TABLE OF CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 26, 1994
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 7223
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7224
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7226
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7227
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7227
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7227
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7228
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7228
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7230
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7231
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7235
Bill C-286. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 7236
Motion for concurrence in 43rd report 7236
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 7236
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 7238
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7239
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7239
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7239
Bill C-46. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading; and the amendment. 7240
Bill C-52. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 7246
Division on motion deferred 7254
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 7254
Bill C-46. Consideration resumed of motion and ofamendment 7258
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 44; Nays, 163 7258
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 122; Nays, 86 7260
Bill C-52. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 7261
Bill C-226. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 7261
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 7261
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7262
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 7268
7223
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 26, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
received numerous letters from constituents concerned about
the upcoming budget and whether they can expect to be taxed on
their RRSPs.
These constituents believe that an understanding between
government and Canadians has existed since the 1950s when
RRSPs were first introduced. At that time the government
rewarded Canadians who took responsibility for their own
retirement by offering both an initial tax deduction as well as tax
free accumulation.
Since then thousands of Canadians have assumed
responsibility for their own retirement by taking advantage of
RRSPs. They have done so in part because of strains on the
Canada pension plan and old age security and their need for
greater income security during retirement.
My constituents and I feel that any move on the part of the
minister to change the ground rules by taxing RRSPs would be
unfair and unwelcome. It is our sincere hope that the minister
will listen to these concerns and not tax RRSPs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
several months now, the written press has reported numerous
delays in the processing of immigrant files. Ever since the
previous government decided to concentrate its operations in
Vegreville, Alberta, there has been one problem after another.
All members of this House have been receiving legitimate
complaints from their constituents with respect to Vegreville,
but the minister does not seem particularly concerned about this
administrative catastrophe. Furthermore, services are offered
almost exclusively in English. Immigrants and visitors who
have all the documents required by the act thus find themselves
in an illegal situation.
When will the minister stop insisting that he wants to see his
immigration policy rigorously applied, when his department is
clearly no longer able to keep up with the routine requests of the
immigrants it is there to serve?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
received a petition signed by over 2,000 residents of southern
Alberta.
I would like to associate myself with the prayer in the petition
which reads:
Whereas there is no proven connection between gun control legislation and a
decrease in the occurrence of criminal activity;
And whereas all handguns in Canada are required by law to be registered;
And whereas crimes involving the use of firearms already carry severe
penalties under the Criminal Code;
And whereas criminals by definition feel no compulsion to abide by the law;
We the undersigned feel that implementing more restrictive firearms controls
which will affect only law abiding citizens is an unjustifiable action and the
proper course of action for responsible governments to follow is more effective
prosecution and tougher sentencing of criminals.
I will be forwarding the petition to the Minister of Justice.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have no problem with this
kind of a statement in the House whatsoever. It is just that we do
have a place for petitions themselves and you might want to
consider that at a later time. I just make that comment in
passing.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the great honour and privilege to recognize the
accomplishments of Suzanne MacLean of Vancouver. Suzanne
demonstrated profound courage, remarkable strength and depth
of humanity in her recent cross-Canada bicycle journey
``Cycling for a Miracle''.
7224
Travelling across this vast country is always challenging, but
to do so in renal failure and on peritoneal dialysis is truly
unbelievable and a miracle in itself.
Suzanne set out to promote organ donation awareness and to
raise money for transplant research. However, she has also
instilled in us a strong sense of hope and confidence in being
able to overcome traditional physical obstacles and in meeting
our expectations and aspirations. She has generated tremendous
public support for organ donations. The impact has already been
felt; Canadians have signed their organ cards and are discussing
the idea of donating.
I am proud to have had the opportunity to lend my support to
Suzanne and to this worthy endeavour. Please join me in
congratulating and thanking Suzanne MacLean.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, October 23 to 29 is Small Business Week in Ontario.
The week is sponsored by the Federal Business Development
Bank in partnership with many local private and public sector
organizations that promote entrepreneurship.
It is no surprise to anyone in this House that small business is
critical to the Canadian economy. Eight of ten new jobs in
Canada come from the small business sector. It employs 4.2
million Canadians and accounts for 37 per cent of the country's
employment.
This week throughout Ontario the FBDB will be giving a
series of seminars and luncheons which will promote small
business, educate participants and pay tribute to the men and
women who make this province successful.
We owe a debt to the small business men and women of this
country who daily risk everything they have and in doing so
create jobs and economic growth for Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the government is challenging the opposition to indicate where
public spending could be cut. I would like to add a suggestion to
the long list the Bloc Quebecois has already submitted over the
past year. Yesterday, speaking before a committee, the president
of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
denounced the federal government's negligence in the
management of contracting out. He presented some pretty
ludicrous examples to us, including the one about public
servants who retire on a Friday with generous severance
benefits, and are hired as consultants the following Monday.
In order to remedy this situation, the Bloc Quebecois suggests
that the government have a code governing contracting out,
which would ensure transparency in the awarding of contracts
and would introduce the right for public servants to denounce
abuses. This is another suggestion to add to the list.
Will the federal government finally decide to straighten up its
expenditures?
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the people and governments of Israel and Jordan
for today's signing of the comprehensive peace deal.
For 47 years Israel and Jordan were divided by war but, to
quote King Hussein, ``today the two countries will close a dark
chapter and open a new book of light''. Since the Middle East
process began several years ago, there have been many tough
moments on all sides. I often wondered whether the obstacles to
peace could ever be removed. Thanks to the commitment,
dedication and courage of King Hussein, Prime Minister Rabin
and many others, today's peace has been achieved.
Now is the time for new friends to come together to learn
about each other and forge new bonds. For the children of Israel
and Jordan a new and bright future is emerging, a future where
they will not fight each other but will work to build prosperity
for the Middle East.
On behalf of the Reform Party and all Canadians, I send best
wishes, hearty congratulations and the promise of future
friendship for all the people of that region.
* * *
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 31, the first woman in the world to head a national
labour body and a long term resident of Niagara Falls will be
honoured at Rideau Hall. Shirley Carr will be presented with the
Governor General's award in commemoration of the Person's
case.
Shirley Carr has been a leading advocate of women's rights in
the workplace and a role model for women in the labour
movement. As the first woman president of the Canadian Labour
Congress, she championed legislation to address women's
equality and concerns about health and safety in the workplace.
7225
The awards commemorate the lengthy legal and political
battle for women's constitutional right to be recognized as
persons.
On behalf of my constituents of Niagara Falls, I would like to
congratulate Ms. Carr on her numerous achievements and for
having been chosen as this year's recipient of the Governor
General's award.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
seems that we have a number of firsts by women today.
I want to congratulate Juanita Lester a constituent of St.
John's West who is today being inducted into the Atlantic
Agricultural Hall of Fame. She is the first woman from
Newfoundland to be granted this honour.
Having been involved in the family farm business for over 40
years and being an active participant in a wide range of farm
related activities, Juanita Lester has had a career featuring many
achievements.
Dedicated involvement with the Provincial Farm Women's
Network, the Avalon Farm Women's Association and the
Newfoundland and Labrador Farm Women's Network are only a
few of her accomplishments.
Ms. Lester has served on the executive of the Provincial Farm
Women's Association and is past president of the Newfoundland
and Labrador Federation of Agriculture. She is presently
serving on the Women's Institute, the food and livestock and
agricultural training committees.
Congratulations Juanita. I am very pleased Juanita has been
given this special honour.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
well on our way to economic recovery and leading the way are
Canadian entrepreneurs. Close to 900,000 Canadian women and
men who own and operate small and medium sized enterprises
are celebrating Small Business Week from October 23 to 29.
This year's theme is Partnerships for Growth. The federal
government must continue to support and encourage small
businesses and truly become partners in breaking down the
barriers.
In Burlington small businesses like Roxanne Moffat's
Hillcrest Florists are the backbone of our community and
ultimately of our nation. They encourage healthy competition,
provide great products and service and combine innovation with
expertise.
Ms. Moffat, head of our Business Women's Network and an
active member of the Burlington Chamber of Commerce, is one
of many Canadian women whose skill, imagination and
determination have made them a success.
This weekend the contributions of many women like Ms.
Moffat are being acknowledged at the 1994 Canadian Woman
Entrepreneur of the Year Awards and Conference. The awards
and conference help to stimulate the Canadian economy by
nurturing entrepreneurial skills and encouraging small
business-
The Speaker: The hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of one of Canada's most
important youth organizations, Canada's 4-H. The history and
results of the 4-H are well known to all Canadians.
Today with the future of rural Canada uncertain, the
recognition of an organization dedicated to providing a quality
life experience for rural youth has never been more necessary.
However federal funding of 4-H remains uncertain.
(1410)
Media reports that the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food will trim its budget perhaps by as much as 40 per
cent. The department's reluctance to commit itself to funding
beyond the end of the current fiscal year is troubling 4-H
participants across Canada.
I stand today 100 per cent behind Canada's 4-H program and
its support for rural youth. In recognition of the value of these
young people to the future of Canada I encourage the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food and the federal government to
express their immediate and ongoing commitment to the 4-H
program and its supporters across Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with dismay that we read
Income Security for Children, a
document released as part of the reform proposal put forward by
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The minister has the nerve to put the financial burden of these
measures aimed at eliminating child poverty on middle-class
parents whose deductions will be reduced. The minister's
cynicism has reached an all-time high. The minister does not
seem to realize that such an unwarranted increase of the middle
class's financial burden will inevitably force more children to
live in poverty.
7226
How can the minister be so arrogant and paternalistic as to
claim that he wants to make conditions better for children,
when he is making them worse? The minister has a great
responsibility to these children and hundreds of thousands of
Canadian children.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government has sure toughened up on the criminal
element in our society.
I have found that convicted murderers receive old age
security, the guaranteed income supplement, not to mention
GST rebates. So what if their room and board is provided for, not
to mention their clothing, education and counselling? So what if
they have conjugal visits to relieve them of any deprivation they
may have? So what if they receive free condoms acknowledging
their habits?
Okay, so their medical and dental are free. And they are not
paying taxes. They can vote if they are incarcerated for less than
two years. If they have a bad day on the prison golf course at
Ferndale penitentiary, they can submit a grievance, receive free
legal aid and sue the system.
Yes, this Liberal government is tough all right. The only
problem is it is tough on the taxpayer and the innocent victims,
not the criminals.
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources Development and
the Secretary of State for Youth and Training I am pleased to
announce that Youth Service Canada kicks into high gear today
as it enters its regular operational phase.
Young Canadians have the ability and desire to contribute to
our country. Youth Service Canada will give young people the
opportunity to prepare for the challenges of the 1990s labour
market and global competitiveness of the 21st century.
The federal government is calling on communities to plant a
seed of hope in our youth. Any community based group, band
council, or other organization interested in youth and
community development can apply to sponsor a Youth Service
Canada project. Applications and guidelines are now available
through Canada Employment Centres.
It is my hope that members of Parliament will be instrumental
in broadcasting the message to their constituents on this very
important program.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I call upon all members of this House to support
imaginative project ideas from their respective ridings for Youth
Service Canada. There is a great deal of work to be done in our
communities.
We should put the talent, energy and creativity of our young
people to work in our own backyards. Young people will stand
taller and our communities will grow stronger for it.
On October 25, 1993 Canada's youth voted overwhelmingly
for the Liberals. That generation put its x over here, because
they trust us to deliver.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard several honourable ministers indicate
there is a need for change in the status quo and I agree. While
change may be difficult, Canadians are impressed with the
consultation process brought forth by this government.
(1415 )
With continued openness and co-operation by the
government, all Canadians will be able to participate
constructively in those areas which require change to meet the
needs of today and of the 21st century.
To provide opportunity for future generations, these changes
must be brought about fairly.
On this first anniversary I am still proud of the government
and of our ministers. They are prepared to work with all
members of the House and with all Canadians to help build a
better tomorrow.
Public forums will be hosted across Carleton-Charlotte from
November 5 to 12 to obtain input on various issues before the
House. This consultation process truly opens up government and
allows everyone to participate which is a welcome change-
_____________________________________________
7226
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in April, the Government of Quebec asked the
Minister of Human Resources Development to help finance six
innovative Quebec programs through federal strategic pilot
projects. Six months later, Ottawa has still not answered.
7227
How can the minister claim that he is ready to negotiate a
transfer of manpower training responsibilities with Quebec,
when for six months he has refused, in a much smaller matter,
to participate in financing six Quebec programs through the
pilot projects that Ottawa is supporting in all of Canada?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like most things we hear
from the Leader of the Opposition, the facts he has stated simply
are not true.
Let me state what has taken place. We have offered to cost
share a number of strategic initiatives with the province of
Quebec. In August of this year we arrived at an agreement in
principle and one that would be particularly appropriate for
helping young people to get employed. An election ensued.
