CONTENTS
Thursday, September 28, 1995
Bill C-351. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 14957
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 14957
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 14958
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 14958
Bill C-45. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 14959
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14959
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 14975
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 14983
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 14983
Division on motion deferred 14984
Bill C-93. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading; and
the amendment 14985
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 14989
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 14990
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 14991
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14992
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14992
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14993
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14993
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14994
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14994
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14995
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14996
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14997
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14997
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14997
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14997
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14998
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14998
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14998
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14999
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14999
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14999
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15000
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15000
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 15001
Bill C-93. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and
amendment 15002
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 15002
Division on amendment deferred 15009
Bill C-98. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and
the amendment 15009
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 15012
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 15017
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 15019
Bill C-316. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 15021
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 15022
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 15023
14957
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, September 28, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table
in both official languages the report of the Canadian section of the
International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians as
well as the financial report concerning the meeting of the
co-operation and development commission of the IAFSP, held in
Beirut, Lebanon, on April 4 and 5, 1995.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-351, an act to provide for the expiry of
gun control legislation that is not proven effective within five years
of coming into force.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce my
firearms law sunset act today. My bill is seconded by the hon.
member for Beaver River and co-sponsored by a number of
members of Parliament. I thank my colleagues for their support.
If the bill is passed by Parliament it would provide a five-year
sunset provision on all gun control legislation unless the auditor
general has reported that the gun control law has been a successful
and cost effective measure which has increased public safety and
reduced violent crime involving the use of firearms.
The auditor general's report would have to be considered by a
12-member committee comprised of six MPs and six experts on
firearms law. The committee report would also have to be
presented to and concurred in by the House of Commons or a
sunset provision would take effect immediately.
To argue against this type of sunset provision people would have
to argue that they support gun control even if it does not work and
no matter how much the gun control costs.
No one is arguing that gun control is unnecessary, only that the
police time and resources should be spent on measures that get the
best bang for the buck. That is exactly what the bill does.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions to present this morning.
The first petition contains 495 signatures from the North York
area in the federal riding of York Centre. It deals with the
protection of human beings, in particular, the protection of the
unborn child. It prays that Parliament immediately extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
It is my understanding that these signatures were collected
within a matter of a few hours in one day.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition concerns the subject of euthanasia. Quite a number
of people from all across Canada have signed the petition. It prays
that Parliament ensure present provisions of the Criminal Code of
Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that
Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or
allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
14958
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is signed by a number of people from across Canada,
primarily from southern British Columbia and the Surrey, B.C.
area. It deals with the subject of witness protection, in particular,
my Bill C-206.
The petitioners call on Parliament to pass Bill C-206 to give
statutory foundation for a national witness relocation and
protection program.
I am pleased to note for these petitioners that the government has
brought in just such a bill which hopefully will be debated very
shortly in the House.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure and the honour to introduce
a petition signed by Canadians from New Brunswick, British
Columbia, Ontario and elsewhere.
The petitioners call on Parliament to institute complete
recycling, waste reduction, energy and resource conservation and
clean-up and air pollution programs.
(1010 )
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition signed by Canadians from Quebec, Ontario and
elsewhere. These petitioners call on Parliament to allow people to
use the grounds of Parliament Hill for the purpose of public
interest.
This petition is signed by people from all over the place. I really
do not understand the motives behind it but nevertheless I would
like to table it.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating all across Canada. This petition has been
signed by a number of Canadians from the Vancouver, Surrey and
Delta areas of British Columbia.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill
or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first is from 35
concerned citizens from my riding of Yorkton-Melville who are
opposed to the approval of synthetic bovine growth hormone,
known as BGH or BST. The drug is injected into cows to increase
milk production.
The petitioners are concerned not only about health risks to the
dairy cows, but also the serious risks to humans, including breast
and colon cancer. They urge Parliament to keep BGH out of Canada
until the year 2000 by legislating a moratorium on sales and use
and until the outstanding health and economic questions are
reviewed through an independent and transparent review.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by my constituents who are
concerned about high government spending. Given that Canadians
are already overburdened with taxation, these petitioners urge
Parliament to reduce government spending and implement a
taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, I am
pleased to table a number of petitions. The first petition asks that
Parliament not enact legislation which indicates societal approval
of same sex relationships.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a second petition asks Parliament to make no changes in
the law which would sanction the aiding and abetting of suicide or
active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition asks for the same protection for unborn
human beings as those who are born.
I am pleased to table these petitions on behalf of the hon.
member for Hull-Aylmer.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present to the
House today a petition on behalf of 459 constituents in my riding.
Child Safe of Pictou county believes that all sex offenders who
are being released from incarceration should have to inform the
media that they are being released. This will allow the media to
inform the communities of Nova Scotia of the names and addresses
of the offenders being released.
14959
Child Safe feels that this is of vital importance to protect the
safety and well-being of our children.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
petition from almost 1,000 Canadians asks the CRTC to regulate all
forms of violence and abuse on television.
The citizens believe that one needs not to be shocked to be
educated, to be informed, to be entertained. These petitioners
applaud the CRTC hearings on this subject, violence on television,
which are being held right now and to which I might add I had the
honour of presenting a brief last Monday in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
14959
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1015)
[Translation]
The House resumed from September 27, 1995, consideration of
the motion that 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, be read a third time and passed.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this
opportunity today to speak to Bill C-45 and related initiatives. It
has been said many times in this House that our penal justice
system lacks the means required to control high-risk offenders,
including sex offenders.
The public has become increasingly fearful and intolerant of
crimes committed by these offenders, especially when the victims
are children. This is a very legitimate concern which Bill C-45
should help to alleviate by providing better protection for the most
vulnerable members of our society. In many cases, sexual offences
not only harm a person physically but also cause psychological
damage that unfortunately may leave lasting scars.
If we want to improve public safety, we must act quickly and use
the most effective means at our disposal. That is why we have
opted for a comprehensive approach consisting of legislation and
other measures that will help us deal with the problem on all fronts.
As you know, Bill C-45 contains major amendments to the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act that will increase public
safety.
The principal changes include amending the provisions on the
detention of sex offenders who attack children. To provide better
protection for our young people, Bill C-45 gives the word ``child''
the broadest possible legal sense, in other words, any individual
under 18 years of age. Thanks to the proposed amendments, it will
no longer be necessary to prove that serious harm was or will be
caused to the child by a sexual offence.
This change was necessary because in many cases, the impact of
sexual abuse is not easy to detect in a child. The problem is further
compounded by the fact that child abusers often tell their victims
that the sex acts they are forced to commit are acceptable and not to
be discussed with others. Research has also shown that the harm
suffered by a child who is a victim of sexual abuse may not become
apparent until years later.
For all these reasons, it is difficult and almost impossible to find
out whether there was serious harm. Bill C-45 will fill this gap by
giving the National Parole Board the authority to keep in custody
any offender it deems likely to commit a sexual offence involving a
child before the expiration of his sentence.
I would like to point out that we have before us a piece of
legislation that is intelligent and sound and based on the latest
scientific research. It was well received by many of the witnesses
who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs during its study of the bill. I may refer more specifically to
the clinicians representing the Canadian Psychological
Association. They found the bill perfectly reasonable in clinical
terms, because, as they said, people sexually drawn to children,
known clinically as pedophiles, have a much higher risk of
recividism than those suffering from some other form of deviant
sexual behaviour.
At times, treatment appears to have no effect on pedophiles.
Accordingly, since the bill concerns offenders representing the
greatest threat to the security and welfare of children, we believe it
should go a long way to calming Canadians' concerns.
Before I talk about other legislative changes, I would like to
return to the comments by the solicitor general on the point
amending the provisions on detention. The fact that the change
applies only to young victims does not mean that sexual offences
against adults are of less concern to us.
14960
(1020)
All sexual crimes are serious, and the vulnerability of the victim,
whoever that may be, is a vital consideration in each decision on
parole or detention.
We must give ourselves the means to accurately assess the risk
involved in a sexual offence, whoever the victim may be. In recent
years, some people have wondered whether we can really assess the
damage victims suffer when there has been no bodily harm. This is
particularly important in the case of victims of sexual crimes.
As many of you know, the definition of serious harm in the
present legislation covers both physical injury and psychological
damage. As psychological damage is not apparent most times, it is
often difficult to detect. In an effort to overcome this difficulty, the
Department of the Solicitor General formulated guidelines on this
last fall.
Accordingly, the people responsible for identifying cases of
potential detention and commissioners responsible for deciding on
them are better equipped to assess the psychological wrong a
victim has suffered. They can therefore better recognize offenders
who are more likely to cause serious harm in the future.
The department developed these guidelines according to the
most recent research available on the psychological effects of
crime for victims and on clinical diagnostic criteria. This major
undertaking results from the department's commitment to clarify
the concept of serious harm and to better protect the public against
high risk offenders. Whether they are violent criminals or sexual
offenders.
The bill contains other changes along these lines, as I mentioned
earlier. Some of them have to do with Schedules I and II of the act,
which list the offences for which an offender can be referred for
detention.
These lists will now include several violent crimes against
persons and serious drug offences such as conspiring to commit
serious drug offences, impaired driving, criminal negligence
causing death or bodily harm, criminal harassment, and breaking
and entering when the planned offence is listed in Schedule I.
The addition of this last crime means that an offender who
breaks and enters a home with intent to commit a serious offence
such as a sexual assault will no longer be eligible for the speedy
review procedure and will automatically be subject to review for
detention.
In addition, a number of sexual offences that have been repealed
will be included in Schedule I so that any offender serving a
sentence for one of these offences will be covered. The purpose of
these amendments is to correct any shortcoming in the detention
provisions that may compromise public safety.
Another important set of amendments provide for the house
arrest of some high risk offenders who do not meet detention
criteria. These amendments had been demanded by the members
of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the former
Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, the Ontario
commission responsible for investigating the Stephenson case, and
the Canadian Police Association.
In response to their recommendations, the government recently
made legislative amendments to Bill C-45, which were approved
by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs last March.
These amendments will enable the National Parole Board to
require that offenders who must be released because they do not
meet detention criteria but who need additional community support
live in a community based residential facility.
This will allow the board to better monitor and manage these
offenders and the risk they present, in order to strengthen the
released offenders monitoring system and facilitate their
reintegration into society.
(1025)
While the legislative or policy changes I mentioned represent a
sound reform, we must bear in mind that these changes alone
cannot ensure greater public protection. We must not settle for
longer prison terms for offenders. Most sexual offenders are
sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment and, sooner or later,
they are back in community.
To properly deal with the problem of sexual offenders,
sustainable solutions must be developed. In this regard, many of
the witnesses who testified at the justice committee hearings on
Bill C-45 were of the opinion that the best way to protect society
against sexual offenders in the long term was through formal
phased release programs combined with treatment and support.
This has prompted the government to undertake a number of
initiatives with regard to programs, including enhancing treatment
programs for this category of offenders.
[English]
I will briefly comment on what we know to date about treating
sex offenders. Research evidence shows sex offenders are not all
the same. Their offences are influenced by a host of motivating and
situational factors which vary from one individual to the next.
Consequently, there is no single cause for sexual abuse and no
single approach to treatment. However, there is general agreement
among clinical practitioners that for many offenders the risk of
reoffending can be reduced through continuity of treatment
programs and relapse prevention.
In keeping with this view, a key component of our public safety
strategy focuses on the expansion and enhancement of treatment
programs for sex offenders. Research and pilot projects in support
14961
of rehabilitation and safe reintegration of sex offenders are an
integral part of this endeavour.
To ensure the federal correctional system uses the most effective
management and treatment methods for sex offenders, Correctional
Service Canada created a national committee earlier this year. This
committee has developed standards to deal with the important issue
regarding the assessment and treatment of sex offenders. The
committee is undertaking consultations with provincial mental
health and correctional agencies with a view to developing a
national consensus on these and other issues of mutual concern.
To facilitate this effort I had the pleasure of opening the first
conference on the national sex offender strategy in Toronto last
March. This conference brought together sex offender experts from
across Canada as well as from other countries to share their
knowledge, refine our assessment and treatment methods, and find
innovative ways of restoring public confidence in corrections and
criminal justice. This is an important milestone, and I am confident
good progress in this area will continue.
[Translation]
We are also active on the local front to help community
organizations protect children against sexual abuse. Over the years,
the RCMP has played a major role in this respect with its Canadian
Police Information Center, or CPIC, a data base made available to
police across Canada. This center provides computerized
information on the criminal records of individuals who have been
fingerprinted. Thus, local police can now check, on behalf of
community organizations, the background of those who want to do
volunteer work or work for pay involving children. It is one of
many ways of helping to prevent direct contact between child
molesters or sexual offenders and children in our communities.
Last November, the government announced that the CPIC had
been upgraded so that checks run through this national data base
can be even more efficient.
As a result, the CPIC now provides information on restraining
orders issued in cases of family violence, orders prohibiting
holding positions of trust around children and peace bond orders
issued to child sex offenders. It also provides more detailed
information on the criminal background of offenders, including a
list of all sexual offences, whether summary or indictable,
committed against children.
(1030)
These improvements will provide a better profile of those people
who could be a threat to the safety and well-being of our children.
However, are these improvements sufficient? Some victim
advocates have said that better information will be of little use if
community organizations do not know it exists, or if they do not
systematically check the track record of applicants with the local
police force.
In response to that legitimate concern, the solicitor general,
justice and health departments are working to set up a national
awareness program, in co-operation with the Canadian Association
of Volunteer Bureaux and Centres. Starting this fall, and for the
next few years, public information and education documents will
be prepared, and training sessions will be provided to police
officers as well as to volunteer and sports organizations in more
than 200 communities across the country, in an effort to ensure
better screening of volunteers and staff.
As for high risk offenders who remain a danger to society at the
end of their prison term, we are pursuing our efforts to find an
adequate solution to the problem. We work in close co-operation
with our provincial and territorial counterparts, and quick progress
is being made. Every province and territory has agreed to make the
best possible use of the Criminal Code provisions which relate to
dangerous offenders.
These provisions authorize judges to impose an indeterminate
jail term to offenders who, in their opinion, remain a danger to
society.
[English]
The solicitor general also announced last March a national
flagging system to identify at an early date those offenders who
may later be considered for a dangerous offender application.
Should any offender who is flagged be prosecuted in the future, all
relevant background information held by other jurisdictions will be
available to assist prosecutors in deciding whether to bring in an
applicant.
The solicitor general and the justice minister in conjunction with
their federal, provincial and territorial counterparts have agreed to
an examination of legislative changes with regard to creating a new
category of long term offender. This could lead to special
preventative measures for a broader range of violent offenders,
especially sexual predators such as pedophiles, including up to 10
years of supervision following the usual penitentiary sentence.
The ministers have agreed that other criminal justice options will
be explored for offenders who are at the end of their sentences and
who are still believed to be too dangerous to be released into the
community. In this regard the solicitor general and the justice
minister convened a meeting of leading constitutional lawyers and
other experts this past spring to review the limits and possibilities
related to the detention of offenders beyond the end of their
sentence. This will allow for a full examination of possible
strategies under the criminal law which might be viable to achieve
greater public safety.
14962
[Translation]
All these measures seek to increase protection of the public
against high risk offenders and to restore the confidence of
Canadians in our criminal justice system. They are based on a
progressive policy dealing with practical issues related to
therapeutic programs for offenders, and with the development of
the most effective program strategies to treat sexual and other high
risk offenders.
Our criminal justice system must be balanced, so that we can
truly make our country a place where Canadians and their children
can live without fear of being victims of violence or sexual abuse.
I believe that Bill C-45, along with related initiatives and the
work that will continue to be done in the months to come, clearly
shows that the government intends to do its utmost to make our
communities safer. I am sure that members from both sides of this
House will help us achieve that goal through this bill.
(1035 )
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
dearly love to stand here today and say I will support Bill C-45 but
if I did I know exactly what would happen. If our party did that I
know exactly what would happen. People across the way would
turn around and say: ``If the Reform Party supports it, I guess we
have gone far enough. We have done our job''.
Therefore we will not support this. We will continue to hound
government members over issues of criminal justice to let them
know they have not gone far enough and that the public right to
protection is much greater than the rights of criminals. We will
continue to pound that message home. The member for Wild Rose,
the member for Crowfoot, the member for Calgary Northeast, the
member for Yorkton-Melville will be on the government like a
pack of hounds until we get some real tough justice in this country.
One of the concerns I have about Bill C-45 is that it is extremely
narrow. It does not go nearly far enough in addressing the concerns
of other people. We had a big to do in the House not very long ago
when an hon. member was accused of mimicking another hon.
member. There were screams and yells of sexism in the House.
People were running around saying: ``You people are bad. You are
sexist''. That was a bunch of baloney.
The real measure of how prepared people are to stand up for
women is in their actions, not in their words. We are not seeing the
action in this legislation that really defends women to the degree
they should be defended. Why in this legislation do we not have
measures to hand down the same types of penalties that are being
proposed here and even tougher penalties when women are
sexually assaulted?
Why can women not enjoy the same protection in the law? To me
that makes sense and that is why we cannot support this legislation.
I know if we supported this people over there would say: ``Good,
we have them on side. We do not have to do any more''. My
goodness, all it takes is a stroke of the pen. All they have to do is
spend a couple of more minutes writing that type of amendment.
Then we would have protection for women as well. Why not go the
full way? Why not do it all?
Another concern I have with this legislation is that it does not
address the huge problem of young offenders who are sexual
predators. I will read a letter in a moment from a constituent of
mine who talks about this problem. Before I do I remind hon.
members across the way about an incident that happened not too
many years ago on the west coast.
A sexual predator, a young offender, and his family moved into a
new community. Because he was a young offender no one knew
about his past. Not even the police knew about his past. The people
next door definitely did not know about his past when they invited
him to come over and babysit. I think everyone can imagine what
happened. That young man subsequently raped and murdered the
little girl next door and nobody was the wiser to his past because
the Young Offenders Act protected him. That is insane and
ridiculous. There is no reason in the world why this government
cannot address those types of problems.
Yesterday in the House our leader asked the justice minister what
he will do to ensure that when there was a conflict between the
rights of criminals and the rights of victims the scales of justice
were tilted to the side of the victims. He gave us a lot of rhetoric.
We would like to see some action. It is too late for that little girl
in British Columbia but it does not have to be too late for the rest of
the country. All it requires is a stroke of the pen, a little initiative.
Why is the government holding back? What is the possible motive
for not addressing this issue?
(1040 )
To me it can only be a misguided sense of responsibility or
charity to the criminals. Yes, these people sometimes come from
bad backgrounds and bad environments. I feel bad about that. I am
sorry they turn out to be criminals in many cases and sexual
predators in some cases.
At the end of the day, as sorry as I am for that, the responsibility
of government, the justice system and the House is to ensure that
the rights of the public are raised above the rights of the criminals.
There is no excuse for not dealing with that in this legislation. It
should be in there.
We have to keep plugging away until we get some changes not
only to bills like Bill C-45 but also to the Young Offenders Act. It
has to happen.
14963
I will read a letter from a constituent of mine whom I talked
to on the phone a few days ago:
I am writing to you because of something that happened to my family this
past summer. In late July of this year I had my nephew come and stay with us. He
is 13 years old and I had no reason to believe my worst nightmares would come
true. During the four days of his stay he sexually abused my oldest sons, ages
four and five. My two year old son does not talk yet, so if there was any abuse
perpetrated against him I will never know.
I reported the crime to the local RCMP and to social services in the
community where he comes from. It was during a talk with another family
member that I was informed of the sexual abuse committed against her children,
one girl and one boy, by my nephew some seven months prior.
It has been a long summer for my family, not only in dealing with the
devastation of having our young children become victims of a sexual crime at
such a young age, not that any age is acceptable, but in waiting for justice to be
served. By justice I specifically mean waiting for the police and the courts to
hold the 13-year old criminal accountable.
This past Monday, September 19, I found out that according to the Criminal
Code, Michael, my nephew, is immune from prosecution, not because he did not
commit a crime but because he is 13. The first sexual crime was not reported to
police. The family of the children and the family of the abuser and social
services decided it was an act of an immature boy experimenting with his
developing sexuality. It was because of this cover-up that I was unable to protect
my children. Therefore my children became the young, innocent victims of his
second attack that we are aware of.
I am disgusted and helplessly frustrated with the whole situation. The RCMP
officer was quick to assure me that they would get him the next time. Am I
supposed to feel proud to be part of a society that surrounds young criminals in a
blanket of protection while ignoring the pleas of the whole families that are
victimized? By not holding these young criminals accountable based on their
age, are we not inviting them to victimize again and again, stealing innocence,
forever changing lives?
There is so much more I want to say but more importantly now I know I must
take action. I believe if I do not take some action to see the laws changed to
protect the young potential victims, then I have not done my job as a parent. If
the police and courts cannot help my children get justice, then I must go above
them.
Monte, I cry at night because of what this 13-year old did to my children and
it torments me to know he will never be punished for this crime. It is just
unacceptable at any age to abuse our young future in any way. If we do accept it
we have failed them and ourselves. I write this letter in faith that you will be my
voice, Monte. Somehow it does not seem enough, words on paper, but it is a
start.
This letter says more eloquently than anybody in the House
could ever say just how devastating and unnecessary these crimes
are. That is what is so frustrating.
I do not really understand why the police did not intervene. They
say the boy was 13. My understanding is he should be culpable
when he is that age. I certainly put a phone call in to the police to
talk to them about that.
(1045)
However, the whole point is that if this young man were accused,
brought to justice and convicted, it would not necessarily mean he
could not do it again, because the public would never know what he
had done. That is crazy. What are we doing here? Why are we
allowing this to happen? It is ridiculous.
I look around here and I see people who are of high intelligence
and mature individuals who must understand exactly what this does
to people. Why are we not doing something about it? Why is the
government not moving legislation today to fix this? I do not
understand it. The people at home do not understand it. If it were
just a case of not understanding that would be one thing, but it is
the terrible damage it does that is so frustrating.
My friends over here have pounded away at the government,
asking it to bring in some changes that address these types of
things, and it has not. It has not addressed them. It would be so
easy. We frittered around with tiny little pieces of legislation over
the last few days when we could have been dealing with things of
real consequence, things that would really help people.
Maybe I was idealistic when I took on this job, but I thought we
could bring some of these obvious problems to light and perhaps
something would happen, perhaps there would be changes. It has
not happened. It does not happen, and that drives me and everyone
here crazy. I know it drives members across the way crazy. There
are people who sit on the back benches who ask why we cannot
change this. I do not know the answer to that. I guess the only
people who know the answer to that are the people who reside in
cabinet, where all the decisions are made.
I encourage them to open up their ears and realize that by not
acting to bring down some fundamental changes in the justice
system they are allowing people to get hurt. If they are not
consciously and not maliciously doing it, they are unconsciously
doing it. However, the effect is the same.
I encourage government members to start thinking about some
of these victims out there, to start supporting some of the
amendments like my friend from Wild Rose brought forward the
other day, which would compensate victims, and to start opening
their eyes to what is happening out there in the real world. When
that day comes there will be 52 Reformers standing up and giving
the government 100 per cent support.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I would love to support
this bill but I know what would happen if we did. This government
would take that as an excuse to quit. Therefore, it is with reluctance
that I say it is a step in the right direction but it does not go nearly
far enough. We will not give the government an excuse to quit.
Over the next several months my friends will be on the heels of the
government every day.
14964
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to enter into this discussion.
The member from the Reform Party said the actions of the
government drive every member of the Reform Party crazy. He
inferred that the same is applicable to this side of the House. Let
me agree with the first part of his statement and very strongly
disagree with the second part.
The member, in his convoluted statement, said he supports what
we are doing but that it does not go far enough as far as he is
concerned, so he and his party will vote against this bill. I have sat
in the House for the past two years and I have never ceased to be
amazed as to how simplistic the Reform Party's attitude has been to
this whole issue. It seems to me that during many of their
interjections and their discussions they are promoting a very
simplistic justice system, very simplistic solutions to a very
complex problem.
(1050)
They are forever talking about victims and victims' rights. I am
amazed that a party that purports to be for law and order would not
support the victim groups that want stronger gun control and
support the government's legislation. Maybe the member can tell
me how and why he does not support gun control as asked for by
victims groups as well as the police in the country.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member from across
the way that he does not speak for all his backbenchers. I have
talked to many of them and I know where they stand on the issues.
With respect to the whole issue of victims' rights, many
members of our caucus have been in regular contact with victims
groups, have been supporting them, have been proposing
legislation through private members' bills that would help them.
We moved a motion in the House the other day which the
government did not support. That motion would have provided
some kind of compensation to victims. I want to make it very clear
that we come down four square on the side of victims.
On the issue of gun control, I think it is an improper
characterization to say that all victims groups to a person believe
that gun control will somehow staunch crime in the country. That is
obviously wrong. I also point out, as my friend from
Yorkton-Melville has claimed in the House, that many police, I
would argue the great majority of rank and file policemen, do not
support gun control as it has been proposed in the House.
If there is anything simplistic in the House it is the comments of
the hon. member across the way. I argue there is not a person in the
country who has watched this channel for any amount of time who
would ever doubt for a moment the sincerity of members on this
side of the House when it comes to standing up for victims and
hounding the government to bring about some changes which, to
the government's credit, it is starting to bring about in some of this
legislation.
We will continue to nip at the heels of the government until we
start to see some real substantial changes in all areas of criminal
justice.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has made reference to a particular case
and read a letter. I take it the hon. member is well aware that laws
are made by the federal government but the enforcement of these
laws is strictly in the hands of the provincial governments. Barking
in the Chamber is the wrong place. Comments have to be made to
the provincial attorneys general to make sure matters are taken care
of.
The John Howard Society has put out statistics showing that a
substantial number of young people are convicted of offences, and
31 per cent of the young offenders are incarcerated but only
approximately 20 per cent of adults are incarcerated.
Proportionally there are more young offenders being incarcerated
than adults. Yet we can see the Reform Party is clamouring for
stronger sentences. As well, it appears that more young offenders
are being charged but the crime rate of young offenders is not going
up.
With the position the Reform Party is taking, is it indicating
there should be more incarceration facilities built in this country
for young offenders and perhaps resort to a system similar to what
is developing in California?
(1055 )
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has addressed
several issues. He mentioned this was more of a provincial matter
when he referred to the letter I read from. I am sorry the member
missed the point I was making. If that young man had been
convicted, and since federal laws say his name cannot be released,
then he could go on to do this again and again and we would not be
protected from him because we would not know his identity. To me
that is a federal matter. Anybody who knows anything about the
law should know that it is this way. I am surprised that as a lawyer
the hon. member did not realize that.
With respect to the stronger sentences, I remind the hon. member
that it was his government that felt stronger sentences were
necessary in Bill C-41. I remind the hon. member that in this very
legislation there are stronger sentences being proposed. Now he is
arguing against them. That is a little ironic. I encourage the hon.
member to read the legislation.
With respect to the fall in the crime rate among young offenders,
there is a demographic issue that needs to be addressed here. It is
not at all clear. If we go back a generation and look at the rise in
violent crime between the sixties and today, it has gone up fourfold,
14965
I believe. Let us not spew out statistics without all of the
background that goes with them.
The hon. member should take the time to sit down and read this
legislation. If he does he will not be so quick to jump up and start
criticizing the Reform Party.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House about a critically
important public safety issue and to outline some of the measures
the Government of Canada has initiated in response to our
commitment in the red book to ensure safe homes and safe streets.
All of us are painfully aware that the issues related to the
management and treatment of sex offenders in federal correctional
institutions are very much of public concern. Media attention and
public outrage over violent crimes committed by sex offenders on
conditional release have heightened fears about public safety.
During the summer I had extensive consultations with my
constituents in Richmond. I went to the bus stops and the shopping
malls to speak with my constituents. Sure enough, the number one
concern of my constituents was with crime issues. Last year I did
the same thing, I reached out to the constituencies, and their
concern was with the debt and deficit. I suppose this year, because
of the works of our government, the debt and deficit are under
control. Now their concentration is on crime issues.
It is imperative that the Government of Canada take action to
restore the public's confidence concerning the management and
treatment of this group of offenders. I am confident the provisions
contained in Bill C-45 as well as a number of criminal justice rights
initiatives taken by the government would go a long way to
restoring the public's confidence in Canada's criminal justice and
correctional system.
The issue of high risk sex offenders is a complex problem, which
has many facets. It would be unrealistic to expect a simple solution.
The problem requires a comprehensive approach involving all
jurisdictions and agencies, both governmental and
non-governmental, in criminal justice and corrections. The
Canadian government recognizes this and has taken leadership to
gain the support of all parties concerned toward achieving a mutual
solution.
At the federal and provincial levels there has been much
discussion about this issue among ministers responsible for justice
and corrections and a number of actions have already been
announced. Among these was the announcement by the solicitor
general last March of the establishment of a national flagging
system using the Canadian Police Information Centre to help
crown attorneys better identify high risk violent offenders at the
time of prosecution. This system, along with the project now under
way called the crown file research project, will assist prosecutors
with decisions regarding prosecutions and charging strategies,
including whether to bring a dangerous offender application
against an individual. If a person is ruled by the courts to be a
dangerous offender, an indefinite sentence of incarceration can be
imposed.
(1100)
Both these actions were recommended by the federal, provincial
and territorial task force on high risk violent offenders which
released its report earlier this year. The government is also
addressing other important recommendations outlined in the
report. For example, legislative changes are being examined which
would make it easier for crown attorneys to make use of the
existing dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code.
The provisions would be strengthened by making an indefinite
sentence of incarceration the only sentencing option for those
found by the court to be dangerous offenders, providing for new
expanded presentence risk assessments in place of the current
requirement for the evidence of two psychiatrists and the creation
of a new category of long term offender, which would give the
courts a new sentencing option for this group. This would require
the long term supervision of the offender for up to 10 years
following the end of the penitentiary term.
In addition to the work of the task force, the amendments to the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act contained in Bill C-45
include other important changes which would tighten the
legislation to ensure greater public protection. Principal among
these are changes to detention provisions as they relate to sex
offenders who victimize children. The amendments will eliminate
the current serious harm criterion for this group of offenders.
Research has shown that the harm caused to children by sex
offenders may not manifest itself until later in life. Therefore,
because it is so difficult to draw a direct relationship between the
offence and the consequent harm done, sex offenders often fall
through the cracks when it comes to deciding whether they should
be detained until the expiry of their sentence. The changes in Bill
C-45 will close that gap by removing the requirement to determine
whether serious harm occurred in sex offences involving children.
In the area of federal corrections much has been done to make
the system more responsive to the demands for increased attention
to public safety. Correctional Service Canada has experienced
rapid and unprecedented growth in the number of sex offenders in
its custody. The rate has been quite disproportionate compared to
the overall increase in the federal inmate population.
In the past 10 years the number of sex offenders in federal
penitentiaries has grown at a faster rate than any other group. From
December 1990 to December 1994 the number of sex offenders
under the jurisdiction of Correctional Service Canada increased by
almost 50 per cent, while the total population increased by 10 per
cent. In 1984 they represented little more than 7 per cent of the
total federal inmate population. Today, however, nearly one-quarter
of the incarcerated population and 17 per cent of the supervised
14966
population are sex offenders. As of January 1995 there were an
estimated 4,900 with sexual related offences in their sentences.
(1105)
This increase is the net result of a number of factors. Ten years
ago about 14,000 reports on sex offences came to the attention of
police each year. Today police receive more than 30,000 such
reports annually. The police have become better trained in
investigative procedures determining the profiles of sex offenders
and in their sensitivity to victims.
As well, attitudes have changed. Victims are much more willing
to come forward. We have seen cases being prosecuted that
occurred almost 30 years ago. There have been legislative changes
resulting in new offences that were not investigated or prosecuted
10, 20 or 30 years ago.
Our society has seen decreased tolerance. The length of
sentences being imposed by the courts has also increased. In 1991
the average length of sentence for sex offenders was 4.2 years.
Today it is well over five years on average.
The trend therefore is that more sex offenders are entering the
federal correctional system. They are staying longer and many are
quite likely to be detained until the expiry of their sentence.
Of the 555 offenders detained today, 60 per cent are sex
offenders. Correctional Service Canada, therefore, has had to
respond to this dramatic increase by quickly expanding its
treatment capacity from less than 100 offenders 10 years ago to
more than 1,800 today.
This year it will increase to over 2,200. The correctional service
has also increased the amount of money devoted to this area of
treatment during the past five years. Expenditures in the coming
years will increase by another $1.3 million in addition to last year's
estimated $11 million.
Recognizing that treatment does not stop at the front gate of a
prison, the correctional service has also expanded its capacity for
follow-up treatment and relaxed prevention in the community for
offenders under conditional release.
