CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 22, 1995
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9939
Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier) 9941
Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi) 9941
Lucienne Robillard (Saint-Henri-Westmount) 9941
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9943
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9944
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9945
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9945
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9945
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9946
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9946
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9946
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9946
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9946
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9946
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9947
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9947
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9949
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9949
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9949
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9949
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9952
Bill C-307. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted. 9953
Bill C-308. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 9954
Bill C-309. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 9954
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9954
Motion for concurrence in 63rd report. 9954
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9957
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9957
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9957
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9957
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9957
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9957
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9957
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9957
Bill C-37. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading. 9959
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9969
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9972
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 9975
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9979
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9980
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9983
9939
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 22, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, today is a rather special day in
our Parliament. I want to explain how we are going to proceed.
We will have statements by the leaders of various parties.
Then we will have the introduction of our new members of
Parliament who will be joining us today, following which will be
statements.
[Translation]
We will then move on to Oral Questions. The Prime Minister
has the floor.
* * *
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House, I wish to extend
a very warm welcome to the Leader of the Opposition. All
members of this House and all Canadians salute the courage and
determination shown by the Leader of the Opposition
throughout his recent ordeal.
I also wish to pay tribute to Mrs. Audrey Bouchard and her
children for their support for him during this very difficult time,
which certainly played a major part in helping the opposition
leader recover so quickly.
[English]
I would like to thank all Canadians, despite the differences of
opinion we might have, who have shown to the Leader of the
Opposition their sympathy and moral support in praying for him
to recover his health in as short a time as possible.
[Translation]
Since it is one of his fondest wishes, I would like to say to the
Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of all members of this
House: Welcome back to the shop.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of all Reform members, including myself, I
wish to welcome back the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
We parliamentarians are all professional politicians.
Although, in the course of our public lives, we often express
heartfelt and varied opinions on matters of public policy, we
remain human beings united by our shared love of life and health
and by our vulnerability to disease and tragedy.
When the hon. member became ill, all members of this House
shared a feeling of solidarity because of their common concern
for their colleague.
Those of us who believe that the ultimate secret of life and
death rests in the hands of the Supreme Being prayed for his
recovery.
When we learned that the hon. member was out of danger at
last, we shared feelings of relief and gratitude.
(1405)
It is a tribute to the hon. member's courage and determination
that all members of the House put their differences aside and
showed their solidarity through their concern for his recovery
and well-being.
I therefore would like to express these feelings today by
welcoming the hon. member back to the House and wishing him
excellent health in the future.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
upon the return of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to the House
of Commons, I would like to say, on behalf of the New
Democratic Party, that we are glad to see him back in good
health.
The news of the devastating disease that struck the leader of
the Bloc Quebecois came as a terrible shock. Beyond all our
differences, compassion is the bond that unites us.
[English]
I would like to offer my best wishes to the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois and to his courageous family.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Welcome back, Lucien.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, these past two months have taught me something
about this House and its members. They taught me that one can
get homesick for this place.
9940
I return here with feelings of gratitude, with pride and
confidence. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your constant
concern throughout this difficult time. I also wish to mention
the courtesy and understanding shown by the Prime Minister.
His heart is in the right place. I am deeply grateful to the
ministers and to the other party leaders and members of all
parties who supported me with their messages of
encouragement and, in so doing, perpetuated a tradition of
compassion that is a credit to this House. I applaud this ability
to rise above the many differences we may have, even in the
midst of a debate that is about the future of Canada, no less.
Also, Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise to you that
during the anxious days that brought me these expressions of
sympathy, I felt very close to all of you.
At this point I want to thank from the bottom of my heart my
friends and colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois caucus. They
behaved like a family that, when one of its members is hurt,
summons the courage and dignity to carry on. I want to say how
much I appreciate their wonderful solidarity and the tremendous
job they have done during my absence.
I am also deeply grateful for the thousands of expressions of
encouragement I received from my fellow citizens. I must say I
felt strengthened and comforted by their prayers and best
wishes.
My illness gave me first-hand knowledge of how our health
care system works. I have the greatest admiration for and am
deeply grateful to the doctors and other caregivers at the
Saint-Luc Hospital in Montreal who saved my life and those at
the rehabilitation institute in Montreal who helped me learn to
walk again. Their dedication and competence have reinforced
my commitment to protecting and improving our social
programs.
(1410)
[English]
And so today we answer the call of duty and again take up the
mandate that was given to us by the people.
Yes, I have been looking forward to this moment since a
certain day in December when technology and destiny combined
to give me another chance. If the rallying cry of democracy is
stand up and be counted, I respectfully ask to be counted.
I have so much to remember, the sympathy and compassion
from this and every other quarter, from Quebec and from the
whole of Canada, from friends and strangers alike. In such
circumstances who is really a stranger? I remember a yellow
rose, a gracious gesture by a gracious lady.
In our moments of anguish my family and I were not alone.
This we shall never forget. Our gratitude goes to all of those who
offered us their thoughts and their prayers.
We come back to this Chamber with a renewed hunger for life.
Time is so precious and there is so much left to do. And so we
will concentrate on the more important things and give the best
we can. Quebecers and Canadians alike can expect your faithful
servant to remain true to his convictions and values, for our
convictions may clash, as they do and will, but we share the
same values of tolerance and respect for democracy; values that
are tragically in short supply in a large part of the world. Where
others fight with bullets, we fight with ballots, with arguments,
with facts, with emotions and it should always be with respect
for those who believe differently from us.
Let us never forget our common humanity. Let us never
disallow our common need to reach out to one another so that in
our times of suffering, of solitude, even despair, we can take
comfort in the knowledge that in spite of our differences we
share the same compassion.
There will no doubt be heated exchanges in the weeks and
months ahead. At the end of the day we will remember the
intensity of our debates and the passion that suffused them. It is
my fondest hope that we will also recall that civility prevailed
and that outside this Chamber men and women of every
persuasion will proudly be able to say they profoundly disagreed
but they were, all of them, men and women of peace and honour.
[Translation]
I also mentioned the word pride, and indeed I am proud to be
standing here with you in this House, where we were sent by our
fellow citizens.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: I also used the word confidence, and indeed I
have the greatest confidence in the democratic and responsible
resolution of the issues before us.
I was able to observe how compassionate and generous our
fellow citizens from English Canada can be. Who would not
have been moved by their expressions of sympathy? I realize
this does not mean English Canada will be converted to
Quebec's sovereignist option, any more than I will renege on my
political commitments. On the contrary, these past few weeks
during which I had time to think about these issues have
strengthened my sovereignist position. However, I am confident
that sovereignists and federalists can discuss their options with
dignity, without impugning each other's motives.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me,
with the consent of the government and the other parties, these
few minutes to address the House. However, after expressing
these worthy sentiments, we must go back to the cut and thrust
of parliamentary debate. In fact, I was a little worried earlier
that the Prime Minister's kind words would have a disarming
effect on me. I am aware that I will have to revert to a more
robust approach in my first questions to the Prime Minister later
on.
9941
(1415 )
[English]
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that the
Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer
a certificate of the election of Mr. Mauril Bélanger, member for
the electoral district of Ottawa-Vanier.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mauril Bélanger, member for the electoral district of
Ottawa-Vanier, introduced by the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien
and the Hon. Herb Gray.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have the honour to inform the
House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief
Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Mr.
Denis Paradis, for the electoral district of Brome-Missisquoi.
* * *
Denis Paradis, member for the electoral district of
Brome-Missisquoi, introduced by the Right Hon. Jean
Chrétien and the Hon. Alphonso Gagliano.
* * *
(1420)
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I have the honour to inform
the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the
Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of
Mrs. Lucienne Robillard, for the electoral district of
Saint-Henri-Westmount.
* * *
Lucienne Robillard, member for the electoral district of
Saint-Henri-Westmount, introduced by the Right Hon. Jean
Chrétien and the Hon. André Ouellet.
The Speaker: It being 2.24 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members,
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
I would like to point out to the hon. members that we are going
to take the regular statements by members, and then, we will
move on to oral questions. We will take all the time we need, 45
minutes, and, in an hour from now, we will have completed
question period. We will then proceed with the orders of the day
and take a bit more time, if necessary, for our debate.
_____________________________________________
9941
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to greet Lucien Bouchard on his return. We are delighted to
have him in our midst again, pleased to see that he has pulled
through his terrible ordeal and is resuming his place in the
House of Commons. The Leader of the Opposition knows only
too well that nothing is certain in this life. And yet he maintains
that the referendum should not be launched unless the
sovereignist option is sure to win. This, he says, is in the interest
of Quebecers.
It is indeed in the interest of the entire country that a
referendum be held, and as soon as possible, not to see one side
or the other win, but instead to learn the position of Quebecers
and resolve the issue once and for all. That is democracy.
Anything else is shameful manipulation. Quebecers deserve
better than that after all.
For my part, I say yes to one clear question. I say yes to a
strong Quebec, I say yes to a unified Canada.
* * *
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am still
moved by the return of my leader and by his speech.
Yesterday, the Quebec Federation of Labour, which has some
450,000 members, adopted a manifesto and an action plan to
mobilize workers in favour of Quebec's sovereignty. I had the
honour of addressing the 1,600 shop stewards present at this
special assembly.
The members of the Bloc Quebecois would like to pay tribute
to Bob White, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, who
spoke in favour of the democratic right of Quebecers to
self-determination. He stressed that a yes in the referendum
should be respected by the rest of Canada.
We would like to congratulate the Quebec Federation of
Labour for its commitment at this turning point in the history of
the Quebec nation.
9942
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association has printed
more than 10,000 neon yellow cards which make the important
point that when taxes go up employment goes down.
The restaurant and food services industry employs more than
667,000 people in Canada. They know firsthand the devastating
effect taxes can have on their businesses and jobs in Canada.
The last time the government made a tax grab with the GST
the industry lost 46,000 jobs almost overnight. An Ernst &
Young report concluded that two out of every three jobs lost
were directly as a result of the new tax.
The restaurant and food services sector is a huge employer of
students, recent immigrants and single mothers. It has been
estimated that 30 per cent of those Canadians working today had
their first experience in the workforce in food service. It is also
an industry that depends on disposable income and is one of
Canada's most labour intensive.
If taxes go up employment will go down. It is that simple.
Taxes kill jobs.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on budget day Canadians will be preparing themselves for
another tax increase on gasoline prices.
The Liberal government will take the responsibility of
justifying these high taxes to Canadians. However consumers
have already had to deal with many increases in gas prices when
oil companies hiked the prices at the pumps for no reason at all.
These increases are invisible taxes on consumers by the
multinational oil companies and have not been justified.
The Liberal government not only condones this price gouging
but encourages it. In a recent report the Bureau of Competition
Policy has said that oil companies can charge whatever they
want for gasoline.
Canadians need an energy pricing review commission with
the power to investigate gas price increases and when
unjustified roll them back. I challenge the Liberal government
in the upcoming budget to get out of bed with the oil companies
and give consumers a fair deal by immediately setting up an
energy price review commission.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
remind members of the House that February is Heart Month.
Heart disease and stroke are the number one killers in Canada
of both men and women and together are responsible for the loss
of 75,000 Canadian lives each year. In fact 40 per cent of all
deaths in the country are due to cardiovascular disease.
The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada tells us that the
risk factors for heart disease include high blood pressure, high
blood cholesterol, smoking and physical inactivity. The
foundation strives to educate Canadians about these risk facts
and plays an important role in the fight against heart disease.
During the month of February more than 100,000 volunteers
will be canvassing in our communities to raise public awareness
and funds for research and education.
Please join me in saluting the Heart and Stroke Foundation
and its many volunteers for their excellent work. So, when they
come knocking on your door, have a heart.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to bring good news from the port of Halifax. In
1994 revenues of the port of Halifax were up 4.7 per cent.
(1430)
There is more good news. There was an increase of 23 per cent
in container traffic in the fourth quarter of last year. Sixteen
hundred vessels called at Halifax last year. That was a big
increase. It included 39 cruise vessels bringing 38,000 tourists
to Halifax, the home of this year's G-7 and was a 22 per cent rise
over 1993.
The future is bright for the port of Halifax. Officials there
predict a 15 per cent to 25 per cent increase in container business
this year.
The port of Halifax is the key to economic recovery in this
area. It provides 2,500 direct and 4,500 indirect jobs to Halifax.
I am sure that members of the House will join me in
commending the port of Halifax on a very successful year.
9943
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in the House today to offer my firm support to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans in his efforts to conserve Greenland
halibut and turbot.
The European Union has launched a formal objection to the
quota decision of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization. It was the European Union's use of this objection
procedure in the late 1980s that led to the moratoria on flatfish
and cod on the tail of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.
Even as scientific findings showed evidence of stock decline,
the Spanish ignored all warnings and actually increased their
fishing efforts.
The NAFO decision is the result of a vote by the world's major
fishing nations: Japan, Russia, Norway, Iceland, Cuba and
Canada. Its findings are based on conservation, science and
traditional shares.
It is irresponsible for the European Union to play by the rules
only when the rules are in its own favour. We cannot allow
further destruction of Canada's fisheries resources while
communities such as those in my riding of St. John's West are
suffering economic devastation in the name of conservation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the CBC's English network aired some deeply
disturbing footage of the riot squad in action last April at the
Kingston Prison for Women. The humiliation the six female
inmates were subjected to at the hands of the male emergency
response team raises some serious questions.
In his report yesterday, the correctional investigator
denounced the use of excessive force against inmates. The same
report completely contradicts the findings of the internal
inquiry by correctional services, which condoned the acts of the
emergency response team through its complacency, to the
disgust of the Elizabeth Fry Society.
The Solicitor General must assure this House that the director
at the prison for women who was in charge of the internal
inquiry will be suspended immediately for having hidden the
truth.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a strike
or a lockout is looming for the nation's railways. The
negotiating parties have had 13 months to reach a collective
agreement on their own and they have failed.
If such a strike or lockout were to occur, the country's
transportation network would grind to a halt within days. It
would devastate shippers of coal, potash and newsprint,
paralyse the auto industry and, as usual, leave western grain
farmers footing the bill for somebody else's irresponsibility.
The cost of such a strike to our economy is just too high and
the government knows this. That is why for the 14th time in the
last 29 years we will have no choice but to suspend the rules of
the House in order to pass emergency back to work legislation. If
and when this happens it will be the second time in two years. I
hope we have not already forgotten the Vancouver port strike
experience.
My private member's bill, Bill C-262, offers a permanent
solution to this chronic problem. Let us pass Bill C-262 so that
we do not find ourselves in the same position again this year.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning four national banking
institutions raised their lending rates in reaction to the Bank of
Canada's rate hike yesterday to a one year high of 8.38 per cent.
Just as last week when Moody's Investors Service put
Canada's AAA domestic bond rating on a credit watch, now our
own institutions have shown a complete lack of understanding
of our deficit problem. It is extremely shocking and saddening
when our national institutions do not have the patience and
presence of mind to wait for the budget.
Maybe the finance minister will slash the budget drastically
to control the deficit. I fail to understand why the bogeyman of
inflation created by the previous government is being
resurrected once again.
(1435 )
With inflation presently running low, there is no need for
higher interest rates. The increased rates will hamper job
creation and hurt small businesses, as it will thousands of
Canadians who have to renew their mortgages this year.
It is time for the Bank of Canada to initiate systems policies-
9944
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during a one day blitz in Toronto, 73 per cent of trucks pulled
over by police forces were deemed unfit for the road and
immediately taken out of service.
This appalling level of truck safety poses a serious threat to
the lives of Canadians. I ask the Minister of Transport to urge his
provincial colleagues to ensure high levels of regulation
enforcement and, if necessary, higher fines on trucking
companies to prevent loss of life and injury.
This problem exemplifies the importance of maintaining
strong enforced regulations for the protection of all Canadians.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March 10,
1994 I brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance the
report that 20 Canadian millionaires had paid less than $100
each in income tax in 1991.
I believe that the number has increased each year since. Each
and every Canadian has to pay his or her fair share of taxes. How
can we as members of Parliament tell our constituents that they
must pay their income taxes when they see wealthy Canadians
taking advantage of tax loopholes?
If we are to fight the deficit on all fronts, I hope the Minister
of Finance will take the opportunity available to him to close tax
loopholes for the rich. We have to let the people of Canada know
that one does not receive special tax privileges because of
personal wealth.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to proudly announce a
benchmark achievement by the city of Mississauga, the ninth
largest city in the country and the fastest growing at half a
million in population.
Mississauga led the country in 1994 in issuing almost $1
billion worth of building permits for 4,400 new residential units
and 2.2 million square feet of industrial commercial floor space.
Corporate head offices continue to find Mississauga an ideal
place to locate because of the attractive tax and hydro rates and
the proximity to Pearson International Airport. They include
Sunbeam Corporation, Siemens Electric and Mary Kay
Cosmetics.
The value of these permits represents a 37 per cent total
increase over the previous year and a 30 per cent increase for the
industrial commercial sector.
The prosperity and phenomenal growth in Mississauga is yet
one more signal that Mississaugans and Canadians are confident
in the Prime Minister and the Liberal government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
Daniel Latouche, a professor of political science, set the record
straight at a hearing of the Eastern Townships commission on
the future of Quebec. He unequivocally stated that there are
costs associated with remaining a province, especially in this
era of globalization. They must also be discussed.
A no in the referendum would mean that Quebec would not
gain distinct status, different from that of the other provinces. It
would also mean that the rest of Canada would continue to
ignore the distinct character of Quebecers, regardless of the
arrangement proposed.
We must not forget that Pierre Elliot Trudeau promised
renewed federalism in exchange for a no in the 1980
referendum. His government used the opportunity to quash the
legitimate hopes of Quebecers. This is what the true cost of not
opting for sovereignty is.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government appears to have a hearing problem. While
Canadians coast to coast are saying ``no new taxes'', the
government chooses to hear ``keep on spending''.
That would explain the Liberal revenue minister's statement
that the government will not listen to the anti-tax protests.
``Such protests'', he says, ``will not change the government's
position on the budget''.
For a month I have been circulating an anti-tax petition.
Judging from the heavy response, the tax revolt is just beginning
to make itself heard. It took only a month to gather anti-tax
petitions with 20,000 signatures, which I will be tabling today.
Twenty thousand more Canadians from Victoria to Halifax are
joining in a revolt against a government that has yet to realize
that it has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
(1440 )
The battle over the budget is just beginning. In case the front
benches have their hearing aids turned down, let me repeat the
message loud and clear: no more taxes.
9945
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday of this week I had the occasion to be present
for the opening of the 12th annual Mine Operators Conference,
held in Timmins, Ontario in my riding.
Today I inform the House of the successful conclusion of the
conference at Timmins. Mine managers, operators and
technicians have presented papers, sold goods and services to
each other and have increased the efficiency of mining today.
Over 350 delegates and 160 exhibits from all over Canada, the
United States, Australia, Sweden, Finland and Pakistan were at
the conference to trade ideas for the improvement of mining
efficiency.
Mining is an important industry to Canadians. Last December
the natural resource committee tabled a unanimous report
calling on the government to take measures to help the mining
industry and keep mining in Canada.
I would like to thank all participants at the conference and
invite them back to northern Ontario to trade ideas and make
Canada a better place for miners and the millions of Canadians
and hundreds of communities that depend on mining.
_____________________________________________
9945
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since the federal-provincial finance ministers'
conference, we know that Ottawa will make drastic cuts in
transfer payments to the provinces while deferring the impact of
these cuts until next year. The federal government is trying to
pass off as renewed federalism what will amount in fact to
offloading its financial responsibilities.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Are we to understand
that his government chose deliberately to defer the substantial
cuts in transfer payments until after the Quebec referendum in
order to hide from Quebecers, on the eve of the referendum, the
cost of the federal government's financial withdrawal from
education and health? In other words, that the federal
government is holding back but will hit as soon as the
referendum is over?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to inform the Leader of the Opposition that,
when we formed the government last year, we agreed with
theprovinces that we would not make cuts without giving them
prior notice. Under the previous government, the minister would
get up on the day of the budget and announce the cuts to come
into effect the following day. We said and, furthermore we
promised in the red book that this brutal approach would not be
repeated.