I wrote to my counterpart after the election to suggest that we
were prepared to move ahead. My deputy has written to his
counterpart to say that all we want from the province of Quebec
is for it to establish among six or seven projects what priority
projects it has.
As soon as Quebec is prepared to confirm with us what its
priority projects are we will go ahead in a co-operative way and
work with it. Because the strategic initiatives are part and parcel
of an important element of the overall review of social policy, I
am glad to hear that the Leader of the Opposition and the Quebec
government now want to become part of that process.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the information that we have from the Government
of Quebec contradicts what the minister is saying today.
Quebec's request for six projects is still outstanding and Ottawa
has not yet accepted. Why does the minister refuse Quebec what
he has allowed under other pilot projects which are being funded
in New Brunswick and especially in Newfoundland?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like the Leader of
the Opposition to listen carefully. Please listen carefully so that
maybe you can understand something for the first time. Please, I
want you to understand this.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, I
have read the material the Bloc members have put out
concerning the social review. I know just how much they distort
the facts.
I want them to understand that we have written back to the
Quebec government saying that as soon as it establishes clearly
what its priorities are then we will sign an agreement and
proceed with social review and with strategic initiatives
because they are part and parcel of the same thing.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister reduces the question to a lack of
understanding by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, if anyone
does not understand something in this House, it is the minister
who does not understand Quebec's historic demands in the
manpower field.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: Speaking of this, how can the minister expect
the present government of Quebec to accept his offers of
administrative transfers in the manpower field, of sharing
quarters for the same confusing mess in the same building, when
this offer was rejected by the previous federalist government?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps one reason why
there may be some confusion is because we have one party in the
House on the opposite side which makes it its business to try and
create confusion between Quebec and the rest of the country.
That is part of the problem we face.
When it comes to strategic initiatives we have said that as
soon as the Quebec government replies to our request and
specifically says what its priority projects are we will discuss
them. We cannot fund all the projects because it would take all
the money. We have to share with the rest of the country.
As soon as the Quebec government indicates it is prepared to
go ahead with the priorities that were presented by the previous
government then we will sit down and negotiate with it.
We understand and fully support the process. By developing
these kinds of new, progressive and innovative approaches to the
development of social programs, we can bring a much better
system to all Canadians, including those in Quebec.
That is why the position of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc
Quebecois-
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development. We learned
from the SQDM, the Quebec labour development corporation,
that the minister was aware of the duplication between his youth
service project and Quebec's young volunteers program as early
as the beginning of February, two months before he launched his
program.
7228
Does the minister confirm that federal and Quebec
government officials tried without success to harmonize the
two programs before the federal government decided to go
ahead despite the resulting increase in duplication?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at noon hour I attended a
very interesting event where a youth service project that serves
both sides of the Outaouais area and a group of young people
who were street kids had come together to start their own
business in a recycling plant.
As part of the testimony one young man said that he had been
on the streets since he was 11 years old. Because of the youth
services project he was now able to get a pay cheque. He was
now able to plan to go to school. Much more important, he now
believed in himself.
I do not think that young man was concerned about
jurisdictional turf wars. He was concerned about the
Government of Canada which, in co-operation with the private
sector and the local community, was giving him a new chance at
life. That is what the program is all about.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
again for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Does
the minister not admit that his attitude in the youth service
matter clearly shows that he is trying to muzzle the Quebec
government, when we know that federal officials offered
Quebec a seat on the federal pilot project selection board
provided that Quebec made a commitment not to criticize the
Canadian youth service program publicly?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the facts of the matter are
this. We presented to the province of Quebec, as we did to all
provinces, a proposal on a labour and manpower agreement that
would offer wide responsibility to all provinces to help set
planning priorities for federal human resource expenditures in
each of the provinces.
In the case of Quebec the count was close to 60 or 70 per cent
of the human resource expenditures in terms of helping engage
in that planning.
At this time I have not received a response from the province
of Quebec on that proposal. If that response is received, we are
prepared to sit down and talk about all the programs. Once the
province of Quebec responds we will co-operate with it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1978 Allan Kinsella murdered 24-year old Kenny
Kaplinski by shooting him twice in the head. He was sentenced
to life in prison.
(1425 )
In July he was transferred to the Bath penitentiary, in spite of
the fact that the Solicitor General received two letters from the
Assistant Attorney General of Ontario warning that Kinsella
was unsuitable for transfer and likely to attempt escape.
The Solicitor General did not respond to these warnings and
on October 19 Kinsella escaped from Bath along with Serge
Damien who was serving life for murdering a credit union
cashier with a sledge hammer.
Can the Solicitor General explain his negligence in this case,
and what does he have to say to the people whose lives have been
put at risk by this negligence?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Kinsella had been in a medium security institution
since 1986. He was transferred to another medium security
institution, Bath.
The letters of warning from Mr. Code, the Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, were to the effect that Mr. Kinsella should not
be transferred to a minimum security institution, specifically
Beaver Creek. The advice on Mr. Kinsella was followed by the
Correctional Service officials because Mr. Kinsella was not
transferred to Beaver Creek or any other minimum security
institution.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Attorney General of Ontario knew more about Bath
than the Solicitor General. Not only did his office warn the
Solicitor General about Mr. Kinsella, but the Bath medium
security prison was medium security in name only. Bath was
supposedly upgraded to medium security last May but many of
the security features of a medium security facility were not in
place, such as adequate lighting, surveillance cameras and
double fencing.
Why did the Solicitor General allow murderers like Alex
Kinsella and Serge Damien to be transferred to an institution
that was incomplete and substandard from a security
standpoint?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, before the transfer was carried out, the professional
staff of the Correctional Service had formally upgraded Bath to
medium security status, after adding additional protection
measures. That is the fact, Mr. Speaker.
7229
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a lot of these measures are after the fact, after the
horse is out of the barn. Every time there is a problem in his
jurisdiction the minister says it is a serious matter, there has
been an investigation and steps are being taken, but in fact no
action really occurs.
Since the Solicitor General is so fond of investigations, will
he submit to an independent public inquiry to examine not only
the problems within Corrections Canada but the negligence of
the Solicitor General's department itself?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, an independent investigation has been convened,
headed by the retired former deputy police chief of the city of
Toronto. Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
that investigation has the status of an investigation under part II
of the Inquiries Act.
If the hon. member is serious about this matter he will be
happy to hear this news from me.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
On May 25, the Privacy Commissioner confirmed to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that an
examination of the operations of the Communications Security
Establishment was being carried out. That exercise was to be
completed in August. Yesterday, the defence minister alluded to
that examination by the Privacy Commissioner.
Considering the recent disclosure of surveillance activities
targeting members of the Quebec government, will the minister
confirm that he asked the Commissioner to expand the scope of
the examination conducted?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is absolutely no.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the Minister of National Defence not realize that the
government cannot be content with a routine examination by the
Privacy Commissioner, given the seriousness of claims that CSE
apparently spied on members of the Quebec government, and in
spite of the fact that the minister is already predicting a positive
conclusion to that examination?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will not repeat the answers I have given in the House. At this
moment the privacy commissioner is conducting an
examination of CSE. It has been done in the past, it is a matter of
routine business and it will conclude shortly.
* * *
(1430)
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday a youth charged with criminal negligence causing
death with a stolen car was sentenced to one year in a youth
detention facility. In frustration the judge presiding over the
case remarked that politicians, not judges, were the lawmakers.
The judge's hands were tied and because of a weak Young
Offenders Act the offender walked away with a year.
In view of this case, how many more insupportable decisions
does the Minister of Justice need to hear before he will make
substantive and not cosmetic changes to the Young Offenders
Act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to
comment on the facts of the case. I will speak to the point
generally.
Let me say that the member is himself participating in the
work of the justice committee of the House of Commons, which
has been engaged for many weeks in hearings with respect to
Bill C-37, proposals to amend the Young Offenders Act.
In that capacity the member has heard witnesses who have
been before the committee saying that in their view the Young
Offenders Act as it exists at present is more than sufficient, if
properly administered, to deal with juvenile justice in the
country.
The changes in Bill C-37 represent the amendments that the
government thinks are appropriate at this time. The member
knows we have asked the standing committee to commence, as
soon as it finishes with Bill C-37, a comprehensive review of
the statute as a whole, crossing the country, listening to experts,
speaking to police, principals, parents, and hearing views about
other changes that may be appropriate to the act.
The member knows that process is going to be undertaken.
Indeed he is going to be part of it. I trust he will come back to the
House with responsible recommendations at the end of it.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it was quoted this morning that the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police as well as the Canadian Police
Association recommended that judges must have access to
longer and more appropriate sentences and that 16 and 17 year
olds charged with serious crimes should automatically be tried
in adult court.
7230
These recommendation do not come from bleeding hearts or
social agencies. They come from the men and women who
defend our streets.
Will the minister endorse the recommendations of the two
associations, or is he going to sit back and listen to the broken
record of the professional criminal justice community?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we are going to
do and what we have done is be responsible and balanced and
take into account the views at all ends of the spectrum.
The fact is the hon. member seizes upon the headlines of this
morning from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I
have two comments. The first is that recently the paper has been
full of reports of the testimony of other witnesses before the
committee who said precisely the opposite. Obviously views
differ. What we have done in Bill C-37 is produced a balanced
bill that adjusts and amends the act in the public interest.
The second observation I would make is that I am interested to
observe the hon. member's interest in the views of the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police. I remind him it is the same
organization that very much supports our intentions with respect
to gun control.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. The information
highway project will increase the pooling of data banks holding
personal information of all kinds and disclosure of that
information to governments, businesses and institutions.
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that privacy is not yet a
fundamental right entrenched in the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms?
Given that there is no federal legislation protecting the
confidentiality of personal data held by private businesses, can
the Minister of Industry tell us what concrete action his
department intends to take to address this problem which will
likely get worse with the implementation of the information
highway?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He raises a
very important question of concern to us.
He may know that the government recently released a
discussion paper on privacy and the information highway. The
Information Highway Advisory Council is charged with
discussing this important issue and with determining what
measures are appropriate to take as all Canadians, particularly
those who have personal information encased in the databanks
of the world, are concerned about protecting their privacy with
respect to that information.
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given
the fact that there already are several networks available in
Canada and elsewhere, can the Minister of Industry tell us if he
intends to ask his colleague, the Minister of Justice, to bring in a
bill to ensure the protection of personal data in areas of federal
jurisdiction?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it may well be that there are legislative responses that
would be appropriate to this issue. Fundamentally we will want
to hear what the advisory council has to say and what Canadians
generally have to say.
The hon. member will understand that in this area technology
has developed very rapidly over the last number of years. We
expect the revolution in information technology to accelerate
rather than decelerate. In responding to the changing
environment that technology brings all Canadians-not just
government but Canadians who provide information to users of
that information-we must take caution to protect their own
privacy as we try to protect the privacy of others.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the President of the Privy Council as a member of the Treasury
Board authorized the construction of facilities for the Museum
of Nature to be built in his riding. This puts him in a possible
conflict of interest.
Why did the President of the Privy Council not absent himself
from this decision?
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, nice try but no cigar.
The decision to use property in Aylmer to meet the
accommodation needs of the Canadian Museum of Nature dates
back to 1990 when the Treasury Board approved the purchase of
the property on Pink Road in Aylmer by the Department of
Public Works and Government Services for use by the museum.
7231
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Nice try, Mr.
Speaker; I don't smoke.
Furthermore I reject that answer on the grounds that the
decision of 1990 was rejected by the Liberals. It indeed was a
Tory decision taken in 1990. This is a new decision undertaken
by the Liberals.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. The
Prime Minister said he would restore the trust of Canadians in
their institutions. The political system is meant to serve the
interest of Canadians and not of members of Parliament. When
the public trust is gone the system does not work any more.
The building of this museum in the member's riding is at best
what appears to be a conflict of interest and at worst a possible
abuse of his power.
Will the Prime Minister-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to put her question
forthwith.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Will the Prime Minister
direct the ethics counsellor to investigate this serious matter?
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, first, there is clearly no conflict of interest because
I have no pecuniary interest in the museum. Second, the decision
to locate in Aylmer was taken by the Treasury Board in 1990.
The recent decision to permit the Museum of Nature to
acquire more land and build up its own facilities was made. I am
a member of Treasury Board and all members of Treasury Board
know that my riding is Hull-Aylmer. If it had been placed on
this side of the river, since all 12 ridings are occupied by Liberal
members there is no doubt it would have been in the riding of a
Liberal member.
