
process goods to qualify for lower duty; when manufacturing in a
foreign trade zone choose the most advantageous type of duty and
quota limitations; salvage or repair damaged goods duty and quota
free while finding a suitable market; and store goods indefinitely to
await the best market conditions. These are only some of the
advantages proposed by free trade zones in the U.S.
14734
Curiously the six free trade zones across from the Niagara area
were all started by a Canadian, George Keitner, from Montreal. I
give him credit for starting free trade zones. In the previous
government he could not get his point across that in addition to free
trade and NAFTA we had to work out the details in the accounting
systems of our country. It seems that those details were not taken
care of back home.
We had consultations and worked with various communities
across the country. I had the pleasure of working with members
from the communities of Vancouver, Calgary, Newfoundland, St.
Catharines and Montreal. Consultations with businesses have
accommodated Bill C-102. More important, business, industry and
manufacturing people played a part in the changes.
Other advantages were the streamlining and consolidating of
duty deferral programs in the customs tariff; making the paperwork
more user friendly; making it easier on cash flow; and, more
important, allowing various businesses in regions and
municipalities to effectively market their programs from their
areas.
We all have various opportunities in our communities, no matter
where we come from as members of Parliament. The bill will allow
various teams in communities to create their focus and exporting
niche. We have different products across the country so we can all
take advantage of additional exports.
As cited in the foreign affairs and international trade report last
spring, creating and promoting an international orientation for
business in Canada should be a priority objective. Bill C-102 helps
meet that objective by providing access to the program by the
businesses and communities I mentioned earlier and by allowing
the economic development programs to flourish. It does not
restrict. It assists business manufacturers to make things happen.
Of course in the end this means jobs for Canada.
(1605)
I especially like the wording of the bill. As my colleague across
the way mentioned, the bill is quite thick. Current inward
processing allows the relief of customs duties and the various taxes
and excise taxes and enables the cost of doing business to come
down. The bill also allows new manufacturers and new start-up
companies to get into the business instead of having a history on
which they have to report. Having new businesses getting into
exports allows us to build our international export trade.
Streamlining customs duties and requirements will make it much
easier for our manufacturers. We will have to build in
accountability but it is better to build in accountability rather than
restrictions.
I am reminded when we toured many of the free trade zones in
the U.S. of the physical barrier requirement. In Bill C-102 no
physical barrier will be required. It will be an easy and simple
system, created as such so that our manufacturing strength in
Canada can be improved even further on the export markets.
I am also reminded imported goods and domestic goods can be
used interchangeably. Many of the items previous speakers have
mentioned will be advantageous. After touring some 60 free trade
zones in the U.S. and having discussions with various people, the
government in the co-operation with the users of the bill has made
a substantial improvement on how we do business in Canada.
As mentioned before, it is the duty of the Government of Canada
to assist business in making things happen. In the bonded
warehouse provisions, activities currently provided for in the
bonded warehouse legislation such as storage, packaging,
repackaging, labelling, normal maintenance, servicing, complying
with any applicable law of Canada and testing of same will
continue. There are also improvements. The government needs to
continue to look at our systems, in this case duty deferral and
remission programs, and make continuous improvements as we go
along.
Over time product research and product lifecycles change.
Therefore our accounting system needs to change. In the proposal
storage time has been increased to four years, which will allow
various businesses and companies in the manufacturing sector to
determine their own productivity planning, to determine their own
productivity cycles, rather than the system telling them how to
produce.
In previous discussions I mentioned the 60 free trade zones with
which our committee exchanged information. In this government
proposal and the submission put forward we have taken the best of
many free trade zones and incorporated them into our structure. It
is a team Canada approach to making things happen.
As a result we will increase our exports. More and more
companies and businesses will see that although their competitors
may be unproductive they will be co-operating as they export more
and more products around the world. We are into a global situation
and these improvements are perfect timing as we look forward to
next year's budget.
(1610 )
I bring to the attention of the House how manufacturing will
benefit from this proposal. Often we take manufacturing and
manufacturing jobs lightly. We forget that some 1.8 million
Canadians are directly employed in manufacturing and over 2
million depend on our industry for their livelihood. Almost 50 per
cent of goods manufactured in Canada are exported. In 1980 it was
25 per cent and now it is 50 per cent.
I also bring to the attention of the House that some 75 per cent of
the research and development in the private sector is done in
manufacturing.
With the assistance of Bill C-102 I am sure that many
manufacturing businesses will take advantage of the system
because the cost of doing business will be reduced. When we
reduce the cost of doing business we allow for more business to be
done and we can compete on a world scale.
The government continues to work to remove paperwork and
make the system more effective. It helps companies and businesses
to spend their time on sales, research and productivity. It will
improve exports, Canadian quality and costs, making us even more
competitive. As I mentioned earlier, jobs in Canada will be
improved by exports without a major cost or expenditure by the
14735
government. There is a way to improve the employment situation
and make things happen.
I commend the finance department for all the work it has done on
the bill. It is obvious that with support from the three previous
speakers and working together as Canadians we can improve our
system in Canada and complete on a global level.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we
have heard a couple of times today, we are debating Bill C-102, an
act to amend the Customs Act and customs tariff and make related
amendments to other acts.
This is a very important bill. As the trade critic for our party I
say that it is vitally important to reduce tariffs as quickly as we can.
The Reform Party fully supports the bill.
The bill reduces well over 1,500 tariffs and since we are a pro
free trade party we are in favour of all of them. The tariffs being
reduced are on a broad range of goods used as inputs into Canadian
manufacturing operations on certain finished products. By
reducing these tariffs our costs of manufacturing will be reduced.
The result is that manufacturers will be able to invest more money
into plants and equipment.
This type of tariff reduction, I would submit, is a stimulant to our
economy. It will create more jobs than the old-fashioned job
creation programs we have seen in the past. I urge the government
to go further down the road and establish as many cuts to existing
tariffs as possible to move this along as quickly as possible.
The cost incurred by Canadian manufacturers are already high
enough by virtue of our climate and our great distance from
markets. Let us give our manufacturers a break and eliminate these
tariffs wherever possible.
We will also be eliminating a lot of paperwork and red tape.
Working through all the red tape is a big cost of doing business. I
would not be surprised if many of these tariffs actually cost the
government more to collect than what it gets from them.
Not long ago I recall reading a story about the so-called Asian
tigers of the South Pacific that have enjoyed spectacular growth
because they have slashed tariffs more quickly than their
competing nations. That demonstrates open competition is very
good. We have seen growth rates in some of those areas of 10 per
cent per year.
(1615)
We in Canada have been too cautious in this regard and too
concerned about protecting industries and companies that do not
really deserve that protection. I would much rather see real
competition in the marketplace rather than protectionism.
Bill C-102 also increases the value of goods that travellers
returning to Canada can bring back. Returning residents now have a
$50 exemption after the absence of 24 hours, an increase of $30.
The exemption for 48 hours goes to $200 from $100 and the seven
day exemption increases from $300 to $500, all good moves I
think.
These changes bring Canadian travellers' exemptions into line
with those of our major trading partners and eliminates some of the
petty hassles we have heard addressed in the House earlier today
that travellers face at our border. I would rather see customs
officials concentrating on drug and gun smugglers and other types
of smugglers than have them preoccupied with what amounts to a
pair of Adidas runners.
Another measure the bill streamlines is customs clearance
procedures by treating goods imported by travellers as basket tariff
items. My understanding is there is a proposal presently under
consideration to replace the thousands of existing customs
categories to just 12. That would be welcome as well.
When these changes are implemented at a later date they should
speed up our collection of duties by more than 50 per cent. The
time savings will allow Revenue Canada to focus on processing
commercial imports and spend more time for enforcing the laws
against smuggling.
The final major change the bill brings about is streamlining and
consolidating the duty deferral programs, making them more
accessible to the manufacturing community. Canada has three
programs which defer or relieve duties on goods for export or
goods awaiting formal entry into Canada. These are duty drawback,
inward processing and bonded warehouse programs. By
eliminating certain administration restrictions that currently exist
these programs will be now more accessible to small and medium
size companies.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade is currently studying ways to make small and medium size
companies more able to take advantage of trade pacts we have
introduced in the House such as NAFTA and the GATT agreement.
Anything we can do to relieve the pressure they have in doing
business in this country is welcome.
Because these free trade zones will now be set up and funded
under the auspices of local government rather than the federal,
cities and other regions will have greater incentives to set up these
free trade zones. I believe more natural trade corridors will develop
as a result of this.
Such a free trade zone was set up at the Vancouver airport in
March 1994. More recently a similar free trade zone was
established at an Edmonton airport. I believe Atlantic Canada is a
natural one that should take advantage of this as well.
These free trade zones allow businesses to bring in goods from
abroad without paying the federal GST, provincial sales tax or
import duties until the goods actually leave the free trade zones.
Companies are free to repackage, test or make value added
modifications to these imported goods. No taxes or duties are
payable until the goods are shipped off again. The companies get to
use their working capital for a longer period of time and save a lot
of unnecessary paperwork.
Here is another example of how the government can stimulate by
getting out of the way; free the hands of business, cut the
bureaucracy, the red tape, and watch this great country get back on
track. It is something we certainly need.
14736
We support all of these measures and we welcome additional
measures to make further cuts in tariffs even if we do it unilaterally.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have an opportunity to say a few words regarding Bill C-102.