Therefore, if the Minister of Finance must cut transfers to the
provinces, we will keep our promise and give the provinces fair
notice before taking action.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister not admit that the block
funding formula contemplated by his government, that is,
consolidating all federal contributions to health and education
programs into a single payment, is not a transfer of jurisdiction
but a transfer of costs to the provinces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance must assume his
responsibilities, and we intend to make substantial cuts in all
public administration sectors. It is not a matter of punishing
anyone. On the contrary, we want to treat everyone equally. In
any case, we do not know if there will be a referendum in 1995. I
hope that the Leader of the Opposition can come to an agreement
with Mr. Parizeau. After the date of the referendum is
announced, you will know whether or not we acted with the
referendum in mind.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister claim to offer flexible
federalism when, in fact, while continuing to withdraw financial
support for health and education programs, he tries to put the
provinces in a straitjacket by forcing them to apply national
standards to services that the federal government will stop
funding?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we passed the national health legislation
establishing medicare for all Canadians, it was approved by
everybody. Everybody agreed.
(1445 )
We do not have control over its administration. It is a
provincial matter. When the programs were established we said
we would help the provinces for a number of years but that once
the programs were well established we might withdraw. That
was the policy discussed at that time.
As far as Canada's national health system is concerned, it is
very important that we keep it because Canada has the best
system. In fact a few minutes ago the hon. Leader of the
Opposition referred to the very good health system that Canada
has.
9946
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, things
are getting clearer and clearer. Last week, in this House, the
Prime Minister presented his vision of a federal Canada, for the
first time.
He said, in talking about the elimination of duplication, and I
quote: ``Duplication comes from Quebec deciding to have its
own ministry of revenue collect personal income tax, unlike the
other provinces. . . Duplication often comes from the other
side''.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Are we to understand
from the revealing example he chose to give us that, in his vision
of federalism, Quebec would be just like the other provinces and
that, for example, he wants to take over from Quebec in
collecting personal income tax?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that, on the
contrary, we gave the province the responsibility of collecting
the federal sales tax, the GST. Why could the provincial
government not do the same for the federal government with
regard to income tax?
As regards income tax, in the case of Ontario, only one line
has been added to the tax return, and there is no provincial tax
inspector for Ontario taxpayers. If Quebec wants to continue to
have two systems, that is fine with me. I am making them an
offer to help them save money. The minister responsible for
harmonizing programs in Canada is successfully reaching
agreements with the provinces in many areas. The only province
that is not interested in discussing the elimination of duplication
is the province of Quebec.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister not agree that his so called plan for
decentralization to the provinces is not eliminating any
duplication, since the federal government never intended
withdrawing from areas of provincial jurisdiction, and, in each
province, there will always be two departments of health and
two departments of human resources all paid for by taxpayers'
money?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are making offers to the provinces right now. I was
speaking with the Premier of British Columbia a few minutes
ago. We were discussing the possibility of harmonizing certain
existing programs.
The other provinces are co-operating in trying to eliminate
duplication. What is unfortunate is that only Quebec
systematically wants to maintain duplication.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance attacked Reform's
plan to balance the budget in three years.
The minister made unfounded comments about its impacts in
a futile attempt to divert public attention away from the
shortcomings of his own budget targets. Under the Liberal fiscal
plan, over $100 billion will be added to the federal debt. Interest
payments will amount to about one-third of the federal budget
by the end of this Parliament.
Will the Prime Minister explain to seniors and to other
Canadians what paying $50 billion a year in interest will do to
the social programs on which they depend?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased the leader of the third party
mentioned old age pensioners. His document said he wanted to
cut $3 billion from that program. Reform has to realize that new
people come on the payroll every year because other people
reach the age of 65. The leader of the Reform Party cannot stop
that.
(1450)
It costs almost $1 billion more every year. If he wants to cut
$3 billion from what we have today, he will have to exclude the
people who come on the payroll in the next two years. He will
have to pay them another $2 billion or cut another $2 billion.
The hon. member made a little mistake in one day of $2 billion.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister avoids the hard question of how the
government is going to live paying $50 billion a year in interest.
At the end of the day under the federal Liberal plan, the deficit
will still be $25 billion a year, the debt will be over $600 billion
and the government will have even less money than it has today
to fund social programs.
Why does the government not screw up its courage and simply
tell Canadians that the real threat to social programs is its
inability to control the deficit and the debt?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is the first time in a long time, and I have a lot of
witnesses on this side of the House, that a government has
presented a budget, as we did last February, and has met every
target it set.
It is very easy to make promises you know you cannot keep.
When I saw the budget prepared by the Reform Party this week,
somebody said that it was back to the future. It has nothing to do
with the reality of today. On the old age pension program alone,
the Reform Party made a mistake of $2 billion.
9947
We will meet our target. We will be at 3 per cent of GDP next
year. It is the first time a government in Canada has met its
target and we will meet it. Do not worry about it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has a red book that is symbolic of the
red ink that flows from its policies.
Last fall the finance minister presented a grey book which is
symbolic of these grey compromises between spending cuts and
tax increases. Now it is abundantly clear that the government
lacks what it takes to balance a budget, just like Mulroney and
Wilson in 1984.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the colour scheme for
the budget that his minister will deliver next Monday will be
pale yellow?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member only has to wait until Monday. I hope
he will support all the cuts we will be proposing.
I would like to have his commitment right now that his party
will support all the cuts we will make. It would be easy because
they would turn around and say: ``You should not do this or
that''. It is going to be a tough budget. I hope Reform Party
members will be able to do in this House what they love to say
outside it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
The government plans to cut 45,000 employees from the
federal public service over three years and, to this end, intends
to move unilaterally to introduce legislation eliminating job
security for public servants.
Can the minister responsible for the public service explain
why his government has chosen to push aside the proposals
made by the largest union representing nearly 70 per cent of
federal public servants, without having first exhausted every
possible alternative through free collective bargaining?
(1455)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has done excellent
work on this issue. For weeks now, there have been discussions
with every union affected. Sixteen unions out of 17 have found
these proposals reasonable. And even in the union which
opposes them, we are told opinion is greatly divided. People
understand very well that what the President of the Treasury
Board has offered as a solution is totally reasonable and logical,
given the difficult circumstances facing the government at this
time.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
guarantee can the minister give people that laying off thousands
of public servants will not as in the past give rise to a substantial
increase in contracting-out which does not necessarily allow for
savings but which is highly conducive to government
patronage?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives us no joy to be downsizing the public service.
However, as a result of the programs and services that we must
cut in order to meet our deficit reduction targets, there are
people we will have to ask to leave.
We will give them every opportunity to find other jobs within
the public service before they are put on layoff status. Certainly
in terms of contracting out, I can assure the hon. member that it
and temporary help and other means will be explored as a way of
keeping our employees who want to stay before we allow for
additional contracting out and other provisions.
We value the public service. We value the kind of service that
is provided to Canadians by the people we employ.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if yesterday's announcement of public service layoffs was
designed to quell fears and rumours, it was a dismal failure.
Today the government has rubbed salt in the wounds of the
public service by increasing the size of the cabinet just one day
after announcing 45,000 job cuts in the public service.
The Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal put
together a top level team of managers to tell him where to make
cuts in the public service. Did he also put together a team of
frontline workers to tell him where to make appropriate cuts in
management?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that members of the third party speak
from both sides of their mouths. On the one hand they ask us to
reduce the expenditures of government; on the other hand they
complain when we do exactly that by reducing the size of the
public service.
What we have done with the public service is in fact the best
treatment that could be given. We have introduced the
possibility for them to have either early retirement or cash outs.
We have made it much easier for civil servants who cannot be
employed any more to leave the public service in a humane way.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously we have a problem with a growing cabinet in a high
9948
level of top heavy government at a time when it is making cuts at
the bottom and in the front lines.
For instance 20 per cent of all public servants, that is 48,000
people, make more than $50,000 a year. There are 48,000
managers looking over the shoulders of the people who actually
deliver the services.
Will the government tell us the proportion of management
versus frontline cutbacks that we can see in this upcoming
budget so that we can make sure that we are hammering the
management, not just gutting the frontline services to
Canadians?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the one addition to this side of the House is worth all of
the ones and more on that side of the House.
With respect to the downsizing we are going to be carefully
monitoring the situation at the different levels. If there is any
disproportionate amount at any given level, then certainly we
will take corrective action. We are focusing on programs and
services, not on people. As a consequence, people at all levels
will be part of the downsizing.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
The Privy Council published a document, which the Financial
Post obtained, asking all businesses to use symbols of Canadian
unity in their advertisements. The document recommends
several guidelines that businesses can follow to defend the
federal regime.
(1500)
Is it to be understood that this government, which is
subsidizing the Council for Canadian Unity in order to obtain a
list of those who are taking part in the regional commissions on
sovereignty, is now enlisting businesses, with the help of the
Privy Council, to lead a campaign of fear reminiscent of the one
Quebecers were subjected to in 1980?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the opposition can criticize letting
social groups express themselves freely, when they have wasted
$5 million of their and our taxpayers' money on regional
commissions whose only aim is to disseminate sovereignty
propaganda.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I was talking about businesses that have contracts with
the government. The $5 million is five to six times less than
what the Spicer circus cost us two to three years ago.
What assurances can the minister give this House that the
government is not compiling a register of businesses
co-operating in this effort, for some future consideration?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again, I find the opposition's questions very
out of place. We are simply helping social and business groups
in Quebec who wish to get information on the costs of
separation. We are not intimidating banks and financial
institutions which are not on our side.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources.
The country is ripe for a massive shut down in the railways,
jeopardizing significant sectors of the economy. I notice he is
turning to the hon. minister. We are not quite sure who is in
charge there right now.
Will the minister assure us that the government will not
present legislation to this House that will prevent the use of
replacement workers during a labour strike and that there will be
no prohibition of management employees, regardless of where
they are located, replacing striking workers?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.) Mr.
Speaker, concerning the problems at CN, CP and VIA, the
conciliator's report was sent to the parties this morning. We
earnestly hope they will sit down and discuss their differences.
We truly hope that the parties themselves will find a solution.
After all, they know the industry.
As for the issue of replacement workers, we are looking into
the situation and will report as soon as possible.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased the initiation of the hon. minister to
this House has been in answer to a question, but it was no
answer, it was another approach.
Since the 1950s the federal government used back to work
legislation as the last resort in transportation related labour
disputes. Each time it had significant costs to the Canadian
economy as a whole.
When will the ministry acknowledge that neither back to work
legislation nor anti-scab legislation adequately protects the
9949
economy from bitter transportation strikes and when will she
seek effective impartial alternatives like binding final
arbitration as a position?
(1505)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will give specific answers to specific questions, and
it is definitely premature to consider back to work legislation at
this time.
* * *
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last week in the House, the Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec confirmed that his strategy for regional
development would be based on providing assistance to small
business. After cutting the budget of the Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec, the minister indicated that the
new approach to helping small business would consist in
providing consulting services.
Since the FORD-Q no longer has a budget for providing
financial assistance to small business, will the Prime Minister
admit that the Department of Industry, in other words, the
minister responsible for regional economic development in
Ontario, will now be responsible for the federal strategy for
regional development in Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister responsible for regional development in
Quebec is the Minister of Finance. Obviously, the Minister of
Finance has a very good working relationship with the Minister
of Industry.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
would the Prime Minister agree that, as far as regional
development is concerned, the FORD-Q, which no longer has a
budget, has become an empty shell and will only be used to
promote the visibility of the federal government in the regions
and to set national standards for regional development, while
ignoring the priorities of the Quebec government in this respect?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, throughout Quebec, people are very pleased to note the
presence of federal agencies that are there to help them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The minister said he would let us know on or before budget
day what he was doing about reforming the MPs' pension plan.
The budget is next Monday. Can the minister tell the House if he
has made any progress toward honouring his commitment to
reform MPs' pensions?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, mighty soon has arrived. The government has agreed to
a package of reforms on MP pension plans and the bill will be
introduced by the end of April as an amendment to the Members
of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. Further information on
the details will be available for members of the House later this
afternoon.
The government will live up to its red book commitments. It
will end double dipping for both MPs and members of the other
house. It will put a minimum age in place on the basis of the
Lapointe commission recommendation of age 55. It will provide
for members to have a one-time only opting out-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would quit while I was ahead if I were you.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
year I was asked by constituents to investigate whether male
prison guards stripped female prisoners during the recent
misguided and ill conceived raid in the prison for women. I was
assured at that time that no male prison guard took part in the
stripping of female prisoners and that only female officers were
present.
My question is for the Solicitor General. Now that a videotape
clearly shows that male officers were present, will this minister
please tell me why his department officials lied to a member of
Parliament?
(1510)
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have already informed the House, we have two
contradictory reports, one from the correctional service internal
investigation and one from the correctional investigator.
Because they differ in facts and interpretation, we are
convening a further independent inquiry. That will throw the
light we are seeking on this difficult matter.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
assured at that time there were no male guards involved in that.
The minister stated that his government would bring honesty
and integrity back to the dealings between government and
Canadians.
9950
How can Canadians trust that the results of any investigation
by this minister's department will not be more lies instead of
what Canadians expect?
The Speaker: My colleagues, many times the issues that we
are very much seized with in this House cause us to use words a
little stronger than we might ordinarily use.
I wonder if I could prevail on the hon. member for Wild Rose
to withdraw the word ``lies'' and perhaps use another one, to
rephrase his question.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best but that is
really tough because I do not know what else to call these things.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: As tough as it is going to be, would the member
please withdraw the word ``lies''.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word
``lies''.
Will the minister assure this House that in the future when the
officials from his department are asked questions by members of
Parliament we can expect to get the facts and not a bunch of
fiction?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will seek further information about who told what to
the hon. member.
I hope that in future he will also refrain from using fiction in
his questions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Last Monday's federal-provincial meeting on greenhouse
gases ended in a resounding failure. Despite the commitments it
made at the Rio summit in 1992 and despite the electoral
promises in the red book, Canada is stating openly that it cannot
do its part in the worldwide effort to reduce greenhouse gases.
While Quebec has already achieved its objectives of
stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions, how does the minister
justify Canada's preparing to default on its international
commitments because of a lack of political will on the part of the
federal government and of the rest of Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said
last week. Quebec has done exactly what the other provinces
have done. Through its minister of the environment, Quebec
promised, at our meeting in Toronto, that it would have a
Cabinet meeting in order to get an action plan to us by March.
I have not seen this action plan, because none has been
forthcoming. I am waiting for Quebec to let us know its
stabilization objectives. The government of Canada has its own
areas of jurisdiction, and I can assure you that we will attain and
exceed the objectives of our action plan.
Here is where we have problems. There are a number of
jurisdictions we cannot encroach on. We cannot force a
provincial government, like the government of Alberta, for
example, to do more than it wants to.
(1515)
We are, however, doing our part and are patiently awaiting
Quebec's action plan, which the government has not yet
disclosed, and Cabinet not yet approved, according to the press
release issued this week by Mr. Brassard.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would remind the Minister of the Environment that Quebec has
done its homework. So you do yours.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to always address
the Chair.
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
the Environment. Rather than give in to pressure from the oil
industry lobby, would she perhaps agree to follow Quebec's
example and ensure that the rest of Canada honours its
international obligations in fighting the greenhouse effect?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may
not have received the Parti Quebecois' press release. I will read
it to her: ``Issued in Quebec City at 2.42 p.m. on February 20,
Quebec's plan of action will soon be submitted to Cabinet for
approval''. It has not been approved yet, and we are impatiently
waiting for it, because it is not only a question of stabilization,
but much more.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, HIV has taken
a recent jump in the Ottawa area mostly in women, mostly in
new arrivals to Canada. Does the health minister think it would
make any sense to check immigrants for HIV?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have mentioned in the
House of Commons in the last number of days, all immigrants to
Canada undergo the two checks of security and health in
addition to the point system.
9951
In the majority of cases where individuals are found to be
HIV positive they are refused entry into Canada.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, HIV is an
invisible disease; it cannot be seen. We screen for TB. We screen
for hepatitis. We even screen for parasites. Why would we not
screen for AIDS?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question of health checks
has probably not been reviewed in the last 30-odd years.
At the end of last year the government said that one of the
more important reviews immigration would be undertaking was
an update and review of how health checks were done and for
which diseases checks ought to be done automatically.
However, with all respect to the member of Parliament, I
think we need to do the review in a sensible and sensitive way. I
do not think anybody should rush irresponsibly into this subject
matter.
It is being undertaken. It is being done seriously. It is being
done the right way, rather than simply playing politics and
exploiting diseases for particular gains.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries.
The European Union is formally objecting to the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Organization's imposition of quotas for
turbot fishing in the North Atlantic. It may encourage European
Union member countries to ignore the NAFO limits.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. McWhinney: Members can listen because it affects the
west coast too.
Last year, when a similar problem arose on the Pacific coast,
the minister took action against U.S. salmon fishing vessels and
induced the United States to return to the negotiating table.
Will the minister consider perhaps exercising similar friendly
persuasion on the Atlantic coast?
(1520 )
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think
the member's expertise in the area of international law is
acknowledged by everyone in the House.
The member is correct that last year we had some difficulties
on both the west coast with respect to salmon and on the east
coast with respect to Icelandic scallop. Canada took direct
action and action by way of negotiations to try to resolve our
differences.
This year Canada's jurisdictional rights over Icelandic
scallop is acknowledged by the United States, not challenged.
This year we have completed the negotiation of a successful
agreement governing the transit of Yukon salmon as a
consequence of aggressive action last year. This year we are
back at the table negotiating on Pacific salmon.
We much prefer to talk. We much prefer to negotiate. We will
go to the nth degree to settle our differences by agreement.
However we warn all those who are listening that we will not sit
and talk while the last fish is being caught.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice stated on Monday that he was certain the
legislation respecting firearms registration could be enforced in
aboriginal territories just like everywhere else in Canada.
Since even Statistics Canada census takers claim they cannot
carry out their work in aboriginal territory, how can the minister
maintain that it will be so easy to register all firearms in
Canada?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been engaged
from the outset in discussions with the aboriginal leadership and
indeed the discussions continue.
I have every confidence the system of registration of firearms
that will be considered and passed by the House will apply and
be effective across the country in enhancing community safety
in all communities, including the aboriginal communities.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, based on leaked information surrounding the Nishga
land claim in northwest B.C., which includes a settlement offer
of $125 million and 1,900 square kilometres of land, I
understand the negotiations also include a federal offer for a
treaty protected commercial fishery. This would provide a
government guaranteed industry forever as opposed to a
commercial industry.
Could the minister confirm that no commercial fishery will be
constitutionally entrenched under section 35 of the Constitution
Act, 1982?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Nishga are probably the
most patient first nation in Canada.
9952
In 1903 they started their claim, could not get funding and
did it with their own money. They won their case in 1973. They
have been waiting 22 years for a settlement. Everything on the
table is being negotiated. Nothing is being taken off the table
because it might cause the hon. member some discomfort.
I think his time would be better spent if he got behind the
Nishga who are in the constituency of one of the Reform critics
and help them get through this very difficult time.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
It is clear the government is prepared to break collective
agreements with public servants and to block transfers to
undermine social and health programs in the country. It is clear
that we could get rid of a large number of civil servants and cut
social programs and known governmental organizations but a 1
per cent to 2 per cent increase in the interest rate would wipe out
any of those savings.
What is the Deputy Prime Minister's government prepared to
do to finally address monetary policy and have the Bank of
Canada really focus on keeping interest rates under control and
below what they are now?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we intend to do that on
Monday.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Scooping is the practice of unlicensed private drivers stealing
business from hundreds of taxi cab and limousine drivers who
are legally licensed to operate from Pearson International
Airport.
(1525 )
Will the Solicitor General take measures to control this theft
of an estimated $6.5 million in business and put an end to these
airport pirates?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this difficult situation involves a matter of legal
interpretation. I understand that the Minister of Justice, the
Minister of Transport and their officials are working to find a
solution. I hope it will be developed before too long.