There is no conflict of interest. There is no problem of
impropriety. The Museum of Nature made the decision on its
own. It was approved by Treasury Board. It was all done in an
open and proper manner.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
In its first budget last February, the government announced it
was closing the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean. Reacting to the
ensuing controversy and to protests organized by the Official
Opposition, the federal government started negotiations with
the Government of Quebec and concluded an agreement in
principle on July 19. This agreement was never ratified, and
negotiations with Quebec are at a standstill.
Considering the uncertainty in which the people of Saint-Jean
have been living for far too long, is the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs prepared to resume negotiations with
the new government in Quebec, on the basis of the agreement in
principle reached on July 19, and to confirm the military role of
the college?
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, we have an agreement on the Collège militaire
royal de Saint-Jean which was concluded between the previous
government and our government. The agreement clearly sets out
the civilian status of the Collège de Saint-Jean and is in the best
interest of both governments and of the people of Saint-Jean.
The federal government has no intention of backtracking on
the basic terms of the agreement as signed. What has not been
determined is the implementation procedures. I will be sitting
down very shortly with my Quebec counterpart to settle these
final details which will implement the principles on which we
have already agreed.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we
to understand from the minister's attitude that his government is
trying to withdraw from any plans to reopen the college,
although it was responsible for closing it in the first place?
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, we certainly intend to stand by our commitments,
and I hope the Government of Quebec intends to do the same.
The uncertainty is not caused by our attitude, because we
continue to abide by the terms of the agreement we concluded.
However, if those terms are not implemented, the one to blame
for the uncertainty in the Saint-Jean region and for preventing
the Collège de Saint-Jean from continuing operations in its new
context will be the government that refuses to negotiate the
details of the agreement.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
7232
The Toronto city council is considering a huge development
that may not be sensitive to Toronto's Fort York which is of
national historic importance. A 1909 agreement states that the
fort must be preserved and maintained or the federal
government could repossess both Fort York and the grounds of
the CNE.
How is the government going to ensure that Fort York's
historical integrity is maintained and that the site is accessible
to Canadians as per the 1909 agreement?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that the federal
government remains firmly committed to the original
conditions attached to the transfer of Fort York to the city of
Toronto.
Both the Department of Public Works and Government
Services and my department recognize the importance of Fort
York to our national heritage and to tourism.
My colleague can rest assured that the minister of public
works and myself will make sure that the provisions of the
covenant are respected. This is an important piece of national
heritage. We are devoted to it. We have offered to discuss it and
we will support it.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was
projected to cost $10 million. Now in fact it will come in at a
staggering $58 million. At best the report will come in a year
past its deadline and there is strong evidence of abuse in the $8
million research budget.
In light of the government's promise to cut government
spending and in light of the government's promise of
accountability, does the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development really expect the taxpayer to happily swallow the
costs of the commission simply because the minister claims it
was started by the previous government?
(1445 )
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I will deal with the
research. The chairman of the commission has been in contact
with our department. Out of approximately 140 reports that were
supposed to come in I believe 15 were looked at. Nine were
judged as inadequate and five were non-existent.
Mr. Crombie is looking into that. I am waiting for his report,
but 90 per cent of the reports that were paid for came in, were
adequate and sufficient and were utilized. As far as the costs, I
made my point last week.
The commission is made up of eminent people. I am sure their
report is going to be a good report. On balance we have to make
judgments and decisions. The former government decided to
have a royal commission. If we had to decide it today, in today's
environment with $58 million we would build 1,000 houses.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this report will come in a year late at best. It will
have a cost overrun of some $48 million. As the minister
indicated a couple of days ago, they probably will not be able to
implement some of the recommendations by the time they get it
anyway.
In spite of all of this, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development apparently thought this was something
to joke about when he said the other day that maybe he would
like to have a job on the commission but that he would have to
stand in line.
My question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development is how does he ever expect the Canadian people to
regain some trust in the government when he treats such a
serious matter like this with such irresponsible statements?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to that.
The first is that we will not implement. I find this odd coming
from the Reform Party which has not yet voted for one piece of
aboriginal legislation in 11 months either in this House or at the
committee.
Talking about seriousness, we are treating this seriously. I
think it is about time the Reform Party look at its obligations as
members of Parliament and start treating the aboriginal people
of this country seriously and not just an election issue for 10 per
cent of the population.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. For months the Gaspé
Cured company has been asking the minister to officially
recognize a label of origin,
une appellation contrôlée, for the
area and the process and product of Gaspé Cured. Yet, the
federal minister allows companies in the Atlantic region to
export their salt cod under the name Gaspé Cure, which creates
some confusion on international markets and leads to losses of
as much as $10 million for the Gaspé Peninsula company.
7233
Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell us if he
intends to accede to Gaspé Cured's request, and if so, how
soon?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister is very conscious of the importance of the issue
raised by the hon. member. Officials in the department are
studying the request of Gaspé Cured. At the present time the
expression is used not only for a grade of fish from a certain
area, but also for a grade and a process used elsewhere. I can
assure the hon. member that the minister is studying the matter
carefully.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the request
submitted by Gaspé Cured covers the process and the product.
My second question is for the Secretary of State. If the
research done by the department-because I understand that
they are doing research on the matter-is positive, and
demonstrates that the product from the Gaspé is different from
similar products in other areas, will the department give the
people of the Gaspé Peninsula the right to a label of origin for
their process and product?
(1450)
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I was saying, the Department is devoting a lot of attention to this
issue, and when the study is over the decision will certainly be to
the advantage of fishermen in the Gaspé Peninsula, and of the
industry in general.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that the Metis nation of Saskatchewan has
this week requested core funding from the Department of
Canadian Heritage.
Will the minister assure this House that no core funding will
be dispersed until the RCMP investigation is completed into the
improper use of funds by the Metis nation of Saskatchewan and
the current creditors have been paid by the trustee?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are aware that there was an investigation
into the funding of that society.
Some auditors looked at the books. They have been retained
as counsel to the society. The two levels of government, the
federal government and the provincial government, have agreed
in light of the fact that Deloitte & Touche is advising the
financing of the society to resume some degree of funding.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Metis leadership is proposing a national legislative
assembly, a capital in Batoche, Metis and Canadian citizenship
and the national registry of Metis.
In light of this, can the federal interlocutor for the Metis tell
this House why she has committed new funding to the Metis
National Council at a cost of millions of dollars?
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
indicated by the minister of heritage, we are working with the
Metis in order to assist them. We have not committed large sums
of money on this project yet.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The fee for a firearm acquisition certificate is $50. However,
the real cost of processing an FAC in metro Toronto is $180.
What measures will the minister be taking to reduce the
administrative costs of FACs in metro Toronto?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has
pointed out, the current fee is $50.
The actual cost to the police force for carrying out necessary
investigations varies. It depends in part upon the exercise of the
discretion of the investigating officers, the degree of risk.
It also depends sometimes on whether the investigations are
being done in an urban or rural area because finding the referees
in the urban area may be more difficult.
As the hon. member knows, the entire subject of firearms
regulation is under review by the government at present. We are
including in that review the process by which acquisition
certificates are obtained. We will bear in mind the cost disparity
to which the member has referred in completing our work on that
subject.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Effective January 16, a new guideline issued by Revenue
Canada will require customs brokers to post bonds equal to 100
per cent of their monthly instalments to the government,
whereas before the requirement was 35 per cent of the first
$200,000 and 17.5 per cent of the next $1,800,000 up to a
maximum bond of $2 million.
7234
Can the Minister of National Revenue explain why he
increased the bond required of customs brokers from 35 per
cent to 100 per cent of their monthly instalments?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we take note of the member's question and will try to
provide him with an answer as soon as possible.
(1455)
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could I
also ask the minister to check why the maximum bond was set at
$10 million when some importers pay the government monthly
instalments of $250 million?
Is the minister aware that this policy may drive some smaller
customs brokers into bankruptcy?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. Rest assured that
I will refer this question to the Minister of National Revenue.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
underground dealers buy guns through street dealers in Detroit,
bringing them back by the dozens every time they cross the
border and then they sell them at immense profits at after hours
clubs in Toronto.
On Monday this week the revenue minister assured this House
that everything was under control; except the Hamilton
Spectator says that 98 per cent of the guns that are seized are
seized from unsuspecting U.S. citizens coming into Canada.
Why is the justice minister considering useless, ill conceived,
unnecessary gun registration programs when guns continue to
flow over the border?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the
minister of revenue said earlier this week, we are preparing
proposals to deal more effectively with firearms entering
Canada illegally. In the package of proposals that the
government will table before the end of the session in December
dealing with firearms generally, we will deal specifically with
the issue of firearms entering Canada illegally.
Before I leave the subject I must point out that border controls
in terms of being careful with those taking firearms across the
border in their cars are very important. A man named Johnathon
Yeo was found by a coroner's jury to have done just that with
very tragic consequences.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with
respect to registration the minister will know about project gun
runner. Of the 17 guns purchased on the black market, only one
came from a break-in. The rest were smuggled into Canada.
I have even heard it said that the minister said that 70 per cent
of all criminal acts involving guns are committed with
smuggled, illegal firearms.
I ask the minister again, why is he prepared to commit
millions of dollars to a bogus registration program that would
just harass law-abiding gun owners?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for many years the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has been calling for
the registration of all rifles and shotguns. It has been joined in
that by the Canadian Police Association, health care workers,
physicians. Hundreds of other associations across this country
have been asking for registration of long arms. That is one the
prospects we are considering as we assemble our proposals for
gun regulation. If we do decide as a government to introduce it
we will make clear the practical advantages we intend to
achieve, including those identified by the police of this country.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Recently the minister decided to consider the case of Patrick
Kelly under article 690 of the Criminal Code, which allows the
minister to order a new trial when a conviction is based on false
evidence.
However, as the minister knows, there has been a lot of
criticism of the 690 process, that the criteria are vague, it is
secret, too long and not independent.
When will the minister act to meet these criticisms and reform
the 690 process?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the
690 process as described by the hon. member can be improved.
Equally, I am certain that the procedure now in place is capable
of dealing fairly and fully with all of the applications that are
pending.
Let me point out to the hon. member that we have already
made improvements in the process during the last several
months. I refer, for example, to the fact that in the case involving
Colin Thatcher, which was dealt with by reasons given some
months ago, I took the trouble to spell out the principles that
governed the disposition of applications under 690 to remove
some of the mystery the hon. member has referred to.
(1500 )
In cases that are pending I have brought in outside counsel
where I felt it consistent with fairness. Finally, I am completing
an inventory of all outstanding cases and establishing a
timetable to get them all decided at the earliest possible date.
7235
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it has to do
with remarks made recently by the Minister of Transport. The
Deputy Prime Minister may be aware that the Prime Minister
has been receiving letters asking for an apology from the
Minister of Transport to railway workers.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Prime
Minister intends to ask the Minister of Transport to apologize to
railway workers for referring to them as ``a bunch of grade 8 and
9 graduates who can't be blamed for negotiating excessive
collective agreements''.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member
opposite, who has a long history in understanding the
transportation industry, will know that the work of every single
person in transportation, including the work of union workers
across the country, is very important to the government. It is
important to the Minister of Transport. That is why he has
established a committee to look at what alternatives we can find
to keep productive railway workers employed.
I know that is the position of the Prime Minister also.
* * *
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of members
to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Wayne Gaudet,
Minister of Agriculture for Nova Scotia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct yesterday's
record of our proceedings with respect to an error that slipped
into the simultaneous interpretation. I will take a minute or two
to alert the Chair and the entire House.
At page 7181 in the French version of Hansard, the following
sentence appears:
Le premier ministre a dit en même temps qu'on voulait procéder
primordialement en coupant les dépenses, mais que, s'il fallait agir autrement,
And here are the words, Mr. Speaker:
on était prêt à le faire, parce que le but principal est d'éviter la vraie hausse de
taxes qui est une augmentation des taux d'intérêt.
[
English]
The English translation of Hansard-I will just repeat the last
words-says:
-we were prepared to do so because the main objective is to avoid the burden
of higher interest rates.
That is, of course, accurate. However, the transcript of the
simultaneous interpretation overheard by all members of the
House yesterday, including the members of the media, said, and
again I quote the words: ``Elsewhere we would do so because our
main target is to avoid a true increase in taxes, including
RRSPs''.
Those words are not to be found in the French text. In fact it is
an inaccurate simultaneous interpretation which bears bringing
to the attention of all members of the House in the event that
members or even the public may have received inaccurate
information.
The Speaker: I would like to thank the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure that we have fully understood the correction being
requested. We would like some time to examine the nature of the
changes being requested by the government whip.
The Speaker: All that is involved is a point of order. Yes, you
will have the time to examine it, and if you have anything to add,
I will hear you.
_____________________________________________
7235
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy 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 58 petitions.
* * *
(1505)
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the forty-third report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, concerning the
associate membership of committees.
7236
If the House agrees, I intend to move concurrence later today.
