CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 22, 1995
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 16659
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 16660
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16663
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16663
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16663
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16664
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16664
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16664
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16665
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16665
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 16665
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16665
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 16666
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16666
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16667
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16667
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16667
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16667
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16668
(Motion agreed to.) 16670
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 16671
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 16671
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 16671
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16673
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16676
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16681
Bill C-314. Motion for second reading 16690
16659
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 22, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: We are beginning a new tradition today which has
been decided in committee and by order of the House. I shall now
recognize the hon. member for Beaver River to lead the House in
the singing of the national anthem.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
sorrow that I report on the passing on Monday of Gary Herrema,
chair of the regional municipality of Durham.
Mr. Herrema, who was a long time resident and farm operator in
Uxbridge, was first elected in 1969 as councillor for what was then
Scott township. As a testament to his leadership abilities, Gary
Herrema became Durham regional chair in 1980 and remained in
that position until his death just this last Monday.
Durham, for the edification of the House, represents 425,000
people.
I am proud to note that not only was Gary Herrema a Liberal
candidate in the 1984 federal election, he was also an active and
long time supporter of his community, of Parliament and of
Canada.
Today, Durham residents and their fellow Canadians are
saddened by the loss of Gary Herrema. On their behalf, I convey
my heartfelt sympathy to his wife, Helen, and to his family.
* * *
Mr. Gary Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the senators held hearings in western Canada on Bill C-68 giving
many Canadians the only chance they had to be heard.
The senators heard testimony from retired town councillor Jim
Barker in Dauphin, Manitoba. He estimated that by the year 2003
the town of Dauphin will have to hire two more RCMP constables
and two police clerks to handle the additional workload to
implement the Liberal government's flawed firearm registration
scheme.
Barker testified: ``The ratepayers of this town will have to
budget a minimum expenditure increase of $200,000 per year. It is
interesting to note that if these costs are at or near average, then the
total cost to the lower levels of government in Canada for firearms
registration would be around $540 million per year''.
This new evidence had never been heard by Parliament before
and justified the senators' decision to take their hearings on the
road. Why is it that senators in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic
Canada did not give their citizens the same opportunity to be heard
as voters in the west?
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, thanks to the
hon. member of the Conservative Party from Sherbrooke who
wrote to the auditor general, the death valley diversion in Nova
Scotia became a national issue.
In turn, the auditor general is very critical of the government for
diverting $26 million from a federal-provincial agreement for work
on a dangerous stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway to a tourist
trail in the riding of the minister of public works.
The auditor general noted in his report that ``the agreement
assigns a duty of project review and approval but in this case, such
a review was pre-empted by ministers who presented the matter as
a fait accompli to officials who, in the circumstances, could only
implement the decision''.
Although they were forced to reverse their decision in August,
upgrades to death valley will still be paid for by toll fees.
The public works minister, agreeing with the leader of the third
party, once said the province was showing real leadership by
making people pay user fees for their highways. The people of
Nova Scotia and my party certainly do not feel that way.
16660
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
has a long tradition of active involvement within the UN field of
human rights. This tradition started with the late John Humphrey,
one of the architects of the international bill of rights and the first
director of the UN human rights division.
Canada continues to play a prominent role in promoting
universal human rights and in strengthening international human
rights mechanisms.
Since the establishment of the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights in 1993, Canada has sought to integrate the
activities of the high commissioner and other human rights
institutions into the UN's political, security and developmental
activities and into the early warning and preventive work of the
organization. This is an indication of Canada's overall emphasis on
addressing root causes of instability which is consistent with the
vision UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali outlined in his
``Agenda for Peace''.
As we welcome the UN Secretary-General to our nation's
capital, let us reaffirm Canada's commitment to promote human
rights in the community of nations and to strengthen the United
Nations.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members of the Lincoln and Welland Regiment from St. Catharines
have recently received two additional and long overdue battle
honours from World War II.
The medals are in honour of the exceptional conduct and courage
of the members of the Lincoln and Welland Regiment while part of
the 10th Infantry Brigade of the Canadian 4th Armoured Division
during battles in Kustan Canal and Bad-Zwisch, Germany in April
1945.
Colonel Don Muir, a major in command of a rifle battalion
during both battles, noted that fighting was very intense in those
last weeks of the war. Roy Adams, the regiment's president and
also a veteran of those battles noted that his only regret is that many
of the men who helped them earn these honours have passed away.
I would just like to say how proud I am and all Canadians are of
our veterans. Their dedication, discipline and sacrifice made an
allied victory possible in the second world war.
Congratulations to the Lincoln and Welland Regiment on this
well earned, overdue honour.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, western Canadian farmers are frustrated by the manner in
which the WGTA payout is being handled. The lack of direction in
providing formulas for sharing of the payment by landowner and
tenant producer has caused confusion, tension and in many cases
bitterness at the farm gate. Farmers who have financial agreements
with the Farm Credit Corporation are particularly upset with its
handling of the WGTA payout.
The minister instructed the FCC in March 1995 to pass along the
benefit to producers. That benefit has mysteriously shrunk over the
last eight months to a whopping 25 per cent of the benefit. Their
questionable rationale was that holding back 75 per cent of the
benefit would result in lower lease and sale agreements. The fact is
the Farm Credit Corporation lease agreements and buyback asking
prices have actually increased by as much as 20 per cent.
(1405 )
Farmers are demanding that the agriculture minister and the
Farm Credit Corporation honour their original commitment to the
producers of prairie grain.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister's thinly disguised threats to the CBC, which he
accuses of not fulfilling its mandate as a promoter of Canadian
unity, are an attack on the freedom of the press.
It is therefore not surprising that the Fédération professionnelle
des journalistes du Québec has launched a petition aimed at
preserving the independence of that crown corporation. The FPJQ
feels that the Prime Minister has questioned the corporation's
independence from the government.
For the Bloc members, there is nothing ambiguous about the
message between the lines of what has been said by the Prime
Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister of fisheries:
the CBC is vulnerable to government pressure.
Now one wonders whether the scope of the budget cuts is not a
form of reprisal by the Prime Minister, who has never accepted the
change in the CBC's mandate and sees it as nothing more than a
propaganda organ.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since
the election of the Parti Quebecois in September 1994, the people
16661
of Quebec have been held hostage by a handful of power hungry
politicians with nothing better to do than to govern by referendum.
Rather than taking advantage of his first press conference to
differentiate himself from his predecessor, the leader of the Bloc
chose to follow in his footsteps, announcing right off the bat his
intention to sign no new constitutional agreement with Canada and
to prepare for another referendum on Quebec separation.
My constituents in Saint-Denis need jobs and a stronger
guarantee of security for themselves and their children. And it is
certainly not by scaring away investors, as the PQ has done for the
past year or more, that the leader of the Bloc will manage to reduce
unemployment in Quebec.
The people have waited too long. It is high time now for the Parti
Quebecois to finally put ``their hearts in their work''.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the 52 ridings the Reformers won, Reformers outspent
Liberal candidates by almost half a million dollars.
That is right. The party that likes to point fingers at others about
spending spent over $2.2 million to win its seats. Now, two years
after having won those seats, Reformers have told the media they
are going to sit in them less. That is right. They spent almost
$43,000 a seat and they have said that Ottawa costs too much and
they do not like it here.
We have lots of expensive seats on the Reform side but no one
wants to fill them. Perhaps it is time for us to have a seat sale.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to express serious concerns.
In this House there is a separatist party that is quite open about
its desire to break up Canada. We may not like its beliefs but its
mandate is clear.
However, we have another party, the Reform Party, that does not
like social programs, does not like our health care program, does
not like the Canada pension plan and criticizes every attempt to end
duplication. Time and time again that party has shown its contempt
for Atlantic Canada. Now it says it will be the voice to represent
Atlantic Canadians. I tell this House that Atlantic Canadians will
not support a party that cannot decide what to support itself.
The Liberal Party agenda has always been clear. The Liberal
government believes that all Canadians are born equal and deserve
equal rights. We believe in offering a hand up to those in need and
we continue to work night and day to rebuild an economy to assure
that all Canadians have an opportunity for employment.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal old federalists in Atlantic Canada continue to fail people in
the region. Their short term patronage ridden band-aid solutions
are not working.
The Liberal solution to unemployment in Cape Breton is simply
to airlift people out to Ontario. They cling to the belief that
bureaucrats and politicians should have all the say in how regional
development resources are spent. They ridicule Reform's proposal
to give citizens at the provincial and community levels the tools
needed to develop self-reliance and a strong economic future.
(1410 )
Rather than make the operations of the fisheries department
more efficient, the Liberals are now imposing enormous tax
increases on fishers and ports users. It is no wonder most
Newfoundland MPs do not live or pay taxes there.
It is clear that this government has neither a workable short
range or long term vision for the Atlantic provinces. Reform will
continue to listen to the needs and aspirations of Atlantic
Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois welcomes the historic peace
accord signed yesterday in Dayton, Ohio by the leaders of Bosnia,
Croatia and Serbia. After four years of multilateral efforts to
restore peace in the former Yugoslavia and end a bloody war that
has claimed more than 250,000 lives, today there is hope that this
accord will lead to a lasting peace.
Enormous challenges remain, however, and the international
community will be asked to continue to provide not only
humanitarian aid but also a 60,000 strong implementation force
through NATO. This accord demonstrates that we were right to stay
over there to protect the civilian population and take part in
peacekeeping operations. We also believe we have a duty to take an
active part in the peace process and the reconstruction which is
about to begin.
16662
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
recently constituents who work at CP Rail and VIA came to me
about safety concerns they have about the way the recent collective
agreements are being interpreted and enforced.
Canadian Pacific locomotive engineers are concerned about
what is called turnaround combination service. VIA running crews
are likewise being made to work when in previous times they could
have booked rest without penalty.
Making tired people drive trains is not progress; it is tempting
fate in the name of a false bottom line. I urge the Minister of
Transport to look into the situation and tell CP and VIA to smarten
up for the sake of the employees and in the interests of public
safety.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to reply to the rants of the Reform member for Vegreville about the
political injustice he perceives exists in Atlantic Canada and
specifically in P.E.I.
I take particular exception to the member's statement that
``Islanders are forced to endure political oppression''. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
The only oppression that would occur in the Atlantic region
would be if the Reform Party's policies of cutting the public health
care system and Americanizing existing social programs were
imposed on the people. I was shocked at the unfounded accusation
of the member for Vegreville with respect to the political
atmosphere on P.E.I.
Once again, the Reform Party is exemplifying its pathetic
policies of gaining cheap party support through divisiveness not
only within the country as it did during the referendum but now
within regions.
Shame to the member for Vegreville for unfounded accusations
that can only be called cheap political fearmongering.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow on national patriots day, Quebecers will pay tribute to
those men and women who more than 150 years ago decided to
defend and promote values which today are often taken for granted:
freedom and democracy. It is no coincidence that November 23
was chosen by the National Assembly as the day on which we
honour the memory of those who fought for civil and political
freedoms as well as their national freedom.
On November 23, 1837, the Patriotes defeated British troops at
Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu, although the British outnumbered them
and were better equipped. About a year ago, this House adopted a
motion officially recognizing the historic contribution of the
Patriotes to the establishment of democratic and responsible
institutions. However, this government has taken no concrete
action to make this recognition effective. I hope the government
will acknowledge the will of the House and take appropriate action
without delay.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday in a particularly hallucinogenic episode the member for
Vegreville visualized himself and his party as the deliverers of
freedom and democracy for the poor oppressed souls in Atlantic
Canada.
His reference to the politically oppressed people of P.E.I. was
just the latest and greatest example of why the Reform Party was
not, is not and will never be anything but a bizarre footnote in the
history of a short lived, radical, ideological party.
The Reform Party should have no illusions about sucking in the
good people of Atlantic Canada. The people of Prince Edward
Island and the Atlantic provinces have shown great maturity in the
decisions they have made through the political process.
(1415)
The statements made on Monday by the hon. member for
Vegreville and in the past by those from his party only strengthen
the case that the people of Atlantic Canada made the right decision
on October 25, 1993 by completely rejecting the Reform Party and
giving a resounding vote of support to the Prime Minister and the
Liberal Party, the only national party that speaks for Atlantic
Canadians.
_____________________________________________
16662
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the final stretch of the referendum campaign, the Prime
Minister made a commitment to respond to Quebecers' desire for
change. In the days following the referendum, the government set
up two committees. One, chaired by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, is to propose changes to the federal
system by Christmastime. Yesterday, outside the House, the
government
16663
leader postponed the tabling of the committees' proposals by
several months.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Are we to understand that
the extension of the deadlines of the ministerial committee on
constitutional change announced yesterday by the Prime Minister
means he has been unable to rally the premiers of English Canada
round a proposal for constitutional change?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first let me say we are very sorry to see the Leader of the
Opposition leave the federal scene.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Over the past two years I have
really enjoyed meeting him daily and answering his questions. I
therefore wish him all the luck in the task he set for himself
yesterday of dealing with Quebec's real problems-good
management and putting Quebec's public finances in order.
Obviously, someone else will be here across the way, in a few
months.
However, to answer the hon. member's question, first, we have
always said we were prepared to make changes. But we never
promised to make constitutional changes, particularly since I
promised during the referendum campaign that I would make no
constitutional changes and that the House would not debate
constitutional change if the Government of Quebec did not
approve.
Yesterday, I got an answer from the Leader of the Opposition,
who said he absolutely did not want any constitutional change.
Therefore I am in no hurry, since he does not want any, and we said
would not make any without their support.
However, some administrative changes may be made. There are
signs of willingness on the part of the federal government, which
could be debated and voted on in the House. I said that we would
proceed with certain items between now and Christmas and I asked
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his committee to
report back by Christmas. We are not talking about several months.
This is November 22, and in a month from now it will be three days
before Christmas. So we are not talking about months, but weeks,
Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I note the profound sadness overcoming the Prime
Minister at the prospect of my leaving the House of Commons,
should the members of the Parti Quebecois so wish it. But he
should not worry: I will not be far away.
I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's response on the
changes he is not planning to make any more. Am I wrong, or did
the Prime Minister say that he is backing down on the promise of
constitutional change he made less than a month ago, that he is
contemplating merely minor administrative changes and that his
committee will now be called the ministerial committee on
administrative change?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has gone back to his old
habits of commenting on what we have said. He made absolutely
gratuitous statements during the referendum, and we will not let
him get away with it any more.
I never said we were going to change the Constitution. He should
read the speech I gave. I said we were going to make changes to the
federation, constitutional changes, if necessary, but I never said
they were going to be constitutional. I also said there would be no
constitutional change without Quebec's approval. The Leader of
the Opposition said yesterday he did not want any. He wants to
remain a separatist-good for him. So we will bear this in mind, we
will do what has to be done to keep the federation running and we
will get on with the real problems, as the Leader of the Opposition
put it, we will be concerned with job creation, good government
and the deficit problems of both the federal and the provincial
governments.
If the Leader of the Opposition really wants to work on these
problems, we are prepared to co-operate with him.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what a sorry about-face. If I ever do go to Quebec City, I
will tell Mr. Johnson not to hold his breath for the changes he is
expecting from the Prime Minister.
Should we conclude, and this question is clear-if there is one
thing I have learned in this House, it is how to answer
questions-are we to conclude that, as of today, less than a month
after the referendum, after the speech we all heard in which the
Prime Minister promised Quebec everything anyone could ever
want after the referendum campaign, are we to understand that he is
reneging on these changes he made hastily at the time and that he is
going back to his old strategy of putting English Canada to sleep
and offering Quebec nothing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I said in my speech was very simple. I said that my
party and I had been, are currently and would be in favour of a
distinct society for Quebec, something the Leader of the
Opposition and his party fought against in the Charlottetown
accord.
Furthermore, during the referendum, he criticized us for not
having supported that, when they voted against it in the
Charlottetown referendum and all the PQ members voted against
the Meech Lake accord in the National Assembly. We are still in
favour of a distinct society, as we indicated in Charlottetown and in
this House. In order to add it to the Constitution, we require the
approval of the Government of Quebec. The Leader of the
Opposition has said he
16664
does not want it written into the Constitution. So we will not do it
against the wishes of Quebec.
Secondly, I said that we did not want any constitutional changes
without the agreement of the Government of Quebec or the people
of Quebec, as has happened in the past. Sometimes referendums
can be held. Here again, we cannot act without the approval of
Quebec. We can, however, impose certain restrictions on ourselves,
if we wish. This is perhaps what we will do.
As for sharing responsibilities, the minister responsible has
signed nine agreements with the provinces to improve the system
and put an end to duplication. The current PQ government is not
interested in such an agreement. I hope that, as government leader,
the Leader of the Opposition will make good management a
priority and help us determine which jurisdictions are in
competition so we can ensure that taxpayers in Quebec as in the
other provinces receive the most for the taxes they pay annually to
the two levels of government.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what a
regrettable performance by someone wanting to renege on his
commitments and not able to find a way to get out of those he
cannot keep.