At a time when too many Canadians are out of work, too many
Canadians are underemployed and too many Canadians who are
employed find it a struggle to make ends meet as a result of low
paying jobs and so on, in the service sector particularly, Bill C-102
is a step which will facilitate expansion in the manufacturing
sector. It will have a direct bearing on an increase in future jobs. In
that sense we see there is an upside to this legislation which will be
helpful to people from coast to coast.
(1620)
I was pleased to find that Bill C-102 enables customs officers to
spend more time with clients. This is much needed. A constituent
of mine, Tony Walters, was visiting in the American southwest not
long ago and when he came across the border into Canada he
indicated to the customs officer he had bought himself a pair of
riding boots made of armadillo skin. The customs officer said he
would have to keep the boots and examine them. My friend asked if
there were any problems. The officer said he did not think so but
that he had to confiscate the boots, which he did.
Nothing happened. My friend some weeks later inquired and the
officer said: ``We notice there are armadillo skins on these boots
and we think they might be an endangered species in the future''.
My friend said: ``Fair enough, but at the moment they are not an
endangered species and there is no reason I cannot collect my
riding boots''. He said: ``You will have to wait and check with the
minister''.
I checked with the Minister of National Revenue, who is
responsible for customs, and told him of the plight of my
constituent. The minister said he would look into it but
unfortunately that is the last I have heard of it.
I did receive a call from my constituent who informed me he had
received a letter from Canada Customs saying it had burned the
boots. My friend was not pleased. He felt they were legitimate
riding boots, a legitimate import. They cost him a couple of
hundred dollars and they had been burned by Canada Customs. He
felt he was due some compensation. It seemed to me he was right in
that assumption. Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue is out
there listening and will once again address this matter. As I said,
unfortunately I did not hear anything back from him once I brought
it to his attention.
Bill C-102 moves us in an encouraging direction by eliminating
more than 1,500 manufacturing input tariffs. It will be good for the
expansion sector. However, what has driven this bill is the NAFTA.
This will bring our tariff schedules in line with American
manufacturers in an effort to obtain a more harmonious or level
playing field in the manufacturing sector between Canada and the
United States. We have had the NAFTA debate and it is over.
I will register a concern which I, my party and increasing
numbers of Canadians have. I do not want to say anything against
our American friends but is it wise for an exporting country to put
so many of its eggs in one trade basket, to link itself so
inextricably, intensely and extensively with one country?
I think we can all acknowledge that now for all intents and
purposes economically speaking we are the equivalent of an
additional U.S. state or territory. Our economy and the economy of
the United States is inextricably connected. That makes us very
vulnerable to economic occurrences in the United States. If its
economy starts to falter the ramifications will ripple through our
economy within minutes.
I know many members of the House are enthusiastic supporters
of the NAFTA and what that means and that we are now nothing
more than an economic extension of the United States.
(1625 )
In our long term best interest as a country is it to our economic
advantage to put all of these trade eggs in one basket? Will our
children and grandchildren benefit from this initiative? I do not
think so and I raise that as an extension of the debate on Bill C-102.
On balance we support this legislation. I particularly like the
idea that the duty exemptions for travellers have been increased. As
I recall, the last increase was in the early eighties. Now travellers
will be able to bring in goods duty free to reflect these changing
times. I still think they are too small. However, it is a step in the
right direction.
My friend from Calgary Centre raised the point that one of the
motives behind this legislation is to bring our tax regime in Canada
more closely in line with that of the United States. He expanded to
say it would not only be in terms of tariffs and so on but also our
corporate and individual taxation systems.
He mentioned theirs was somewhat lower than ours in Canada. I
noticed the Minister of Health is here. One reason our tax system is
somewhat higher than in the United States is a reflection of some of
the benefits we obtain because of our tax system.
I had the good fortune two years ago to spend time on a formal
visit to the United States. Part of that visit included a visit with an
American family every evening to talk about life as it saw it and to
provide an opportunity for it to meet a Canadian to hear about what
life in Canada is all about.
One of the questions I asked every evening for 28 days in
succession concerned what that family paid for health care, what
the cost for that family was. In every case the cost of health care,
not to the same extent we have in Canada but at least close to it,
varied between $5,000 and $7,000 per family. That is what it cost
them out of their pockets each year. That was a system through
14737
which all sorts of medical services were deductible. If someone had
their tonsils out they might have to pay a $500 deductible.
While we discuss taxation-goodness knows we are doing it
today and I suspect we will be doing it for many weeks beyond
this-as we work to compare the tax regimes of the United States
and Canada we should always keep in mind the relative benefits
citizens in each country receive as a result of those tax regimes.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
Hon. Diane Marleau (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-90, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the
Excise Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
(1630 )
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to
speak at second reading of Bill C-90. This is an important bill in
that it will give legislative effect to excise tax changes announced
earlier this year, including measures that were contained in the
budget of February 27, 1995.
The key budget measures in this legislation are: first, changes to
the air transportation tax that will recover a greater proportion of
the cost of providing air transportation services and facilities.
Second, an increase in the rate of excise tax on gasoline equal to
1.5 cents per litre that will assist the government in meeting its
deficit reduction targets.
Third, amendments to the marking requirements for tobacco
products for sale in Prince Edward Island that will phase out the
sale of black stock or unmarked tobacco products and allow for the
sale of Nova Scotia marked tobacco products.
Last, changes to the seizure and notification provisions in
respect of offences under the Excise Act that will improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement activities.
The bill also contains important changes in respect of excise tax
rates for tobacco products for sale in Quebec, Ontario and Prince
Edward Island. The amendments contained in the bill will give
legislative effect to a modest federal excise tax increases that were
announced earlier this year in conjunction with provincial tobacco
tax increases in these three provinces.
These tax increases follow the success to date of the national
action plan to combat smuggling in significantly reducing
contraband tobacco activity and restoring the domestic tobacco
market to legitimate Canadian wholesalers and retailers.
Let me begin by addressing the key budget features that are
implemented by Bill C-90, the air transportation tax. As part of the
government's efforts to meet its deficit reduction targets the budget
of February 27, 1995 proposed changes to the air transportation tax
that will recover a greater proportion of the cost of providing air
transportation services and facilities.
In accordance with this proposal the bill contains amendments to
the Excise Tax Act that will increase the maximum air
transportation tax on higher priced domestic and transborder air
travel and the tax on international air travel purchased in Canada
from $50 to $55.
In addition, the maximum tax on transborder air travel subject to
the United States' 10 per cent air transportation tax and the tax on
international air travel purchased outside Canada will increase
from $25 to $27.50. These new rates will apply to air travel
purchased on or after May 1, 1995. Where air travel is purchased
outside Canada and the tax is not prepaid, the new rates will apply
to air travel which includes an international departure from Canada
on or after May 1.
These changes to the air transportation tax will generate
additional revenues of $27 million in the 1995-96 fiscal year and
$33 million in the 1996-97 fiscal year.
Also as part of the government's efforts to meet its deficit
reduction targets, the budget of February 17, 1995 proposed to
increase the rate of excise tax on leaded and unleaded gasoline and
aviation gasoline by 1.5 cents per litre.
(1635 )
To give legislative effect to the proposals Bill C-90 contains
amendments to the Excise Tax Act that will increase the excise tax
on leaded gas and aviation gasoline from 9.5 cents per litre to 11.0
cents per litre and the excise tax on unleaded gasoline and aviation
gasoline from 8.5 cents to 10 cents per litre.
These changes apply to sales of gasoline and aviation gasoline
after February 27, 1995 and will raise an additional $500 million
per fiscal year. At the same time I would like to note that the
federal excise tax on diesel fuel will not be increased.
The budget of February 27, 1995 also announced the
government's intention to phase out the sale of black stock or
unmarked tobacco products and authorize the sale of Nova Scotia
marked tobacco products in Prince Edward Island. These changes
are being
14738
undertaken at the request of and pursuant to an agreement between
the governments of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island
concerning the use of Nova Scotia marked tobacco products.
In order to give effect to this agreement Bill C-90 contains a
series of technical amendments to the taxation, offence and rebate
provisions of the Excise Tax Act. These amendments will
effectively phase out the sale of black stock tobacco products and
authorize the sale of Nova Scotia marked tobacco products in
Prince Edward Island at the reduced rate of federal excise taxes that
are applicable in Prince Edward Island. These changes will be
effective on royal assent to the bill.
The final budget related measure contained in this bill involves
changes to the seizure and notification provisions of the Excise
Act. The Excise Act currently provides that officers must seize any
vehicle used to transport alcohol and tobacco in contravention of
the Excise Act even where relatively minor amounts of contraband
are discovered. In the past this provision has created enforcement
difficulties by forcing officers to seize vehicles in situations where
seizure is neither a practical nor an appropriate remedy. To rectify
the situation this bill amends the Excise Act to provide officers
with the discretion to use the power to seize vehicles that are used
to transport contraband alcohol and tobacco.
The Excise Act will also be amended to require that where
officers have evidence that a person other than the person from
whom the vehicle is seized has an ownership or similar interest in a
vehicle, the officers shall take reasonable efforts to ensure that
notification of seizure is sent to the last known address of that
person.
Both of these measures will operate to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of enforcement activity.