Seven hundred of the eighteen hundred treatment placements
currently available are being provided in the community. To its
credit the correctional service with the help of many experts has
developed and implemented among the best programs and risk
assessment tools of any other correctional jurisdiction in the world.
In late March the correctional service sponsored a national
conference on sex offender treatment in Toronto. More than 400
experts and practitioners from across Canada, as well as the United
States, Belgium, New Zealand and Norway, met to share
knowledge and expertise in this important area.
To ensure that the service maintains its high standard of
performance, a national strategy on sex offenders has been
developed which is being shared with provincial mental health and
correctional agencies to achieve a national consensus on standards
for the assessment and treatment of sex offenders.
It must be said, however, that experts and practitioners the world
over do not claim there is a cure for sex offenders. There is no
single cause for this form of deviant behaviour and there is no
single approach to treatment.
Instead there is a need for a continuum of treatment from
intensive to intermediate to low intensity and a strong emphasis on
managing risk through relaxed prevention. The latter involves
teaching these inmates to recognize the factors that led to the
commission of their crimes as well as avoidance and coping
techniques for dealing with high risk situations. Even though the
treatment programs and assessment tools are acknowledged to be
among the best in the world, the state of knowledge unfortunately
is not 100 per cent perfect, and it is unlikely it will ever be.
(1110)
Sex offenders are not a homogeneous group. The nature of their
offences vary. Their treatment needs vary. Their security levels
vary. Not all sex offenders pose the same risk to the community
when they are released. The majority of them will be released
eventually whether under some form of conditional release or on
expiration of their sentences.
The correctional service has conducted a number of follow-up
research studies to acquire a better understanding of the rates of
reoffending for treated and untreated sex offenders. It is too early to
draw any firm conclusions, but by and large sex offenders who
have participated in treatment programs have a greater probability
of success than those who are untreated.
A three-year follow-up of nearly 1,200 sex offenders released
from prison between 1985 and 1987 revealed that 6 per cent were
readmitted for another sex offence. Almost 14 per cent were
returned to prison for a variety of non-sexual offences and 11 per
cent were readmitted for some form of technical violation of
release conditions.
We know full well that statistics are of little comfort to the
families of victims of these offenders in the aftermath of a tragedy.
However I assure members of the House, indeed all Canadians, that
tragic incidents also have a profound impact on correctional staff.
It strengthens its resolve to improve the assessment procedures and
the quality of treatment programs.
14967
Real progress is being made to ensure greater protection for
Canadians, especially from violent sex offenders who pose a high
risk to women and children. The government has taken a very
balanced approach and will continue to launch new initiatives in
coming months to demonstrate its commitment to doing
everything it can to make our homes and our communities safer.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
quick question for the hon. member. Earlier we heard the
parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general speak. I heard some
of the same things a few minutes ago about treatment for our
criminals that is going to be delivered, what we are going to do.
We are forever spending lots of money on treatment of these
types of individuals. The victims need treatment as well for the
trauma they go through, but we do not spend a nickel on treatment
for victims. Nor do we provide them with any psychological help
or any number of things. We do not do anything in that regard.
Now we are to spend more money because our treatment
programs are to be better than they have ever been. The prisons will
tell us that they have a tough time delivering treatment programs
now, and they have had a tough time doing it over the last 10 years.
All of a sudden we have a piece of legislation that is to make it
happen and it is to be really good.
I have two questions. Why not spend some time helping victims
in the same regard? If this is to be done in the prisons, where in the
devil are you to get the money?
The Deputy Speaker: I ask all hon. members to put their
questions through the Chair.
Mr. Chan: Mr. Speaker, it is not true the government has not
done anything for victims. Legislation is in place or in process
dealing with restitution for victims of crime and helping them in
different areas. It is incorrect for him to make that kind of
statement. Treatment is so important in the prevention of crime.
Sex offenders vary in the degree of their sickness and they need
different types of treatment. A blanket coverage of just putting
them all in jail forever or not give them conditional release, so they
could be treated before they are released into the public is pure
irresponsibility.
(1115)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what a
wonderful thing I just heard, all the great things that are being done
for victims across the country. That is just not true.
All we need to do is visit any victim, as I did yesterday, the
family of Louis Ambas in Scarborough. Tell me one thing that has
been done by the government for the family of that individual, the
orphans and the widow. Nothing has been done.
I get tired of the same old rhetoric about the wonderful things
being done for victims. Wonderful things are being done for the
criminals. Their rights are looked after so much. Boy, are we going
to treat them and help those poor guys and ladies. We are going to
really do our best to make sure they are well looked after.
I will say it again, nothing is being done for victims, nothing. If I
knew how to say it in French, I would make sure I said it once
more.
For the last two years the government has brought forward
legislation such as Bills C-37, C-41, C-68 and now C-45. All this
legislation reminds me of an old motto of my mother, and probably
your mother too, Mr. Speaker: ``Put a little spoonful of sugar with
the medicine and it will go down''. That is what the government
has done with every one of these pieces of legislation. It has
sprinkled in a little sugar in Bill C-37, very little mind you, but
some would say that is not a bad idea. After looking at the whole
bill there are so many rotten things in it that we just cannot support
it.
Bill C-41 is a really good example. There are some things in it
that are not bad. Then we get petitions tabled here, letters from all
across Canada about Bill C-41 saying: ``Do not include sexual
orientation in section 18.2. If the government includes that section,
don't vote for it''.
I know these people across the way table many of those
petitions. I know that many of those people across the way have
tried to amend that section. Some of them really made a big effort.
Some of them voted against the bill and got punished because they
did what Canadians wanted. Is that not a shame? I think you know
what I am talking about in that regard, Mr. Speaker. What a shame.
However, we are the bad guys. We did not support Bill C-41
because of all the fine things it is going to do. We tried to amend
them. Members from the Liberal Party tried to amend the bill and
make it better. It did not happen. If they voted against it, look out.
Along comes Bill C-68. That sucker is that thick, about 167 to
180 pages. The government sprinkled some sugar on about 17
pages that addressed the criminal. The rest of the bill addressed the
duck hunters, deer hunters, rabbit shooters, gopher shooters, target
shooters, gun collectors; the legal, the law-abiding citizens, the
taxpayers, the hard working people that pay those wonderful
pensions Liberal members all took, with the exception of a few
who I am glad did not. That is what that bill attacks. Seventeen
pages of the bill have a little sugar and we are supposed to support
it because of those 17 pages. Why can we not pull those out and
give us an opportunity to do that?
(1120)
The government really makes it tough when it creates legislation
like that. Is it a game being played in the justice system? If we took
Bill C-37 and piled it on top of Bill C-41 and piled Bill C-68 on
there and piled Bill C-45 on that we would have a stack quite high.
They took millions of dollars to create. They are written in a bunch
14968
of gobbledegook that a guy like me who has 16 years of education
does not have the vaguest idea of what one-tenth of it means.
Therefore, we rely on the help we can get. We get researchers to
help us out. We even go to the justice committee and ask some of
our colleagues from the other party who are really good at doing
that. I really appreciate their efforts. They are able to tear into that
legislation. I really appreciate when some of the members of the
Liberal Party come forward with amendments that will make the
legislation better. Add more sugar in there, I like that. Let us do
that.
However, if a Liberal member is effective on a committee like
that and dares to vote against the front line on any issue that he or
she might disagree with, then he or she is out of that committee.
They are bad boys or bad girls because they did not vote with the
government. Democracy? Democracy in a pig's eye.
That is what makes it so hard. That is why when we look at some
parts of Bill C-45 we say: ``Darn, that is a good idea. I would really
like to support that''. However, the government makes it
impossible with all of the other gobbledegook that is put in there.
I listened to the justice minister, who challenged me to join with
him in helping to make the country safer. However when I stand
here and move a motion that asks why we want to limit dangerous
sexual offenders to only those who offend children, why not
everyone, what happens? Who can argue with the fact that we
should not keep dangerous child sexual offenders in jail? Who can
argue against that? I cannot. However, should it make any
difference that the one they are keeping in has offended 13, 14, 15
or 16-year olds and the one they are not going to keep in has
offended against 19, 20 and 21-year olds, grown woman or 85-year
olds? That is what does not make any sense.
Therefore, we stand and move a motion. I defy anyone to tell me
there is a big difference between raping a 17-year old and raping an
18 or 19-year old. Tell me there is a big difference. We moved a
motion to amend that. Did we get support? No, not one bit. The
little boys on the front line probably passed the word that the
backbenchers were not allowed to vote for it. When their strings are
pulled the puppets jump up and the arms vote the way they are told
because they do not want any more punishment. If they get any
more punishment they lose the ear of the government. I have news
for them, the government is going to lose the ear of the public. It is
sick and tired of it.
There was a rally last night in Scarborough of nearly 500 people.
They are fed up to here. Simplistic is a guy who jumps up like a
puppet and does not vote for his constituents. Simplistic is when
you do not think for yourself, stand on your own feet and represent
Canadians. Instead, you represent the front row, that is simplistic.
What an easy way to earn $64,000 a year. It is real easy.
Let us look at Bill C-45, the bill dealing with dangerous
offenders. What about the parole boards? We have a serious
problem in this country. We are going broke. However, we are
going to put in more things to help these criminals. We are going to
give them more treatments. We are going to keep the parole boards
active. The parole boards cost quite a bit of dollars.
(1125)
I hear over and over again from the people who work closest
with the criminals that it really should be handled at their level.
Maybe now would be the time to consider there not even be a
parole board, that releases should be determined by the case
workers, the guards, the psychologists and the people who work in
the prisons closest to the inmates. Why not consider that?
Wait a minute. If we got rid of the parole board, guess what? A
whole lot of positions would disappear. Some people would not be
appointed to it so they could stick their snouts in the trough. We
cannot have that. It is the traditional way. We have been doing it for
30 years. Let us not do anything different.
I asked the government to make it mandatory that bad decisions
by parole boards be totally reviewed. In Bill C-45 it may be done.
We wanted it to be mandatory. It makes sense. The ordinary Joe on
the street anywhere would say: ``Sure, why not?'' What is wrong
with a little accountability?
I do not think there is a person in this place who did not come
from some job somewhere where they had to be accountable in that
job. Why should it be any less now in government or in an
appointed position? That is all we were asking for. The answer was
no. The Liberals would not vote for it.
I asked for mandatory restitution. There is a clause in Bill C-45
that says 30 per cent of the wages earned in prison are to be paid
back to the government to pay room and board. Nobody can argue
with that. It is not a bad idea. I realize that is not a great amount of
money but even a little bit helps. I simply wanted a motion that
said: ``How about taking that 30 per cent and giving it to the
victims, to the widows, helping them out?'' After all, the
government is looking after the victims. No. No. That could not be
considered. I really do not understand.
Then all of a sudden I do understand. There are probably quite a
few people on the backbench who would like to support it but the
boys in the front row pull the strings and up jump the puppets and
away we go again.
When I look at the legislation that has been written, that stack, I
wonder why it cannot be in a little better language, something that
an ordinary guy could sit down, read and maybe understand what
we are doing. Or does it have to be produced that way so we can
keep all those ants running around the justice building over there,
all those senior bureaucrats making a lot more money than we are,
so they can continue to put this stuff together and make sure not to
get to the meat of the problem. Just make sure to sprinkle a little
sugar throughout the whole thing so that we would look like fools if
14969
we did not support it. That way we can keep those fellows
employed all the time.
It is wonderful. Just wonderful. A bunch of bureaucrats running
around, do nothing bureaucrats creating a bunch of stuff the
ordinary Canadian, including the member across, cannot
understand. It cannot be read nor understood. I am just trying to
make sense out of it.
Instead of spending millions of dollars putting stuff like that
together, how about taking that money and putting some guards
down at Port Erie where the trucks drive through. Customs cannot
even stop them because they do not have enough help.
The attorney general for Ontario says that trucks are coming
through driven by criminals. What do we do? I am sure they are
over there working on it right now. There will be another Bill
C-926 or whatever it will be called. It will be thick and full of
gobbledegook. It will not be as simple as saying: ``Look, there is a
problem. Let us fix it''. That is not the way it is done. The game is
not being played right.
(1130 )
I am tired of playing the game. I have been here two years and I
have been listening to nothing but games. We ought to be able to
accomplish something in the House. Instead, the best thing that has
yet happened is the legislation on DNA testing. The only reason
that happened is this party put the Liberals in a corner and they had
to do it. They refused it for a year. Then all of a sudden out of the
blue they decided it was a good idea, after I had asked for about the
tenth time.
I do not know how members of that party can sit opposite to us
and laugh, thinking this is all a big joke. I wish they had spent an
afternoon with me talking to a few widows and orphans. I would
bet they probably do not know what a victim of crime looks like.
I wish they had been with me when I spoke with the mother of
the five-year old girl who was found in a garbage dumpster in
Calgary with her throat cut. She is a single mother with no income,
barely making ends meet. She has not received one penny's worth
of help and has two other people living with her. The best they
come up with over there are giggles and laughs.
Somebody is going to wake the government up. I am trying to. I
am sure I will not accomplish it but I will guarantee there are
Canadians all across the country. Your day is coming. You guys at
the pig trough talk about 1.5 million kids starving in this country. I
have news: Let us all give up our pensions and steer that money
toward those starving children. What is wrong with that? You are
too greedy.
Mr. Bodnar: You are on pension already.
Mr. Thompson: The hon. member does not even know what he
is talking about. If he wants to talk to me about my teacher's
pension I will be more than glad to do it. Once he understands it I
am sure he will say: ``Well, I didn't realize that''.
Let us solve the problems. There are hungry children in this
world and people living in poverty. Do something. Join the rest of
us, including six of your own members. Give up those pensions and
let us do something. Let us steer that money that way. You do not
want to? You like what you have? You live with it and wait until the
next election. You explain it to people in your community who may
have these starving kids. You explain to them why we continually
bring up legislation-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has used the word you
referring to other members at least four times in the last three
minutes. I ask him please if he is using the word you to refer to
whoever happens to be sitting in the Chair.
Mr. Thompson: There I go again. Mr. Speaker, you realize what
I am saying. If these people are starving and hungry and there is
poverty in Canada, why do we not do something? We have had
more and more opportunities. I am fed up to here. This justice
system is not a justice system; it is a legal system. It is an industry.
My goodness we spend a lot of money in this industry. We take
forever to get the Bernardos convicted. We spend millions. We plea
bargain with the Homolkas. We pay Clifford Olson $10,000 for
every body he leads us to. Does that make any sense at all?
My hon. colleague will sit over there and say: ``Ah, that
simplistic old fool''. Another will say: ``Just because that guy
taught for 30 years in a school, he is not entitled to $900 a month
pension'', even though it is all my money to begin with.
An hon. member: Not taxpayers' money.
Mr. Thompson: It was not taxpayers' money.
I am more than pleased to give up my pension in the House. I am
not an opportunist. I do not plan to make a career out of politics. I
plan on trying the very best I can to get some laws changed so that
my grandchildren-I have three of them who are about this
big-and your grandchildren and a few more young children and
women will be more than pleased to go downtown by themselves
and feel safe. What is wrong with that?
(1135)
I know what is going to happen though. The cabinet will decide
and the puppets will vote and support its wishes. It is not the justice
14970
system that will grow; the Liberal system will grow. That is a real
danger to Canadians.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member in his usual folksy and entertaining way has made a
speech in which, of course, he has managed for the most part to
stay away from the subject matter before the House today, Bill
C-45. He has ranged over the Young Offenders Act, MPs pensions,
his travels throughout the country, but what has he really talked
about? Has he really addressed the issues of Bill C-45?
The reason I am up is that yesterday the hon. member visited the
very nice community of Scarborough of which I am privileged to
be one of the five members of Parliament. Five hundred and fifty
thousand people live in the city of Scarborough. I hope we made
the hon. member feel welcome as a member of Parliament and that
he had the opportunity to express his point of view which in a
democracy everybody is entitled to do.
I want to talk about Bill C-45 and ask the hon. member a
question. He talked about gobbledegook. He talked about how laws
are written in gobbledegook. That may be if one is not a lawyer.
What we do in the House is write and pass laws. If we do not
understand them, somebody has to understand them. We hope that
they are the lawyers in the justice department. If they do not
understand them, then as has been done in the past, the courts will
tell us what they mean. I will be referring to that very topic in my
speech in a few moments. We do not want to be told by the courts
what we meant. Therefore we had all better make an effort to
understand this gobbledegook because if we do not understand it,
then we are at the mercy of the lawyers.
The previous speaker from the hon. member's party gave the nub
of the problem of the Reform Party which is that there is really
nothing wrong with Bill C-45. It is actually kind of good. It
actually does some good amending to former Bill C-36. However
the Reform members dare not support it because, in the words of
the hon. member for Medicine Hat, that might be enough and we
will not go any further.
I recall the Reform Party members, when they came here, saying
they would do things differently. They were not going to oppose for
the sake of opposing. If something was good, they would support it.
What is really wrong with Bill C-45 that the member cannot
support it while still making the points he makes about the various
other topics he spoke about?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is more of what is not
there than what is there which bothers me. I talked about dangerous
offenders. I hope the message went out that I feel it should not
apply to the offenders of children only. It should go beyond that to a
great extent. Because my time ran out I did not get a chance to talk
about a couple of other things that should be in the bill.
For example, drugs are a very serious problem in our prisons. I
am sure hon. members including the member for Scarborough West
would agree that they are a serious problem. I am trying to figure
out why we have not brought in legislation which says there will be
no more drugs in the prisons that they will be out of there. Does it
make any sense when 70 per cent of the people going in there have
a drug problem? Yet they are sending them to a place where drugs
are more accessible than they are on any street. We are going to
rehabilitate them while they are in there. Think about that.
(1140)
Here is a guy who is going to prison. He represents about 70 per
cent of the prison population in that he has a drug problem. That is
why he got into trouble to begin with. We are sending him to a
prison where drugs are more accessible than they are on the streets.
To help him we will give him the bleach program or sterilized
needles. Then in four years we will let him out and he will be
rehabilitated. We might as well take an alcoholic and sentence him
to a wine cellar for six months and see how well he is fixed when he
gets out.
It is not so much what is in the bill, but it is a lot of what is not
there that should be. There are some things in there we would like
to support, but why do we always have to make the tough decision
about supporting something we do not want to in other parts?
I know the hon. member struggled with Bill C-41. There are
some good things in Bill C-41. Should we support it? That is the
decision which is always tough. They could do better when it
comes to the gobbledegook. Why do we not stick to what
Canadians want? Why do we not listen as parliamentarians to what
Canadians say? My people are saying: ``We want this; we want
that. Now write the laws''. Is it so difficult that these guys over
there are so smart that they cannot write in common English,
French or a language we can understand?
The hon. member is right. We had better understand it. I am
trying to make every effort I can to understand it. It is too bad we
cannot pick up a lot more by ourselves without having to get a
bunch of help to do it. I do not know if it is possible, but if it is not
impossible let us fix it. Let us give a direction to the authors of our
laws that from now on when they write income tax laws or criminal
justice laws they are written so that the farmer in Alberta or the
bushman in British Columbia can sit down, look at them and
understand them. That is simplistic according to some members
but to me it is common sense.
Why do we not take the good things that the people want? Let us
listen to them and talk about them as parliamentarians. We should
put our differences aside and say: ``Here are some things we have
really got to fix''. Why do we not go into committees together,
14971
work together and get this done? Because it is not the Liberal way.
It is not the Conservative way. It is not the way we do it in Canada.
Maybe it is time to change.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine made a very eloquent
presentation. I was surprised that my colleague on the other side
did not listen to the parliamentary secretary. All that Bill C-45 does
is close some of the loopholes which exist in the present system.
Does the hon. member have a problem with the government
making it easier for the parole board to keep people in the
penitentiaries until the end of their offences if they are sex
offenders or repeat offenders? Does he have a problem with the
parole board being able to keep people who have committed violent
crimes until the end of their sentence? Does he have a problem with
those two recommendations? If he does not, does that mean he will
support the bill when it comes before the House for the vote on
third reading?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, there again he is talking about a
bill which is this thick and he talked about a very small portion of
the bill. That is what he talked about.
Certainly I can support that idea. Can I support the entire
package? If I want to support that idea I have to vote for the whole
ball of wax. It reminds me of the Charlottetown accord. How many
times has the Prime Minister said: ``You do not want a triple-E
Senate; if you had wanted a triple-E Senate you would have voted
for the Charlottetown accord''. Hogwash. That is maybe one thing
in there we did like, but there was a whole pile of stuff in there that
people did not like, obviously, or it would not have gone the way it
did. Sometimes you do not buy the whole package because of some
good stuff.
(1145)
That is why it is really difficult when we sit over here. When the
government does produce something that has the sugar in it that we
like, the things that ought to be in there, why does it colour it black
with some other stuff when it knows people do not want it? Why do
we have to buy the whole package?
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have been listening attentively to the debate. I have listened
attentively to the Reform Party and its position.
It is difficult to be in opposition. The Reform Party sometimes
forgets that our party was in opposition for nine years. It is not as if
we do not know what it is like to be in opposition and how difficult
it is sometimes.
I gather basically that what the Reform Party is saying is there is
nothing wrong with Bill C-45 per se; what is wrong is there is not
more in it. I take some solace in that. There is nothing wrong with
Bill C-45 specifically. Everything can be improved. We can always
do better. There can always be suggestions coming forward based
on what happens in certain cases. That is no reason not to support a
bill in which there is nothing really wrong, other than that it is not
thick enough, I guess would be the way we would put it.
In my brief time I will concentrate on two aspects of Bill C-45 in
the context of how individual members of Parliament can make a
difference to the legislative process. This is reasonably relevant in
view of the member's comments about puppets. There is an
unfortunate belief pervading Canada that the individual member of
Parliament cannot do anything, cannot contribute, does not make a
difference.
I will talk about the history of this bill and what happens when
individual members of Parliament take an interest. What piqued
my interest in this topic was what one of the Reform Party justice
critics said last Wednesday, September 20, 1995, the hon. member
for Crowfoot, with whom I have worked on the justice committee.
On page 14658 of Hansard:
Canadians can no longer tolerate the likes of Wray Budreo, who psychiatrists
diagnosed as a sadistic pedophile having a 30-year history of molesting
children, being released unsupervised from a maximum security prison because
correctional services did not have the power to detain him even though the
parole board ruled him likely to reoffend. They cannot tolerate it because the
cost is far too high.
I have had an intimate relationship and knowledge of that
particular section of the previous act and of the Wray Budreo case,
which I am about to relate. I thought my friends in the Reform
Party might be interested in the facts of that matter. They do not
quite gibe with the quoted comments of the hon. member for
Crowfoot.
While we were in opposition I was the official opposition critic
for the solicitor general. As such, I was charged by my party with
watching over Bill C-36, the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act. I struggled with my party with the very points my friends in
the Reform Party have brought up today. Ultimately, we voted
against the bill.
I put in something like 20 or 30 amendments, which were
accepted and which in my view strengthened the bill. In the end, in
our view there were sufficient problems with it to vote against it. In
a parliamentary democracy we lost the vote and the bill proceeded.
It is now the law of the land. It has been implemented. Correctional
services asked us to give the bill a chance to work and if we found
any errors we would plug them, thus Bill C-45.
(1150)
Before Bill C-45 we came up with the problem of Wray Budreo,
and that is specifically section 130 of the act. My friend will know
how things go in these deliberations. We go over it with a fine tooth
14972
comb, line by line, word by word, comma by comma. Fifteen or
nine or however many members of the justice committee who were
there at that time missed something. We did not purposely overlook
it; we simply missed it. That was the serious harm clause which
states that by statute every prisoner must be released after serving
two-thirds of their term.
I am not talking about a life sentence here. Generally, if there is a
fixed term then after two-thirds of that term you must be released
unless certain things happen. One of those is a reference to the
board. If the board finds that an offender, if released, is likely to
commit an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another
person before the expiration of the offender's sentence, according
to law the board can order that they be kept in for the balance of
their sentence.
We read that, agreed with it and passed it. I did not offer any
amendments. What happened was that the Wray Budreo case
pointed out to us that we had missed something. What happened?
Wray Budreo is not, I suppose, depending on how you use the
words, a sadistic pedophile, which implies what we might call
actual physical assault on children. Wray Budreo is a pedophile,
there is no doubt about it; but as far as we knew from the profile he
did not sodomize young boys. What he liked to do was in effect pet
them on the abdomen. This caused him sexual pleasure.
The board took the interpretation that petting a child in that
manner, not even touching the sexual area, just the abdomen, was
not serious harm as defined in that section. Serious harm was
deemed to be, for example, sodomizing a young child. Of course, a
petting would not be an offence likely to cause death.
The board felt its hands were tied and it would have to let Wray
Budreo out after he had served two-thirds of his sentence. It agreed
he was likely to reoffend. It agreed he was likely to find other
children and touch them on the abdomen and various other places.
It also agreed he was not likely to cause death and he was not likely
to cause serious harm as that section had been interpreted.
When that hit the papers, perhaps to use some of the rhetoric of
my friend, I went ballistic. I brought this matter before the justice
committee, which at that time was chaired by Mr. Bob Horner, a
Conservative. The committee was controlled by Conservatives. I
asked the committee to review this section and see if we could
come up with a suggested approach for the government. All of the
parties agreed, and the New Democrats were represented on that
committee as well. We undertook a study of section 130 in specific
reference to the Wray Budreo case and we came up with a
unanimous report, which we tabled in the House of Commons.
Sadly or perhaps happily, depending on whether we are looking
at it politically or in terms of solving this problem, we were
approaching the end of the Conservative mandate. There was not
enough time for the Conservative government to react to this
unanimous report.
The current solicitor general reacted to it immediately. As soon
as he was appointed solicitor general one of the first bills he
brought in was Bill C-45, the government's response to what I have
just laid out as what happened in the Budreo case.
I will now quote from the amendment to section 130, contained
in section 43: ``The board may order that the offender not be
released from imprisonment before the expiration of the offender's
sentence according to law, where the board is satisfied'', among
other things, ``that the offender is likely if released to commit a
sexual offence involving a child before the expiration of the
offender's sentence according to law''.
(1155)
That is a direct response to a private member's initiative, which
plugs the Wray Budreo loophole. That is a response brought
forward by the government in direct response to the entreaties
initially by me and ultimately the justice committee. It addresses a
wrong and a loophole we did not notice in our initial examination
of the bill.
That is the history behind that amendment. That is why the
amendment has been brought forward. It still leaves in place the
requirement of death or serious harm for other circumstances, but it
protects children.
Often the very damaging serious psychological harm takes 20 or
30 years to manifest itself. While touching the abdomen of a young
child might not be considered serious harm in a physical sense, it
might be serious harm in a psychological sense 20 years later. That
is the whole purpose behind this particular section.
This is an example of what individual members of Parliament on
a committee can do in terms of strenghthening legislation.
Clearly this is an amendment that needs to be supported. If it is
in a bill that has all kinds of other terrible things in it, obviously we
cannot support it. If it is in a bill that for all intents and purposes is
not criticized except for what is not in it, it can be supported and
still go after what is not in the bill in amendments by members at
committee and in private members' bills. Sometimes the germ of
the idea of a private member's bill gets accepted by the government
of the day.
The second aspect I wish to talk about in Bill C-45 pertains to
section 743.6 of the Criminal Code. I relate it to private members
and what I talked about in my question to my hon. friend about the
courts, whether we tell the courts what we mean or whether they
tell us what we mean.
According to law you must be released after serving two thirds
of a fixed sentence unless certain things occur, which I just talked
14973
about. In the same way, you are automatically by law eligible to be
considered for parole after serving one third of your sentence.
In some circumstances, and I am sure my friends in the Reform
Party will agree, there are egregious cases in which people say no,
there should not be automatic eligibility for parole after one third
of your sentence.
A section was passed in the Criminal Code which in part says:
``Where an offender receives a sentence of imprisonment of two
years or more for an offence set out in schedule I or II to that act'',
that is very serious offences, prosecuted by way of indictment, ``the
court may, if satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the
commission of the offence and the character and circumstances of
the offender, that the expression of society's denunciation of the
offence or the objective of specific or general deterrence so
requires, order that the portion of the sentence that must be served
before the offender may be released on full parole is one half of the
sentence or 10 years, whichever is less''.
What does all that mean? It means that if a judge sees a case that
he thinks requires that the offender serve at least one half of his
time before being eligible for parole then he can so order under this
section. In my view, it is pretty clear what the House of Commons
meant by ``the objective of specific or general deterrence so
requires''. What do I know about what is clear?
(1200)
On February 20 of this year there was an article in the Toronto
Star about a drug trafficker. The trial judge, quite rightly I think,
thought it was a pretty bad crime, that we did not want drug
traffickers, particularly in heroin. The gentleman was sentenced to
only three years, but the court ordered that he serve one-half of his
sentence before he be considered eligible for parole.
Because I do not rely on what is in the newspapers I did some
research by pulling the court of appeal decision in the case and
finding the trial judge's reasons which stated:
The most important factors of sentencing that ought to be brought to bear in
my mind on this case are the factors of individual and general deterrence.
General deterrence means that the sentence should send a message to other
persons in like situations, or who are considering becoming involved in like
situations, that this is likely what you will receive.
The trial judge got it right. That is exactly what the House meant
when we passed the legislation. It was as clear as a bell to me and I
thought it was clear in the words of the section.
Along comes the court of appeal of the province of Ontario to
state the following:
Unfortunately the wording of section 741.2 provides the judge with very
little guidance to determine when this exceptional authority over parole
eligibility should be exercised.
It also states:
The presumption is that Parliament intended section 741.2 to have some
additional purpose.
I thank the court of appeal. Of course it did. It then states:
It then falls to the courts to give the section meaning and function.
When I read that I said that it was wrong. It is up to us to tell the
courts what we mean when we pass a statute. Therefore I brought
the matter to the attention of the justice committee. My friend from
Wild Rose was on the justice committee at that time. I pointed out
that was not the intention.
The court of appeal overruled the trial judge and stated that the
section could only be used in the rarest of circumstances and that in
all cases rehabilitation of the offender must be paramount. That
was not the intention of Parliament. I was here and I know what the
intention of Parliament was. We heard the debates, which were
obviously not read by the court of appeal.
The court of appeal states:
In my view section 741.2 should only be invoked as an exceptional measure
where the crown has satisfied the court on clear evidence that an increase in the
period of parole ineligibility is required.
There is no onus in this section for the crown to shown anything.
There is no requirement on the crown to prove anything.
Therefore I asked the justice committee if it would consider an
amendment for the sole purpose of overturning the Court of
Appeal's interpretation of what Parliament meant when it passed
that section. The result of my request to the justice committee is
subparagraph (2) of that section, an amendment in Bill C-45 which
states:
For greater certainty, the paramount principles which are to guide the court
under this section, are denunciation and specific or general deterrence with
rehabilitation of the offender, in all cases, being subordinate to these paramount
principles in this section.
If that is not clear to the court of appeal, we had better send it
back to school.
There was unanimous recommendation of the justice committee.
The government accepted the recommendation and the
amendment. It has already been passed in Bill C-41. It will pass if
we vote for this bill. It is another example of how individual
members of Parliament on their own initiative, working with others
in committees, can make bills better.
I support the bill. We know from the other party there is nothing
wrong with what is in it. We can understand there should be more
things in it. They can work for those, but they should not throw the
baby out with the bath water. I urge members to support the bill.
14974
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I had
a great time in Scarborough. The hospitality was wonderful.
(1205 )
I would like to know about the consecutive sentencing in Bill
C-45. I believe, and memory is getting about as old as the rest of
my body, if people commit another crime when on parole that
sentence is added to what they did not serve on the other crime.
Then they get two-thirds knocked off and are eligible for parole
again after one-third of the time, if I am not mistaken. That is
wrong.
Consecutive sentencing is something the government avoids
talking about. I know it does not happen in the court. It is
deplorable to see people like Bernardo commit nine serious crimes
and only serve the amount of time one of the crimes would call for.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Sixty-two rapes,
plus, plus, plus.
Mr. Thompson: ``Sixty-two rapes, plus, plus, plus''. Clifford
Olson committed 12 murders but is only serving time on one.
Could the member tell me if he has any knowledge about why we
cannot change that and make it retroactive for those who were
sentenced previous to Bill C-45?
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Wild
Rose for his question. I believe the hon. member was not referring
to consecutive sentences but rather to multiple sentences contained
in section 139 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. If
there is a section of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
which might qualify as the word my friend used in his previous
speech, gobbledegook, it is that section.
We struggled with the section when we initially went through the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act. We had flow charts. We
had chiefs of police showing us what would happen if someone
sentenced to 20 years for armed robbery committed another
robbery while on parole. He would get out even before he ended up
serving any time on the first offence.