The Prime Minister of Canada was one of those who loved us so
madly three days before the referendum that he promised
recognition of a special status for Quebec. He promised us a right
of veto, as well as decentralized powers. That is what he promised
us just before the referendum, when he loved us.
(1425)
Will the Prime Minister be frank enough to admit that he then
heeded his mentor Pierre Trudeau's admonition of several weeks
ago, and that his about-face is the result of the word from Trudeau?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I told Quebecers there would be no constitutional change
without the consent of the government of Quebec.
Yesterday the man who wishes to head the Government of
Quebec said that this was impossible, that he was a sovereignist,
that he did not want any changes to the Constitution. I was not the
one who said this, it was the Leader of the Opposition himself. As I
have said, I will not make any changes against his wishes; let no
one blame me for heeding the wishes of the Government of
Quebec.
Second, as for the distinct society, we have affirmed this and will
have other occasions to affirm it, and I hope that the hon. member
for Roberval will get up in this House and state that he is in favour
of a distinct society if that is what is wanted. I can hardly wait for
that day to come.
Then we shall see what really happens. During the referendum
campaign, they said that in their hearts they were opposed to a
distinct society because they are sovereignists, and still
unfortunately separatists.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are the
words of the Prime Minister, who is getting caught up in an
increasingly tangled web, not an admission of his powerlessness,
his inability to fulfil his commitments toward Quebec made within
three days of the referendum, when he was in love with Quebec?
Is this not an admission of powerlessness? Does the Prime
Minister realize that mere cosmetic changes will never satisfy
Quebec, and that he is incapable of an in depth solution to the
problem?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my speech is recorded and is clear. I said that the party I
represent was in favour of a distinct society and that we were going
to affirm it. We will have the opportunity to affirm it, even if the
Bloc Quebecois does not want us to.
Second, I have said and I have committed to it, that we would not
make any constitutional change without the consent of the
Government of Quebec or the people of Quebec, and we are going
to keep our word. Nothing can be clearer than that, and I repeat it
today in this House.
As for better administration and shared responsibilities, we are
working on this at the present time and I trust that we will have the
co-operation of the new Government of Quebec, unlike the current
one, which has never wanted to discuss it seriously with the
minister responsible for federal-provincial relations.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all of us are familiar with the principle that those who do
not learn from the mistakes of the past are bound to repeat them.
In the Quebec referendum campaign the biggest mistake the
Prime Minister made was to grossly underestimate the demand for
change in his home province. It was only in the last week of that
campaign that he mentioned change at all, and when he did so it
was so vague as to have no positive consequence on the campaign.
Will the Prime Minister repeat that mistake again by putting
change on the back burner or will he present Canadians with a
substantial plan for showing the way this federation ought to
operate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the third party always refers to the fact that
we do not need any constitutional change. He said that in the House
not long ago. He says that he does not want to weaken the federal
government but whenever he makes a speech he asks us, for
example, to dismantle medicare.
16665
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): They are changing their minds
because the people of Alberta at this moment are telling the
provincial government that they do not want to see medicare
destroyed.
We are working to make sure there is less duplication and a
better sharing of responsibilities between the provincial
governments and the federal government. We are working on that.
(1430)
However, if the goal is to destroy the central government in
Ottawa so that we will have a community of communities, this
Prime Minister is not for that.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister speaks of destroying the country and
dismantling federalism. I remind him he is the one who allowed the
country to get within .6 of 1 per cent-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about mistakes. The
worst mistake the federalists can make in preparing for the next and
final contest with the separatists would be to use yesterday's
tactics. Yesterday's tactics are for yesterday's federalists, not the
new federalists of the 21st century.
That means it would be a profound mistake to go back to the
contents and tactics of the Meech Lake or Charlottetown accords,
with their talk of special status, distinct societies or vetoes for
Quebec.
Will the Prime Minister assure the House and all Canadians that
he will not be marching backwards into the future, that he will not
go back to Meech or Charlottetown for solutions to the current
struggle between federalists and separatists?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, here again we see the leader of the third party in bed with
the separatist party in the House of Commons.
When we were fighting in Quebec the leader of the third party
was in the House shooting at us, contrary to what the leader of the
Conservative Party was doing; in the campaign, working for
Canada. The leader of the Reform Party was always on his feet
trying to ensure he might some day become the prime minister of
the rest of the country, because he will never be the prime minister
of the whole country, Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious the Prime Minister will not listen to me.
Maybe he will listen to someone from Quebec.
One of the most telling letters I received during the referendum
was from a soft sovereignist who said he would probably vote yes,
but who added this explanation: ``The matter at hand is not really
the separation of Canada and Quebec, but the separation of Quebec
from the present form of federal government. You as a Reformer
said you want decentralization, which necessitates serious change
to the present form of federal government, but negotiations in good
faith with the Liberals will not accomplish this''.
This Quebecer does not want to separate from Canada but from
an overcentralized federal government. He is one of the 80 per cent
of Quebecers who want a realignment of federal-provincial powers.
Some hon. members: Order.
The Speaker: I know the hon. member for Calgary Southwest
will now put his question.
(1435 )
Mr. Manning: What is the Prime Minister's response to this
demand for change from a Quebecer who really wants to stay in
Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the person is a soft sovereignist. Perhaps the leader of the
third party, who hopes some day to be the leader of the opposition,
although he might not succeed if he does not become better than he
is, should stop quoting from separatists or quasi-separatists and
start to really work with us to make sure Canada is a good country
with values and a social system that binds all Canadians together.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. After
hinting that he would not respect the democratic results of the
referendum, the Prime Minister said he wanted to prevent another
referendum from being held in Quebec and then went on to criticize
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which, according to him,
did not show sufficient support for national unity during the last
referendum campaign.
Does this mean that the Prime Minister not only wants to prevent
Quebecers from voting again on their future at the appropriate time
but also wants to control the news coverage they get through the
CBC?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly not. I made certain comments. I said that some
people complained about the way the CBC behaved during the
referendum campaign. Someone also said that the CBC was
jeopardizing its reputation and should be lumped in with all the
other lackeys and puppets of the government.
16666
Even the Leader of the Opposition criticized the CBC during
the referendum campaign. I gave one opinion, and there were
people who were not satisfied with the CBC's performance,
including the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. The Leader of the
Opposition criticized the CBC when the network refused to
broadcast the Yes committee's message, not because of its news
coverage.
Is the Prime Minister saying that he intends to put back into the
Broadcasting Act the obligation to promote national unity and thus
force the CBC to be its master's voice instead of an independent
news broadcaster?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that what we want is objective news coverage. As I
said at the time, I am hardly in a position to complain, because
since I want a good night's sleep, I do not listen to the CBC before I
go to bed. That is why I am healthy. I get a good night's sleep.
However, we want our news coverage to be objective. But the
funny thing is that when the opposition criticizes the CBC, there is
no problem. But when the government party does, it is not fair.
What I had to say, I said publicly. I have never spoken to the
president of the CBC since he was appointed. I let him get on with
his job. However, I will not refrain from expressing my opinion as
party leader, like the Leader of the Opposition did during the
referendum campaign.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor
general has pointed out that the new E-file method of filing tax
returns has serious flaws and is therefore open to substantial abuse,
while the Minister of National Revenue says the system just needs
a little fine tuning.
Canadians will quickly lose confidence in a system that
penalizes honest taxpayers by letting others off the hook while this
minister wants to squeeze every taxpayer until it hurts.
(1440 )
What commitment do we have today that the minister will fix the
problems raised by the auditor general?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are happy at Revenue Canada to have the
comments of the auditor general. However, the hon. member has
exaggerated and used figures which are simply not accurate.
The auditor general said: ``Although our analysis is insufficient
to draw firm conclusions about cause and effect-more years of
data are required to determine if this movement is temporary or
permanent in nature''.
Electronic filing provides substantial improvements in service to
Canadians, to the taxpayer and to the government in terms of
reduced costs. It improves the opportunity for effective
surveillance to prevent fraud by people who might cheat the
system. It also dramatically increases the speed with which
cheques get out to the public.
It is a new system introduced in 1990. It is a system on which
there are not full information years on which we can base
substantial comparisons, but every indication is that the system is
working absolutely as well as the previous paper system, except for
the advantages I outlined.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
is asleep, like most of the others.
The government squeezed another $7.3 billion out of Canadians
in the last fiscal year. It is obvious the government intends to
balance the budget through increase taxation, not cuts in spending.
Last year it collected $7.3 billion more in taxes while it reduced the
deficit by only $4.5 billion.
Will the minister admit he does not have a tax cutting policy that
works or a taxation collection policy that works, and that he does
not know how he will fix either of them?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has correctly pointed out the tax
system is generating more revenue. The basic reason is the
confidence the business community has in the Minister of Finance.
However, if I may modestly add, another reason is that Revenue
Canada is working more effectively than ever before.
New developments in technology and the information highway
are particularly difficult for Reformers to understand. We must still
tell them the old system of inefficiency, time consuming as it was,
which cost the taxpayer money and which led to more abuse and
fraud, is not the way we will be going in the future.
We have over the last two years picked up $7 billion through our
enforcement programs. We are doing this in a manner which
recognizes that the client, the ordinary Canadian taxpayer, is in
almost every case, at least 96 per cent, an honest citizen.
The approach of the opposition-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
Prime Minister does not listen to Radio-Canada, one wonders how
he can criticize the network.
My question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development. In his report released yesterday, the auditor general
16667
made it clear that manpower training programs are poorly adapted
to the requirements of Canadian businesses.
Would the minister agree that the auditor general's harsh
assessment of federal manpower training programs is further
evidence it is high time the federal government withdrew
altogether from manpower training and left this up to the
provinces?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight, I
listen to CBC radio.
(1445 )
The auditor general said something we have been saying for the
past two years: that we have to substantially revamp training
programs to ensure that the private sector takes far more
responsibility, invests far more of its dollars to help young people
in particular get jobs, and that people in the existing workforce
upgrade and get the kinds of skills required within the area.
Since 1993, as we have begun to make the changes the auditor
general observed, we have been able to leverage over 77 million
additional dollars from the private sector for training young people.
It shows that while the auditor general was observing what should
be done we were already doing it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister stop being so stubborn and acknowledge that, if manpower
training programs are to reflect the requirements of the private
sector in terms of training and jobs, the minister should respond to
a consensus in Quebec among government, business, unions and
interest groups, all of whom want to see responsibility for
manpower training patriated to Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the hon.
member did not do her homework before she asked the question. If
she had, she would know that in July 1994 we signed an agreement
with the province of Quebec, with the SQDM, in which we have a
basic agreement and partnership on the supply of training. The
SQDM advises on labour market demands, approves course
selection, identifies qualified training institutions, determines
course curriculum, confirms that training responds to skills. We are
working in partnership with the SQDM to make sure we get full
dollar.
I agree that we have to go beyond that. That is why in the reform
we are developing we intend to give far more space to the
provinces in the training area so they can make those choices and at
the same ensure that clients under the unemployment insurance
program are properly and effectively served and getting back to
work.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, five years
ago the Treasury Board approved a policy to make all government
contributions to businesses repayable. In the finance minister's
1995 budget speech he confirmed that policy. Yet at FEDNOR only
92 per cent, at ACOA 83 per cent, and in his own FORD-Q only 76
per cent of the loans are being made repayable.
Why is the finance minister not enforcing his own guidelines
within cabinet?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in all regional
agencies a series of loans were outstanding that are in the process
of running. The policy applied to new loans. There was to be a
phase in process; one was not to impose this immediately so that
business would be able to adjust.
When one looks at those loans within the regional agencies, it is
the commercial loans that are repayable. As well, the regional
agencies have activities in non profit making areas, structural areas
that may well help the economy or a particular region. Those are
not repayable.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, despite
the minister's fine words there is no real accounting in regional
development. I point to his department. Over a quarter of the loans
approved by his department did not even need government
assistance in the first place, according to the auditor general's
report. Those approvals amounted to $65 million for FORD-Q.
Will the minister commit today to stop this hemorrhaging of
Canadians' hard earned tax dollars? In other words will he do his
job?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of
the criticisms levelled by the auditor general as far as the regional
agencies were concerned were levelled in terms of activities that
took place prior to the election of the government.
A number of those criticisms were recognized by the individual
ministers when they took office. It is as a result of the recognition
of those criticisms that the fundamental changes in all the agencies
have taken place, changes which have gone a long way to rectify
the criticisms the member has just brought forward.
16668
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
In addition to the loss of 710 jobs in Montreal, CP Rail's
decision to move its headquarters will further diminish the city's
position within Canada's transportation sector. The decision to
move CP headquarters is a direct result of federal railway policies
which, thanks to enormous subsidies and protected branch lines,
have caused a shift in railway activity to Western Canada.
What does the Prime Minister intend to do to compensate for the
jobs lost in Montreal as a direct result of federal policies that
provide massive subsidies for the railways in Western Canada?
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, who is a member
of the Standing Committee on Transport, will have a great
opportunity for his party to get on the record to help this
government build an efficient and affordable railway system in the
country.
If he wants to ensure that we have good transportation he will
support the government's Bill C-101, which will make it possible
in Quebec and across the country to build short line railways and
make sure that customers and shippers can move their goods in an
efficient and affordable manner so that the country can continue to
build on the export business.
What the Bloc Quebecois can do for the country is help us build
a great transportation system.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question was directed to the Prime Minister, so I
expected a member of the government to reply.
The Prime Minister said he wanted to deal with the real
problems-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, as you know, when questions
are put in the House, anyone on the government side may answer
the question. I would ask the hon. member to put please his
question right away.
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Speaker, I meant a member of cabinet.
The Prime Minister said he wanted to deal with the real
problems, but the federal government is causing these problems
with its discriminatory treatment of Montreal.
Now that CP Rail is leaving Montreal and Canadian Airlines
International has stopped its operations at Mirabel, another
consequence of railway policies, when is the Prime Minister going
to take steps to make Montreal the focus of the transportation
sector, which it has always been until now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is all very well for the Bloc Quebecois to keep blaming
the government, but perhaps they should take a good look in the
mirror. Considering the kind of climate they created in Quebec
during the past few years and the intolerance they have often shown
towards minorities in Quebec, it is hardly surprising that right now,
some people want to get out of Montreal.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
On October 4 I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs to raise
with the Vietnamese government the case of nine religious,
academic and cultural leaders then in prison in Vietnam. I am
happy to say that two of these prisoners have now been released
and they have arrived in North America.
Could the minister assure the House that he would continue the
policy of quiet diplomacy on behalf of the remaining members of
the group still in prison?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to respond to the hon. member that
our foreign affairs minister was in Vietnam recently and made
representations to his Vietnamese counterpart, the foreign affairs
minister of Vietnam, and to the Prime Minister of Vietnam to
encourage greater respect for human rights.
We are also seeking Vietnamese concurrence for a visit to
Vietnam by Canadian Human Rights Commissioner Max Yalden to
further develop dialogue in that area. Canada continues to voice
concerns about the human rights situation in Vietnam in
international fora.
* * *
(1455 )
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage has instructed the president of the
16669
CBC to come up with $350 million in spending cuts. Today he is
announcing that he will be $120 million short in that department.
There is no guarantee that the mandate committee report at the end
of the month will give the president the scope to make the cuts he
needs to make.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage show some leadership
for a change and untie the hands of the president of the CBC and
allow him to go ahead and make some fundamental cuts to the
CBC, including allowing private broadcasters to start to deliver
some of the services the CBC currently delivers?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our colleague should be aware that today the president
of the CBC announced very important re-engineering within the
CBC. This is in keeping with reduction of the deficit and reduction
of budgets. He has the support of the government in his effort to
turn the CBC into a modern, forward looking agency.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I just
explained that to the minister. I am glad he was listening so
carefully. The problem is he is $120 million short. Surely the
minister picked that up when he read the newspaper this morning.
The CBC is at a watershed today. Will the minister show some
leadership and give the president of the CBC the mandate he needs
to go ahead and make further cuts so he can achieve the $120
million in savings and the scope he needs to fundamentally rethink
the CBC, including allowing private broadcasters to play a larger
role in delivering those services?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is precisely to enable the president of the CBC to
rethink the CBC that the government has formed a committee to
examine the mandate. The mandate is the heart of the CBC. The
reports of the mandate committee will be available at the end of
this month. In the meantime, our colleagues may hold their breath.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Recently, the Information Highway Advisory Council tabled its
final report. This report completely trivializes Quebec culture,
since it calls for an information highway serving a single so-called
Canadian identity and culture. As well, various elements of this
report are likely to result in further federal intrusion into areas in
which Quebec is already fully exercising its responsibilities, health
and education for instance.
Does the minister commit to rejecting these recommendations,
which invite the federal government to interfere in areas that are
exclusively Quebec's jurisdiction, such as health and education?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a committee has indeed made recommendations. I
would like to point out to my colleague that, among the
recommendations made by one of the working groups created by
that committee, there are some that are content-related, that is to
say culture and all of those elements which may make up content.
This is the specific area I shall address.