Finally, Bill C-90 contains important changes to the excise tax
rates for tobacco products for sale in Quebec, Ontario and Prince
Edward Island. As my hon. colleagues are aware, the national
action plan to combat smuggling was announced by the Prime
Minister on February 8, 1994. The combination of initiatives
launched under this plan, including increased enforcement
resources, tobacco tax changes and the special surtax on tobacco
manufacturers has proven effective in significantly reducing
contraband tobacco activity and restoring the domestic tobacco
market to legitimate wholesalers and retailers.
As a result of these efforts, the government has been able to take
important first steps toward the long term restoration of uniform
federal excise tax rates for tobacco products across Canada.
In Quebec and Ontario federal excise tax rates are being
increased by 60 cents per carton of 200 cigarettes, while in Prince
Edward Island excise taxes are being increased by $1 per carton of
200 cigarettes and 32 cents per 200 tobacco sticks.
(1640 )
It is important to note that these federal excise tax increases are
being undertaken in conjunction with provincial tobacco tax
increases in the three provinces. These joint federal-provincial tax
increases follow the scheme of matching tax reductions announced
under the national action plan and reinforce the importance of
co-ordinated, federal-provincial action to deal effectively with
contraband activity.
The excise tax increases in respect of cigarettes for sale in
Quebec and Ontario are effective February 18, 1995 while the
increases in respect of tobacco sticks and cigarettes for sale in
Prince Edward Island are effective April 1, 1995. These changes
will generate an additional $65 million in federal revenues on a
fiscal year basis.
In conclusion, and as members can tell from the outline of this
speech, Bill C-90 is an important bill. This bill enacts a number of
key revenue raising measures contained in the budget of February
27, 1995.
While I would note that the budget delivered on that date
emphasizes reductions in spending by a margin of seven to one
over tax increases, the measures contained in this bill relating to
the air transportation tax and the excise tax on gasoline are key
components of the government's commitment to both increased
cost recovery and meeting its deficit reduction targets.
Other measures, such as the amendments to the seizure and
notification provisions of the Excise Act will improve the delivery
of enforcement activity, while changes to the tobacco marking
scheme for Prince Edward Island will allow for greater efficiency
in serving the Prince Edward Island market.
Finally, the changes to the excise tax rate for tobacco products
for sale in Quebec, Ontario and Prince Edward Island emphasizes
the success to date of a national action plan to combat smuggling
and to raise important, additional revenue for the government.
As a result, I would urge my colleagues to give speedy passage
to this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is
our third bill this afternoon. We shall continue, but our differences
are now going to surface. We could agree on the first two bills, but
we can only go so far. When we get to the excise tax on gasoline,
our views will no longer coincide.
Bill C-90 contains a number of acceptable measures to which we
have no objection. For instance, bringing the price of cigarettes
14739
back to levels that are less an incentive to consumption. Provided
this does not resurrect the smuggling network and does not give
them that opportunity, I think it is satisfactory. Everyone expected
this, if we want to keep fighting cigarette smuggling from the point
of view of law enforcement and avoid encouraging people to buy
this product, on health grounds.
Of course we have some questions, because there are a number
of problems we will have to deal with in connection with
anti-smoking campaigns. We need a plan with a very clear-cut
purpose to ensure this campaign does not encourage smoking,
especially among the young and young women, where smoking is
very widespread. We will have to find ways to restrict tobacco
consumption.
I will be very brief about this aspect. I agree that reducing the
excise tax probably helped to destabilize smuggling rings, but there
was not much in the way of law enforcement. Smuggling still exists
because we have not dealt with the real problem. We may have the
same problem with other products. It could happen whenever the
tax on the product is unreasonably high. That is one reason we have
to be careful in the case of gasoline, because there is a limit to what
the public will tolerate.
(1645)
When we consider the price of gas, when we break down the
price at the pump, fortunately people do not see the real price,
because taxpayers would be rather upset. The price includes a lot of
different taxes. So many that we may have gone too far,
especially-and this was said by the Canadian Automobile
Association-since there is no guarantee that this money is
invested in highway maintenance or used to compensate for
environmental damage. It all goes into the consolidated fund, and
there is no way to find out how this revenue is used.
In fact, they were in favour of creating a fund to ensure that
gasoline taxes are used to compensate for the impact on the
environment or reinvested in road maintenance. They did not talk
much about an environmental fund, but if this initiative ever went
ahead, one option would be to bypass the consolidated revenue
fund and put part of this tax revenue into environmental funds.
There are other measures, including an air transportation tax,
which would increase the maximum tax on international air travel
from $50 to $55. This is no big deal, but when we consider taxation
in general, after two years in the House, after everything that has
been said and heard and discussed on the subject, the tax on gas
was discussed in the last budget and this was basically a fiscal
measure to quickly raise $500 million.
The purpose of this tax was to raise revenue fast. The air
transportation tax was affected as well, and once again, it was
changed at the expense of people in the regions, because they
reduced the tax on short haul flights but the tax on longer flights
was increased, in the case of domestic flights, which means that
people in Baie-Comeau, Val-d'Or or Rouyn, in my region, are now
faced with a tax increase of several dollars. It is not much, but the
price of plane tickets was already very high.
But the major tax initiative, the campaign promise, was not to
increase gasoline taxes, but to change the tax on goods and
services. That was the campaign promise. The subject was raised in
the House and studied in committee. The committee gave a report,
which, if memory serves me, lasted 17 or 18 hours. The next day in
the House, the Prime Minister distanced himself from the report,
because the committee-and when I refer to the committee, I am
excluding myself and the Bloc Quebecois-proposed a tax, a sort
of hybrid tax on business activities mixed in with the GST, in other
words, a very short lived and now shelved proposal.
The Prime Minister's promise was that two years after the
Liberals arrived in power, let us give them two and a half years-so
we will say January 1, 1996-the GST would disappear. Both
during the election campaign and in the House, I have heard the
Prime Minister say: ``We hate this tax and we are going to
eliminate it''. Now, whether he hates it less or whether he is not
going to eliminate it, the Prime Minister is no longer saying that he
will eliminate the GST.
Is the magic gone? What happened? There is no more mention of
it at all, just as with every hot item here in Ottawa. The government
gives the illusion of working on real things, but the legislative
agenda is sparse. They are all more or less contentious matters,
which have already been announced, whereas we are still waiting
for measures on pension reform and on unemployment insurance
reform.
What of the new human resource investment fund that is to be set
up by the Minister of Human Resources Development, which is
very important and will involve the reform or dismantling of the
network of employment centres? Everyone is waiting to see it to
get an idea where the federal government is going, but only a
minimum of information is being provided, because of the political
context in Quebec, and the federal government does not want to tell
us clearly what is happening.
It is a bit unfortunate, particularly on the part of people like the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is taking pleasure in
saying that the Government of Quebec is hiding things or studies.
Well, here they are keeping what will happen after the referendum
really under wraps. The people do not know what is going on. They
have a hard choice to make, and I understand them, but when they
look at the No side, they see nothing. They do not know what will
happen to them. It will be a matter of trust. Are they going to trust
the people who represent this camp, the present Prime Minister? If
I were he, I would be worried. I am not sure people are going to
give him a blank cheque to do what he likes afterward.
14740
We are entitled to expect to know what initiatives the
government plans to take. It remains silent, however. About the
GST, though, I would like to remind them, because the opportunity
is too good to miss, that they made promises to the people. In the
finance committee, we heard just about anything. That tax is a bad
one, everyone agrees on that, on a number of things.
(1650)
The underlying principles are not all bad in it, but some
government members were saying that the black market economy
was due in large part to the GST. There are limits. Let us not
exaggerate. The figures bandied about were surprising. The
government was said to be losing billions of dollars in revenue just
because people did not accept the GST. There is some truth in that,
but not in the proportions they were talking about in the elections
or before the committee.
Nevertheless, this was their opinion. They have all become silent
about the GST. Apparently there was some discussion about it in
caucus before Parliament resumed. There has been some
discussion but not much in public, and in the long run the hope is
that people will forget.
Implementing a reformed tax is not easy. The main criticism of
the GST by business was the short time between when the decisions
were made, when the tax was defined, and when it was
implemented. Since it was all done very rapidly there was a great
deal of confusion. This has moreover never been settled completely
because there are still close to a billion dollars in unsettled
accounts or unrecovered taxes, in large part the result of the initial
difficulties many people experienced in understanding the tax.
If they want to reform this tax before the end of their mandate,
there is not much time left for defining the rules. It is surprising
that we are not hearing about it any more. These are people who are
asking Quebecers to write them a blank cheque and trust them at
their word. And yet, during the election campaing, they promised
to do away with this tax and replace it with something else. Since
that something else has not been defined yet, the first part is
irrelevant. Nobody is currently looking for something else. Once in
a while, the finance minister uses fancy words to tell us that he is
holding discussions with his provincial counterparts, but are all
these discussions leading somewhere? Where is this getting us?
We know full well that they were hoping for a Liberal
government in Ontario, which would have been more inclined to
cooperate; as we know the main stumbling block to revamping this
tax is the fact that Ontario still taxes inputs used in the manufacture
of other goods. For instance, a piece of wood used to manufacture a
piece of furniture becomes an input when processed.
In Ontario, a number of inputs are taxed, apparently to the tune
of a few billions of dollars. If both taxes were harmonized, Ontario
would stand to lose substantial revenues.
As a result, far from being simple, the tax system is relatively
complex. Quebec went ahead with harmonization but this reveals
once again one of the fundamental problems of the current political
system in Canada, which is the result of the federal government's
spending power allowing it to spend in any area it chooses; but to
do this it must collect money.