I would be happy to work with them in arriving at this solution
because I know how much distress is being caused by the
situation outlined by my hon. friend.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask my colleague, the government House leader, to
indicate which legislation will be considered in the next few
days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question today because, as
the House knows, our only business tomorrow will be to hear the
President of the United States address a joint meeting of both
Houses in this Chamber at three o'clock in the afternoon.
I might say also that the debate today will be on third reading
of Bill C-37, the Young Offenders Act amendments. I have
already said what we are going to be doing tomorrow.
On Friday the business will be second reading of Bill C-69,
the electoral boundaries bill; followed if necessary by Bill
C-37; followed by resumption of second reading debate of Bill
C-69, the firearms bill.
On Monday morning of next week, the House will resume
wherever it left off on Friday. However, as we already know, at
4.30 p.m. the Minister of Finance will make the annual budget
presentation.
On Tuesday and Wednesday of next week the House will
continue the budget debate.
On Thursday and Friday of next week the House will consider
second reading of a bill respecting borrowing authority.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week the House will recall that
I rose on a question of privilege to request that the House allow
for additional printing of Bill C-68, the firearms legislation,
again called for debate on Friday of this week.
I was told at that time that on Tuesday of this week a decision
would be reached concerning the additional printing of copies of
Bill C-68 for members of Parliament who require the bill to
properly inform their constituents.
9953
I have been informed informally that a decision has been
reached. I have been told informally that decision means
members of Parliament can have a measly 10 extra copies of
the bill.
I would like to know if the House or a member of the
government could confirm that in fact that decision has been
reached and, if indeed the decision means 10 copies, I would like
the opportunity to protest the decision to the House.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as spokesperson for the Board of
Internal Economy I wish to inform members of the House that
the board has taken a decision to provide-I know it is a limited
quantity-10 copies of the bill kit to all members of Parliament.
I must as well inform the House that bill kits are worth
approximately $20 each. Even that small quantity, as the House
appreciates, results in a considerable expenditure that could
range in the area of $400 per member of Parliament. Therefore it
is a very large expenditure for the House.
(1530 )
Finally, it is my understanding that the Library of Parliament
traditionally publishes notes. These notes are available to
members of Parliament. They are referred to as bill summaries,
and when the summaries are prepared they can be photocopied
by members. That is not expensive and they can be presented to
all and sundry.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on that confirmation I wish to lodge
a protest on behalf of many members of the House.
Nothing could be more important to the public than the
opportunity to read the words that are contained in a bill before
the House. I am not asking for the bill kits. I am asking for the
opportunity to go to the printing office of the House of
Commons to have a number of copies printed. This would not be
the $22 that the board has determined this would cost.
It is imperative that all Canadians have access to the bills of
the House. As a member of Parliament, I would like to supply
my constituents with a bill presented in this Chamber.
Mr. Boudria: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I should have
mentioned that members can order extra copies through their
operational budgets. I recognize this has limitations because it
involves expenditures for each member of Parliament.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I think the matter is quite
clear to all members of the House.
I thank the hon. government whip for responding and I thank
the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for
bringing the issue back to the House following his original
intervention some days ago.
At this point I would indicate to the House that if the member
for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake wishes to choose another
route to continue to raise this issue, I am sure as a well
experienced parliamentarian he will find that mechanism and
that route. For the time being the matter is deemed closed.
_____________________________________________
9953
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
certain petitions.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table the 62nd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in respect
of the order of reference dated November 29, 1994 regarding the
furniture, supplies and equipment in each hon. member's
constituency office and House of Commons office.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 63rd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the membership of committees.
This report is in part consequent on the admission of the new
members of the House of Commons today.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in
the 63rd report later this day.
* * *
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-307, an act to amend the Criminal Code and
the Copyright Act (profit from authorship respecting a crime).
(1535 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, my bill would amend the Criminal Code
and the Copyright Act to prohibit a criminal from profiting by
selling, authorizing or authoring the story of a crime.
If a person is convicted of an indictable offence under the
Criminal Code, any moneys he or she may have made or may
make in the future from the creation of a work based on the
9954
crime would be deemed proceeds of crime subject to seizure by
the crown.
Included would be moneys paid to the convicted person for
the authorship of books, articles, screen plays, recordings, et
cetera. Also covered would be moneys paid for the criminal's
contribution to the creation of such a work, for example, getting
paid to tell a story to a news program or the joint authorship of a
book.
The bill further amends the Copyright Act to provide that the
copyright in any work principally based on the crime where the
work is created, prepared or published by or in collaboration
with the convicted person becomes the property of the crown.
In countries that have signed the Berne convention on
copyright, Canada could enforce its copyright ownership of the
work, including preventing the sale and other distribution of the
work and applying to seize any profits, the principle being a
criminal should not receive a dime for committing a crime.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-308, an act to provide the resumption of
production activities at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill entitled
``an act to provide the resumption of production activities at
ADM Agri-Industries Ltd''. The objective of this bill is to
resolve the labour conflict between ADM, formerly Ogilvie
Flour Mills Ltd., and the national union of employees of Ogilvie
Flour Mills Ltd.
The company and the union are presently engaged in
bargaining to renew the collective agreement which expired on
January 31, 1992 and applies to some 150 employees of the
milling industry. Realizing that no agreement could be reached
with the help of the arbitrator appointed by the Minister of
Human Resources Development, the parties faced a strike or
lockout.
Union members began the strike on June 6, 1994. A federal
mediator met with the parties on several occasions to help them
but, unfortunately, little progress was made. During that time,
the company continued operating using replacement workers to
carry out the work of bargaining unit members.
In tabling this bill today, I would like to put an end to this
dispute and conflict.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
[English]
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I
was going to introduce a private member's bill on behalf of the
hon. member for Red Deer. I would like to proceed with it if I
could.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would ask then for
unanimous consent for the member for Lethbridge to introduce
the bill on behalf of the member for Red Deer.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (for Mr. Thompson) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-309, an act to amend the Access to Information
Act (disclosure of results of public opinion polls).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
introduce the bill on behalf of the member for Red Deer. This
bill, an act to amend the Access to Information Act, which calls
for the disclosure of results of public opinion polls, is a very
important bill. It is important because it will demonstrate the
commitment of Parliament to open government based on
principles of accountability and transparency.
(1540)
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cannot
find the bill on the Notice Paper. Has notice of introduction of
this bill been given?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have received
information from the Table that it might be Motion No. 28.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, I wish to put
several motions today.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the
63rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
9955
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move, with the unanimous consent of the House:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 68(7)(a), when the
order of the day is called for consideration of the second reading of Bill C-69,
an act to provide for the establishment of the Electoral Boundaries
Commissions and the readjustment of the electoral boundaries, a representative
of each party or group in the House may make a statement of not more than 20
minutes in relation thereto before the question is put, provided that when the
question is put it shall be deemed to have been carried on division.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move, with the unanimous consent of the House:
[Translation]
That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be
authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., from March 15 to 17, 1995, for the
purpose of meeting officials from international financial institutions and other
appropriate individuals as part of the Committee's examination of the upcoming
Halifax G-7 Summit Agenda and, in particular, reforms to international
financial institutions, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a slight difficulty on the Order Paper for
Private Members' Business since tomorrow is not a normal
sitting day and there will be no private members' hour.
The hon. member for St. Albert has graciously agreed to allow
his item, No. 2 on today's Order Paper, to be dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence. Therefore, the private
members' hour will proceed as usual today and on Friday, No. 3
on today's Order Paper, in the name of the hon. member for
Skeena, would be the item for discussion in private members'
hour.
I would like to thank the hon. member for St. Albert for
agreeing to do this. It is very kind of him. I think there would be
consent in the House to allow that item to be dropped to the
bottom in accordance with his wishes and to preserve the order
of the other private members' hours for the next couple of
weeks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1545)
[Translation]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of a group of fellow citizens, I want to table a
petition regarding euthanasia. The petitioners would like
Parliament to ask Canadian doctors to continue saving lives
instead of ending them.
They would also like Parliament to implement an act
prohibiting assisted suicide in Canada. In addition, they ask that
this legislation not be amended to make active or passive
euthanasia legal.
[English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a number of petitions. The first is on behalf of the Minister of
Natural Resources, a petition from Edmonton calling upon
Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect
individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from
my own riding I have a petition in which the petitioners pray that
Parliament ensure that the provisions in the Criminal Code
prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that no
change be made in the law.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
another petition from my riding requests that Parliament not
amend the human rights code dealing with sexual orientation.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
another petition concerns changing the Criminal Code to
prohibit assisted suicides. The petitioners are opposed to that.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition making the safety of our children a priority. The
9956
petitioners request that changes be made to the charter of rights
to enable residents to be notified when repeat sex offenders are
released into the community.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to table a petition with over 1,000 signatures calling on the
government to introduce legislation that will ensure that
individuals cannot use the intoxication defence to avoid
prosecution for the commission of a crime.
My constituents are sending the message loud and clear. It is
time for a change in the law. I wholly agree with my
constituents.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition signed by residents of Ottawa, Nepean,
Gloucester and Bristol, Quebec reminding the House that 38 per
cent of the national highway system has fallen below accepted
standards. Mexico and the United States are upgrading their
national highway systems. The national highway policy study
identified job creation, economic development, national unity,
saving lives, avoiding injuries, lower congestion, lower costs
and better international competitiveness as benefits of the
national highway program.
They call upon Parliament to urge the government to support
all measures that will make the national highway system
upgrading possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I
have the honour of tabling in the House two petitions asking the
government to look into intoxication as a defence in rape cases.
[English]
The petitioners representing the areas of Pickering, Ajax and
Whitby call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to
ensure the excuse of extreme intoxication is never again used.
I support this petition.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions. The first is from the Toronto area and calls
on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada and the
Young Offenders Act to provide for heavier penalties for those
convicted of violent crime, specifically young offenders.
I am glad to note that our government is doing something
about that.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition prays and requests that Parliament not
amend the Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Human Rights Act to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
This is signed by quite a number of people from in and around
my riding in Scarborough.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the final petition is also from in and around my riding in
Scarborough, praying that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
It goes without saying I agree with all three petitions.
(1550 )
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour
to rise in the House to present a petition duly certified by the
Clerk of Petitions on behalf of 171 constituents of
Saanich-Gulf Islands, specifically North and South Pender
Islands.
The petitioners humbly pray and request that Parliament
reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes, and
implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I present two petitions on behalf of my constituents
from New Westminster-Burnaby and other residents of the
greater Vancouver area.
In the first petition, 80 want it to be known that physicians in
Canada should be kept working to save lives, not end them. They
pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced
vigorously, and that Parliament make no changes in the law that
would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or
active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the signators call upon
Parliament to immediately add sexual orientation to the list of
grounds protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and
further amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to ensure that the
legislation protects our relationships and our families.
9957
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting today
two petitions signed by 193 of the constituents of Prince
George-Peace River.
They feel that no amount of gun control has ever succeeded in
preventing criminals from acquiring guns for illegal means.
Therefore, they ask Parliament to support laws that punish
criminals using firearms and to support, recognize and protect
the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational
firearms and abolish any existing gun control laws that have
proven to be ineffective.
I fully endorse these petitions.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a few petitions to present today. The first one is from Helene
Windship of North Vancouver and 115 others requesting that
Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing
taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act.
The second petition is signed by Rene Kosak of North
Vancouver and 25 others asking that Parliament reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes and limit
federal spending with a taxpayer protection act.
The third petition is signed by D. A. Reece of North
Vancouver and 30 others requesting that the government reduce
spending instead of increasing taxes.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fourth petition is signed by Sheila Thompson of North
Vancouver and 25 others asking that Parliament amend the
Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation.
The fifth petition is signed by Margaret Dale of North
Vancouver and 60 others requesting that Parliament not pass Bill
C-41 with section 718.2 as presently written and in any event
not to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation, as the
behaviour people engage in does not warrant special
considerations in Canadian law.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition has 198 signatures, starting with Ronald Wells of
Burnaby, and most of the others also live in Burnaby, asking that
the government not increase taxes but reduce government
spending and implement a taxpayer protection act to limit
federal spending.
Furthermore, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to resign if
the GST had not been abolished within one year and she has not
yet done so.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling several petitions
signed by people from four municipalities in my riding. The
petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ask the
government to abandon its plan to introduce voice mail systems
for seniors, given that seniors are naturally more at a loss when
faced with voice mail technology.
These people are from Saint-Mathieu, Saint-Cyprien,
Trois-Pistoles and Saint-Jean-de-Dieu. I extend my sympathy
to the citizens of Saint-Jean-de-Dieu, who lost their mayor,
Mrs. Rioux, this week, and to the Rioux family.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today. The first is part of my
initiative on day 13 to present petition 13 which is the desire of
constituents to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul
Thompson. April 11, 1995 is the date set for the parole hearing.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for law
abiding citizens and the families of the victims of convicted
murderers.
(1555 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my second petition is signed by 106 people living in Alberta.
These people are against the taxation of dental plan benefits.
These petitioners believe that such a taxation will prove to be
a discouragement to those seeking preventative dental
treatment. They pray that Parliament not betray their trust by
taxing health.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to table two petitions in this House today, both of
which I support.
The first petition calls upon Parliament to oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion
of the phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition asks that Parliament reduce government
9958
spending instead of increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer
protection act to limit federal spending.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present two petitions in accordance with Standing Order
36.
The first is from petitioners in the Lesser Slave
Lake-Westlock area in my riding. They request simply that the
hon. finance minister not increase our net taxes in this year's
budget.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
second petition the petitioners request that Parliament support
laws that will severely punish all criminals who use weapons in
the commission of a crime, support new Criminal Code firearms
control provisions which recognize and protect the rights of
law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms,
support legislation that will repeal and modify existing gun
control laws which have not improved public safety or have
proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly
complex as to be ineffective and/or unenforceable.
I concur with the petitioners.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, today I have three petitions all dealing with the
same subject matter regarding gun legislation.
My constituents from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt
call on Parliament to oppose further legislation for firearms
acquisition and possession and to provide strict guidelines for
the mandatory sentence for use or possession of a firearm in the
commission of a violent crime. There are 309 signatures on
these three petitions which adds to a total of 1,839 of my
constituents who have signed this petition to date.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure to present three petitions to the House today. Pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present to the House
a petition signed by the constituents of Lincoln which reads:
``The courts of Canada have deemed that the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms applies to all people in Canada
regardless of status. We request that the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms apply to Canadian citizens and people of
landed immigrant status only''.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am tabling a second petition requesting that
Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relations.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour of tabling a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36
which asks that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of
the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide are
enforced vigorously and to make no changes in the law that
would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or
active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
do thank you for the exercise that I was able to get during this
period. It was quite invigorating to be on my feet this often.
During the past month or so it has been my pleasure to
distribute this petition which has been signed by over 20,000
people from Victoria to Halifax; 9,000 of these people are from
my own constituency of Fraser Valley East.
The petitioners call upon the government to take notice that
they are already overburdened with taxation due to high
government spending. Whereas the government is considering
tax increases in the next federal budget, the petitioners pray and
request that Parliament reduce government spending instead of
increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act.
Obviously these petitions are easy to get people to sign and
continue to flood into my office. It is a pleasure to present them
on behalf of Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The good news for the
hon. member for Fraser Valley East is that he has to sign the back
of each and every one of those.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Mr.
Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
(1600)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I placed Question No. 93 on the Order Paper on October 19. It
should not be so difficult to come up with a response since the
question was tabled on October 19, over four months ago.
Normally, as you know, such questions must be answered within
45 days. Despite what the hon. member said, I know full well
that this is not a complicated question. The data requested is
well documented.
Knowing the minister responsible for this department, I am
telling you, Mr. Speaker, that the delay in answering this
9959
question is part of the minister's strategy of silence. They are
interfering with access to information and making it
increasingly difficult. That was my experience with this
minister and I am convinced-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I do not think this
is a point of order as such.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon.
member-I think it was on Monday and also last Friday- the
government considered his representations. We are in the
process of drafting a response to this question. I am certain that
there are people now working on the response.
Mr. Marchand: I am not so sure about that.
Mr. Milliken: Yes, I am sure, because I made inquiries
regarding this question on Monday before the hon. member
raised his point of order, and I am certain that we will soon have
a response for the hon. member, which I will table here in this
House.
[English]
Once again, I thank the hon. member for raising this issue ad
nauseam. I am delighted he is able to pursue it in this way. I look
forward to having the response soon, as I indicated the other day.
I request that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the questions be
allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that the notice of motion for the production
of papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the notice of motion
for the production of papers be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9959
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from February 20 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act
and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-37, which
concerns young offenders, because this is a very important and
very revealing bill. If we look at all the aspects of this bill,
basically, it contains all the elements of a debate on social
values.
As you know, Quebec is involved in a process that is leading
up to sovereignty, and often people wonder why we in Quebec
are doing this. People wonder what kind of society we want in
Quebec. Well, this is a good example of the kind of legislation
Quebec wants to avoid, the kind of legislation that does not
reflect tendencies in Quebec at all. As long as Quebec remains in
Canada, however, we will never be able to introduce legislation
that, in my opinion, would be fairer and more equitable than Bill
C-37.
When I say this could develop into a debate on social values, I
mean that, when we talk about young offenders, we talk about
young people, we talk about young people in our society and we
also talk about violence. These are two subjects that go to the
very heart of a society and reflect what is wrong with society.
When young people commit violent crimes or commit suicide or
are extreme in the way they act, it is because there is something
very wrong with society.
(1605)
It is symptomatic and also reflects all the problems besetting
society. We cannot consider the issue of young offenders in
isolation. We cannot isolate young people's problems as we
would do in the case of transportation or more technical
problems. We are talking strictly about the human, fundamental
values in society. We cannot isolate this from the fact that we
have poverty and unemployment, for instance, some of the
factors by which society is defined. We cannot consider the
problem in isolation. We cannot find the cause because there is
no single cause.
An issue like that of young offenders must be approached with
an open mind. We must consider what society is to us as well as
our attitude to society and our attitude to justice within that
society. We cannot take a short term view of this issue.
If we are to deal with the question of young offenders, we
must have a comprehensive vision of society, a long term vision.
Young offenders are a very serious problem that goes to the very
heart of our society.
Once Quebec is sovereign, it will be a small and, I think, well
integrated society. I think it will be able to come up with a real
solution. In fact, the current legislation in Quebec that deals
with young offenders is more advanced than what is being
proposed by the federal government. I have the impression that a
sovereign Quebec will be able to pursue this approach, to deal
with the problem as we will deal with other problems, and that it
will have a more enlightened sense of justice than what we see in
Bill C-37.
I would say that, as long as Quebec is a part of Canada, we will
never find a constructive way to deal with the problem of young
9960
offenders, because Bill C-37 is an attempt to respond to the
demands of people from the West, people who have a different
perspective and take a different approach to the problem.
Bill C-37 is an attempt to respond to their concerns and their
way of dealing with the problem. And consequently, this creates
a problem for Quebec. It prevents us from going ahead with our
own strategy.
As long as Quebec stays in Canada, there will be a
jurisdictional tug of war, on this issue as on many others,
because of the difference in vision. In this case, there is a very
obvious difference between Western Canada and Quebec. Our
two approaches are diametrically opposed.
This bill, which is an attempt to strike a balance, to respond to
the demands of the West, will prevent the Quebec system from
going ahead. It will be a waste of time and effort, it will not solve
the problem, as I have been trying to explain, and will provide
no remedy at all for the problem of young offenders. It is an
exercise in futility and a waste of money, time and effort. I do
not see anything constructive in Bill C-37.
(1610)
In fact, the bill itself focuses particularly on young people 16
and 17 years of age, who are charged with serious crimes
involving violence, such as murder. It would mean that these
young people could be brought before adult courts. They can be
sent to youth courts, but with this bill, they could be tried in
adult courts.