We will be bringing forward a series of recommendations
following up on the work of these committees and of the advisory
council, and I trust that our colleague will be able to see that our
decisions will be judicious ones and will result in linking Canada
up to the world information highway.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fisheries
minister said in the House this week that his new $50 million tax
grab, which he calls access fees, will be applied in a fair and
equitable manner. Reform profoundly disagrees with this
intolerable tax, and now we find that native commercial fishermen
will pay only half the access fee that non-natives pay.
Will the minister now admit this policy is essentially
discriminatory at its core, commit here and now in the House to
equality of treatment for all Canadians and stop treating non-native
fishermen as second class citizens in their own country?
(1500 )
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member, who comes from Prince Rupert
and who has within his constituency both native and non-native
fishermen, would not want to get up in the House and inadvertently
or carelessly, which would not be in his nature, cause a division
between the native community and the non-native community.
Mr. Abbott: You are causing the division.
Mr. Silye: It is your rule.
Mr. Tobin: I have a bad throat so you will have to be quiet if you
want to hear the answer. I am not used to yelling.
As the hon. member knows, people with native backgrounds
occupy 40 per cent of the commercial sector of the industry.
Coming from Prince Rupert I am sure he knows that. The
commercial fleet, the people who speak on behalf of the aboriginal
fisheries, the sports sector, in fact all sectors, are attending a round
table process. The purpose of this process is to bring the industry
16670
together to produce a plan for the proper management of the
fishery.
The process is not finished and until it is those kinds of
conclusions cannot be drawn. We ought to let people who want to
work together-
The Speaker: I would remind hon. members to address the
Chair.
* * *
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, crime
prevention has always been one of our major goals. We all know
that in order to prevent crime it is necessary to respond to the
underlying social costs of criminal behaviour. Access to education
and training are the essential elements from crime prevention.
Therefore, what is the government planning to do to promote
involvement in the justice system?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is very concerned
about community safety and security as it relates to young people.
We have set up a program that reaches across the country from
the far west right into the Atlantic and up into the north. Fifteen
communities across the country will benefit from this initiative.
For example, one project announced in September is situated in the
southern Ontario region. We expect to have 20 youth participate in
this project once it is under way.
The government is working with all partners in order to better
aid Canada's youth. In addition to that, human resources
development is working with community partners and youth to
improve public safety as a whole.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw members' attention to the presence
in the gallery of the Honourable Grich Gongpechara, First Deputy
Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Kingdom of
Thailand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
16670
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in
both official languages, the 10th report of the Canadian NATO
Parliamentary Association, which represented Canada at the 41st
annual session of the North Atlantic Assembly held in Turin, Italy,
from October 5 to 9, 1995.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour on behalf of the Standing Committee on
Health to present its sixth report in accordance with its order of
reference of November 1, 1995.
The committee has considered votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 20a and 25a
under health in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 1996 and report the same.
A copy of the minutes of proceedings relating to the study is
tabled.
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th
report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development on Bill C-107, an act respecting the
establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission, and
have agreed to report it without amendment.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I think you would find consent for the following motion. I
move:
That the Standing Committee on Finance or any of its subcommittees be
authorized to adjourn from place to place within Canada during the week
commencing November 27, 1995 to hold prebudget consultations and that the
necessary staff accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
16671
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, today
I have two petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of
Simcoe Centre.
The first petition concerns section 745 of the Criminal Code. The
petitioners request that Parliament repeal section 745 of the
Criminal Code so that convicted murderers have to serve their full
25-year sentence behind bars.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
group of petitioners request that the Government of Canada not
amend the human rights act to include the phrase of sexual
orientation.
The petitioners are concerned about including the undefined
phrase of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Refusing to define this statement leaves interpretation open to the
courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.
Parliament has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that
legislation cannot be misinterpreted.
(1510 )
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
which is signed by a number of residents of my riding of
Stormont-Dundas.
The petitioners call on Parliament to ensure that approximately
70 Cornwall jobs at the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
headquarters remain in Cornwall. They also emphasize that the city
of Cornwall cannot afford any more economic losses of jobs in an
already depressed area which has been hard hit by the closure of
several industries.
Many other petitions were circulated locally. While not in the
proper form for this House, they still request that the same
consideration be given and that Parliament recognize the historical
link between the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and the city of
Cornwall by keeping the head office and those jobs in the seaway
city.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating all across Canada. The petition has been
signed by a number of Canadians from Cambridge, Ontario.
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 or the aged.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of
papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
16671
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.) moved:
That this House condemn the government for failing to make progress in
reforming the criminal justice system in terms of introducing measures to
ensure that the rights of the victim are protected and that these rights supersede
the rights of the criminal and in terms of changing the name of the week of
November 19 to 26 from Prisoners' Week to Victims' Rights Week.
He said: Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my time. It is an
honour and a privilege to lead off the debate on this Reform
motion.
On March 17, 1994 I had the pleasure of participating in our first
debate in the House on victims' rights. The example I will use
comes from my home province of Saskatchewan. It illustrates the
government's preoccupation with criminals' rights rather than
16672
victims' rights. It is the case of Gregory Fischer, a convicted cop
killer. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of
parole for 25 years.
Fischer had just applied for early release under the Liberal
government's faint hope clause, section 745 of the Criminal Code.
Mrs. Marie King-Forest, the wife of RCMP Constable Brian King,
had to fight hard for her right to be heard at these hearings. She had
the support and sympathy of many friends, the police, the public,
the media and many MPs in the House.
How did the Liberal government respond to this one victim's
lonely struggle? What was her family's reward for reliving the
nightmare of her husband's mindless murder by two cold-blooded
killers? The Liberal government rewarded Mrs. King-Forest with a
small change to Bill C-41, giving victims the right to introduce a
victim impact statement in the judicial hearings that decide to
release these killers early. The court rewarded Mrs. King-Forest's
efforts by cutting two years off Gregory Fischer's sentence. That is
Liberal justice.
The Liberals are poised once again to drag Mrs. King-Forest
through the same ordeal because now Darrel Crook, her husband's
other murderer, is applying for early release under the same Liberal
loophole in the Criminal Code.
(1515 )
If the Liberals had accepted our amendment during the debate on
Bill C-41, section 745 of the Criminal Code would have been
repealed and Mr. Crooks and the hundreds of other killers who
were serving life sentences with no chance of parole would have
served their full sentences. If our amendment had been accepted,
Mrs. King-Forest and her family would not have to endure another
senseless judicial hearing.
Under a Reform government, when the court says no chance of
parole for 25 years, that is exactly what the heartless criminal will
get. If do-gooders are concerned about killers' rehabilitation, let
them play their games after the full sentence has been served.
Certainty in sentencing, protecting society and giving the relatives
of the victims some peace and closure are more important than
letting a killer back on the streets a couple of years early.
Everything our party has done with respect to the criminal
justice issue has been governed by our fundamental principle that
the rights of the victim should supersede the rights of the criminal.
During the debate on Bill C-37, the Young Offenders Act, we
proposed changes that would better protect victims rights. We
proposed changes that would place more emphasis on victim
compensation as part of the sentencing. We proposed that the
parents of young offenders be held legally responsible for the
crimes committed by their children, if it could be demonstrated that
the parents failed to exercise reasonable parental control. Under
these proposals parents would be required to compensate victims
for property crimes committed by their children.
Unfortunately, the Liberals ignored our advice and
recommendations. They voted against our amendments and against
giving victims more rights than the criminals.
During the debate on Bill C-41, the sentencing bill, Reformers
proposed changes that would ensure victims were protected. We
proposed that victims be given the right to express their views on
whether the use of alternate measures were appropriate for the
crime against them. We proposed measures which would ensure
sentencing would be proportionate to the gravity of the criminal
conduct and to the actual harm done to the victim. We proposed
changes which would give victims the right to give verbal victim
impact statements.
As stated previously, we proposed the repeal of section 745 of
the Criminal Code, which would ensure killers stayed in jail for the
full term of their sentence. For Reformers, life means life.
Unfortunately, the Liberals ignored our advice and
recommendations and voted against our amendments and against
giving victims more rights than criminals.
During debate on Bill C-45, the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act, Reformers proposed changes that would give victims
more rights. We proposed amendments that would ensure victims
received direct financial compensation from the offender's income
while incarcerated. We also proposed that violent criminals be
denied parole and statutory release thereby protecting the rights of
victims to life, liberty and security of the person.
We proposed that criminals who commit criminal acts while on
parole or conditional release be sent back to serve the full sentence
of their crime and then the full term of the sentence of their second
offence. Two plus two is four consecutive sentences, not
concurrent.
To protect victims of child sexual abuse, we proposed a child sex
offender registry and that this registry be made available to police
investigating a child sexual offence. We proposed that all persons
convicted of sexual assault would serve the full term of their
sentence. Once again, the Liberal Party ignored our advice and
recommendations and voted against our amendments and against
giving victims more rights than the criminals.
Reformers have gone to great lengths to introduce and enhance
victims rights every chance we get, but the Liberals simply ignore
them. They do not seem to get it. They seem locked in the Liberal
thinking of the 1970s. Liberal ideas are socialist concepts that have
failed and failed miserably. Reformers give their ideas freely
because they have come from the common sense of the common
people.
The Liberals across the aisle seem to ignore these ideas at their
own peril. In the next election common sense will prevail and
common people will only re-elect members who best represent
16673
their views in the House. That means voting the constituents'
wishes and not the Liberal cabinet's wishes.
(1520)
When criminals are arrested, the police read them their rights.
Victims are never informed that they have rights. They are treated
just like another piece of evidence. If a criminal has rights then so
must the victim and if the victims have rights, should they not also
be entitled to know what those rights are?
I have been working on a list of victims rights since the day I
arrived on the Hill. Here is what I have come up with so far. I do not
know if I will be able to finish the list, but this will give an idea.
Victims have the right to be informed of their rights, to be
informed of services available, to be informed about the
investigation, to be informed about the court proceedings. They
have the right to receive notice of any hearing and have a right to
receive notice of the release of an offender.
Victims have the right to legal counsel, the right to be heard by
the crown before the trial, a right to be heard in the judicial process,
a right to have their case prosecuted and a right to prompt
disposition of prosecution. They have the right to restitution from
the offender, and a right to prompt return of private property.
Victims have a right to privacy, a right to protection from
intimidation and a right to defend themselves, family and property.
Victims have a right to exercise all of these rights.
Now that we have an idea what victims rights are, it is time for
the federal government to start codifying these rights and working
with the provinces to build legislative guarantees and
administrative mechanisms to ensure that victims can properly
exercise these rights.
There is a cruel irony that we are having this debate this week,
for November 19 to 26, 1995 has been proclaimed by the Liberal
government to be prisoners week. The Liberal prisoners week
clearly demonstrates where this government's priorities are.
Do members know that there is no week of the year, not even a
single day of the year dedicated to the victims of crime? We have a
week dedicated to prisoners, but not one for their victims.
The federal government has proclaimed a week for brotherhood
and sisterhood, a week for waste reduction, a week for international
archives, a week for dental hygiene, a week for disarmament and
on on the list goes. There is a week for earth and a week for
professional secretaries but there is no week for victims of crime. It
is time to correct this colossal oversight. I urge members of the
House to support our motion to declare this week victims rights
week.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak to this issue today.
We are making every attempt to reflect exactly what happens in
the Liberal government's agenda concerning victims. We want to
reflect that the government's failure is in effect a failure to address
the rights of victims.
I am going to demonstrate that with a small story. When I raise
these stories in the House of Commons, I am accused at times, in
fact a number of times by the minister of immigration as picking
out and isolating certain cases which are not really reflective of
what happens in Canadian society. That is a lot of hogwash. The
fact is that the kind of case I am going to talk about this afternoon
happens virtually every day in Canada.
I was in a hospital about 11 weeks ago and I met a lady who was
quite despondent. She was crying because her 19-year old son
Allen had been hit by a car at an intersection. He is in Royal
Columbian Hospital. He had broken legs, a broken arm and his
pelvis was broken in seven places, I believe. His head was basically
crushed. He has a 20 to 25 per cent chance of living. Allen's mother
Debbie does not believe that the system looks after her as a victim.
Her husband Allen senior, feels the same way. I asked her to
explain what happened.
A young offender stole a four by four truck. He drove it through
the streets of Surrey, British Columbia, and toppled the four by four
truck over Allen's Fiesta.
(1525 )
Right away, the young offender was read his rights and I will
read those in a moment. He was whisked away. The other young
fellow who was with the young offender was let off. He was only an
accomplice sitting in the same vehicle they stole.
Mr. and Mrs. Wayne asked the crown prosecutor to make sure
the guy who was charged with eight counts was sent to adult court,
just like the Liberals said would happen. They also asked to be
informed of any plea bargaining that took place. Guess what? Plea
bargaining took place and they did not know it. I found out about it.
Of the eight charges, five were dropped in the plea. Three of the
minors were presented and brought forward. Why the minors? That
is obvious. Why was it so fast? It took about five or six weeks to
run this young offender through from the time of the accident to
sentencing. Five weeks is almost unheard of. The reason in all
likelihood is that the young offender would have been charged with
manslaughter had young Allen Wayne died. That is why they
rushed him through, which is another protection for the victim.
Now what happens?
Let us go to the sentencing. What does the judge give him? This
is where victims and parents do not understand what is wrong with
this Liberal government. This guy gets 15 months open custody, go
home. He gets three years prohibition from driving. However he is
already on prohibition from driving and gets charged with that
count. Prohibition from driving means nothing to this fellow. What
does he get for prohibition from driving? He gets one day
concurrent open custody. One day. What is being told to young
16674
offenders here? He just about killed somebody-he may die
yet-and for driving while prohibited he gets one day.
This happened. It was not dreamed up. The Waynes have a right
to feel the way they do because the laws, the rhetoric and all this
hogwash which is brought into the House by the Liberal
government is nothing more than that. It is rhetoric and hogwash.
Most victims, if not all of them, know that. The government will
not go very far pushing hogwash.
Let us hear what is read. I asked the police for this recently after
watching the television show ``To Serve and Protect'' one Sunday
night. During the show a lady was sitting on the street crying and
bleeding. The police had the guy who obviously did it and were
reading him his rights. She was sitting there unattended.
The police said he was being arrested for whatever he was
charged for. ``It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to
retain and instruct counsel without delay. You may call any lawyer
you want. A legal aid duty lawyer is available to provide legal
advice to you without charge and can explain the legal aid plan to
you. If you wish to contact a legal aid duty lawyer, I can provide
you with a telephone number''. The victim was sitting on the street
bleeding and crying, wondering what rights she had. Very little.
We will present some victims rights shortly. We will see if the
government has the courage, particularly the backbenchers, to
adopt some of those rights. My guess is they will not. They will
find some small thing in the victims bill of rights to oppose it
thereby throwing it out.
How much time do I have, Madam Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Three and a half minutes.
An hon. member: Too many.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Good. Too many, he says.
That is what is wrong over here. We have too much time to talk
about victims rights. That is what is wrong with the Liberal Party.
(1530 )
Victims should have the right to be informed of their rights at
every stage of the process, including those rights involving
compensation from the offender. They must also be made aware of
any victim services available. Is that too much to ask?
Victims should have the right to be informed of the offender's
status throughout the process, including but not restricted to
location of the accused from time of arrest, notification of any
arrests, upcoming court dates, sentencing dates, plans to release the
offender from custody, including notification of what community
the parolee is being released into, parole dates and on and on it
goes.
All information is to be made available on request. What is
wrong with that? What is wrong with people having those rights
today? Bonnie Lucas in my riding would say: ``That is what I
wanted when my estranged husband came home and burned our
house down with our kids in it. We just escaped from it''.
All she asked the parole board was: ``Would you mind telling me
when he is getting out, because he is going to come after me
again?'' That is all she asked. What happens? We find out he is out
living very close by, and on and on it goes.
Victims should have the right to give oral and written victim
impact statements before sentencing, at any parole hearings and at
judicial reviews. What is wrong with that?
Victims should have the right to be informed of details of the
crown's intention to offer a plea bargain before it is presented to the
defence. Allen and Debbie Wayne are appalled, as everybody
should be, that this young offender had five of the eight charges
against him dropped conveniently. He was out on the street the next
day while the police were still filling out their forms.
Victims should have the right to know why charges were not laid
if that is the decision of the crown or the police. So often we hear
they are going to lay some charges but no charges come. They
wonder why. It happened in my office. My secretary had her house
ripped off three times in a row. She did not know why charges were
not forthcoming. To this day she still does not know, except we
hear these guys are into bigger things: ``You are kind of a zero and
we are after the bigger stuff''. She does not know why charges were
not laid yet they know who did it.
Victims have the right to protection from anyone who
intimidates, harasses or interferes with the rights of the victim. I
can speak to that one with Joan Cave who was sexually assaulted.
The guy was sent into Vancouver remand, writing her threatening
letters from remand while we paid the postage. Surely there is
something better we could do.