The solicitor general at the time, Mr. Lewis, acknowledged there
was a serious problem, that there was a lot of difficulty, and that he
would set up a commission or a group of people to examine the
matter and come back with some recommendations.
My understanding is that it has been dealt with to some extent in
Bill C-45. However I think there is a lot of room for improvement
with respect to the multiple sentence calculation. As I said, we
missed the Wray Budreo situation but when that situation arose we
dealt with it. Tragically it may very well be that the amendments to
multiple sentencing, the changes to the calculations, have not dealt
with all the problems. It is a very complicated section and a very
complicated area of the law.
However if a case comes down that slips through the cracks or
exposes an egregious error in the calculations that Canadians
simply cannot abide, we will have to come up with an amendment.
I am certain the government of the day will do so. No government
is in the business of permitting loopholes to legislation. No
government is in the business of wanting wild animals to walk the
streets to threaten ordinary law-abiding citizens.
We have made an effort to change section 139. I do not know that
it is perfect. If it is not perfect we will soon know about it.
Whatever government is in power at whatever time will make
whatever changes are necessary to tighten the multiple sentence
calculations.
I cannot sit down without a word about the Bernardo case, which
my friend has raised a number of times. Canadians may not like the
reality of the law, but it is that Paul Bernardo has been sentenced to
life in prison. I am not talking about when and if he will ever be
paroled. He is under a sentence of life and as long as he lives he
will be under a sentence of life imprisonment. As the law currently
stands-and never mind the 15-year faint hope clause for the time
being-he cannot even be considered eligible to apply for parole
until he serves 25 years of his sentence. When he applies for parole,
assuming he does, after that 25 years there is no guarantee he will
get parole. The parole board can refuse him parole for the rest of
his natural life and he can spend the rest of his natural life in prison.
(1210)
Even if he gets parole 25 or 30 years from now, he is still under a
sentence of life imprisonment. If he breaches any of the conditions
of his parole at that time, 25 or 30 years from now, he can be
brought back into the prison system to serve the rest of his
sentence.
I want to make it clear that it is incorrect to say that persons who
commit first degree murder is sentenced to 25 years. That is false.
They are sentenced to life in prison and they have the opportunity
to apply for parole after 25 years.
It is up to the parole board to decide on a case by case basis
whether or not a particular murderer should be granted parole. For
my part I certainly hope that neither Bernardo, Clifford Olson nor
the people who murdered Emanuel Jacques, the shoe shine boy,
ever get out of prison. I hope they rot in their cells, daily
remembering the tragedies they have wrought.
Let us talk facts. These people are under sentences of
imprisonment for life.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I noticed the
member for Scarborough West passed very quickly over the faint
hope clause. I would rather he did not do that.
14975
How does the member feel about clause 745?
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I only passed over it because there is
really not much in it. It is merely a regurgitation.
There will be circumstances where persons change so
dramatically in life-and they will be few and far between-that
they should be given the opportunity to put their situation before a
jury of their peers, not a judge but ordinary citizens like us.
My problem with the current section is that the persons only
have to convince two-thirds of a jury. When they were convicted
the jury had to be unanimous that they were guilty. However under
the current provisions of section 745 they have to show two-thirds
of the jurors that they should be allowed to apply for parole before
they serve 25 years.
It should be a unanimous requirement. If they cannot convince a
jury unanimously that they are entitled to early parole eligibility,
they should not get it.
In the absence of an amendment saying that, I do not support
section 745 as it is currently drawn. The hon. member for York
South-Weston has moved a private member's bill in that regard
which I supported at second reading and which I support now.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, nothing strikes a chord more deeply in the heart and soul
of Canadians than the issues we are discussing today. Crime,
punishment and safety are essential to their feelings of security.
Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act, deals with many very important issues such as
detaining sex offenders of children, a system to remove parole
board members, a system to deal with reoffenders while on parole,
and a system to deal with restitution to the state. All these are
integrally important changes that must be made to our justice
system.
However, tragically we see again a lost opportunity. Another
opportunity we have had to deal with these very important issues
and make a significant impact upon our justice system has now
passed us by because the government has done what it usually does,
that is nibble around the edges.
I will make some constructive suggestions which my colleagues
in my party have been working very hard on, issues that we have
tried to convince the government to enact for the betterment of all
Canadians. Once again it has failed to do so.
The first deals with sex offenders and it only deals with sex
offenders of children. Sex offences involving anyone is a crime.
Whether it is done to adults or children, by men or women, it is a
crime and it needs to be dealt with very severely.
(1215)
We should be imposing sentences which have as their primary
purpose the protection of society and innocent civilians. What we
have seen in the criminal courts for decades is that the rights and
protection of innocent civilians have not been held in as high a
regard as they could have been. In many cases we have seen the
rights of the criminals being held in higher regard than the rights of
innocent civilians. The innocent civilians have paid the price,
tragically at times with their lives, because the justice department
has not done its job.
There is the case in my riding of Robert Owens. He is a
pedophile. He used to be a principal in a school. He had committed
over 1,000 sexual offences. The reason they know that is he used to
make a record on a Garfield calendar every time he committed a
sexual offence on a child. His sentence was for 13 years. He served
eight and a half years and is now living among his victims in my
riding near a school. When we brought this to the attention of the
authorities they said: ``We are sorry. Our hands are tied. That is the
law''. If that is the law, the law is not doing a good enough job of
protecting those victims living in that community.
I ask any member of the House to put themselves in the shoes of
those victims. They have to completely change their lifestyle. The
system does not address it but my colleagues have been putting
forward constructive suggestions to address it.
We also need a better system to deal with parole board members.
There have been numerous tragic situations brought up by my
colleagues. There are some constructive things which we can do.
First, do not make them appointments, make them public service
jobs.
Second, I was appalled that the parole board members, who are
in effect acting like judges, go into the job often having no
knowledge of justice issues. I find that absolutely incredible. How
can we have parole board members who are appointed to positions
making decisions with respect to people who could pose a
significant threat to Canadian society when they have very little or
no knowledge of the justice system? Make those people public
servants and ensure they get the job based on merit.
An hon. member: It's not the Liberal way.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Third, as my
colleague from Wild Rose said, if a person is on parole and
commits an offence they must serve the remainder of their sentence
before they are sentenced again, and the sentencing must run
consecutively, not concurrently.
Fourth, the bill supposedly deals with restitution. It proposes that
up to 30 per cent of what an incarcerated individual makes should
go to the state. What about the victims? Who gives money to them?
There is no ample compensation for victims, particularly for those
14976
who are victims of violent crime. It would be far more productive if
the individual who has committed the offence knows full well that
he will have to pay directly to the victim moneys to compensate for
the harm he has done.
The bill deals with sentencing. We have spoken about criminals
being eligible for parole after serving one-third of their sentence.
Karla Homolka will be eligible for parole after serving three years
of her sentence. The public may not be aware that individuals are
eligible for day parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence.
Mr. Milliken: Presuming they get it.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Oftentimes they do
get it.
They are eligible for full parole after serving two-thirds of their
sentence. They only serve a maximum of two-thirds of their
sentence because automatically they are awarded with good
behaviour. A better idea is to ensure that every convicted criminal
will automatically serve the full sentence and that sentence would
be pulled down based on the behaviour of the individual in jail. Let
us not assume that there has been good behaviour, let us make sure
it is earned. There are many ways that can be done.
(1220)
Furthermore all moneys an individual earns in prison should go
to the state to help offset the $60,000 to $100,000 that it costs to
have someone incarcerated and also moneys to the individuals
themselves.
Work and training should be obligatory for individuals who are
incarcerated. The training would go a long way to decrease the
recidivism rate of those in our jails. It would enable people to get
the skills necessary while they are incarcerated so they can become
active and productive members of society. Not enough of that is
done now. Furthermore it is not obligatory which it ought to be, if
someone were to have the wherewithal to do that.
Number six is sentencing. We spoke about section 745 which
should be repealed now. It shows the lame inability of the
government to deal with significant issues of justice by not
addressing section 745.
My colleague from Scarborough mentioned that when people are
sentenced to life they serve life. That is absolute nonsense. I have a
list that is pages long of individuals who were convicted of first
degree murder and because of section 745 their sentence has been
commuted to 15 to 17 years. That includes people who have killed
police officers in cold blood. I am happy to share that list with
anyone in the House.
Is that justice? I hardly think so. That is not the case at all.
Section 745 should be repealed now. The government would be
showing that it is truly committed to justice if it would take heed of
what my colleagues have been saying for so long.
Number seven is young offenders. The government has promised
to deal with the Young Offenders Act and has done virtually
nothing. I implore members of the government to speak to police
officers who are working on the street. Their hands are tied. They
are frustrated with the inability of the justice system to back them
up when dealing with young offenders.
Having worked with young offenders in jail I can say they
receive very little penalty, very little deterrence to committing
offences. That is why we see the terrible rate of recidivism among
young offenders.
Here are a few concrete suggestions. Publish the names of young
offenders. It would send a very clear message that they cannot
engage in these activities with anonymity. Have the stiffer penalties
that my party has been putting forward for a long time. Make work
and school obligatory in their incarceration.
Part of the sentencing problems that we see are because the
justice department and all departments are hamstrung because of a
lack of funds. That is why we see people being released very early
on, earlier than they should be. The trade-off is that the justice
department due to a lack of funding is releasing people to save
money at the expense of the safety of Canadians from coast to
coast. That is not justice.
We have a couple of concrete solutions. We cannot take
individuals who are young offenders, who often grow up in tragic
and terrible home situations, put them into closed custody for a
period of a few months, then put them back in the environment that
they were in and expect things to change. It will not happen.
They are usually in an environment in which there are terrible
cases of substance abuse, physical and sexual abuse and violence.
If they are in this kind of milieu, it is impossible, no matter how
much counselling is given to these kids to actually move forward-
An hon. member: Put them in the military.
An hon. member: Military training.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, I am quite
aware there are some strong views on both sides of this issue.
However I remind you that when members are sitting close to the
person who has the floor time the microphones are open. I am
having a difficult time hearing the intervention of the hon. member.
I ask you to keep that in mind.
(1225 )
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate that.
As I said before, we simply cannot deal with young offenders
and make sure they do not reoffend if they go back to the
14977
environment they were in before, regardless of how much money
is poured into counselling and counselling services.
A better idea is to incarcerate them for a longer time in an area
away from their former environment where they can focus on work
and education in a disciplined environment. It is essential to
remove them from their former environment if we are to ensure
these kids do not become adult offenders in the future. A ounce of
prevention is a pound of cure. It is a worthwhile investment in our
time. It need not cost us more money but it is something we
desperately need to look at now.
We have to look at a new approach for dealing with crime and
punishment. Oftentimes we see the precursors to criminal
behaviour very early on. They are often rooted in cases in which
there is a terrible environment of violent sexual abuse and neglect.
These children need to be identified and picked up very early on.
Furthermore, it would serve many departments well if they were
to work in collaboration with the educational department,
particularly grade school, in trying to identify families at risk, by
bringing the parents into the educational system so that they can
also learn the fundamental aspects of being a good parent and what
is considered to be reasonable behaviour. They in turn can help
when the kids go home and the children will have an environment
that will be conducive to building the pillars of a normal psyche.
There has been some interesting work done on this in a number
of areas. The early data show that this is a very worthwhile
investment of our time. If we can focus more on children when they
are three, four and five and early on to identify families that are in
crisis when a lady is pregnant, if we can have early intervention
into these areas it will pay off in spades later on.
Therefore I strongly implore the government to show a
leadership role in working with its provincial counterparts to try to
address these problems which will decrease the cost to our justice
system, our social programs and make a healthier and safer society
for all Canadians.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member made a good speech in the sense that he set out,
apparently very clearly, six or seven alternatives to the current bill.
I am surprised he is not supporting the bill because all his
colleagues know the bill goes some way to meeting the complaints
they have raised regarding Canada's justice system. Yet because it
does not go far enough, they say they are going to vote against it,
which has to be the silliest logic I have ever heard. I will set that
aside for a moment.
I want to talk about the six or seven points that he raised.
Frankly, they were sugar coated. I think he will admit that because
although he said he wanted to look at sentencing again, he wanted
to revise sentencing here and he wanted to change the rules there to
make things a little different, the underlying message in almost
every one of his points was that he wanted people locked up more
often and for longer.
At the very end of his speech, having said nothing whatsoever
about the cost of incarceration of inmates or persons in prison, he
said: ``Of course if we did these other things we would reduce the
cost of the system''. However, if he does all of the things he listed
at the beginning he will increase the costs enormously. To
incarcerate an inmate in maximum security costs something like
$60,000 a year. It is an extremely expensive process.
What will he do to reduce the cost of the justice system? He says
the government is spending too much money. The Reform Party
has as its policy drastic cuts. Where will it cut in our justice system
if it is to keep throwing people in jail or keeping them there for
much longer?
I urge the hon. member to come to Kingston and tour the prisons.
I will be glad to show him around. I think he would benefit from
learning the way our justice system works and that part of the
purpose of the justice system is to rehabilitate offenders so when
they are released they do not reoffend. We have had remarkable
success, quite frankly, in that. The hon. member should be pointing
out those successes and giving figures.
If the member looked at the day parole statistics, for example,
and he talked about the evils of letting people out early in their
sentence on day parole, he would find that over 95 per cent of
them-possibly 98 per cent but I do not have my little book here to
recite the figures for him-or more are successful. It is a very
successful program. It works and it helps reintegrate inmates into
the community which is important for the long term development
of our communities. We just cannot spring somebody at the end of
a 20-year sentence and expect them to readjust to life outside.
People lead a different life in there.
(1230)
I am not saying that incarceration is not necessary. It is in certain
cases. However it is not necessary to lock everybody up for life
which is what the Reform Party seems to be urging.
Will the hon. member take a tour of prisons in Kingston and
learn something about our prison system before his next speech on
the subject? I know the hon. member for Wild Rose has done that. I
congratulate him for it but obviously it did not work.
Finally, with respect to his own points, will he admit that what he
was proposing would drastically increase costs for our prison
system and greatly increase sentences for offenders in Canada?
14978
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to bring the hon. member back for a reality check.
I used to be a correctional officer and I also worked for seven
years in both adult and young offender jails. I have a little
experience on these issues.
If the hon. member wants to cut costs, I will give him a concrete
way to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the budget every
year. One-third of all individuals incarcerated today are there for
non-payment of fines. Those are the facts.
Mr. Milliken: Nonsense. Not in federal prisons.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, these
individuals should not be in jail. The people who should be
incarcerated are those who have proven to be a threat to society,
who have victimized innocent civilians, usually in a violent
fashion.
There is a trade-off here. Should we save money by discharging
people into the community who would pose a threat to society, or
should we tell the Canadian public that its rights and safety are the
most important things? I believe everyone in the House would
think the latter. The member's point with respect to saving money
is perfectly valid and I have given him a very concrete reason for
doing this.
He mentioned that I did not know anything about the costs. It is
$60,000 a year for an inmate in a federal penitentiary and $90,000
for a youth in a young offender institution. That is too much money.
We have been presenting solutions on how to get inmates to
work for their keep which in turn would cut costs. Again we must
get those individuals who are violent offenders and who might be a
threat to society and those who are incarcerated for non-payment of
fines to work for their keep.
Another thing the hon. member mentioned was recidivism rates.
The recidivism rate is 33 per cent for adults on parole. What is the
recidivism rate for adults once they are off parole? No one can give
me those figures. One thing is for sure, it has to be higher than 33
per cent.
With regard to young offenders, the recidivism rate is 40 per cent
to 50 per cent. Those are the facts. That number is far too great.
Obviously a 40 per cent or 50 per cent recidivism rate does not
serve society and it certainly does not serve the kids who are young
offenders very well.
We have to find a better way. I hope the hon. member will look at
some of the concrete suggestions I have made which do not
necessarily need to cost more if they are organized properly. I know
members in this party would be happy to help anyone on the other
side to make our justice system better for all Canadians.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to follow up on the question raised and the answer given by the
hon. member.
First, people are not in federal penitentiaries for non-payment of
fines. It is important for people to fundamentally understand that
and not to allow the red herring being thrown out by the Reform
Party to confuse the issue.
Second, the member mentioned that he worked in the justice
system with young offenders and adults for seven years. I have
worked in that system and I also worked with young offenders,
adults, victims and victims' groups for 20 years. The hon.
member's example of not incarcerating people for their inability to
pay fines was addressed in Bill C-41.
(1235)
That is something the hon. member with his colleagues voted
against. We on this side and the government supported it. It is
important for people to understand that there is the option now
where somebody does not get incarcerated because they are unable
to pay a fine. If they refuse to do the alternative, then they get
incarcerated. That is a correction which was made to the sentencing
process and which was long overdue.
The member for Wild Rose, a member of the party who
promised to do things differently, calls that socialism. I am amazed
at the shallowness of the member's understanding on this very
complicated issue.
There is a very important point to be made. I wish my colleague
from the islands would put his mind to it that prisons are very
expensive, federal penitentiaries being even more expensive.
Surely the people in prison should be relegated there because
they are a danger to the community and are not able to follow the
conditions of their probation or parole for other crimes. Surely the
member would agree that prisons should be reserved first and
foremost for the small numbers who are a threat to public safety
and second for those people who are given alternative options, say,
for a property offence and not making restitution, not following the
probation order then of course one cannot do much else but enforce
the law that way.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I am
very happy the hon. member agrees with us. I hope he crosses the
floor on this bill.
We believe individuals in a federal penitentiary should be those
who pose a threat to society. There are many ways one can argue a
threat. There are threats in terms of violence and also threats in
terms of those individuals who wilfully cause damage in other
fashions to individuals. It is not only individuals who have been
incarcerated for violent offences.
14979
I hope the hon. member will work with us in devising new and
innovative ways in which we can actually decrease the costs by
not necessarily having individuals incarcerated in expensive,
closed custody, federal penitentiaries. We want new ways in which
we can send a clear message of deterrence to criminals, make sure
that there is a penalty for individuals who are committing an
offence, to deal with the issue we have been trying to deal with
in trying to garner some restitution for the victims and the state,
and ensure that individuals will not continue to reoffend.
We can identify the reasons why they reoffend, address those
reasons and provide individuals with the ability and wherewithal to
become a productive employed member of society. If we work
together on these issues, we will make Canada a safer place.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in the House today at third reading of Bill C-45 to address the
principles, objectives and effects of the legislative changes
proposed by Bill C-45.
From the outset, let the record show that the people of my riding
of Central Nova support the principles and objectives of Bill C-45.
My constituents appreciate the government's response to the
legitimate concerns of all Canadians who are demanding a higher
standard of public protection from high risk, violent offenders.
The proposed government reforms as set forth in Bill C-45 will
restore public confidence, close gaps in the corrections system and
respond directly to identified shortcomings in our present system to
give further protection to our children.
(1240 )
The legislative changes introduced in Bill C-45 require
amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the
Criminal Code of Canada, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons
and Reformatories Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act. The
legislative changes in Bill C-45 are clearly in the best interests of
all Canadians.
In my riding of Central Nova, many constituents, the police,
parents, the public at large and organizations, including the newly
formed organization of Child Safe of Pictou County, have raised
time and time again legitimate concerns regarding sex offences
against children. The purpose of Child Safe of Pictou County is to
educate the public, to promote a sexual abuse free environment for
children and to enhance the services for sexually abused children.
These services are provided by an organization that certainly has
the best interests of our children at heart. Therefore they applaud
this legislation.
For the information of my constituents, Bill C-45 introduces
legislative provisions that will make it easier to detain sex
offenders who victimize children in penitentiary until the end of
their sentences by removing the requirement that serious harm
must be established as a criterion for detention in these cases.
Let me emphasize the government recognizes that all sexual
offences are serious. The current Corrections and Conditional
Release Act already authorizes the National Parole Board to detain
offenders beyond the normal statutory release point if they are
considered likely to commit an offence causing death or serious
harm before the end of their sentence.
The vulnerability of individual victims is an important
consideration in any release or detention decision. However the
effectiveness of current legislation is limited because the serious
harm criterion is difficult to establish in cases involving children.
Experience has shown that unlike cases involving adult victims,
it is often difficult to establish serious harm where the child victim
must provide the evidence because often the child cannot articulate
the personal impact of the experience. Further, research has shown
that the impact of such a crime on a child may not always become
evident until many years later.
The legislative changes in Bill C-45 are in keeping with the
government's desire to improve the protection of our children from
high risk violent offenders and sex offenders. Bill C-45, in its
treatment of the definition of serious harm for sex offences against
children, will require the National Parole Board only to establish
that a sex offence was committed which victimized a child and that
a further sexual offence against a child is likely to be committed
after release. This legislative change is long overdue and is
welcomed by our Canadian families which hold sacred the security
and protection of the person of all children in our country of
Canada.
In addition to the prolonged detention of sex offenders and high
risk violent offenders the government has introduced a legislative
change to enhance and expand treatment programs for child sex
offenders while in penitentiary. Correctional Service Canada
presently carries out institutional treatment for sex offenders but
resources are limited. The introduction of additional resources
would strengthen treatment programs and are intended to improve
public safety.
Speaking of public safety, in my capacity as member of
Parliament I had the opportunity in May to visit the maximum
security penitentiary in Renous, New Brunswick. For those who are
familiar with this institution, it was here in May 1989 that Allan
Legere escaped custody, committed four murders in the community
and was then recaptured in November 1989. This was certainly a
tragedy for that community.
Since 1989 considerable improvements have been made to this
maximum security facility. The present warden, Mr. Jon Klaus,
provided me with an opportunity to meet the correctional services
staff, to visit with inmates and to see firsthand the maximum
security institution. I was impressed with the high level of security
and the latest surveillance technology being utilized at that facility.
14980
(1245)
The penitentiary concentrated on rehabilitation, upgrading,
training, counselling, and there was segregation of high risk violent
offenders from the other inmates. There is no question about it,
Renous is a maximum security penitentiary that is state of the art. It
provides the inmates with comfort, security, and every opportunity
to rehabilitate their criminal behaviour. At the same time, it exists
to protect the public from high risk offenders.
The criminal justice system and the penal correction system are
interrelated. The general public must come to understand that it is
the judiciary that has judicial discretion to impose sentences upon
high risk and dangerous offenders, while Correctional Service
Canada and its officials and staff are charged with the custody and
rehabilitation of the high risk violent offenders while incarcerated.
Then it is the National Parole Board that has the authority to release
these offenders from detention.
The success of our criminal justice system and our penal
correction system does not primarily rely on legislation. The
fundamental success of our criminal justice system relies on the
ability of man to administer justice without abuse of authority and
power and the ability of man to administer justice coupled with
equity and mercy.
Justice, law and morality are inseparable. If a moral society
existed there would be no need for criminal sanction. It is a
requirement of this criminal sanction in our society that
necessitates this government to deter, to punish, to rehabilitate its
members of society.
It is the human element that determines the success or failure of
our criminal justice system and our penal correction system. The
human element includes ourselves as individuals who are expected
to be law-abiding citizens; the community at large, which develops
public opinion; the role of our law enforcers, which is to enforce
law; the role of our prosecutors administering justice within the
system; the role of defence counsel defending and protecting the
rights of the accused; the role of the judiciary rendering a decision;
the role of our probation officers, psychologists, social workers,
health care professionals, penal institution employees, our
clergymen regarding the rehabilitation of the accused; and the role
of us here today, the legislators enacting the law.
In my 18 years of practice as a litigation lawyer I have
experienced firsthand the oppression, manipulation, and abuse of
many people arising from the abuse of power, abuse of authority,
and abuse of the process within the systems of government. These
abuses I am referring to not only are in relation to the victims of
crimes, but also in many cases the accused defendant as well.
It can be legitimately argued that the system of government is
not working as it should. The legislative, the executive, and the
judicial branches of government require reform from time to time
to ensure justice and equity are meted out to all Canadians.
With respect to the legislative branch of government, it is time
we as legislators put responsibility and morality back into the law.
Justice, law and morality go hand in hand. They are inseparable.
With respect to the executive branch of government, which
administers the law, it is time to diminish the authority, power, and
discretion of the bureaucracy and make it more accountable for
decisions and attitudes that affect individual Canadians.
With respect to the judicial branch of government, which
interprets and enforces the law, it is time that consideration be
given to electing our judiciary. The people must live with the
decisions of courts. Therefore, it is time we give consideration to
electing those who make these decisions.
(1250 )
Constituents of Central Nova have also raised the issue
concerning the jurisdiction, power, and authority of the National
Parole Board, an administrative tribunal with immense power and
authority in relation to our high risk offenders. It is submitted that
the government should seriously give consideration to ensuring
maximum public input in the selection process of the National
Parole Board members and that this selection process should be
opened to public scrutiny. This legislation is not intended to
address this issue.
Bill C-45 does establish a mechanism for the discipline of the
National Parole Board members. The Corrections and Conditional
Release Act is to be amended to allow the chairperson of the
National Parole Board to report situations to the solicitor general
that cause concern about the appropriateness of a board member's
conduct or performance. Then if the minister agrees, a judge will
conduct an inquiry focusing on whether the board member had met
the responsibilities of the position. Grounds for the inquiry include
incapacitation, misconduct, failure to execute duties, and being
placed in a position incompatible with the execution of the
member's duties. A judge could recommend that a member be
suspended without pay, be removed from office, or he could
recommend other remedial measures. This recommendation would
be put before the governor in council.
The proposed mechanism will be modelled on a process found in
the Immigration Act for the Immigration and Refugee Board. This
enhanced accountability will be supported by increased training for
the National Parole Board members in risk assessment and
management of high risk sex and violent offenders.
Presently it should be noted that there is no formal mechanism
for the discipline or removal from office of any National Parole
14981
Board member in specified circumstances. Therefore, Bill C-45 is
implementing legislation that is necessary in Canada today.
It is respectfully submitted that this discipline mechanism is
imperative. However, it is further submitted that until a procedure
for appointments to the National Parole Board is subject to
maximum input from the general public at large in the selection
process of appointees, there will be continued problems and a
continual public outcry for the decisions that are being made by the
National Parole Board. Likewise, it is submitted that it is time we
give consideration that our judiciary-the decision makers, the
interpreters of law, the imposers of sentences after
conviction-should be elected to their positions by the public at
large.
I further support the additional legislative proposals in Bill C-45
and in particular the legislative change that will modify the system
of sentence calculation to ensure that all offenders on conditional
release who receive new custodial sentences are returned to
custody and that all offenders serve at least one-third of a new
consecutive sentence before being eligible to be considered for
release.
In addition, I support Bill C-45's expansion of the list of offences
for which an offender could be referred for detention until the end
of sentence. These offences would include serious drinking and
driving and criminal negligence offences that result in bodily harm
or death, criminal harassment, also known as stalking, and
conspiracy to commit serious drug offences.
A further legislative proposal in Bill C-45 I support is to broaden
the authority of Correctional Service Canada to make deductions
from an offender's income to help offset a portion of an offender's
room and board costs.
It is without question that the positive changes proposed to be
implemented in Bill C-45 have my support and the support of my
constituents. I am urging all hon. colleagues to lend their support at
third reading to Bill C-45.
(1255 )
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
pleased to hear that speech. I was pleased especially because the
hon. member kept referring to the fact that her constituents were in
support of the bill. We do not hear that very often from that side of
the House, so I appreciate hearing it. That is what it is all about.
The hon. member suggested that we ought to consider electing
judges. I wonder if she might expound on that a bit more. Should it
possibly go further and apply to other positions in the government
that are traditionally appointed positions?
Ms. Skoke: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not the first time I have
raised the issue in the House of giving serious consideration to the
election of our judiciary.
I realize that appointment of our judiciary from our barrister
societies and from our law profession across the country has been
the tradition. However, I am calling on the government to give
serious consideration to the fact that the responsibility the judiciary
has is very important. Over the last two years that I have been in the
House of Commons we have seen the effect judicial decisions have
on what we enact in law and how we respond to the precedents they
set.
Also, we understand that the role of the judiciary is not only to
enforce the law as it comes before them, but to interpret the law.
Those judges are in positions of trust and their decisions affect the
daily lives of individuals. In my mind, I feel it is imperative that we
move forward and take the necessary steps to ensure that our
judiciary is elected by the public at large.
With respect to administrative tribunals and appointments to
boards, I have some reservations with respect to board
appointments and the selection process and also the functions of
those boards. That is due to the fact that administrative tribunals do
have a judicial function and a role to play in the country, and an
appeal of the decisions administrative tribunals make is very
difficult. Appeals can only be made in the event there is an error in
law on the face of the record. Therefore, they are primarily
predicated on ensuring that natural justice takes place at the board
level. It goes without saying that the appointments to the boards are
of crucial importance to our country.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when I came to
the House I had strong hopes that I could support legislation that
was moving in the right direction. Bill C-45, I admit, does just that.
I would like to be able to vote for the bill. I would like to be able
to stand in the House and say the government is doing an excellent
job with Bill C-45. However, like my colleague from
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, I look at the bill from a slightly different
perspective.
I do not want to talk about myself, so let me talk about the hon.
member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. As was mentioned in his
answer, he is an individual who has had experience in the prison
system. He served for some seven years as an officer and dealt
directly with criminals. He also has had occasion in his life to be on
the receiving end of the results of violence. He has dealt with raped
kids. He has dealt with lacerations. He has dealt with gunshot
wounds. He has dealt with body bags. He has served in an
emergency department of a very busy community hospital. He has
consequently dealt more with victims than I think most individuals
have. I am afraid he approaches this bill with that perspective:
Does it go far enough for victims?
(1300)
I do not think it does and I am going to reflect on a couple of very
specific parts of the bill. The first part is how sexual offenders are
treated under the bill. It attempts to improve the sentencing for
14982
sexual offenders. It takes a child who has been sexually assaulted
and gives the offender, because when it is a child harm does not
have to be proven but presumed, the full sentence. I say great. How
could a physician argue with a full sentence for a sexual assault on
a child? Great.
However, it goes on to state that an adult who is sexually
assaulted and has serious harm must prove the harm. That is wrong.
There is no serious sexual assault committed on a man or a woman
that does not have serious harm.
In my own practice I had a 47-year old woman who originally
came from South Africa. She had problems in her life: depression,
anxieties, suicidal impulses, a host of serious problems. She had
unhappiness in her marriage and had actually attempted suicide at
one point in her life. Over a fairly long period of counselling with
this lovely, sweet woman, her story was told. It came out in a way
that is difficult to describe publicly, but she told how how she had
been sexually assaulted in her youth by a member of her family.
She had been unable throughout her life to ever divulge that to
anyone. With tears streaming down her cheeks, with anguish in her
heart, shaking and miserable, she divulged that to me.
What had that done to her, that one single episode of sexual
assault in her life? She had frigidity in her marriage. She was
unable to respond properly to affection. She was distant to her male
children. She could not get close to her boys. She was fine with her
little girl who she gave love and affection, but she could never ever
respond properly to her boys, the children she bore.
I mentioned the depression and the anxiety. The end result was a
broken marriage. She never got over that assault. That proves to me
that a sexual assault on a child is devastating.
I have also had the opportunity, over and over again, to deal with
sexual assault on young women and young men. It is not commonly
known that sexual assault takes place against young men as well.
There is not one single instance in any of those assaults that the
assaults were harmless.
To have to prove harm when sexually assaulted is wrong. There
is no excuse and no reason to have to prove physical harm, none.
The second issue in this bill is the way drunken driving is
handled. I am a teetotaller. I do not drink. I am a fellow who
believes alcohol can have harmful effects. Many of my chums have
a beer or two and do not have a problem. However, drunken driving
is considered to be a very serious problem in our society. Damage
to someone when drunk is treated with vigour.
(1305)
This bill says that serious injury due to drunken driving demands
the full sentence. It will come down hard on those individuals that
drive when they are drunk and hurt someone. However, an adult
woman hurt seriously by a pervert once again has to prove harm
with no necessity of a full sentence. There is an inconsistency in
this law in this regard.
On one hand we have a premeditated perverted act. On the other
hand we have a disease. Surely we understand that alcohol and the
problems with alcohol are treatable and can be righted. On the
other hand, we have perversion that generally cannot be treated.
There is a medical treatment for sexual perverts which is very
specific. However, in our society we do not contemplate castration
for a sexual pervert. I also want to bring to the attention of
members and those who are watching that even if an individual
who has a sexual perversion decides he wants to be surgically or
medically castrated, he cannot.
There was a recent case of a sexual criminal in Quebec. He said:
``I know that I am going to reoffend''. He requested of his
physician to have those impulses taken away. He said: ``I want to
have my hormones changed so this will no longer be the case''. Not
a chance; it cannot be done. Human rights activists come along and
say he cannot even make such a decision on his own.
I believe in our society. We have constantly talked about not
having solutions for problems. I raise this specifically as a solution
for certain sexual crimes for certain sexual criminals. It is quite
possible to make a little incision and inject a tiny amount of
medication repetitively in the arm of an individual who has these
sexual problems and stop the perversion. Give protection to our
children. Give protection to our mothers and yes, protection to our
sons.