* * *
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-286, an Act to amend the
Unemployment Insurance Act (university studies after ten years
of employment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, a while ago, like the great majority of
my colleagues here in the House, I was confronted with the fact
that only workers who qualify for unemployment insurance
were eligible to go to college. In my humble opinion, I think that
discriminates against those who would like to go to university to
learn a new trade. That is the purpose of my bill.
[English]
It is to extend the application of section 26 of the
Unemployment Insurance Act to include full time university
courses in addition to college and other training courses as part
of the courses or programs designed to facilitate the re-entry of
a claimant into the employed labour force.
[Translation]
I hope that all my colleagues in all parties will support this
bill, because it is extremely important to give those who want to
re-enter the labour market a chance.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think there would be unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading of the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs concerning associate membership
of committees.
If so, and the House gives its consent, I move that the 43rd
report of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House
Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have four
petitions today. The first one is about reopening the post office
in L'Anse-au-Griffon, a village in my riding.
The petition basically asks the government to reopen this post
office. It says that the current Prime Minister wrote in a letter to
Rural Dignity dated August 5, 1993-when he was the Leader of
the Opposition-that a Liberal government would examine the
possibility of reopening some post offices. This petition was
certified as admissible by the House.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the other three
petitions I have concern existing rail links in the Gaspé region.
The petition asks the government to impose a one-year
moratorium on any rail service cut or abandonment. The
population and the petitioners specifically ask the Canadian
government to hold public hearings and consultations so that the
people can participate in the decision-making process.
I agree with the petitions on both issues, and we await a
positive response from the government.
(1510)
[English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions on behalf
of Arlene Carlstrom and Lillian Panylyk, president of St.
Nicholas Church in Edmonton.
The two petitions are signed by 189 constituents. These
constituents would like to draw the attention of the House to
section 241 of the Criminal Code to ensure that Parliament does
not repeal or amend section 241, and to ensure that Parliament
uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision of December 30,
1993 to disallow assisted suicide.
It is my pleasure to submit these petitions and to also inform
my constituents that I concur with these petitioners.
[Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to table in this House a petition signed by more
than 2,000 of my constituents, who are asking the government to
provide assistance so that construction work can start right away
on subsidized housing in the riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul.
The disappearance of local industries has led to an unusually
severe job shortage, so that residents cannot all afford decent
housing.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with this petition which I now
present to you.
7237
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
under Standing Order 36 I would like to table a petition on
behalf of some members of my constituency.
They ask and pray that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table today in this
House a petition signed by 393 people in the riding of Verchères
and elsewhere in Quebec, specifically the municipalities of
Sainte-Julie, Saint-Denis, Saint-Marc-sur-Richelieu,
Saint-Roch-de-Richelieu, Saint-Amable,
Saint-Mathieu-de-Beloeil, Saint-Antoine-sur-Richelieu and
Verchères.
Referring to the abolition of universality for the age tax
credit, the petitioners feel that the current government has
unfairly gone after retirement income.
The petitioners see these measures as fundamentally
discriminatory at the fiscal level, since they single out people
who have already contributed a great deal to the Canadian
economy, so that these people cannot hope to improve their
standard of living in the years to come.
The 393 petitioners therefore urge Parliament to reject any
measure that would reduce retirement income. Needless to say, I
agree with the analysis of the situation in this petition and
strongly support my fellow citizens' request.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present several petitions bearing the names of
over 5,700 petitioners from Ontario and across Canada.
The petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to reduce
immigration to the previous level of one-half of 1 per cent of the
population or about 150,000 persons per year, with the basic
intake of not less than 50 per cent of the total composed of
carefully selected skilled workers required by the Canadian
economy, and that our refugee acceptance rate be brought in line
with the average asylum destination countries.
These petitions were initiated by the Immigration Association
of Canada. I support their efforts to address concerns over
immigration policy.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions from my riding of Leeds-Grenville.
In the first petition, the signatories are petitioning against any
pending legislation which would extend to homosexual couples
the same privileges as are extended to heterosexual couples.
The second petition has to do with same sex relationships.
They are asking that privileges not be extended to homosexual
couples as is currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many
people in my riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon.
The petitioners claim that the majority of Canadians respect
the sanctity of the medical professions in the country, and
whereas the majority of Canadians believe that physicians in
Canada should be working to save lives rather than end them,
they ask and humbly petition that Parliament ensures that the
provisions of the Criminal Code be respected with respect to
preserving life and have nothing to do with the voluntary
termination of life.
(1515 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege of presenting a petition on behalf of my
constituents today.
The petitioners wish to bring to the attention of the House that
section 745 of the Criminal Code allows convicted murderers to
apply for a review after 15 years, even if they were sentenced to
life imprisonment without parole for 25 years.
My constituents believe that this contradiction in the code
should be eliminated by repealing section 745 of the Criminal
Code and I could not agree more.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present two petitions.
The first petition is in relation to sexual orientation. The
petitioners from my riding and surrounding areas pray that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the family and specifically
with initiatives to compensate or to recognize the value of work
in the home.
7238
The petitioners are from northern Ontario and ask Parliament
not to forget the family, particularly spouses who work in the
home and care for preschool children.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege to present to this honourable House three
petitions from concerned constituents in my riding of Central
Nova.
The first petition prays that Parliament act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings to unborn human beings. I support their stand with
respect to this issue.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): In the second
petition, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners pray that Parliament not
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation. I agree with this petition.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): The third
petition, Mr. Speaker, prays 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 which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia. I
concur with this as well.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I wish to present on
behalf of residents of Saskatchewan.
The first one has to do with the repeal of section 745.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): I
have another petition, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of gun owners of
Saskatchewan.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners
with regard to the human rights code.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition on behalf of those opposed to
assisted suicide. There are a number of petitioners who are
making that request.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition in support of human life.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): I
have a petition which I support with regard to abortion.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present six different
petitions from the constituents of
Perth-Wellington-Waterloo. One containing over 3,000
signatures deals with the continuation of VIA Rail service in my
riding. Their wishes were recognized this week by the Minister
of Transport.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns BST, bovine
somatotropin, a chemically produced drug that is injected in
cows to make them produce milk.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): The third petition, Mr. Speaker, deals with sexual
orientation and the human rights act, and I place it on the table.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition is on euthanasia.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): The fifth petition, Mr. Speaker, deals with abortion and I
place it on the table.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Finally, the last petition I present today concerns the topic
of compensation to homemakers, the parents who stay at home
to raise their children.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions all on the same topic.
(1520 )
The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House that
decriminalizing assisted suicide or legalizing euthanasia could
lead to a reduction of patient-physician trust and respect, the
degrading of the value of human life and the erosion of moral
and ethical values and that palliative care is active and
compassionate care which can relieve the pain and suffering of
terminally ill persons and families without the danger of
suicide.
Therefore the petitioners pray that Parliament continue to
reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in Canada and
that the present provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code
of Canada which forbid the counsel and procuring, aiding or
7239
abetting of a person to commit suicide be enforced vigorously.
They also pray that Parliament consider expanding palliative
care that would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.
I concur with and support these petitioners.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to present two petitions, both having to do with the
same topic.
The names were collected in my riding by a branch of the
Ukrainian Catholic Women's League. They petition Parliament
to continue to reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in
Canada. They call for the vigorous enforcement of the present
provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada. They
ask that Parliament consider expanding palliative care that
would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present six petitions to the
House today.
In two petitions the petitioners are asking that Parliament not
amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act
or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would
tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in two petitions the petitioners are praying
and asking Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to
the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the
same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I present two petitions where the petitioners
are praying that Parliament will ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament will make no
changes in law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from members of my constituency wherein they say the
majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life and
human life at the preborn state is not protected in Canadian
society. They pray that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present petitions signed by persons from Langley,
Aldergrove and Matsqui, British Columbia in my riding. They
ask that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the
unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
these petitioners ask that Parliament ensure the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
these petitioners ask that Parliament not amend the human rights
code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, or the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to present a petition
from constituents in Clinton, Cache Creek, and 100 Mile House,
British Columbia.
My constituents call upon the government not to amend the
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or homosexuality. They also call upon the
government not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to
include sexual orientation in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination.
I concur with these petitioners.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present to the
House five petitions. The first contains the names of 1,716
constituents of Stormont-Dundas who call upon Parliament to
act to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the
Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by human
beings to unborn human beings.
(1525 )
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition signed by 95 residents of my riding calls
upon Parliament to review and revise our laws concerning young
offenders by empowering the courts to prosecute and punish
young offenders by releasing their names and lowering the age
limit to allow prosecution to meet the severity of the crime.
7240
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition signed by 1,684 residents of my riding prays
that Parliament requests Red Cross Canada review its policy of
directed blood donation and take the steps necessary to allow
individuals to dictate the use of their blood to family members
as they see fit.
This petition drive was launched by Mrs. Natalie Jodoin of
Cornwall when she discovered that she could not donate blood at
a local hospital and direct that it be used for her daughter should
the need arise during minor surgery.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the fourth petition signed by 46 residents of Stormont-Dundas
prays that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate in any way societal approval
of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending
the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
finally the last petition is signed by 458 residents of
Stormont-Dundas who pray that Parliament ensures 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.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all the
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all the questions be allowed to
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that the notice of motion
for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the notice of motion be allowed
to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7240
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of
Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
certainly my pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-46, an act
to establish the Department of Industry.
This all started with the election one year ago when Canadians
felt it was important to set in place a team of people with certain
ideas as presented in the red book, that would reorganize and
transform the government and the way business is done in
Canada.
It is not a coincidence that we have the team of players which
is heading the departments today. We are the original reformers.
Our friends on the opposite side call themselves the Reform
Party, but the Liberal Party is the party of reform. It is our party
that looks at all the resources; people, mineral, and other
resources and asks: How can we do the best for our people? How
can we reorganize things in a way that Canadians will enjoy the
lifestyles they have had in the past and will continue to have in
the future?
We started with general projects. We brought in the
infrastructure program. Why did we bring in the infrastructure
program? Because all the G-7 countries, those countries that are
doing well put infrastructure in. I know because I was a mayor
and I travelled the world. I travelled to Germany and the United
States to beef up my riding of Bruce-Grey, having been the
mayor of the city of Owen Sound for four terms.
My friends opposite can check my record. They can go to the
library and see that I had a strategic plan and I executed it. I
called it building blocks, putting in a hospital, a regional mall, a
sewer treatment plant, an arena, or what have you. These are
building blocks.
7241
This government has reorganized itself in a way to give better
government by streamlining the departments. Starting on this
exercise is so important for us as a government because we are
into an era not unlike what happened during the industrial
revolution.
(1530 )
During that time there was a lot of confrontation. I remember
quite vividly watching a movie in which a gentleman brought in
a steam jenny to replace jobs. His place was stoned. They called
him a sorcerer. People started breaking his windows and all that
because he had brought in a piece of steam equipment that would
replace their jobs.
We have now moved into the technology era. The Secretary of
State for Science, Research and Development and the Minister
of Industry in integration programs with the Minister of Finance
are reorganizing the debt. We are even working with the
Department of Health. We realize that health and the economy
are interchangeable.
We cannot do much without involving young people. We
know the birth rate is high if mothers have good nutrition. Young
people born into the world need the correct tools, the proper
nutrition and fostering. People are the main resource. It starts
with a person being able to dream or a person being able to think.
It spins off to small businesses. I taught some young people in
school who have done quite well. One young man just went to
Japan. I have a lot of faith in them, but as adults we have to give
them opportunity.
Within the next couple of days we will be giving opportunities
to youth. Young people will be allowed to get out there and
experiment with various jobs so they can be focused. We are not
crowding them out as happened in the past. I have been with
these young people and I understand what happens.
As adults we have learned a lot of things over the last number
of years. One thing we have not found out is that we have to
transfer some authority to young people. We have to give them
hope. We have to let them know that they can replace us and that
given the correct climate they will.
In my riding of Bruce-Grey tourism is extremely important.
It is a sector that brings in foreign revenues. It allows
communities to achieve a higher standard of living than they
would have without tourism. The roads and infrastructure we
have put in place will allow people to come to my riding. It will
allow them to stay in a hotel serviced by good sewers and water.
A lot of these things have to be sustainable.
In addition a lot of members in our community such as the
sportsman's association who work at restocking the lakes for the
fishery. Everybody is trying to help. In that climate the fishery is
enhanced. There is the natural beauty that the Lord has given
Canada. We have a great fishery, clean air, pure water, and a
sustainable environment. People can enjoy our beautiful sunsets
and the cottage climate. Then on Labour Day they can go home,
after they have deposited their dollars in our community. There
is a spinoff effect of probably $4, $5, or $6 for every dollar spent
in the community. It provides the communities with an elevated
level of life; they have a theatre and other facilities that
normally would not be available.