Since all governments, either provincial or federal, collect
money the same way, through income tax and other taxes, the
stakeholders are numerous. More particularly in Quebec, because
in Quebec we never really had any confidence in receiving money
indirectly through transfer payments. If we look at what is going on
now, perhaps we did the right thing; it is still far better to get tax
points than transfer payments, because sooner or later the
government could very easily be tempted to cut them.
That has really complicated the system for people. For
businesses as well. I am often asked by business people in my
province what the concrete advantages for us would be if Quebec
were to decide to take control of its own destiny and be fully
autonomous, while maintaining relations with our trade partners?
When we talk with them, they soon realize that there are very
concrete, immediate advantages for them, and I am happy to
underline that to my Reform colleague. Indeed, there will be only
one taxation system.
For them, that means a lot less paperwork, a lot less trouble, and
it is a lot easier to understand. It is the same for individuals. One
need only think of the spring, when the deadline for income tax
returns is near; we get out our receipts, our employment
statements, our unemployment insurance statements or other
papers, and have a look at them to fill our income tax returns. It is
extremely complicated.
(1655)
Not much effort is put in making things simpler. Eliminating one
level of government will already be an improvement in that area.
For starters, this natural tendency towards duplication, with two
levels of government collecting money they are free to spend as
they please, will no longer be an issue.
This is one of the major problems with this political system in
which a $500 billion debt was accumulated without any concrete
steps being taken to restructure the federal government's spending
power, this power to spend that eventually turned into the power to
get into debt. What was achieved by this in concrete terms? With
respect to employment, it did not even succeed in preventing
unemployment and joblessness from reaching unacceptable levels.
14741
There is one lesson to draw from the current situation and that is
that we just cannot keep our heads buried in the sand all the time
and claim on the basis of any odd statistical report that we are
living in the best country in the world. It is not true that we have to
hide behind this kind of thing.
I went to a school of administration where we studied cases,
problem cases, and ways of resolving them. The first step in a good
diagnostic, and the same applies to our personal circumstances, it is
always the case, is to admit a problem exists. When I see people
who refuse to admit there is a problem, even when it is staring us in
the face, then the problem is compounded. I think that the people
should not feel reassured, even though they have been told that in
future administrative agreements will be negotiated or other ways
will be found to improve the system. Unless we change the basic
rules, we will always have problems.
It is unfortunate that we in Canada have trivialized such an
important word as ``constitution''. A constitution sets out the rules
of the game. Before sitting down to play a parlour game, people
should first agree on the rules. If, in the middle of the game, they
start to disagree on how the rules should be interpreted, they will
have problems. That is what is happening with our Canadian
constitution. We cannot agree on the rules of the game but we are
not redefining them. This creates a lot of problems. We have tried
to change the rules over the years but all our efforts have met with
failure.
A country that is afraid to discuss its constitution is a sick
country. A country whose prime minister refuses to use the word
Constitution because he is not very proud of it is a country with a
lot of problems. And this is what we see in Canada, at present. They
say: We do not want to talk about it. They are ashamed. They are
ashamed because there are past events they would rather not refer
to.
Having said that, I would like to come back to the bill before the
House and state that we cannot support the tax on gasoline, which
raised the price per litre by 1.5 cents following the last budget.
Since these taxes are often not visible, we tend to forget about
them. After a couple of days, we forget about them, but I now have
the opportunity to remind all those who are listening that they
should not forget the 1.5 cent increase per litre they have been
paying these last few months, because of the federal government
and the measures undertaken in the last budget to generate $500
million.
Taxpayers are willing to let the government raise more taxes if it
keeps a better control over its spending, but it is frustrating to give
more and more money to the government and feel there is no real
improvement in our debt situation.
It is all very fine to say that the Minister of Finance is likely to
meet his deficit target of about $32 billion this year, but that still
leaves us with a $32 billion deficit.
With our economic situation and the likelihood of a slowdown in
the United States-maybe not later this year, but next year-that
could affect Canada too, there is no guarantee we will still be on
track with our public finances. The Conservatives had reduced the
deficit to an acceptable level, but when the recession came about, it
went out of control. It is a bit like trying to cram something into a
box. When the box is too full, it just bursts open.
I think the same thing is happening now. Every time the box
bursts open, it becomes harder and harder to pick up the pieces. The
deficit has now reached a level that is extremely high.
We are certainly not willing to support measures aimed at
increasing government revenues when there is still so much to do
in terms of reducing government spending.
In conclusion, I want to remind the government of its
commitments, one of which was to review the GST. We thought
that it was too little, that the whole tax system needed to be looked
at. We offered our help but the government refused. We did a
detailed study of the GST in committee. Recommendations were
made but the government never followed up on those
recommendations, particularly those of the Bloc Quebecois, which
were the best among those contained in the report. The day after the
report was tabled, the Prime Minister himself rejected a
recommendation made by the Liberal majority.
(1700)
So they have commitments. They say they are people of their
word and look after the real problems and are concerned about
them. During the election campaign they said they were going to
change the tax. We are still awaiting outcome and are eager to see
what happens.
The Minister of Health, who was on the finance committee
herself at the time, must really know what is happening with this
tax. They must have been studying it when it was introduced. The
time has come for them to act and to stop hiding behind all the
illusions they are giving the public about getting down to the real
problems. Because in reality, nothing much happens in this House,
except for the legislative agenda, which drags on and must be
adopted. The real issues have to be put on the table so we can see
what they are really going to offer the people. We will be able to do
much more enlightened things.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, before I
begin my speech on Bill C-90, I will comment on the speech from
the member for Témiscamingue about broken promises. I agree the
government promised to get rid of the GST but it will not get rid of
it. The Deputy Prime Minister promised to resign if the govern-
14742
ment did not get rid of the GST and she is still here and will not
resign. This is another example of two broken promises.
Bill C-90 is a tax bill, pure and simple, and a huge tax grab that
serves only to hurt the economy. The Liberals have been big on
their flowery rhetoric of no tax increases. On a personal basis they
did keep that promise. However, Bill C-90 hits Canadians in their
pocketbooks both at the pumps and in the air.
Our main contention or disagreement with the bill is it
implements the 1.5 cent per litre gasoline tax discussed in the 1995
budget. This revenue raising measure, a tax hike, will raise $500
million. As Reformers we vehemently oppose this measure.
My colleague, the member for Lethbridge, will rise this
afternoon as well and talk more about the effects of gas taxes, and
so I will leave this important subject for him.
Other aspects of the bill include an increase in the air
transportation tax from $50 to $55 for domestic and transborder
flights purchased in Canada, and from $25 to $27.50 for
transborder flights purchased outside Canada. The tax on airlines is
based on the amount of time people spend in the air. It is designed
to recover government costs for things like air traffic controllers,
maintenance, et cetera.
This is the second time in as many budgets the finance minister
and the Liberals have increased the airline transfer tax; $40 on
domestic flights when they took office and $55 now, a $15
increase. This tax hike, revenue raising measure, will raise $27
million to $33 million for government spending.
Bill C-90 increases the excise tax rates on tobacco products for
sale in Quebec and Ontario by 60 cents per carton and on tobacco
products for sale in Prince Edward Island by $1 per carton.
Originally in Bill C-11 the Liberals thought the best way to battle
the underground economy was through reductions in incentives to
smuggle because of the high rate of taxation; that is, take the profit
out of smuggling. I agreed with that position and it was a good
thing to do. It worked on cigarettes, so why not do the same for
liquor which is now also causing a big problem at the borders and is
offering opportunities for smugglers to make extra money and not
pay their share of the taxes?
They killed the taxes on smokes in Ontario and Quebec and now
those taxes are creeping up again. This revenue raising measure,
this tax hike, will generate $65 million for government spending.
I question how the government spends our money. Every one of
these three measures increase taxes when the finance minister
presented his budget, pretending all along he was not raising taxes.
What we need is tax decreases, lower taxes so people can create
long term meaningful jobs. If people have more disposable income
in their hands and in their pockets and businesses had more
disposable income they could stimulate the economy. The
government is blind as to what to do in terms of an economic
philosophy which has long term meaningful benefits for the
country.
(1705)
We have just come back from Atlantic Canada. It does not want
any part of ACOA. It told us that. ACOA subsidizes and helps high
risk businesses. High risk businesses have a tendency to have a
high failure rate. Those people concluded early on that therefore
the government is subsidizing failure and they do not want that.
They want the government to not spend that money and to lower
their taxes instead, leave the money in their pocket and they will
look after themselves very well, thank you very much. That is in
P.E.I., in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
Those provincial governments, Newfoundland and New
Brunswick, are cutting with real cuts, unlike this government.
Government red tape, involvement and intrusion are all driving
up costs and driving investment out of the country. The government
may laugh and think it has have the perfect plan but sadly and faster
than we realize capital is leaving the country. The global market
has shrunk the opportunities to having it as quick as pushing a
button on a computer. We can move products, goods, services and
the dollar signs simply go from one account to another and Canada
is not participating. Canada is blind with its cumbersome,
complicated, convoluted Income Tax Act and we are missing
opportunities.
We need lower taxes and a new tax system, a flat tax with high
and good personal exemptions and no double taxation. It is funny
that when we deal with other countries such as the United States on
NAFTA we send trade representatives with to meet its trade
representatives. We negotiate agreements with them. What do we
do? We eliminate double taxation. We lower tariffs. We look at
ways of stimulating more competition. We look at ways of helping
business. When the government comes back to Canada to its own
people and businesses it raises taxes and keeps double taxation.