I have another specific solution. I have heard from a number of
members opposite that Reformers would like to throw everybody
in the clink and toss away the key. There are a number of young
offenders that do not need incarceration of any kind.
In my own community I asked practical, solid citizens: ``What
would you do to prevent a youngster from recreating their criminal
behaviour''. I am going to propose an idea that has come to me
from these sensible common folk. They do not want to give these
young people a job that will take work out of the workforce. They
want to give them a job that is hard physically but does not take
work and money from somebody that has done nothing wrong.
What sort of a job is there like that? The job they came up with is
rock picking.
I live in an area where there has been a little glacial activity.
Every time the farmers in my community plough up their fields
they turn up a new bed of rocks. Young men and women that have
done wrong should be rock pickers. They should go through the
fields, pick the rocks, pile them on the side. Nice rocks might be
usable by a mason for fireplaces. The next year the farmer ploughs
the fields up again and guess what? More rocks appear. There are
not too many people who want to pick rock. There are not too many
people who need to pick rock. This is a project for youngsters to
14983
teach them-a bit of the boot camp idea-hard work, discipline
and a useful job.
(1310)
In my part of the community we freeze in the winter and rock
picking does not work well then. I have other ideas about what they
could do in the winter but I will stop there.
There is one more solution for victims. Remember that I come
down harsh on the criminal and really easy on the victim. This bill
does not do that. Thirty per cent of a prisoner's income going to
treatment of victims would do a lot for a women such as I
described. She could not afford a psychologist. She could not
afford to do anything but go to her family physician for
counselling. Time and space are very limited for that. She could
well have been helped by restitution from the person who harmed
her. These solutions would improve the bill.
I have listened to members opposite say: ``You do not like
everything in the bill. It is going on the right direction. Support it''.
I ask members opposite, how did they vote when this exact same
bill came before the last Parliament? The record shows they voted
against the law and order bill that was presented by the Tories.
Reformers are saying this is a bill moving in the right direction,
some parts of it flawed, some parts fair.
We are saying to the Canadian public as plainly as we can, until
the rights of the victims are placed well above the rights of the
perverts and the criminals there will never be satisfaction with our
justice system.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
An hon. member: 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.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Motion carried on division.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
(1315 )
The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and
the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese
based substances, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remind the House as we
resume debate on Bill C-94 that we are at the stage of debate during
which members have a maximum of 10 minutes without questions
and comments.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud today to speak on Bill C-94, the manganese
based fuel additives act. This bill is intended to prohibit the
importation and interprovincial trade of MMT, a manganese based
additive to unleaded gasoline. The law will take effect 60 days after
royal assent.
Canada is one of the only countries in the world that is using
MMT. The United States banned MMT in 1978. Only Bulgaria and
Argentina are considering using MMT.
Environment Canada has received and reviewed study after
study after study of the effects of MMT on this equipment. I agree
with our Deputy Prime Minister and with Ford, Chrysler, General
Motors, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo, the list
goes on, that MMT adversely affects the sophisticated onboard
diagnostic systems where the pollution control equipment is found.
These systems are extremely important for the environment.
They are responsible for monitoring the vehicle's emission controls
and for alerting the driver to malfunctions. They ensure the cleaner
burning engines of today and tomorrow operate as designed. They
ensure automobiles are properly maintained resulting in decreased
tailpipe emissions and improved fuel economy. Therefore this is a
very important technology. It is even more important that it works
and that it does its job. We will make sure it does.
To ensure this technology works it must be free from MMT.
OBD systems are designed to monitor the performance of pollution
control systems, in particular the catalysts, and alert the driver to
malfunctions. If the OBD system is not functioning because of
MMT and if the catalyst is not working at all, tailpipe emissions
could be increased up to 40 times.
The third party has suggested that MMT reduces NOx emissions
by 20 per cent. However this reduction is based on data collected
by Ethyl from test cars. When examined in the context of the
14984
current Canadian fleet, Environment Canada analysis indicates that
NOx reduction would only be 5 per cent.
The third party has asked why the minister did not try to
negotiate an agreement between the two parties. I can assure the
House the government has been working since 1985 to broker a
solution. Senior departmental officials from environment,
transport, industry and natural resources have worked with senior
representatives from the petroleum and automotive industries for
several years in an effort to resolve this issue.
More recently the Deputy Prime Minister attempted to negotiate
an agreement between these industries. She met with
representatives of the petroleum industry on two separate
occasions. The Deputy Prime Minister was prepared to support the
introduction of a green pump containing MMT free fuel in an effort
to resolve this issue. The petroleum industry rejected this approach.
It is now time to act. If we do not act now then the federal
government's vehicle emission reduction programs will be in
jeopardy. We risk missing out on major reductions in smog, carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons. If we do not act now, Canadian
consumers will be prevented from taking advantage of state of the
art emissions reduction technologies simply because they do not
have access to MMT free gasoline.
If we do not act now, we could face a situation where automakers
will be forced to turn off the diagnostic systems scheduled for 1996
models because of the damage MMT causes. General Motors is
already bringing models off the assembly line with some of the
onboard diagnostic functions disconnected. GM, like others, is no
longer prepared to assume the increased warranty risks for damage
caused to pollution control equipment.
(1320)
In the end Canadian motorists will have to pay more to have their
cars maintained because of this kind of industry action. We as a
government will not let this happen. We will not allow the buck to
be passed to the Canadian consumers. We will not allow
anti-pollution equipment in Canada to be less effective than
anti-pollution equipment in the United States. We will not allow
the competitiveness of our auto industry to be threatened. We will
not allow investment and the thousands of Canadian jobs which
depend on this investment to be put in jeopardy.
Let us be clear. The job of reducing motor vehicle pollution can
no longer be addressed just by the auto industry, the petroleum
industry or the government. Progress at reducing vehicle pollution
demands action by all.
The petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in
the composition and properties of the fuels the engines burn. The
auto industry needs to keep making improvements in vehicle
emissions control technologies such as those offered through
onboard diagnostic systems.
Preventive action means producing goods more cleanly. It means
using less energy and conserving our natural resources. It means
developing and using the latest green technologies, like the
emissions reduction technologies in today's cars and trucks.
This bill before the House is one measure of prevention. This bill
is pro environment, pro consumer, pro business. Eighteen of
Canada's automaking companies think we are doing the right thing.
Canadians think we are doing the right thing.
MMT can no longer stand in the way of the progress we continue
to make on vehicle emissions reduction and environmental
protection. Let us protect jobs, protect investment, protect
consumers and protect the environment. Let us make Canada the
last country in the world to use MMT.
[Translation]
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 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 that five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(1325)
[English]
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 6 p.m. at which time the bells to call in
the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
14985
The House resumed from September 25 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export
and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great
pleasure to speak on Bill C-93. As a background to this legislation,
the purpose of the bill is to amend the Cultural Property Export and
Import Act with consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act
and the Tax Court of Canada Act, to establish an appeal of
determination by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review
Board of the fair market value of certified cultural properties.
Going back a little, in December 1991 the responsibility for
determining the fair market value of cultural property donated to
designated Canadian museums, art galleries and libraries was
transferred from Revenue Canada Taxation to the review board.
The review board assumed this new responsibility at a meeting
which was held sometime in January 1992.
There was no provision for appeal of review board decisions
included in the legislative amendment despite the fact that the right
of appeal existed when this responsibility was with Revenue
Canada.
(1330 )
Donors and custodial institutions expressed serious concern
about the lack of an appeal mechanism. As a result the Department
of Canadian Heritage, in co-operation with the review board,
undertook a series of consultations with the community about the
need for an appeal process. As a result of these consultations it was
agreed that a legislative amendment should be prepared to establish
the right of appeal to the Tax Court of Canada.
The bill gives a donor or a custodial institution the right to
request that the review board reconsider its initial determination of
fair market value. If after receiving a redetermination from the
board the donor is still not satisfied, he or she may take the second
step of appealing the board decision to the Tax Court of Canada.
There are a number of items in the legislation I would like to
share with my colleagues. The Cultural Property Export and Import
Act provides tax benefits to encourage donations to public
institutions of objects and collections of outstanding significance
and national importance.
It is the only program of the Government of Canada that
provides financial support through tax credits for donations to
museums, art galleries, archives and libraries. Museums, art
galleries, archives and libraries in every province and territory of
Canada will benefit through the receipt of donations of cultural
property as a result of the tax credits.
Cultural property valued at approximately $60 million is
donated to Canadian institutions each year. The fair market value
of cultural property certified by the review board as a result of the
legislation will become eligible for a tax credit of 17 per cent on the
first $200 and 29 per cent on the balance if it is over $200.
The donor can claim the fair market value of the gift up to the
total amount of his or her net income, and there is no tax payable on
any capital gain resulting from the gift. There is a cap and the cap is
the total income of the individual on an annual basis.
Because a donor receives a tax credit the amount of money
realized as a result of the donation is approximately 50 per cent of
the fair market value. The donor does not therefore receive a tax
refund equivalent to the fair market value of the gift.
Donors, museums, art galleries and professional associations
have been lobbying for the right to appeal review board decisions
as it was perceived that the lack of an appeal was a denial of natural
justice. To that end the government has taken action.
The establishment of an appeal should be viewed as a
reinstatement of the right of appeal that was lost when the
responsibility for determining fair market value was transferred to
the review board back in 1991. The amendments will ensure that
donors who disagree with determinations of the review board will
have the right of appeal to the court and will not be denied natural
justice.
The announcement of the establishment of an appeal process was
received positively by donors, museums, art dealers and the media.
These amendments therefore enjoy a high level of public support.
(1335 )
The amendments are technical in nature and respond to strong
concerns expressed by the heritage community. Their passage into
law should be seen as part of the ongoing commitment of the
Government of Canada to ensure the preservation of Canadian
heritage.
Bill C-93 has dealt with all the concerns in communities and all
wishes of different art galleries, museums, libraries and similar
institutions. All those concerns have been studied and legislation
that responds to them in a positive way has been brought forward.
It is a perfect example that the government is willing to listen to
the concerns of the people, that the government is willing to take
action, and that the government has taken action on an issue of
national importance and of great concern to the art community of
Canada.
14986
I congratulate all those who have made representations to the
Department of Canadian Heritage, my colleagues in the House of
Commons, the committees and the administration through direct
communication. I also thank all those who worked tirelessly to
ensure the legislation would come before the House in a timely
fashion.
I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the House will stand to
speak in support of the great initiative taken by the department of
heritage. We truly believe that if somebody is willing to do good
and give to a national institution such as a gallery, a library or a
museum, the individual deserves the right to be recognized and to
be given an incentive.
This is why we made provision in the legislation to give a tax
credit for any Canadian citizen, or for that matter a landed
immigrant in Canada, who might have something of national
significance to give as a gift to the crown. The individual will be
given a tax credit of up to 17 per cent if the gift is worth less than
$200 and up to 29 per cent of his or her annual income. I think that
is fair. I call on people from coast to coast to coast who might have
valuable items to consider giving them to museums and so forth.
Some of my colleagues might have some points to make. This
would be a most opportune time to put their points on the table so
that we can deal with the legislation in a timely manner.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to support the bill, an act to amend the Cultural
Property Export and Import Act.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Milliken: Hon. members opposite find this act a bit of a
joke. I am sorry they think so. It is sad that they have moved
amendments to delay adoption of the bill in the House. This
surprises me because it shows they really do not care about
Canada's cultural community with which the bill deals. If hon.
members opposite gave two hoots about Canada's cultural
community, they would not have moved all the amendments.
I will read the amendment moved by the hon. member for
Medicine Hat. I believe it is the second or third one; I have lost
count. The amendment reads:
That this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-93, an act to amend
the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax
Court of Canada Act, since it fails to address the issue of the burden the tax
credit system places on middle class taxpayers who are asked to pay for a
potentially endless stream of donations of questionable cultural and artistic
value claimed by wealthy Canadians.
(1340)
The amendments shows a complete disregard for Canada's
cultural community because it says that the work of Canadian
artists is worthless, that the acquisitions of art by Canadians are
worthless, and that these are ``donations of questionable cultural
and artistic value''. That is what Reform Party members are saying.
Those are the very words of their motion. That is what they are
saying to Canadian artists and philanthropists involved in
supporting Canada's artistic community. It is a disgrace.
My hon. friend for Ottawa Centre will appreciate that I had
occasion to go to Alberta in July of this year. One place I visited
was the Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller. There are a lot of dinosaurs
in that museum and I can say that the resemblance between some of
the dinosaurs there and members of the Reform Party was
absolutely striking. I could tell where their ancestors came from.
I was very impressed with the Tyrrell Museum. It is one of
Canada's cultural centres. It has an excellent collection. I enjoyed
my visit immensely. I took a tour of the entire museum and I saw
the workings of the very specialized people involved in the digs.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Milliken: Hon. members opposite seem to be regarding this
as bit of a joke. I do not find anything particularly funny about a
tour of Canada's cultural industries. Hon. members opposite talk
about deficit reduction and they forget that Canada's culture
contributes mightily to our economy. They do not pay any attention
to the fact that people spend billions of dollars a year attending
artistic events, concerts of all kinds.
These are the artists the bill is designed to assist. The bill
promotes artistry and culture in Canada, and hon. members
opposite are opposed to it. They keep moving amendments to delay
its passage. Why are they opposed to it?
Surely the member who represents Drumheller and sits on that
side of the House is aware of the museum and its value in his
community. It is a big drawing card for Drumheller. I have no
doubt the bill will assist the museum in some of its work. Yet hon.
members opposite attack the bill.
What about the famous museums in Calgary? The city of
Calgary is burdened with Reform representation in the House.
These people cannot represent. Unfortunately, with no adequate
representation in the House, members from Calgary are failing
their very famous museum in Calgary, the Glenbow Museum. I
have been to it.
Hon. members opposite laugh and treat it as a cavalier matter
when that museum is a major drawing card for the city of Calgary.
The museum attracts tourists to Calgary to see the art and the other
exhibits. Hon. members opposite should be ashamed of their
mocking of Canada's cultural industries.
What are the objectives of this very important piece of
legislation? The bill amends the Cultural Property Export and
Import Act and related legislation to establish a process to appeal
decisions by
14987
the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board on the fair
market value of certified cultural property. That is a significant
change and it is not all for the benefit of the wealthy.
Deals work both ways. The minister can also appeal if he thinks
the valuation is wrong. Hon. members opposite fail to mention that
in their amendments and in their speeches. Their only reason for
doing so is that they are out to kill Canada's cultural industries.
In the 1990 federal budget responsibility for determining the fair
market value of cultural property donated to designated Canadian
museums, art galleries and libraries was transferred from Revenue
Canada to the review board. No provision for appeal of review
board decisions was included in those amendments, despite the fact
the right of appeal existed when the responsibility was with
Revenue Canada. In other words, we are trying to get some fairness
back in the system, fairness not just for the donor but also for the
Government of Canada, which has a right of appeal in these cases.
(1345)
Donors and custodial institutions have expressed serious concern
about this lack of appeal process. It led the Department of Canadian
Heritage, ably led by the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage, in
co-operation with the review board, to undertake a series of
consultations with the community, which has resulted in this bill.
Hon. members opposite think this bill was an idea conceived by
the government acting on its own. Nothing can be further from the
truth. As usual, the government consulted extensively with
Canadians and came up with a process that is fair and reasonable.
Accordingly, these amendments were prepared. There is a right of
appeal established by this bill to the Tax Court of Canada. The
creation of the appeal process is a reinstatement of a right of appeal
lost in 1991 and a means of ensuring that there is no denial of
natural justice.
I know the words ``natural justice'' must be something difficult
for members opposite to understand. We have been listening to
them this morning talk about Bill C-45 and sentencing. Their
notion of justice is wildly different from the notion of most other
people in this country. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra
may have missed that part of the speech. I expect he was in
committee this morning. All they want to do is lock people up and
throw away the key. We heard about that.
Unfortunately I missed the hon. member for Wild Rose's speech
too. I understand it was a real blockbuster. As usual, it was the kind
of speech that involves locking people up and throwing away the
key. It is not a useful contribution, in my view, to the
administration of justice or to the rehabilitation of offenders that
we are all seeking.
I want to return, as return I must, to Bill C-93, which after all is
the subject of my remarks this afternoon.
The government is committed to improving the collections of all
Canadian cultural institutions through a combination of import
controls to retain cultural property in Canada and tax incentives to
encourage donations to designated institutions. This approach to
cultural property preservation is acknowledged internationally as a
model for other countries to follow. Canada is a world leader in that
regard.
When I was at the Tyrrell museum in Drumheller-and hon.
members opposite ought to be supporting these institutions instead
of tearing them down-I discovered there was a rule in Alberta
prohibiting the export of fossils from Alberta. They could not be
removed from the province. Hon. members opposite should be
aware that kind of cultural legislation exists, not just at the federal
level but also at the provincial level.
In making it easier for individuals to appeal rulings and
valuations to the tax court, the government is demonstrating its
commitment to allow Canadians efficient access to the judicial
system to challenge the decisions of government boards. This has
been the policy of the government for many years. The policy of
this party has been to favour fairness in treatment for all.
We have striven for fairness in many ways. That has been
evident in most of the legislation that has been introduced in this
House, including the legislation that was debated so vigorously this
morning, which hon. members dumped on because they wanted to
lock people up and throw away the key.
The Bloc Quebecois, on the other hand, has been relatively silent
today. I congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil-
[Translation]
The hon. member has indicated he does not want me to refer to
what was said by members of his party about this bill. But I must,
because they always argue that the province of Quebec does not
receive enough funding for culture in this country. They are wrong.
The hon. member knows perfectly well that the province of Quebec
receives more-
Mr. Gagnon: More than its share.
Mr. Milliken: -more than its share. Exactly. I thank the hon.
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his assistance.
[English]
In any event, although Quebec makes up only 25 per cent of the
Canadian population-it is a significant percentage and I should
not say only-an average of 36 per cent of federal funds for
cultural organizations were distributed in Quebec.
14988
Mr. Gagnon: Could we hear that in French?
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Perhaps I could repeat it in French.
Mr. Gagnon: Yes, they would appreciate that.
(1350 )
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Thirty-six per cent of federal funds for cultural
institutions were distributed in Quebec, including 37 per cent of the
funds for Telefilm Canada, 40 per cent of the National Film Board
funds, and 37 per cent of the funds for CBC. Let me perhaps repeat
that.
[Translation]
My translation is not perfect. Although the province of Quebec
represents only 25 per cent of the population, 36 per cent of federal
funding for cultural organizations was distributed in this province,
including 37 per cent for Telefilm Canada, 40 per cent for the
National Film Board and 37 per cent for Radio-Canada. Imagine!
If these figures are accurate, the hon. member has no reason to
argue in this House that there is a problem with what the federal
government does about culture in the province of Quebec.
I realize that the hon. member for Témiscamingue, who chairs
one of the organizing committees for the referendum in the
province of Quebec and probably has quite a few problems on his
plate right now, has his own views on the subject. If there are any
museums in his riding, he should talk to his friends in the Reform
Party who want to kill these museums. He probably wants to
support them. If there is a museum, it will certainly get a lot of
money from the federal government, because of the huge amounts
the government is spending in his province.
[English]
I urge the hon. member to recant his heresy, abandon the idea of
separation, and jump on the bandwagon so that he can keep
receiving all these benefits the museums in his constituency
receive from the Government of Canada.
The Leader of the Opposition, and I thank the member for
Ottawa West for reminding me of this statement, declared before
the Bélanger-Campeau commission
[Translation]
``One of the splendid achievements of the Canadian dream was
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We all know that our
cultural roots developed largely thanks to and under the aegis of
those cultural titans who worked at the CBC''.
[English]
The Leader of the Oppostion and the premier of Quebec are
henchmen in leading the parade for the yes vote in Quebec. If he
acknowledges that Canada has contributed so greatly, surely he
ought to acknowledge that a little more often during the
referendum debate. I have not heard him speaking on that subject. I
do not understand it.
Since the hon. member for Témiscamingue is here and hearing
this, perhaps when he next speaks with his leader he could remind
him of this statement and of the tremendous support Canada gives
to cultural industries in Quebec and indeed elsewhere in the
country.
We in this party are proud to support Canada's cultural
industries.
Mr. Strahl: Let me wipe my tears.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says he is about to break into
tears. I can understand that because his party seems hell bent on the
destruction of Canada's cultural industries.
I am delighted that so many of my colleagues are here to show
their support for Canada's cultural industries. I know the hon.
member for Halifax attends cultural events in her community on a
regular basis. She goes to concerts, to museums, to art galleries,
and all these great things in Halifax. The hon. member for Ottawa
West visits cultural events in this community. The hon. member for
Windsor-St. Clair visits cultural events in her community. The
hon. member for Saskatoon visits all kinds of cultural events and
sites in his beautiful city of Saskatoon.
This country is covered with excellent cultural facilities and has
a tremendous number of very gifted artists. Hon. members in the
Reform Party should be ashamed that they are trying to destroy that
cultural heritage.
Hon. members opposite may have received recently a diskette of
the Juno award winners in Canada. Hon. members should realize
that this kind of bill can assist in organizations that are distributing
this kind of material in our country and promoting Canadian artists
here and abroad. These are all part of the policies of the
government that are supported by this Bill C-93.
(1355)
I urge hon. members opposite to abandon their position, support
this bill, and let us get it passed.
The Speaker: We have time for a very brief question and
comment. The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if in two years or so some Liberals, perhaps under the
leadership of the Prime Minister, were to travel to Wild Rose
country, where there have been some sightings of dinosaurs, and
14989
sneak up behind a couple of them and knock them off and then try
to donate them to a museum, how would this act work to allow us
to have a tax credit for knocking off dinosaurs in Wild Rose
country?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to attempt to answer
the hon. member's question.
I do not claim to be an expert on the bill. Whether the bill would
assist in knocking off dinosaurs, I do not know. One thing that will
help will be the vote on this bill. If hon. members opposite vote
against it, I am sure the electors in their constituencies will want to
do their best to knock them off in the next election. We will look
forward to that.
The Speaker: It being almost 2 p.m., we will proceed to
Statements by Members and hope the topics will be more up to date
than the dinosaurs.
_____________________________________________
14989
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, AIDS is a problem we must all address. It has
significant implications for public health, human rights, and
impacts on our economy and our health and social service systems.
Our government recognizes the tragic nature of the disease and
has allocated $203.5 million over the next five years for education
and prevention initiatives, for research and monitoring, and to help
people living with this disease. The people directly involved know
that even this generous support will not be enough.
On October 1, for the first time the residents of the region of Peel
will join others all across the country in walking to raise money for
HIV and AIDS support, education, and awareness. I am sure all the
members of Parliament will join me in wishing the participants the
greatest possible success.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, former
Senator Arthur Tremblay has made it very clear he will vote yes in
the upcoming referendum. From very start, this senior civil servant
of the modern Quebec state helped develop and put in place the
vital tools Quebecers gave themselves in the early 1960s under
Jean Lesage's vision of ``Maîtres chez nous''.
Hardened by his many years of experience and his knowledge of
the workings of federal political machinery, Mr. Tremblay said it
was no longer possible, within federalism as it exists, to recover the
powers that Ottawa had taken on over the years and that the time
has now come for Quebec to take charge of its destiny.
In Mr. Tremblay's words, if Quebec is to escape from trusteeship
federalism and domination by a central government continually
reinforced by the dynamics of the general powers it has given
itself, sovereignty is the only option.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week we were subjected to the gloating of government members
over the re-election of Frank McKenna's Liberal government.
Of course those members forgot to mention that the way
Mr. McKenna is running his province proves that he is no longer
pursuing a Liberal agenda. In Halifax two weeks ago the upper
management of two major corporations told me that doing business
with Frank McKenna's government is like doing business with a
private enterprise corporation. They also confirmed that
Mr. McKenna seems to have abandoned the old style tax and spend
dependency programs of the Liberals.
(1400)
Clearly Mr. McKenna has joined the Reform wave that is
washing Liberalism right out of provincial politics in every part of
the country. Mr. McKenna is now running a Reform style
government.
Government members rarely credit their constituents with any
intelligence, but our side of the House can see that the Reform
message has been clearly received and understood by the voters of
New Brunswick. If only Liberal members at the federal level had
the same degree of understanding.
* * *
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to welcome the pages to the House of
Commons for this 1995-96 session. In particular, I extend a warm
welcome to Nadine Nickner, a constituent of mine from the
beautiful city of Timmins in the riding of Timmins-Chapleau.
These young men and women from all parts of our united and
strong Canada will assist us while we debate the laws of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Sunday, November 24, the sixth annual Word on the Street book
and magazine fair was held on Queen Street West in my riding of
Trinity-Spadina.
14990
It is not only a celebration of the very best in Canadian writing,
but it also draws our attention to the importance of literacy by
promoting reading, writing and learning.
Last year a crowd in excess of 100,000 people jammed Queen
Street West to view the many exhibits and to discover the large
sampling of new Canadian writing. This year the crowds in Toronto
grew and were joined by large parallel festivals at either end of the
country.
Thanks to the grants from the Literacy Secretariat and the
Department of Canadian Heritage, Word on the Street has grown to
include festivals in Vancouver and in Halifax, making it a truly
national event.
I take this opportunity to salute the organizers for their hard
work and for their efforts to promote literacy.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in late August the minister responsible for the Canada
Post Corporation ordered a top to bottom review of the mandate of
Canada Post.
It is my understanding that in the very near future the minister
will announce the details of the review: who the chairperson will
be, how long the review will take and whether it will be held in
public or in private.
In the past I have called for the minister to establish an
independent commission that would evaluate the performance and
mandate of Canada Post on an ongoing basis. Rural and urban
communities have been greatly affected by post office closures,
privatization, community mailboxes, slow delivery and stamp and
service price increases.
Therefore, I urge the minister to ensure that the review recognize
that service is important to the public and not use the results of the
review only to justify further privatization and service reductions.
The review should be held in public with cross-country public
hearings and adequate time given for groups and individuals to
make presentations.
* * *
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to reflect on the Reform Party's record in regional
development.
When Reformers visit Atlantic Canada they say they will
eliminate subsidies to stimulate business. However, what does the
Liberal Party record say? The Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency invests in business. The government has eliminated grants
and every $1 we invest in the economy has a $4 effect.
When Reformers visit Atlantic Canada they say they want to get
away from Ottawa-directed approaches. However, regional
development in Atlantic Canada is just that, regional and local.
ACOA's 94 per cent success rate proves it is working.
If the member for Fraser Valley West is an example, maybe
Reformers do not really mean what they say when they visit
Atlantic Canada, but Canadians cannot take that chance.
Reform has proven that it does not understand Atlantic Canada,
but the government is proving that regional development works.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Hydro-Quebec has decided to withdraw from the Conseil du
patronat du Québec because of this organization's militancy for the
No side. The chairman of the board of Hydro-Quebec, Yvon
Martineau, severely condemns the statements made by several
business leaders who have come out in favour of the No side.
He said that some business leaders, who claimed to speak for
businesspeople, made public comments that were unworthy of their
responsibilities.
(1405)
Responding to Laurent Beaudoin's remarks, Mr. Martineau said
that speaking of Quebec as a shrunken state denotes a lack of
respect for its people. He rightly ascribed our prosperity to the
work done by successive generations and not to the country's size.
Despite the wishes of Mr. Garcia of Standard Life, Quebec will
not be crushed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, air travel is convenient but can be risky, particularly on
the rugged, inaccessible and unpredictable west coast.
It is with deep regret, shock and sadness that I rise to extend my
deepest sympathy to the families of the eight individuals who
perished in the crash of the single engine turbine Otter aircraft in
Campbell River last night.
I know my colleagues will join with me and that the prayers of
this House are with the bereaved families.
We also want to let the survivors and their families know that our
thoughts are with them.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
constituents of the federal riding of Waterloo, a part of English
speaking Canada, overwhelmingly recognize that Quebec is a vital,
integral
14991
and essential part of our country. They recognize that Canada is
greater than the sum of its parts.
They are concerned and apprehensive about the upcoming
referendum in Quebec. They want a Canada that includes Quebec.
They know there are two sides to the referendum campaign: the
separation side led by Jacques Parizeau and the unity side led by
Daniel Johnson.
It is their expectation that political parties that say they favour a
united Canada work together and not engage in self-serving
political opportunism.
The questions raised by the Reform Party to the Prime Minister
during question periods on the upcoming referendum have aided
and abetted the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois. It is time
members of the Reform Party matched their rhetoric with action
and got onside with the group that is working together for a united
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
member for Laurentides, who is also the official opposition's critic
on the environment, recently stated: ``Fortunately, on October 30,
Quebecers will decide to give themselves a country. Our
environment will then cease to be a federal issue, and we will be
able to breathe easier''.
It would be in the Bloc member's interest to read again some
statements made by her leader when he was Canada's minister of
the environment. She would surely learn some very valuable
lessons. At the 44th annual general assembly of the United Nations
held on October 23, 1989, her leader said this: ``At a time when
environmental problems transcend borders, our idea of sovereignty
must continue to evolve and adapt''.
The separatist obsession must not shrink our horizons to the
point where we are going against the tide of major global trends.
The separatist vision is easy to see through, as the hon. member for
Laurentides has just shown us once again.
* * *
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have just heard for the first time a separatist
spokesperson speak in favour of tabling the partnership deal
Quebec would offer Canada should it achieve independence.
Victor Lévy-Beaulieu, the author and co-chairman of the Yes
campaign in the Lower St. Lawrence region, told Radiomédia
Rimouski listeners: ``Of course, for the purpose of the referendum
and perhaps also to make people feel secure, it might not be a bad
idea after all to finally define this new society referred to in the
proposed agreement''.
In his statement, Victor Lévy-Beaulieu concurs with 75 per cent
of the people of Quebec who demand that the partnership offer be
made public before the referendum. The people are entitled to
know what is this partnership offer that an independent Quebec
would extend to the rest of Canada, and it is the separatist leaders'
duty to disclose its content. That is how democracy works.
* * *
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Human Resources Development is once again
trying to hide from seasonal workers the impact of his UI reform.
Not only will many workers no longer qualify, but the minister
intends to take nearly 20 percent off their UI cheques.
We must realize that Quebec regions will be hard hit by this
reform. The federal government is setting out to treat seasonal
workers like second-class workers, beer drinkers, as the Prime
Minister once said.
(1410)
Is this Ottawa's answer to forestry workers' cry for help? The
minister cannot keep hiding his reform. If he thinks it is a good
reform, he should table it before the referendum is held.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians want gun laws that are cost effective, reduce
violent crime and save lives.
This morning as part of the Canadian agenda, the people's
agenda, I introduced the firearms law sunset act. If passed, this bill
would guarantee that only those gun laws that were successful and
cost effective at improving public safety and reducing violent
crime involving firearms would remain on the books.
The justice minister, following in the steps of his defeated
predecessor, has been unable to produce a shred of evidence to
show that a national firearms registry is necessary or will improve
public safety. If the Liberals think it will they should support my
bill. For anyone to argue against this type of sunset provision, they
14992
would have to argue that they support gun controls even if they do
not work and no matter how much the controls cost.
No one is saying that gun control is unnecessary, only that police
time and resources should be spent on measures that get the best
bang for the buck. This bill does exactly that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Leader of the Official
Opposition displayed true political demagoguery in this House.
The Bloc Quebecois leader clearly suggested that an independent
Quebec might not fulfill its commitment to assume part of the
national debt if the purported negotiations on an economic union
are not to his liking.
That totally irresponsible statement made by the separatist
leader can only generate more fear on financial markets, and it
could have a devastating effect on the credit ratings and interest
rates that we will be faced with, both in Quebec and in Canada. Are
we to understand from the opposition leader's comments that an
independent Quebec will not fulfill its financial commitments
toward foreign countries and investors? Is that the foolish
adventure that you are proposing to Quebecers, Mr. Bouchard?
The Speaker: My colleagues, you must always address the
Chair and avoid using names. I ask the hon. member to be careful.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to Mr. Parizeau.
* * *
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Quebec separatist spokespersons no longer know what
stories to make up to scare people. Since they are incapable of
showing the benefits of their separation project, they now try to
make a fuss over non-existent issues. The most recent such attempt
was made by the PQ environment minister, who said yesterday
that, following a no vote, old age pensions would take a beating.
Such blackmail and scaremongering tactics have no place, given
the importance of the decision that Quebecers have to make.