They are also helping our country because in some cases
people bring in foreign exchanges. Foreigners know that in
Canada there are many things available that they do not have at
home. They can come here and enjoy them, be it bird watching,
sunsets, skiing or snowmobiling in the Collingwood or
Bruce-Grey area. All these activities are rather unique to our
area. They will all foster opportunities. The industry department
will provide small businesses with a climate in which to grow
and prosper.
Quite recently we struck a committee. I say to the House and
to small businesses that we are serious. The banks must respect
them. The banks must afford to small business persons the same
kinds of opportunities they have been giving to larger
businesses.
(1535)
I know in my heart and my soul, because I have studied the
problem, that those small business people and the one to four
people they employ are the people who will get us out of this
recession. They will get people dreaming again. They will get
people using their ideas and their ideals. Most of us have God
given talents in certain areas that could help the country. As a
government we have to prepare the climate for them to do those
things.
We are now moving to a knowledge based new economy. It is
going to radically change the way we compete in the open
market. We have announced in our educational policies that as
we reorganize the way we use UI or funding to universities we
will make sure all our young people have a chance to go to
school.
I have been told, because of the position we find ourselves in,
that if young people want to enter the teaching profession their
marks have to be in excess of 90 per cent. Lots of people who
would be good teachers or would be good in whatever endeavour
they wish to pursue are not getting those marks. If we empower
them by putting money in their hands they are able to go to any
university and have an opportunity like anybody else. Kids who
are very resourceful, clever kids, come from an environment
where there is a lot of money. There would not be a problem
there, but I personally think it would be a much more
imaginative way to approach funding for universities. Our
young people are very important. We have to foster a climate
where they have a chance, notwithstanding that they mature at
different levels. In some cases their scores do not reflect their
abilities. Some of us are late bloomers.
7242
We are working on all these fronts in an integrated approach
to make sure that we are coming up from the boot straps. We
are going to give people hope again. We are going to make sure
that they have the dignity of work. We are going to look at the
climate of child care from the time a person is born. That is
actually a second front in comparison to what has to happen
now.
We have to kickstart the economy now with the infrastructure
program. We have to get small businesses working, creating a
climate of competitiveness, cutting our trade deficits between
countries we are trading with and trying to export more. That is
important for us. We have to bring our agriculture into a
competitive position. By nature Canadians are very good at
agriculture. That is our niche. That is what we do best. By
putting money into research and development we can improve
our wheat and the amount of milk our cattle produce. We can
produce better strains of beef and products that are resistant to
pests and various climatic conditions.
As we work in those areas that is the way we will get ourselves
out of this recession, get Canadians working again and get our
country working again.
The government is doing the right thing by reorganizing the
department. The government is taking an integrated approach to
the way we work with the economy. That includes looking after
the debt because the debt is very important. We are not taking
anybody else's policies. We are taking a balanced approach. We
are not going to take $44 billion out of the economy because it
will cause a recession; there is no question about that. We will
work on a balanced approach of 3 per cent of GDP. In this
integrated approach we will start to move one step at a time.
That slow walk will pick up to a jog and then we will be up to
speed.
I am pleased to be on this side of the House and I am glad we
are reorganizing this department.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I draw
your attention to identical provisions which appear in three bills
recently tabled, namely clause 18 in Bill C-46, clause 17 in Bill
C-52 and clause 8 in Bill C-53.
In Bill C-46, the provision reads as follows:
18. (1) The Minister may, subject to any regulations that the Treasury Board
may make for the purposes of this section, fix fees that the Minister considers
appropriate in respect of products, services, rights, privileges, regulatory
processes or approvals and the use of facilities provided by the Minister, the
Department or any board or agency of the Government of Canada for which the
Minister has responsibility.
(1540)
Once in effect, this clause will reduce Parliament's control
over increases in government revenues. Although the process is
not new, the enactment of such measures will result in greater
powers of taxation.
It is important to note that, in 1991, some very controversial
amendments to the Financial Administration Act considerably
increased the power of the executive branch of government to
impose fees and costs through legislation.
These amendments are found in Chapter 24 of the Statutes of
Canada, 1991. Although they are questionable in some respects,
the clause contained in Bill C-46 is even worse. Indeed, that
provision allows the minister, or an official authorized by the
minister, to fix discretionary fees within the department.
Sections 19 and 19.1 of the Financial Administration Act
already provide sufficient authority to the Executive without
making it necessary for Parliament to once again increase its
power to collect more money.
At the time, members opposite fought tooth and nail against
those amendments. I guess times change.
Clause 18 in Bill C-46 allows the minister to impose fees or
increase those already applicable, without having to resort to
any legislative instrument that would have to be registered and
published under the Statutory Instruments Act and that could be
reviewed by a competent parliamentary authority such as the
Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. This
is due to the fact that the clause allows the minister to set the
costs but not to do so by order. The words ``by order'' were
omitted from the bills now before the House. Those words are
very important in the British parliamentary tradition, as they
have always transferred to the executive power, that is, the
Governor General in Council, the enforcement of all legislation.
I find this process unacceptable. If ministers can increase
public revenue as they see fit, it would be logical for the relevant
documents to appear at least in the Canada Gazette, which is
accessible to all Canadians.
One of the main functions of this Parliament is to ensure fair
and equitable taxation. Let us try to imagine what the Auditor
General of Canada must do, in preparing his annual report, to
find out if taxpayers really paid what they owe the government.
The question would be: how much do they owe? The rule of law,
a principle treasured by our constitutional monarchy, is being
superseded today by the rule of the minister. An important point
is the extent of the discretionary power that the minister gives
himself in this clause.
This government's usual approach is to entrust its ministers
with highly discretionary powers totally inconsistent with the
most basic principles of sound fiscal management. Clause 10 of
Bill C-22 concerning Pearson Airport, so strongly denounced
by the Official Opposition, is a good current example.
7243
The minister's authority is not limited to setting costs or
charges appropriate in respect of goods or services.
(1545)
Under Section 19(2) of the Financial Administration Act, the
minister does not have to prescribe an amount up to the real
costs in respect of a service provided. The use of these very
subjective terms means that, from now on, the minister has the
discretionary power to set costs above the real value and,
secondly, that these discretionary decisions will not be subject
to any kind of legal review.
I find it extraordinary that Parliament can delegate to a
minister the power to decide by how much he will increase
public revenue other than through taxes submitted and debated
in the House of Commons.
Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada,
have recognized the principle of domanial duality in
administration. For those not familiar with this notion, it can be
explained as follows: a truck used to move government
household effects is government property, while a bridge is
public property but useful to the general public. That is the
distinction. That is what the courts call domanial duality.
The government could, for example, charge $20 an hour by
ministerial order for the use of its truck without advertising or
enacting regulations, but it could not charge a passport applicant
for the full administrative cost of issuing the passport. The cost
could vary depending on whether the application was sent to
officials working in a run-down building in Montreal or in
luxurious quarters in Toronto.
Finally, I am troubled by the description of the items for
which the minister will be authorized to impose service charges
and user fees.
This concept was picked up in the Financial Administration
Act and was one of the main points of the Liberal opposition
when it proposed amendments in 1991 concerning the power to
charge fees for rights. You will see how the Liberals argued then.
I find it wrong for Parliament to say on one hand that a citizen
has a legal right, or is entitled, to receive certain benefits and on
the other that it authorizes the executive to charge a fee to have
this right or benefit recognized. A right is a right; it is not
something that an individual has to buy from the government.
I am trying to understand this new power to ask people to pay
for regulatory processes. That is the term used in the clause in
question: regulatory processes. This expression is so vague as to
be meaningless.
What is a regulatory process? The clause itself rules out any
recourse to the regulations. Or is ``règlement'' used in the
French sense of reaching an agreement? By giving the word
``règlement'' this common meaning, agreement, the English
version of the same clause would be meaningless, since it also
uses the term ``regulatory process''. But what is it?
Also note the extended opportunity to collect funds through
permits and licences and by other means.
In this context, it is clear that regulatory consent is similar to a
licence or a permit. However, that is not the case with clause 18.
The Financial Administration Act and this clause can lead to
abuse.
It is plausible that a minister facing a deficit may increase his
revenues by charging fees for every consent he gives; this will
just lead to a new regulatory scheme to impose a basis for
collecting new charges.
It is true that the power granted by clause 18 would be subject
to the regulations that Treasury Board could make for this
purpose.
(1550)
Since it is not certain that Treasury Board will exercise this
authority or, even if it did, that it would impose restrictions on
the minister's discretionary authority, it is quite logical to think
that the public's concerns are justified.
The citizen cares little whether what he is paying is called a
tax, a charge or a fee: it is disguised taxation. Mr. Speaker, you
will agree that this new Liberal tactic of collecting public funds
by all sorts of devious means is much more like highway robbery
in the last century than the forthright collection of fair charges
related to a particular expense. They are changing the maxim
from ``ignorance of the law is no excuse'' to ``guess right''.
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to enter into this debate. This is an
important bill even though it appears, as my colleague opposite
indicated, to be a purely regulatory type of bill that tends to
condense a lot of the difficulties, bureaucracies and regulations
that are appended to the Department of Industry.
This is an important function nonetheless. It is important
because the country desperately needs a Department of Industry
that is fine tuned, well honed and whose processes for decision
making are adapted to the conditions of the day, conditions that
require immediate action that addresses the problems as they
have emerged over the course of the last 10 years.
I say the last 10 years because some of my colleagues here are
more familiar with the tradition of the last administration that
stretched from 1984 to only 1993. However, in the latter part of
that administration we saw the devastation of the economic
dynamics of this country. It is the economic dynamics of this
country that a bill such as C-46 addresses today.
7244
It addresses these because the directions of the previous
administration allowed forces of an economic nature to pull this
country apart and to weaken the dynamics that allowed even
on a regional basis for some growth, for some wealth and, I dare
say for my colleagues on the Reform side of the House, for
some fiscal generation so that we could either maintain
programs on a national basis or at least support and continue
programs that we felt were of a need from a regional point of
view.
Let me give some examples. I come from that part of Canada
which people love to hate but which is also very important to the
economic vibrancy of the entire country and whose citizens have
very dedicatedly and very willingly contributed to the
consolidated general revenues of this country and have also
done their utmost to engender that spirit of thrift, sacrifice and
risk that comes with the responsibilities of those who would live
in a country dominated by an entrepreneurial spirit.
The greater metropolitan area of Toronto, an area which I
know, Mr. Speaker, you are quite familiar with, used to provide
close to 40 per cent of all the revenues gathered from the
consolidated general revenue fund. Some of my colleagues from
the Reform side, not having had the glasses to adapt them to a
larger vision of the country, might not appreciate that, but it is
true.
Even in such a place the devastation and inadequacies of a
government imposed on the economy saw, for example, the
labour force go from 2,022,000 in 1989 at the end of the boom to
1,984,000 last year. In the process we saw employment drop
from 1,934,000 to a mere 1,755,000. These are statistics dated at
the end of December 1993.
What is interesting about that is not only the drop in the labour
force but the increase in the unemployment. Unemployment
went from 81,000 in Canada's richest city in 1989 to 222,000
this last December-222,000 unemployed.
(1555 )
For some of my colleagues who have a rose coloured glass
view of the world, that is a population that exceeds almost all
cities except the top six in population in this country. It exceeds
the number of unemployed in most of the regions in this country.
To make matters worse, the kind of dynamics that were
unleashed by the last administration, the welfare cases rose to
672,000 in that same area and welfare payments ballooned, as
one can imagine.
What we need-the Canadian public told us this in 1993-is a
government that is structured such as to be able to address the
needs of Canadians wherever they might choose to live in this
country, and make that an absolute certainty, that it is where they
choose to live.
If we are Canadians one of the hallmarks of our identity is that
we have mobility and our country must be governed by a
government that is willing to address not only our aspirations
and our objectives and our needs, but also the development as
we move along. We are not a country that pits one region against
another. We need government instruments that allow us to
address the needs as expressed on an ongoing basis, capable of
meeting the changes that we see the world economy and our
domestic economy impose on families, groupings,
communities, cities, provinces and regions.
As my colleague from Bruce-Grey said a moment ago in a
most eloquent fashion and a most precise fashion when he gave
some specific examples of the potential that has yet to be
exploited, one of the objectives of new Department of Industry,
after it is structured, will be to highlight tourism.
Our Department of Industry has recognized that the current
account deficit that we hold with the world cannot continue at
the rate that we currently see. It is especially onerous on the
tourism side because this country has enormous potential for
tourism development, and yet we have very few programs that
target the tourists emerging in various places around the world.
For example, we do not have adequate programs to address the
emerging tourism potential of western Europe or even the vastly
and quickly growing tourism potential of Asia.