That is hypocritical. Why does it not have its trade representatives
negotiate with the finance minister and get it changed?
What we need is a simplified taxation system that reduces
compliance costs and makes everybody more willing to participate
and able to participate in stimulating the economy.
Bill C-90 amends seizure and notification provisions of the
Excise Tax Act to provide enforcement officers with greater
discretion. Previously customs officers had to seize vehicles if
contraband tobacco was discovered. This bill will allow them some
discretion. However, I do not know if this discretion is the answer
for some of these officers in light of a couple of stories about senior
citizens from the States travelling to Canada and being treated like
terrorists for a bottle of pepper spray used to fight off attackers.
14743
Another couple was recently forced to pay $18 of tax on $12 worth
of wine and beer.
Bill C-90 is a disgrace for the Liberals. They claim they are not
raising taxes. They try to use smoke and mirrors but the finance
minister's rhetoric is not fooling anybody. Canadians know how
this hurts them. Canadians see it every day. They will not forget at
the next election.
The Reform Party is opposed and will always stand opposed to
tax increases and we are against Bill C-90.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure in one sense to speak to Bill C-90 but in another sense not
at all because what we are talking about is the Liberals following
tradition, just as the Conservatives did in the 10 years they were in
government, of increasing taxes. That is all we hear and they are
following the traditional pattern of new taxes for Canadians.
Here we are after the fact. The taxes have already been
implemented and we in the House are asked to stand up and pass a
law which puts legislative effect to that action of the government.
That is wrong in principle. I cannot believe how the government is
able to do that. I know there is precedent for it in this assembly. We
witnessed this in the spring session, last fall and the spring before.
The government brought legislation forward to legislate some tax
act or some act that was already happening in the general public
without a legislative authority. In principle that is absolutely
wrong. That is one of the first reasons I am saying no to Bill C-90.
(1710)
There is another reason. We are witnessing government in the
pockets of Canadians, government at the table of Canadians and
government in the gas tanks of Canadians. The government is a
partner and wants to be an ever increasing and intervening partner
in the private finances of individual Canadians.
Look at tax freedom day. It is sometime in July before Canadians
are free from taxes. They have finally paid their taxes to the
government in July of each year. Canadians are working half of the
year to pay their taxes to the government. That is wrong. It is
suppressive and it is not good for Canada. That is why the Reform
Party has said over and over we must reduce the tax load on
Canadians. To do that we must first reduce the deficit. That will
lead to a balanced budget and responsible spending. That is what
must happen.
We talk about the government at the table. During our recent
visit to the maritimes we heard all kinds of presentations from
people in the maritimes and Newfoundland who told us the
representation in that part of Canada is inadequate. There are major
problems not being dealt with. They are suppressed by taxes. They
were not listened to in terms of gun legislation, in terms of health
care, in terms of tougher criminal laws, and the list goes on. The
inshore fishermen, the mid-shore fishermen and the hand liners all
said they tried to tell the government what it should do but it does
not listen.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It would seem the hon.
member for Lethbridge has as many supporters for his view on his
side as there are dissenters on the other side. I am caught in the
middle and I am having great difficulty hearing.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to
hear what we say in the House of Commons and they certainly want
to judge the points of view the various parties have with respect to a
variety of issues.
During my visit to the maritimes I had the pleasure of being in
Digby County where we met many friends and people who were
interested in the point of view of the Reform Party. My wife and I
visited one of the restaurants. We had an excellent seafood dinner,
at the end of which I was presented with the bill. I looked at the bill
and I said to my wife: ``Do you realize you and I were not alone at
this table? Do you realize there was a third party sitting here with
us enjoying dinner? I am sure it was one of my good colleagues
from the Liberal Party acting as a phantom''.
When I looked at the bill there was GST at 7 per cent, there was
PST at 8 per cent and then there was the 15 per cent tip. About 30
per cent of the bill was this third partner sitting at the table,
enjoying the food, but taking it back to Ottawa. Not only is the
government in the pockets of Canadians, it sits at our table every
day, taking things away from us.
Now let us talk about the gas tax.
(1715 )
Let us talk about the excise tax in this bill where government is
in our gas tank. It is unbelievable the percentage of taxes that are
now in a litre of gas or a gallon of gas, whichever way you want to
describe it. The percentage of take is unbelievable. When we drive
up to the pump the government says: ``You pay for your gas and we
are taking this percentage of that revenue that was paid for the
gas''. If we compare that to what the retailer gets, the percentage is
very minimal for the retailer.
After the new excise tax of 1.5 cents per litre of tax was put on,
retailers said to me: ``We must take that out of our percentage. We
cannot increase the price any more. The competition is very keen at
the street level. We cannot increase price. So where does the 1.5
cents come from? It comes out of our net profit''.
Anyone who has been in the retail business relative to gasoline
sales at the pump or has talked to retailers who sell gas from the
pump knows the margin is very slim. Many of them say they sell
the gas just to get the customer up to the door, that they do not
make any money at it but have to make a gain on the other services.
14744
By this bill that is before us and by its act earlier in the spring in
the announcement of the budget, the government only hurt small
business across this nation.
The chart that was sent out to all of us in this assembly states:
Where does your gasoline dollar go? The source of this is the
Government of Canada. It issued this statement on June 27, 1995. It
shows gasoline prices right across Canada. For example, in
Vancouver a litre of gas is 59.6 cents and the taxes out of that are 48
per cent. The dealer gets about 5 per cent of it. In Calgary taxes are
43 per cent, dealer 7 per cent; in Regina taxes 49 per cent, dealer 6
per cent; in Winnipeg taxes 44 per cent, dealer 7 per cent; in
Toronto taxes 52 per cent, dealer 5 per cent, which is even worse; in
Whitehorse taxes 32 per cent, dealer 10 per cent, which is perhaps a
little more reasonable and maybe that is the right place to live; in
Saint John taxes 42 per cent, dealer 8 per cent; in Halifax taxes 48
per cent, dealer 6 per cent; in Charlottetown taxes 44 per cent,
dealer 9 per cent; in St. John's taxes 47 per cent, dealer 7 per cent;
in Yellowknife taxes 34 per cent, dealer 13 per cent.
The major portion of the gasoline price is excise taxes. We in this
House think that there is a cow we can milk continually and
increase that tax. I think we have milked it for everything we can.
The 1.5 cents per litre is another nail in the coffin of many of the
dealers across Canada and the retailer is suffering the consequences
of this legislation.
I could talk about the consumer or the person who needs gasoline
to go to work, to carry out business in and across Canada. Those
people are hurt in a very drastic way. I have heard it being said by
the Bloc members, I have heard it from the Liberal members, I
have heard it from my colleagues here as Reformers that if we are
to improve the economy of Canada it will be the small
businessman. The small businessman will do it for us.
When we enact increases in excise tax of 1.5 cents per litre on
gasoline it is obvious what that would do to small business across
Canada. It only suppresses them. It does not allow them to have
that capital to reinvest or to do other things. The government has
made a move here that is contrary to the rhetoric I hear from the
Minister of Finance who says the economy is going to grow, we are
going to help small business and they are going to be the engine for
our economy. I hear him saying all those things with the wave and
the gusto of his arms. Here is a policy that cuts the cloth in a
negative way.
(1720 )
So how can we support this? We cannot. The Reform Party is
against it. We are going to vote against Bill C-90.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to conclude on the government's behalf the
section on Bill C-90.
Bill C-90 is just the legalization or legitimization of items
covered in the 1995 budget in the areas of air transportation tax,
excise tax on gasoline, and the marketing requirements for tobacco
products sold in Prince Edward Island in order to sort the problems
out there and to allow for sale the Nova Scotia marked tobacco
products. As well, there is a seizure notification provision with
respect to offences under the excise tax which will improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the enforcement activities.
This is basically a housekeeping bill that follows up and has to
be done to legitimize and formalize our budget process. It also
contains important changes with respect to the excise tax rates for
tobacco products for sale in Quebec, Ontario, and Prince Edward
Island. The amendment contained in this bill will give legislative
effect to the modest federal excise tax increases that were
announced earlier this year in conjunction with the provincial
tobacco tax increases.
No one who sat through this modest tax increase likes it, but this
kind of tax was a restructuring type tax. These taxes are necessary
to sort out.
The air transportation tax will increase the maximum air
transportation tax on the higher domestic and transborder air travel
in Canada from $50 to $55. This is not a significant amount, but it
would assist in underwriting the loss leading operations we have in
running our international airports and the airports in Canada.
Gasoline taxes are needed to keep up the Trans-Canada Highway
and other vital routes in the movement of goods and services in
Canada.
In closing, I would like to say that the government taxes were
modest in reference to the budget and were based on the need to
service our airports and roads across Canada and to restructure
some of the taxes in some of the provinces as well as the tobacco
selling in Prince Edward Island.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
14745
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the division on the question now before the House stands
deferred until Monday at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, at
which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not
more than 15 minutes.
(1725 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I thought I heard
the Speaker indicate that the vote would be at the hour of ordinary
adjournment. I was under the impression we had agreed to have
that vote at 6 p.m. In any case, I think you would find that is the
agreement we had made and what we had indicated. There is
already a vote at 6 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent
that the hour be set at six o'clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you might find consent to
call it 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): So ordered.