If young people are tried in youth courts, the sentences will be
harsher. The maximum sentence for murder will increase from
five to ten years. The qualifying periods for parole will increase,
parole will be harder to obtain, and the records of young
offenders will be retained longer.
In short, this bill imposes stiffer sentences on young persons,
particularly those who are 16 and 17 years of age. This is the
spirit of this bill: impose harsher sentences on young offenders.
But violence among young people is the work of a few. They do
not represent a particular trend in society. They represent a very
small proportion of young people-a few dozen.
This bill deals with a few exceptional cases, which do not
represent any sort of trend in society. There is no distressing
increase in violence by 16 and 17 year olds. The figures over
some 15 years in this area reveal no sort of increase.
Until 1992, there was a five per cent increase in crimes
involving young persons, but since then, the figure has been
more like 2 per cent. This is the general crime rate among young
people. This increase compared with the increase in population
reveals no startling change.
All of the experts agree that the rate of serious crimes among
young people, such as murder, manslaughter, aggravated
assault, has remained stable or has decreased in the past decade.
This is what the statistics tell us about the number of violent
crimes among young people.
We cannot even say that violent crime has increased among
young people, but we can say that there have been a few cases,
the exception. For example, the two boys in England who killed
a child of five or six, or other cases we can cite as examples of
sensationalism, which were given considerable attention on
television and in the newspapers.
Bill C-37 is in response to this sort of sensationalism or this
perception. We are not dealing with a critical problem for
society. There is no crisis; violence is not really on the rise
among young people. This bill is trying to deal with very
exceptional cases.
(1615)
That is the nature of the problem with this bill. I would like
now to address the consequences for young persons of calling
for harsher sentences at this time. The consequences are, to be
sure, the same as for older criminals, that is people in adult
penitentiaries. The consequences are the same and every study
by every expert confirms unequivocally that the sentence
offenders receive has no influence whatsoever on the crime rate.
Imposing sentences of 10, 15 or 20 years will not reduce
crime. Studies show this clearly. Moreover, in looking at the
situation, it seems that the more sentences are increased, the
greater the number of offenders. Go visit Canadian
penitentiaries. I have had the opportunity to visit every
penitentiary in Canada, from Dorchester to the B.C. maximum
security prison, including the Saskatchewan maximum security
institution. I worked for the Canadian Penitentiary Service and
visited all Canadian penitentiaries and, looking at what goes on
inside them. Considering the studies and statistics, one realizes
that, once a person is sent to a Canadian federal penitentiary,
there is a four in five chance that he will return a second time and
the odds increase.
Canadian penitentiaries are training grounds for criminals,
quite simply, and this is very easy to understand. If you go to
Dorchester or any other prison, you will see how the law of
violence rules these places. When they get out, people are
already trained for violence, especially in Canadian
penitentiaries as they were in my day, where there was no
training of any kind, no rehabilitation or, if there was any, they
were silly things such as programs to make mail bags.
Yes, there were a few little programs here and there, for
training, education, but generally speaking there was no
training, no rehabilitation program whatsoever. Prisoners were
left to their own devices and when released from prison, the
situation was clearly disastrous. There are organizations which
try to help prisoners after their release, such as the Elizabeth Fry
Society for women, and there is also an organization which tries
to help released prisoners, I forget the name, but there is very,
very little help.
9961
In those days, the system was such that you could predict the
number of criminals society would produce. In the penitentiary
system, prison construction plans were drawn up for five or ten
years down the road. In fact, when I was there, my job was to
try to find cities where prisons could be built. The penitentiary
system was a real industry within the government.
(1620)
We therefore could predict when we could fill them.
Obviously, that could serve some political purpose. In fact,
some politicians thought that it was desirable to have a
penitentiary in their riding because it created jobs.
We can agree that imposing longer and heavier prison
sentences is not the solution. Nobody thinks that this is the way
to help people who have committed serious crimes, especially
young offenders. There is hope in setting up rehabilitation and
training programs for young people. At least they can be
rehabilitated. It is not by imposing heavier sentences that we can
hope to rehabilitate offenders.
From the way this bill is taking shape, it seems that we will be
able to send 16 and 17 year olds to penitentiaries. The 27-year
olds leaving jail after 10-year prison terms will be hardened
criminals. This resolves nothing.
In fact, Bill C-37 has sprung from a thirst for revenge. It was
also created to please politicians from the right who think that
heavier sentences will thin out the criminal element. It resolves
nothing. It does not improve the lot of young people.
The bill itself is incoherent. It will create administrative
problems and delays for Quebec, which has already taken the
rehabilitation route. Quebec is already well on its way to helping
young offenders, and Bill C-37 will slow us down in this
endeavour.
It seems to me that anyone with a heart will realize that young
people do not need to be put away, they need to be closely
supervised. In my opinion, this is the best solution. Quebec
already is on the right track, and a sovereign Quebec will be able
to continue in that direction, not only when it comes to
assistance for young offenders, but also when it comes to the
issues of justice and violence. As a country, we will be able to
propose real solutions, rather than measures like Bill C-37,
which in no way resolve a very, very serious problem.
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech the member talked
about a more fair and equitable policy. More fair to whom, the
offenders or the victims; fairer to law-abiders or lawbreakers?
He introduced a notion of values that should be upheld. He
also indicated that there was no single cause of crime. He tried to
turn that around to say that we need some long term global view
rooted in the basic problems of society. He advocated a more
insular cohesive Quebec with reduced interaction with the larger
social world and that somehow that would ameliorate the young
offender problem. I assert to the member that is just another
version of separatist fantasy stories.
(1625 )
Then he talked about Bill C-37, that perhaps it was only
requested because of problems arising in the west. I advise the
member that the human heart is the same and the propensity for
young offenders to offend is the same across the country.
It seems every comment from the Bloc is turned into a
territorial turf question about who is in control and has a varied
sociological view. This does nothing to constructively build a
better Canadian society. The member denies the reality of youth
crime in his own province. He advocates a separatist ideology of
expansive social order and an inappropriate response to youth
crime.
Canadians across the country have subsidized rehabilitation
efforts for offenders in Quebec. We do that with transfer
payments yet he wants to abandon it. He claims that a separate
country of Quebec could do a lot better. I say he is mistaken
about his dreams. I advise him that the polls tell us that most
Quebecers also say he is just dreaming.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, thank God I am dreaming.
Thank God that I can hope to improve or to speak in ways that
can improve society.
The system of justice is for whom? Certain people in the
House speak only about the victims. As far as I am concerned
from what I have read, the system of justice was conceived to
protect and improve society. People who think that hanging the
person who killed so-and-so will make the family of the victim
better off are not thinking clearly or do not have a grasp of the
problem.
We need laws that try to improve society as a whole. It is not
by imposing more severe punishment on young offenders that
we will improve the lot of society.
In response again to the hon. member, in Quebec we have the
capacity to bring in a better system. We already have because in
Quebec we understand. We have a sense of humanity in respect
of young offenders that allows us to think in terms of
rehabilitating them rather than thinking exclusively of putting
them into prison and increasing the punishment, which has
proven to be totally useless not only for the young but for the
older criminals.
We are already on a progressive path in respect of that
problem. Bill C-37 is retrograde. It is coercive. It is repressive.
It is like going back to the Middle Ages. That is why I say that in
Quebec, and especially in a sovereign Quebec, we will probably,
9962
hopefully, be able to do things a bit better. I hope people
elsewhere will also be able to do better.
It is not just a question of territorial control. Certainly it is a
question of justice. It is a question of cultural sovereignty. It is a
way of interpreting justice. Our way in Quebec of interpreting
how young offenders should be judged is more equitable or more
profitable in the long term for society than forcing young
offenders to be submitted to longer terms of imprisonment,
which are a total waste of human life.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
comments of my friend.
He made the comment that people who are in favour of
stronger punishment for criminals and capital punishment are
not clear thinking or are not thinking properly.
Does he realize that the majority of Canadians, including the
majority of people in his own province, agree that we should
have stronger sentences for criminals, that we should be tougher
on criminals and tougher on crime, and that we should reinstate
the death penalty in Canada?
(1630 )
Is the hon. member going to then stand up and say that the
majority of people in his province cannot think properly? That is
what he is implying with his statements.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not implying that by any
means. I do not know which statistics the hon. member has
looked at but in Quebec people are not crying out for more
severe punishment. I do not believe that we are in agreement for
the death penalty. We have progressed and realized that the right
path is not the death penalty or severe penalties against
criminals.
I think we have understood that. There are no statistics in
Quebec indicating that that is what the majority of people in
Quebec would want. It may be in the west, but certainly not in
Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to disagree almost completely with the
comments made by the member of the Bloc Quebecois.
Bill C-37 contains provisions that emphasize rehabilitation.
How can you rehabilitate a young offender who is still on the
street with his group of friends and partners in crime? I still
remember that, as a kid, it was not the school teacher's strap I
was afraid of, it was the spanking waiting for me at home after
my brothers told my father.
I remember when one of my brothers stole a 10-cent item
from the store. When my father found out, he forced my brother
to go back to the store to apologize and return the stolen item to
the victim. This was followed by corporal punishment. I think it
turned out well. My brother never had a problem with the law
after that.
Throughout this debate, we have shown great concern for the
criminals but very little concern for the victims. I know people
who commit a crime in the fall so that they can spend the winter
in prison because they eat better there than many street people.
I spoke about this with several police officers who must arrest
these young offenders. Almost all of them say the same thing:
Young criminals are laughing at us. We charge them with a crime
and they say, ``I do not care. It does not matter what you do
because I will be back on the street tomorrow morning''. They
know they can go before a judge, who will slap them on the wrist
and say, ``Do not do that any more, little boy''. That is why there
are so many repeat offenders.
Again, I think our first concern should be to protect society.
As they say, if you cannot do the time, do not do the crime.
Young people must realize this.
The purpose of sentencing is not to punish young people but to
act as a deterrent. If sentences are tough enough, they will have a
deterrent effect and reduce crime.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is there. Studies
have shown there is no deterrent effect. Increasing the sentence
does not reduce the crime rate. Studies have confirmed this.
I agree that, when you are a kid and your father gives you the
odd spanking, it might help. But when we are talking about
putting people in prison, especially young people, in institutions
that reinforce criminal behaviour, that is different. I agree we
have to strike a balance, and I agree that some people will say
that we are more concerned about the criminal than the victim.
Of course we have to be concerned about the victim, but it
seems to me we should take a more progressive approach to the
way we treat young offenders. And the way we do this reflects
the values of our society. When we talk about young offenders,
we are talking about a small number of people, but we need all
kind of resources to help deal with what causes these young
people to commit violent crimes.
The trouble is this bill imposes more severe sentences for
young people who have committed a murder but, basically, the
problem is the same as in the case of young people who commit
suicide. There is something deeply wrong with society, and
young people are saying this by their extreme actions.
(1635)
So it is not by punishing young people who are victims of the
system that we will solve the problem. We have to change the
way society works. We have to make sure their father and
mother have jobs and are not violent. As you know, a young
person may be violent because his father and his mother are
violent. That is why I say that in Quebec we will probably have
9963
less trouble dealing with the real causes of these problems
because we will consider all the other factors and not just-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sorry, but the period
for questions and comments has expired.
[English]
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Frontenac-Dairy farmers; the hon. member for
Timiskaming-French River-Justice.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too
rise today to comment on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young
Offenders Act.
This bill was the subject of justice committee hearings from
June 23 to December 8, 1994. During these hearings, victims
groups, groups of offenders, witnesses from children's aid
societies, as well as representatives from judges' groups, bar
associations and school boards all made recommendations to the
committee.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of these
individuals and groups for taking the time and effort to present
their positions to the committee. I would also like to
congratulate the members of the committee for their work on the
bill during these hearings.
This bill is not perfect. No bill ever is. I believe that to
understand the purpose of this bill one must first understand the
purpose of the Young Offenders Act generally.
The Criminal Code of Canada sets out Parliament's goals and
initiatives in the area of criminal sentencing for adult offenders.
Conversely, we have enacted a separate statute, the Young
Offenders Act, which legislates the sentencing process for
young offenders. This is in recognition of the fact that young
offenders often commit crimes for vastly different reasons than
the motives behind adult crime.
The goals of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation are
often achieved through different methods with young offenders
than with adult criminals. The primary difference often
recognized by experts is that many young offenders have a much
better chance of being rehabilitated and becoming productive
members of society than adult offenders. Tied in with this is the
idea that for many young offenders the commission of a crime is
an isolated incident in their lives, whereas for adult offenders,
the commission of a crime more often signifies a larger pattern
of lifestyle.
Unfortunately, events over the past few years in Canada have
shown that not all young offenders fit the stereotypical mould of
a young person who in committing a crime made an isolated
mistake. Perhaps the most striking example of this was the
tragic death of Nicholas Battersby last spring here in Ottawa.
Mr. Battersby was shot in a drive-by shooting in broad daylight
just blocks away from this House. Four young offenders were
accused of this crime. I believe one of these youths has already
pleaded guilty to this offence.
We also hear of swarmings in Toronto. This is the term for a
phenomenon where a group of youths harass and beat a lone
individual, sometimes simply for the clothes he or she is
wearing.
These and other tragic stories show Canadians one thing:
Some young offenders, long before they reach the age of 18,
have become hardened criminals and the Young Offenders Act is
simply inadequate to rehabilitate them or to protect Canadians
from them.
We hear stories of youth who state that they commit crimes
without any worry of being punished for their acts. We hear
young Canadians openly saying that they would continue to
commit crimes because the punishment available under the
Young Offenders Act until the age of 18 simply does not scare
them.
It is with this backdrop that the Minister of Justice has
brought forth this legislation, Bill C-37. I would like to speak
now on some specific measures in the bill.
(1640)
The first measures contained in the bill are, in my opinion, the
most important and fundamental amendments to the Young
Offenders Act. The amendments proposed to paragraph 3(1) of
the present act send a clear message to the judiciary who are
responsible for enforcing the act. The protection of society is a
primary objective of the Young Offenders Act. This preamble is
most important.
Much of the time, the varying goals of the criminal law are in
conflict. Some measures while they contribute to the
rehabilitation of offenders may place the public safety at greater
risk. I am here today to say that Parliament, the judiciary and
other stakeholders in this debate must never forget that the
safety of the public can never be compromised.
While some measures may be seen as contributing to the
rehabilitation process, these benefits must be contrasted with
any threat they present to the public safety. This is the
fundamental struggle of any criminal justice system. Nowhere is
the dilemma more prevalent than it is with the young offenders
system.
While studies and common sense dictate that as a group young
offenders are much more amenable to rehabilitation than adult
offenders, we have learned the hard way that young offenders
can also be serious threats to the public safety. The Young
Offenders Act therefore must recognize the dual and conflicting
role that it must play. The amendments proposed to paragraph
3(1)(a) send a strong message to the judiciary that Parliament
9964
expects the judiciary to consider public safety and rehabilitation
when considering the Young Offenders Act.
The other amendment which this bill proposes to paragraph
3(1) is to affirm that young persons must accept the
responsibility for their actions and for their contraventions.
Again, the whole purpose of the Young Offenders Act is to
recognize that the young persons accept this responsibility in
different ways than do adults. However, they still must accept
responsibility for their actions and also the responsibility of
rehabilitating themselves.
On the theme of protection of public safety, I would like to
turn to the amendments proposed to section 16 of the Young
Offenders Act. These amendments would provide that 16 and
17-year old offenders who commit murder, attempted murder,
or manslaughter would be tried as adults unless the youth court
orders that the youth be tried as a young offender. Under the
present Young Offenders Act an offender can be tried in adult
court, but only if the crown successfully petitions the youth
court for such a transfer.
Presently, a young offender who is charged with any crime
will automatically be tried in youth court unless the crown can
convince a judge that circumstances merit otherwise. Under this
bill a 16 or 17-year old charged with murder, attempted murder,
or manslaughter will be automatically tried in an adult court
unless a judge, on application, can be convinced otherwise.
I know I am repeating myself but it bears repeating. This is a
very important step. Effectively, a reverse onus will lie with a
young offender charged with these crimes to show a judge why
he or she should not be tried in adult court.
The effect of these amendments will be to increase public
safety while also recognizing that in certain cases an offender
charged with these offences may be best dealt with under the
Young Offenders Act.
This amendment is also consistent with the principle that
young persons must accept responsibility for their actions. This
amendment is of fundamental importance.
The present maximum sentence available under the act of five
years for a 16 or 17-year old who commits murder is inadequate.
As many of us know, some young people who have committed
murder openly mock this sentence.
This amendment sends a message to all Canadians and to
young offenders. That message is that while there may be valid
reasons for giving a young offender a second chance, a young
offender accused of these serious crimes must convince the
court of these reasons.
These amendments therefore address the competing interests
between public safety and rehabilitation, particularly when
serious crimes such as murder are at issue.
In particular, I would like to bring the attention of the House
to section 16(1.1)(b) which under clause 8(1) of Bill C-37 states
that when considering whether a young offender should be tried
as an adult or in youth court, the protection of the public will be
paramount. If the judge is unable to reconcile this objective of
public protection with other objectives, then the youth will be
tried as an adult. This in my opinion is an ideal method of
dealing with this dilemma of reconciling the protection of the
public and other objectives of the criminal justice system.
(1645)
Youth crime, like any other crime, demands a reasoned
response to address all the goals of a criminal justice system
such as general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation
and public safety. However, when the other objectives conflict
with the goal of public safety, public safety must take priority
over other considerations.
I therefore support the amendment whereby 16 and 17-year
old offenders must show the court why they should be tried in a
youth court. In fact, it is unfortunate in my view that this
amendment applies only to 16 and 17-year olds. It could easily
have been expanded to all young offenders with consideration of
the age of the offender becoming a key consideration which a
judge would consider in determining whether or not an offender
should be tried in youth court. Perhaps this could be something
that might be addressed later in phase two of the study on the
Young Offenders Act.
In conjunction with the amendments in Bill C-37 dealing with
the transfer of 16 and 17-year olds accused of murder or
attempted murder, the bill also raises the maximum penalty
under the Young Offenders Act for first degree murder to 10
years from five years. In addition, the maximum penalty for
anyone convicted of second degree murder will be raised from
five to seven years. Again, these provisions in my opinion
address the concern that we live in a society where a sentence of
five years is not adequate in all cases to deter crime and to
protect society, or to rehabilitate the young offender.
Bill C-37 will also provide for victims of youth crime to make
impact statements at the sentencing of a young offender. Too
often with our criminal justice system, victims complain that
they are victimized twice, once by the crime and again during
the court proceedings in relation to the crime. We hear stories of
victims who are not even informed of when the offender will be
sentenced. Victims complain that they have no input in the
criminal proceedings.
While it is obvious that the judge in any case must be the final
arbiter of a case, in order to adequately dispose of a case the
judge must have the representations of all the affected parties
before him or her. This includes representations from victims of
crime detailing the impact the crime has had on their lives. Only
with this input will judges truly be able to pass a sentence that
fits the crime.
9965
In closing, I would like to encourage all members of this
House to support Bill C-37. I believe it provides amendments
which recognize that the Young Offenders Act must obtain a
balance of rehabilitation, public safety and deterrence.
Unfortunately, in some cases the Young Offenders Act as it now
stands does not adequately address the proper balancing of
these interests.
This bill provides an excellent start on the process of reducing
crime by youth by providing for measures that will take into
consideration the issue of public safety. I encourage all
members of this House to realize that any criminal justice
system must have as its goal the balance of the objectives of
public safety and rehabilitation. This is particularly true of any
criminal system designed for young persons.
While it is true that young people are much more amenable as
a whole to rehabilitation, the public must be adequately
protected from all crime no matter who commits it. The
amendments proposed to the Young Offenders Act as contained
in Bill C-37 address the balancing of these objectives. This
balance is lacking in the act as it now stands.
Finally, let me add my voice to others who have mentioned in
this House that this bill does not represent the whole story of
reducing crime by young persons. Most of the Young Offenders
Act by definition deals with offences already committed. The
other half of the equation of course is crime prevention.