We see that if we are going to allow Canadians to look for a
more aggressive future, one that promises fiscal security,
monetary security and aspirations for our young people and for
families, what we would have to do is take a look at where the
jobs are being created. In some of the statistics I gave we could
see that while there has been a decline in manufacturing not only
in my own region of Ontario and the city of Toronto but virtually
everywhere in this country unfortunately, what we have
experienced at the same time is a growth in the service sector.
There is no better sector than the tourism sector.
In the area of tourism we find that about 50 per cent more jobs
are created in non-tourism related industries and businesses.
These are not Canadian statistics, these are studies that come out
of the OECD. This is an area where other countries have found
similar experiences.
If we are going to build on something that is tangible,
something that is there, we ought to take advantage of the
natural beauty of this country, the natural resources that it offers
from a tourism point of view and we ought to be able to marshall
an industry that allows us to provide jobs today and tomorrow
for a country that yearns for those days when it was realizing its
potential. Those days can come again. We must take the
appropriate measures to put the right structures and procedures
into place, and this bill is one. I urge all members to support it.
7245
(1600 )
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to address the
House on the subject of Bill C-46, the Department of Industry
Act.
I would not be doing justice to my own feelings on this bill if I
did not state at the outset my firm belief that this is good
legislation, a measure of which the government can be proud.
Bill C-46 and other organizational legislation introduced in
this session are clear evidence that the government intends to
live up to its commitment first stated in the campaign that saw it
elected to power to restore and renew our administrative
machinery. I am convinced that Canadians will view it as a
positive step that will help restore public faith in the way our
country is governed.
I have been listening to the discussion on the bill with
considerable interest and have noticed that a constant focus of
debate by the opposition has been the topic of regional
development.
Here we have a bill, as the members opposite have themselves
acknowledged, that deals with a tremendously broad range of
responsibilities. The department has responsibility for industry
and technology, trade and commerce, science, consumer affairs,
corporations and corporate securities, competition and restraint
of trade, bankruptcy, patents and copyrights, packaging,
telecommunication, investments, small business, tourism. I
have to pause and I have not yet exhausted the list.
[Translation]
All these responsibilities are vital to Canada's industry, trade
and economic development. They affect all Canadians in every
province and region, including Quebec. I, for one, think it would
be unfair to my constituents to focus on a single aspect of the bill
and ignore all other very important elements.
The arguments raised by opposition members are seriously
flawed. First of all, according to them, since the Constitution
does not define regional development as a federal responsibility,
it therefore comes under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction. The
federal government has a special responsibility to the regions of
the country whose economy is growing more slowly, as provided
for in Section 36(1)(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982. This
section requires the federal and provincial governments to
further economic development to reduce disparities in
opportunities throughout the country.
The way these responsibilities are discharged has changed
over the years, just as the various regional requirements have
evolved. The federal government used to try to reduce regional
disparities, but it now emphasizes small and medium-sized
business competitiveness and regional development.
Contrary to what some critics claim, the government remains
very active in Quebec regional development. The Economic and
Regional Development Agreement, or ERDA, with Quebec has
not been renewed yet but it only expires in December, despite
the opposition's allegations. The ERDA agreements will remain
in force long after they expire, in some cases in 1996 and 1998.
If we stick to the facts, no one can say that funding for Quebec
regional development is drying up. Between 1989-90 and
1993-94, federal contributions to Quebec regional development
rose by 15 per cent, compared to the previous five-year period,
to $1.4 billion over five years. I would like to see northern
Ontario get part of that; it is not even in the same ballpark.
I admit that by making a commitment to reduce spending and
to lower the deficit, the federal government was forced to cut the
amount allocated to regional development. We made a special
effort, however, to ensure that these cuts are spread fairly among
all regions of the country.
[English]
That being said, the current approach to regional development
in Quebec does not require the same level of funding as in the
past. Business clients of FORD-Q were quite clear during recent
consultations: they do not want any more grants. They want
assistance in a form that helps them realize their potential and
they want the government to reduce the size of our deficit.
(1605 )
There is a contradictory aspect to the opposition argument on
regional development in Quebec. On the one hand, the federal
government is faulted for not establishing a separate department
or agency for Quebec as is done with WED and ACOA. On the
other hand, the federal government is criticized for wanting to
ensure that all regions of Canada benefit from economic
development.
I repeat, the constitutional provision to promote economic
development exists so as to create a more level playing field.
The field we are talking about is not only Quebec but all of
Canada.
I am confident the people of Quebec will demonstrate their
confidence in the federal government's plans for encouraging
economic growth and job creation.
There are practical reasons FORD-Q does not have separate
legislation. The main preoccupation, the main priority of the
government is job creation, not creating new administrative
structures. Bill C-46 is intended to consolidate, not separate.
Therefore it retains existing provisions regarding regional
development. As is currently the case, control of regional
development in Quebec will again be transferred to the Minister
of Finance by order in council.
7246
I am sure that the opposition wishes, as do all members of
the House, to see the Quebec economy prosper. The government
is steadfastly dedicated to that objective. Bill C-46 creates an
organization that will assist Quebec and all of Canada move
toward that goal.
I urge the House to give it speedy passage.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
During the ringing of the bells:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) I
have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the
division until a later time.
[Translation]
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the
division on the question now before the House stands deferred
until 5.30 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of
Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal
certain acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to speak on Bill C-46 which is the bill setting
up the new Ministry of Industry.
Like the member for Eglinton-Lawrence, I was surprised to
hear members of the opposition referring to this as merely
mechanical, organizational legislation.
Bill C-46 which sets up this new department is in fact a part of
the-
(1610 )
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I realize that things often
happen very quickly here but the member's comments thus far
relate to a different bill. We are on a different matter now.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding but we are on Bill C-52.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, a point
of order. I wonder if you could clarify for the House how we
moved from Bill C-46 to the next bill. Somehow this happened
at a time when the member for Peterborough was about to speak
to Bill C-46. Of course, we were interrupted by the amendment
from Her Majesty's official opposition.
The Deputy Speaker: Members are always of good faith. The
matter actually went through. The question was called and the
vote on the amendment was deferred. Once that vote is taken we
will come back to Bill C-46.
We have now moved to a different bill. Does the member for
Peterborough wish to speak to the new bill?
Mr. Adams: No, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in
the debate on Bill C-52.
Since the House resumed sitting, we have been looking at a
new structure for several federal departments. This
restructuring exercise results from a wise decision made by the
Prime Minister to streamline the federal administration in order
to make it healthier, more efficient and, in particular, to save
precious dollars for Canadian taxpayers.
Under the Conservative government, Cabinet had no less than
40 ministers, not to mention the political and bureaucratic
support required, as well as the costs involved. We now have 20
departments which are more efficient and which will provide
better and quicker service to taxpayers. The government is
convinced that it can meet its objectives by pursuing four goals:
streamlining the delivery of a number of services and programs;
eliminating duplication and overlapping; defining the
responsibility of each sector; and transferring some activities to
other levels of government.
The bill which we are looking at today meets these objectives.
Indeed, its goal is to make policies and programs more efficient,
more affordable and also more accessible to our clientele, the
citizens of our country. To determine, in consultation with
provincial governments, who is in the best position to deliver a
program or a service, and to make provision for adjustments to
cope with changing priorities and situations from province to
province are specific and realistic objectives designed to
provide a better service to Canadians.
7247
There is no doubt that, with the co-operation of the
provinces, we can quickly make significant progress in this
area. There is no doubt either that the review of all our
programs and services in order to reduce duplication and
overlapping is very important to Canadians. Every level of
public administration is experiencing budgetary problems.
Every government must find solutions to the growing deficit.
We must spend wisely the money entrusted to us.
We must do more with less. In the past, everyone wanted their
own structure, their own showcase, their own projects and their
own service centres. However, we can no longer afford to
support all that. Generally speaking, Bill C-52 will streamline
the administrative procedures which allow us to reach
agreements with the provincial governments.
(1615)
I think that the infrastructure program is a perfect example of
co-operation between the various levels of government. It
confirms that, by pooling our resources and projects, we serve
Canadians better while also creating many jobs in the process.
The infrastructure program, which was clearly presented in our
red book, is ideally suited to our current needs. We all agree that
there is nothing to be gained by letting a country's infrastructure
deteriorate, since this reduces its efficiency and, consequently,
its competitiveness.
In Quebec, about one hundred very valuable projects were
supported and approved by municipal, provincial and federal
authorities. In several cases, work has already begun.
Consequently, it is not surprising that people were shocked
when the new Quebec minister of municipal affairs announced
his intention to review dozens of these projects.
A new government has the right to do things differently from
its predecessor. It can certainly do so when its plans and
intentions were clearly stated to voters during the election
campaign. For example, during the last federal campaign, we
clearly indicated which programs we were going to eliminate.
We also said that we would look at the Pearson Airport deal
and would cancel that project if we felt that it was not in the best
interests of Canadians. And we did just that. So, it is normal for
the new Quebec government to review projects, provided it
indicated its intention to do so during the election campaign.
There can be no misunderstanding on this issue, and voters
clearly got the message. However, in the case of the
infrastructure program, we are talking about projects which
have been proposed by municipalities, reviewed at the
provincial level and, once approved and recommended by the
Quebec government, reviewed and accepted or rejected by the
federal government. All these projects were approved according
to specific rules clearly stated from the beginning. We are
therefore concerned to see the new Quebec government start
from scratch.
I do hope that once the new Quebec minister of municipal
affairs looks at these projects-hopefully in the very near
future-he will confirm them, so that the communities and
municipal organizations concerned can pursue the work which
had already begun regarding these very important projects.
For example, in my own riding of Saint-Léonard, residents
have been asking for years that a community centre be built to
provide various services. The construction of that centre has
now been put on hold and I hope that the minister will give his
approval as soon as possible, so that work can begin on this very
important project.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-52; I am
especially pleased to speak on it because the riding which I
represent in this House, Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, clearly
lacks government services. I want to talk about this before
getting into the main subject.
The only government buildings in my riding are marine
navigation lights, a post office, an employment centre and an
empty office building. That is not much. First we have the
navigation lights. I think that the federal government cannot
avoid this responsibility since the Rivière des Prairies flows
through my riding and it must be marked with navigation lights.
This is an absolute necessity. Then there is a post office in the
heart of Ville d'Anjou, but having a post office in my riding is
certainly not unusual since the riding of
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies is one of the most populous in the
Montreal area. In that regard, not having a post office would be
inexcusable.
(1620)
As regards the need for a Canada employment centre in my
riding, I think that for a better understanding of what is at stake
here, I should point out to the House that the riding of
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, located in the eastern part of
Montreal Island, is considered by many experts to be an
economically depressed area: the unemployment rate is much
higher than in the greater Montreal area; the number of welfare
recipients is at record levels; it has the lowest average household
income; and the school drop-out rate is one of the highest in
Quebec. That being said, I do not think having a manpower
centre in my riding is a luxury. It meets a real need among my
constituents.
However, according to rumours in my riding, the centre may
be moved to the Saint-Léonard riding, next door. It seems this
would allow for better allocation of available resources. In fact,
the real reasons are pretty obvious. First they expand the area
covered by the manpower centre responsible for East Montreal.
They consolidate various services in the same building, so that
offices already being used are now too small or redundant.
Finally, the new Department of Public Works and Government
Services decides to move the offices to a new building, where it
7248
can offer government services first and foremost to a riding that,
incidentally, voted for the winning side. Quite a coincidence.
In fact, if the rumours I mentioned earlier are true, the new
government offices will be located in one of the least
disadvantaged areas of Montreal.
Of course for the time being, these are just rumours.
Nevertheless, there is a precedent. I realized this when I looked
at the history of politics in this riding. The first Canada
Employment Centre to open its doors in this riding was
inaugurated in 1984. At the time, it was an extension of the
employment centre located in the present riding of
Saint-Léonard. Of course, at the time, in 1984, the riding of
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies did not exist and Ville d'Anjou
was part of the riding of Anjou-Saint-Léonard. After the
election in 1984, this riding was represented in the House of
Commons by the present member for Saint-Léonard.
In the fall of 1988, we had an election, and Ville d'Anjou was
then part of a new riding, Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies. The
riding was represented by the future minister responsible for the
development of greater Montreal, and interestingly, the
employment centre in my riding became a full-fledged centre
from that very moment. Since it was then too small, the
employment centre's offices were moved, this time to the riding
of Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies.
In 1993, another election. Voters in
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies elected a member of the Bloc
Quebecois to represent them, as did many Quebecers during this
last election, and hence current rumours that the employment
centre is going to be relocated.
To end these rumours, the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services need only have answered my question to
him about the activities of his whole department in my riding, as
several Bloc members asked him about theirs. The letters we
received suggested that it was impossible for financial and
accounting reasons to explain what is going on in the ridings.