Separatists must demonstrate the advantages, if any, of their option
and stop raising the spectre of cuts in old age pensions. Quebec
seniors are not stupid; they can very well decide for themselves
which structure will afford them better protection: an independent
Quebec or a united Canada.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
January 1993 the Liberals wrote a document while in opposition
entitled ``Reviving Parliamentary Democracy: The Liberal plan for
House of Commons reform''. Two of the authors were the minister
of public works and the present whip.
Liberals should listen. Mr. Speaker, this is what they said about
your position: ``In order to enhance the independence of the Chair
and in an effort to reduce the level of partisanship, when the
Speaker is from the government party, two of the junior chair
officers should be from the opposition so that the four presiding
officer positions are shared equally between the government and
the opposition''.
The current deputy and assistant Speakers are Liberals. The
partisan nature of their appointments is in contradiction to Liberal
promises. It makes me wonder: Is the government really interested
in the broad Canadian agenda of parliamentary reform? I do not
think so. The proof is in the pudding. They are intent on mouthing
promises they have no intention of keeping.
_____________________________________________
14992
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when pressed with questions yesterday about the dreaded
federal reforms in unemployment insurance and old age pensions,
the leader of the No side, Daniel Johnson, did not answer, saying
this was up to the federal government. Since Mr. Johnson has
refused to take any responsibility for the future of social programs,
including those that apply to Quebec, I will direct my questions to
the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the best way to respond to the
concerns of the unemployed and the elderly would be to table his
social program reform now, so that Quebecers will know what to
expect after a No to the referendum question?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said early this week, and the Minister of Human
Resources Development fielded questions on the subject several
times, that we are working on the unemployment insurance reform.
The process started some time ago. A green paper was tabled, and
there were consultations with members. As soon as the bill is ready,
we
14993
will table it in the House of Commons, there will be a debate and
amendments will be proposed by all parties, including the
opposition's party.
There is a debate going on now, and I want to repeat that the
reform will apply to all Canadians. It will apply not only to
Quebecers but to all Canadians. We want to make sure that the
unemployment insurance program and social reform will focus on
job creation and on giving Canadian and Quebec workers the
dignity of work, the dignity they desire.
As for old age pensions, this is our responsibility. As everyone
knows, the federal government has an obligation to meet with the
provincial governments every five years to review what is referred
to in English as the CPP with the nine other provinces. Although
the Government of Quebec is fully autonomous in this area because
the Quebec pension plan is strictly under its jurisdiction, it is party
to the discussions because it does not want to undo the
harmonization that exists in Canada.
This meeting will take place in a few weeks, and the finance
minister will be there. In any case, we have absolutely no intention
of compromising the security of senior citizens who depend on
government pensions. That is not our purpose. The point is that we
must act responsibly and face up to our responsibilities. The point
is not to have one policy before the referendum and another one
afterwards, as seems to be the case with the Parti Quebecois in
Quebec City.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the federal social program reform is reminiscent of
Penelope and her weaving. Every night Penelope, who was playing
for time, would unravel what she had woven during the day. In the
case of the federal government, every night it ushers its officials
into the office of the Minister of Human Resources Development to
undo what was written the day before, to make sure the reform is
not ready before the referendum.
According to various leaks and to information reported just this
morning in the Globe and Mail, the social program reform is ready
but the government has decided to postpone its release.
My question to the Prime Minister is: When will he put an end to
the uncertainty and apprehension of the unemployed and
immediately release this reform which is locked away in the vaults
of the Minister of Human Resources Development, so that
Quebecers can make an informed decision on the kind of society
they want on October 30?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are acting very responsibly, and the legislation is not
ready yet because the appropriate decisions have not been made.
As soon as these decisions have been made by cabinet, the
legislation will be drafted and tabled in this House. If the
legislation is ready before the referendum, it will be tabled before
the referendum.
We have discussed these matters and obtained the input of a
great many people on this reform. We want to do a good job, and
we will ensure that Quebecers are treated exactly the same as
everybody else. This has no connection with the referendum. It is
because we want to act responsibly.
(1420)
I want to take this opportunity to ask the Leader of the
Opposition if he would care to clear the air about what he said
yesterday. He probably said more than he intended, because at this
stage, the Leader of the Opposition cannot afford to give foreign
markets the impression that some provinces or governments in
Canada would not do what any country would have to do, which is
pay its debts as agreed in contracts with investors.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to reassure foreign markets,
he should tell them he will behave reasonably, will respect
Quebec's democratic Yes vote and will negotiate. Investors tend to
shy away from lending money to undemocratic governments.
This does not fool anyone. The Prime Minister wants to
postpone the tabling of this reform, because he has every reason to
fear the devastating scope of the cuts he is about to make. Does he
not realize that by taking his cue from the simplistic and heartless
solutions proposed by Mike Harris, he is preparing the ground for a
fractured and divided society in Canada and Quebec, of which we
saw a sample last night at Queen's Park, unfortunately?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, speaking of a democratic society, when we
have a leader of the opposition in a democracy, sitting in
Parliament and proposing the division and break up of the country
in which he lives, this has to be a record for democracy anywhere in
the world.
In a democracy, people who propose separation should have the
courage to say they are separatists, not just to the Americans but to
the people in that province, so they will understand. In a
democracy, they should have the honesty to say clearly what they
want to achieve with their objective, which is separation, but the
Leader of the Opposition is afraid to tell Quebecers the truth as he
should, in a democracy: that he is a separatist and wants to leave
Canada.
But Quebecers will understand, and on October 30 they will vote
to stay in Canada. I am sure they will, because they know the
opposition does not have the courage to do as it says.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the
Prime Minister announcing that he would not be prepared to
respect Quebec's electoral democracy? The leader of the official
opposition has been duly elected, and a goodly number of the
14994
members here have been elected by more than half of their fellow
citizens, unlike many other people.
It can be seen from this morning's Globe and Mail that the
minister prefers to hand out scoops on his unemployment insurance
reform to the major dailies rather than to table the reform so it can
be judged in its entirety by the population of Quebec.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development admit that
the leak referred to by the Globe and Mail proves beyond a doubt
that his plan is not only to come down hard on the unemployed but
also to go over the heads of the provinces, thumbing his nose at the
Quebec consensus?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it quite strange that the
hon. member would comment on the fact that we are divulging
things.
It was only a day or so ago that her leader and other members
were waving leaked documents in brown envelopes. All of a
sudden they are totally discounting those and asking: ``What is the
real truth?'' Two days ago the leader of the opposition was saying:
``I have the truth here''. Now the hon. member for Mercier is
saying: ``No, that was not the truth''.
The fact of the matter is Bloc Quebecois members do not know
what the truth is any more because everything they do is geared to
the agenda of separatism. If they want to have a serious debate
about social reform they should be putting their positions and
suggestions forward.
(1425 )
The problem is they are distracting Parliament from the real
work of helping people to get jobs, of helping people to get
security, and of helping people to see their future. As a result
Parliament cannot do the work it should be doing because the hon.
member is totally distracting and knocking people off their feet.
That is why I keep saying to the hon. member ``simply say you
are going to vote no'' so we can get down to the business of the
House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
precisely because there have been trial runs of Canadian
federalism, over and over again, that Quebec premiers from Jean
Lesage up to Bourassa have been trying over and over again to gain
control over occupational training. Just that. And the reason we are
sovereignists is that we have seen federalism's inability to reform.
For the good of the common people.
Does the minister acknowledge that, in this plan which we have
all read, he is not only cutting social transfers but also dumping
onto the provinces the burden of the long term unemployed,
without any financial compensation for that burden, while at the
same time retaining control over the unemployment insurance fund
and its surplus in order to finance new federal initiatives?
The Speaker: I would ask my colleagues to shorten the
questions a bit. They are quite long.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first comment on the
remarks of the hon. member about the need to work with the
provinces.
On October 5, I wrote to the new employment minister in
Quebec, Madam Harel, offering to sit down and negotiate a
devolution or decentralization of labour market programs. The
answer was no.
I was still interested so I tried again. I wrote on October 27, 1994
to the same minister and said: ``Let's get together and study the
problem of duplication and overlap. We will sort of join to do the
program''. The answer again was no. The question of co-operation
was not a problem on our side. It was from that minister of
employment.
In all good faith I kept trying and as a result last summer we had
some success. We negotiated an agreement to help jointly fund a
major income supplement program in Quebec. We were able to
arrive at an agreement to do a joint program for apprenticeship
training in auto mechanics for young people. We have also arrived
at a preretirement program.
It shows that I will keep trying as long as they will too.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, some dissatisfied Quebecers are saying that they are
tempted to vote yes in the Quebec referendum, not just because
they want to separate from Canada but because they want to
separate from an overcentralized federal government. They fear
and resent the centralizing tendencies of the federal government-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Manning: They fear and resent the centralizing tendencies
of a federal administration and of key ministers in that
administration, and one of the worst offenders is the Minister of the
Environment.
Recently she walked away from a groundbreaking agreement
with the provinces on environmental management because
somehow it conflicted with her view of centralized environmental
management.
14995
Will the environment minister get back to the negotiating table,
conclude the environmental management agreement with the
provinces, and demonstrate that decentralized federalism works
better than centralized federalism?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad day in the
House of Commons when the leader of the third party gets his best
applause from the separatists with whom he is working.
Also I welcome the member's newfound interest in the
environment. We have been sitting here now for almost two years
and I got my first question from him on the issue this week.
When it comes to agreements, in the last 23 months we have
signed 12 major agreements which I would like to read into the
record. They are administrative agreements with the province of
Alberta. These are equivalency agreements which the province of
Alberta signed on June 1, 1994. There is the Canadian
intergovernmental agreement on the NAFTA signed on August 15,
1995. There is the administrative agreement on pulp and paper with
British Columbia-
(1430)
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's contempt for this line of questioning is the
same contempt she shows for the provinces.
The minister has unilaterally banned the use of lead shot. She is
unilaterally banning the use of MMT and benzene as fuel additives.
The minister is setting standards for greenhouse gas emissions
without real consultation. The minister stopped all the
harmonization talks and scuttled progress on transferring control of
the inland fisheries to the provinces. The concerns of the provinces
are met not with understanding but with the minister's reverse
charm and recycled rat pack tactics.
Why does the minister stubbornly cling to the centralizing
prejudices and policies of the seventies when decentralization is
the watchword of the 1990s?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table for the
record the 12 agreements we have signed. I would also like to
inform the hon. member there are 12 other agreements we are
working on presently.
I was elected to the House of Commons to speak for Canada.
There are many environmental issues which touch all Canadians in
the same way. If I drop something in Hamilton harbour it ends up in
the water of la fleuve St-Laurent.
If there is any area where there are national needs for a national
vision, it is in the area of the environment. Surely the leader of the
third party should recognize that.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's unwillingness to recognize public and
provincial demand for decentralization in social services, in health
care financing and in natural resources management is bad for
federal-provincial relations and bad for national unity.
Why does the Prime Minister not remove the centralizers from
his cabinet and send a strong signal to Quebec and indeed to all
Canadians that federalism can work better by accepting and
practising the principle of decentralization?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member
who may have forgotten that in his own response to the prebudget
speech in the House of Commons on February 1, 1994 he took the
position that we should maintain and increase federal support for
the environment.
I also underline that even the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has
stated in the House that the federal government has very clear
jurisdiction in the area of environmental impact assessment. That
jurisdiction is not challenged.
Our job here is to develop environmental standards which can
work for the whole country. That is what I was elected to do. I
would hope that the member would stop being a mouthpiece for
one province and would start working for all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
While the Minister of Foreign Affairs is visiting seniors' centres
saying that his government will never touch old age pensions, the
Minister of Labour said yesterday that the federal government was
going to reform the Canada Pension Plan. What is more, the latest
budget also announced a reform of the old age pension, a different
program from the Canada Pension Plan.
Since his ministers are all mixed up, would the Prime Minister
confirm once and for all that old age pensions will indeed be
reformed, as the budget provided, and that this reform has nothing
to do with the five-year review of the Canada Pension Plan?
(1435)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the budget, the Minister of Finance said that a periodic
review of the CPP, as I said earlier, was necessary at least every
five years in cooperation with the Government of Quebec, which
has its own pension plan, but which works with the federal
government to harmonize both systems.
14996
I have said it and I will repeat it, we will never compromise
the security of seniors who depend on the government pension.
However, there are problems with this system as with all the
others, and we want to ensure the system is adjusted, but not
simply for this year and next, because good management requires
us to be able to predict what the situation will be for people
reaching retirement age in 2005 and 2010. We are doing studies
right now, because, if we are not careful, people reaching
retirement at that point might perhaps not enjoy the same services
as people today do.
Those who have reached that point today, those who are
receiving pensions from the Canadian government and need them
in order to survive, may rest assured that we do not intend to
change them, because we know it is vital to allow them to keep
their current standard of living.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in describing old age pension reform, the latest budget
talked about affordability, controlling financially sustainable costs
and staying within our means.
Does the Prime Minister have the courage to say to us seniors
today that the aim of his reform is to cut costs in the old age
pension program and thus reduce the size of seniors' cheques?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have just said that we do not intend to cut the old age
pensions of people who are currently retired. This is very clear; we
have said this. We said so. The only thing is that some work has to
be done to make sure that, in 2005 or 2010, we still have an old age
pension system in Canada.
I can understand the hon. member and the Bloc members. They
see no further than October 30. We are thinking about the future of
all Canadians and about the pensions of Quebecers and Canadians
not only for 1996, but for 2005 and for 2010 as well.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
In 1992 a study of the Irving Whale said that PCBs were on
board the barge at the time of sinking. The minister claims she had
no knowledge of this until July 6 of this year. She has stated in this
House that it was the transport ministry that overlooked this report
and not her ministry, Environment Canada.
Will the minister put Canada first and tell the House in just a
word who is responsible for the mistakes that led to a prohibitive
court injunction, transport or environment?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I informed the House last
week that the investigation into the PCB presence is continuing. In
fact, the Irving company is being interviewed this week on the
issue. As I said a couple of weeks ago, when we determine who is
responsible for not formally informing the government about
PCBs, there will be action taken.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has been politically
grandstanding on this from the very beginning. It was her call to
raise the Whale and now Canada is further in debt by $12 million
and everything is still at the bottom of the sea with no hope to rise
again as the Mary Ellen Carter.
Will the minister get a grip on her ministerial accountability and
will she admit that it was the fault of her department for ignoring
the 1992 Marex study?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to take
responsibility for a lot of things but as Minister of the Environment
even I cannot dictate the weather.
The member will know the reason the Irving Whale was not able
to be lifted this year was specifically because of the small window
of opportunity for raising the Whale. We needed two very calm
days and those days were not forthcoming because of the delays
occasioned by the court case.
Everything is in place for the Irving Whale to be lifted next year.
It seems to me that the presence of PCBs which if laid out would
cover a football field three feet deep makes it even that much more
urgent to lift the Irving Whale. We intend to do that as soon as the
weather and the courts permit.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the leader of the No side, Daniel Johnson, who was clearly
uncomfortable and unable to answer seniors properly, invited
people to direct their questions at the Prime Minister of Canada.
On behalf of these people, therefore, I will question him myself
in order to reassure seniors. Mr. Johnson said: ``Since I am not the
Prime Minister of Canada, a member of Parliament, a federal
minister or Lloyd Axworthy, I cannot make promises as to what is
going to happen''. But the Prime Minister can do so. We will
therefore ask him to make some promises.
Instead of trying to confuse all seniors by talking sometimes
about the Canada pension plan and sometimes about the old age
security system, can the Prime Minister promise today, in order to
reassure seniors, that he will reject out of hand, right away and
14997
clearly, any reform of old age pensions for seniors, as they now
fear?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the rate of one scare a day and with 32 days left, they
still have to come up with 32 new scares. I think that the opposition
is starting to feel scared that they will run out of scare stories. As I
clearly stated earlier in response to his colleague who is already
receiving his old age pension, we will never compromise the
security of seniors who depend on government pensions.
That is clear. I cannot be any clearer than this. I am not saying
that there will be no reforms because there will be reforms. I know
that opposition members will not be here at that time, but we on
this side hope to be here for a few more years. We must now ensure
that there will still be an old age pension plan for those who will
retire in the coming millennium.
These are our responsibilities, and we are not about to say that
we are not looking at these problems when we are. But to those who
are afraid today because PQ members are trying to scare them, I
say: ``Do not be afraid''. There will be no statements on cutting
their old age pensions either in November or in the February
budget. I cannot be any clearer than this.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we finally
heard the admission that the Prime Minister will reform the old age
security system. Given the direction in which the Minister of
Finance is heading, this reform will certainly involve cuts. I would
be surprised if old age pensions were increased, in the light of what
they have done in the past two years. I imagine that he may will not
think that representing seniors in this place is trying to scare
people; we are simply trying to protect their security.
Given the extremely disturbing information for seniors that
come from government back rooms, could the Prime Minister
assure us beyond any doubt that his government is not planning to
defer beyond 65 the age of eligibility to the old age pension? Can
he deny today this piece of bad news for seniors?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in our concept of society, people aged 65 and over already
receive pensions. They therefore have no reason to worry. I am
saying that we will have to look at the problems in the years to
come. We will see; studies will be done.
Some hon. members: Ah, ah.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes, we will see.
But if we really want to reassure retired people in Quebec, the
best way to do so is to tell them that they will continue to receive
their old age pensions from the government of Canada after
October 30, while the Parti Quebecois is creating extreme
uncertainty with its separation plans. The best way to reassure
Quebec seniors is to tell them: ``The government of Canada will
still be there after October 30 to pay your old age pensions''. There
will be no doubt about that.
* * *
(1445)
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, there is confusion in the government about when our
troop commitment in Bosnia expires. Officials from foreign affairs
told me that our mandate in Bosnia is up at the end of November.
The Department of National Defence tells me that troops will be
deployed November 9 through 17. The Minister of Foreign Affairs
says that our commitment is up on October 30.
Will the Prime Minister end the confusion and tell us when our
mandate in Bosnia is over?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we should all rejoice because the peace process taking
place at this moment in Bosnia is making a lot of progress. I am
very proud of our Canadian soldiers who have proudly represented
Canada during very tough times in order to save thousands and
thousands of lives.
While the Reform Party changed its mind during the process, the
government kept faith in the process of peace. Progress is being
made at this moment. We will decide if we are still needed there.
Even if there is a peace agreement signed in the weeks to come,
there will still be a need for Canadian soldiers.
This morning I discussed the situation with the President of
France and the Prime Minister of England. We keep in touch with
them because we want to participate. We have participated and
contributed to a situation where everybody thinks there will soon
be peace. It is not the time to quit when we can still make a
contribution.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been sidetracked from the
Canadian agenda for so long he has forgotten his own words. On
March 30, 1995 the Prime Minister said: ``Canada's presence in the
former Yugoslavia will be maintained for the next six months''.
That means midnight September 30, 1995.
I will ask my question again to the Prime Minister. When will
our troops be pulled out of Bosnia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, not before Sunday.
14998
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The document on the human resources investment fund recently
submitted by the minister to the program review committee
mentions a federal strategy for selling the UI reform in Quebec. It
states in part that a tenable position should be identified with
regard to Quebec in the referendum context, however unacceptable
this position may be to the current government.
Does the minister recognize that this excerpt confirms that he
was prepared to table his UI reform during the referendum
campaign or even earlier, but that the Prime Minister decided to
postpone its tabling till after the referendum in order to hide his
intentions from the people of Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have never presented any
such document to the program review committee of cabinet.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Yet, Mr. Speaker, that is what
this document says, which was leaked to the press and brought up
by the NDP this week.
Does the minister realize that his UI reform, which introduces
five new federal manpower training programs, flies in the face of
the repeatedly expressed Quebec consensus on the need to transfer
to Quebec all responsibilities in that area?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member rightly
knows, we have been developing a series of projects in
co-operation with the provinces over the past year to test out new
methods and new measures by which we can help people get back
to work most actively. One of the most interesting projects is in
co-operation with the Government of Quebec in dealing with
young people and helping them to get back in the job market.
(1450)
If the hon. member is telling me he rejects any of those measures
that are more effectively designed to get people in the job market,
there is something substantially wrong with the hon. member. I
have a letter he wrote to me asking for my support in a youth
project sponsored by the federal government in his riding. I am
very pleased to say I would certainly like to give him the assurance
of supporting that project if he can give me the assurance of
supporting the no vote on October 30.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Health. On Sunday, October 1, over 40
communities across Canada will be walking to raise AIDS
awareness and much needed dollars. Would the Minister of Health
tell the members of the House what the government is doing to help
the 45,000 Canadians living with HIV and AIDS and what
measures it is taking to prevent others from becoming infected?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
HIV/AIDS is a serious concern for all Canadians and it is a priority
for this government. This year we are spending $40.7 million
against this deadly disease. Half of these funds go toward research;
the balance goes toward education, prevention, care, treatment and
support.
For example, recently I announced the government's support for
a 1-800 information line. This information line will be accessible
coast to coast in both official languages and will give information
on care and treatment to people concerned with HIV and AIDS.
This Sunday I will be joining the AIDS community in Sudbury to
march and raise funds for this worthy cause. I invite each and every
one of you to participate in your communities as best you can in
whatever way you can. It is a very worthwhile cause.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to speak about our province of Ontario, the forgotten province.
In June, Mike Harris and his common sense revolution were
endorsed by the voters in Ontario. Mike Harris listened to the
people of Ontario. He had the same message Reform did: Stop the
madness of deficit financing, introduce a victims' rights bill and
put an end to employment equity.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House when his government is
going to start listening to the people of Ontario and stop this deficit
financing, introduce a victims' rights bill and end employment
equity?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is timely for us to
observe that yesterday when the kissing cousins of the third party,
the Conservative Party of Ontario, opened the session of
Parliament there was a riot involving 5,000 people outside the
legislature.
14999
I very much hope the hon. member is not advocating that
approach to public relations in government.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting we should talk about the riot at Queen's Park. It was
evident that many of those protesters were members of the
Canadian Union of Postal Workers. Can the government explain
why federal employees were rampaging at Queen's Park when they
should have been earning their federally subsidized paycheques?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, apparently we have touched a
nerve.
The reason the government continues to enjoy the widespread
support of Canadians is that we are performing as we said we
would. We are fulfilling our red book commitments and we have
every intention of continuing to do exactly that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development, to whom I say that we will never trade our votes for
training programs.
(1455)
Thanks to his UI reform, the minister will get, from the cheques
to the unemployed, the money to finance his human resources
investment fund, thus creating more duplication in manpower
training due to the development of new federal training programs.
Given the consensus in Quebec on the need to transfer the whole
manpower training sector to the province, and considering the
significant savings which could result from such a transfer, does
the minister agree that it is improper to reduce payments to the
unemployed in order to finance new federal manpower training
programs?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me point out to the
hon. member that the unemployment insurance system is very
clearly a federal national responsibility. It goes back to 1940 when
all the provinces agreed it would be the responsibility of the federal
government to give people a sense of security against
unemployment, and like any good insurance policy, to make sure
that we reduce the risk.
The best way of reducing the risk in unemployment insurance is
to get people back to work. That is one reason that over the years
we have very carefully invested in a variety of programs to enable
people to develop their employment prospects.
We are saying in the modernization of it that we have to get
better. We have to use the money more effectively. We have to get
better value for the money. Therefore, we have to begin to look at
how we can streamline and consolidate many of the 40 some
programs into several programs and do those where we can work in
close co-operation with the provinces. That is very clearly part of
what we want to do. We want to develop a series of co-operative
relationships with the provinces to help people get back to work.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the only way to have an effective employment policy in
Quebec is to have a sovereign Quebec that will control the UI
system.
Will the minister recognize that his flat refusal to transfer the
whole manpower training sector to Quebec, as the province is
asking, is a blatant example of the hard-nosed attitude of the
federal government and its lack of understanding of Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the
member I remind him of my comment to his colleague earlier. I
wrote to the Quebec employment minister offering to sit down and
talk about issues of decentralization and devolution and the hon.
minister of employment for Quebec said no.
I have had similar very productive, very constructive discussions
in the province of the leader of the third party. We now have a
series of locations dealing with youth services. The federal and
provincial governments are now working together in five different
centres developing joint projects in that area.
We are even working in the province of Quebec in a co-operative
way. In the southwest corner of Montreal we have the RESO
program in the area the hon. Minister of Finance represents thanks
to his leadership.
My point is there are many ways in which we can help people.
The most important thing is to get rid of the disputes between
jurisdictions and get down to budget-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
* * *
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
in the House the Minister of Human Resources Development gave
a very ambiguous response to a question asked by my colleague in
regard to the $533,000 grant that was given to a group in Winnipeg
known as Manitoba Entertainment Complex Inc.
15000
Would he clarify today what process the group followed to
obtain these funds and what was the criteria for qualification?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. I think it is properly put and one which deserves
clarification in comparison to what I heard yesterday.
The answer is very clear. The industrial adjustment service is a
program that works nationally throughout Canada to help a broad
range of communities which are facing adjustment problems,
either the loss of major industries or the prospect of developing
new industries. In each of these cases the IAS program is set up
through an independent committee.
In the case of the new arena in Winnipeg the MEC worked out
with the regional director of human resources to establish an
independent committee. It is made up of people who are not
involved in the program designed to bring the stakeholders
together. There is no involvement by the minister. There is no
direct involvement.
(1500)
They work with all those involved in the project to find a way of
making an adjustment. In this case the primary objective was to
develop alternate plans to save 1,400 jobs at risk as a result of the
decisions being taken in relation to the arena.
That was the process which was taking place, an independent
committee making decisions and working with major stakeholders
to ensure we could find the best means of saving jobs in Winnipeg.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker, for the same minister.
Was the minister aware at a time prior to the awarding of the
$533,000 grant that some of the people in Entertainment Inc. were
contributors to his campaign?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after representing the city of
Winnipeg for close to 24 years I must say with some modesty that a
large number of people contributed to my campaign.
I say with some regret that of the fifty-five business partners in
the MEC only five have made contributions to my campaign. All
the rest went somewhere else, which is something I had better look
into.
I did not have any connection whatsoever. I had no assessment of
who was making applications to MEC or who was getting
contracts. It was the responsibility of the independent committee to
determine what kind of contracts were to be let and where the
money should go. I had no involvement whatsoever, and I hope
that clarifies the matter for the hon. member.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and
concerns the need to strengthen the current proposal for the
endangered species protection act.
As presented, the minister proposes to apply the terms of the new
act to only 4 per cent of Canada's total land base and eliminates the
northern jurisdiction entirely.
Is it the minister's intention therefore to ensure effective
protection of endangered species by broadening the premise of the
proposed new act and at the same time by providing us with a
guarantee that the new $2 coin in not the last place on earth where
we will ever see a polar bear?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of
the hon. member.
The hon. member has underlined one of the things that we have
been trying to do in national government, and that is to respect
jurisdictions.
We have come out with an endangered species framework, the
first of its kind in Canada. We have also been very careful to
respect the fact that provincial governments have jurisdiction in
certain areas. That is why at first blush the legislation does not
cover as many species as we would like.
In launching the process of the national endangered species act,
not only have we seen the leadership that was already shown in the
province of Quebec which had the first endangered species
legislation but we have seen a number of other provinces come on
board. We expect by the time the federal act is proclaimed that we
will have at least seven other provinces contributing in a
constructive way to a goal that I believe we should all share, and
that is protecting endangered species.
Endangered species do not respect provincial boundaries. They
travel nationally and that is why I think we need a national
framework, which I know even the Reform Party would support.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of the hon. Harold Gilleshammer, Minister
of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship for the province of Manitoba.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
15001
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could the
government House leader give us an idea of what is in store for
next week?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we will continue today, and if necessary tomorrow, with the debate
on second reading of Bill C-93, the cultural property legislation,
and seconding reading of Bill C-98 regarding oceans.
If these items are disposed of before the end of the day
tomorrow, I propose to call second reading of Bill C-78, the
witness protection bill, and Bill C-64, the employment equity bill.
This will be for debate at report stage and second reading since the
bill was referred to committee before second reading.
(1505)
Next week we will commence with a motion for reference before
second reading of Bill C-101, the transportation bill, followed by
another motion for reference before second reading of Bill C-84,
amendments to the Regulations Act.
We will then return, if necessary, to the legislation listed for
today and tomorrow at the place where we left off. That concludes
the weekly business statement.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. My question is also with regard to procedure.
The Speaker: I take it that it has to do with the Thursday
question on upcoming House business.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last week I
asked the hon. member, the House leader for the government, what
kinds of bills were in the works and what would be proposed in less
than 10 days now.
I have not had a response to that or on whether there will be any
legislation that will perhaps be delayed until the end of November
or December when we would go into a format of closure. I would
appreciate a response from the House leader, if possible.
The other question I have is with regard to procedure, how the
government is handling procedure in the committees and the
direction that is being given by the House leader and the whip of
government.
Yesterday in the public accounts committee, while debate was
going on with regard to the chairmanship, the government whip
commanded the Liberal members and the Bloc members to vacate
the committee after 25 minutes so that there was not a quorum for a
discussion to proceed with regard to the chairmanship.
It looks like a very unacceptable precedent has been set. I would
like to ask the House leader whether that is the kind of procedure
that will continue in the House on other occasions as well.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think our whip is ready to respond to
the second point raised by the hon. House leader for the Reform
Party.
With respect to his first point, I was not able to be present at the
House leader's meeting this week. I will endeavour to see what
further information I can provide him in response to his question.
We have a number of bills listed on the Order Paper. These will
be the measures on which we will be drawing for the legislative
program of next week and ensuing weeks.
As I said to him last week, there may well be other measures in
preparation that the government will be putting on the Order Paper
within the next 10 days. I am sorry I cannot give him a precise list
of additional measures at this point, but we will endeavour to assist
the House in presenting the government's program in an orderly
and meaningful way.
The Speaker: It would seem that we are stretching out the points
of order, one on top of the other. I will permit it today, if the
government House whip is prepared to answer, but I would prefer
we deal with one area at a time when dealing with this type of
information.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday afternoon shortly after question period and
pursuant to an all-party agreement duly signed by all whips of the
House, a meeting was held to proceed with the election of officers
of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. As I said, there
was an agreement signed by all whips to the effect that the
committee along with other committees would meet at previously
agreed to hours and days.
Contrary to the agreement, one group of individuals chose not to
allow the votes to proceed on the election of the chair and decided
to filibuster the committee for whatever reason.
That was confirmed in an informal conversation I had with
members of that party, at which point we were forced to adjourn the
meeting by causing it to lose its quorum.
15002
At 3.30 this afternoon we will once again attempt to elect
officers pursuant to the agreement made. If that fails, we will
attempt to do it again until we succeed in having not only the order
made by the House some time ago on the repartition of members by
party but also the all-party agreement made by the whips.
(1510 )
We intend to do our part as a government to ensure the standing
orders are adhered to. Hopefully members of the third party will
co-operate today, unlike what happened yesterday.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding House business. In
support of your statement a few moments ago that it is not good to
split up these matters, I noticed that in the course of the whip
responding to the second question the government House leader
vacated his seat.
I still have a question relating to House business for him.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could answer my question.
However in the future, Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I
support your contention that these points should be made
separately and individually so that we can deal with matters in
specific order.
With respect to House business for the coming week, the
government House leader is aware that the recent supreme court
ruling in respect of tobacco products marketing has been thrown
back to the government for a response. The government has said
that it is looking at options in response to this ruling but for the
most part is relying on staff in the Department of Health for ideas.
In light of the fact that it would be better for members of
Parliament to be examining the options, would the government
House leader be willing to support a request from the House that
the government offer this week the study of these options to the
Standing Committee on Health so that a more public examination
of the options and the issues could be undertaken?
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the hon. member's
suggestion to the attention of the chair of the committee. If I am not
mistaken, under our current rules the standing committees have
wide powers to undertake studies at their own initiative rather than
only at the request of the government. The committee may see fit to
begin looking at this matter in a general sense.
I also assure the hon. member that this issue is being actively
examined within the government. The judgment which I received
just yesterday is very lengthy and very bulky. It is understandable
that the government's response would not be forthcoming within
days of the judgment.
The member's point about a vehicle for some public
examination of the issue is one that, as I have said, the health
committee might well want to take a look at under its ongoing and
existing authorities.
15002
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-93,
an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the
Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Milliken: Unless there are more questions following my
speech, I am finished.
The Speaker: I thank the member. I was hoping he would regale
us with more dinosaur tales.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour
to rise to debate Bill C-93, particularly because over the course of
the last few days as we have been discussing the bill I have been
interested in the misinformation and in some ways nonsense that
have been lobbed at this side of the House, especially by members
of the third party.
I should like to clarify certain aspects of the bill to ensure the
people of Canada understand and fully appreciate its importance to
them and to us as a country. As I was listening to the debate,
particularly the day before yesterday, there were indications from
members that the bill would cost the government $60 million. That
is wrong.