In order for any initiative to reduce crime to be successful, the
whole equation must be looked at. The 12th report of the
Standing Committee on Justice released in 1993 pointed this
out. It identified that in order to reduce crime we must attack its
roots such as unemployment, illiteracy, physical and sexual
abuse of children, the glorification of violence, and
dysfunctional families.
(1650)
Studies have shown that crimes in neighbourhoods are
drastically reduced when programs designed to keep youth
occupied are instituted. Similarly, programs that attempt to help
young Canadians get off the streets will also help prevent crime.
It is vital that the roots of crime be addressed in order that
public safety is ensured. These steps in my opinion will be wise
investments in the future of this country. Therefore I
congratulate the Minister of Justice and the Standing Committee
on Justice and Legal Affairs in taking the first steps in reforming
the Young Offenders Act with Bill C-37.
I also encourage the government to continue its efforts to
eradicate crime by taking the initiatives that aim at preventing
crime before it is committed.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the member finished off by congratulating the
minister for taking the first steps. Perhaps we could say they are
baby steps. Why not bring in a bill that would comprehensively
deal with the problems of the Young Offenders Act?
At the beginning of her speech, the member talked about the
importance of rehabilitation. The problem with youth crime is
that many young offenders have never been habilitated in the
first place. Society needs to respond to protect itself while
respecting due process and offender needs.
Throughout her speech, the member recounted the problems
very clearly, but does she believe that Bill C-37 will fix the
problems identified? I think not.
She talked at length about the reverse onus provision and the
whole procedure of transfers especially for 16 and 17-year olds.
Perhaps she might address herself to the mind that it is basically
an admission that the Young Offenders Act is fundamentally
flawed for 16 and 17-year olds.
This brings up the topic that if we have to spend so much time
dealing with the special problems for 16 and 17-year olds then
the act is fundamentally flawed. Really it deals with the wrong
set of kids and 16 and 17-year olds should be dealt with in adult
court.
The member repeatedly cited the problems and the dilemmas
but then made that unreasonable leap of faith that Bill C-37 is
appropriate in responding to the problems that she cites.
However, I was encouraged that the member acknowledged
the notion of victims in the process. I would ask her, would she
then advocate or be willing to support the giving of legal
standing to victims in the young offender court?
Mrs. Payne: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. As I stated at the beginning of my comments, this
bill is not perfect. It is a first step toward revamping the present
act.
To speak to the comment he made on the victims of crime, as
we go along with this bill and the amendments that will come
subsequent to this process, these facts will be dealt with in time.
It is certainly a problem and one I am sure the committee will be
looking at in the future.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in his latest
report the Auditor General took what I consider to be a major
step forward in discharging the duties of his office.
In addition to the traditional accounts of waste and
questionable accounting practices, this time around he pointed
out that a major cause of wasted money-and in my view this is
the major cause-is not overpaid civil servants, the redecorating
of offices, or the wasting of staples and paper clips. The problem
the Auditor General focused on this time around is that we spend
billions of dollars a year on programs without ever saying what
the programs are intended to achieve, or how we measure their
success in achieving their goals.
9966
It is not hard to think of a government program to which this
criticism applies. Actually it is hard to think of one that it does
not apply to. We have social programs that hurt society. We
have family programs that destroy families. We have aboriginal
programs that keep Canada's Indians from ever achieving
self-sufficiency. We have trade programs that discourage free
trade. We have expenditure control legislation that allows
spending to spiral out of control, and so on. It is not a pretty
sight.
(1655)
Every time one of these programs fails, the solution is to
spend more money. We never ask what we are trying to do, how
we will know whether or not we have achieved it, and when we
will shut the program down if we do not see some success.
Getting to the Young Offenders Act, what is it supposed to be
doing? Is it doing it? How can we tell? If it is not, at what point
do we change our approach?
The purpose of the Young Offenders Act is quite clear. It is
intended to draw a distinction between hardened adult offenders
on the one hand and juveniles on the other. Then it is intended to
separate the hardened juvenile offender from the kid who got in
with the wrong crowd and made a foolish mistake. Most of us
would agree that the kid who made a foolish mistake and that kid
alone deserves a second chance.
I am sure many members are thinking: ``Come off it, Mike. In
this country we do not hold hardened adult criminals responsible
either'', and this is sadly true. It is difficult to pick up a
newspaper today without seeing some dreadful tale of an
innocent person abused or slaughtered by someone who ought
still to be in prison serving out their sentence. Perhaps our
governments do not take crime seriously even by adults, but the
public wants them to and the Liberals ignore that desire at their
grave peril.
Last time the Liberals formed the government the public got
so sick of their arrogance that it reduced them to some 40 seats
in Parliament in the 1984 election. Let me serve notice here and
now that if the Prime Minister and the cabinet ignore public
feelings about crime, that will be the good old days for the
Liberal Party.
If the Liberals hope to avoid such a debacle, there are so many
things they are doing that they had better not. They had better
not raise taxes for one thing. They had better not keep spending
more money than they take in for another. They had better apply
the Auditor General's critique to their entire crime policy. Is
crime being deterred? How do we measure it? If it is not, how do
we change the law so that it is?
To help the Liberals in this unfamiliar exercise of considering
whether what they are doing is actually working, I would like to
start by applying the Auditor General's criteria to the Young
Offenders Act and to these amendments to it.
The Young Offenders Act is supposed to give a second chance
to those who deserve it. Is that what it is doing? Or is it just
giving a licence to those under 18 to commit crimes? How can
we tell? It seems quite simple to me.
If the Young Offenders Act is working, those youths who are
given light sentences, who have their records sealed when they
reach the age of majority, who receive no punishment at all for
their misdeeds, should subsequently turn out to be better
citizens than those who are selected for more severe
punishment. Young people who get into trouble with the law
should be less inclined to continue their criminal careers into
adulthood than before there was the Young Offenders Act.
In short, if the Young Offenders Act is working, we would
either have no more youth crime than we had in the past or
perhaps a little bit more but a much lower rate of juvenile
delinquents going on to become adult criminals. If not, if youth
crime is skyrocketing and young offenders who receive a light
slap on the wrist for serious acts like robbery, assault, even rape
and murder go on to commit serious crimes as adults, then the
Young Offenders Act is failing.
To me, the scariest possibility would be that the young thugs
are manifesting an increasingly obvious awareness that they are
beyond the reach of the law because of the Young Offenders Act,
that they are responding rationally to the incentives government
has built into its policies. That would be easy to measure too.
Just look to see when the Young Offenders Act came into force
and then after a few years delay when teenagers came to
understand these provisions youth crime skyrocketed.
I wonder whether the government bothers to keep statistics on
these questions and if it does, whether it will release them. I
wonder whether we had less youth crime before the Young
Offenders Act or more. I wonder what proportion of those who
receive lenient sentences or have their records sealed when they
turn 18 go on to commit more serious crimes as opposed to those
who used to receive a stiff punishment for an evil act.
(1700)
I am submitting these as Order Paper questions because as
Canadians we have a right to know what is going on. That
includes knowing whether the Minister of Justice knows or cares
whether the Young Offenders Act is working. If it turns out that
when measured adequately against clear criteria the Young
Offenders Act is the failure it seems to be, then I wonder
something else. I wonder what the government's priorities are.
9967
Does the Minister of Justice think that his primary and
overwhelming responsibility is protecting the lives, liberties
and property of Canadian citizens and does he measure each
of his initiatives against that criterion? Or is he busy trying to
turn us all into socially aware, personally tolerant, cappuccino
drinking, fluently trilingual citizens of the global village of the
21st century? Is he too caught up in his social engineering to
protect society as it now exists?
Some will doubtless believe I am being unfair to the minister.
Some will doubtless maintain that the justice minister knows
exactly what the Young Offenders Act and these amendments to
it are supposed to achieve. And he knows exactly how to
measure success.
The Young Offenders Act, some will tell me, is part of a grand
social engineering project of this and previous Liberal
governments. It is the abolition of personal responsibility.
These people will further tell me that the Minister of Justice
knows exactly what the amendments are intended to achieve.
They are intended to deceive the bumpkins out in the hinterland
into thinking that crime is being punished and innocence
rewarded so that the project of relieving us all of responsibility
can proceed unmolested.
These people will tell me that the justice minister has very
clear ideas how to measure his success on this project. They will
say that if the justice minister can get the polls to say Canadians
think he is cracking down on youth crime, he will not actually
have to hold murderous young thugs accountable for their acts
of evil. I do not think so.
I prefer to be charitable and assume that the justice minister
and the Liberals are so convinced of their divine right to rule
over Canadians and reshape them for their own good that they do
not bother asking themselves whether what they are doing is
working.
That is why I have risen in the Chamber today, to tell the
justice minister as clearly and forcefully as I can that when his
party was elected on the promise of a better yesterday, voters
had in mind a time when jobs were more secure, the national
debt was far lower and the streets were a lot safer. That is what
they want to come back, not to the crazy experiments and wild
excesses of the Trudeau years.
I hope the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and the
entire government understand that Canadians really do believe
and cherish individual responsibility. They overwhelmingly
favour the right to own property. They overwhelmingly favour
politicians who listen to their constituents. They
overwhelmingly favour the right of law-abiding citizens to live
in freedom and in security. And they overwhelmingly favour
tougher action against crime and criminals of whatever age.
I call on the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and the
government to take back this legislation and to repudiate the
entire approach behind it. I call on them to recognize that the
most primary duty of a government is to protect the lives,
liberty and property of its citizens from force and fraud.
I call on them to develop and make public a set of standards
for measuring the success or failure of the Young Offenders Act
against this goal. And I call on them to amend it so that it works
or abolish it if it cannot be made to work.
Enough of softness on crime. Enough coddling. Enough
punishing the innocent and pardoning the guilty. Either they do
it now or the Reform government does it after 1997 while they
collect their undeserved pensions and write their wistful
memoirs.
That would be simple justice. Simple justice is what the
Canadian public wants and simple justice is what the Reform
Party is going to give them.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member. He acknowledges how
much we are doing positively and how many millions we are
spending within the juvenile justice system to respond to
juvenile crime. Sometimes we do not hear about that but a lot of
wonderful things are being done and great effort is made
throughout the country within the juvenile justice system. It is
not a matter of either or, but a great amount of resources are
being spent.
(1705)
He makes the point that we must always evaluate our social
programs for what is actually delivered. It is a point that must
not be forgotten, and he mentions the role of the Auditor General
in that.
The member reflects the experience of the community and
how the message has been sent by the operations of the Young
Offenders Act. He points out that we have had the Young
Offenders Act for 10 years, and if it was working properly it
would have acquired the acceptance of the community. The
opposite is true. The community's experience with the act has
resulted in the act's repudiation and a lack of confidence that it
would have earned if it was working properly.
The member also pointed out the fact that the Young
Offenders Act represents a Liberal social philosophy that is
really not reflective of mainstream Canadian values. He talked
about the issue of community accountability. The final measure
of what should be done with the Young Offenders Act is, what
does the public want?
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his comments and I would reiterate what I said in my
intervention. We have to measure the success of our programs
against clear criteria. We have to evaluate whether or not the
legislation that is in effect right now or legislation that is
brought into the House is actually working.
9968
The Auditor General said in his report that so many of the
things the government does, fails. It fails the test of
accountability. It does not achieve the lofty goals that it sets
out to achieve. The Young Offenders Act is another example
of that very deep malaise that sits in our federal government
and has for a long time.
The programs that are brought into the House or that are on
the books right now have to be evaluated in clear terms. It has to
be demonstrated they actually work and that Canadians are
satisfied with them.
Clearly Canadians from coast to coast are not satisfied with
the Young Offenders Act and they will not be satisfied with the
amendments as proposed.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to the
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill, this afternoon.
[English]
We are attempting to reconcile two views; one which looks at
what one would refer to as tough treatment, incarceration,
dealing with young people who create situations that are
unacceptable to society in a very direct and sometimes I would
suggest almost brutal kind of way.
On the other hand, another group of people somehow believe
that if you do not look at youth crime, and if you are patient and
understanding and soft, that it will go away. Surely the answer
lies somewhere in the middle. Surely there is a balance to be
struck.
This is what the bill is all about. It attempts to reconcile two
views. It attempts to establish a correct balance, and that correct
balance would obviously vary according to the values that an
individual holds.
We are asked to define what is a fair response. What is a just
response? What is a correct response to a crime situation when it
is undertaken by a young man or woman? That is extremely
difficult. I do not pretend to have all of the answers and it would
be presumptuous of me to suggest that I do.
I want to share some ideas in the spirit of debate to try to
address a very serious situation. I do not believe that you can
wish it away and it is simply going to disappear. I do not believe
that incarceration and rough treatment is the answer either.
(1710 )
The government has to manage. It has to protect society. At
the same time, simply putting people away does not solve the
problem. It does not even come close to solving the problem.
One can look at rough treatment or direct treatment or
incarceration. A lot of people would say, ``not pandering to
those criminals''. Do they look at the success rate of reacting
that way? What happens when we put people away? What are the
costs when people are put away? We do not talk about that.
There are costs. It costs a lot of money to detain people today.
Obviously it has to be done because society has to be protected
in certain circumstances. As a solution it is not only costly but I
think it is extremely dysfunctional.
Look at the people who are put away. Since they are young
people many of them are eventually released. Once they are
released how many go on to integrate into society and lead
productive lives? What is the success rate of that kind of
approach?
Pretending that no problems exist will not resolve anything.
We have to acknowledge that there are difficulties in society that
are caused by real reasons. The real challenge to us as
parliamentarians, as members of Canadian society, is to find out
why it is that people commit crimes.
Some people suggest there are good and bad people. That is
too simplistic. There are people who along the way, for a variety
of reasons that we do not always understand nearly as well as we
should, commit criminal behaviour that is totally unacceptable
to society. That is where the challenge lies. If we could
understand that, we could respond. In responding to that we
could cut down the amount of crime in society. It would be much
less costly, much less dysfunctional and a much more humane
and satisfying kind of way of dealing with our fellow human
being whether he or she is or is not a criminal.
[Translation]
We are trying to strike a balance between those who feel that
imprisonment is the solution and those who feel that patience
and education will eventually bring an end to this type of
violence, abuse and criminal behaviour.
[English]
The bill includes a number of serious measures. I am not
disappointed when I hear people suggest other or additional
measures. That does not bother me. What does bother me is
when the efforts of a very prominent Canadian are belittled, a
justice minister who knows a lot about the law and criminal
behaviour and who has taken the time to consult widely. Then
we pose as supposed experts and simply belittle that which he
has produced. That is arrogance.
Mr. Speaker, I know you would agree with me that when
members on the opposite side suggest that members of our party
are arrogant, there is no greater arrogance than pretending that
one is an expert, that one has all of the solutions to all of the
complex problems of society when one in fact does not. They
come forward with simple, glib, catchy little solutions that
pretend to resolve, so they can go away and suggest they are
really listening to people and applying those solutions, and they
9969
are going to correct the ills of society, that is arrogance. That is
the most profound arrogance that one can find.
Unfortunately we find it a great deal in some members of the
House. Some of them are raising their hands. I wish the camera
could catch them right now so their electors could see firsthand
who they are. Unfortunately that is not possible. Perhaps they
will have the courage to get up and ask question, so we can have
a bit of a debate. I can say a few more things to them then.
The bill includes increased sentences. Has anyone talked
about that? It includes going to adult court in certain
circumstances, when the crime is sufficiently serious to warrant
that kind of situation. It includes extending the time served
before being considered for parole. Has anyone from the
opposite side mentioned that? It includes a better sharing of
information among those people who deal with youth and
criminal behaviour by young people.
(1715)
It also includes rehabilitation and treatment. That underlies
the whole notion here. We want to rehabilitate. We want to be
able to treat. We want to keep young people out of penal
institutions. It is costly. It is dysfunctional. It does not do them
any good as human beings. It protects society and, as I
mentioned before, when protection is needed that is clearly what
we would do.
The legislation includes the possibility of victim impact
statements when sentencing, something that is now used in adult
situations only. It talks about conditional supervision which is
rare in a number of circumstances today but which is extended.
It talks about medical and psychological assessments. We no
longer need to get consent. We can ask for those assessments to
assist us in making better, more sensitive judgments that will be
practical and address the real problems. A very important point
is the possibility of restitution to the victims of crime. It has
many components the opposite side has not addressed.
The major challenge to us today is twofold. It is to look at the
legislation not in a partisan way but in the spirit of openness to
see what merits support and what can be improved. Surely
members on the opposite side see some positive features in the
legislation. They can bring about suggestions that may lead to
improvements. That is one of the challenges.
Another challenge before us today is to try to understand
better than we do why it is these young people turn to criminal
behaviour. If we could understand that we could prevent crime.
Preventing crime would ensure that there is less incarceration,
less cost to society and more productive lives being lived by
young people.
[Translation]
I believe I am reaching the end of my speech. I will stop here,
and I look forward to questions from my colleagues across the
floor.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are listening on this side of the House. Hopefully
our constituents are listening at home as well.
I appreciate the hon. member's comments about Bill C-37,
the reforms to the Young Offenders Act. He said that if we had
any suggestions he would welcome them and that we should
bring them forward to the government. We have been trying to
do that at every opportunity in the debate on the Young
Offenders Act and the specific bill.
It is high time young people who commit violent repeat
offences are held accountable. We talk about that often. We
should quit blaming society, family or peer pressure for their
crimes; they have to be held accountable.
I wrote down from the hon. member's speech that he does not
believe incarceration and rough treatment are the answer. Some
people would differ when it comes to repeat offenders and
offenders who commit horrendous violent crimes.
I would like to refer to a newspaper article and ask the hon.
member if he would agree with this type of treatment and
indicate whether it has some potential in Canada. I refer to an
article about the Toulson Boot Camp in Maryland, U.S.A.,
which states:
Offenders between the ages of 17 and 25, sentenced to five years or less, can
sign up for the six-month boot camp program at Toulson. And then you're
home-free on parole.
The program at Toulson is modelled on the U.S. Marines' boot camps and
about half the instructors are former marines. It emphasizes discipline and
accountability.
So lifting a log isn't about lifting a log. It's about teamwork and overcoming
adversity.
And moving a rock pile isn't just moving rocks. It's about being responsible
for your actions and putting effort into work.
Toulson is a little different than other American boot camps, however.
That's because, in addition to the strict military regime and physical training,
inmates also get job training, schooling (more than 70 per cent receive their
high school equivalency diploma before they leave) and strictly supervised
probation.
Boot camps without such measures find 50 to 70 per cent of their ex-cons end
up back in the clink-the same rate as for conventional U.S. prisons where
inmates can do whatever they want all day.
According to statistics compiled by Toulson officials, only 20 per cent of
inmates released from the boot camp have reoffended.
9970
(1720)
In light of those statistics-he has asked for
suggestions-would that perhaps be something that Canada
should be looking at to put some of the violent repeat offenders
into a structure such as that one and hopefully we would have a
better success rate than we have had in our rehabilitation
programs of the past?
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased by the question and
I shall attempt to answer it in a responsible way.
Initially there was a comment from the member's party
indicating that my party was prone to attempting all kinds of
programs without appropriate evaluations. Then this hon.
member puts forth the suggestion of a boot camp in his question,
a particular boot camp where supposedly there has been some
success.
I would caution in taking one example only and extrapolating
it to the whole of youth crime or the whole of Canada. Whether
one calls it boot camp or an alternative way of serving a sentence
or being socialized differently, certainly we can look at it and we
should. I know this is happening in certain parts of Canada.
I deplore, and my colleague did not suggest it, when some
members indicate that boot camps sound tough. It sounds as if
we are doing something when we are not doing anything except
for symbolic reasons. I think that is hypocritical. I stress again
that my colleague did not suggest that was the reason, but in
some cases it is hypocritical, political and has no intent but
trying to respond to a group of people out there that believes it is
the answer to all youth crime.
Another point I want to make is a very important one. I take
issue with my colleague in this regard, at least slightly. I did not
say that incarceration was not the answer. I say that
incarceration needed to be the answer in certain cases to protect
society. He can check the blues. I did say that.