Given that, you will understand my disappointment with the
vote on the amendment moved by a fellow Bloc member for a
committee to monitor this department. You will agree with me
that setting up a public monitoring commission with the
mandate of scrutinizing the contracts let by the Department of
Public Works and Government Services would be the best way
to ensure the openness that the Liberal Party promised us so
much in its famous red book that everyone quotes abundantly.
We find such openness nowhere in any of the departments we
address. I shall take a few current examples since they are very
recent.
(1625)
We have been trying to find out how many family trusts there
are, how many billions are involved and for how long this money
will not be taxed. We are not getting any answers. No one can
give us exact figures.
There is also the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Some very serious allegations are being made that it has
infiltrated a political party, specifically the Reform Party. This
service's activities are subject to review by an independent
committee, but when that committee's members appear before a
House committee, the only reply they will make to our questions
is that they have become accustomed to not giving a definite yes
or no as an answer. This is not transparency.
Let us look at the events surrounding the Pearson airport
affair. A bill to deprivatize Pearson was introduced, and of
course the people who invested money in the airport will be
making claims. The bill provides that these claims will be heard
in camera by the minister responsible, rather than here in this
House, or before the Canadian people. This is not what I would
call transparency.
An ethics committee was struck to keep an eye on lobbyists.
Rumour has it that this whole business is unsavoury. And to
whom does the committee report? Instead of reporting to this
House, it reports to the minister.
The Communications Security Establishment, which is
allegedly involved in spying activities on a large scale
throughout Canada and perhaps internationally, has been
mentioned today, and indeed with increasing frequency for a
few days now. Eighteen hundred people are involved in its
operations, and although difficult to estimate, its budget seems
to be in the range of two hundred and fifty or three hundred
million dollars.
This brings us to another subject, the inquiry conducted by the
Keable Commission which published some extremely important
information. I may recall that the commission-I will read the
first paragraph of the inquiry-started its proceedings on March
8, 1976. The commission reported as follows: Former RCMP
officer Robert Samson was summoned to testify behind closed
doors at his trial on charges of placing a bomb at the home of
Samuel Dobrin. He revealed that in 1972, members of the three
main police corps operating in Quebec searched the premises of
the Agence de presse libre du Québec without a warrant. This
unlawful search was part of a police operation under the code
name ``Bricole''.
7249
Subsequently, the Keable Commission was to question all the
witnesses who appeared in this case, and the commission's
initial terms of reference were gradually expanded as it
discovered more and more facts.
At one point, the people conducting the inquiry tried to obtain
specific figures and information from the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, and when the RCMP refused, they went to
court. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, and I would like to read to you what the
members of the Keable Commission thought of this ruling. The
following appears in Chapter 3, paragraph 3: ``The Supreme
Court's judgment recognizes the right of the Solicitor General of
Canada to evoke, without further explanation, the interests of
national security as grounds for refusing to produce documents
relevant to a commission's inquiry. In so doing, the Supreme
Court reinforces what Chief Justice Jules Deschênes of the
Superior Court referred to, in a detailed study of section 41(2) of
the Federal Court Act, as the absolute privilege which shields
the executive from the judiciary. Of all the countries whose
jurisprudence in this area was examined by Justice Deschênes,
including England, Australia, New Zealand and the United
States, Canada is the only country that repeatedly favours the
doctrine of absolute privilege''.
In other words, there are citizens in this country who are
above the law, against whom no legal recourse is possible.
This is what transparency means, and unfortunately, Bill
C-52 does not provide the controls we proposed. They are not in
this bill, and we will therefore vote against this legislation.
(1630 )
[English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to talk about the legislation presently before the House
and to look at the amalgamation of different government
agencies into consolidated departments, particularly this one of
public works and government services. The amalgamation of
most of the federal government's common services into one
portfolio is a sound step toward improved efficiency and better
service delivery of government programs and services.
The first and most obvious opportunity is the capacity of a
centralized body to reduce wasteful duplication with consequent
savings to the taxpayers. This is already apparent within the
Department of Public Works and Government Services. It will
become even more so over the next four years as the overall staff
requirements are reduced by close to 30 per cent.
This consolidation of operations will bring annual savings of
hundreds of millions of dollars and make a real contribution to
streamlining government operations and contributing to deficit
reduction.
Cost effectiveness can only be one of the reasons why
amalgamation of the government's common services makes
good sense. It also provides a single focal point to the scores of
government departments and agencies that depend on public
works and government service for services. It creates an
environment in which Public Works and Government Services
Canada is better able to understand the whole range of its
clients' needs and deal with them on a comprehensive basis.
Similarly it provides a single operational point of contact for the
tens of thousands of companies and individuals that do business
with government every year.
By standardizing policies and procedures and by developing
more streamline procurement systems, Public Works and
Government Services Canada can make it more fair, more
simple and less costly for these people to do business with the
government. Finally, the consolidation of our common services
creates a really impressive body of specialized expertise on a
wide variety of matters relating to government services and
government administration.
One of these centres of expertise that has come into the
department through the amalgamation is the government's
translation bureau. Few people are fully aware of the wide range
of services and enormous volume of output that this
organization provides to Parliament and to government on a
continuing basis. With a staff of some 1,200 employees the
translation bureau looks after translation and interpretation
services for Parliament and government departments, agencies
and commissions, as well as acts as the prime authority for the
standardized terminology throughout government.
Besides its basic responsibilities relating to Canada's two
official languages, the bureau provides translation services in
more that 150 languages as well as interpretation services for
some 40 languages and dialects including sign language. The
translation bureau is also an important user of services provided
by the private sector in this field, issuing in a typical year more
than 8,000 contracts for outside work. On average the bureau
translates over 300 million words annually. To give some idea of
the scope of this accomplishment, it represents the contents of
about 4,000 books each of 250 pages in length. If you have heard
my French, Mr. Speaker, you would realize how important good
translation is.
The bureau also translates more than 100,000 weather
bulletins a year through its Météo system, a computer assisted
translation system. It provides about 20,000 person days of
interpretive services. On top of all this the bureau responds to an
estimated 150,000 telephone inquiries each year from client
departments, suppliers and the general public seeking
information regarding correct terminology.
The move of the translation bureau under the umbrella of
Public Works and Government Services Canada was and is a
logical and sensible move. The bureau provides an important
common service to departments and agencies and to the public.
It does extensive procurement for services with the private
7250
sector. In other words, it shares the same characteristics as the
other common service elements of the department and will
benefit from being integrated with them.
Another of the important but sometimes overlooked common
services that Public Works and Government Services provides
for the government is that of the receiver general. This
responsibility which was transferred to the minister from the
former Department of Supply and Services Act covers a
multitude of central financial and banking functions vital to
government operations.
(1635)
The duty of the receiver general includes the issuance of
payments in response to inquiries, settlement and redemption of
payments, performance of other treasury operations such as
receipt processing, payment of banking fees relating to inflows
and outflows from the consolidated revenue fund, maintaining
the general ledger and preparing the financial statements of the
government.
The receiver general is basically responsible for all public
moneys received and disbursed by the government and for all
balances held on deposit in the Bank of Canada and with other
financial institutions. The receiver general must also maintain
the official accounting records of the government and provide
extensive analysis and reporting on the government's
transactions and positions as may be required by Treasury
Board, the finance department or others.
The volume of transactions generated by these
responsibilities is enormous. Each year the receiver general
must process some 30 million deposits and over 200 million
payments. With this volume of work the function of the receiver
general is one that can benefit from the application of new
technologies now available to speed service, deliver and reduce
the cost of delivery.
There has been considerable progress on this front. For
example, of the 200 million payments made annually 30 per cent
are now made by direct deposit and this percentage is growing
each year. Over the last three years the department reports that
some 133 million paper cheques have been converted to direct
deposits. This conversion has resulted in initial savings of some
$41 million in postage and banking fees, and annual savings are
now in the order of $18 million. I am sure members of the
Reform Party will be more than delighted at this progress and
will be supportive of what we are doing here.
The cost cutting measures already taken by Public Works and
Government Services Canada over the past year demonstrate the
wisdom of consolidating the department's common services
into a single department. The bill will give the department the
legislative base it needs to continue to accelerate its efforts to
provide better and less costly common services.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the bill today.
The basic mandate of the Department of Public Works and
Government Services is ``to provide cost effective and efficient
delivery of common services to government departments and
agencies''. This seemingly simple statement of responsibilities
in fact represents an enormous challenge, given that the
department must deliver a vast range of diverse products and
services to more than 150 federal departments and agencies with
physical locations scattered all across Canada.
The department bears much of the responsibility for fulfilling
our government's directive that the administration of its
operations must be made more efficient and that waste and
duplication must be rooted out throughout the service.
As the primary provider of common services for the
government it must take a lead role in meeting the government's
goals in that respect. I think this is a good argument for the
amalgamation and centralization of common services for which
the department was formed, and for the bill which will give
legislative force to its operations.
In pursuit of its mandate Public Works and Government
Services must try to achieve greater levels of both
standardization and flexibility in its operations. Standardization
in such areas as communications systems, procurement
processes and so forth can make a real and positive contribution
to reducing administrative costs throughout government. In its
service to client departments, Public Works and Government
Services must also strive to be as flexible as possible so as to
address the real needs and to respond quickly and effectively to
them.
One of the techniques used by the department to give it
flexibility of action, which has been carried forward from
previous legislation, is the use of revolving funds. A revolving
fund is essentially a revenue spending authority. It is a standing
authority like a line of credit which given to the organization
enables it to use its revenues to pay all or a portion of its
expenditures.
The objective is that all revenues will equal all expenditures
over time. It is the continuous authority to draw on the
consolidated revenue fund up to a specified limit, as opposed to
an annual appropriation of cash. Revolving funds are
particularly useful in facilitating large scale, multi-year
projects, the type of projects Public Works and Government
Services Canada frequently undertakes in the service of its
clients.
7251
(1640)
Bill C-52 provides for the transfer of six such revolving funds
from their existing legislation with no change in their terms and
conditions. These include architectural, engineering and reality
services; consulting and audit Canada; the Canada
Communication Group; government telecommunications and
informatic services; optional services; and the defence
production revolving fund.
In addition the bill establishes one new revolving fund for the
disposition of real property. The new real property disposition
revolving fund is being established to permit the repayment of
expenditures made in the disposal of real property from the
proceeds. At present parliamentary appropriations are used to
fund these expenditures.
As members are aware, the new department and one of its
predecessors, Public Works Canada, have been quite active over
the past few years in disposing of unwanted and unneeded
federal property which represented an unnecessary cost to the
Canadian taxpayer. The establishment of the revolving fund will
streamline and simplify the administration of this process in the
future.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services was
recently made aware of certain practices within the Canada
Communication Group in which the revolving fund was used to
carry over funding from one fiscal year to another.
The minister responded quickly to deal with this problem.
Working in conjunction with Treasury Board the minister took a
number of steps to rectify the situation, including identifying
and confirming the exact amount of funds that had been deferred
for each department, invoicing departments for expenditures
already made against these funds in the current year,
immediately taking steps to return these funds to the
consolidated revenue fund as a refund of expenditures for prior
years, conducting a refund of all the revolving funds in the
department, and instituting a series of processes and systems to
improve management control over them.
The speed and decisiveness with which the minister
responded to this problem attests to the government's absolute
determination to govern with integrity and to take every
possible measure to restore public confidence in the way in
which government conducts its business. It also provides a good
example of the value of amalgamating the government's
common services within one portfolio.
In dealing with the situation the minister was not only able to
correct the particular problem that had occurred in one area but
also to take steps to ensure that similar problems could not arise
in other similar operations within his department.
The new Department of Public Works and Government
Services has demonstrated in its first year of operation that it is
as valid and viable operation. It has already saved taxpayers'
money by the elimination of duplication. It provides one-stop
shopping for its client departments and a central focal point for
suppliers and contractors to government. It has controlled a
valuable body of specialized expertise in government
administration and improved the government's ability to serve
Canadians efficiently and effectively.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as stated in the red book our challenge is and always
will be to do more with what we have. Governments everywhere
are striving to maintain and to improve service levels to growing
populations and to public demands that we do more and be
efficient, more open and responsive in the delivery of services in
communication with our citizens.
At the same time governments face equally challenging tasks
of making their operations more cost effective, reducing
expenditures and easing the financial burden that must be
shouldered by the people. This is a universal challenge and one
that must be met by this government and by all levels of
government in Canada, the United States, Japan, Europe, and
indeed the world.
The experience of the past decade indicates that one of the
most effective ways of meeting the seemingly conflicting goals
of better service at lower cost is through the development and
application of advanced technology to the operation of
government. The Department of Public Works and Government
Services has made considerable progress in applying automated
systems in delivery programs and services.