The government has been an absolute disaster on criminal justice
programs.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened to the member's discussion. Simple solutions for complex
problems seems to be the agenda of the Reform Party. If we have
problems with taxes, flat taxes will solve the problem. If we have
problems with debt, just cut government in half and they will al go
away. If we have a problem with the criminal justice system,
rename a day, rename a week; that will make it better.
The reality is the problems with crime in this country are deep
seated. I do not hear the Reform Party talking about how to solve
the real issues of crime in our society.
16675
I have some statistics on violent crime in Canada which include
all categories: crimes of violence, property crimes, Criminal Code
offences, drugs. From 1991 to 1992 there was a 6.3 per cent
reduction in total crime. In 1993 there was a further 5 per cent
reduction in crime. In 1994 there was an almost 5 per cent
reduction in crime. Remarkably these are periods of a Liberal
government. During the entire period of time this government has
been in office crime has been and is being reduced in Canada.
(1535)
This will not make headlines in local newspapers but the reality
is crime is being reduced. I know the hon. member on the other side
does not want to hear that, but these statistics are factual.
I will address what I consider some aspects with the problems of
crime in our society. We have gone through a whole generation of
young people whose only access has been the electronic media.
Often the only babysitter of choice for a whole generation has been
the electronic media, the television. We have glorified crime on
television and a lot of these young people today cannot distinguish
between pretend crime and real crime.
How do we want to address these real factors? The government,
through the CRTC, is now trying to find ways to use the V chip to
take violent acts in programming out of the home environment and
allow parents to have the ability to filter out violent programming
within their houses.
The hon. member is saying the Liberal government is doing
nothing. I think this is a very profound thing which affects over a
long period the attitudes and conduct among young offenders. Just
by doing away with the Young Offenders Act we will not do away
with crimes by young offenders.
It is time the Reform Party started talking about real problems
and real solutions instead of just saying hang them and they will go
away.
I wish the member would address some of those real problems.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, I read seven
solutions and within each one there were other issues. It has taken
us months and months of research and some guy stands up and says
we have simple solutions and he does not hear how Reform will
solve problems. The members on the government side are not even
listening to what is being said. That is because the front bench tells
says: ``We will do what we want and you guys will be told how it
goes''.
What makes me really sick about all this is to have somebody
from that side roll out the demographics, roll out the statistical
data, to tell us it is a 6.3 per cent reduction crime and then a 4.9 per
cent. One of the national parole people phoned me one day.
Madam Speaker, the hon. member had five minutes. Surely I can
get-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sure the hon. member
realizes that the debate time is 10 minutes and questions and
comments are 5 minutes. You have 30 seconds left.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, I would ask
the House, if this member gets five minutes-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Durham had four minutes. You have been speaking for 30 seconds
and you have 30 seconds left.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Thanks a lot. When I get calls
from the parole board saying that we have an 87 per cent success
rate, I say that is nice, it has a 13 per cent failure rate. They had
better think about this over there. It is the 13 per cent who are
coming through the doors. It is the 13 per cent plus their families
who are worried-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate, the hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Brandon-Souris.
(1540 )
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West has made some
interesting allegations which I do not think are quite fair. The
government has done a great deal in the areas the member
mentioned with respect to victim impact statements. Recent
amendments to the Young Offenders Act require victim impact
statements. Under section 745, statements from victims are
permitted and encouraged. The judges are to request statements
from not only the victims or the families of the victims in this case
but friends and neighbours of the victims.
The parole board now has to seek out statements from victims. It
must give victims an indication of when someone is to be released
who may endanger that person. That was not the case before but it
has recently been the case. To my knowledge it is being
implemented by the parole board.
There are improvements being made, in particular in the areas
the member mentioned.
The assertion that there has been no attention paid to the role of
victims is not quite fair. I wonder whether this assertion is not
based on confusion about the purposes and principles being applied
in criminal justice interventions.
Surprisingly, until recently no such statement existed in the
Criminal Code. This situation was at odds with the degree of
attention that we pay in Parliament to matters relating to tax,
16676
international trade and unemployment insurance. It is at the stage
of sentencing that the criminal justice system most consciously and
visibly expresses its denunciation of behaviour; its attempts to
deter or incapacitate people from further wrongdoing or when it
orders reparation or redress for harm done or sets in place measures
to bring about the rehabilitation of offenders.
Parliament's role to date in this process has been too often
limited to setting maximum penalties for specific offences rather
than dealing with the policy objectives of the sentencing process. It
was clearly time Parliament put its collective mind to describing
the kind of criminal justice system it wants to forge for Canadians.
This occasion was given to us in the sentencing bill, Bill C-41,
introduced by the Minister of Justice. Of all the representation we
receive, the most heart rending, as all members would agree, is the
representation from victims. Victims of crimes often feel their
immediate emotional, financial and physical needs are not being
addressed.
The criminal justice system may appear at times to be overly
concerned about the court process and the punishment of the
offender and insufficiently concerned about victim needs.
Parliament has had the opportunity in this session to debate an
important bill touching several aspects of the way victims are
treated within the criminal justice system. With the sentencing bill,
Bill C-41, Parliament had for the first time an opportunity to
address the purpose and principles of criminal sentencing. The bill
brought together the purpose and principles of sentencing,
procedure and evidence and the various sanctions the courts may
impose in a form that represents the collective view of Parliament
and which touches on many issues of vital importance to victims.
Let me give some examples. Bill C-41, recently passed in the
House, specifies that if an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice
or hate it will be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing.
The statement specifies that if an offence was motivated by bias,
prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language,
colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual
orientation or other similar factor, the court shall consider that the
motivation be an aggravating factor.
(1545 )
Numerous recommendations have been made respecting breach
of trust for offences involving violence against women and other
vulnerable persons, including children.
A 1993 survey by Statistics Canada demonstrated that almost
one-half of women reported experiencing violence during their
lifetime by men known to them. In too many cases positions of
trust were exploited, for example by parents against their children
or by a physician against his or her patient.
In 1984 the Badgley committee called for the protection of
children from persons they already know and may trust. Bill C-41
states that where there is evidence that the offender in committing
an offence abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the
victim, it shall also be considered an aggravating factor in
sentencing.
All these changes respond to concerns raised by community
groups, victims, and others about hate motivated violence and the
plight of victims.
Bill C-41 took other important steps. The statement of purpose
and principles specifically indicates that objectives for sentencing
include the provision of reparations for harm done to victims or to
the community and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in
offenders in acknowledgement of the harm to victims and to the
community. It goes further. Specific provision is made to ensure
that any information provided by victims is considered during
hearings held under section 745 of the Criminal Code.
A new set of measures respecting restitution, developed
co-operatively with the federal government and our provincial
colleagues, is set out in the bill. A priority for restitution is set out
in the bill. If a court finds it appropriate to award both a fine and
restitution, the priority shall go to restitution.
The House added a provision as well respecting restitution,
stating that in the case of bodily harm or threat of bodily harm to an
offender's spouse or child, the court may order restitution for
expenses incurred by that person as a result of moving out of the
offender's household, as well as for temporary housing, food, child
care and transportation. Provision is made to ensure that restitution
orders can be enforced by the civil courts.
The Criminal Code will specifically state that any restitution
ordered by a criminal court will not limit the victim's right to sue
for damages in the civil court.
The House of Commons participated in an important debate
involving the status of victims in the criminal justice system.
Significant changes were brought to our criminal law, aimed at
improving the situations of victims in the system. The government
and the House are concerned about victims and have demonstrated
that concrete action at the legislative level is a priority of the
government.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have difficulty trying to relate to the government that the
legislation it plays with is not a full implementation of what is
necessary.
For example, when the Young Offenders Act was changed in the
House we said all along that the government was not changing the
law to suit the real world out there. We wanted to change a number
of issues. That did not happen. Many of the victims rights groups
out there said time and time again that the government was too soft
on its legislation. Yet government members stand in the House, as
16677
my colleague did just now, and say they are working on it and it is
coming along.
(1550)
This has been a long time in happening. I want to give some idea
of the frustration that abounds. For instance, when we debated Bill
C-45 we asked for the some issues to be addressed. My colleague
from Wild Rose and I stood and put a number of motions to the
House that day. One of the motions would have provided for
compensation to victims of crime and for medical treatment for
victims of sexual assault to be paid by the perpetrator. That was
voted against and defeated by the government. We also asked that
there be no provision for statutory release for violent offenders, and
that was defeated.
The government might ask what violent offenders have to do
with victims rights. This has a lot to do with victims rights.
Dwayne Johnston is a good case in my town. In The Pas, Manitoba,
he was convicted for stabbing a 17-year old lady 56 times. He was
sentenced to life, with eligibility for parole in 10 years. It is six and
a half years later, and guess whose community he is in. Mine.
We are asking the government to carefully consider a lot of
tough legislation that has to be put in place. It should not stand in
the House of Commons and say that it is working on it or or that it
has come 20 per cent of the way, that life is long and that it has a
long time to do this. That is not what we are asking about. The
government has to take the bull by the horns and deal with it.
We asked to ensure that criminals serve their full sentence if
conditional release is revoked or suspended. If they are doing time,
get out on parole and commit another offence, it is revoked; they do
their full time. That was turned down by the government.
I do not happen to think those are unreasonable requests. Yet
time and time again in the House we hear that there cannot be an
agreement between Liberals and Reformers because we are on the
tough side of it and the government is on the liberal side of it.
The people who really count when we are asking for victims
rights are the victims and the non-victims out in our Canadian
society, the potential victims. Those are the people we must look
after today.
Finally, I have had several discussions with private companies
that build and operate prisons, and it is no coincidence that they are
moving into Canada. They are doing that successfully. The reason
is the confidence has gone in the government.
Why can the government not take another step forward, get
tougher on these laws and not stop with this point of view in the
legislation?
Mr. MacLellan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member says he does
not want to hear about things the government is working on.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I did not say that.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): May I ask that responses
be addressed through the Chair.
Mr. MacLellan: We have to be able to say what we are working
on. It is important that as part of the answer it be perceived that the
government is working toward further solutions. A lot of the areas
relate to provincial jurisdiction such as maintenance orders and
matters of family law.
Also, we have done things with regard to the Young Offenders
Act. We have said that with respect to young offenders we are
making more information available. We have said there will be
access to victims and they can present statements. We have said
that we will allow people to use information from criminal cases in
civil cases. We have done an awful lot, and the member should
recognize that.
(1555)
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have found the exchange very interesting this afternoon.
Like other members, I have been working with young people all my
working life. I sense that this is very pertinent in terms of where we
are now, where we are going and where we have been.
I had the privilege of attending the conference in Cairo in May of
this year on the treatment of prisoners. This brought together 143
countries from around the globe, representing all cultures and all
components of society. The feeling I came away with, and which
was articulated directly by some European countries, was that they
expect to have no prisons in due course. They are working toward
that objective in terms of treatment of offenders. They are putting
in place other strategies. They sense and we agree that there will be
resulting benefits. I am sure the articulation by the justice
department and my colleague will also do that.
We have some pilot projects taking place in the country right
now. In Manitoba there is a victim services program, which
commenced about five years ago. It offers assistance,
psychological and in some cases financial. More important, it
offers counselling services for people who have been victimized by
various parties in society.
I do not subscribe to the lock them up and throw away the key
approach, as some members do, in pursuit of increasing public
safety. This is more likely to increase public risk when prisoners
finish their sentences and return to the community. Evidence from
the United States in those states that have instituted very simplistic
and punitive based treatment such as California shows there was a
rise in crime rate, not a decrease. I suggest to parties that subscribe
to those views that maybe there should be a re-examination of the
data as well.
My colleague from Durham put forward statistics in terms of the
drop in crime rate. I think the information he provided to the House
is very accurate. I too have viewed those stats.
16678
The hon. member's concern for victims of crime is admirable,
but I must say that I find the phrasing of the motion a bit unclear.
He suggests that more needs to be done to protect the rights of the
victim. He goes on to imply that one way to achieve this protection
is to diminish the rights of the offender. There are several problems
with this assertion.
First, we should ask whether there is a necessary trade-off
between competing rights. Is justice better served by somehow
reducing the rights of an accused person? The motion does not
specify where rights are objectionable. The emergence of the
victims rights movement in Canada is one of the most important
criminal justice trends we have seen in the last 20 years. Yet I doubt
that any victims organizations in Canada would advocate
eliminating the right of an accused to a fair trial, the right to due
process, the protection of habeas corpus or the protection of an
accused against self-incrimination. Do I need to remind the House
that there are rights guaranteed to all Canadians under sections 7,
10 and 11 of the charter of rights and freedoms?
(1600)
I will not dwell on the matter of comparing the rights of the
accused to the rights of the victim, but I do suggest that the motion
misses the mark. I believe a more constructive approach, simply
put, is to determine where and how the victim should be involved
in the criminal justice process. The concept we should embrace is
access to justice for the victim.
At what point in the criminal justice process does the victim
deserve to have input? Should the victim have input into the police
investigation, to the trial of the accused, at the sentencing stage or
later at the parole decision making stage and finally when the
offender is released from custody?
If we can provide the victim or the victim's family with the
appropriate access to the criminal process in a timely fashion then
maybe we can be a little less concerned about who has more rights.
Let us examine the progress that was made over the last two
decades both in terms of the general recognition of the needs of
victims and specific measures.
Much of the policy and the programs dealing with victims
derived from a report by a federal task force on justice for victims
of crime in the early 1980s which offered 79 recommendations to
both levels of government for improving social, criminal justice
and health responses to victims of crime.
In 1985 Canada co-sponsored the UN Declaration of Basic
Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime. This document soon
became the basis for a unique Canadian statement of principles.
This statement was endorsed by the federal government and the
provinces and territories in 1988. It has provided a reference point
for provinces to develop their own policy and legislation on
victim's rights and most jurisdictions now have victims oriented
legislation. It is important to note the provincial perspective since
the provinces' responsibility for the administration of justice
means that all access to justice issues are under federal control.
Progress continued during the 1980s and in 1988, Parliament
passed Bill C-89 which amended the Criminal Code in several
relevant areas. For example, the code now provides for protection
of the identity of the victims and witnesses of sexual offences and
extortion offences. The law also makes it easier for victims of
property crimes to prove ownership and the value of stolen goods.
Perhaps most important, the law now provides for victim impact
statements. Section 735 permits provinces to determine the form
for victim impact statements in their jurisdiction. In effect, this
provision creates flexibility by allowing police based victim
witness service programs to generate victim impact statements or
alternatively crown or court based services as appropriate.
In my view the victim impact statement is a crucial element in
sentencing. It is appropriate that the Criminal Code not only
provides for such formal statements but allows the court to
consider any other evidence concerning any victim of the offence
for the purpose of determining sentence.
The motion argues that there has been little recent progress in
advancing victims rights. I would conclude the opposite. Bill C-41
passed recently by the House contains an amendment to the
Criminal Code stating that the court shall consider the victim
impact statement. This mandatory requirement consolidates the
role of the victim impact statement in the sentencing process.
While we are on the subject, please note that the victim in this
context is broadly defined so that where the victim himself or
herself is deceased, any relative of that person or anyone who in
law or in fact is responsible for the custody of that person, or for his
or her care or support of that person can present the victim impact
statement and it will be considered. This is a significant
improvement.
There are other measures in Bill C-41 that will benefit victims
and keep the focus and the impact of the crime on the victim. The
new section 726.2 requires a court when imposing a sentence to
state the terms of the sentence and the reasons for it and to enter
those terms and reasons in the sentence.
I conclude at this time and welcome any questions.
16679
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
does the hon. member receive any letters from victims across the
country asking for improvements to the system? I would like to
know how many he receives. We have about 500,000 now in
storage ready to pass on to the Minister of Justice. They are all
crying for changes to make things better.
(1605)
Is the member aware of a 2.5 million signature petition calling
for a pile of different changes? Is the member aware of the
hundreds and hundreds of other petitions around calling for these
changes?
Last, but not least, is he aware that there are literally thousands
of people who belong to victims' organizations? Do you know why
they exist, Madam Speaker? Because this government is not doing
anything. All those people would like to go home, go back to work,
get back to a normal life, including the Carpenters of the Carpenter
group, the Stu Garriochs of Calgary and the FACT group, the
people from the CRY group in Vancouver, the CAVEAT people
from all across the land. They are trying to lead normal lives and
they cannot because they are victims. They are joining together
trying to get some changes.
They are trying to get changes to this warm, fuzzy little Criminal
Code that was invented by the Liberals and they have not changed a
thing.
Is the hon. member aware of these things? If he is, for heaven's
sake why do the Liberals not wake up and do something?
Mr. McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I will respond in this fashion.
The approach of the government has been to take under advisement
the recommendations that are forthcoming from various groups.
It is a very important process to get that information to the
attention of the government. I would think, as my colleague
mentioned in his speech, that it is the most heart rending
experience as a member of the House to hear some of the concerns
that have been raised by these groups.
Let us not cherry pick and only look at the extreme
circumstances. I am not alleging that the member is doing that but
there are those who look only at the worst case scenario and use
that as the reason for passing extreme kinds of legislation.