_____________________________________________
14745
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved that Bill C-260, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(replica firearms, theft, import or unlawful use of firearms) be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I have been involved with the gun control
issue for almost three years, since the Reform Party asked me to
chair a subcommittee on the issue in January 1992. Prior to that
date I was blissfully unaware of the topic, since I was not
personally affected by the legislation. Since then I have found it to
be one subject that evokes a great deal of passion whenever it is
debated. Much of the argument is dominated by those who take
extreme positions on either side of the argument. That is probably
why I was asked to chair the Reform Party subcommittee on the
gun control issue.
I do not now own nor have I ever owned a firearm. I do not hunt,
target shoot or collect guns, nor would I allow one in my house.
However, having spent 15 years living in northern Alberta, I
recognize that for many people, especially those living in rural
Canada, a firearm is a necessary tool in their daily lives.
With this background I set out with four colleagues to examine
the question of gun control. I reviewed the legislation that is in
place now. I received a number of briefs from organizations like the
Gun Control Coalition and the National Firearms Association and
countless groups in between. I spoke to Canadians from coast to
coast to coast, pro and con. I learned very quickly there is little
common ground and I admit that it is likely impossible to come up
with a gun control bill that would satisfy everyone. The solution
became a little more basic: to address the problems caused by
firearms in our society.
With very few exceptions, the central concern everyone has
about firearms is their criminal use. People are concerned about the
number of crimes that are committed with guns. They are
frightened about the apparent increased willingness of criminals to
use guns, and they are terrified to hear about random drive-by
shootings like the one that killed Nicholas Battersby here in Ottawa
last year.
In other words, people wanted the government to enact
legislation that would deter criminals from using firearms. In
response to those concerns we heard the justice minister making
statements last year that he believed only police officers and
soldiers should have guns. One can imagine how legitimate gun
owners felt when they heard comments like this from the new
justice minister.
It was apparent that alternative legislation needed to be drafted. I
approached the police and crown counsel and asked them what
legislation they needed to assist them in combating the illegal use
of firearms. I listened to the current shortcomings of section 85 of
the Criminal Code and heard how these weaknesses had led to
charges under section 5 frequently plea bargained away. I felt that
with improved legislation in section 85 we would be taking a giant
step in deterring the criminal use of firearms. On June 15, 1994 I
introduced Bill C-260. I want to remind the House that the
government's Bill C-68 was introduced eight months later on
February 14, 1995.
(1730)
Bill C-260 addresses the weaknesses in section 85 and creates
new offences for the theft and possession of stolen firearms, the
illegal importation of firearms for criminal purposes and makes an
individual who illegally sells a firearm that is subsequently used in
criminal offence a party to that office.
Under Bill C-260 anyone convicted of using a firearm in the
commission of a criminal offence would receive a minimum
five-year sentence consecutive to any sentence for the crime itself.
For a second offence the penalty would increase to a minimum
10-years consecutive.
14746
These minimum sentences would be a real deterrent for any
criminal who chose to use a firearm. Not too many criminals would
be prepared to risk that additional five-year minimum sentence.
Similarly, the new subsections created by Bill C-260 would also
have had a deterrent effect. Today a break and enter conviction
usually nets an offender probation or at most, a sentence of up to
six months. However, if during that break and enter the offender
happens to steal a firearm, that criminal would suddenly be facing a
minimum three-year prison sentence, an effective deterrent, as is
the minimum three-year sentence for those illegally importing
firearms for criminal purposes or illegal resale in Canada. The last
subsection of the bill would make those individuals who provide
the guns illegally to criminals responsible for their illegal acts.
These individuals play an integral role in the commission of these
crimes so they should be made a party to those crimes.
Another issue that the bill addresses is the inclusion of replicas
in section 85. One reason that section 85 charges seldom succeed is
the existence of replica firearms. Currently the crown must prove
that the weapon used in the commission of an offence meets the
legal definition of a firearm. This is only possible in those instance
where the accused is immediately arrested with the firearm still in
his or her possession or if a shot is actually fired during the
commission of the crime. If neither of those things happens, the
crown cannot prove it is a firearm and therefore, no conviction
under section 85.
Bill C-260 just requires that the object used in the offence
appears to be a firearm. The bank teller who has a firearm shoved
in her face during a robbery is just as terrorized by a replica as she
would be by a real firearm.
That is the bill, a bill that addresses the problem of the criminal
use of firearms, a bill that could be called gun control and crime
control. It is not what the government wanted. It wants to control
the firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens so the government
gave us Bill C-68.
Only about 20 per cent of Bill C-68 deals with the criminal use
of firearms, although the other 80 per cent of the bill will likely
make criminals out of a lot of otherwise law-abiding firearm users.
While the section of Bill C-68 that deals with increasing the
penalties for the criminal use of firearms has been loudly touted by
the government as a get tough policy, it will in reality become a
paper tiger.
In British Columbia today the average sentence for a criminal
convicted of using a firearm during the course of a robbery is five
years. Bill C-68 introduces a minimum sentence of four years. How
is this going to deter anyone?
In addition, Bill C-68 introduces a new section to deal with
replica firearms. The only problem is that it is now up to the crown
to prove that the object used in a crime was either a firearm or a
replica. In most cases it will be able to prove neither so the
legislation will be used as infrequently as it is today.
I have no difficulty in defending my Bill C-260 compared to the
Liberal Bill C-68. I targeted the criminal who uses a firearm during
the commission of an offence. The government targeted the
legitimate gun owner. This is an example of the basic philosophical
difference between Reformers and Liberals. We get tough on
criminals. The government gets tough on ordinary Canadians.
(1735 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will take a moment to
consult with the Table.
I wonder if I might ask for the assistance of my colleagues. In
this debate the member would have been entitled to 20 minutes. I
do not know if there was any indication given that she was splitting
that time. Could she indicate to the Chair if she was?
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I had not made any arrangements to
split my time but several colleagues would like to speak on it in due
course, given the rotation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Under those circumstances I
will follow the rotation.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on June 13, 1995 the House gave third reading to Bill C-68, an act
respecting firearms and other weapons. Bill C-68 is comprehensive
legislation concerning firearms which has been extensively
researched and debated by members of the House and the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It is
now being studied by the Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs.
Bill C-260, which was presented by my colleague from British
Columbia, who previously spoke, is a bill which I believe is
basically similar to Bill C-68. Bill C-260 was introduced before the
Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-68 and the hon. member
might have introduced a different bill had the provisions of Bill
C-68 been known to her at the time.
I want to examine the differences between the two bills. I would
like to start with the issue of mandatory minimum sentences.
Section 85 of the Criminal Code now provides for a minimum
term of one-year imprisonment for the use of a firearm in the
commission of an indictable offence and three years for any
subsequent offence, in addition to the sentence imposed for the
underlying offence. The maximum is 14 years.
Concerns have been expressed with respect to the way section 85
has been operating because of the large number of charges which
have resulted in acquittal or in the charges being withdrawn.
Sometimes section 85 charges are withdrawn as a plea bargaining
14747
mechanism. Bill C-68 will address the problems relating to section
85 of the Criminal Code.
Specifically, the bill states expressly under each of the 10
selected serious offences that the offender will be subject to a
mandatory minimum sentence of four years imprisonment if the
offender uses a firearm during the commission of the offence. The
penalty for using a firearm is blended with the penalty for the 10
offences to which this applies. These offences are: causing death by
criminal negligence, manslaughter, attempted murder, causing
bodily harm with intent to wound, sexual assault, aggravated
sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery, and extortion.
When in force Bill C-68 should eliminate the abuses tied to the
existing application of section 85 of the Criminal Code, while Bill
C-260 would not solve these problems.
I believe the intention of the hon. member is to get tougher on
criminals who use firearms in the commission of an offence. In fact
the minimum penalties found in her bill would treat offenders who
use firearms to commit serious offences more leniently than Bill
C-68. Her bill would simply subject all persons who commit
offences with firearms, regardless of the severity of the crime, to a
three-year minimum prison term, while Bill C-68 ensures that
persons convicted of serious violent offences committed with a
firearm receive, at a minimum, a four-year prison term.
(1740 )
Bill C-68 also addresses in a comprehensive and effective
fashion the problem of replica and imitation firearms. Bill C-68
defines a replica as a device that is not in itself a firearm but is
designed to resemble ``precisely or with near precision a real
firearm''. In contrast a device such as a toy water gun that clearly
does not resemble in the last detail a real firearm is not a replica but
an imitation firearm. Because replicas are virtually
indistinguishable from real firearms, their future sale, purchase and
importation will be strictly controlled under Bill C-68 while
imitation firearms, such as toy water guns and the like, will
continue to sold in stores.
When it comes to a crime, the potential danger is very high,
whether a real firearm, a replica or an imitation firearm is used.
Bill C-68 will solve evidentiary problems which now exist because
of the current section 85 in the Criminal Code. Section 85
encompasses only real firearms. Bill C-68 will include within
section 85 presently in the Criminal Code real firearms, imitations
and replicas.
Bill C-260, presented by the hon. member, would punish
offences committed with replicas but not with imitation firearms.
Moreover the bill would do nothing to control dissemination of
replicas in Canadian society. In effect, Bill C-260 would only
come into play after someone had been hurt or killed while Bill
C-68 includes preventive action against violent crime by
controlling the availability of replicas and imitations.