As a result of the bill and the notion that Canadians can donate
artefacts of importance to our cultural heritage to museums,
libraries and art institutions, we have had 1,100 donors give to our
country the value of $60 million. The cost to our country, from a
tax incentive point of view, has been just about half of that, $25
million to $30 million. In fact, what we have are priceless
donations of our country's history, culture, and art from other
nations which is remaining in Canada for all of us to enjoy, value
and appreciate. We have received $60 million dollars worth of
priceless art and goods for the value of $25 million.
(1515)
That makes good sense to me, yet the members of the third party
are misconstruing the information and having it printed in Hansard
that it is costing us $60 million because they have not taken the
time to understand the bill. In fact, I understand that they refused
briefings from the parliamentary secretary and bureaucrats from
the ministry. As a result we get misinformation in the House and
that is not acceptable. It is good to have this opportunity to clarify
that particular point.
There were challenges from the third party saying: ``Did you
know that this does not only apply to Canadian artefacts and art,
15003
but to art from around the world? Is that not terrible?'' I do not
think it is terrible at all. Are we to assume that Canadians are not
interested in works of art done by people from other parts of the
world? We are a melting pot. We are a multicultural society. We
can all learn from and appreciate art from other cultures. Those are
the kinds of donations which are accepted under the bill. They are
of value to us. I want to clarify that for the House. It makes sense
and I appreciate it as a Canadian.
The particular argument that the third party makes of the bill is
that it only benefits rich people, in fact it is the Canadian
government again servicing the rich, giving them an opportunity to
receive a tax incentive for making a donation to a museum, an art
gallery or a library.
Mr. Milliken: If that were true, then you would think they would
support it.
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): The parliamentary secretary makes a
good point. He says: ``If that were true, then you would think they
would support it''. I tend to agree with him. What they are saying is
that the government is not being fair, that it is all one sided and that
it is only going to the rich. No, it is not. Donations are made to our
art galleries, our libraries and our museums and we all benefit.
Members of the Reform Party are suggesting, I believe, that
people who are not rich are not interested in art, do not value our
history and our culture and do not like to go to museums. I can tell
them that is not true. By virtue of this kind of legislation we have a
very unique and important way of ensuring that our heritage
remains in Canada, that it is here for us to enjoy and value, and that
it is here for our children.
If we go to the National Art Gallery, just behind Parliament Hill,
we can go for free. Anybody can go for free and see incredible
works of art, whether they be from the Group of Seven or from the
Renaissance period. That is of value to all Canadians. Perhaps
Reformers want us to charge for that. I do not know.
The results of the bill do not just service the rich, they service us
all. They enrich our culture, our society and our heritage. These are
important points which have to be put on the record as we discuss
Bill C-93.
I was interested in some of the comments from the third party, in
particular those that suggest the members of that party are credible
art critics. If we go back through Hansard we can read of those
members talking about particular pieces of art in the National Art
Gallery and chastising that gallery for the purchase of those works
of art or for even presenting them. It makes me wonder if the
members from that party can spell art, let alone understand what art
is all about. Quite frankly, art is a very personal thing. Art speaks to
people in different ways, given the experiences, the culture, the
point of view or gender of an individual. It is something that is
very important as we discuss this bill. We are clarifying,
crystallizing the differences between the party in government and
the party on the other side of the House by showing an appreciation
and value for our history and culture. Quite frankly, the attacks that
have fallen on us are all focused by the third party on the dollar
figure. Nothing else is important.
(1520)
I agree that when times are tough, and we are finding it that way
now, it is very easy to say stop, do not spend. Stop everything and
focus on one issue. That is not good for our history, not good for
our future. We have to remember that culture is continuing. Do we
want a void in our history, in our collections, in our programs just
because at this time we have a tough fiscal circumstance? I do not
think we do.
Fortunately the government in place is a balanced government
which understands the importance of all aspects of culture and of
the fiscal realities of society. As my colleague pointed out, we are a
national government that knows the importance of differences. Art
comes from the Atlantic provinces or from Vancouver, British
Columbia or from the prairies. Those are things we should be
thankful for and they should continue.
The most important and telling point in this debate for me comes
from my understanding of my own riding where we have a
wonderful museum, the Brant County Museum, which has recently
benefited from the philanthropy of one individual, Mr. Scheak,
who over the course of his lifetime has collected a fabulous and
very eclectic grouping of art, artefacts and historical documents.
As a philanthropist he donated that collection to us in the riding of
Brant. We now have an opportunity to look at historical pieces
from around the world, whether it be from the Middle East, Asia
and Europe, right in our own hometown. We do not have to travel
to see it. There was nothing like that in my community before.
Through legislation such as this, that is allowed to happen.
No one in my community would chastise Mr. Scheak for getting
a 50 per cent return on that collection. Let us be clear. That is what
he gets; 50 per cent of the value of the collection. He does not get it
all, just 50 per cent. We as a community benefit greatly not only
because our children get a firsthand attachment to that history, but
because others come to our community to see it as well. From a
point of economic development and tourism the riding of Brant is
going to win.
As we listen to the strategies of the third party and their attack on
this bill, we realize that a one-track, myopic approach to legislation
is just not good enough. There are so many other aspects. There are
no simple questions and there are no simple answers. Governing is
very difficult. It takes a broad perspective, a complete understand-
15004
ing of a country, its people, its history and its values. Fortunately, I
believe the government shows that.
In this bill we are tangibly indicating that commitment. It is a
proactive approach. As I mentioned, it is a unique strategy. There is
one other country, interestingly enough, that provides tax
incentives for donations to cultural institutions. That country is our
neighbour to the south, the United States.
I continue to find it interesting that the third party touts the
United States as the be all and the end all. They want us to have a
political system like the United States. They want us to be like
Newt Gingrich. They want us to be far, far on the right and forget
about those in our community who have not got the same
resources, capabilities and skills as others.
(1525)
Now they find their heroes to the south doing something not so
different from what we are doing here in Canada and they do not
like it. I wonder. It is very rare that it happens, but we in fact have
with this legislation implemented a program where Canadians can
make donations to our very important cultural institutions. By and
large they are doing it philanthropically because as I mentioned
they are not getting the full return for the value.
They could sell them. They could insist that their collections go
out of the country where we do not have the value for them and sell
them beyond our borders, lost to us forever. But no, many people
are philanthropic. They give to our institutions. It is very
appropriate for us to in return give them at least a 50 per cent
return. As I say, the people of the country do not object to that.
I know each of us as members of Parliament find as we talk to
our local cultural institutions that they do not have the money to go
out and buy artefacts and pieces of art. It is through donations that
they create their significance, their contents and their importance.
We do not want to ever lose that.
This bill is a good bill, bringing together pieces of several acts
that have been historically part of the mix, clarifying them,
improving them and making our country, as a result, much better.
I would like to thank the House for its indulgence. I appreciate
the opportunity to clarify some of the points that have been floating
around over the course of the last few days of debate and at this
point recommend the bill to the good graces of our House.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak in support of the act
to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income
Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.
The opposition to the bill and the thrust of the amendment to the
bill would undermine cultural institutions from coast to coast.
Culture is the one legacy that the past leaves to the present and the
present prepares to leave to the future.
By establishing the incentives that are inherent in this bill it will
encourage people in this country who have items of great
significance nationally, of great significance regionally or great
significance locally to donate those items to art galleries, museums
and heritage buildings that may be in any town, city or county.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Cultural Property Export
and Import Act, with consequential amendments to the Income Tax
Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, to establish an appeal
determinations by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review
Board of the fair market value of certified cultural property.
In December 1991 the responsibility for determining the fair
market value of cultural property donated to the designated
Canadian museums, art galleries and libraries and significant
heritage buildings transferred from Revenue Canada Taxation to
the review board and the review board assumed this responsibility
at its meeting held in January 1992. No provision for appeal of the
review board decisions was included in the legislative amendments
despite the fact that the right of appeal had existed when this
responsibility was withdrawn from Revenue Canada. Donors and
custodial institutions expressed serious concerns about the lack of
an appeal process that is inherent to have built into any program
like this where value is to be judged.
(1530)
The Department of Canadian Heritage in co-operation with the
review board then undertook a series of consultations with the
community about the need for an appeal process. As a result of
these consultations, it was agreed that the legislative amendments
should be prepared to establish the right of appeal to the Tax Court
of Canada.
This bill establishes two processes. The first gives the donor or
recipient institution the right to request that the review board
consider its initial determination of fair market value. If after
receiving a determination from the board the donor is not satisfied,
he or she may take the second step of appealing the board's
decision to the Tax Court of Canada.
There are key messages inherent in this bill. I will review some
of them at this time. The cultural property export and import tax
provides tax benefits to encourage donations to public institutions
of objects and collections that are of outstanding significance and
national importance. This support is the only program of the
Government of Canada that provides financial support through tax
credits for donations to museums, art galleries, archives and
libraries.
Museums, art galleries, archives and libraries in every province
and territory in Canada benefit through the receipt of donations of
cultural property as a result of these tax credits. Cultural property
valued at approximately $60 million is donated to Canadian
15005
institutions each year. A significant amount of real property is
donated to public institutions.
The fair market value of cultural property certified by the review
board is eligible as a tax credit at 17 per cent for the first $200 and
29 per cent on the balance over $200. The donor can claim the fair
market value of the gift up to the total amount of his or her net
income. There is no tax payable on any capital gain resulting from
this gift.
Because a donor receives a tax credit, the amount of money
realized as a result of the donation is approximately 50 per cent of
the fair market value. The donor does not therefore receive a tax
refund equivalent to the fair market value of the gift.
Donors, museums, art galleries and professional associations
have been lobbying for the right to appeal review board decisions
as it was perceived that the lack of an appeal was a denial of natural
justice. In most cases where there is arbitration the laws of natural
justice in this country must be seen to be in action. Due process
must be seen to be in action.
The establishment of appeal should be viewed as a reinstatement
of the right of appeal that was lost when the responsibility for
determining the fair market value was returned to the review board
in 1991.
These amendments will ensure that donors who disagree with
determinations of the review board will have the right of appeal to
the courts and that they will not be denied natural justice. The
announcement of the establishment of an appeal process was
received positively by donors, museums, art dealers and the media.
These legislative amendments therefore enjoy a high level of
public support.
The amendments are technical in nature and respond to strong
concerns expressed by the heritage community. Their passage into
law should be seen as part of the ongoing commitment of the
Government of Canada to ensure the preservation of Canada's
cultural heritage.
(1535 )
As I said before and would like to stress again, the era of a
country is known by the culture it passes on to another. We must
bring those significant items that demonstrated the culture of that
era into a place of safekeeping so that they can be studied, viewed
and appreciated by people in future eras.
Throughout history works of art have been prized by
civilizations as expressed by the cultures that created them. They
are regularly protected, conserved and displayed as both symbols
and concrete examples of the history of a particular society or
cultural group. We see this now as our natives in this country seek
to preserve items of their cultural heritage which have great
meaning to them. Other groups in our society are seeking now to
preserve items of cultural heritage that will have great meaning to
future generations.
All nations define themselves in the present by events of the
past. It is therefore vitally important to preserve our nation's
history and heritage.
Canada passed the Cultural Property Export and Import Act to
provide cultural patrimony and preserve in Canada significant
examples of the nation's cultural, historic and scientific heritage in
movable cultural property. As a means to protect its cultural
property, Canada adopted unique combinations of export controls
and tax incentives for making gifts to the designated public
institutions and incorporated these in legislation by establishing the
articles that flowed from that act.
May I speak from some personal experience. Last Sunday I
attended a cultural heritage event. I stood in for the minister of
culture at a ceremony for a plaque commemorating a historic
building of significant architectural importance. Its interior was
significant; it was the most outstanding example of fresco painting
in three dimension in Canada. I was pleased to be there as were all
the people of that community. It is not a sophisticated metropolitan
community but the town of Baden of approximately 2,000 people.
People gathered in great numbers to celebrate the historic
recognition of Castle Kilbride. Significant artefacts that belonged
to that castle from the early 19th century were donated. People
brought them back and these items were of significant value
because they were owned by a man of considerable wealth. They
returned them to this heritage building and museum so that the
people of that community would see the architecture and painting
of significance to Canadian history and how life was lived in that
building.
I live in a town where there are a number of buildings of
architectural significance that will be declared heritage buildings.
There is not just the culture of significant and exciting designs but
there is also the finest English speaking repertoire theatre in North
America, the Stratford Festival Theatre and its three stages. We go
down the trail and recognize great writing, great playwriting and
performances in Stratford, which by the way is playing to its best
year in history.
(1540 )
Canadians will look back on those significant events which
developed their culture, developed their appreciation for fine
architecture, developed their appreciation for fine art, which were
developed in Canada by Canadians, for Canadians today and for
Canadians tomorrow.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to be able to speak in support of this bill today.
15006
As the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo so ably
said, there is a technical reason for this bill, which is to enable
an appeal procedure to be put into place so that the proper amount
of taxation deductions will be calculated and applied in the course
of allowing citizens to make donations to institutions in Canada.
That in itself is an extremely important public policy
consideration.
In some respects the bill seems very narrow in scope because it
is reinstituting an appeal procedure which existed some time ago
under previous legislation. In that sense it is rectifying a situation
which needed to be dealt with.
Some of the objections which were raised by members of the
third party when we were debating this bill the other day attacked
not only the thrust of the bill and the whole purpose of what we are
trying to do here, but also the need for an appeal procedure. If
members of the third party are sincere about having genuine
intellectual problems with this whole idea, they certainly should
support the thrust of the bill, which is to ensure that there will not
be an arbitrary decision by just one authority as to how these
matters will be dealt with, but rather they will be subject to an
appeal. They will go to the tax appeal court and from there they can
go to the federal court. We will be able to ensure that these matters
will be handled by strict, appropriate, legal methods.
This bill deals with an extremely important aspect of public
policy concern in Canada, that is, that we should have proper
procedures in place to ensure the good administration of all aspects
of our justice system. In that sense the bill fits within the whole
purpose of what the government is trying to do, which is to ensure
that the people in Canada have a judicial system which is fair and
open and which ensures proper judicial procedures for all. We
should look at that aspect of the bill when we are considering it.
I sat in the House the other day and heard the attacks on the bill
by members of the third party, who used, as one so often does in the
course of debate, rather outrageous examples. One member stood
up and said they had seen a painting that was scurrilous or
unattractive. Imagine that. Someone had donated it and received a
tax deduction for it. We could all probably go to an art gallery and
find some paintings which are unacceptable to us.
In the course of my travels I have been to the Louvre. I was told
that some of the finest paintings in the Louvre were, at the time
they were painted, offensive, despicable and unacceptable. The
whole thrust of the impressionist school when it first came out was
quite unacceptable to the public. The paintings which today fetch
$50 million were totally and utterly unacceptable to certain people
at that time who said: ``This is a class of art with which we do not
wish to be associated. It does not conform to our traditions. It does
not conform to exactly the way we think. Nothing except the way
we think is acceptable in this world. We will not accept artistic
values or views that are different from what we represent''.
That is not the view of the government. It is not the view of
average Canadians. Average Canadians know that art, literature and
culture must represent a vast gamut of society. There must be
tolerance. There must be a willingness to accept that we need an
expression of culture in our country that is broad, embracing, and
global in nature if we are going to take our children into the next
century with a sense of what the world is about.
(1545)
This bill fits into that. It enables small communities to take
artifacts, libraries, and things of real value to those communities
and give them to local museums and allow them to stay in place so
that people can be a part of their own culture. There is nothing
lamentable about that. There is nothing to criticize in that. It seems
to me to be an extraordinarily valuable contribution we are making.
When we turn to what the third party was complaining about in
the House the other day, the fact that this bill enables wealthy
people to make contributions to Canada, I think we have to take
this into proportion. We have to look around our country and look
at some of the contributions that have been made.
In my own riding of Rosedale there is a museum called the
George R. Gardiner Museum, of which I was privileged to be a
trustee some years ago when I was teaching at the University of
Toronto. Mr. Gardiner donated a collection of extremely valuable
porcelain to the City of Toronto. That collection is contained in a
part of the museum that the University of Toronto helped to build.
That is, to use that much overtaxed phrase, a world class collection.
It receives world class attention. It receives visitors from around
the world. It contributes to the economy of Toronto. People stay in
the hotels nearby. They use taxis to get to it. They eat in the
restaurants around it.
It is calculated that during the course of the Barnes collection
exhibition in Toronto the spin-off effect for the economy of Toronto
was some tens of millions of dollars. We cannot forget that not only
are we enriching our cultural heritage when we allow, enable, and
encourage, as this government does, this type of activity, we also
enable our economy to be strong. We enable a real contribution to
be made to our economy in the form of tourism or in the form of
people coming here.
I myself have had the privilege of going to Calgary. Many
members of the third party must have visited the Glenbow
Museum. The Glenbow Museum would not exist if it were not for
measures like this. Where would we be if we did not have that
wonderful repository of our First Nations' art and artifacts that are
found in that fabulous institution that is the Glenbow Museum,
which is a pride for all Canadians, not just Calgarians.
15007
It is measures such as this that make the existence of the
Glenbow Museum possible. The Glenbow Museum, the George
R. Gardiner Museum, the Royal Ontario Museum, and over 300
small and local institutions in this country all have requested this
measure to enable them to survive and continue to do the job they
are doing so well for Canadians. That is why I support it.
[Translation]
If I go to Montreal, I have the opportunity to see the Montreal
Museum of Fine Arts. I can visit the architecture museum created
through a gift from Mrs. Lambert, an extraordinary museum which
has made Montreal famous. People come to Montreal from all over
the world to visit these museums which enjoy a worldwide
reputation, not merely a local one.
All of these contribute not only to Montreal and Quebec culture
but to Canadian culture as well and I dare say contribute to the
economy of Montreal and of Canada also.
If we acknowledge that donors, museums, art galleries and
professional associations are all lobbying for the right to challenge
the decisions of the review board, we must as a government
acknowledge that they are justified in making such demands and
put into place in the legislation a reliable and valid system for
handling this situation.
[English]
I would like to conclude along the lines of my colleague from
Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, who pointed out that we should
keep this in proportion. This is 50 cents on the dollar these people
are getting. This is not some huge tax give-away. It is 50 cents on
the dollar.
(1550)
At some point a government, if it is to be faithful to its mandate,
must provide cultural objects for its citizens. Do the members of
the third party suggest that we should go out, collect the taxes, and
then go and buy objects with that tax money? That is a much more
expensive way of doing it. This way we get the benefit of the
generosity of Canadians who have collected wonderful things
during their lives. At the same time, we enrich our communities
and we do it in the most tax efficient way possible.
That is why I support what this bill is about and why I support
what the government is doing when it tries to ensure that we have a
better country that is enriched by the activities of our citizens and
we enable them to put their life's work and their life's collections to
the benefit of our society and that of our children.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the previous speaker.
I come from an area where there is an endeavour under way to
establish a new resource of heritage. I am wondering whether or
not he sees any mechanism through this bill that would enable in a
general way a new facility, a new collection of artifacts to be set up
to encourage the general community to bring forward its artifacts
in a particular manner.
I will give a little background. We are the oil capital of
Manitoba. We have a problem of encouragement to the oil industry
to bring some of those artifacts back into a setting whereby they
will be on display. I would ask if the hon. member sees any
mechanism that would be available.
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not in a position
someone in the ministry would be to answer a technical question of
the nature the hon. member poses.
I think the question has some general value that I would like to
address. First, this bill is not directed to the problem or the issue of
just collections of art, porcelain, or other items of that nature.
Anything that is of value to society would be perfectly acceptable,
as I understand it, to be the subject matter of a museum or another
form of institution.
As a result, I would suggest to the member that what this bill
does by putting in place this appeals procedure is it ensures that
when the institution of which he spoke is set up and when donations
are made to it, which they will be, those donations then will be
properly accounted for. There is a procedure whereby if there is any
debate about their true value it may be appealed to the courts and
we can ensure that for the benefit of Canadians and Canadian
society and other Canadian taxpayers that will be done in an
orderly way. In that sense, the bill does contribute to enabling what
the member would like to see done in his riding.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one
would think we were debating today whether to establish or not
establish a tax benefit for the donation of cultural property to the
institutions of this country that have the mission of securing for
future generations examples of art and literature in its many forms.
We are not. What we are doing is debating a fairly minor
amendment to the process by which that is done. That is in fact a
situation that has been in place for some time.
The Reform Party has been critical of this. I guess I have to ask
why. I have also heard the Reform Party say that there are things
the government should get out of, that the government should be
spending less money, that in any way possible government should
be allowing the private sector to do what the private sector can do.
This policy, which has been in effect for many years now, of
allowing the private sector to contribute to the preservation of
Canadian heritage and culture and to receive a tax credit for their
contribution is one way of ensuring that government does not have
to do everything in this country-unless one believes of course that
a nation should not seek to collect the best heritage examples of art,
15008
of literature, of sculpture. I do not believe the Reform Party is of
that opinion, but one would almost think so.
(1555)
There is a bit of a contradiction here between saying allow the
private sector to do more and let government do less and then
speaking against a provision that encourages that very kind of
private sector contribution to building the nation.
For many years I have had the privilege of living in the nation's
capital. Part of that privilege is to share as part of my community
the very fine national institutions our country has built over the
decades: the National Gallery, the Museum of Nature, the Museum
of Civilization, the Museum of Science and Technology. Over the
years I have applauded the efforts of those institutions to take their
collections and their knowledge to different parts of Canada and
share with all Canadians the wealth of the collections and exhibits
we have built in this country.
I do not think we can over-emphasize how important it is to the
heart and soul of a nation to have a sense of its past. We cannot
over-emphasize how important it is for young people to have an
opportunity to be exposed to those things that express different
points of view, through art of one kind or another, about the world,
about ourselves, and about our nation.
My colleague from Rosedale just spoke about the attitude
towards the impressionists when they first began painting. Our own
Group of Seven, who are virtually universally revered, suffered the
same lack of acceptance among their fellow citizens when they
tried to express in a new way what the country meant and how it
appeared.
I said it was important for children to have the opportunity to to
experience many different expressions, visually and verbally, in
music, views of their country and of the world. I go back to my own
experience when our own National Gallery was housed in half of
what is now the Museum of Nature. It was a very small collection.
As a 10-year-old I had the wonderful opportunity of going there on
a Saturday morning with dozens of other children, spreading a
newspaper on the floor and using bottles of bright-coloured paint
and being able to express myself. Then we would spend time
looking at the masterpieces. We would have a world-renowned
painter like Henri Masson spend his Saturday mornings with young
children like me, commenting on our paintings and encouraging
and discussing with us the other wonderful works that were in that
very tiny gallery. These are the experiences that influence one's
perception of the world and of oneself and that change one's future
in many ways.
(1600)
I hope nobody in this Parliament needs to be convinced of the
value of a nation building up a reservoir for the generations to
come of those things which have been an important expression of
our culture and our history and our way of viewing the world.
We are not talking about whether we should or should not have
provisions in the Income Tax Act to allow people to gain some
credit, and it is only a partial credit, through the income tax system
when they choose to donate something which is their own to their
country and to their fellow citizens. That has been well established.
All we are talking about is making sure that the interests of the
donor, the interests of the institution receiving the gift and the
public interest are protected. We are here today to establish a
process where the review board that determines the value of such a
gift is subject to appeal, so that if a donor is not satisfied that the
value that has been put on his or her gift by the review board is
adequate, there is an opportunity to appeal.
Why is that important? It is important because a donor may
choose to give or not give a gift to the nation, depending on
whether it is valued as it should be. If I were to offer a gift to the
National Gallery, which the gallery would first have to determine is
of national and historical importance, and a review board were to
say to me it is worth this much, when I know very well it is worth
two or three times that much, I would choose not to give that gift
under those circumstances.
If I have an impartial appeal process to go to, to say what is the
real value of this and to have it established, then those gifts are far
more likely to be made to the institutions of our country.
On the other hand, a donor may have an over-inflated view of the
value of an artefact or a painting or a book which the donor wants
to give to an institution, in which case the institution has an
impartial process to go through to demonstrate to the donor that
this is the value of that property and whether he or she still wishes
to donate it or not, that is the value which the museum or art gallery
is prepared to accept as its value.
I said it also protects the taxpayers and it does. While we want to
give tax credits that encourage people to donate in that way, we
also want to be sure that those tax credits are based on fair value.
We want to make sure there is a process with an appeal built into it
in case there is disagreement about those values.
We encourage charitable giving in many ways. We encourage
charitable giving toward various causes: health research, programs
for children, programs for young mothers, preservation of the
environment. In all those cases we give exactly the kind of tax
benefit that is being slightly modified in this bill. I cannot help but
feel that giving something of great value to the mind and soul of a
nation is equally important as contributing to research in a variety
of ways. I am surprised that there are those in the House today who
would question it.
15009
In fact, I would take this opportunity to encourage the
government to look further at how in times of tight financial
situations we might achieve other national objectives through the
same means.
(1605 )
For instance, there is no reason why someone should not be able
to contribute an environmentally sensitive area to the nation for
preservation and receive the same encouragement through the tax
system to do that as they would do with the donation of an
extremely valuable and historically important book.
Perhaps we should be considering a tax treatment that
encourages people to preserve and to donate to the nation important
historical buildings. Now the tax system seems more designed,
according to the National Round Table on the Environment and the
Economy, to encourage the demolition of heritage buildings and
the construction of new buildings than to preserve existing ones.
I consider this legislation a safeguard of the public interest, the
donor's interest and the receiving institution's interest. When a
Canadian chooses generously to give something which he or she
owns of great cultural value to all of us, I consider this act
introduces a safeguard to ensure it is done based only on the proper
value of that property.
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 the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(6), the division on the question now before the House
stands deferred until Monday at 6 p.m., at which time the bells to
call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; and on the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House will recall the
member for Calgary North had not finished her speech. She is not
prepared to go ahead at this time so I will recognize the member for
Vancouver Quadra.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to resume the debate on Bill C-98, the
oceans act.
I had the opportunity to hear the closing minutes of the debate
the other day on this bill. It was late in the evening; one was
scattering twilight ashes so perhaps there were some
misconceptions that might not have been formed at an earlier time
of day.
(1610 )
Allow me to correct them by saying what this bill is not. It is
certainly not an attempt to rewrite the Constitution Act, to rewrite
the Constitution or to change the balance of federal-provincial
powers as established under the Constitution Act and under the
extensive jurisprudence developed on that act over the last 128
years.
It is a bill with a more modest purpose, although one of great
value to the Canadian public and great value certainly to those who
have grown up since the last war. It is a compendium, a collection
in convenient form of Canada's position on the law of the sea.
International law is made in various ways. The great bulk of it
has been made much as the common law of Canada has been made:
by custom, practice which by its reasonableness and its acceptance
becomes concretized as a rule of custom.
Other parts of the international law of the sea have been made by
jurisprudence, by the decisions of the courts of which the
International Court of Justice has been a leader, although
sometimes national courts spill over. Still further change has been
made by legislation, by treaties.
What is not perhaps generally understood is that until 1945
virtually all of the projections of Canada's power in international
law of the sea and of the world community's position on the
international law of the sea did not exist.
Until 1945 the law of the sea was a law of movement as my good
friend, the great French scholar, René-Jean Dupuy of the Collège
de France has described it, a law of movement which was
concerned essentially in establishing the rights of all parties that
passed freely to and fro on the seas, the concept of the high seas and
15010
the concept of a very limited national, territorial sea abridging
those limits.
That was the regime which lasted for more than 300 years. It was
developed originally as a debate between two great scholars, and
the modern law of the sea, as the 300-year old law was then called.
It was established by the brilliant Dutch jurist, Grotius, who in
essence said the high seas belong to everybody. Everybody has the
right of passage to and fro. The national, territorial sea is limited
and it is a three-mile sea, no more.
This was itself an heretical doctrine because it overthrew an
earlier doctrine established by Spanish and Portuguese jurists and
ratified by a pope with a decree in 1494 that appropriated the
oceans and divided them between Spain and Portugal. Grotius
overthrew this. He was resisted by some sceptical people, including
the great English jurist, Selden, but his views prevail largely
because they made sense in the world community as it was
developing, particularly in the aftermath of the Thirty Years War.
But even before the signs were apparent. When he was writing, it
was quite clear that the modern state founded on the rules of
commerce must have freedom of access to and fro on the seas.
Those were the theories that he presented. Since they
corresponded to the needs of the world community they were
widely accepted and became the general rules, subject only to very
minor exceptions for some special Scandinavian rules and the like
and some exceptions that were made by special bilateral treaties
very recently. In fact the changes are largely in response to illegal
Canadian activities, treaties governing rumrunning and attention of
vessels outside the three-mile territorial sea of the United States.
These were directed against Canadian smugglers in the 1920s and
were basically British-U.S. treaties.
(1615 )
What this act does, and I think it is its primary purpose, is to give
a compendium, give a résumé of the elements in the modern
Canadian position of the law of the sea. Our law reflects
international law. It is a rule of international law that the general
customary rules of international law are part of the common law of
Canada. To be operative, treaties as such must be incorporated into
our law by legislation. The conventions in the law of the sea up to
date, until the most recent one, are directly parts of Canadian law.
This particular act is not directed to the 1982 convention, the
so-called third United Nations law of the sea convention, but it
achieves essentially the same thing because it recites all those
additions to the international law that have become part of
Canadian law by various Canadian actions.
I should add here that a treaty, even though unratified by a
country, may, according to the best jurisprudence of the
International Court of Justice, become binding upon a
non-signatory, non-ratifying country simply because it is evidence
of a general rule of international law binding on all states. This
flows from a celebrated dictum of the late president of the world
court, Judge Lachs, and it is now generally accepted.
If we look at this legislation we do get for the first time a
complete and comprehensive recitation of the segments of the
Canadian law of the sea: the territorial sea of course, but the
extension of the territorial sea from three marine miles to twelve; a
ruling on the contiguous zone, which is itself an extension into
general treaty law and then into general customary law of those
special American treaties that were designed to cover the rum
runners, the smugglers, and not much more. The contiguous zone
goes well beyond that today.
Something that was a revolutionary doctrine when it was
proclaimed by President Truman for the first time in 1945 is the
international law of the continental shelf. President Truman
asserted that claim on behalf of the United States defence policy. It
was designed, as he said, and there was some evidence for that, to
establish a legal basis for early warning systems and the like
outside the three-mile territorial sea. But there was also very
clearly an economic motive: the development of submarine oil
deposits and other mineral resources outside the three-mile limit.
So that is the continental shelf.
Then we join forces with another interesting segment to which
Canada has very specifically contributed, the establishment of
fishing zones. These were originally unilateral assertions by
several Latin American states with a poor economy but rich seas in
terms of marine fish resources: the unilateral extension to 200
miles of their jurisdiction and enforced against ships owned by
Greek shipowners but registered under flags of convenience. It was
an heretical doctrine when first asserted, but its reasonableness in a
world of diminishing resources was fully recognized and other
states adopted this. Canada was one of the leaders in that, firstly by
unilateral act and then by a series of bilateral treaties with other
countries.
A further and more interesting doctrine is this doctrine of the
exclusive economic zone, which now goes 200 miles from our
coast. It has been said by the international court that with a slightly
different development the exclusive economic zone might have
become unnecessary, that the doctrine of the continental shelf
could have been capable of further generic extension. But we face
the reality today that the international law has developed in
separate steps, not necessarily overlapping.
What we have in this bill for the first time is a comprehensive
presentation of the Canadian law, the Canadian recognition and
application of the international law of the sea in the different ways
in which we have done it. It is a bit more comprehensive than the
1982 international treaty. It covers more matters. These are matters
that I would say Canada has pioneered.
15011
(1620)
I go back here to the great dean of the University of British
Columbia law school, George Curtis, who was very active in the
two great international conferences in 1958 and 1960 that gave rise
to the first great international conventions post-war on this subject.
I would also add the distinguished Vancouver and Victoria scholar
and long-time legal adviser to the Canadian foreign ministry, Alan
Beesley, Ambassador Tommy Koh of Singapore, and Judge Aguilar
Mawdsley of Venezuela, who is now a judge of the world court. It
can be said that they developed the modern law of the sea.
Here we discover something that is distinctively Canadian and of
which we can be very proud, because it draws together certain
imperatives of Canadian society that are widely recognized,
perhaps more than ever in western Canada and on the west coast.
That is to say that we view the resources of the sea as something to
be protected, and it is not a rule of international law and it should
not be the case that people can do anything they like as long it is not
specifically prohibited in some act that someone can cite. What is
being said here, which was the Canadian position in the extended
meetings leading up to the 1982 convention, is that there is today
an imperative of conservation, that in a world of diminishing
natural resources the common heritage of humankind consists of
these natural resources and every state has a duty to investigate, to
monitor their utilization, and to protect them.