I hope my colleagues will listen very carefully but I wanted to
make a point-and I am delighted to be able to make it again
because it is an important one-for those who suggest that we
should simply put people into an institution and throw away the
key. There are some people who suggest that because they do not
know any better. They do not understand the situation. They
keep hoping for simplistic solutions. I simply suggest to them
that approach to incarceration, with that kind of motivation, is
not the answer.
We have a greater responsibility toward our fellow human
beings, whether or not we like them, whether or not they are
offenders, and that is to try to find out what we can do in a
responsible way to ensure that they are contributing members of
Canadian society.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-37 as it
addresses an area of concern to me and certainly a matter of
concern to my constituents.
The Minister of Justice has responded quite quickly to public
concern about problems with the Young Offenders Act through
the amendments he is proposing in Bill C-37. As the
government has been doing with other important pieces of
legislation, the public has been consulted widely on possible
changes and improvements both before the bill was drafted and
tabled in the House and subsequently in committee.
(1725)
These amendments therefore are the reflection of wide public
consultations and intended to respond to wide public concerns.
That does not mean they will please everyone. Indeed critics
have argued that they are either too harsh or too lenient. That
usually means they are just about right.
The Young Offenders Act has had two purposes since its
inception. One is the protection of society. The other is to
interrupt the beginning of a criminal career and try our best to
rehabilitate young offenders so that they do not become lifelong,
hardened criminals.
In response to public concern the minister has amended the
declaration of the principle of the act to make it clear that the
primary objective of the youth system, however, must be the
protection of society.
This can only be achieved if we have a real commitment as
well to rehabilitation and to crime prevention. This means that
for chronic serious offenders, judges are clearly authorized in
the bill to have proper psychological or medical evaluations
done.
It would be a tragedy, for instance, if young persons who
might otherwise be entirely treatable, correctable and able to be
put on a better path of life through medical or therapeutic help
were simply to be punished and then released into society
possibly to commit increasingly serious crimes as they become
adults and lifelong criminals as they mature.
Increasing the sentences for first degree murder to a
maximum of ten years and for second degree murder to seven
years is something that I think has a great deal of public support.
In making these sentencing changes the minister is addressing
the need for sentencing for violent crimes that matches both the
public's perception of the seriousness of the crime as well as the
need to hold young offenders accountable for the damage their
crimes have caused.
I do not mean only greater punishment but, again combining
the two purposes of the bill, also more reasonable time for
rehabilitation and counselling. Our party in opposition argued
for these longer sentences simply because we knew there were
9971
some young offenders, even those who committed violent
crimes, who could be rehabilitated. It cannot necessarily be
done in the five years that the act currently allows.
As well by transferring 16 and 17-year olds to adult court
when they have been charged with murder, attempted murder,
manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and aggravated assault,
we are sending a message to violent offenders that they will be
held accountable regardless of their age.
There is still the ability nevertheless for young persons to
apply to have their cases remain in youth court if the objectives
of protection of the public and rehabilitation can better be met
there. The onus is on young offenders to prove that exceptional
treatment rather than adult court is merited in their case.
We can see that the amendments are improvements of the
current system that allow for flexibility only in exceptional
cases. They will also allow police officers, school officials and
welfare agencies to share information on young offenders for
the better protection of public safety. It says to our communities
that while the interest of young offenders must be taken into
account there are other important interests and concerns.
For youth who have committed less serious crimes,
alternatives to custody should be considered as the bill would
allow. I return to the second purpose of the Young Offenders Act
which is to ensure, wherever possible, that young offenders are
given the opportunity to develop a better way of life and not
continue with a life of crime.
Let us turn to fitting the punishment to the crime. The bill
allows for the kinds of alternatives to custody as a method of
restitution for the victim, or some type of community service
that may be far more productive than the more traditional
approaches of incarceration.
(1730)
These amendments as presented in Bill C-37 are not perfect
solutions, nor are they the end of the process. They are
improvements. They show Canadians that the government is
serious about protecting their personal safety and their property.
At the same time they offer the opportunity for rehabilitation
where possible and feasible and for crime prevention.
Moreover, as the House is aware, the minister has asked the
parliamentary committee of justice to undertake a thorough
review of the Young Offenders Act. We realize that this is just a
first step. This will provide the forum for additional changes and
improvements to meet both purposes of the act, the protection of
public safety and the rehabilitation wherever possible of young
offenders.
These are issues that need to be addressed. We need to know
why some of our young people are falling into criminal ways.
We do need to examine the relationship between youth services
and the Young Offenders Act.
A very recent study has indicated that a violent child of six
will become a violent adolescent and a violent adult. Right now
we do not have services in our country or in our communities
that are nearly adequate to turn that young child's life around at
the age of six rather than waiting until the age of 16 when they
are damaging themselves and others in a far more serious way.
We need to understand how the government can attack some
of the underlying causes of crime such as poverty, family
violence and drug abuse. Members opposite may not want to
acknowledge that sometimes somebody else is responsible for
the criminal behaviour of the young person. In may cases, far
more than they would like to know about, criminal behaviour is
very directly linked to sexual abuse as a child. Much as they
would like to simply put the burden of proof on that 12, 13 or
14-year old young person, we as a society have to take some
responsibility for those among that population who were abused
in a society that failed to protect them.
The members opposite mentioned certain ways of dealing
with young offenders. I think we have to be more open and that is
why a more fundamental review can look at other methods of
treating young offenders while they are in custody or under
supervision of some kind. It is only by addressing these more
fundamental issues that we will make real strides in keeping our
youth out of the justice system and turning their lives around
where possible when they come into conflict with the law.
We need to look at every possible investment toward keeping
our society a healthy place for children to grow up so that future
generations are not looking on our youth as a problem, a source
of violence and a source of fear to our citizens and to our society.
As I said, this is the first step in that process. It is not the end
of the process. I look forward to the Reform Party supporting the
progress that is being made in this bill and participating fully in
the ongoing debate about further improvements.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
suppose one concern of the Reform Party that I think has been
fairly well expressed is the lack of success that the current YOA
has had.
I wonder if the member could enlighten me on some things,
for example the fact that 47 per cent of all cases where charges
are made under the Young Offenders Act are for repeat offences;
19 per cent of all those charges are for the fifth offence under the
Young Offenders Act.
(1735 )
In her judgment, what in the amendments is going to actually
change that? What in the amendments is really going to work to
9972
the resolution of that problem or do these amendments not touch
the reality of the repeat offences?
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how those statistics
compare with adult crime. However, what the member has just
said is that 53 per cent of charges against young offenders are
laid against first time offenders. They have never offended
before. The fact that only 20 per cent have then gone on to offend
more than twice is a fairly good indication to me that there is a
reasonably high level of rehabilitation because of the act and the
effect it has had since it was first implemented.
However, in the cases for which there is the greatest public
concern, the kind of amendments that I think are going to make a
substantial difference is for severe and violent crime, murder,
assault, aggravated assault, sexual assault and so on, and the
requirement to have the young person tried in adult court
according to adult rules, the possibility of longer sentences, up
to double what they are now.
I also feel that oftentimes when we do incarcerate young
people we put them into a school of crime. We put them into
contact with people who have been in the system perhaps more
than once or twice, who are much more knowledgeable about
crime and living off the avails or crime. That I do not think is a
desirable situation.
I certainly believe in the requirement to look at non-custodial
solutions, especially where the young person is being held
directly accountable through compensation to the victim
directly for the harm they have done or through community
service to compensate the community directly for the harm that
he or she has done to the community. Those are the kinds of
measures, among others, that put a direct link between the crime
that has been committed and the effects of that crime. To me that
kind of discipline is a productive kind of discipline.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This concludes the period
of questions and comments and also concludes this stage of
debate. As we continue third reading of this legislation,
members will now have a maximum of 10-minute interventions
without questions or comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since June
2, 1994, when Bill C-37 to amend the Young Offenders Act was
tabled, I have been unable to convince myself that the federal
government is seriously trying to make those of us in Parliament
and the people in Quebec and the rest of Canada believe that its
proposed reform will increase public protection.
As you know, I have more than 21 years' experience in
teaching and have learned to trust. I have learned that, in life,
you have to offer a second chance. I learned this during all those
years. The debate, this debate, is simply a public relations
exercise by the government in an effort to reassure part of the
population about its public institutions.
The reality is that the existing legislation contains all the
provisions needed by the courts and crown prosecutors to give
society proper protection. The problem is one of enforcing the
provisions in the Young Offenders Act, and not a complete
revision of it. In my view, changing the commas and periods in a
text will not make it suddenly more effective.
Did the Minister of Justice first make sure that the existing
Young Offenders Act no longer met the needs of the public and
society before changing it? Did the Minister of Justice first take
into account the many recommendations by the principal
stakeholders?
(1740)
Considering that most authorities concerned want more
latitude in enforcing the current legislation, and not a repressive
and intimidating reform of the act, why is the Liberal
government nevertheless going ahead with its crusade against
young people?
We can only wonder why the federal government made this
one of its key issues. The Liberals' red book holds the key. In
fact, the Minister of Justice is using his role in the government
merely to keep a purely partisan campaign promise, without
regard for its economic, social and moral impact.
It is these kinds of actions which, in my opinion, cause
taxpayers to become disillusioned with politics. Such displays
of disregard for institutions and the duty of the elected is
revolting to the taxpayers of Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Furthermore, I do not believe that an act should be amended
just because 30 per cent of the population believes that crime is
on the rise and that offences are becoming more violent,
especially when current statistics prove the opposite. How many
times will we have to say it? We will never resolve the problem
of violence in society by sending people to jail earlier and
earlier on in life.
Longer and heavier sentences, lowering the minimum age for
assuming criminal responsibility and extending measures
available to repress young people will not resolve the problem
either-they will have the opposite effect. The proposed
amendments to the bill counter the ultimate goal: protection of
society and of young people.
During the last election campaign, I had the privilege-and I
mean privilege-of visiting a halfway house, where some 20
young men lived. I spoke with them for over an hour about their
future and I left the place firmly believing that they deserved a
second chance, even though they had committed reprehensible
acts.
I think that the government should concentrate on crime
prevention programs. That is where emphasis should be put, and
9973
these programs are our greatest challenge. That is the approach
that Quebec is taking, with great success I might add.
In consequence, the bill's main objective should be
reintegration. A long term crime prevention program, with the
aim of deterring young offenders from continuing to act in a
reprehensible way, is what is really needed.
On this issue, Quebec is sending a clear message to Ottawa:
``Let us continue to resolve our problems in the way we see fit
without imposing rules to follow or amendments that may
satisfy other provinces, but do not fit Quebec's experience at
all''. This is another area where I think Quebec is distinct.
Quebec has a rich experience. Those looking for inspiration
need look no further than Quebec's Youth Protection Act. In
addition, the work and reports of Quebec's Department of
Health and Social Services are also good sources of information.
Finally, studies have been conducted recently in Quebec. These
studies, the tailor made protection, the jointly devised plan, and
the protection of young persons, more than legislation, bring out
the valuable experience and background of the Quebec system,
as well as a number of problems to be resolved to ensure more
effective enforcement of the act.
(1745)
In Quebec, there is a well established consensus. The
consensus in Quebec is that the principles and rights accorded to
the child under Quebec legislation must be preserved, while at
the same time stipulating the means of implementation and the
adjustments required by social change and recent legislative
reforms.
In regard to young offenders, Quebec's perspective and
experience are diametrically opposed to the reforms proposed
by the federal government. Quebec stresses rehabilitation while
the federal government's proposals are repressive and
hard-line. In other words, Quebec does not regard life terms
with repeat offenders as a solution for young persons who are
often grappling with serious family and social problems.
In conclusion, to ease matters the Minister of Justice could
grant Quebec special status to allow us to preserve this credible
experience in regard to protecting young persons and this moral
and social duty towards young Quebecers.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on these amendments to the
Young Offenders Act. Like most communities,
Guelph-Wellington is concerned about crime and the safety of
our community. Its people welcome any initiative that
encourages public protection and crime prevention.
Young offenders are not new. The House of Commons enacted
the Juvenile Delinquents Act in 1908. The government of the
day believed that youth were not to be treated as criminals.
Rather, the act stated that they should be treated as misdirected
children in need of aid, encouragement, help and assistance. It
sought to save children through social intervention. Almost 90
years later we are still concerned with giving children aid,
encouragement and assistance.
My community of Guelph-Wellington knows the
importance of children. We pride ourselves in providing quality
education and preparing our children for their future. Our
industry is one of the finest in the country, built to withstand
radical changes in the marketplace and designed to be the
forefront of technology so our children can remain in our
community and become active participants in our society.
They are concerned about deficit reduction, not for their sake,
but so their children and grandchildren will not be burdened by
our excesses. Like almost every community in Canada, we are
concerned about youth crime. We know the majority of our
children are good and live their lives free of crime.
However, others do demand our attention. We are concerned
about them. Programs like Guelph Change Now, a crisis and
counselling service for youth, and START from the Second
Chance Employment Counselling, aim to help young people,
some young offenders, in housing and life skills.
My community knows the causes of youth crime are many. It
wants this government here and now to deal with the issues of
family violence, poverty and illiteracy. It also wants us to
respond now to its dissatisfaction with the current treatment of
violent young offenders.
Last June 16, I attended a community forum sponsored by the
Guelph Mercury. The forum dealt with the Young Offenders Act.
During the discussion it became apparent that
Guelph-Wellington residents are concerned with the
prevention of crime. They want more respect for the law by
putting emphasis on the home, in the schools and on preventing
young people from becoming criminals. They also want more
money spent on rehabilitation. This was a clear message I
received.
(1750)
Following the forum I wrote to the Minister of Justice and
informed him that these people do not see the problem with
legislation. Rather, they see the problem in the court room. They
look at the courts as too lenient and so much so that our young
people are no longer deterred by the sentencing. They ask me in
this government to make sentencing tougher so that young
people will realize that their actions will be punished.
9974
This legislation today responds to their concerns. My
constituents have asked us to increase sentences for teenagers
convicted of first and second degree murder. They believe that
five years is not enough.
They want more young offenders tried in adult court when
charged with serious personal injury offences and they want
improved measures for information sharing between
professionals. They know that it is often too easy for a young
offender to fit between the cracks because school officials,
police and child welfare agencies sometimes do not share
information when the public may be at risk.
At that forum and in letters and telephone calls I received
from constituents, they recognize the need for rehabilitation
services. They contact me seeking ways to improve the judicial
system and I have heard from parents whose children disregard
their authority because they believe that they can safely hide
behind provisions of the Young Offenders Act. This is not right.
These children may lose respect for authority because they
believe that our system is too lenient. Mothers worry that their
children from a very early age have learned not to respect the
law. These parents and in many ways their children have asked
us to respond. It is a clear call for help.
Guelph-Wellington residents want stiffer penalties for
young offenders who commit serious crimes. They want victims
to be able to make a statement if they so wish about how crime
has affected them and they want stricter controls over the young
offender who is in the community while serving probation and a
quicker response if a youth should break the conditions of that
release.
They want the courts to have as much information as possible
when a young offender is sentenced. Currently young offenders
must consent to treatment. This legislation responds to my
constituents' concern for an effective response to chronic and
serious young offenders.
I have said before that my constituents demand excellence in
many of my speeches. They want legislation passed by the
House that effectively deals with their concerns and improves
the quality of life for them and their families.
This bill betters the Young Offenders Act and enables it to
deal more effectively with serious youth crime. The changes
proposed in this legislation help further protect our community
where you and I live. Their aim is to make young people more
responsible for their actions while recognizing the special
circumstances of their youth.
They respond to the concerns of people in
Guelph-Wellington and elsewhere in order to make our
community better. Sergeant Brent Eden of the young offenders
branch of the Guelph police force described to the people who
attended the forum on the Young Offenders Act as concerned
with making things better, not just blaming the system, not just
blaming the police and not just blaming the government.
These people know that this legislation will make things
better. They have told me that the police support this legislation.
That is what they want from this government, that it is what they
demand from this government.
These amendments continue our goals of offering aid,
encouragement, help and assistance to our children. The goals
are simple. Punish those who commit the crime and help
rehabilitate these young people so that they can contribute to our
society.
We want tough legislation which gives a clear message. We
will not tolerate murder, assault and other criminal acts. We
want to help our young people but we will not accept certain
behaviour. This behaviour will be punished.
During the last federal election I promised the people of
Guelph-Wellington that I would support reforms to the Young
Offenders Act. It was asked many times of me. They want things
to deter young people from committing crime, something to
provide real justice and to rehabilitate our young people to help
them build better lives. This legislation and the broad review
which will be taken by the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs does just that.
These deserve our support. These respond to the concerns
expressed by my constituents and people across Canada.
In its own platform, the Reform Party promised Canadians
adequate punishment for young offenders. I look forward to its
support for this bill because it keeps that promise as well.
The majority of our young people know that hard work and
education will be the key for their success. They want to
contribute to making our country better and to be a part of the
Canadian dream. They want children of their own.
For their sake and for ours, I will support Bill C-37 and call on
this House to vote in favour of this bill; legislation that aids,
helps, assists and encourages our children and our future.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It now being 5.55 p.m.,
the House will proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
9975
9975
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of providing a fairer future for Atlantic Canada by adopting policies
and programs to create jobs through initiative funds for co-operatives,
encouraging small business, upgrading municipal infrastructures and
diversifying single industry communities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the member for
Moncton for seconding my motion. Basically, as the motion
indicates, I am calling on the government to consider the
advisability of providing a fairer future for Atlantic Canada by
adopting policies and programs to create jobs through initiative
funds for co-operatives, encouraging small business, upgrading
municipal infrastructures and diversifying single industry
communities.
Basically this motion is broad enough to include a major
reassessment of government policy toward Atlantic Canada, a
reassessment of whether those policies have been successful and
an opportunity to consider maybe doing things in a rather
different way.
What I will do is not spend too much time on the problems but
put forward some ideas for solutions. I will draw upon the recent
experience in Saskatchewan and British Columbia with regard
to mechanisms for bringing together diverse groups in our
society with the aim of building a vision for the future to which
we can all be committed and to which we can then direct
government policy and regulation.
Atlantic Canada has long been a region dependent on its
natural resources and on the involvement of the public sector.
Both have been allowed to decline as government policies and
private sector decisions have conspired to create an
environment that undermines long term development and
sustainability of many of the communities and economies of the
region.
The economic and political policies of the past that have
resulted in the underdevelopment of the Atlantic region must be
challenged and overcome. Policies that have promoted the
export of unprocessed and semi-processed resources along with
jobs that otherwise might be involved in that value added
activity must be replaced with value added production and the
skilled jobs that accompany those processes.
This will require the federal and provincial governments to be
much more involved with the local communities in reaching this
goal. Also we have to be cognizant of the impact of federal
cutbacks over the last decade to the support structure of both
rural and urban life in Atlantic Canada and be prepared to
respond to those extra difficulties.
The future course of economic development must begin with
the involvement of people in their communities working with
their governments. This will require a new partnership with the
federal government, the people, the communities and
institutions; a partnership unlike any relationship that currently
exists in Atlantic Canada.
In order to make that relationship work we must commit
ourselves to some real and achievable goals. It should not be
unreasonable to expect in Atlantic Canada that we move toward
full employment; that we move toward a full opportunity
economy which builds on the diversity of Atlantic Canada and
ensures the full participation of women, youth, aboriginal
people, visible minorities and people with disabilities.
(1800)
It should be within our realm of opportunity to consider the
importance of community involvement and the community
control of economic decision-making. We should be building an
economy based on environmentally sustainable economic
principles. Nowhere other than in the Atlantic provinces have
we seen the impact of not ensuring that our economic policies
are environmentally sustainable.
We should be able to ensure the protection and the
improvement of our social programs to support Atlantic
Canadians in their times of difficulty between jobs and
particularly now when we see that a major resource is simply not
there to support the population as it did previously.
We need a new emphasis on co-operative development, an
emphasis that places people and their communities ahead of
corporate profit. We also need transportation systems that meet
the needs of the regions so that products made within the region
can effectively be moved to markets.