I would like to speak to the new offences that the hon. member
proposes to add to the Criminal Code. The actions the hon. member
seeks to criminalize are already included in Bill C-68 or in the
current Criminal Code. For instance, clause 96 of Bill C-68 makes
it an offence to possess a firearm or other weapon that the person
knows was obtained through the commission of an offence.
As well, the Criminal Code currently contains an offence for
theft and clauses 103 and 104 of Bill C-68 already include offences
for illegal importation of firearms. These clauses also include
illegal exportation of firearms and therefore are more
comprehensive than the ones proposed by the hon. member.
Bill C-260 presented by the hon. member would increase the
mandatory minimum sentence for these two offences from one year
to three years' imprisonment. The House indicated it to be an
appropriate punishment for various firearms offences in Bill C-68
that a one-year minimum sentence is stiff, demonstrating the
potential lethal nature of firearms and the danger their illegal and
unsafe possession pose to Canadian society. At the same time it is
not so harsh as to encourage judges and juries to find ways around
them where some sympathetic factual circumstances exist.
These minimum sentences are very important. We want to send a
message about the illegal use of firearms.
Keeping people in prison is costly and raising minimum
sentences from one to three years, as the hon. member suggests,
would cost Canadian taxpayers an enormous amount of money.
Moreover, where the facts warrant I am confident that judges and
juries will impose harsher sentences. We have to have some faith in
our judges and juries. There is a role for minimum sentences but
basically the length of the sentences and the incarceration must rest
with our courts.
(1745 )
The hon. member proposes to make a person who improperly
sells a firearm liable for subsequent criminal actions committed by
the purchaser of that firearm. In other words, a person who does not
check for a firearms licence before selling the firearm would not
only commit a serious office of illegal transfer but if the buyer
commits a murder Bill C-260 would make the seller liable for the
murder or murders as an accomplice, even though the seller knew
nothing of the purchaser's murderous intentions. Such a result
seems to me to be out of proportion with the seller's culpability.
Moreover, based on the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, it
would also be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms because criminal liability would not be imposed, not on
the intentions of the accused to commit criminal acts and the
14748
actual doing of these acts but also on the actions that the person did
intend and did not foresee.
I cannot support that provision. There are severe penalties in Bill
C-68 for illegal transfer. These penalties do not have the risk of
contravening the charter of rights and freedoms.
I appreciate what the hon. member is proposing. A lot of what
she is proposing is included in Bill C-68. The areas that are not I do
not think add anything other than potential contraventions of the
charter and completely reducing the authority of our courts in very
important areas.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we just heard
how Bill C-260 has been taken care of by government Bill C-68, a
bill that I am not at all convinced has done much good for Canada.
The member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley has
produced a bill very specifically directed at the criminal misuse of
firearm. This is where Canadians hope we will direct our efforts.
Reformers want cost effective gun control directed at criminals that
will be complied with by the Canadian population.
A couple of weeks ago I had an opportunity to be in Labrador
and to exchange ideas with a number of individuals. Labrador is a
spot where there are few people in a very large area, some 33,000
people. Virtually everyone in Labrador has a firearm, every home
has a firearm. I was fascinated to listen to their responses to Bill
C-68 and how they received it. They received it much like the
people in my own home community, with some suspicion and some
misgivings.
A fellow told me a story. Members of the RCMP used to do their
policing in Labrador. The Newfoundland constabulary came in and
replaced them. The new constables gave out tickets very regularly
for putting a shotgun on one's shoulder and driving it out to the
tundra on a snowmobile. They could not believe their ears. They
wondered how else they were to get out to hunt the ptarmigan but
with their shotguns over their shoulders and off they go on their
snowmobiles. What did the constables think they would do? This
was a normal reaction for people in Labrador. They resisted the
constables. They said: ``You cannot give us tickets for that. We will
all be lawbreakers''.
If somebody carried a shotgun over his shoulder down Bank
Street he would be considered a criminal. It is inappropriate in this
community. What I am getting at is that the individuals in Labrador
have a very strong need for firearms. Giving them tickets and
putting them under Bill C-68 for an activity that is normal for them
is foolish. They reacted with surprise. They reacted with
frustration. They reacted with resentment. They would not comply.
(1750)
On Bill C-68 I had individual after individual tell me they would
not comply. They would not register their firearms. They all agree
with the portions of Bill C-68 directed toward criminal misuse.
They virtually all disagree with that portion of the bill directed at
gun registration.
How did they respond to Bill C-68? First, they said that their
member would not listen. Second, they said that when they phoned
his contact person he argued with them and did not listen. Third,
they said that their member of Parliament voted against their
wishes. They said they could bring him there for a forum with
33,000 Labrador residents who would tell him unanimously that
they do not want this bill. This bill is not wanted in Labrador.
They started out puzzled. They then had disbelief that this could
happen. Some government members listened to their constituents
and were punished for following the wishes of their people. They
asked me whether I thought what those members did was
democratic and whether the punishment was undemocratic. Then
they said that there was nothing they could do. One fellow said that
my party was first off against gun registration. He asked if a
member of my caucus was directed by his constituents to vote for it
and what happened to him? He was given a hearty handshake for
doing what he was elected to do, doing what he came to Ottawa to
do, that is represent his constituents.
They were no longer puzzled with disbelief. There was a spark of
hope, a spark of enthusiasm. They asked me what they could do,
how to organize and how to approach Bill C-68 with a different
group of individuals.
There was a very plain message there for the government.
Canadians expect their representatives to listen to them and to
follow their wishes, especially on a bill like Bill C-68 that was not
discussed in the election campaign. There was no mandate for Bill
C-68 during the election campaign. It would be entirely different if
it was a big plank of the Liberal platform. It was not.
Whom can we listen to? We hear that the police support the bill.
I want to tell a short story about a policeman. He started in police
work some 25 years ago. He caught a guy with a gun in his trunk.
He was pretty sure he had robbed a safe. He could not prove it, but
the gun in his trunk gave him two years ``in the clink'', in his
words. He is a pretty basic buy.
He had just retired as an RCMP officer. A couple of weeks
before retiring he caught a bank robber. The guy shoved a 357
magnum in the mouth of the bank manager and locked him in the
safe, scared him so bad that he quit his job. He was so frightened
that he quit his job. He could not function as a bank manager any
longer. He caught the bank robber. It was witnessed. There was no
question. What did he get?
14749
(1755)
Ms. Meredith: Six months.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): No, he got an eight-month suspended
sentence.
Officers in Canada tell me that Bill C-68 will not work unless the
public supports it. We need laws in Canada against criminal misuse
that will be enforced by our police and enforced strongly. Bill C-68
fails.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
a great deal of pleasure to speak on the bill presented by the hon.
member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. I hope all
members of the House recognize the merits of the bill and support
it.
As Reformers we believe public safety is the number one
priority. Our goal is to prevent violent crime while not unduly
restricting the activities of legitimate firearm owners. I firmly
believe the existing controls on law-abiding, responsible firearm
owners are more than enough and no further controls are necessary
to ensure public safety. I reiterate that I do not think further
controls are necessary for law-abiding gun owners.
The bill focuses on the criminals who use guns and replicas of
guns during the commission of crimes, not on law-abiding gun
owners. The hon. member is to be commended for presenting such
a common sense bill which focuses on the root cause of crime,
criminals. The justice minister should take note.
The bill, if passed, will send a clear message to criminals that the
use of guns in the commission of crimes will not be tolerated. It
increases the minimum penalty for a first offence from one to
fourteen years, as it is now, to five to fourteen years and the
sentence is to be served consecutive to the sentence for committing
the crime. On the second offence the penalty increases from three
to fourteen years to ten years to life.
It sets out a new offence for the theft of a firearm punishable by a
penalty of three to fourteen years. It states that subsequent
sentences are to be served consecutively. That is a key difference
between this bill and Bill C-68 where there is no consecutive
sentencing but rather concurrent sentencing. For that reason those
sentences are not really what is indicated.
As well the bill provides for a new offence for unlawful
importation of firearms for the purpose of selling or using them in
the commission of an offence. The penalty is three to fourteen
years. This common sense bill will help to prevent and deter crime.
Why am I so sure of what the bill will accomplish? As I said
earlier, it focuses on the root cause of crime. How many times have
we heard the Liberals talk about focusing on the root cause of
crime? Usually the root cause of crime according to the Liberals is
a whole series of things having to do with the background of the
criminal. However the root cause of crime is one thing, the
criminal, and the bill focuses on the criminal.
Once again I am reminded of Ted Byfield's editorial in the
September 11 issue of the Alberta Report. In the editorial he refutes
the notion that criminals are not responsible for their actions and
that society is to blame. He cites the example of New York City and
the dramatic decrease in crime experienced as a result of a police
crackdown on petty crimes.
The police took the advice of two criminologists-it is very
unusual to group criminologists together-who believed that
cracking down on so-called petty crime would send a message on
what behaviour would or would not be tolerated. The new chief of
police in New York City focused on the root cause of crime, the
criminal.
(1800 )
When the experiment worked-it worked extremely well-the
old school criminologists were less than pleased because it meant
that crime is somehow a voluntary action and therefore the
criminal can control what he or she does, contrary to what the
Liberals have been saying for some time in the House over the past
30 years. This completely blew their theory that a criminal is not
responsible for their actions right out of the water.