In its basic conception this is a modest law, but it does
comprehensively state what is the Canadian position on the
international law of the sea as applied in Canada. It also goes
beyond that and carries forward the thrust of the Canadian interest
in conservation, which we have pioneered and successfully
demonstrated to other countries.
I have a certain interest in this. In recent months I attended, at
the invitation of the UN Secretary-General, his conference on the
future of international law. It was at the height of the so-called
turbot war, which involved our country in a dispute with two other
countries. It was a matter of great interest to be greeted by the
ambassadors of a number of European countries and to be
requested to pass on congratulations to our government for taking a
position in terms of conservation of the world's diminishing
resources. These people said very frankly: ``We cannot be quoted
on this. Our government, for reasons of regional solidarity, may
take a different position, but something had to be done.''
I suppose this really directs attention to the international
law-making process. Most of the international law of the sea has
been made by unilateral acts of countries. Somebody asserted the
principle. Sir Francis Drake and others were the first to challenge,
on behalf of Queen Elizabeth I, the Portuguese and Spanish claims
to hegemony over the oceans and the appendant lands at the end of
the 16th century. However, in terms of the contemporary law of the
sea, it is worth reflecting that almost all the customary law results
from unilateral acts, which by their reasonableness and the
perception that they accord with the trends of history have been
considered to be right and proper for the world community.
I think in that respect our actions in the turbot war were right and
in conformity with international law. In the House I made that
suggestion at the time.
(1625 )
This particular legislation does carry forward the imperative,
which has always been part of Canadian post-war thinking and is to
be found in the great diplomatic conferences in which we played
such a leading part and which were carried on by governments of
different political complexions at times but with the same general
outlook. While it is true that the international law of the sea has
moved from this law of movement, open to everybody, no rulings
on property, to a narrower concept of national appropriation of
economic resources, those new imperatives resulted from the clear
fact that many countries were poor and had no resources and
reached out to the fishery and mining resources and the like.
Notwithstanding this change, a new drive or a new imperative has
been received in international law thinking, and that is the
obligation of conservation of scarce natural resources.
If we look at this legislation we will see that it is a modest law. It
is perhaps too long. It is true that civil servants in Canada and
elsewhere draft laws that are longer and more complex than they
need be, but the great truths are there. It is a compendium of the
law. We have caught up in our national law with the emerging
international law of the sea. In our presentation of that law we are
more comprehensive than the most recent 1982 treaty that is at the
point of being ratified by Canada.
Also in our law we are providing this obligation of setting up the
duty to monitor, supervise, and essentially act like a good citizen.
In that we fulfil what civil law countries know in their law as the
``droit du bon voisinage'', the law of good neighbourliness. The
common law is less developed than the civil law, and international
law has borrowed largely from the civil law principles. It is in that
respect that the law is a very good law and is worth commending to
you.
Do not worry about questions of effects on federal-provincial
constitutional powers. This law could not change them. They are
sufficiently regulated by the Constitution and by the jurisprudence
on it. On careful re-reading after hearing some members' questions
on that, it is not my conclusion that the law in any way attempts to
change that. Look to its larger purpose and accept the fact also that
it carries forward the case we successfully made a year ago in the
so-called turbot war.
15012
Incidentally, there has never been any doubt in international law
that a country's jurisdiction, including its criminal jurisdiction,
extends beyond national territory, including national territorial
waters. It is a clear principle that acts outside one's territory that
impinge on or have effects within the territory are subject to
national criminal jurisdiction. In fact, such jurisdiction has been
asserted by English courts successfully since the 17th century and
is part of the jurisprudence of most countries today.
Therefore, it is my pleasure to commend Bill C-98 to this House
as a codification and a progressive development of international
law in the best traditions of those Canadian civil servants,
politically neutral as they were, who did so much to establish the
great international acts I have referred to in my discourse.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-98 and in
particular the amendment we have called for. The amendment is to
put down this bill and refer the contents of it back to the committee.
The reason is because this bill once again shows that this
government is just doing window dressing on a number of serious
issues.
I am going to speak to Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans. It
would be a very welcome bill to help ratify the UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea if it were something more than just window
dressing.
(1630)
I will explain what we agree and disagree with in the bill and
provide some constructive solutions that we humbly submit the
government should pay heed to.
We agree and commend the government in its effort to cost cut
by streamlining the coast guard and by enacting the partnership
programs which will save the taxpayer money, something we
would all welcome. We agree with the intent of the oceans
management strategy to co-ordinate the oceans strategy across
provincial and federal governments.
However do we need to create another level of bureaucracy to
fulfil the oceans management strategy? Should this not be the
responsibility of DFO? Why not convene representatives from the
provinces and the federal government to develop a concerted
strategy that DFO would monitor? Why do we need to create
another level of bureaucracy to do it? Why do we need to create
another group of people to watch people who watch other people,
who watch people watching people do some work? This is ``Yes,
Minister'' at its worst.
An hon. member: It is a make work project.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): That is right. The
minister truly believes that he is as interested in sustainable
development as we all are, but from what I have heard in the House
on the issue the facts bear that this is nonsense.
I will tell the House what has been happening on both coasts,
particularly the west coast where we are trying to avert the disaster
that occurred on the east coast. I have repeatedly warned the
minister of the devastating poaching that is taking place on the west
coast. We have seen very little being done about it. The proof is in
the pudding. All we need to do is look at the catchments that have
come back this year in so many different fish species to see the
devastation that has been wracked on our west coast fish species.
There is a lot of poaching going on. I will give some examples.
In Mill Bay in my riding there was a three-day salmon derby
which 300 fishermen attended and caught seven salmon. On
Hornby Island just a couple of months ago there was another
salmon derby. The third prize winning fish was a dogfish because
nobody caught any salmon. That is what is happening in the west
coast salmon fishery.
It is affecting groundfish and other species. One could not catch
a ling cod if one's life depended on it. Shellfish are being
decimated. The abalone fishery was closed in 1989 on the west
coast. Yet there is widespread poaching of abalone all over the west
coast. Just recently the ex-head of the Vancouver aquarium said
that a large population of Asian individuals are pillaging the
shellfish off Stanley Park.
I invite the minister and the parliamentary secretary to come to
Vancouver Island to see the decimation of the shellfish stocks. A
number of Vietnamese individuals on Vancouver Island have been
pillaging shellfish all over the island. DFO has been unable to deal
with the problem. It is a huge problem as our shellfish stocks are
being significantly affected. Furthermore the poachers are taking
shellfish out of polluted areas.
Seiners are vacuuming the ocean off Vancouver Island. Since
1957 when the seiners first started catching salmon there has been a
reproduceable inverse relationship between the intensity of seine
fishing, the numbers of spawners that are coming back and the
catchment by sports fishermen.
Just a couple of years ago there was a revenge seine fishery to
penalize the Americans, yet we decimated our own fish stocks.
That is not sustainable management, but that was the decision
made by the ministry.
All salmon species are being decimated. All one has to do is go
up the Fraser River to see what is happening. There are nets strung
from one end to the other. Aboriginal people are stringing nets
across the river and are pillaging and raping the fish stocks. The
ministry knows that. It should be coming down on individuals who
are hiding behind the aboriginal fish strategy to poach fish. They
have been unwilling to do that because it is politically incorrect. I
strongly advise the ministry that for all people, aboriginal and
15013
non-aboriginal people, it should have one commercial fishing
strategy. It should enforce the laws for all people regardless of who
they are.
(1635)
Fish know no bounds. They do not care who is pillaging them,
but there are individuals hiding behind their ethnic origins who are
doing it, and because it is not politically expedient the DFO is
unable and unwilling to deal with it.
I do not blame the officers because they are hamstrung by
mid-level bureaucrats that are hamstringing the minister. Part of
the problem is in the bureaucracy. When DFO was reorganized it
transferred decision making from hardworking DFO officers in the
field to mid-level bureaucrats in Ottawa and Vancouver. The
number of DFO officers went down.
The result is that decisions are made a distance away from where
the actual poaching is taking place. What we see are decisions that
do not actually affect the problems in the fisheries. It has also
contributed to the decimation of fish stocks on the west coast.
I actually commend the ministry for increasing the numbers of
fisheries officers somewhat, but I bring to its attention that it has
also increased the bureaucracy. I give the example of what
happened in my riding in Sooke where they closed the only
fisheries office and increased the bureaucracy in Victoria.
The result has been greatly increased pressure from poachers
within Vancouver Island and poachers coming across the Strait of
Juan de Fuca from America. They know full well they cannot fish
in their own waters because of the decimation of the stocks.
Therefore they come to good old Canada and decimate our stocks.
They know they will not be penalized because fisheries officers are
unprepared to deal with them.
I bring to the attention of the ministry that the morale of DFO
officers is at an all time low because mid-level bureaucrats have
hamstrung them. They have made it unable for them to do their job
or to acquire the means to do their job. The ministry needs to
investigate the loss of morale. It is losing a lot of good people who
have historically done a great job in fisheries.
Another aspect is that groundfish are being decimated. We find
that trollers are decimating the reefs all over the west coast in an
effort to extract whatever fish are there. These delicate reefs are
being smashed to pieces.
We need one commercial fishing strategy. We also need to
decrease the number of nets in the water. There are simply too
many nets right now to make the extraction of species sustainable.
We also need to decrease seiner activity and have a release program
for adult Chinook salmon, which is possible if the weather is
co-operative.
We should try to preserve sports fishing capability, the reason
being that sports fishing injects on a per fish basis much more than
the commercial fishery, in fact about $37 per fish.
We should enforce the law we have right now. I implore the
ministry to enforce the laws we have. It has not been doing it. The
poachers are aware of it and taking full advantage of the situation.
There should be commercial fishing strategy for all people. We
should not allow poachers to hide behind the aboriginal fishing
strategy for their own personal financial gain, at the expense of all
honest fishermen from all walks of life.
We need to push for an extension of our jurisdiction beyond our
200-mile zone. There is a doughnut in the Pacific Ocean where
immature salmon go to fatten up. International poachers are
pillaging that doughnut of fish which normally come back to us.
The issue was investigated years ago. For a number of reasons the
investigation was quashed internally. We need to try to enforce
through international agreement the preservation of that area so we
can ensure that a reasonable number of fish will come back to us.
(1640)
We also have to deal with the dumping of toxins that is occurring
not only in our country but in others because they wind up in our
ecosystem. I remind everyone of who is at the pinnacle of that
ecosystem. The number one predator is man. This is what happens.
Toxins are accumulated in an individual. The higher up one is in the
predatory system, the more the toxins become concentrated and the
greater chance they have of becoming carcinogenic and
teratogenic.
I strongly advise the minister to work with science research and
development in the Department of the Environment rather than
have the department work in isolation. There are many very
talented and skilled scientists in the Ministry of the Environment
who are doing a lot of incredible work on the issue of sustainable
development with respect to the oceans. I suggest they tap into that
resource for the benefit of the fishery.
I also suggest co-operative effort between other ministries and a
leadership role for DFO. I know it can play this role because it has
many very talented people. We are looking for somebody to take a
leadership role among the ministries and we have it within our
capabilities.
The minister claims, as I have said before, that he is very much
in favour of sustainable management of our resources. Yet in
British Columbia he is closing down hatcheries left, right and
centre. They closed the hatchery down in Sooke. If we did not have
those hatcheries we would not have a fishery. That is the cold hard
reality. If we do not have them the number of spawners coming
back are negligible.
15014
I propose the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should start up
a sustainable hatchery in my riding near Sooke. The start-up costs
are $1 million with a quarter million dollars per year. It could be
self-financing in four years. I ask him to look at the proposal. It
could inject over $90 million into Vancouver Island. Furthermore
it would be self-financing. We just need some co-operation from
the ministry to do it.
I would also like to look at the area of aquaculture. We were a
leader in aquaculture a few years ago. However, because of
mismanagement and a lack of support from governments, Chile has
now taken over from us in the aquaculture industry. We as a
country can play a leadership role internationally in aquaculture.
Some very good work is being done in a vet college on Prince
Edward Island and at the University of Prince Edward Island on
research in aquaculture that could enable Canada to garner a niche
in aquaculture and become a leader in the area. The economic
spinoff benefits for the west coast would be huge.
I hope the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will look into the
matter and work in co-operation with the University of Prince
Edward Island, and other universities that are similarly doing other
exciting work, for the benefit of the people of the area and for the
benefit of the resource.
The minister also claimed that he was interested in looking at
protecting spawning sites. I completely agree. Yet we do not have
adequate data on the spawning sites as they exist. We need to
acquire them.
There is another aspect. There are other fisheries involving sea
cucumbers, sea urchins and geoducks for which there is an open
fishery. That would be absolutely fine except for the fact that we
have absolutely no idea what stocks there are in these areas. We
need to establish what the stocks are before we move ahead and
cull a sustainable number of these species, to maintain a
sustainable resource in these other shellfish species for the future.
Bill C-98 has a lot of good intentions. Unfortunately it falls far
short of what it was meant to be. I hope the ministry can ask for the
opinions of people in the areas that are being affected by the
fishery. I hope and pray we will not have an east coast disaster on
the west coast. As we stand here now, poaching is widespread
through virtually every species we can imagine. The only people
who are going to be hurt are future Canadians.
(1645)
I would implore the minister once again to enforce the law for all
people regardless of who they happen to be. It is not politically
incorrect to enforce the law because the people who are poaching
are of an immigrant population or are aboriginal people. It does not
serve those people within those groups or any other group who are
honest individuals within the industry and are working within the
legal framework of that industry to have any group of people within
their population poaching the fish and other fish species.
We need a sustainable fishery in this country. We can have a
sustainable fishery in this country but we can only have it if the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans shows the leadership it is
obligated to show. I and my colleagues in the Reform Party would
be more than happy to help the government to work toward that
end. It just takes the political will, strength and courage to do that.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member and I would like to commend him on
some interesting ideas he has put forward. I took notes on many of
his concerns.
He spent some time on ensuring that enforcement and law and
order is very important. The Reform Party often puts forward that
if there are people illegally fishing or poaching we should take
action. He would know that the Reform member for Delta was
charged with illegally fishing and that whenever anyone does not
abide by the law they will be charged as the member was under the
DFO act.
The member also talked about enforcement. He knows that one
of the things we have accomplished this year is we were able to get
an increase in the budget for enforcement. This is not an easy thing
to do these days when there are tremendous budget cuts. As the
Reform Party often brings forward we should be cutting the deficit
and cutting our costs but this is one area where people such as the
hon. member and others have told us that we need more
enforcement. Therefore more enforcement has been added on the
west coast. It is the one area where there has been a budget
increase.
The hon. member talked about the sports fishery. He knows that
the sports fishery is very important from a tourism point of view in
developing that whole industry. Would he and his party designate
the chinook and coho as an exclusive sports fishery? I am
interested to know his view on that topic and what his position
would be.
I also would like to hear his view on our new aquaculture
strategy. I wonder whether he feels that is the right direction and
whether he agrees with our new aquaculture strategy which was
just brought in by the minister. We think aquaculture is very
important. I would appreciate it if the hon. member could respond
to those questions.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, I
would like to preface my remarks by bringing forth a couple of the
hon. member's concerns. My colleague did indeed put his nets into
the water. Quite bluntly, the reason he put his nets into the water
was to show that the law was not being enforced equally between
aboriginals and non-aboriginals. I cannot comment on a situation
that is going to be before the courts but the motivation was
15015
frustration. The facts are that the laws are not and were not being
applied equally to both aboriginals and non-aboriginals.
I just draw from a safety point of view the poaching I mentioned
earlier along the Fraser River where aboriginal people were
extending their nets right across the river and taking as much as
they could possibly take. This was done in front of DFO officers.
The DFO officers would not go in there because they were afraid of
being shot and killed. I do not blame them but that is the reality
under which we live.
(1650)
I would like to also ask if the taxes that are going to be applied to
catchment also apply to aboriginal and non-aboriginal commercial
fishermen. Do they also apply to commercial fishermen under the
AFS? At some time in the future I would like to know the answer to
that.
The hon. member asked me about the chinook and coho
fisheries. We know the numbers of both are declining quite
dramatically and I would put the ball back in his court. Our first
concern is to ensure we have adequate chinook and coho coming
back into our waters as spawners. That is not happening right now.
If we enable the hatcheries to occur, such as the one I mentioned
which can be sustainable, then in time when we get a sufficient
number of chinook and coho back, yes we could have a commercial
fishery in that.
The overriding concern we must have is to ensure that our
chinook and coho and every other species are going to have
sufficient sustainable numbers in our waters so that this resource
can be increased over time. When it gets to a level that is
considered to be sustainable, I am sure the ministry will have
enough data to show how many fish can be taken off in a
sustainable fashion in a commercial way.
The aquaculture suggestions I mentioned to the hon. member are
suggestions I have not seen put forth in any area by the ministry. If
it is there, I would certainly like to be made aware of it. To my
knowledge and from what I have seen, there is no record of the
other constructive ideas I have put forth to the hon. member with
respect to maximizing our aquaculture capabilities within Canada.
As I said before, I have no doubt that Canada can be a world
leader in aquaculture because we have superb research taking place
now. There is no reason that not only can we do this domestically
but there are also enormous international trade possibilities in
aquaculture existing around the world. In the future with our
resources being decimated, we are going to need new sources of
protein to feed the burgeoning populations in this world.
Aquaculture could provide a large part of that protein.
There are great opportunities for Canada. I am sure the hon.
member will pass that information back to the minister so he can
act on it forthwith.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to speak to Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of
Canada, at second reading and to address the amendment before
this honourable House.
It is a privilege to support Bill C-98 in principle and to support
its objectives and its implementation. The people of Central Nova
applaud the due diligence and leadership role the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans has played in our country since assuming his
responsibilities as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Thanks to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, our Canadian
people have a renewed hope, a new vision for our coastal
communities: protection for our fisheries and oceans. Finally, we
have a human face of compassion amidst our fisheries crisis in
Canada.
On Tuesday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans addressed this
House on the oceans act and its importance to the maritime nation
which is Canada. The vision of the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans is to make Canada a world leader in oceans and marine
resource management through this legislation. He enunciated for us
the mission which this government has set for itself, to manage
Canada's oceans in close co-operation with others so that our
oceans are clean, safe, productive and accessible.
In my riding of Central Nova there exists the north shore and the
eastern shore of the Atlantic Ocean. My constituents applaud the
vision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans which he boldly
pronounced on November 15, 1994 in the document ``A Vision for
Oceans Management''. This document is based on the
recommendations of the National Advisory Board on Science and
Technology Report on Oceans and Coasts. At that time the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans said: ``It has been long recognized for a
long time that there is a need for one act to clearly assert Canada's
sovereign rights and responsibilities over its oceans and
territories''.
(1655)
Our minister of fisheries pointed to the proprietary pride which
Canadians have in their oceans: the Atlantic, the Pacific and the
Arctic. These are fundamental to much of our existence,
individually and as a nation. They have provided the means of
transportation, trading, communications and subsistence from time
immemorial. Generations have depended on our oceans for food,
clothing and even medicine.
Canada with its three coasts has the longest coastline in the
world and the second largest continental shelf spanning more than
six and a half million kilometres. As the Minister of Fisheries and
15016
Oceans pointed out in his vision document, Canada's oceans are
equal to half of our territorial land mass and have been a key to our
evolution culturally and economically. Fisheries, transportation
and shipping, tourism and recreation, offshore oil and gas have all
been beacons of hope and economic stability for numerous coastal
communities along all three oceans.
In his 1994 vision paper the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
related as well the need to diversify our reliance on the maritime
resources in light of the collapse of groundfish stocks along the east
coast and in light of ever increasing stress being placed on the
maritime habitat by our society. Critical habitat destruction,
foreign and domestic overfishing, as well as marine and
atmospheric pollution were all cause for concern.
This government recognized that a new oceans management
regime was needed, one based on an ecological approach and on
the development of an integrated management system for all
activities affecting oceans and coastal waters. The time had come.
The wake-up alarm had sounded for all Canadians to turn away
from the band-aid measures of short term need to a policy which
would result in the sustainable use of resources and environmental
protection.
Through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the Government
of Canada identified several key objectives of any new legal
instrument:
First, to preserve and protect the oceans' environment, the
ecosystems and resources they contain. Second, to establish a
framework and guidelines to manage the oceans' resources, both
renewable and non-renewable, on an economically sustainable and
environmentally acceptable basis. Third, to enhance, focus,
co-ordinate and disseminate Canada's scientific, environmental
and management information relating to oceans and their
resources. Fourth, to assert and enforce Canada's sovereign rights
and responsibilities over its ocean resources and areas. Fifth, to
establish the legal framework to support the implementation of this
oceans management strategy. Sixth, to establish a clearly
identifiable lead federal agency accountable for oceans
management.
As the minister suggested, this should best be initiated by the
development and passage of Canada's oceans act. As the minister
pointed out to the House, Canada's oceans policy at present is like a
big jigsaw puzzle, the pieces all scattered in front of us waiting for
us to fit them all together. It is not easy to visualize the entire
picture without seeing the box which the puzzle came in and its
cover illustration. However, a great deal of work has gone into
visualizing what the whole picture must be and determining a
logical pattern for the pieces to be placed together, pieces as
diverse as deep ocean research and cold ocean rescues, inspection
and protection, emergency responses and sustainability,
conservation and commercialization, navigational safety and
national security, national goals and regional initiatives, restoration
of our marine resources, and job creation.
We all know that it will take many minds to finish the puzzle in
time for all Canadians to enjoy the results of the effort. From the
outset this has not been the vision of one person or one group of
persons imposed upon the rest of us. The Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans has signalled clearly his openness toward full participation
in the process so that all sides of the House, all stakeholders, all
organizations, disciplines and sectors of society having an interest
in our oceans can contribute.
(1700)
Consultation has been a hallmark of the government in the
carrying out of its responsibilities but the minister has sought
more; namely, a partnership for a successful conclusion to this
challenge; this beckoning to us from the future generations of
Canada.
Through this legislation, Canada will be bringing into its own
domestic law provisions for 200 nautical miles from its low water
line to which it is already entitled as part of the modern
international community.
Canada is taking on its rights and responsibilities as a member of
the global community, a community with a growing realization that
our actions are all interdependent, whether at the most local
community level or at the level of global interaction and
co-operation for survival.
The oceans act makes it possible for the federal government to
solicit and expand partnerships in the many enterprises involved in
scientific research, maritime communications and safety, fisheries
conservation, management enforcement, underwater exploration
and seabed mining, the understanding and sustainable exploitation
of marine plants, the maintenance of trading routes through block
ice.
It makes us all working shareholders in the development of a
flexible, workable and ecologically sound ocean strategy for today
and for the future, one well in keeping with Canada's motto, from
sea to sea to sea.
In conclusion, this is a vision of Canada as being much more
than the Rockies, the Laurentian Shield and great plains between
them, of great cities lining up at our southern borders; it is also a
view of myriad port cities and coastal communities, of diverse
marine activities extending economic and social benefit to future
generations brought to us by the rolling swells and rippled waves of
blue beginnings at the edges of our land maps.
The oceans act is a vision of the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans and of the Government of Canada. However, it is more than
that: in its ink and paper, in the millions of electronic impulses and
images which have gone into its preparation and discussion and
communication from this very Chamber, it represents the
aspirations of millions of Canadians.
15017
It is a declaration by a maritime nation that it will continue to
shoulder the challenges of the present but that it welcomes the
support of all concerned as it navigates into the future.
A special thank you to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from
all Canadians for Bill C-98 and for recognizing the importance of
the maritime nation which is Canada.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the
oceans act and, in so doing, to pay tribute to its author, the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans. In the short time he has occupied that post
he has shown exemplary leadership by leading our country through
one of the worst crisis in the Atlantic fishery and turning that
difficult situation on the Atlantic coast, and as well in other
respects on the Pacific coast, into an opportunity for Canada to
assert its pride as a nation internationally and its sense of
leadership on behalf of the world's oceans.
The oceans act which was tabled on Tuesday and which the
minister addressed on Tuesday is, as he has pointed out, legislation
that constitutes one element, but a major element, in the overall
strategy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to intensify its
effort toward the oceans and will be complemented by a number of
other policies and activities in the months ahead.
The objectives of the oceans act are to recognize in domestic law
Canada's jurisdiction over its ocean areas and their resources, to
provide the legislative framework for a new oceans management
regime and to regroup key federal ocean related statutes under the
oceans act.
The legislation consists of three parts, each of which contains the
regulatory enforcement and operational authorities required for its
implementation.
(1705 )
Part I is Canada's maritime zones. This part defines Canada's
maritime zones by incorporating provisions of the Territorial Sea
and Fishing Zones Act. It declares Canada's rights and jurisdiction
over the contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone and it
defines the minimum limits of Canada's continental shelf as
provided for by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea.
Let me point out that the declaration of the contiguous zone and
of an exclusive economic zone is in full agreement with
international practice. The limitation of Canada's maritime zones
also outlines the area over which Canada will now apply its new
oceans management strategy.
In accordance with the government's efforts to consolidate key
ocean legislation under the umbrella of the oceans act, provisions
of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act and the Canadian
Laws Offshore Applications Act are incorporated into the this bill.
This legislation further emphasizes Canada's rights with respect to
the continental shelf. Canada has rights to living organisms
belonging to sedentary species on or in the shelf and jurisdiction
over the exploration and the exploitation of minerals and
non-living resources of the seabed and of the subsoil.
The declaration of Canadian jurisdiction over the territorial sea
and the contiguous zone and the exclusive zone is crucial. Most
Canadians may not know these technical terms, but many
Canadians will have heard the phrases 12-mile zone and 200-mile
zone. Canada's territorial sea extends from the coastline out 12
nautical miles. In the territorial sea Canada has full jurisdiction to
ocean waters, to the seabed beneath these waters and the space
above.
The contiguous zone will extend an additional 12 nautical miles
from the outer edge of the territorial sea. In this zone Canada will
have the power to enforce our criminal, fiscal, immigration,
sanitary and customs laws.
The exclusive economic zones will encompass all of the ocean
area out to 200 nautical miles from the coastal baseline. In this
zone Canada will have jurisdiction for exploring and exploiting,
conserving and managing the living and non-living resources of the
waters, seabed and subsoil. Canada's jurisdiction in this zone will
cover marine scientific research, protection and preservation of the
marine environment and artificial islands, installations and
structures.
Through this legislation Canada will establish major new rights
over the ocean. In the councils of the world Canadians pushed hard
to establish these rights. These new zones grant Canada powers that
go well beyond the powers our country asserted in the past. The bill
will put in place a clear definition of jurisdiction that is fully
supported by global agreement.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans expressed this clearly on
Tuesday in the House when he stated: ``The world backs Canada's
jurisdiction over Canadian waters''.
This brings me to Part II, oceans management strategy. This part
commits us to the development of a new method by which we shall
manage the oceans and their resources. It identifies the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans as the federal authority responsible for the
co-ordination and facilitation of the development and
implementation with stakeholders of an oceans management
strategy. It provides the minister with the necessary statutory
authority to do so. This part also authorizes the minister to create
marine protected areas for the protection of the fishery resource.
Let me review the goals of the strategy outlined in the
legislation. One goal is to integrate planning and management of
activities within and among jurisdictions. Another is to reduce
regulatory duplication and conflict. Still another is to increase the
effectiveness of environmental protection measures and to replace
the
15018
existing sectoral approach to resource management in favour of a
more comprehensive ecosystem-based approach.
The act thus provides the building blocks for integrated
management and sustainable development of Canada's ocean
resources. It outlines a new ecosystems approach to marine
resource management. It provides a common focus for federal
responsibilities and consolidates federal programs. It gives
Canadians legislative tools with which to begin working on ocean
management holistically, rather than sectorally.
(1710)
We have long known the need for sustainable development of
resources. This need was clearly put forward in the report of the
1987 World Commission on Environment and Development, better
known as the Bruntland report after its chairman, Gro Harlem
Bruntland, now Prime Minister of Norway.
Here is how the commission defined sustainable development:
``Activity in which the environment is fully incorporated into the
economic decision-making process as a forethought, not an
afterthought''. The report called for: ``Development that meets the
needs of the present, without compromising the ability of the future
generations to meet their own needs''. The government is acting on
the commission's call.
Last year the National Advisory Board of Science and
Technology called for an oceans act to address the needs of ocean
frontier development for the present and the future. The advisory
board called for Canada to develop a proactive oceans policy that
plans for the future, rather than just responds to crisis.
In November 1994, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
released a document setting out the potential elements of an ocean
management vision for Canada. The government sought the advice
of Canadians across the country. Certain themes recurred in that
advice. The federal government has a leadership role to play in
oceans policy. There should be one federal department taking the
lead in developing a new strategy. People want to be involved
locally in developing solutions to regional priorities. There is a
need to sustain resources and to diversify.
Such was the advice we received. It came from provinces,
municipalities, coastal residents, fishermen, business, labour,
environmentalists and scientists. The bill before us sets out the
elements of an oceans policy. But all Canadians must be involved
in developing specific mechanisms, planning and management
structures, as well as the guidelines and standards needed to bring
about sustainable use of oceans and their resources.
The oceans management strategy envisaged by this legislation is
broad in scope and flexible in implementation. It recognizes the
consensus building that is needed for a cohesive and coherent
oceans policy for our country.
Again, let me quote the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from
his address to the House on Tuesday: ``The bill identifies federal
leadership and commitment to a comprehensive approach to oceans
management. The bill seeks to address regulatory duplication,
conflict and inadequacies that result in inefficiencies, failure to
protect the environment and impediments to development and this
bill is founded on the principle that long term solutions require
long term co-operation''.
The oceans act will give the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, on
behalf of the Government of Canada, legal authority to draw
together all of Canada's ocean stakeholders, to develop a strategy
based on the sustainable development and integrated management
of activities and resources in estuarine, coastal and marine waters.
The act provides the authority to develop the actual mechanisms
to implement the new strategy. It gives the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans the ability to enter into new partnership agreements in
order to ensure that the ocean management strategy meets regional
needs and fulfils regional aspirations.
Part III deals with the powers, duties and functions of the
minister. This part provides for consolidation and clarification of
federal responsibilities for managing Canada's oceans. It reflects
the enhanced mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
and it provides statutory authority for Canadian Coast Guard
functions transferred to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Those functions include provision of services for the safe,
economical and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters;
the marine component of the federal search and rescue program;
pleasure craft safety and marine pollution prevention and response,
as well as ships, aircraft and other marine services in support of
other federal programs, boards and agencies.
(1715 )
Oceans related provisions previously contained in other
legislation have been incorporated into this section of the act. Most
notable is the authority of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
to conduct hydrographic, oceanographic and marine scientific
surveys, to conduct research and to publish various products.
As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans observed at the last
debate on the oceans act, with this legislation we are coming to the
successful conclusion of a long and dramatic chapter in Canada's
maritime history. With this legislation we are coming to the
beginning of a new and even more vital chapter in that history.
The Canada oceans act will give our country and exclusive
economic zone covering almost 5 million square kilometres of the
Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans. With the passage of this act
15019
Canada will effectively increase by one-half as our jurisdiction will
encompass both the land mass and the oceans.
As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said, the Canada oceans
act does expand our notion of Canada as a country. The oceans
management strategy increases the priority we place as a society on
wise development of our waters. It signals that Canada and
Canadians are prepared to act in making the most of our ocean
assets, opportunities and obligations.
The fisheries and oceans minister has aptly described the Canada
oceans act as the last step forward toward formal jurisdiction over
Canada's ocean territory. However, the act is also the first step
toward recognizing the extraordinary importance and potential of
this vast territory.
In legislative terms the bill establishes jurisdiction over
Canada's ocean area and ocean resources. It establishes the primary
rules and provides the tools to help support Canada's new oceans
management regime. It consolidates and clarifies federal
responsibilities for managing Canada's oceans.
In real life terms the bill marks a transition in Canadians'
relationship with our oceans. It marks an acceptance of reciprocal
obligation; as the oceans benefit us, so we are agreeing to act to
benefit the oceans.
The oceans act signals a renewal of Canada's leadership in
oceans management. With this act we are asserting Canada's role
as a world leader. Sustainable development is a goal to which all
nations must be committed, not only of the fisheries resource but of
all ocean resources.
There may be seven seas but there is only one ocean. The oceans
make up one single global organism connected by great currents
flowing from hemisphere to hemisphere. Oceans play a vital role in
regulating our climate. Oceans also play a key role in the water
cycle, the chemistry of the atmosphere and the making of climate
and weather. Oceans also supply us not only with food but also
energy, minerals and medicines.
With the oceans act Canada will be in an even stronger position
to show the world the way of conserving ocean resources. As the
member for the Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, a constituency
which depends greatly on the oceans near its coasts, be it for
fishing or as a vital link in eastern Canada for ocean protection, for
conservation and for environmental response through the Strait of
Canso, I am very pleased to greet this Canada oceans act and the
co-ordination and consolidation that it represents in Canada's
oceans policy.