Atlantic regional development is not just about increasing
incomes. Development is a process by which human capabilities
and natural resources combine to fulfil social, cultural,
political, psychological and material needs. This is a process in
which increased self-reliance, independence of individuals,
communities and the region are achieved by building on the
strength that thrives on the interdependence of equals.
As someone who lived in Atlantic Canada for more than a
decade, there are no more independent people in the country,
wanting to work together for the benefit of all rather than work
against each other so that only a few benefit.
Development can only be sustained if it strengthens the social
fabric, building a consensus as to goals, values and means and
focusing on increased productivity and the needs and potential
of those in society, particularly the most disadvantaged. An
integral component of real economic development strategy for
9976
Atlantic Canada is the reduction of the inequity of incomes and
the removal of the pain of poverty for so many of our citizens. It
is clear from the writings of a wide range of economists that
inequality of income is a major drain on economic growth.
These goals of building together will only be achieved if the
process is from the bottom up, with people participating in the
decisions that affect them. People in communities must
recognize that they have a capacity and a responsibility to shape
and direct the development process at all levels. That capacity
and responsibility must be encouraged through the planning
process and through the role that government plays.
The regional development policies of previous governments
have always been controlled from the top down. Surely we
believe that people in the community have the best interests of
that community at heart. People who are rooted in a community
have the most at stake in evaluating and encouraging sustainable
development. It is critical that we use that resource, that
understanding and that community commitment. We should
support community economic development that gives
communities a true sense of ownership and increases local
control over the economy.
It has been very clear that allowing people to come in from
outside, reap the profits and leave is a devastating strategy and
one that has long term negative effects, not long term beneficial
effects. As much as possible development should be owned and
managed locally, be located within the community, provide
work for local people, make use of local materials and serve
community needs for products and services. The best types of
economic development activities are those that maintain a
community focus.
Let me make one more general comment with regard to this. If
economic development is to work in Atlantic Canada it must
pursue the principle of economic self-reliance. It is no longer
possible in this country, if it ever was possible, to maintain
industries and economic units that are no longer efficient. We
need to pursue a principle of economic self-reliance, harnessing
all of its resources to both determine and meet the needs of the
people of Atlantic Canada. As I have said, that means the control
of the resources and economic institutions must be much more
firmly in the hands of Atlantic Canadians.
(1805 )
In order to ensure that community economic development
objectives are met, one strategy would be to encourage the
development of locally based community development
organizations. They could represent all sectors of the
community. Their function could be to oversee discussions,
decisions and implementation of development projects.
This would ensure that the communities, in co-operation with
the private and public sectors, would be instrumental in making
decisions about the kind of development that would occur and
would be able to ensure the community would benefit most from
that development.
They could be coalitions of local, social, business, financial
and labour organizations, as well as co-operatives and
governments. They could perform the function of co-ordinating
development within those various regions. They could be
responsible for the allocation of whatever public funds might be
available within those regions to ensure that those funds are
used to the best possible advantage.
One very good example of how this could work is in Cape
Breton. An organization called New Dawn Enterprises, which I
have visited in the past, has assisted in developing a network of
firms and facilities throughout Cape Breton. This development
corporation holds assets of some $10 million and has become
involved in a very wide range of activities from construction to
real estate to care for the elderly. There are examples within
Atlantic Canada we could learn from and utilize across the
whole region.
Across Atlantic Canada there is a large, effective, efficient
and responsive network of co-operatives we could also build on.
Atlantic Canadians have built a co-operative movement which
attests to their resilience and creativity in the face of adversity.
Those co-operatives maintain jobs in the communities, provide
services to the communities and provide local control to ensure
that local needs are met. People have a stake in those enterprises
and they often are more productive as a result.
It is necessary to ensure, at both the federal and provincial
levels of government, that we remove any barriers to
co-operative development and that we ensure and encourage the
development of co-operatives across the region.
This is clearly an integral part of the development of Atlantic
Canada. In the last decade, 1980 to 1989, small firms created 90
per cent of the new jobs in Atlantic Canada, while large firms
saw reductions in employment capacities.
A report that was done by Enterprise Cape Breton found it was
locally based operations which were the most successful.
Projects that received $100,000 or less in the form of support
had a success rate of 72 per cent, at an average cost of $23,000
per job, while those projects receiving $1 million or more had a
failure rate of 71 per cent, with an average cost of $154,000 per
job. The proof in Atlantic Canada is that it is small business that
is going
9977
to create jobs, and it is small business on which we should focus
our activities.
The agencies that we have in operation in Atlantic Canada
also need to be reconsidered. As I have pointed out they have not
worked very well. Their support, in large sums of money, to
large enterprises have not given benefit to the community as one
would have wanted. However, support in small sums to small
businesses have done so. We need to ensure that the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency really becomes an advocate for
employment creation and economic development in the region
and is not used, as it has been in that past, as a political slush
fund. We need to reconsider and reassess the agencies that we
use as arms of government in the development of Atlantic
Canada.
I have talked about co-operatives but credit unions also have
an important role in Atlantic Canada and we need to encourage
them as well. I will give one example of a real success story to
show how credit unions can really contribute to the economic
development of the region.
In 1984, in Eagle River, Labrador, the Bank of Montreal
closed its branch saying it was no longer a viable operation,
which is a fairly familiar picture across Canada. With the aid of
the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company the
community was able to establish its own credit union. In fact, it
had the co-operation of the caisse populaire located in the
neighbouring Quebec community. The credit union has been
able to provide basic essential financial services to people in
that area.
(1810 )
In the less than four years that this financial institution has
existed it has provided more than $3 million in loans to local
residents. It is a viable, profitable and locally owned enterprise,
showing that credit unions can have a major role to play in the
development of Atlantic Canada and across the country.
We should do what we can to support and nurture credit
unions, especially those that are small and just beginning and
need some support. There are many things that we can do. For
example, governments could use credit unions much more than
they do now as the depositories of funds or as their current
accounts.
Much of Atlantic Canada is made up of single industry towns.
Those are vulnerable communities, vulnerable economic units.
Atlantic Canada is fortunate to have such resources in our
communities but they must be managed by those who have the
greatest stake in ensuring the long term viability of those
resources in those communities, the people themselves.
Several resource based industries are in crisis and we should
not tolerate that situation any longer. The most obvious of
course is the fishery. Many of us today received representations
indicating that a stock that had not been fished all that much in
the past, turbot, is now under serious threat as a result of
overfishing. It is important for Canada to exert its jurisdictional
power to make sure that this resource does not go the way of the
cod stocks which we all know so much about.
It is important for single industry towns, based on natural
resources and non-renewable resources, to be much more
effectively upgraded in the interest of the communities in which
they operate.
I will not say any more about the fisheries. We all know what a
disaster that has been. It is primarily a disaster because of
federal policy mismanagement over the last few years,
something we cannot do anything about now but something we
do have to remember and treat as a lesson in the future.
The same sorts of concerns can be expressed about the
forestry industry. In comparison to forestry industries in the rest
of the world, a great proportion of forestry in Atlantic Canada is
privately owned: New Brunswick, 49 per cent; Nova Scotia,
about 70 per cent. This resource has not been used for the benefit
of those living in Atlantic Canada but rather to benefit the
corporations that control it and, which incidentally, pursue
forestry practices that in their home countries they would not be
able to pursue.
Therefore, we have to ensure that resource is also one for the
benefit of the communities in question and for the benefit of
Atlantic Canada. It must be developed in a way that is
sustainable, to provide jobs and economic opportunities for
Atlantic Canadians well into the future and ensure that young
people from Atlantic Canada do not have to leave their homes in
order to find economic opportunity.
In my last few moments I would like to make a quick
reference to developments in two provinces and two resource
based provinces which might be of use in considering how to
develop Atlantic Canada. Let me first take the example of
British Columbia and the arrangements that have been made
there in order to develop the forestry industry.
We know that in the past there has been enormous tension
between the forestry companies and environmentalists, between
communities and environmentalists, the workers in the forestry
industry and environmentalists. We know we have to resolve
those differences.
What British Columbia did in a unique way was bring those
different interests together and work with them to find a vision
for the future of that region. Everyone made sacrifices and
everyone gained. However, in the end there was a common
vision adopted to which everyone could be committed and to
which everyone could work. That is the clear focus. We have to
change the way in which we consider economic development.
We have to make sure we all work together to the best advantage
of all.
9978
(1815 )
I would certainly recommend that B.C. approach Atlantic
Canadians and the federal-provincial governments, labour
unions within the province, the business community, the
communities themselves and environmentalists within Atlantic
Canada. That should be pursued as a goal for economic
opportunity development in the region.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as an
Atlantic Canadian it is a pleasure to speak on this motion. The
motion by the NDP member strikes to the core of what we are
talking about in Atlantic Canada as we try to improve our lot and
to become a have part of our country.
I would like to talk about the infrastructure program. I would
also like to talk about my own community of greater Moncton. It
shares some of the problems alluded to in the motion,
particularly having a single industry. The Canadian National
Railway employed upward of 5,000 people and will effectively
close. What does that mean to a community such as Moncton
and what we have been able to do both on our own and with
assistance? I will quickly talk about the infrastructure program
and then move on to my own experiences.
The infrastructure program is near and dear to my heart. In my
other life as mayor and councillor of the city of Moncton, I had
the good fortune to be on the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities task force dealing with infrastructure. It was a
program which was advocated for many years and it took the
Liberal government to actually put it into effect. We are seeing
massive benefits throughout the country, particularly in Atlantic
Canada.
In my own riding of Moncton we were given roughly $4
million of federal funding for the infrastructure program. To
date with the projects that we have on the go in our community,
we are going to see an investment of roughly $30 million.
For a Canadian federal government program, seeing an
investment of $4 million turn into $30 million is an investment
and not an expenditure. That is why the infrastructure program
works in Atlantic Canada. That is why it is of benefit.
I would like to refer the House to some of the things that are
happening as a result of the infrastructure program in Atlantic
Canada. These agreements represent a total federal investment
in the Atlantic region of $181 million. That in turn will generate
equal investments on behalf of the provinces and the
municipalities for a total investment of $540 million into the
Atlantic economy resulting from the Canada infrastructure
program.
It is estimated that over 9,500 person years of employment
will be created in the region, both on and off the project sites
across Atlantic Canada. As of December 31, 1994 over 575
projects have already been approved in Atlantic Canada. This
represents a total investment of $450 million in the Atlantic
Canada economy and will create over 7,300 jobs in the region.
Projects under way under the infrastructure agreements in the
Atlantic region range from installation and upgrading of sewer
systems to rebuilding roadways and linking up public schools to
the electronic highway.
More than 60 per cent of the federal dollars committed in the
Atlantic region are for water and sewer projects. Almost 12 per
cent of the federal investment is to construct and repair
municipal roads. Another 16 per cent is committed for
community based projects. High technology projects are also
being supported and account for 4 per cent of the federal
government contribution.
Those are all good projects, projects that really make things
happen in Atlantic Canada. That is why the infrastructure
program is a success.
We are looking for partnerships. We are looking for spinoffs
associated with this program. That is what we have done in my
riding of Moncton and what we have done throughout Atlantic
Canada.
When we see an investment of roughly $200 million in
Atlantic Canada spinning off to roughly $600 million and then
going higher to $800 million and $900 million, this is an
investment, not an expenditure.
We listen to Reform Party members on their position with
respect to the infrastructure program but mind you, they still
take the dollars when it comes to their ridings. When we listen to
what they say about Atlantic Canada and where we should be,
the Reform Party is of the view that the only solution offered to
Atlantic Canada is to tell them to move. ``Get them out of
Atlantic Canada,'' is the Reform Party solution.
(1820 )
To quote the Reform Party again, its finance critic says: ``The
rest of Canada is not prepared to foot the bill for Atlantic
Canada''. There is no bill. We are making a contribution in this
country. We are making things happen and the Reform Party's
view is: ``Tell them to move''. Shame on them.
To quote the Reform Party's budget on page 34: ``There would
be some short term costs associated with fiscal retrenchment.
These costs would come primarily in the form of adjustments
that economic sectors and regions of our economy most
dependent on government transfers would have to make''. The
code words: Atlantic Canada.
Going on to page 36: ``Under the Reform budget, the short
term employment impact of spending and deficit reduction is
negative but manageable''. It will not be manageable in Atlantic
Canada if it goes through with its program to eliminate ACOA,
which has created 42,000 jobs in its first five years and has
stimulated major private sector investments of $2.4 billion.
9979
ACOA pays for itself. It is an investment that generates $4.2
dollars of benefit for every dollar of public funding spent.
We are not prepared to sign on to the Reform Party budget that
would see 65,000 Atlantic Canadians out of work over the next
five years. We are not signing on for the principle that we should
move somewhere else because Atlantic Canada, in my humble
opinion, is the best place in all of Canada in which to live.
I want to talk about a community that has pulled itself up by
the bootstraps. That is my community of greater Moncton. We
experienced the upper Canadian and western Canada view that
we should just shut down everything in Atlantic Canada. We lost
Eaton's catalogue, Swift's and the Canadian National Railway
Company. They were all major employers in our community.
We turned around and made investments in our community.
We made investments in our downtown and in a new way of
doing things. Arising out of those investments now is the fastest
growing community in Atlantic Canada, greater Moncton. For
the edification of the Reform Party The Wall Street Journal
wrote about the community of greater Moncton: ``It is the call
centre for North America. It is the centre that is showing the
way, the new wave of the new economy, to the rest of Canada and
to North America''.
An hon. member: They are not real jobs.
Mr. Rideout: They are real jobs. We are employing people.
On top of that, we recognized that we were a bilingual
community and that was an asset. We built on l'Université de
Moncton, on the bilingual nature of our community. Now we are
employing people and making things happen.
These people do not want to move. They want to stay in
Moncton. They want to stay in Atlantic Canada. We even have
people coming from British Columbia who now want to live in
our community. We are seeing a migration to Moncton rather
than away from it.
I say to Reform Party members: They should rethink their
budget and their approach to regional development. Recognize
that Atlantic Canada is a great place to be. It is going to be a have
part of this country in the not too distant future because we are
taking advantage of those investments this Liberal government
is giving us. That is why we support this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
as the official opposition critic on regional development, I rise
to participate in this debate on the motion put forward by the
hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.
First of all, I feel that elected representatives from all parts of
Canada are all concerned about economic development. This is
extremely important under the current economic conditions,
especially since we know that it is essential to create jobs to stop
stagnating and start moving toward economic and structural
development.
(1825)
I am a little surprised by the motion. This motion respecting
federal assistance for Atlantic Canada's economic development,
which was put forward by my colleague from
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, touches on, among other things,
the importance of a better future for the Maritimes. This concern
is quite commendable, in my opinion.
With all due respect, this motion reflects a certain lack of
knowledge about the federal government's regional
development policies and about Quebec's traditional demands
regarding regional development.
I wish to state in this House my position on this motion
concerning equity in federal contributions to Atlantic Canada's
regional development. The Bloc Quebecois must, of course,
show some opposition to such a motion.
Allow me in the next few minutes to elaborate on some of the
reasons why Quebec must give priority to its own regional
development.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or ACOA is the
federal government's main regional development agency in
Atlantic Canada. The ACOA mostly deals with small business,
helping to launch new ventures and modernize existing
companies. On November 30, 1993, the federal government's
contribution amounted to $865 million out of the total $1 billion
budget forecast, or $431 per capita.
Until very recently, the federal government's main regional
development agency in Quebec was the Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec or FORDQ. Since the FORDQ
was created in 1991, its mandate has been to emphasize
long-term economic development and job creation.
However, given its limited financial resources, the FORDQ
will pay more attention to small business by offering
information and analysis services and promoting exports. This
is a far cry from the basic principles of local development.
Under these circumstances, why would Quebec want to invest
additional public funds in Atlantic Canada? On July 20, 1994,
the federal government's share-close to $350 million-had
still not been committed in Quebec. The total budget for the
economic and regional development agreement is $1.6 billion,
or, and this is the total budget, $64 per capita in Quebec.
9980
In Western Canada, in British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Western Economic
Diversification Canada or WED is the main federal vehicle for
regional development.
As of November 30, 1993, spending under these programs
totalled $936 million. The ERDA provides for a budget of $1.l2
billion or $160 per capita. That is, very briefly, what regional
development looks like in Canada, and I want the hon. member
to pay attention to these figures and this breakdown of federal
regional development assistance.
There is no common standard for the West, the Maritimes and
Quebec. The federal contribution to these agreements is $64 per
capita in Quebec, compared to $160 in the western provinces
and $431 in the Atlantic provinces.
So why should Quebec support a motion that would increase
federal assistance to the Atlantic provinces, when some
provinces seem to be more equal than others?
The 1993 and 1994 Estimates indicate that the federal
government spends less on regional development in Quebec
than anywhere else. In fact, the budget for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency is $314 million, the budget for the
Department of Western Economic Diversification is $238
million, and the budget for the FORDQ is $232 million.
However, the total population of these other provinces is less
than the total population of Quebec.
(1830)
In his last budget, the finance minister announced a cut of $70
million in the subsidies and contributions for the FORDQ.
Quebec's regions are the big losers as far as federal funding is
concerned. Since 1983, annual federal funding for regional
development increased only 50 per cent in Quebec, but 250 per
cent in the Maritimes and 300 per cent in the West.
In other words, through the federal government, Quebec
funds regional development programs and policies it is not in a
position to implement in its own regions. The 1993-94 budget
for the Quebec Regional Affairs Secretariat is for $71 million,
while Quebec's part under agreements concluded with the west
and the maritimes amounts to $550 million, or 25 per cent of the
$2.2 billion federal budget.
Ottawa's regional development policies are clearly
discriminatory toward Quebec. If the amount Quebec receives
from the federal government in transfer payments and for all
kinds of national programs is approximately equal to the tax it
pays to the federal government, this is among other things
thanks to transfer payments earmarked for income security and
the unemployment insurance program. In other words, for want
of a true regional development policy in Quebec, the federal
government is maintaining poverty and unemployment there.
This is why Quebec is calling for and has for years called for the
repatriation of all regional development responsibilities. The
Bloc Quebecois therefore has no choice but to oppose a motion
entailing an increase in moneys for regional development in the
maritimes.
Regional development is of course not a distinct area of
jurisdiction in the Canadian constitution, as a result of which
Quebec is forced to engage in endless negotiations to arrive at
agreements. Unfailingly, these agreements ultimately authorize
the federal government to interfere repeatedly and awkwardly in
regional development. It is interference. The regions in Quebec
suffer from duplication of efforts in regional development
matters and from the lack of consistency in government policy.
Which brings us back to what the present Liberal government
is doing, namely structural duplication giving rise to
considerable operating costs as opposed to real investments in
development, as well as multiplicity of government parties
involved which frequently results in confusion among regional
stakeholders. Quebec has adopted an overall regional
development plan, an overall plan for each of its sixteen
administrative regions. This is why, and justly so, it wants to get
back from the federal government the resources it should
receive for regional development. Let us first establish fairness
in redistributing federal moneys for regional development
before broaching the subject of the gap between what Quebec
and other regions in Canada receive.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak to the motion. It was not clear to me in
the original motion whether or not the suggestion was being
made to put more money into Atlantic Canada. If that is the case
we would oppose it.
There is much talk about what Atlantic Canada needs. The
proposer of the motion suggested full employment. Whilst full
employment would be good for Atlantic Canada, I suggest that it
would be good across the country. However the full employment
goal will not be achieved. Regardless of how much is spent in
the country or how good the opportunities are, full employment
is unachievable.
The presenter of the motion also said that regional
development policies and programs have been managed from
the top down. That is so. ACOA is a prime example. Western
Economic Diversification is another example as is FORD-Q.
For labour and communities to co-ordinate how we are to
improve the economy in Atlantic Canada is a good avenue, but it
is also a good avenue to pursue right across the country.
Co-operatives are in existence so these things can happen if the
people want them to happen. That kind of activity does not need
government intervention.