I want to relate this bill back to Bill C-260. This bill focuses on
what I also believe is the root cause of crime, criminals. This bill
sends a clear message to criminals that the use of guns in the
commission of a crime will not be tolerated.
Thinking about this common sense bill I am reminded of the
other gun legislation debated in the House quite a lot over the past
year. That legislation, Bill C-68, focused on guns and law-abiding
citizens who use and own guns. The cornerstone of this legislation,
the national gun registry, will not affect criminals.
I know of very few criminals who will register their guns.
Instead of dealing directly with criminals, the justice minister's
legislation ignores the criminals completely and concentrates on
the law-abiding citizens.
Should not the purpose of legislation be to deter and prevent
crime? If this is the case it will come as no surprise the Liberal gun
control bill will not help to reduce or deter crime. The justice
minister on several occasions has been asked to demonstrate to the
House that the gun registry would actually reduce crime.
Despite repeated requests in the House during debate, during
question period and by letters from groups in my constituency and
in other constituencies across the country the response from the
justice minister has been that the answer should be sufficiently
obvious. This is his favourite phrase. It should be sufficiently
obvious that a gun registry will help to reduce crime.
I wonder who it is sufficiently obvious to. Certainly not to the
people who talk to me in my constituency and right across the
country, most recently in Prince Edward Island. The people of
14750
Prince Edward Island made it abundantly clear to me last weekend
they do not see the connection between a gun registry and
preventing crime as being sufficiently obvious.
I have an article from the Globe and Mail dated September 20
entitled ``Gun registration won't stem crime'':
A federal council on crime and safety supports universal gun registration but
doubts it would do much to stamp out criminal activity. The national crime
prevention council said that it backs the federal gun bill, including the plans to
register all owners and their firearms.
The crime prevention council is a group of Liberal appointees.
This is a quote from the submission from this Liberal group: ``The
system is, however, a costly and complicated proposal which may
have a relatively limited impact on the prevention of criminal
activity or victimization''. This is from a submission by this
Liberal commission-Liberal thinking at its best. I have heard an
awful lot of that over the past few months in the House.
This clearly sums up the difference between the Reform Party
and the Liberal Party and their special interest groups. Reform
targets criminals who use guns; the Liberals make criminals out of
law-abiding citizens. On the one hand the government has
presented us with a bill that wants law-abiding gun owners to
register their guns. These same law-abiding gun owners will face
punishment if they do not register their guns, and many of them
will not register their guns. No government can force people to
obey a law they never wanted. Who asked for this law?
(1805)
Bill C-260 is a common sense bill which focuses on criminals
who use a gun in the commission of a crime. It sets out harsh
penalties for the offences and thus sends the message that this type
of behaviour will not be tolerated.
I am proud to support the bill, presented by the hon. member for
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. I thank her on behalf of
Canadians across for the effort. I look forward to support from all
parties.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a few
months back when I was in Kelowna one of the Liberal members
and I debated Bill C-68 in front of a crowd of about 400. I felt sorry
for her because there were no supporters at that gathering for Bill
C-68.
Before the debate started they brought in an RCMP officer who
went through section 85. The officer wanted all the people to know
what was now in the law pertaining to guns. It took him over an
hour to go through all the laws related to guns presently in the
Criminal Code. I could not believe all of the things that apply not
only to criminals but to law-abiding people. I commend my
colleague from British Columbia for being able to find a flaw in
there which really addresses what we need to address, the criminal.
I applaud her for coming out with this bill long before we saw Bill
C-68.
Her bill is pretty small but it has a lot of meat in it. She probably
has an underpaid staff that did a little work and managed to come
up with it. The enormous justice department managed to come out
with about 190 pages. It called it Bill C-68, the answer to all our
problems. It was accomplished by who knows how many highly
paid senior bureaucrats, probably all with many degrees in law.
They are brilliant people who suddenly out of the blue sky had all
the answers to our problems regarding law and order. They would
straighten it out.
When I remembered that presentation by the RCMP officer I
found it unbelievable how many laws were already on the books.
Really what makes it most unbelievable is to come out with a new
bill of which 80 per cent applies to law-abiding people.
All this morning and yesterday we debated amendments we
wanted to make to Bill C-45. We wanted to get restitution for
victims. No, said the Liberals. That did not pass. We wanted to
have a review of parole decisions which were not good. A mistake
was made, the guy was paroled and he killed again. We think there
should be a review. No, said the Liberals. They were little common
sense things we wanted to do for the victims, for the innocent of the
country.
Instead the Liberals came out with about 190 pages, 80 per cent
of which attacked the innocent and the potential victims. Instead of
addressing the criminal in all of those pages, with all the high paid
lawyers working in the justice department, all of these geniuses, all
of these champions of the people, they came out with that while my
colleague and a couple of staff came out with something which
absolutely makes sense and which I guarantee Canadians want. It
attacks the criminal. I really applaud her.
(1810)
My colleague says it is just duplicating what is there. This bill
was presented eight months before Bill C-68 probably was even
thought about. I take that back. It had to take those bureaucrats at
least a year and a half to make that bill. After all, we have to keep
them employed. That is part of job creation, to put a bunch of
gobbledegook together and sell it to the public and then sit back
and blow your horn that you have really done a great thing.
We are trying to address crime. We are trying to fight criminals.
My colleague across the floor talked about how it costs so much
money to keep these people in prison. It is such a burden and we
cannot afford it. I did a little research from the solicitor general's
department. In federal prisons about 65 per cent are violent
criminals and 35 are not. In provincial prisons it is the reverse.
14751
With my little back in the mountains brain I tried to calculate
that and it sounds like it comes out about half and half. Fifty per
cent are violent and 50 per cent are non-violent.
Then I remembered the years I worked voluntarily in prisons,
counselling and trying to help young people particularly. A number
of 18 and 19-year olds in there were not violent. I could not
understand why they were sentenced to prison for as long as they
were because they were not violent. There were better things we
could have done with these young people. The amazing part about
it was most of these young people were in jail because they had a
drug problem. If they were not into drugs they would not have been
in the problems they were.
What is our justice system doing? We are putting those kinds of
people behind bars, we will rehabilitate them, fix them up. Guess
what? As I visit every prison across the country I find out by
talking to inmates and guards, as will anybody on that side of the
House if they do the same, that it is 10 times easier to get drugs in a
prison than it is on the streets of the communities.
We have a drug problem. We are putting them in a situation in
which it is easier to get drugs than anywhere else. Then six or seven
years later we will put them back on the streets. They have gone
through X number of programs because they know how to jump the
hoops, but we have not taken the drugs away because we cannot
control it.
That is not the Liberal way. Let us not get tough on things like
that. Let us come out with a big document that says: ``You farmer,
you duck hunter, you rabbit hole shooter, you gopher shooter, you
are the guys we will have to take care of. You have to start
registering these things. It is a problem''.
The next day we hear the Ontario attorney general saying:
``Good grief, the trucks are coming through. We are not stopping
them. They are being driven by criminals''. They do not even know
what is in them. Probably guns.
Then we go out to another border and the boats are coming
across with nobody to stop them. The standing orders are if the boat
sets at this angle it has probably got booze. If it is at this angle it
has probably got guns. If it is at this angle it has probably got drugs.
They have no way of controlling it.
To produce Bill C-68, which will to do nothing about those kinds
of problems, it will probably cost millions. Why not put those
millions into border patrol and starting fight crime? That is what
the member is wanting to do with her bill. Start fighting crime and
quit being so picky over replicas. Walk down the street sometime
and if somebody comes up behind you and you do not see them and
they stick a pencil in your back and say: ``Give me your wallet or I
will shoot'', I will guarantee you will go through a trauma. It might
as well be a .38.
It is the actions they do, these kinds of people. It is those kinds of
people we want. Let us get them into jail. Let us look for alternative
programs for those who do not belong in there. Let us genuinely
start helping those who are helpable and let us start putting those
away who are violent and dangerous and keep them where they
belong. It would probably save lots of money there as well.
Do not write any more documents. That is enough of that. All
morning long the victims were denied help from the government.
All afternoon on Bill C-45 victims were not even talked about by
this government. Thirteen Reformers stood in the House and
defended the rights of victims. Not one on that side stood and did
the same. Instead they voted all those motions down.
I just bet they will vote this motion down. I will bet on it right
now, because it just makes sense. It is what Canadians want. They
do not use their heads. They listen to the little front row people.
Their strings are pulled, the puppets jump up, and they support.
That is what has to stop in this country. I am tired of it. Canadians
are tired of it. Let us get to work. Let us start fighting crime and
quit being so ridiculous.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Debate
throughout this day and particularly the speech we just heard and
the final remarks from the member for Wild Rose have been
permeated with questioning the motives of other members of the
House. I believe that is contrary to proper procedure in the House.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you take that under consideration
and report back to the House on whether or not members in fact
should be encouraged to avoid questioning the motives of other
members.
I have a side comment. The other side again made the same
error, I believe, accusing me of having a guilty conscience. I go
home and I sleep just fine at night, thank you very much.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to thank the hon.
member for her intervention. I have been following the debate very
attentively. My recollection also allows me to think back to a few
months ago when a debate on the same issue raised some very
strong views. I find the comments that were made today were a
matter of debate and not a point of order.
There being no further members rising for debate and the motion
not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing
Order 96.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask, I think the House
would consent to calling it 6.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent
to see the clock as being 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.30 p.m., this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.)