We have to look at both sides of the issue and the government is
doing that.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
member opposite in his presentation referred to the idea of finding
forms of punishment other than jail to act as a deterrent. He said he
is not in favour of this throw away the key approach to the jail
system. Reformers are not either.
Reformers have presented ideas that would replace using
imprisonment as a deterrent. We have presented many different
concepts. Unfortunately I have not seen any of these ideas being
picked up by the Liberal Party.
Some of the ideas we have presented are boot camps, public
service, which is being used, corporal punishment as a possibility,
capital punishment which can act as a deterrent and certainly will
prevent an individual from murdering again. These are just some of
the things that we have proposed.
We have proposed paying restitution to victims. We have
proposed requiring the person who has committed the offence to
pay restitution to the victim as a deterrent. None of these have been
picked up by the government.
I ask the member for one example of legislation presented by the
government which has put in place a deterrent other than jail so that
we do not have to have this throw away the key approach to dealing
with prisoners.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, but time has
just about expired.
Mr. McKinnon: I will be equally brief, Madam Speaker.
It would be out of my league to give a long list of things. I will
give one example. I am only going back to my high school
principal days where we actually had to bring together the victim
and the perpetrator, going eyeball to eyeball. It was necessary for
that to take place in our community with youth victims.
(1610)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
wish to inform the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the
member for Québec.
The Reform Party's motion borders on the ridiculous. I am no
longer surprised by their manipulation of public opinion. It is pure
and simple demagoguery. We have reached a point where their
endless interventions are beginning to get on our nerves.
An hon. member: Sit down.
Mrs. Venne: It is not clear exactly what they want. I am being
asked to sit down, but I have no intention of doing so.
Does the Reform Party want to change criminal law and the
Criminal Code? Do they want to change the powers of the Minister
of Justice, of judges or lawyers? Are they unhappy with judicial
16680
proceedings? Do they want to do away with the presumption of
innocence? What is their intent? I do not know.
I would, however, like to draw attention to the Reformers'
approach. While I do not disagree with parts of their motion, I am,
however, flabbergasted at the back room scheming of the third
party. The third party, I repeat. It is important to mention this,
because the motion we were to debate is not the one before us
today.
The Reform Party, or should I say, the Opportunity Party, wanted
to table a motion, not on victims' rights, but on their own status in
the House. We are already well aware of the ambitions of the
member for Calgary Southwest, who wants to become leader of the
opposition even before the Leader of the Opposition has left.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Where is
the relevance at this point? We are debating victims rights.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): That is a point of debate,
sir.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: So, Madam Speaker, I continue by saying to you
that we have reached the height of hypocrisy. At the last minute,
and because of the fact that our leader has not resigned his position,
the Reform Party stopped talking about political opportunism and
started talking about victims of criminal acts. That takes some
nerve. How can we trust a party that is concerned about victims
only when its political manoeuvrings do not succeed?
The Reformers often set themselves up as defenders of the weak
and of the oppressed when it suits them to do so or, as in this case,
when they have no choice. Their chivalry will always depend on
how much air time they can get with it. Let us not forget the
attitude of the Inquisition Party in the matter of gun control. When
the time came to systematically obstruct proceedings both in the
House and on the justice committee, the Lancelots of the west
became the defenders of native rights.
They contended that they could simply not support a bill that
might trample native rights or contravene ancestral treaties. If they
think we do not see through their little game, they better think
again. We can see them coming a mile off. Today they are
proposing a motion on victims' rights, when, not so long ago, they
opposed a bill to protect victims.
If they want to talk about victims, let them talk about those who
succumb to wounds inflicted by firearms. How can they promote
the rights of victims and ignore those who die from gun shot
wounds? The statistics on deaths caused by firearms are staggering.
In 1991, suicides made up 77 per cent of the 1,445 deaths
attributable to firearms. Of the 732 homicides recorded in Canada
in 1992, 246, or 34 per cent, were committed with a firearm.
(1615)
In the last ten years, the majority of homicides were committed
with shotguns or rifles. Three times out of four, the woman
murdered by her spouse was killed with a shotgun or a rifle.
From 1990 to 1992, in Quebec, 1 293 deaths were attributed to
gun shots, an average of 425 deaths annually. Still in Quebec, three
deaths out a four that are caused by a firearm are suicides, for a
total of about 300 suicides each year. These statistics cannot be
ignored.
If Reform members want to talk about victims, they should talk
about the ones I just mentioned. If not, they should keep quiet
instead of talking nonsense. These far right hypocrites are here
only to make political gains. Every chance they get, they tear off
their shirts in public in order to attract attention and stand in the
limelight.
They should try to emulate the Bloc Quebecois, this mosaic of
ideas and talents that, for more than two years, has been fulfilling
the double mandate that Quebec voters gave it, that is, to promote
Quebec's sovereignty and to act as the official opposition of a
government that never stops insulting the intelligence of Quebecers
and their legitimate representatives.
While Reform members are revelling in political fiction, we, the
Bloc members, are getting ready to pursue the goals that we have
set for ourselves five years ago, that is, to consolidate our political
strength in Ottawa, around Quebec's interests alone, in order to
dispel any ambiguity and to support Quebec's march towards
sovereignty.
The motion put forward by the Reform Party invites us to
condemn the government for two reasons: first, because it
supposedly failed to make progress in reforming the criminal
justice system in general; and second, because its criminal
legislation presumably favours the rights of the criminal over those
of the victim.
What I find shocking is that this motion is a perfect example of
disinformation. This is a good way to exploit public resentment.
The motion before us simply reflects the nightmares of an extreme
right cut off from reality.
This motion is a mishmash of reactionary preconceived notions.
They might as well blame the government for winter arriving a
little early this year.
According to the third party, the whole criminal justice system
should be reformed. Does the Reform Party at least know how?
Does it have any alternatives to offer? We all have complaints
about the justice system, of course. It is one thing to say that it is
flawed; it is another to state that the whole system must be
reformed without proposing any alternatives.
As everyone knows, I have always fought for the rights and
protection of victims. I have already suggested to the House that
victims should be given a much greater role in our judicial
proceedings. I have already submitted that the victims should be
represented by lawyers, produce their own witnesses, examine and
16681
cross-examine crown and defence witnesses, plead on the
evidence, suggest sentences or participate in negotiations; in short,
they should take part in the whole judicial process and even be
allowed to appeal any ruling.
That is an alternative. Those are concrete solutions. We must
start thinking about this and come up with serious proposals instead
of a botched motion that amounts to a vague criticism of the whole
justice system and the supporting legislation.
(1620 )
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hubert for her excellent
remarks. I appreciate the support she shows for the government in
this debate.
I would like to ask her a question which pertains to her remarks
about sovereignty, the role of the Bloc and the direction in which
her party is going.
In the context of sovereignty and in the context of the motion
before the House, in her attitude toward sovereignty, would she
recommend that individuals born in Quebec who commit major
crimes be incarcerated only in Quebec or should they be put in jails
across the country? Is it a federal thing or a separatist thing for her,
the incarceration of prisoners who are born in Quebec?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is
serious in asking me that, but I will answer any way, because his
concern seems genuine.
There is no doubt that, upon achieving sovereignty, Quebec will
look after its prison population, like any sovereign country.
Quebec, as a sovereign country, is not different in that respect from
any other sovereign country.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I listened to the remarks made by the hon.
member for Saint-Hubert. I shall set the sovereignty issue aside,
since, as can be expected, we disagree on that point.
I wonder if she would not agree with me that it is somewhat
ironic that the Reform Party would come and talk to us about
victims and what not on the very day when a gun control bill is
being debated, and could even be passed in just a few hours in the
other place, to use correct parliamentary terminology and be in
order, that they would raise this issue today, knowing full well how
many victims guns have made, not only in our country but also
south of our border, where, admittedly, there is hardly any gun
legislation.
Is it not-how could I put this, again, in parliamentary
terms?-less that honest on the part of the hon. members of the
Reform Party to address this whole issue of victims of violence
without mentioning that they are the ones who moved and continue
to move heaven and earth to prevent the establishment of gun
control across Canada until now and who lobbied certain
Conservative members of the other place about this?
Mrs. Venne: Madam Speaker, of course I agree with what the
hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is saying, because
that was precisely my point.
Of course, any discussion about victims must include gun
victims. And of course, the Reform Party completely ignores them.
I also agree that, soon, in less than an hour in fact, the other place
will be voting on Bill C-68.
I will go and see how the matter is settled in the other place and I
hope that it will not have to be debated all over again in this House.
As far as we are concerned, I think that it is clear that every
conceivable concession and compromise has been made, ultimately
leading to the passage of Bill C-68. I hope that the bill will come
back unchanged and that there will be no need to consider it again.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it was
very interesting to listen to the comments of the hon. member for
Saint-Hubert.
She touched very briefly on the rights of native communities. I
was wondering if she would reflect on the rights of the Inuit people
who reside within the province of Quebec. Does she believe they
have the right to self-determination? Does she similarly believe
that they could also be a nation within the definition of that word?
Do they have the right to secede?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I strongly question the
relevancy of those questions to the motion we are debating.
(1625)
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: You are quite right, Madam Speaker, this question
has nothing to do with the matter in hand.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that, when I
mentioned aboriginal people earlier, it was in reference to the
position the Reform Party had taken, again, during the gun control
debate. I simply made a reference to them earlier.
As for the question per se, I think it might be answered in a
different setting.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker,
although I find the motion proposed today farfetched and not really
in line with the Reform Party's position on firearms, it does at least
16682
afford us the opportunity to address and reflect upon a significant
social phenomenon: the victims.
Where there is a victim there is usually crime, violence, or at the
least a socially unacceptable act. People can also be victims of
unfair policies, stifling economic situations, unattainable job
markets.
Societal values and our attitude towards the way people treat
each other are changing. Today's definition of ``victim'' therefore
differs considerably from what it was, say, fifty years ago.
I shall speak particularly of women as victims, since women are
my primary concern, given my portfolio as status of women critic.
This morning I leafed through a most interesting book, the Traité
des problèmes sociaux. This treatise, published under the direction
of a number of eminent Quebec academics, covers a multitude of
topics related to our society. Looking through the table of contents
I was struck by the innumerable types of victims there can be
within a society.
Among the subjects covered were: occupational diseases, mental
illness, alcoholism and other addictions, STDs and AIDS, crime,
prostitution, pornography, poverty, unemployment, racism,
homelessness-and these are but a few of the topics in the Traité
des problèmes sociaux.
You can see then, and this is what I wanted to talk about, the
unbelievable number of social and personal situations that can
``create'' victims, if we can use that verb here.
Of course, women are not the only victims of poverty,
unemployment, racism. They are, however, most often the victims
of domestic violence, prostitution and pornography. The victims of
certain problems are almost always women, because of their
gender, along with children.
Moreover, problems related to unemployment, illiteracy and
poverty affect women differently, because of their family
responsibilities and society's perception of their role within it.
Even governments are not immune to prejudice. We need only
think of this government trying to calculate benefits paid to women
based on family income. This is the best example of the
victimization of women because of their role within the family.
As for the notion of victim, Denise Lemieux traces its evolution,
in the context of spousal abuse. She writes, in the above-mentioned
text: ``What stands out, if you look at this over several centuries, is
the major attitudinal and legislative change regarding the wife
beating. Tolerated in the seventeenth century, sometimes even
glorified by the popular culture of the time as a manly thing, and by
the law and the religion of the time as a paternalistic punishment
for the wife, children and servants, violent behaviour gradually
became a reprehensible thing, as principles of democratic
government began to spread''.
Principles of democratic government. So, there seems to be a
connection between the principles of government and the concept
of victim. This is interesting. One such principle, affirmed by the
Canadian and Quebec charters, provides that men and women have
equal rights.
(1630)
When equality is denied, whether because a man beats his wife,
or because a government pays smaller benefits to a woman than to
a man, that woman becomes a victim. When a government tolerates
the fact that members of its army organize parties to celebrate the
killing of 14 young women, all women become victims.
So, the concept of victim is related to a certain vision of society.
Everywhere, our governments have officially proclaimed a vision
of society in which women have the same rights as men. We will
have to recognize that women are victims whenever equality is not
respected, whether in the family home, or in the policies and
practices of the government.
Those in power will also have to concentrate their energies on
eliminating the inequalities between men and women. Our aim is to
have fewer and fewer victims or none at all.
Until then, our efforts must go to re-establishing a balance
between victims and those responsible for situations creating
victims, at whatever level.
Let us go for openmindedness, and let us make sure, as leaders,
that we provide our young people with positive role models. Let us
work to provide women with equal opportunities in all settings. Let
us eliminate social, economic and political inequality between men
and women. Let us make men understand that discriminatory
behaviour is completely unacceptable-at work, at home, in
associations, in the courts of justice and in government offices.
Let us put our fine words into practice. This is surely one way to
ensure victims' fundamental and democratic right to equality and
quality of life without violence.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have a chance to speak on this issue. I am certainly
pleased that the warm and fuzzy questions asked by the Liberals to
the warm and fuzzy Bloc members regarding law and order are
over with. That was difficult to take.
I would like to quote a few statistics I have picked up myself
with regard to what the hon. member from the Liberal Party stated
a while ago. I am going back to 1984. The rate of violent crime
since 1984 has increased 49 per cent. The rate of sexual assault has
16683
increased 8 per cent annually since 1984. Assaults accounted for
six out of ten reported violent incidents in 1994.
Consider that since 1984 when the Young Offenders Act was
introduced, crime has gone up by 140 per cent. Members over there
stand on their feet and tell us how much better it is getting because
the crime rate went down 3.2 per cent or 5.9 per cent or whatever
from one year to the next. It is not getting better. There are a
number of incidents we could talk about which reflect this.
When are we in the House going to realize there are victims?
Guns do not make victims; killers make victims, in case members
opposite have forgotten.
The people who were victimized close to Montreal recently by
young offenders with ball bats provide an example as do George
and Tom Ambas from Scarborough, Ontario, who lost a brother in
their store to young offenders with knives. We do not need to talk
about what weapon is used. We need to talk about the fact that there
are victims because of killers.
(1635 )
In the Reform amendments to the legislation we attempted to
incorporate those things that were suggested to us by victims
through their petitions and letters. We listened to Canadians and we
tried to put their wishes into the criminal agenda through our
motions.
For example, we tried to get Bill C-45 amended which would
allow victims to be paid out of inmate funds. There would be
mandatory restitution. All of the things we put in were geared
toward improving things for the victim. Not one member in the
House voted for those amendments, except for Reform Party
members. All the Liberals said no and all the Bloc said no to things
like mandatory restitution. We were trying to do something that
would make it a little easier for the victims.
A lady in my riding was raped. She happened to be a former
student where I taught. The perpetrator was identified by her,
picked up at breakfast and was out on bail by noon. Is living in fear
following that rape fair to the victim, knowing that the perpetrator
is still on the loose? If we arrest violent offenders, surely we can
keep them in jail. Why would a victim stand up and cheer any
system that would let the perpetrator out only a few hours after the
crime? Somebody explain that to me.
In the case of Ann Marie Bloskie, her killer made lots of
advances toward her and she always refused. Her killer tried to
force her into sex. When she fought back he crushed her skull with
a rock and then he sexually assaulted her. He went home and slept.
The next day he returned and further abused the body. Then he
buried her.
This killer loved violent, sexually explicit porno videos. He
showed no remorse for the crime. He had deep seated
psychological problems that would require life long treatment,
said the psychiatrist. This crime happened just a few weeks short of
his 18th birthday, so the judge said it was in the best interests of the
murderer to be tried under the Young Offenders Act. There was no
mention of the victim, no mention of the family.
Her killer is now nameless. He is now walking the streets
because all he got for that crime was three years. After three years
he is back on the streets but nobody knows for sure who he is. The
parents of the victim were not notified that the killer was released.
Fixing those problems is the kind of thing that makes plain,
ordinary common sense. That is what is on the agenda of
Canadians. It is on the Reform agenda because it is what Canadians
want.
Why is having a binding referendum for capital punishment on
the Reform agenda? Because it is on the agenda of Canadians. That
is why. In polls all across the land, 70 per cent of the people have
indicated that is what they want. If it is on their agenda, it is on the
Reform agenda. It is too bad the Liberals do not listen to the people
in their ridings.
Things get worse. We talk about victims. I really get worried and
upset when I see some of the things that have been produced by the
government. I know some Liberals were visited this very day by a
group who are quite concerned that there is an organization putting
pamphlets in the schools which promote anal sex as a method of
reducing violence and pregnancy. I looked at the little booklets and
guess who prints them and pays for them? The taxpayers of Canada
pay for them, compliments of this government's health department.
(1640)
Members sit over there and laugh. I hope they laugh when their
grandchildren come home with this kind of garbage. I hope they
can laugh then. I cannot laugh when this happens and I will not
laugh. I think it is ridiculous and it is a shame. They know it is
happening. They see it happening. It is being printed by the
Canadian health department. If members have any doubts, they can
come on over and I will show them.