I am pleased also to support the government in bringing this
legislation forward as well as the initiatives which will flow from
this initiative in expanding Canada's sense of responsibility over
the oceans and also in continuing the leadership which our
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has demonstrated to the great
pride of all Canadians in taking the lead in the world in managing
our ocean environment.
(1720 )
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest for the last several hours to the
debate with regard to this bill.
I find something very disturbing as I look through it. I have been
very involved in Bill C-68, the gun control bill. Now I look at Bill
C-98 and at many other bills before the House and there is a trend
that disturbs me very much, a trend toward centralizing power in
Ottawa, the big bubble, the place that seems to lose touch with the
concerns of grassroots Canadians, the concerns that people have
out there trying to make a living, trying to find a livelihood they
can depend on. This bill does not address that. In some instances it
makes it even more difficult. Let me explain.
A bloated bureaucracy is being developed. There is the minister
centralizing power within his office. It is a very top heavy
administration, just like in agriculture, an area I am very familiar
with. A study was done. In agriculture we have approximately 1
bureaucrat for every 5.8 farmers.
If we look at the fishing industry, how many bureaucrats does it
take for the fishermen to fish, to do their work? We have through
this bill even more of this type of bureaucracy developing.
I listened to what was said, things like we need to co-ordinate,
we need to do all these wonderful things. Are they just
euphemisms? Are those code words for more bloated bureaucracy?
I look at other things in the bill. The governments says it will
need fees to cut back on the deficits in this area. This is just another
word for taxes these fishermen will have to pay.
It was an eye opener for me to go to New Brunswick a couple of
weeks ago, to the southwestern part of the province, and talk with
the fishermen who are being squeezed out of the fishery by the
regulations the government is putting in place, by the taxes in the
form of fees which are driving these fishermen out of work. I find
that unacceptable. The bill makes that even more possible. We have
to start addressing the real concerns of real people out there.
Is it the intention of the government to give big corporations
more power to fish? If we talk to the people out there they will tell
us about the draggers, the big chains destroying the environment. I
hear the member speaking about how the government will protect
the environment and protect all of these things. That is not
happening. That is not the reality of what is happening.
15020
These people are allowed to fish and the handliners are being
restricted. They are not being allowed to fish. It does not make
sense that we allow these huge boats that carry these big chains
or drag these big nets to fish every day of the week but the
handliners are being restricted to one or two days and sometimes
not even that.
We have a real problem and the bill does not address that
problem. The government is out of touch with reality. It is
becoming obvious to Atlantic Canadians that big central
government, just like it has become obvious to the Bloc and the
people of Quebec and the people of western Canada, is attempting
to centralize power and this big central government grabbing this
power is not the answer to the needs of people out there. That is a
big problem.
What about allowing more fishermen a say in their industry? Is
there anything built into the bill, any structure, whereby they can
have elected boards or make their bureaucrats and politicians more
accountable? I do not see it. It is not there.
It sounds so good to have Ottawa co-ordinate all this stuff. I
think it is just another euphemism, another excuse for more big
government.
The bill also makes it possible for special interest groups to
influence the minister and the bureaucrats to get their way. That is
probably happening already at this time.
(1725)
The government could have done things like extend the 200-mile
limit to solve some of these problems, but they are not in here. The
teeth for this I do not find in the bill.
In Canada there are over 6,000 department of fisheries officials
managing 65,000 licences. It sounds just like the department of
agriculture, a huge number of bureaucrats. The fishermen do not
warrant such numbers.
The department operates with a budget that exceeds $750
million to administer it. Clearly there is room for a little cost
cutting at the very top, and not simply increasing the fees of the
fishermen. Perhaps the minister could lead by example and save a
little money on his office furniture. That was a concern; maybe one
less oak table could have helped one more fisherman in Atlantic
Canada. It would say the minister and the department are not
treating the fishermen with absolute disdain if there were some
cutbacks made by him and by the department.
It is adamantly clear the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not
committed to downsizing his bloated department. He would rather
try to slip a new level of bureaucracy into his department under the
guise of broad consultation rather than deal with the harsh realities
of downsizing.
Has the minister not got the message? Canadians want less
government. Everywhere I go they repeat government members
should be listening but they are not. Canadians want less
government.
What the Atlantic fishermen tell us in no uncertain terms is their
distress over the licensing fees for Atlantic Canadian fishermen is a
very serious matter. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans wants
to collect $50 million in access fees from the fishermen who ply
their trade in the waters off the coast of Atlantic Canada.
These fees are just taxes, as I have already explained. No matter
how the Liberals dress them up they are simply more taxes. Fees
are nothing new to the industry but it is irresponsible for the
government and the minister to subject the fishermen of a region
already devastated by mismanagement to further hardship.
These people are having a rough time. They cannot afford this.
Talk to them when they have to increase their fees from less than
$100 to four times that amount. Some of them will have to pay up
to $16,000 if they want to fish in certain parts of the industry.
It is ridiculous that a government would expect them to come up
with that kind of money. That is more than their net income in an
entire year. This tax will only make things worse for the fishermen.
It will be an unbearable burden on all fishermen from coast to
coast, not just the people of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland or P.E.I.
The tax increase will be enormous. The Department of Fisheries
and Oceans collects about $13 million in licence fees and its goal is
to increase this to $50 million, three to four times the present
amount. That is totally unacceptable.
Any Atlantic Canadian MP who speaks up for the fishermen in
his or her own riding knows well they may end up in political
oblivion. The bureaucracy that has developed within the Liberal
Party, within this Ottawa bubble, has made it so that the common
people cannot even have their voice heard.
Another problem is that in the future any decisions made on the
new fees will be through governor in council decrees without
parliamentary scrutiny. We saw the same thing on gun control, Bill
C-68.
The minister gives himself absolute power to make these
regulations, to do these things behind closed doors. That is not
acceptable in this day and age. We need to open things up. We need
to give the fishermen a voice in what is happening in their own
affairs.
What message does this send to Canadians on the accountability
of government? Governments need to be more accountable and I do
not see it happening in the bill. I wish I could go on. I appreciate the
time I have had to represent the people of New Brunswick. I hope
the government will listen.
15021
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
15021
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-316, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the
Transfer of Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-316
today. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon.
member for Cambridge for his efforts in this regard.
The intent of the bill is simple: non-citizens convicted of serious
criminal offences in Canada should be deported. There is nothing
earth-shattering in this idea. In fact, it is currently the law of the
land.
Bill C-316 attempts to bring some certainty to the process by
having the deportation incorporated into the offender's sentence. I
can see why the hon. member for Cambridge found it necessary to
try to bring some certainty to the process. It is not there now.
Many who have spoken in opposition to the bill, including the
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, have stated that what we have in place now is more
than sufficient. The reality is that there are major deficiencies in
our present legislation, even with Bill C-44. On occasion these
deficiencies have outrageous and tragic consequences.
I would like to advise the House about a current case taking
place in British Columbia. On September 23, 1993, Hector
Lopez-Tello, a Guatemalan refugee claimant, was convicted of
drug trafficking and ordered deported. He was allowed to remain in
Canada while he appealed the deportation order. On April 28 of this
year Francisco Castro, a refugee claimant from El Salvador, was
also ordered deported after being convicted of drug trafficking. He
was also allowed to remain in Canada while he appealed. On May 7
Lopez-Tello, Castro, and a third refugee claimant were arrested and
charged with the second degree murder of 24-year-old Matthew
McKay. The three murder suspects appear in court on October 16
of this year.
Meanwhile, McKay left behind a wife, a 16-month-old daughter,
and a mother who wonders about Canada's justice system and
immigration system. She should wonder. How does a man like
Francisco Castro get to continue to walk the streets of Canada
when, according to an IRB spokesperson, he had an extensive
criminal record for trafficking in a narcotic?
We provide the man with refuge and instead of thanking us he
involves himself in the drug trade. When he is ordered deported he
takes advantage of the numerous appeals available to refugee
claimants and walks the street a free man. Meanwhile, a young man
is murdered and leaves behind a wife and child.
If ever the hon. member for Cambridge needed an example as to
why his bill should succeed, this is it. If Lopez-Tello and Castro
had been deported immediately after their drug trafficking
convictions, maybe Matthew McKay would still be alive today.
Most Canadians think that we should be deporting these
individuals. Less than a year ago I included the following question
in one of my householders: Should immigrants or refugees
convicted of serious offences be automatically deported? I received
2,829 responses to the survey, of which 2,744 people, or 97 per
cent, said yes. Only 61 people, or 3 per cent, disagreed. That shows
us the support that is out there for such legislation.
The Canadian people have traditionally been generous in
welcoming new immigrants to this country. We welcome people
from countries all over the world to come to Canada to start new
lives. We welcome legitimate refugees fleeing war and oppression
in their homelands. However, Canadians' hospitality does not
extend to criminals. Those who enter Canada illegally, with
criminal records, or those who commit serious criminal offences
once they arrive in Canada should not expect an equally generous
reception. Those with criminal records prior to their entry to
Canada are inadmissible; thus, they should not even be in this
country. However, those who commit serious criminal offences in
Canada have violated the basic agreement of their welcome to
Canada. In exchange for a safe haven or the opportunity to start a
new life that Canada offers refugees or immigrants, we have every
reason to expect these individuals to obey the laws of our land. If
they do not, they have sent us a clear message that they are not
prepared to live up to their end of the bargain. Why should we feel
compelled to allow these individuals to remain in Canada when
they are telling us that they are not going to play by our rules? The
deportation of these individuals should be automatic-end of the
argument.
(1735)
This brings us back to Bill C-316. Many of those who have
spoken before me have pointed out some of the technical flaws of
the bill. Yes, there are problems, but nothing that cannot be
corrected by amendments made at committee or report stage. The
15022
intent of this bill is sound. It deserves the opportunity for further
hearing.
It is important that this House send two important messages. The
first message should be sent to immigrants or refugees intent on
committing serious criminal offences: If you commit a serious
crime, on top of the other penalty that you may receive, you will be
deported. The second message needs to go to the Canadian people,
and that is that this Parliament is intent on ridding Canada of
foreign criminals. This is most important.
Although those immigrants and refugees who commit serious
crimes are a very small minority, they receive all the headlines.
Canadians become outraged when they see the difficulty we have in
deporting these criminals. It ends up bringing the entire
immigration and refugee program into disrepute. Thus, we have to
show Canadians that we are prepared to get rid of these few
individuals who adversely affect the reputations of all immigrants
and refugees.
Passing Bill C-316 will demonstrate that we are prepared to deal
with the issue and deal with it quickly. It deserves a full and
comprehensive hearing. Those in favour of the bill and those
opposed should have the opportunity to appear before the
committee and present their views. From there the committee can
make whatever amendments necessary to make this a workable
piece of legislation. After all, if the government made over 80
amendments to Bill C-68 at report stage, and that was its own
legislation, we should have no problem in amending this bill.
Those who are convinced that the final product is not acceptable
can still vote against it at third reading. However, it deserves the
opportunity to pass second reading and go to the committee.
I urge all members of this House to consider the bill carefully
and to give it their support at second reading.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, before I get into the specifics of
the bill I would like to take a minute to talk about my colleague, the
member for Cambridge.
Many of you who sat in the previous Parliament or two
Parliaments ago would remember that the member for Cambridge,
Mr. Chris Speyer, Conservative member of Parliament, devoted
most of his time to issues related to securing safety in the streets
and law and order in this country. In fact he distinguished himself
in this House working on such issues and later he was appointed to
the Federal Court of Canada.
Our colleague, when he was elected in the last election, had a
tremendous challenge in front of him, quite frankly, to fill those
shoes. It is obvious that in less than two years he has already, on
behalf of the community of Cambridge, filled those shoes and gone
beyond. I think that today's bill is not only representative of the
feelings and views a lot of his own community has, but it is also a
representation of what I know most of the people in my community
in downtown Toronto feel. It is a bill that my community would
want supported.
I salute my colleague from Cambridge for a tremendous effort in
bringing this private member's bill before the House.
It is great to see that the Reform Party members are getting
behind this bill. It is very rare that a member can bring to the House
of Commons a bill and achieve such all-party consensus. That is a
great achievement for a member of Parliament in his first term.
(1740)
Bill C-316 has a personal appeal to me because the parents and a
lot of the relatives of Georgina Leimonis lived in my riding. In my
downtown Toronto riding there are more members of the Greek
community than any other community outside of Athens. Our
community was deeply disturbed by the tragic death of Georgina.
This is a very specific example of why this bill must be passed,
must go to committee, must be properly amended and made the law
of the land.
Bill C-316 enables the court, in addition to any other sentence, to
order the removal of a non-citizen convicted of an offence
punishable by 10 or more years. It accelerates the deportation
process and would save Canadian taxpayers money, because two
separate hearings, immigration and sentencing, would not be
needed. This bill does not apply to anyone who arrived in Canada
prior to 16 years of age.
Today in our correctional service system, our prisons, there are
non-citizens who are using this defect in our current law, and it is
costing the taxpayers of Canada close to $50 million a year.
Conceivably, for the same group who are in our prisons today, that
same group, without any increase, over the term of a government
we would be talking $250 million.
When the fiscal framework of this country is in such tough
condition and we are all trying to the best of our ability to be frugal
and to cut and eliminate waste and duplication, it seems to me that
alongside the basic justice in the bill there is also an economic
factor that has to be looked at.
If we did not support this bill it is not inconceivable that within
two or three years it could cost the taxpayers of Canada $150
million a year to look after non-Canadians who have criminal
offences as part of their record and who are abusing our laws. I
believe this is another factor in the equation.
Another thing I believe we must understand is that the member
for Cambridge did not just listen to his own community and
members here; he went to other organizations. I want to quote
specifically from a letter he received from Victims of Violence, the
Canadian Centre for Missing Children: ``Mr. Peric's bill focuses on
those immigrants who have committed serious criminal offences,
sometimes violent. His bill distinguishes the criminals from the
15023
overwhelming majority of law-abiding immigrants. Those
convicted of offences punishable by 10 years or more should be
deported from Canada as quickly as possible. Victims of Violence
would like to congratulate Mr. Peric on his efforts. On behalf of the
Canadian public and the many crime victims we serve throughout
Canada, we would like to thank him.''
CAVEAT has written a similar endorsement. The Canadian
Police Association has written to support the bill of the member for
Cambridge.
(1745 )
I urge all members to look into the bill. We have a unique
opportunity to get behind it in committee. As the member for
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, the immigration critic for
the Reform Party, stated earlier, the bill has some flaws that can be
amended in committee. However the overall thrust or the overall
approach is right. I urge all members of the House to get behind the
member's bill.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak this evening on Bill C-316. As has
been pointed out by many hon. colleagues who have already
spoken to the bill, there are a number of problems with it. However
the private member bringing it forward did not have access to a
battery of lawyers or experts in the departments of justice or
immigration to point them out.
The role of private members is to bring good ideas for legislation
forward. It is the role of the House and the committee to which it is
assigned to improve it and make it workable. In this case I believe
the member for Cambridge has focused the attention of the House
on a problem Canadians want to see solved. It is now our job to
ensure the bill makes it to committee where we will have the
benefit of the expertise of departmental officials who have been
studying the issue. I am sure the hon. member would agree to
changes that maintain the spirit and intent of the bill while making
it legally defensible.
Canadians want non-citizens who commit abhorrent crimes
deported. It is our duty as their elected representatives to ensure the
bill does not get buried in committee. We must send a clear
message to other criminals who believe they are living in a land
where there are relatively light consequences for breaking the law.
If we have the political will we can overcome any road blocks.
By failing to act in an expeditious manner to treat the deportation
of non-citizen criminals as a high priority, the government is not
acting in the best interest of the safety of Canadians.
Canadians want to see criminals dealt with decisively. They will
be much more willing to accept the fact that the vast majority of
immigrants respect our laws if they see a government commitment
to immediate deportation of those who break them.
I have heard Liberal colleagues across the way say that
sentencing foreign criminals to deportation would be cruel and
unusual punishment under the charter. Frankly, if they do not
respect any of our other laws, they can exercise their charter rights
somewhere else in the world.
The charter of rights has an implied charter of responsibilities.
We already treat non-citizens differently by denying them the right
to vote. We already deny convicted criminals the freedom of
mobility. I do not think it is beyond the spirit or intent of the charter
to deny non-citizens convicted of violent crimes or drug trafficking
the right to remain in Canada.
In the meantime too many criminals are tying up our legal
system and slipping out the side door while we bend over backward
to apply the charter to protect their rights. The charter seems to be
the only piece of legislation some criminals are aware of. Our
charter is supposed to be a shield to protect the rights and freedoms
of Canadians, not a sword to be used against us by criminals who
do not respect any of our other laws.
In the time remaining I should like to focus on a couple of
matters I believe should be looked at when the bill goes to
committee. One problem is the section that allows for the
deportation of dependants. This clause must be looked at. For
example, what if the non-citizen was convicted of first degree
murder of his or her spouse. We would hardly want to deport the
children with the convicted parent. We would want to consult with
family and friends to determine the safest home for them, be that in
Canada or in the country of origin.
It has also been argued that by having the sentencing judge issue
the removal order it makes deportation a punishment rather than
merely an administrative option available to the government.
(1750)
The objection is then made that we are not treating non-citizens
the same as citizens and therefore they are being doubly punished
for the same crime. That objection can be dealt with. The
sentencing judge could be responsible for delivering the crown's
administrative decision that deportation proceed. Then we could
eliminate the inquiry stage.
The bill also prevents appeals through the immigration appeals
division. It is trying to make sure non-citizens do not disappear
between the end of their prison sentence and the immigration
appeal hearing.
For example, in August, Montreal papers reported the story of
Patrick Baptiste who was under deportation orders for drug dealing
but not surprisingly failed to show up at the hearing when his
appeal was rejected. The police caught up with him a few months
later. Only this time he was implicated in planning a murder. Now
that his deportation appeal has been rejected, I hope when he
15024
finishes his current jail term he will not be given a chance to escape
again.
His is not an isolated case. According to a Gazette article a
special task force made up of RCMP and immigration officers has
identified 1,888 convicted criminals ordered deported who
remained here. Twelve hundred were serious criminals, liable to
more than 10 years imprisonment. Those are ones the bill is trying
to deal with. As of August one-third had either left the country or
had been deported. Another third, 671 of the 1,888, had appealed
their deportation orders or claimed refugee status and a further 300
are still missing.
Despite eliminating a right to appeal through the immigration
appeals division under clause 3 of section 32.1 unfortunately the
bill adds an automatic appeals process under the Criminal Code.
This would certainly have to be amended should the bill go further.
By allowing an automatic appeal hearing it would actually be a
small step back from the Bill C-44 changes and I do not believe Bill
C-44 went far enough. In addition to violent offenders, non-citizens
who are habitual criminals should also be denied the right of
appeal.
I view the three years before a landed immigrant takes out
citizenship as a probationary period. Canadians have welcomed
them into our house and have given them the opportunity to
become part of our family. If they do not respect our laws they have
broken their contract with us.
Why do we wait a minimum of three years before granting
citizenship? Is it just so new immigrants have time to learn the
name of our Prime Minister or how many provinces there are?
Surely we place greater value on Canadian citizenship than that.
Habitual criminals, drug traffickers and violent criminals are not
welcome. How many times should someone be allowed to break
our law before we show them the door? When we show them door
because they have committed a serious criminal offence in Canada,
they should not be allowed to come back in.
Just today the paper reported on a criminal who has been
deported from Canada five times at an average cost of $50,000.
That is $250,000 taxpayers have had to pay for this one case. He
was first granted landed immigrant status in 1975 and by 1976 had
been convicted of theft. He was deported in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987
and 1988. Then he came back in 1990 and claimed refugee status.
Now he is an arsonist, setting fires in public malls.
I am encouraged to see that immigration officials have taken the
unusual step of trying to appeal his refugee status. The problem is
that other criminals we deport also come back claiming refugee
status. This is a loophole Bill C-316 does not plug.
Even the UN High Commission for Refugees does not support
asylum shopping. That is exactly what it is when people who have
already been deported return to Canada claiming they are refugees.
During 1993-94 according to Correctional Service Canada there
were over 1,000 foreign nationals serving time in our prisons. At an
average cost of almost $46,000 this amounts to almost $50 million.
The auditor general estimated the real cost of maintaining someone
in prison was closer to $80,000. This means it costs taxpayers
around $80 million to keep foreign nationals in prison every year.
(1755)
To put this in another context, the entire immigration department
including enforcement, settlement, language training for new
immigrants and so on has been ordered to cut $54 million from its
budget over the next couple of years.
In conclusion, despite the problems the member has made a
valiant attempt to address a serious issue. Let us take the bill to
committee where we will have the advice and expertise of
departmental officials and counsel to improve it so that we can
bring it back to the House.
Immigration officials are studying ways of streamlining
deportation of criminals, but it could be another year or two before
the minister brings a comprehensive plan forward. Let us work on
the problem now using the bill before us as the vehicle.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I too want to
congratulate the member for Cambridge for bringing forward Bill
C-316 and to compliment him on his efforts to try to deal with what
I consider to be a justice issue and a law and order issue.
I probably should not say it this way, but I approach support of
the bill with some trepidation because I see Reformers are also
supporting it, which means that if they are I must be wrong. At the
same time the bill is a positive effort. I am hopeful once it gets to
committee and has the chance to have the shared view of many that
the improvements necessary to make the bill function properly will
be put forward.
I believe all of us are in accord that the direction, the aim or
intent of the bill is a proper one, one all of us in Canada would like
to see happen.
If I may I would like to read the summary of the intent of the bill.
It captures where the member for Cambridge wants us to go and
reflects the intent of most Canadians.
It says:
If a person is convicted of an offence punishable by 10 or more years
imprisonment and is or is seeking permission to remain in Canada, but is not yet a
citizen, a court may, on application by the prosecution, order in addition to any
other sentence, that the person and anyone dependent on that person be removed
from Canada. Such an order discontinues any other process, procedure or appeal
15025
under the Immigration Act and any other right to parole or any other early or
temporary release.
We are not talking about trying to take away anybody's rights.
We are not trying to do anything different except streamline the
process. Rather than dealing with the criminal justice aspect and
then turning around and going through the procedures under the
Immigration Act, the legislation empowers the judge to deal with
the issues together, as he has heard the evidence of the case, and to
decide whether or not deportation should be part of the decision.
That approach is a proper one. There are some constitutional or
charter of rights issues that will have to be dealt with. I am sure
some other fine tunings are necessary.
At the same time the object of the bill warrants that it goes to
committee and that it has the necessary input from all concerned so
that in the end result we will have a stronger situation that provides
necessary protection for Canadian society.
We have heard recounted in the debate over the last number of
hours some of the horror stories that have occurred. Those are
horror stories for sure, but perhaps they also point to some of the
flaws that presently exist in our law. The bill is aimed at trying to
resolve some of them.
The bill has received support from a number of agencies and
organizations in Canada. To name a few, the Canadian Police
Association, CAVEAT and Victims of Violence are organizations
that watch what is happening in the criminal justice system and for
the flaws that may be present. When we achieve their support I
believe we are moving in the proper direction. Therefore, a
committee study of this legislation should go a long way to helping
protect Canadians.
(1800)
Others have talked about the actual cost associated with this
process. In the years 1993-94 there were over 1,000 foreign
national offenders serving time which cost the taxpayers of Canada
roughly $46,000 per prisoner.
Obviously with this bill we are going to save a little money. I do
not think that should be the motivation for the legislation. The
protection of society and the proper administration of justice
should be the foundations, but we also can look at the financial
aspect of this particular bill and see the merits associated with it.
It is a proper bill for committee study. It is a bill aimed at solving
a problem which is of concern to Canadians. I again congratulate
the member for Cambridge. He has done a tremendous job in his
efforts to correct a situation he saw in his riding and from what he
heard from his constituents, but also to represent the views of many
Canadians across the country.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to debate at second reading Bill C-316, an act to amend
the Immigration Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act.
Congratulations to my hon. colleague from Cambridge for
bringing forth a bill to amend the Immigration Act that will take
steps to ensure that those who came to this great country Canada
and refuse to abide by the laws are not permitted to stay. This bill if
adopted will make Canadian streets safer.
Canada has a proud tradition and reputation not as a country that
merely tolerates immigrants, but rather as one that welcomes them
with open arms. It is no secret that this great country was built by
immigrants and that the vast majority of people that come to this
country today continue to make an honest and meaningful
contribution to our ever evolving Canadian society.
As you are aware, the law has always recognized that serious
criminality is grounds for deportation and the Immigration Act
provides the mechanism to facilitate this. Bill C-316 in no way
attempts to undermine or contradict the current Immigration Act
but rather to improve, streamline and broaden some of the
regulations that exist in the current act.
It is important to recognize that this government is concerned
about addressing serious crime by non-citizens and has taken steps
to ensure removal of these types of offenders. This past spring the
House passed Bill C-44 which limited the rights of serious
criminals to appeals under the immigration system. These
offenders will also no longer be eligible for any form of early
release or parole.
Bill C-316 if adopted will complement the accomplishments of
Bill C-44. The bill will fill in many of the cracks and loopholes that
still exist between sentencing and the deportation hearing. Bill
C-316 will permit a court at the time of sentencing of an offender
convicted of a serious offence with a penalty of 10 years or more to
make a deportation order at the same time. Offenders may appeal
within the criminal process but will no longer have access to the
appeals process under the Immigration Act.
There have been concerns that this process may be an
infringement on the rights of the offenders, but this bill does not
create any new or special offence or any new distinction between
citizens and non-citizens. The distinctions already exist under the
Immigration Act. The offender is already subject to criminal
sanctions and deportation. Bill C-316 merely puts both matters in
the hands of the courts. There are also two important additional
measures contained in this bill worth noting.
First, the bill addresses how to proceed with offenders who came
to Canada at an early age. It is recognized that many people
immigrate at an early age and for one reason or another have not
become a citizen. For this reason there is a provision in the bill that
15026
would exempt a person who has immigrated to Canada prior to
their sixteenth birthday and who has had no criminal convictions in
five years previous to the offence in question.
Second, the bill provides for the transfer of offender by court
order to their country of origin to serve their sentence if the
reciprocal conditional release provisions exist. Under the Transfer
of Offenders Act, a transfer can currently happen only upon the
request of the offender. This bill removes the decision from the
offender and places it in the hands of the judge.
(1805 )
In this bill, as in many private members' bills intended to amend
existing legislation, there are procedural and substantive issues
which arise. Several of my colleagues raised some of these
concerns today during debate. Issues to be addressed relate to the
procedure of deporting dependents of convicted offenders, the
training that will be necessary for judges in these cases and the
possible constitutional challenges.
We must keep in mind that what we are debating here is the
principle of this bill. No one can argue that the intent and principle
of the bill is not valid and that we as legislators have a
responsibility to develop and enact legislation that will make
Canadians safer. Bill C-316 will achieve this principle.
The hon. member for Cambridge has expressed his willingness
to work in co-operation with the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and the standing committee to address any procedural
or substantive concerns that may arise.
In conclusion I would like to restate my support for Bill C-316 in
principle and call upon my fellow parliamentarians to do the same.
The member for Cambridge is attempting to make the streets safer.
The people of Canada deserve no less.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise
with pride to endorse Bill C-316 and to offer congratulations to my
colleague the member for Cambridge who recognized a problem
that exists in the system as we have it today. He has dealt with it in
such a way that it looks as though with the endorsement of the
House it will go on to become law.
We would be remiss if we did not reflect a little on why a debate
on a private members' bill can become as important as it has in this
session. Those who are new here will not see any difference, but
those who have been involved in political life and parliamentary
procedure in the past years realize that historically private
members' bills hardly ever, if ever, have seen the light of day. They
have been a medium for debate and probably have established
some tone of opinion among parliamentarians, but they had no
chance of becoming law.
To the credit of this government, now private members' bills do
have a chance to become law and they are subjected to a free vote
so that everyone in the House can deliver their opinion. We now
have private members' bills, some applying to law and order
issues, which have been introduced by thoughtful members of the
House and are moving on to become part of our justice system.
It is interesting to note an article which appeared in the Toronto
Sun on September 17, written by Sean Durkan of the Ottawa
bureau. He talks about the quiet war on crime that is being waged
by the present government. It is not big headline grabbing stuff, but
little by little the Minister of Justice is clawing away at the
loopholes and flaws that are present in the judicial system. He said:
``The Liberal government has actually done more to toughen up the
system in two years than the previous Tory government did in
nine''. That should go on record to show that the government has
taken the issue of law and order very, very seriously.
Laws of this nature do not get introduced and are not made
without some reaction to an incident or occurrence. Of course that
is the evolution of virtually all law over, above and beyond our
Constitution. When bills are passed in the House they are passed
because some situation has arisen. This is an evolutionary process.
It goes on. We who serve here for our brief time have an
opportunity to contribute.
(1810)
It is only in this 35th Parliament of Canada that we have had the
opportunity as private members, or backbenchers as we are called,
to be able to make a solid contribution to the way these laws unfold
and the way the legislative system progresses. It makes these bills
very important to the life of Canada. I know that members as a
result assume far more personal responsibility when they introduce
bills of this nature.
I would like to congratulate all of the people who participated in
the debate. I believe everything that could have been said on this
subject has been said. Now is the time for us to take it to the next
stage, shepherd it through and ensure that our efforts are not
wasted, so we will see in due course in the slowness of the
democratic process, this becoming part of our legal system and
making a great contribution to it.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wonder if the hon.
member for Cambridge would like to use his right of reply.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I would like to participate in the
debate, but I do not want to take the time normally allotted to the
member for closing. If my speaking causes that, I will not speak.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): You will have five or six
minutes.
15027
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I wanted to take a few minutes to speak on this
bill and perhaps in a peripheral way to raise an issue which should
be of import to members of the House. I want to bring the
following to the attention of members.
I see in the bill a provision whereby the effect of the proposed
legislation would not apply to people who were less than 16 years
of age when they came to Canada. That is an important issue and I
want to talk about it a bit, particularly because I have a
constituency case where such an incident occurred. It is roughly the
following. I will change the ages ever so slightly to ensure that I
respect the privacy of the constituent in question.
I was approached by the family of a constituent who came to
Canada when he was two years old. He lived in this country and
when he was an adult he committed a crime. The incident was
something like a brawl in a bar and he was charged with assault
causing bodily harm. It was very serious. The victim nearly died.
My constituent was incarcerated, served his time and was
eventually released from jail. He was reintegrated into society and
led a normal life. He found a job and so on. Three or four years
later when everything was behind him, the authorities came
knocking on his door to inform him that they were commencing
procedures to deport him.
The difficulty is the following: The individual had never seen
another country in his life. I am dealing with this case right now
and I have brought it to the attention of the minister.
When we come across the easy cases, particularly in the popular
press when some person has come to Canada, has abused the laws
of this country and therefore, we should kick him or her out, it is of
course generally a proposition I agree with. But it is not always that
easy. The case I am bringing to the House today is to illustrate that
sometimes it is a lot more complicated.
[Translation]
To take the example of someone who came to this country when
very young, aged two, then that person is actually a product of
Canada, if we can use that term. If that person has developed
criminal tendencies, he or she certainly did not have them on
arrival in Canada when less than two years old. That is the first
proposition.
(1815)
The second is, if that person is deported, deported to where? Any
country is like any other, because the person has never been
anywhere except Canada.
Third, if we as a society do not want other countries shipping
their criminals here, why should we take ours and ship them
elsewhere? I say ours because I consider someone who was only
two when he came here to indeed be one of us.
I am taking up the House's time to explain this because the
problem lies not in this bill but in the present statute.
I trust that when the parliamentary committee studies this
initiative-and I congratulate my colleague from Cambridge for
having presented it to the House-it will look at the entire problem
at the same time.
I have just been speaking with a colleague who tells me that
someone he knows very well has in fact defended cases similar to
the one I have just described here in the House.
[English]
As a Canadian, as a parent and as a member of the House, my gut
feeling is always that when someone commits a crime and is not a
Canadian we should do our best to send them back. That is still
generally true in what I believe.
I caution the House and invite colleagues, particularly those who
sit on the committee, to think of the peripheral issues I have just
raised because they are very real and they do affect many people.
I thank hon. members in advance for their study of the bill. I
congratulate the member for having brought this issue to the
attention of Parliament.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I take
this opportunity
to briefly thank all the members who have spoken on my private
member's Bill C-316.
I understand certain members have some concerns with
particular elements of the bill. I assure them their concerns can be
addressed through amendments at the committee stage.
I urge my colleagues to support Bill C-316 at this stage in the
process. I look forward to working with them in making this an
even better piece of legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.20 p.m., the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.)