9981
(1835)
The mover of the motion suggested the fisheries problems in
Atlantic Canada were a result of government bungling. We all
know that to be so on both the east coast and west coast. That is
unfortunate. The less government we have in the country the
better off we will be. To try to increase government is not the
way to go.
The proposer of the motion also suggested that young people
should not have to leave home. While that again is nice to say,
the reality is that young people leave home. Young people go
where there is work. Young people leave home for various
reasons. To expect young people to stay in Atlantic Canada any
more than they do in the towns of Ontario, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba or wherever is unrealistic.
I am quite impressed with the skills of the provincial
governments in Atlantic Canada. Frank McKenna in New
Brunswick impressed the nation with some of his moves to get
business into New Brunswick. Clyde Wells in Newfoundland is
also making good innovative approaches to improve its
economy. That is what really needs to happen. It is up to the
people themselves. I do not think the federal government
necessarily plays a big role in this activity.
One of the real potentials I see in Atlantic Canada is the cost
of land and housing. For example, young people growing up in
the area I come from in the lower mainland of British Columbia
cannot afford to buy houses or to buy land. It is just too
expensive for them. I see the day when young people will be
going back to the eastern part of the country. They will look to
where there are appropriate housing costs. They will look to
where they can buy land, live and raise families. The potential of
Atlantic Canada will be much greater in the future because of the
natural evolution of the country. As a result of the younger
generation moving we will see jobs being created. In areas like
the lower mainland of British Columbia we will see an outflow
of younger people for that reason.
Where there are successes there are failures. We only have to
look at some of the activities of ACOA to see failures in the
nation as far as regional development and western economic
diversification are concerned. It is a presumption of government
that it knows best how to spend our money.
The minister responsible for ACOA recently said that there
would be no grants. A lot of that came from the pressure we put
on the government. As a result we now have ACOA giving out
loans that basically FBDB should be giving out. Why ACOA is
not cancelled today is difficult to understand. There are
institutions in the country that can look after the affairs ACOA
used to look after or the new responsibilities of ACOA. We need
not have that bureaucracy in existence.
I look forward to seeing what the Minister of Finance will do
next Monday with the operations of ACOA, Western Economic
Diversification and FORD-Q if he is truly interested in making
some positive changes in the country.
Atlantic Canada needs less government, not more
government.
(1840)
Owners of some businesses who receive grants, and they are
the minority of businesses, will not say that. When we really get
down to the people who are paying the taxes for the money going
to those businesses, they are saying: ``Look, we would rather
have the money in our pockets. Create businesses and create
wealth from our perspective. Don't give it to the friends of the
recipients over there''.
The hon. member for Moncton talked about infrastructure. He
suggested that infrastructure was an investment and not a cost. I
have the greatest of difficulty with that philosophy. The
infrastructure started by the Liberal government came into place
as a result of its commitment to jobs, jobs, jobs.
The Liberals said that they were going to spend $2 billion at
the federal level and $2 billion at the provincial level if they
chipped in. Also the municipalities were to throw in $2 billion.
What was not acknowledged was that there was only one
taxpayer paying this money. The government took over a $40
billion deficit, $40 billion of overspending, and then said that it
would spend some more. It was going to borrow another $6
billion from taxpayers to start an infrastructure program to show
the whole country it could create jobs.
Yes, it did. It created short term jobs. In the long run that is
unhealthy for the country. It does not help at all. Only when we
have a continuous infrastructure can it be of benefit to the
country. We cannot have it continuously because we are
borrowing too much money. We have too high a debt load.
It was patently wrong for the hon. member for Moncton to
suggest that bad Reformers over here were treating Atlantic
Canadians indifferently or incorrectly because they were against
infrastructure. The fact is that the infrastructure is not good for
taxpayers across the country regardless of what province they
live in.
I trust the motion is not asking for more money. I trust it
speaks to the fact that Atlantic Canadians can help themselves
just like anybody else anywhere in the country. All the more
credit to them.
If we want to look at ingenuity in the country we can look at
Atlantic Canada where the provinces for years have had less
money than many other provinces. They seem to dig down, dig
deep, work hard, innovate and come up with answers that many
of us across the country should be looking at and following. We
should be using some of their initiative. Hats off to Premier
9982
Frank McKenna. He is on the right track as far as any
government in the land is concerned.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the motion put
forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
who has spent some time in his past life in my riding of Halifax.
I thank him for his motion because it is refreshing to finally
hear some understanding of Atlantic Canada being expressed by
members on the other side. Also, the motion serves as an
important reminder to government members as well as we enter
into the final days before our budget.
The motion voices the belief shared by the vast majority of
Canadians and promoted by the government that there is a
vibrant future for Atlantic Canada and that it has much to
contribute, as it always has, to the future of the country.
Government has a role to play to ensure a fairer, more equitable
and just future for Atlantic Canada by encouraging policies and
programs to create jobs through initiative funds for
co-operatives, encouraging small business, upgrading
municipal infrastructure and diversifying single industry
communities.
Never before has it been so important for government to
provide the encouragement and framework for economic
self-reliance. Given the current fiscal situation, government is
faced with doing more for Canadians with ever fewer resources.
Canadians expect their government to approach economic
development with a keener business sense, expecting greater
returns on their investment.
This is why the motion is so important. It underscores the
innovative and productive ways in which the federal
government, in partnership with the provinces, the private
sector, communities and most important of all the people, can
kindle and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit in Atlantic
Canada.
(1845 )
It is also timely, coming as it does in the wake of the thinly
veiled attack on Atlantic Canada by members of the Reform
Party with the release of that manifesto yesterday. The Atlantic
culture, its way of life, the vibrant entrepreneurial spirit, must
be kindled, encouraged and recognized for what it really is:
strong, proud and independent. Our national policies must
reflect this reality.
Unlike the Reform Party, we cannot afford to base
government policies on offensive stereotypes. The Reform
Party in past comments by its MPs and in its manifesto on deficit
reduction released yesterday attempts to propagate the ignorant
stereotype that Atlantic Canada is a wasteland filled with
dependent and enslaved welfare recipients and working stiffs
who are a drain on the national treasury and economy, and the
italics are theirs.
As an Atlantic Canadian I find these gross generalizations
very offensive, but then again why should I expect anything
different? We hear policies on women, on the family and on race
that are a testament to the fact that the Reform Party prefers
ideologically driven false assumptions. Sure, if stereotypes held
true the world's problems would be a lot simpler to deal with but
reality constantly confirms that they are not true.
When a regionally based political party from the west
recommends solutions based on untrue stereotypes of a group of
people who live in another region of the country we have the
makings for divisive, dangerous and destructive debate.
Those of us from the region know that nothing can be further
from the truth. By perpetrating these offensive stereotypes the
Reform Party is attacking the very foundation of Atlantic
Canada. It is maligning the region's hard working men and
women. We must recognize that the people of Atlantic Canada
are the key to economic development, the people who have lived
and laboured and not only survived but flourished in this region
over the last half millennium and longer in the case of our
aboriginal peoples.
As elected representatives we have a responsibility now more
than ever to promote and protect their interests here in Ottawa;
their real interests, not those imagined interests seen through the
lens of destructive stereotypes.
For the Reform Party the solution to Atlantic Canada is
simple. It wants a government sponsored and enforced
migration program. Again, this is confirmed in the document
released yesterday and in statements made by members of its
caucus. They advocate that UI and other benefits be dependent
on the willingness to relocate.
The Reform MP from Capilano-Howe Sound is quoted as
saying people should be moving to jobs and the rest of Canada is
not prepared to foot the bill for the alleged dependency in the
Atlantic region.
These approaches would make government a destructive
force in the lives of Atlantic Canadians as opposed to a catalyst
for economic and social development.
For that reason I would like to speak today about Atlantic
Canada, about the diversity of its economy, the aspirations of its
people and the real future that we in Atlantic Canada are
working toward.
Members of the Reform would do well to listen and perhaps,
although unlikely, learn something about the region. The
government has a role and I would like to provide some
examples of areas where we have been successful.
9983
We in the government recognize that the people of Atlantic
Canada are the key. I can think of no greater example of
community based grassroots development initiatives than those
of the co-operative movement which was founded in Atlantic
Canada. It is recognized as one of the region's major economic
players despite its modest beginnings. Today co-operatives are
involved in financial services, insurance, consumer products,
manufacturing, processing, housing projects and in various
worker owned co-ops.
Their strength can be summarized in a few words: knowledge
of the people and the community. Their innovation is reflected
in some recent senior housing developments and the
introduction four years ago of a venture capital funding
instrument by the caisse populaire movement in New
Brunswick, to cite but a few.
Experience in Europe and elsewhere demonstrates the
amazing potential for this type of initiative to contribute to
economic development.
Approximately 750,000 people, 30 per cent of the Atlantic
population, are members of or use the services of co-operatives.
Five hundred thousand Atlantic Canadians are members of
credit unions and caisses populaires which administer $2.4
billion in assets in the region. They employ 2,000 people.
Insurance co-ops have another 477 employees; consumer
co-operatives, 2,400 employees. The major co-operative
employer, however, is the producer co-operative, with close to
6,000 employees.
(1850)
I want to stress that a co-operative is more than a business. Its
raison d'être is the economic and social betterment of its
members and the community. The human aspect takes a central
role with the co-operative movement and this is a real asset.
Approximately 11,000 Atlantic Canadians are employed in this
system; a major employer by any standard.
In the area of small business we have great success in Atlantic
Canada. It is the engine of economic growth throughout Canada,
most particularly in the Atlantic region. Small business and the
growth of new business is alive and well. The rate of small
business start-ups has continued to grow. The number of small
businesses, those with fewer than 100 employees, grew to
83,000 from 53,000 in the ten-year period from 1981 to 1991.
The number of large businesses with more than 500 employees
decreased marginally. We are experiencing an unprecedented
increase in the business start-up rate and job creation in Atlantic
Canada.
The number one priority of this government has been robust in
the maritimes with the inception of the Canada infrastructure
works program, a program which it seems is singularly difficult
for the members opposite to grasp.
As of December 31 over 575 programs have been approved in
Atlantic Canada, from installing and upgrading sewer systems
to rebuilding roadways. This represents investments of $450
million and will create over 7,300 jobs in the region.
The government has made its number one priority to restore
the dignity of Canadians by putting them back to work. This
government received an overwhelming mandate from
Canadians in every region to do just that.
The minister responsible for ACOA said recently that what is
good for Atlantic Canada is good for all of Canada. I know that
Reform members have difficulty with this. That is because they
do not have a national vision and they do not share the Canadian
belief that we must continue to work together in every region of
the country toward economic and social development.
I am delighted to speak in support of this motion. I am
delighted to stand in this House and explode some of the myths
perpetrated about Atlantic Canadians by members on the
opposite side. I am delighted to speak, in particular, about
co-operatives, coming from the province of Nova Scotia, the
home of Monsignor Moses Coady and Father James Tompkins,
the fathers of the co-operative movement worldwide.
It is a proud thing to be an Atlantic Canadian. It is a great
thing to be an Atlantic Canadian standing in this House
representing other Atlantic Canadians. I invite members on the
other side who do not seem to understand that pride, that
heritage, that culture and that future to come see us. We will
show you where the real world is.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There being no further
members rising for debate and the motion not being designated
as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is
dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 96.
_____________________________________________
9983
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
United States is getting ready to encroach on an area and our
farmers are not at all happy about it. In Quebec, farmers know
what supply management means.
In December 1993, I participated in an information session
put on by the UPA in Beauce. The meeting was held in
Saint-Georges. We were told, with input by Yvon Proulx, senior
economist at the UPA, that, under the GATT, we were going to
9984
have to drop milk quotas, which would be replaced by import
tariffs. These import tariffs would be so high that they would
prevent, to all intents and purposes, the entry of supply
management commodities, such as dairy products, eggs and
poultry.
(1855)
Both the farmers and I were sceptical, but the UPA kept on
repeating that the freshly elected Liberal government had given
guarantees.
However, Canada and the United States each have their own
interpretation of the FTA and NAFTA. On the one hand, we have
Canada, which claims that converting import quotas for dairy
products into tariff equivalents, as the GATT agreements
stipulate, takes precedence. On the other, we have our American
friends, who claim that NAFTA prohibits the use of tariff
equivalents.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister assured me ``from one Chrétien
to another'' that he would bring the issue before a WTO panel if
the Americans did not stop pestering Quebecers and Canadians.
Today, I would like to remind the government that, under the
GATT agreement, Canada's agricultural tariffs for each
commodity will be reduced by 36 per cent over six years, with a
minimum reduction of 15 per cent per commodity. That is what
was promised to farmers in order to let the GATT be passed, in
December 1993.
By July 1995, therefore in a few months, the tariffs should be
as follows, to quote a few: butter, 351 per cent; cheese, 290 per
cent; powdered milk, 250 per cent; chicken, 280 per cent; eggs,
which have the lowest tariff, 192 per cent; milk, 283 per cent and
ice cream, 326 per cent.
These high tariffs will protect producers in Quebec and
Canada for several years to come, despite tariff reductions of 15
per cent to 36 per cent over the next six years.
The important thing for our farmers is not to produce but to
secure markets for their products. That is why this government
must stand up and show once and for all that, under section 309
of NAFTA, Canada can invoke section XI of the GATT
agreement to protect its agricultural industry. I hope that this
government will show more backbone than it did in the durum
wheat dispute last summer.
Supply management is nothing new in Canada. In fact, dairy
products have been supply managed since 1972. There were then
17 cows in the average dairy herd, compared with 48 today.
We must remember that, in 1971 and before, farmers had a
little bit of everything. They used to keep three or four pigs, one
or two horses, beef and dairy cows, sheep, chickens; it was
almost a zoo.
Today, our farmers specialize in pork, dairy, poultry and other
products. We asked our farmers to specialize in order to become
competitive and they took up the challenge. To meet this
challenge, they must have a decent income and know how much
they can expect to receive in 1995 and 1996, and not a widely
fluctuating income. Supply management offers dairy producers
some income stability.
(1900)
I know that my question will be answered by the hon. member
for Prince Edward-Hastings on behalf of the Prime Minister,
but I hope that he will take these demands under consideration. I
know that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings is very
familiar with all agricultural sectors and that he, too, is very
sensitive to farmers' concerns. I, for one, can tell you that
farmers would never have agreed, in December 1993, had they
known that this import tariff agreement would be so fragile.
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his comments tonight. I can assure him that we
heard what he has said. We heard what his representatives have
said and we heard what the supply management industry has
said.
Yesterday the hon. member asked the Prime Minister whether
he plans on telling President Clinton that Canada has no
intention of negotiating bilaterally any reduction in the tariff
equivalents that were negotiated in the Uruguay round and then
implemented by Canada.
As the Prime Minister stated very clearly in his response to
the member, our application of tariff equivalents on supply
managed commodities that were negotiated in the Uruguay
round is fully consistent with our rights under both GATT and
NAFTA.
We are satisfied that our legal position is sound and we will
continue to hold firm on our position. This message will be
conveyed to President Clinton by the Prime Minister during
President Clinton's visit to Canada and to this House to speak
tomorrow. The Prime Minister, as we know, will be meeting
with President Clinton for the next two days.
During the FTA, NAFTA and multilateral trade negotiations,
Canada's position was that we would not make any concessions
that would undermine supply management. This position is
reflected in all those agreements.
Tariffication was a central issue during the Uruguay round. It
was clear that these tariff equivalents would apply to all
imports, including those from the United States.
The United States has requested consultation and it should be
seen as just that; a request to meet and discuss the issues. It is the
first step in the dispute settlement process. If the United States
so desires, it may eventually seek to resolve the issue by way of
a panel under either NAFTA or the WTO or as it is otherwise
9985
known, GATT. This, however, does not preclude Canada from
requesting a panel in either NAFTA or the WTO, if we so desire.
I would like to point out again to the member that the Prime
Minister met with the representatives of the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture, including representatives from
supply management agencies, and including the president of the
UPA who was present at that meeting on Monday of this week.
He indicated very clearly that Canada has a strong, legal case
and that Canada would ardently defend its rights regarding the
tariffication of import measures on supply managed
commodities.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to expand on my question
today to the Minister of Justice on family violence.
When I talk about family violence I am not talking only about
violence against women. I am talking about violence against the
elderly, violence against the handicapped, violence against
children, and yes, sometimes violence against men. I am not
talking only about physical abuse or physical violence. I am
talking about mental abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and
sometimes financial abuse in terms of dependency.
I have held two forums on family violence in my riding. They
were attended by about 80 presenters from all walks of life, such
as from the mental health field, family law, crown attorneys,
police chiefs, counsellors, educators, and victims of violence.
One thing that came through very loud and clear from the
forums is that there is definitely a lack of awareness in our
society on family violence. There was consensus that as a
government we have to do something to make Canadians aware
of the gravity and the prevalence of violence in our society.
(1905 )
A lot of questions were asked. For instance, when there is a
family violence situation, why do we remove the victims and the
children and put them in a shelter and the abuser or offender is
free?
I believe, as was the consensus during the forums, that there is
a real need to conduct some national forums on family violence.
The purpose of those forums would be to create awareness. In
my next householder I intend to give numbers to assist people in
knowing where to find help. A lot of victims do not know where
to turn, especially in the rural areas of Canada.
During the course of my forums the media: radio, television
and newspapers talked about them. Many victims came out of
the woodwork to seek help. If we can create awareness by the
forums, we will have achieved at least part of our goal.
The second goal of having such forums would be to develop,
in consultation with all parties involved, a set of
recommendations. What changes can we make to the Criminal
Code to prevent family violence? What changes can we make to
the administration of justice? What support programs can we
implement, not only for the victims of family violence but also
for the offenders?
I can already hear members of the Reform Party saying that
this is going to cost money. These forums can be organized in a
very cost effective manner. All we actually need are two
co-chairs, preferably a man and a woman, a support staff from
the justice department and perhaps from the minister for the
status of women. We could ask members in each riding to look
after the logistics of organizing the forums, to advertise and to
find a venue.
We would need only a very small travelling budget for three or
four persons and maybe have 20 or 25 of those forums across the
country. A small amount of money like that would be well spent
in protecting our children, our elderly and the lives of women in
this country.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice shares the hon. member's
concern and commitment to addressing the serious problem of
family violence.
Recent examples of the justice minister's commitment
include Bill C-42 which was proclaimed on February 15, 1995
and amended the Criminal Code peace bond provisions to help
prevent acts of family violence before they occur. These
amendments will allow police and others to apply on behalf of
persons at risk of harm for a peace bond. They will also enable
the court to specify the conditions that can be imposed as part of
the peace bond including, for example, prohibiting the husband
from being at or near the family home or from communicating
with his wife.
These amendments also make the breach of a peace bond more
serious by making it punishable on indictment and liable to
imprisonment for a maximum term of two years instead of the
previous summary conviction maximum of six months.
Another example is Bill C-41 introduced on June 13, 1994
which proposes sentencing reforms and would make the abuse
of a position of trust or authority in the commission of an
offence an aggravating factor in sentencing.
On February 14, 1995 the Minister of Justice tabled Bill C-68
which proposes significant reforms to control firearms. We
know for instance from the Statistics Canada spousal homicide
survey that between 1974 and 1992 a married woman was nine
times as likely to be killed by her spouse as by a stranger and that
42 per cent of women killed by their spouses during this period
9986
were killed with guns. These firearms' proposals will provide a
clear and effective response to prevent such use of firearms.
The Minister of Justice also acknowledges the importance and
value of consulting with Canadians. Public consultations
provide the government with invaluable insight into various
issues.
A recent example of the value of such consultations is the
June 1994 national consultation with women's organizations on
violence against women issues which included family violence.
This national consultation was co-hosted by the Minister of
Justice, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for the
Status of Women.
These existing efforts to address family violence by the
federal government will help to protect women, children and
seniors who are the primary victims of family violence. The
individual efforts of members such as the hon. member's public
forums will clearly contribute to the national capacity to better
understand and respond to family violence.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, pursuant to order made
Thursday, February 16, this House stands adjourned until
Friday, February 24 at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 7.11 p.m.)