Those are the kinds of things Canadians are telling their MPs.
They do not want it because it is creating more victims and causing
problems. I do not want it either but if we try to do something about
it, those on the other side are overcome with warm, fuzzy feelings.
It is always the criminal, the criminal, the criminal.
I cannot believe that grown men and women would allow those
kinds of things to happen. I cannot believe that a colleague of mine,
who taught in a school just as I did, would find that an acceptable
piece of junk to come into the building. I know he would not.
The trouble is that the justice system is absolutely not addressing
anything which is causing victims more grief. They could do it if
they wanted to.
16684
Christine Silverberg, the Calgary chief of police, has written:
``Dangerous violent criminals should never be released''. I agree.
``There should be a victims bill of rights''. I agree. ``Victims are
the most neglected group in the legal system from beginning to
end''. I agree. ``Victims should be involved in every government
decision dealing with their assailants''. I also agree with that.
When is this government going to wake up and listen to the
people of Canada, listen to what the petitioners are saying and
listen to what their letters state which I know they all receive?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to indicate to the hon. member that the
constituents of Winnipeg North in addressing this issue have not
only called to tell us about their concerns for safety in their homes
and on the streets but they have also shared solutions.
One of the important things my constituents have told me is that
we should address the fundamental causes of crime. That is just
like preventive medicine. Unless we address the root causes of
crime we may not totally address the issue.
I am proud to say that in my constituency of Winnipeg North the
MLA for The Maples in my riding has now established the Maples
Youth Justice Committee. The MLA for Inkster has established a
similar organization, as has the MLA for Kildonan. I have met with
all of them.
What specific initiative has the member taken in his own riding
to address the root causes of crime? Does the Reform Party
acknowledge that prisoners week is an international religious event
that includes victims, families and communities as it addresses the
issues of the victims and the prisoners? Does the Reform Party not
acknowledge that the victims of the misuse of firearms, for
example the relatives of the victims of the massacre in Montreal,
were correct in asking for gun control? If that is so, where does the
member's party stand on this issue?
Mr. Thompson: Madam Speaker, I object to any kind of a week
that is named prisoners week. If this week was intended to honour
victims then it certainly is not named right. The first thing I thought
of when I heard we were having national prisoner's week is good
old Clifford Olson, good old Karla Homolka and good old Paul
Bernado. That is exactly what crossed the mind of most people in
my riding when they phoned me and said: ``What in the devil is
prisoner's week?'' I said: ``I do not have any idea at all. I just heard
it was announced''. They do not have brains enough to at least
name it right.
(1645)
Now they are going to defend it by saying that what they really
meant was this and that and so on, but it sure did not come out that
way. If you are to have something besides honouring those kinds of
individuals then say so and name it properly.
Let us go to the second question. You must have not been
listening, sir, when I told you about these pamphlets that are getting
into-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Address your questions
through the Chair, please.
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. The hon. member
must not have been paying much attention. I have been asked by
the people who have brought all these materials to me to question
the government as to why the health department is funding those
kinds of documents that lead to nothing but trouble, that lead to
crime. A root cause. It is called morals, dealing with the morals.
When you bring it to the government, it tries to defend it. If it
can defend it, that would be one thing, but it cannot. It has had its
opportunities to defend it and it cannot. Even backbenchers would
not support some of the garbage that was going on. Of course they
get punished for that. That is the rule over there: listen to the boys
on the front line. They do not have enough guts to stand up on the
back row and take their own stand.
I do not want to get into this great gun debate once again. We
have gone through that so much. Guns are no different from any
other weapon. They cause problems. The victims are victims
regardless of why or how. If any member could show me that the
registration of a gun will save a life at the hands of a criminal, I
might support it. I do not think anyone can show me.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the debate today, for Canadians who are following it, is on an
opposition day motion. This is a day when an opposition party has
an opportunity to set the agenda for debate in the House. Reform
has introduced for debate today a motion first of all to discuss the
lack of progress being made in reforming the criminal justice
system. Second, we refer in our motion to another opposition day
motion we had about a year and a half ago on the same topic:
That this House condemn the government for its inaction with regard to the
reform of the criminal justice system, in particular its allowance of the rights of
criminals to supersede those of victims.
Here we are again a year and a half later with the same concerns.
As we heard from my colleague who just spoke, these are very
strong, serious concerns. These are not matters we take lightly.
They are matters we keep hearing from our constituents and other
members of the public that they want to see dealt with. They are
saying the government is not dealing with them.
A year and a half ago we urged the government in debate, which
we were able to introduce, to do something. A year and a half later
we are making the same request, the same appeal to government.
You wonder why.
16685
In our motion we urged the government to do two things. One
is to introduce measures right now to ensure the rights of the
victim are protected and supersede the rights of the criminals. We
are also asking the government to change the name of this week,
November 19 to 26, from prisoners week to victims rights week.
(1650)
Reform's position is very simple. We say the whole priority of
the criminal justice system should be the protection of the lives and
property of law-abiding citizens and that should come ahead of the
protection of the rights of criminals.
The state exists to protect the lives and property of citizens. That
is the reason we organize. That is the reason we have institutions of
society, so we can live in a civilized manner and can respect each
other's rights, respect each other's safety and each other's lives.
If we are to do that as a state, we have to make law breakers
afraid of breaking the laws and afraid of what will happen if they
violate the rights of other people. It would not be too strong to say
that one of the main purposes of having an organized society and an
organized government is to make law breakers afraid, to bring fear
of law breaking into our society.
We have to ask ourselves does our society make law breakers
afraid? I do not think there are very many Canadians who would
answer that question in the affirmative. We have had many
examples brought up in the House over the last several months.
Law breakers commit horrendous crimes and are right back out on
the street living a normal life while the victims and their families
have torment, grief, upset, pain and agony. Yet criminals and law
breakers have every protection, every consideration, every possible
assistance and comfort extended to them.
Our whole society, our whole approach to the criminal justice
system in this regard is totally on its head. That is why we have the
strong concerns of Canadians continually being brought forward in
this whole area.
What does the government say? What is it doing about the
situation? The justice minister is saying all the right things. He is
saying yes, we are going to protect victims; yes, we are changing
and toughening up the justice system; yes, we want the public's
confidence in the justice system.
These are all well and good, but here we have a minister who has
had over two years now to do some concrete, strong, forceful,
vigorous things to rectify this situation and instead is taking timid,
weak, ineffectual baby steps in correcting a situation causing
continual concern and grave frustration to our citizens.
The second thing we have seen the government do is get really
tough with law-abiding citizens. If they do not register their
firearms, they will be in big trouble, they will have a criminal
record, but nothing is being done about these weapons which can
be obtained illegally and quickly by any law breaker in the country.
We have done so little to make them afraid to do that. We put the
fear of God into the law-abiding citizens, who did not need it in the
first place, and we have done nothing to ensure that law breakers
cannot obtain an illegal weapon in the nearest bar in 30 minutes.
How will this protect our society? The whole philosophy of our
criminal justice system is on help, sympathy and support for
prisoners and law breakers. It says a lot that this is prisoners week.
We have prisoners week but no victims week at all.
I was rather surprised when I read an article about women
inmates decrying the lack of rehabilitation programs. A woman
inmate was saying: ``In two years I got nothing. Nobody listens and
nobody cares. I am broken hearted. Inmates are upset with the lack
of programs''.
(1655 )
There is as real desire to help everyone we can in society to be
the best citizens they can. When we have people who have broken
the law and violated the rights of others who are outraged and
incensed that they are not getting help and support, when the
victims of crime are coming in a poor second, surely the attitude
we are fostering is wrong. There must be a change very quickly.
I cite one other example that sums up what is wrong in our
justice system. We have a convicted murderer who has sued
corrections Canada and the Government of Canada for negligence
in protecting him. This murderer was convicted for stabbing a
15-year old boy while trying to sexually assault him.
He sued because he was beaten up by other inmates in 1991. This
year he was awarded an out of court settlement by the Government
of Canada to compensate its lack of protection for him.
I contrast that with the family of a young woman who was
murdered by a convicted murderer who in honour of his birthday, a
wonderful day, was given a nice pass to go shopping and to enjoy
himself. He had been convicted of murdering someone, but of
course we do not want to be too harsh on anyone in our society and
we would certainly not keep a convicted murderer from having a
shopping trip on his birthday.
This convicted murderer went out on his birthday and gave
himself an even better present than a shopping trip. He assaulted
and killed a young woman. The system again failed to protect
someone, this time an innocent young woman, not a convicted
murderer.
The family of the young woman naturally made an appeal for
compensation to the Government of Canada. Where has that appeal
gone? For six years there has been absolutely no offer of
compensation.
16686
It is incumbent on us to get serious about turning our justice
system to the protection of the citizens and innocent people.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, one of
my favourite poets is Shakespeare. One of the soliloquies from
``Macbeth'' talks about sound and fury signifying nothing. We have
a lot to learn from Shakespeare because talk is cheap and action and
hard work are the real tests.
When we talk about being concerned about victims we have to
listen to victims when they come before us. This is a day when in
the other place we will have a vote on gun control.
I remember as vice-chair of the justice committee the victims
coming before us on gun control, the victims groups saying how
badly they needed the legislation. I remember the suicide experts
coming before us saying how badly this legislation was needed. I
remember the women's groups coming before us saying how badly
they needed this legislation. There is work to be done.
We have done work in the government. We have talked about
balancing rights. We do not put one right above another when
public safety is the issue, and that is the issue. It is not whom we
rank in order. There is a realistic need to address the problems in
society.
The party opposite thinks the way to address problems is to
single out notorious, terrible events. These events are terrible and
there are great losses. However, there is no ownership on caring for
victims in society by any one of the parties in the House. We all
care about victims in society.
The difference is that when we care, we roll up our sleeves and
do some real work. We look at real facts. We voted for the
legislation that puts gun control in place because the victims asked
for it. We voted for the legislation on sentencing because it gives an
ability for the victims to go to the courts to get compensation. We
go and we get victim impact statements at hearings.
(1700)
The Reform Party can find some little place in these pieces of
legislation where they do not care about those bills and they vote
them down. The victims count. CAVEAT met this week in
Hamilton, a national organization, and where did they rate the
provinces that take the attitude that is closest to the third party?
They rated them as a d in Alberta and a d in Ontario. Where did
they rate our minister? They rated him up there because he has the
fortitude to stand behind a bill that will do something for victims.
They just do not care.
What you need to figure out here is who is really working. Who
is working when we have victims of misuse of firearms? Who is
working when we have victims of family violence? I remember
comments on December 6 last year from the other side. They have
no understanding of family abuse.
We have bills that bring sexual offenders now to the ends of their
terms. We have improved the Young Offenders Act and we will do
more. We take DNA evidence. They came alongside on that, and
that is good. Maybe that is a real vision for the future, looking at a
bill and making sure it works and helping us implement it.
The Reform Party did support the drunkenness defence bill, but
today they like to forget that we did that bill. That helps victims.
I wish I had 20 minutes, because I have a lot more to say on this
issue. Behind the scenes we will do the real work and not just push
the trigger buttons.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am absolutely delighted to hear the passion with which the
member opposite commits to helping victims. I would like to give
her and her government suggestions as to what we could do to
increase the rights of victims.
First, we could give them a right to restitution from the offender.
Second, we could give them a right to prompt return of property.
These are rights they do not now have. Third, we could give them
the right to be informed of services to help them in the trauma they
have experienced. Next, we could give them the right to
information and notification in a whole range of areas, which I
would be very happy to supply to the member. We can give them a
right to be heard by the crown and a right to be heard throughout
the judicial process.
We could give them a right to privacy, a protection from
unnecessary invasions of privacy; a right to refuse to be
interviewed by defence counsel; a right to waiting areas in the court
buildings that are separate from those used by the accused; a right
to be free from intimidation; a right to have a prompt disposition of
prosecutions; a right to be informed of victims' rights; a right to an
explanation of their role and the scope and progress of the
proceedings.
There are a whole range of areas where we can help victims in
very practical ways.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member's time is
over.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this month marks the second
anniversary of the period during which it has been my privilege to
serve the Prime Minister and the government as Minister of
Justice. I can say that during that time there have been no
experiences that have left deeper impressions on me and there has
been no work that has been more important to me than those
occasions on which I have met with victims of crime, spoken to
family members who survive others who have died as a result of
16687
crime and heard from them about their perception of justice and the
justice system.
I refer to meeting with Priscilla de Villiers, whose daughter Nina
was murdered and meeting with Chuck Cadman in Vancouver,
whose son Jesse was murdered. Priscilla de Villiers reacted by
creating CAVEAT, which is now a strong national organization
standing for the rights of victims and drawing the attention of
Canadians, including governments of all levels, to the
shortcomings in the justice system. Chuck Cadman created the
organization called CRY, in which thousands of people participate
actively for constructive change in the justice system.
(1705)
I have met with Rita Jervis, a woman from the Maritimes, whose
husband was shot and who herself was seriously injured. She
survived that attack to devote her energies and her efforts to
improving the justice system.
I met with the parents of the young people murdered at the
McDonald's restaurant in Cape Breton. I heard from them about the
tragic and everlasting sadness and suffering that is the result of that
dreadful crime.
I met with Stu Garrioch and his wife in Calgary, whose son was
killed in crime.
I met with Margot B, the courageous woman from Quebec who
campaigned across the country for changes in the system as a result
of her victimization of sexual assault.
I met with Jay Danelesko in Edmonton, whose wife Barb was
murdered in the middle of the night in their home. She died in front
of their children.
I met with Monica Rainey, whose own son, a toddler, was the
victim of sexual molestation. She turned her energies and her
extraordinary talents into efforts to create ways to protect other
children from that kind of victimization.
I met with Steve Carpenter, who lost his daughter in a dreadful
tragedy in British Columbia.
I met with Morris Rose, whose son died a victim of violent
crime.
I met with Tom Ambus last week in Toronto, whose brother was
brutally stabbed to death on the floor of Tom Ambus' store.
It is said that victims are too often forgotten, that victims are the
orphans of the criminal justice system. I stand in this place today to
say that those persons and all the other victims with whom I have
met have left too deep and indelible an impression on this Minister
of Justice ever to be forgotten as I approach the issues in my
portfolio, ever to be forgotten as I bring forward proposals for
change, ever to be forgotten as I work to develop the policy of the
government toward criminal justice.
I shall never forget as I do my work the part they play and the
part they have played, not only through the suffering they have
endured through the awful loss of loved ones, but also through the
way in which they have helped the police in the investigation of the
crimes, how they have had the courage to testify in the prosecution
of those responsible, how they have devoted their energies
afterward, notwithstanding their personal pain, in efforts to
improve the justice system, working constructively for change.
[Translation]
Since I took up my duties as Minister of Justice, we have tabled
several bills aimed at improving the criminal justice system for the
benefit of Canadian society as a whole and more specifically for
the benefit victims of crime.
[English]
I believe the changes we have made have improved significantly
the circumstances for victims in the Canadian system of justice. I
point to Bill C-41, which for the first time sets out in the criminal
law of this country in statute the principles and the purposes of
sentencing, including the obligation of the criminal justice system
to provide reparation to victims of crime.
Bill C-41 specifically provides that the court will consider as an
aggravating circumstance that someone was victimized by reason
of a breach of trust, by reason of violence by a man against a
woman in a domestic context, or by reason of hatred based on the
personal characteristics of the victim. They are all on the bad list.
Bill C-41 also contains changes in section 745 of the Criminal
Code to ensure that the surviving family members of someone who
is murdered must be heard from by the court when an application is
made for permission to seek early parole under section 745.
(1710 )
Perhaps most importantly for present purposes, Bill C-41 also
provided for much strengthened provisions for restitution. I
listened to the hon. member opposite describe the urgent need for
avenues of restitution for the victims of crime. Bill C-41 brought
together significant improvements, which were combined in that
bill to provide that from and after the date of its proclamation the
courts will be empowered to order, even without the victim asking
for it, appropriate restitution. The victim may take that order,
register it in the courts in the same manner as a civil judgment, and
it can be enforced in the same manner as a civil judgment, taking
the responsibility for enforcement off the shoulders of the victim
and putting it where it belongs.
In Bill C-42 the government proposed changes that are now in
effect in the Criminal Code of Canada to provide that peace bonds,
16688
restraining orders made by the courts to keep threatening persons
away from their potential victims, can be made on application by
police officers instead of by the potential victim himself or herself,
to relieve them of that obligation, to make it that much easier for
them to have that court protection.
Bill C-42 provided dozens of ways to streamline the criminal
justice system for the benefit of victims, including, for example-I
offer this only as an example-that those who have lost property in
crime may establish ownership of the property for the purposes of
the prosecution simply by swearing and filing an affidavit rather
than having to take the time and trouble to appear in court
personally to establish that technical proof.
In Bill C-72 we expressly provided words in the Criminal Code
that will bring home the personal responsibility of those who
intoxicate themselves voluntarily and then commit a crime of
violence involving the general intent of harming others. The
preamble of Bill C-72 is express testimony of this government's
concern about and commitment to victims of crime. Bill C-72
stands as a profound and important statement from this Parliament
on behalf of victims that those who intoxicate themselves
voluntarily and then harm others in those circumstances will be
held accountable and cannot rely upon their own self-induced
drunkenness or intoxication from drugs as an excuse. That is action
on behalf of victims.
In Bill C-37 the changes to the Young Offenders Act expressly
provided for the first time for victim impact statements in court
proceedings involving young offenders. In the second phase of that
work involving the young offenders, which was commenced by the
justice committee of the House this week, I expressly asked the
committee to look at different approaches toward juvenile justice
with specific reference to the role of the victim. I asked how we can
have that act improved so as to more directly involve the victim
through reparation, through confronting the offender, through
restitution, through community work, so that people who are the
victims of crime can have some sense of justice out of the process.
I expressly asked the committee to work with me in designing
changes to achieve those objectives. I share those objectives with
the members opposite. We have the same goals in mind. I have
invited them this week as members of the committee to work
constructively with me toward the attainment of these goals.
In Bill C-104, which received the agreement of all parties in the
House, we introduced for the first time an express provision in the
Criminal Code empowering police officers to go to the courts for a
warrant to obtain bodily substances for testing for DNA, important
forensic evidence either to establish guilt or prove innocence. That
is a step forward for victims. When combined with the further
legislation the Solicitor General of Canada is preparing to establish
a data bank for DNA samples of those convicted of crime, we will
have available to the authorities in this country an invaluable
resource to detect and ultimately pre-empt and prevent crimes of
violence against victims.
I have three more general points before concluding. First, when
we speak of victims of crime, indeed, when we speak of violent
crimes generally, it is very important to remember that 70 per cent
of the victims of crime are acquainted with their assailants. The
general impression that some might have that violent crime is
confined to the streets where strangers lurk dangerously to assault
us, is not right. The vast majority of victims know the person who
attacks them. That leads to a related point.
(1715)
An appalling percentage of crime goes on in the home and
involves violence by men against women. It is to that cause, against
that kind of crime, that we must also unite in our efforts and in our
opposition. Violence by men against women tragically forms too
large a part of the crime problem in the country. We must work
through the wide variety of strategies available to combat, to
reduce and ultimately to end it.
Second, I draw the attention of hon. members to the importance,
not just of legislative initiatives but to crime prevention. Because
law alone, no matter how much improved by the suggestions made
by hon. members, will never, ever be enough to address the
problem of crime and community safety.
It cannot work in isolation because it deals with symptoms and
not with causes. It becomes engaged when it is too late. The crime
has been committed, someone has been harmed and the charge has
been laid. Crime prevention is a strategy by which we can take
community resources and energy and through linking police
enforcement with the justice system, with social agencies, with
families, we can do something about crime before it happens.
All across the country as I go from the west to central Canada to
the maritimes, I see the energy and the commitment of
communities. Instead of just wringing their hands about
community safety, they are rolling up their sleeves and doing
something constructive about it.
The National Crime Prevention Council created by the
government in the summer of 1994 provides the national
instrument by which that energy and that commitment can be
brought together and focused on that important national objective.
Let it not be thought that we will make ourselves safe simply by
ratcheting up the penalties and making the laws more harsh. That is
only part of the approach. We must also look at the underlying
causes of crime. We must recognize that preventing crime has as
much to do with the strength of families as it does with the length
of sentences. It has as much to do with literacy as it does with law.
16689
It has as much to do with community co-operation as it does with
mandatory supervision.
No one here should think that we are serving victims if we offer
them only vengeance. Victims want more than to see the offender
punished. That is where hon. members of the third party, in my
respectful view, fall short in their approach to this problem. More is
required than simply vengeance.
If ever there was eloquent evidence of that principle, it was
offered by the family of one of the victims in the Bernardo tragedy.
I believe it was the Mahaffey family. When asked about capital
punishment, the Mahaffey family said: ``That is not our objective.
That is not what we are after. What we are after is to make sure that
something positive comes of this awful tragedy. What we are after
is to make sure that person is put away for life in prison. What we
are after is to ensure that it never happens again''. That is what
victims want and it is toward that constructive objective that we
must work together.
A few weeks ago I spoke outside on this magnificent Hill to a
rally organized by a group of victims seeking changes in the
criminal justice system. I undertook on that occasion to work with
them in the name of justice for changes to our laws to achieve the
objectives of which I have spoken today. I intend to keep that
commitment, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
I said earlier that I welcomed this opportunity to respond to the
motion before the House today. The government is proud of its
achievements because it has a made a concerted effort to approach
the problem of crime from various angles.
(1720)
I am not suggesting that all has been said and done. But I do
know that creating new crimes with increasingly stiffer sentences
will not solve the problem. Finding the causes of crime is no easy
matter. It involves a cause and effect analysis as wideranging and
complex as human nature itself. However, to claim that we can
solve the problem by getting rid of criminals as long as possible is
simply to evade the issue.
[English]
Let me close by emphasizing that the motion before the House
today is somewhat of a surprise since it emanates from members of
the third party. Sometimes the way they express themselves on
such subjects, one would think that the members of the third party
have a monopoly on righteousness when it comes to the position of
victims.
Their position, I am afraid, is hardly that strong. I suggest that
their presentation today of this resolution offers somewhat of an
embarrassing contrast for the third party. Today, through their
resolution and their arguments, they would have us believe that
their priority is the rights of victims and the perspective of victims.
Just two days ago, on Monday of this week, a group of victims
met here on the Hill. They made a very powerful, a very emotional
and a very moving presentation in favour of Bill C-68, urging the
Senate to adopt the government's proposals on gun control.
Those victims also have a point of view. The men and women
who stood on the Hill on Monday in favour of Bill C-68 are victims
too. They want Bill C-68 put in place because they know it is in the
best interests of victims and the criminal justice system in this
country.
It is the members of the third party who have fought so much
against Bill C-68 in the past and continue to do so. Perhaps that is
the best evidence of the flawed approach of the members of the
third party toward the proposition in which today they pretend so
strongly to believe.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed
listening to the speech of the justice minister.
A year ago Reformers brought up the same issue, asking the
government to be a little more active in trying to protect victims
and their rights. For years, the criminal justice system-as a
lawyer, he would know this-has been geared toward the rights of
the criminal. From the moment the offender is arrested to the
moment of the expiration of the sentence, our system is built
around the criminal. The victim has been generally ignored.
We brought this to the attention of the House. There has been
some movement and very little improvement. We want to make
more improvement.
If Parliament is intent on protecting society, it should and will
have to recognize and codify victims' rights. As a party we have
pushed four issues: official standing in court cases and parole
hearings, which the minister has not invoked; mandatory victim
impact statements and victim compensation, where there is an
opportunity to draw from the criminal himself or herself some
compensation, and to recognize that the rights of the victim
outweigh the rights of the criminal.
Our charter of rights and freedoms in some ways give criminals
privileges that are unheard of. We talked a year ago about the
46-year old woman, mother of three children, who was raped by a
convict on day parole. The victim tried to get a Quebec court to
compel her attacker to take a blood test for HIV but the court ruled
against her, saying that the blood test would compromise the rights
of the accused rapist.
Protecting the rights of the accused at the expense of the victim
of a crime is a crime in itself. Today, we have the Bernardo and the
Homolka situation. We have two prisons that are connected by a
tunnel-
16690
The Deputy Speaker: Will somebody tell the minister it is
normally expected that the minister would wait and reply to
questions and comments. I thank the minister for coming back.
(1725 )
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I posed the question. He is a busy man.
Maybe he is going out to fix up our victims rights. Maybe he is
going to do something about the bill.
Getting back to the point I was making about the two prisons
where Bernardo and Homolka are held, a tunnel connects the two.
According to the charter of rights and freedoms, he is going to be
able to have conjugal visits with members on the female prison
side. This is not punishment.
Mr. Hoeppner: It's ludicrous.
Mr. Silye: It is ludicrous, I agree with the member from
Manitoba.
I guess I need another preamble for my question. I believe that
we should make violent criminals-that was my comment and now
to the question for the-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Silye: We are laughing and joking, but it is not really funny.
This man has been the justice minister for two years. All he
wants to do is register firearms at a cost of $400 million and impose
a bunch of ludicrous infringements on private property and
carrying on like that, rather than doing what really is important
which is toughening up the criminal justice system, making our
streets safer and actually punishing people who commit crimes.
It is wonderful to talk about the causes of it. It is wonderful to
look at how we can help these people to not commit these crimes.
Those are solutions that are of a much longer term. In the short
term the punishment should fit the crime and parole should not be
given to violent offenders.
Why not make violent criminals serve their full sentence without
possibility of parole? Why not get tougher with the criminals, show
that the justice system is tough, then look at the rights of the
victims and give them the satisfaction that at least the government
of this land is looking after their rights and not just the criminals
rights.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all make it clear that I
intended no disrespect to the hon. member when I left the Chamber
for a few moments. I am sure he knows that and I trust that the
Speaker knows it as well.
In response to the point raised by the hon. member, I take it that
what he is advocating is a balance in the approach. We must take
steps to strengthen the criminal justice system. We must also be
sensitive to the rights and the interests of the victim. I believe that
is what we have reflected in the steps we have taken as a
government.
We have introduced, for example, in Bill C-68 mandatory
minimum penitentiary terms-the longest in the Criminal
Code-for those who use guns in crime. That is a very significant
punitive element in the criminal law. I know that it has the support
of the members of the third party.
At the same time in Bill C-41, for example, we have recognized
the role and the rights of the victim in the strengthened restitution
provisions. We have changed the section 745 procedure so that they
are guaranteed a role in such applications. In Bill C-42 we have
made it unnecessary for them to go to court, for example, when-
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform
the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81, the proceedings on
the motion have expired.
_____________________________________________
16690
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP) moved that Bill
C-314, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (other
pension income), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to say a few words at
second reading of my private member's bill, Bill C-314. I made a
few comments when I introduced it but for members in the House
today I want to remind them that this bill is an act to amend the
Parliament of Canada Act (other pension income). The bill requires
all pension or retiring allowance payments received by a member
of Parliament which are paid from public funds to be deducted
from the member of Parliament's sessional allowance payments.
The following occupations fall under the definition of a public or
retiring allowance paid from the public purse: a member of the
legislative assembly of a province or a provincial parliament; a
member of the public service of Canada or a province; a judge of
any court in Canada; a member of the Canadian forces; a peace
officer; an employee or officer of a crown corporation of the crown
in right of Canada or of a province; an employee or officer of a
board, bureau, commission, council, institute or agency of the
crown in right of Canada, the crown in right of a province or a
municipality; an employee or officer of a publicly funded school,
school board, college, university or hospital; an employee or
officer of an organization that the board by law orders to be an
equivalent organization, crown corporation, agency of the crown,
or college, university or hospital.
The bill is a reverse double dipping bill. There are two
definitions of double dipping. The first is members of Parliament
with
16691
pensions taking government jobs while still drawing their
parliamentary pension. This definition has been primarily dealt
with in Bill C-85. The President of the Treasury Board introduced
the bill and it was passed. It was part of the pension adjustment bill.
The second definition of double dipping, which this bill
addresses, is MPs elected while collecting a public pension. They
are receiving in essence a pension from a position which I made
reference to plus receiving their member of Parliament allowance.
For example, there is a former MLA in this assembly who
receives a pension of approximately $61,000 annually. He was
elected to the House and receives a full salary as a member of
Parliament as well. Therefore he is earning something in the order
of $165,000 for serving the public. This bill would take the $61,000
pension and subtract it from the $64,400 which is due to a member
of Parliament, thereby only paying this person to continue to serve
the public at the federal level his $61,000 pension and $3,400.
I will take the House through a bit of the history of double
dipping in Canada. Prior to 1976 pensions of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, members of Parliament, the military and public
servants were regulated by Parliament and the regulations were
quite uneven. A former member of the military could not keep their
pension if elected to Parliament, yet a civil servant could. It was
also not possible for a former member of Parliament to join the
public service and collect their pension. The rules did not allow for
a level playing field. Certain occupations were eligible to collect
pensions while working in another occupation, while others were
not.
This was updated in 1976 but instead of preventing all public
pensioners from drawing a salary and a public pension, the process
was opened up to allow them to collect both. In hindsight this was a
costly, unfair and unacceptable practice, as it is now, in light of our
fiscal situation and in light of a significant increase in
unemployment, in particular with young Canadians.
The purpose of a pension is to provide income to an individual in
recognition of years of service. In essence it is a deferred income or
a deferred benefit earned while working to be paid when one
retires. It is meant to sustain retirees in a satisfactory manner
during retirement. A public pension is provided by the taxpayers so
that the retiree has a source of income.
The proposal I am putting forward through Bill C-314 is seen in
other jurisdictions. For example, it is a policy with many school
boards to deduct salaried earnings from retirees who go back to the
classroom to teach so they are not double dipping, receiving a
pension from the school board as well as receiving a full time
salary-doing two things; double dipping in terms of getting
double revenue for doing one job and also taking the job away from
somebody who needs it much more than the person who is
receiving a substantial pension.
This policy was established because school boards could not
justify to the taxpayer that a teacher should be able to earn a salary
from teaching when they claim to be retired from the very
profession in which they are working.
(1735 )
The bill would save the House of Commons literally millions of
dollars annually because the payroll would be reduced. As well,
there are currently at least 60 members of Parliament who could be
affected by the bill. The numbers are approximate, we do not know
for sure. A number of Liberals, Bloc members and Reform
members are currently receiving pensions from previous public
service and collecting a full salary as members of Parliament. They
fall into the categories of MLAs, MPPs, municipal politicians,
teachers, military officers, peace officers and various and sundry
civil servants.
Some are receiving generous pensions and others will be eligible
soon for benefits while still serving as a member of Parliament.
The bill reflects the fact that these individuals are continuing in
their role of serving the public and should not be paid twice. They
should not be considered retired from public life and then pursue a
career as a member of Parliament and be paid twice to serve that
very same public.
Many members of Parliament in most veins agree that serving
Canada is an honour and a privilege. We should not abuse that
privilege. All we do by receiving a public pension while being a
member of Parliament receiving a full salary is add to the cynicism
of the public by abusing the goodwill of the Canadian taxpayer.
Bill C-314 recognizes that despite the level of government there
is only one taxpayer paying the salaries of MPs, retired municipal
politicians and retired civil servants. If a retired person becomes a
member of Parliament, that person should no longer be considered
retired.
The government does not allow persons who are collecting
unemployment insurance benefits to collect welfare benefits at the
same time. We have this in other jurisdictions such as school
boards and unemployment insurance. UI does not allow persons to
collect unemployment insurance while holding a job either. If a
person does this they are considered to be cheating the system.
Why are members of Parliament exempt from this form of double
dipping? In essence those of us who are receiving pensions could
be considered cheaters on the taxpayers.
We cannot expect Canadians to tighten their belts with massive
cutbacks to government programs while we receive a public
pension and a public salary at the same time. Contributions
members of Parliament would make in terms of savings could go
toward a special fund.
For example, consider a member who makes $61,000 in pension
income. That $61,000 could go to this fund which could be used on
16692
an annual basis to be paid directly on the deficit. This could provide
very significant leadership to Canadians in the sense that the
members who receive these pensions with this deduction from their
MPs salary could use this fund annually toward reducing the deficit
while telling Canadians we are making some very difficult choices
and that we also believe as members of Parliament we are to make
some difficult choices ourselves which will address the deficit
issue.
We also see an opportunity to save money for taxpayers.
However, we have seen governments in the past, and particularly
this Liberal government, make some significant cuts to transfer
payments in the health, education and social service areas. It is not
really saving money. It says it is saving money by cutting back $7
billion this year with respect to health, education and social
services costs but all it is really doing is transferring this to other
levels of government, the provincial governments and the
municipalities across the country. The taxpayer has to make up the
difference of the $7 billion.
We are also seeing a government making cutbacks to
unemployment insurance. In Saskatchewan's circumstance we
have seen the unemployment insurance program cutback so
dramatically in the last two years that over 15,000 people have
been taken off UI as a result of the new cutbacks by the Liberal
government. They are now being put on the Saskatchewan
assistance plan case load, which costs an extra $63 million a year.
In addition to the unemployment insurance reductions, the
Liberal government has transferred responsibility for providing
assistance to off reserve status Indians, adding another 10,000
people to the welfare case load of Saskatchewan alone at an
estimated cost of $37 million. We have seen $63 million, $37
million, $100 million on those two initiatives under the
unemployment insurance benefit scheme alone.
(1740)
The Liberal government was elected on the platform of
providing jobs and of course it has thrown more people out of work
and on to welfare rolls in Saskatchewan than ever before, adding to
the burden of the Saskatchewan taxpayer.
Bill C-314, which I am proposing, would assist in a very minor
way but illustrates the Liberals have no new ways of trying to save
money. All they want to do is pass off the expense of running our
country to another level of government.
I will say a few words now about double dipping in the Reform
Party. If the Reform Party is concerned about double dipping, it
would support the bill. The bill creates a level playing field.
Members of Parliament would see retirement income deducted
from their paycheque during their tenures as members of
Parliament.
Members of the Reform Party have stated they would not accept
the parliamentary pension before age 60. Yet there are Reform MPs
who gladly accept publicly paid pension benefits from the
provincial governments they have served in other public sector
jobs, be it teaching, municipal governments or other provincial
government sectors.
This in my view is hypocrisy on the part of the Reform Party.
The Reform Party is insulting the intelligence of Canadian
taxpayers. If it is wrong for a former member of Parliament to
accept his pension and take a public sector job, then why can a
former MLA now in the Reform Party receiving a $61,000 a year
pension not do the same thing when he becomes a member of
Parliament?
Reform Party members must lead by example and voluntarily
deduct their pension incomes from their salaries and give the
difference back to the House of Commons or to the deficit.
I have some very profound arguments and a great deal of support
for the bill. Barbara Yaffe of British Columbia wrote in the Ottawa
Citizen on April 20:
Now that the diabolical double dip has been addressed, the Chrétien
government might want to take action on the reverse dip.
Double dipping is to be forbidden under the reforms to the MPs' pension plan
announced in February by Treasury Board President Art Eggleton. But the
reverse dip was not mentioned in those reforms.
The column was quite laudatory for me and with respect to this
bill. She does quote a number of members of Parliament who are
serving in the Reform and Liberal parties: the member for
Bonavista-Trinity Conception, a retired naval rear admiral; the
member for Lethbridge; the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan; the
member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, a former armed forces officer,
and it goes on and on. I would like to read the whole article but I do
not think it would be appropriate at this time. However, the bottom
line is there is a great deal of support for the bill.
I am not doing this out of mischievousness. I am doing this
because it is a serious issue for Canadians and for Parliament. I am
doing it with sincerity. As a former member of the Saskatchewan
legislature, I have gone on record before and after the election that
if I was serving my country in the House of Commons I would
never take a pension for my former service as a member of the
Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly. I will stick by that regardless
of whether the bill is passed.
I reaffirm my position that as a former member I will not take a
public pension, my legislative pension or my pension as a
corporate planner with Saskatchewan Telecommunications because
I believe it is a privilege to serve my constituents, my province and
my country. Regardless of what position I am in, I will take only
16693
the salary due to me and disregard and postpone taking any
pensions I am entitled to.
In this regard I am putting the bill forward in a serious manner. I
hope that members of the Reform Party and the Liberal Party will
join with me in supporting the bill.
(1745)
There are a few more things I would like to add with respect to
some of the impacts on the bill but I note that the Liberal member
opposite is anxious to say a few words on it.
I will end by saying there have been some comments in the
House today concerning the MPs pension plan. There are members
of Parliament who will argue that members should not receive any
pension whatsoever. For those who argue for no pensions, one has
to question their motives. Is it because they already have a pension,
or is it because they are representing interests which will pay them
handsomely for doing other things? Or is it simply an attempt to
falsely bribe the electorate into believing that if the MPs are not
worthy of pensions or MPs should not take pensions they might be
more worthy of support by the electorate?
I think those arguments are false. People will support honest,
hardworking politicians who are fair, who work to build our
country and who raise taxpayers' money fairly and spend it even
more fairly and wisely in a very accountable fashion. People will
agree that if we are not doing a good job or if we are corrupt or
dishonest, we deserve nothing. In fact, nothing is still too much for
some in people's minds because of the lack of work they have done
or the corruption they have been involved with.
No one disagrees with that but it does not mean because there are
some bad apples in a profession that all are bad, or in the case of
members of Parliament that none deserve or are entitled to
pensions. I do not subscribe to that.
I believe if taxpayers treat their members of Parliament
satisfactorily in terms of pay and benefits, be they current or
deferred or both, that the members of Parliament will be
responsible and accountable to those who pay their salaries and
benefits. If members of Parliament or any other elected official are
not paid satisfactorily, they will receive income from other sources.
Perhaps they will be accountable to those other sources more so
than those people they are representing in this wonderful institution
called the House of Commons.
I do not take for one second the argument that members of
Parliament should not take a pension if they deserve it, if they have
earned it and if they have served their country well. There is some
room to manoeuvre in terms of the possibility of not having served
the country in an honourable or honest fashion. Then perhaps some
penalties might arise. However, I certainly believe Canadians
would agree that if a member has worked and earned his or her
pension then the member is entitled to it.
There will always be a debate on how much the pension should
be, but the point is that the concept of a pension is realistic. If a
member of Parliament receives a pension, the member will work
hard in this House of Commons to ensure that all Canadians receive
a fair pension.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden as he introduced this private member's bill.
While he may have had some very virtuous points, I think his bill is
misguided.
It is unfortunate that this bill cannot come to a vote because then
we could make a decision on it. However, it is not a votable item so
we will have to make do and it will be dropped from the Order
Paper after the debate. That is not going to stop me from expressing
my views about the hon. member's bill, of which I am sure the hon.
member for Mackenzie was a reluctant seconder.
Having said that, it is important to look at what the hon. member
has proposed in reality. While it may have a superficial appeal in
terms of actual fairness, I suggest it is not exactly what Canadians
would want.
Canadians earn pensions in the course of their employment as
part of the remuneration for the employment they are engaged in.
In other words, if I take a job and am paid a specific salary,
attached to the job will be the possibility of a pension.
(1750 )
Let us assume that the job is one that has a pension attached. My
salary will be lower than it might otherwise be in order for the
employer and I to contribute to a pension plan. We will contribute
at varying rates according to the terms of the contract but
nevertheless, contributions will be made to a pension plan.
It will be understood that that is deferred compensation. It is
money that I am not being paid in the course of my employment to
ensure that I receive additional moneys later. I make that
agreement when I make a deal with an employer. The hon. member
knows that all kinds of persons engaged in employment contracts
make those kinds of deals.
He is now saying that where a person is subsequently elected to
the House of Commons, at the time that he is entitled to draw a
pension from another source, that pension should not be paid to
him or her. Or, if it is paid, his or her salary as a member of
Parliament is reduced by the dollar amount of the pension.
Let us imagine for a moment that in my previous employment I
had been engaged in a place where I earned a pension. I was not,
16694
but suppose I was. Suppose that on my election to the House
because I had left my previous employment I was eligible to a
pension of $30,000 a year. That would mean my sessional
indemnity as a member of Parliament would be reduced from the
standard $64,000 to $34,000 because I was receiving this
additional pension from my previous employment. They were
funds that I had earned in the course of that employment and which
were payable to me as a result of that work.
Let us assume that the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden had
no pensionable earnings from previous employment. He came to
the House and earned his $64,000. What inducement would there
be for me to work on a full time basis as a member of Parliament
when my salary was less than his? I would be paid $30,000 less by
Parliament for doing exactly the same job presumably he was
elected to do. Why should I do that? Why should I be paid on a
different basis?
We are all paid the same amount as members of Parliament.
Some of us work harder than others. We accept that fact, but the
House does not make any differentiation between that. We are all
paid the same and it is assumed we all do the same work. We all
certainly have the same responsibility.
Some of us get a little extra money because we are parliamentary
secretaries or cabinet ministers. However as members of
Parliament, we all receive the same basic pay. It is not adjusted
downward because one of us receives a pension. Yet, the hon.
member not only would draw that distinction between MPs, he
would then draw it only in respect of those who received pensions
from a public sector pension fund.
If mine happened to be from a private employer, I could keep my
money and take no reduction. If it came from a public sector
employer, I would take a cut in my pay as a member of Parliament.
I do not think it is fair and the hon. member on serious reflection
would realize it is unfair.
Tempting as it is to go after his friends in the Reform Party, that
is not the way to do it. Pensions represent deferred earnings. The
sessional indemnity that members of Parliament earn is paid for us
to do our job here. After all, we are paid to do the job we were
elected to do at the specified rate I have indicated. That rate surely
is one that is not overly generous. To suggest that it ought to be
reduced because someone gets a pension modest or otherwise from
another source is unfair.
Who will be prejudiced by the hon. member's bill? Let us look at
who is likely to end up suffering. It will be those who are over an
age where they could draw a pension. Younger members of
Parliament will not qualify for a pension in any event. It will
almost exclusively be more senior members who will be affected
by this. Senior members are here to work as are the younger
members. Why should they be paid less as members of this
Parliament because they are older and entitled to another pension?
I ask the hon. member to reflect on that. I do not think he has in
drafting the bill.
There is no reason for the hon. member to assume that all public
pensions are heavily subsidized the way the MPs pension has been
until the recent changes the government brought in and which I
assume is the evil he is driving at. He is suggesting that because
public pensions are somehow subsidized by the taxpayer they are a
polity different from those that are paid by private employers and
therefore a public sector pension should result in the lowering of
the MPs salary.
I do not agree because many public sector pensions are not
subsidized heavily by the taxpayer. They are paid on the basis of
matching contributions by employer and employee, as are private
sector pensions. I suggest there is nothing unfair about that.
(1755)
The ability to draw a pension from one employer, private or
public, when working with another stems from the fact that the
individual completed a career and has moved on to another. In
private work if I have qualified for a pension in my first job and
move to a second job and draw the pension, that factor is not taken
into account by my second employer in determining salary. That
matter will be negotiated between me and the second employer. If I
happen to be in an organization where the rate of pay is fixed by
some kind of collective agreement, I will be paid at a standard rate
with no possible reduction because I happen to be receiving a
pension from another source.
Given that, why would the hon. member seek to interfere in that
employer-employee relationship particularly those under a
collective agreement which he says he and his party support so
staunchly?
We all know what happened in Ontario with the recent New
Democratic Party government. The New Democrats claimed to be
the great friends of labour but by the time they left office after the
last provincial election everyone acknowledged they were not the
friends of labour. In fact they were probably the greatest enemies
the Ontario labour movement had for some time, until the Mike
Harris government came in, but that is another matter. We all
remember with great fondness the Rae days the former premier
imposed in the province of Ontario. The hon. member for
Lisgar-Marquette may not be fully conversant with the disaster
we suffered in Ontario for the five years ending earlier this year. It
seems we have moved from one disaster to another in our province.
I see the chief government whip is advising me that the gun
control bill has cleared the Senate, 64 votes to 28. Mr. Speaker, I
thought you would want to know. presume that is without any
amendments.
Mr. Boudria: That is right.
Mr. Milliken: That is very good news.
16695
The other problem with the hon. member's suggestion, as I have
indicated, is we would end up with great inequality in the House
where two members of Parliament sitting side by side in the House
might find themselves earning different amounts because one
happened to draw a private pension and one happened to draw a
public pension.
Mr. Solomon: That happens now.
Mr. Milliken: Yes, it happens now because members come here
with varying amounts of money. Some are well to do. Some may
have a very substantial investment income. They still get paid a
salary of $64,000 and change for doing their job as a member of
Parliament. Every single member of Parliament gets that.
The ones who are getting paid extra, and I point this out to the
hon. member, are the ones who are doing work which is additional
to their work as members of Parliament. He may not think that the
additional work is significant but the fact is all the ones who are
getting paid extra are being paid extra because they do additional
work. All the ones who are not doing additional work in this House
are receiving the same amount of money.
I want to quote the hon. member for Calgary Centre who
justified one of his own members receiving a pension from a
provincial legislature by saying: ``The member the Liberal MP
asked me about is not guilty of double dipping. It is not double
dipping. This individual served in the provincial legislature. This
individual resigned from the provincial legislature. This individual
offered his services to the Canadian public on a federal basis''.
The hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette loves it when I quote
one of his colleagues.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Kingston and the
Islands. I finally heard the fact that I can agree with him, that what
the member for Lethbridge is doing is not double dipping. We have
heard the Liberals so often saying: ``The double dipper is sitting
right there''. Finally they have seen the light. Thank you for that,
Mr. Speaker. We are making progress in the House. That is what I
like to see.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. I
listened to the very eloquent remarks of the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands.
I am sorry I was not here for previous remarks but I was in the
other place watching the other place do the right thing. NDP
members would have acknowledged it at one point, but more
recently they do not acknowledge quite as much that gun control is
a good thing.
(1800)
In any case, the other place passed gun control, as the member
for Kingston and the Islands indicated, 64 to 28. That is excellent
news. All Canadians, except for a handful of New Democrats and a
larger handful of Reformers, would agree. That is a very good
thing.
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard the
hon. member talking about something going on in the other place.
What did he say the Conservatives did over there? I was not quite
clear as to what he said.
The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that the hon. member is being
light hearted, I believe, but we do have rules of relevance in the
House. As you know, the Chair often sits here and squirms and
wonders why we do not observe those rules. Normally the Chair
waits for a member to get up and say that somebody is speaking
totally off the subject. I am sure the hon. chief whip to the
government party will make his remarks relevant to the subject
very soon.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill, but
at the same time I am also pleased to inform the House that some
Conservative members in the other place voted for the bill, some
voted against the bill, some abstained and so on. In other words it is
the same thing as usual: several different messages coming from
the Tories.
We are back to Bill C-314. I am pleased to be speaking about
that. The hon. member from the New Democratic Party is
proposing this bill to us today. As my colleague for Kingston and
the Islands has indicated, this is not a bill that some of us are
willing to support.
The bill would create a number of inconsistencies. Apparently
one of the issues is the concern for public funds. It is interesting
that some public pensions would be applicable in terms of the
reduction from salaries and others would not. For instance, if an
MP happened to be older than 65 years of age, the CPP or QPP
provisions would not be reduced, even though that is a public
pension as well, but other pensions would. OAS would not be
covered, veterans pensions and so on, but military pensions would.
You can see that there are a number of inconsistencies created in
what the hon. member is trying to address.
The government has gone a very long way toward improving the
pension plan for members of Parliament. I believe the government
has done the right thing. I was pleased to support the government's
initiative. I was pleased to defend it. I did not happen to think there
was much wrong with the system as it existed even prior to that
change, but some people feel, and those in the Reform Party are in
that category, that MPs should have less pension and virtually
double the salary. This is what the member for Calgary Centre has
suggested.
When I was asked by the media what the chances are of doubling
MPs' salaries, I said it is about the same as the chances of Brian
Mulroney being re-elected. In other words, it is not a very likely
proposition, to put it mildly. Most Canadians would not look too
favourably on either one of those two situations. Of course that did
not happen.
16696
It is wrong as well to somehow portray, either through the bill or
others, that MPs are somewhat overpaid. I do not share that view. I
am not suffering. I believe I am making a decent salary. In
comparison with other people in society, I do not believe that we
are overpaid. In my province of Ontario, a high school
vice-principal-there must be two dozen of them in my
constituency-is paid a salary which is larger than mine. A high
school principal makes even more. Then there are the school
superintendents, the directors of education and so on. I am only
addressing people in the public sector involved in education.
(1805)
Mr. Hoeppner: Do they get a living allowance?
Mr. Boudria: The hon. member opposite asks about a living
allowance. I do not get one. I do not qualify for such an allowance.
Perhaps he does not know that. I do not qualify because I do not
operate two homes.
Mr. Hoeppner: What about mileage?
Mr. Boudria: People who travel for a living are reimbursed for
their mileage expenditures. That is fairly standard. The hon.
member opposite knows that.
People in the educational sector, those who travel from school to
school, get a travel allowance. The hon. member knows the
answers to all these questions. He is just trying to be funny. Heaven
forbid that he would not know better than what he is pretending
today. If he does not, maybe it is a lost cause.
Those are the comments I want to make with respect to the bill
which is presently before the House.
At some point in the future, perhaps not in this Parliament,
because I do not see how it could be done, I would like to see the
whole issue of compensation for MPs revisited. There have been
two reports in this Parliament which both recommended an overall
increase in benefits. Of course that will not happen.
We even had a party which pretended that MPs should receive 15
per cent less. Some of them adhered to that principle, others
pretended to do it and others did not. We never knew which was
which. The scheme was abandoned because it was not appropriate.
The public was being fooled.
Some of them said that they were not using their tax free
allowance and were giving it back. However, once the MPs'
pension was reduced they said that they would keep it to create
their own pension scheme.
The Reform Party's preachings in this area are a little less than
totally sincere.
[Translation]
It has been a pleasure to speak to this bill which would require all
pension or retiring allowance payments paid from public funds to
be deducted from the member's sessional allowance.
However, there are certain aspects that are not given sufficient
clarification in the hon. member's proposal. First, some public
pension plans are not paid from public funds. That is number one.
There are entities in this country that are neither public nor
private, in other words, they are sort of in-between. And finally, of
course, even if a pension is public, that does not necessarily mean it
is subsidized by the government or by the public jurisdiction
concerned.
As far as I am concerned, I do not intend to support this bill and I
would urge my fellow members to do likewise.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: There being no further members rising
for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable motion,
the time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order
Paper.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.11 p.m.)