A new and advanced communications technology has helped
to become more efficient in all aspects of communication within
government, within communications and with the Canadian
public. The technologies in this field are evolving rapidly. It is
vitally important that the federal government keep pace with
change, make maximum use of emerging technologies and make
our operations more efficient and more cost effective. For this
reason I believe the changes embodied in the creation of the
Department of Public Works and Government Services
represent that positive step.
(1645)
I refer specifically to the decision to merge the government
telecommunications agency, formerly the department of
communications, with those portions of former public works
and supply and services that dealt with informatics to a new a
stronger unit known as government telecommunications and
informatics service, or GTIS for short.
An amalgamation of the units will eliminate some duplication
of function and will result in cost savings. More important, it
creates a comprehensive centre of knowledge and expertise on
all aspects of advanced telecommunications and informatics
technology. Further, it recognizes the trend in the industrial
sector toward convergence of computing and communications
technologies.
7252
By locating the agency within the Department of Public
Works and Government Services at the very heart of
government, it will be in a stronger and more central position.
This will benefit the government chief informatics officer, the
scores of federal departments and agencies for which PWGSC
provides common administrative services, and its home
department.
The new GTIS provides information management and
information technology to assist in the automation of
government administration and provides the common
infrastructure for program delivery. GTIS is committed to
constructing an information management and information
technology infrastructure to support both central
responsibilities such as the Receiver General and common
services such as procurement and realty management.
It also is the functional and technical authority within the
Department of Public Works and Government Services for
information management and information technology
architecture, standards, policies, practices and guidelines.
Generally GTIS is working to develop open and standards based
government-wide information management and information
technology architecture and infrastucture.
The importance of applying these new technologies to
government operations cannot be underestimated. To take just
one example, the electronic procurement and settlement system
which is being designed by PWGSC will when it has
government-wide application offer annual cost saving methods
of several hundred million dollars to government and suppliers.
This system, known as EPS, unites the traditionally separate
functions of procurement and finance into a single process. EPS
will link client departments, suppliers and central common
settlement systems allowing them to do business electronically.
It will achieve improved service and reduction in related
overhead costs. It will put control of procurement in the hands of
users without burdening them with the details of process. By
next year it is expected that widespread use of EPS by suppliers
and departments throughout government will begin.
EPS is a flexible system and one that is workable. The
electronic procurement settlement system is but one example of
the many applications designed to streamline the operations of
government that are being designed with PWGSC and within the
government telecommunications and informatics service.
Others include the new public service compensation system, the
standard payment system, the common departmental financial
system, and the government message handling service.
The amalgamation of government expertise and capabilities
in this important field through the creation of the government
telecommunications and informatics service, GTIS, makes
eminent good sense. It will continue to pay off down the road in
the form of more effective service delivery and lower
administrative costs throughout government. It is one more
reason to support this measure to give legislative force to the
Department of Public Works and Government Services.
(1650)
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of the adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup-Manpower
training.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to rise in the debate on Bill C-52, the public works and
government services act.
Less government, less cost, a more responsive attitude: This
is the message Canadians are giving us with respect to our
government operations.
I conducted a social policy forum in my riding just last
Sunday. It was held at Durham College in Oshawa. Many
speakers gave me their views on how to change our social
programs. This is an important part of our democracy in
ensuring that the people who are affected by policies are
involved in them. While this forum did not deal specifically
with the structure of government, speaker after speaker
expressed their views of the need for a smaller and more
efficient government that would interact with the public in a
manner that would restore meaning to the phrase civil servant.
Many of our civil servants are in fact caring and responsible
hard working people who work diligently in the best interests of
Canadians. Sustained salary freezes and a moratorium on hiring
has created despondency in the ranks of the civil service. The
concept of upward mobility seems to have been roadblocked.
Now is the time for new and innovative changes which not
only reduce the cost of government operations but most
important deliver services more efficiently and more
responsibly to the public. Often people are treated to telephone
answering machines with messages never returned, or
overworked line people who after their 90th unemployment
insurance case seem uncaring and unsympathetic.
We must do better. We must rethink our whole attitude toward
public sector employment. We must involve employees and the
public in the evolution of a new system which will still meet the
demands of all Canadians.
7253
We must be prepared to experiment in the public sector in
order to achieve a more efficient system. When we say
experiment, we mean just that, being prepared to start on a test
basis certain pilot projects which will then in turn be monitored
to see how they can be extended to the public at large.
I know members would like me to give an example of such a
system. We have all been dealing with trying to struggle with a
harmonized consumption tax system. The duplication between
the provinces and the federal government along with the burden
to small and medium sized business has been mentioned many
times in this House. In addition, two collection authorities
duplicate the work of the government side on this transaction.
Indeed in the case of the federal government, it results in over 7
per cent of the funds collected. Currently the harmonization of
these taxes has eluded both jurisdictions.
Here is the start of a solution: Why not form an agency for
consumption tax collection? This agency would have
transferred to it the necessary staff and equipment to collect
existing federal tax. The agency would then be set free from the
government. The federal government would then become its
client.
We could work out a formula for the receipt of tax based on
the quantum of moneys collected as well as a bonus for the
satisfaction of the general public. The agency would then sell its
collection services to the provincial governments, offering to
collect their taxes as well. Members will note that there will be
no change in tax authorities or who gets what money. It seems to
me this would eliminate some of the distress which now exists
between jurisdictions. At the same time it would afford for a
more efficient collection system.
From this initiative it would not take long for such an agency
to suggest to the provinces and the federal government an
effective way to only collect the tax once rather than requiring
the duplication which now exists.
This is just one illustration of how government could change
in order to meet the objectives of Canadians which is for an
efficient and effective government, working better and smarter.
Bill C-54 follows this vein by consolidating certain
departments of public works and creating a new procurement
policy. What is in it for the taxpayers? A reduction of $180
million after five years in operation. A reduction in jobs from
18,000 to 14,000. In addition, due to the last budget, a further
reduction of $30 million. These are no small accomplishments,
even though members in the opposition would have us believe
otherwise.
(1655)
I would now like to turn my attention to an important new
aspect of the procurement policy as outlined in the bill. It relates
to contingency fees.
Before coming to the House today I looked up the definition
of contingency fees: A future event or circumstance regarded as
likely or as influence on present action. This means someone
profiting by the success of securing government business. This
is a concept of reward not consistent with the public's demand to
move toward more integrity in our system. This is the sort of
thing that should be abolished and should also be abolished in
general lobbying with the federal government.
Since last May all the department's contracts contain a clause
requiring bidders to certify they have not hired a lobbyist to
solicit award of the contract, where any part of the lobbyist's
payment depends directly or indirectly on a client obtaining the
contract, or a contingency fee. This is a very good thing.
The minister has also moved quickly to make major
improvements in the way contracting for advertising and public
opinion research had been handled by the previous government.
Previously, there were no effective guidelines for the purchase
of these important and sensitive services which left the door
open for widespread abuse and political patronage.
For the first time ever, new guidelines have been developed
and promulgated with the approval and backing of cabinet. They
have brought the procurement of advertising and public opinion
research into line with the thrust and policies governing all
procurements, namely fairness, openness and transparency.
These guidelines ensure that all contracts awarded for these
services advance the policy interests of the government. They
ensure that they reflect the government's determination to
restore public confidence in the system and the way it conducts
the public's business.
By increasing the use of the open bidding system, by
introducing the lobbyist clause and by developing new strict
guidelines dealing with advertising and public opinion research,
the minister has demonstrated his commitment to building a fair
and open approach to government procurement.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that restoring public
confidence in the integrity of government is a matter of high
priority. Dealing fairly and honestly with the thousands of
Canadian individuals and companies who do business with the
government can go a long way toward achieving that goal.
Passage of the Department of Public Works and Government
Services Act will ensure there is a central point of responsibility
within government to ensure that the principles and policies
governing government procurement are enforced, monitored
and adhered to.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
7254
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) I
have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the
division until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the
division on the question now before the House stands deferred
until 5.30 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members
will be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes.
* * *
(1700)
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 18, consideration
of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department
of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts,
be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: When we stopped the last time, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
had the floor, but since he is not in his seat, I recognize the hon.
member for Drummond.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government is introducing for second reading Bill C-53, an Act
to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend
and repeal certain other Acts.
The purpose of this bill is to give legal form to proposals of
the previous Conservative government to merge several
departments. This exercise is presented as a political and
economic measure, that of reducing the size of the Cabinet.
At first glance, one might agree with the economic arguments
for this operation. By merging a number of governmental
responsibilities and activities, with a view to streamlining
operations, we could achieve some savings. However, to do that,
the government would have had to limit itself to the mere
merging, in one single department, of services scattered in
different departments. The government would have had to take
this opportunity to do the necessary house cleaning and to
streamline its operations while looking for duplication of
responsibilities with the provinces.
It did not do that. In this bill, much praised for its economic
virtues, streamlining takes a back seat compared to the
reaffirmed will to occupy fields of jurisdiction which
constitutionally belong to the provinces.
In the area of culture, in particular, the government had a good
opportunity to satisfy its stated economic interest while giving
Quebec something it had been claiming for years under the
Constitution. Unfortunately, it does nothing of the kind, and
instead, maintains duplication and overlapping with programs
the objectives of which are short-circuiting those of similar
provincial programs.
All this at a time when neither Quebec society nor Canadian
society can afford such counterproductive and expensive
interventions. This operation, which could have been
economically rational, is anything but. It perpetuates one of the
economic flaws of federalism through continued spending in a
field of jurisdiction which is not federal.
With respect to this bill, had the government not wanted to
listen to economic reason, it could at least have listened to its
own Constitution. In 1867, the Canadian Constitution gave
authority to the provinces in the areas of communications and
cultural matters. The Constitutional Act of 1867 gave the
provinces jurisdiction over all private and local matters and
recognized Quebec civil law. Education, which is closely
connected with culture, was recognized as a provincial field of
jurisdiction.
Section 40 of the Constitution, which was unilaterally
patriated in 1982, states that when an amendment is made
regarding education or other cultural matters, Canada shall
provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the
amendment does not apply.
In fact, the constitutional acts are clear and give the provinces
exclusive legislative powers over cultural matters. Had it not
been for the spending power of the federal government, we
would not be witnessing today this futile fight, the main victim
of which is the specific cultural identity of Quebec.
With this bill, once again, the federal government fails to
recognize the cultural reality of Quebec as a distinct society
having, as its main characteristic, its language, which it
inherited from one of the two founding nations of Canada.
Instead of recognizing Quebec's cultural reality and taking
appropriate action, this bill reflects a pan-Canadian cultural
identity based on the theory of a bilingual and multicultural
society. The federal government is feeding utopian views which
pose a real threat to Quebec from a cultural and linguistic point
of view. Bilingualism, in particular, is utopian.
7255
(1705)
Every report, every study has come to the same conclusion:
the use of French in Canada has not improved, quite the
opposite. As a journalist, Michel Vastel, so rightly put it, the use
of French in everyday life never spread even here in Ottawa, the
capital of an officially bilingual country. Twenty-five years
after the Official Languages Act was passed, we are still waiting
for French to take its place in the sun, beyond mere use in
legislation, whether it be in day care centres, at school board
meetings, in movie theatres, in hospitals, or in banks.
Sixteen years after moving here, in an article published in the
magazine L'Actualité, Michel Vastel sums up his experience of
bilingualism in the nation's capital, by stating: ``In Ottawa, only
in public buildings will you find the illusion that the two
languages are equal. Beyond this facade, Ottawa is like any
small, unilingual city in Ontario. Here, people leave French at
home''.
This is just one testimony among many that will certainly
leave many of my colleagues sceptical. Unfortunately, all the
reports tabled by the Commissioner of Official Languages are
packed full of such examples which tend to indicate, if one were
to read between the lines, that outside our main institutions,
bilingualism is still sheer utopianism.
The province of Quebec has realized that bilingualism does
not help to preserve and promote its cultural identity. However,
Quebec still provides, in many areas, exemplary services to its
English-speaking minority. As a French society completely
surrounded by the English culture, Quebec has the duty and the
historical responsibility to preserve its cultural identity, its
distinct identity.
Why not stop beating around the bush and provide the
province of Quebec with what the Fathers of Confederation set
aside for this province in 1867? Why does the federal
government show such sterile and costly stubbornness when it
comes to historical demands unanimously approved by every
successive Quebec government for decades now, regardless of
their political allegiance? For what economic or social reason
has the government refused, during constitutional negotiations
and again today in this bill, to give Quebec complete jurisdiction
over cultural matters?
Mr. Speaker, will you let me finish my speech? It will take me
perhaps five more minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to continue for five
more minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Picard: These are the questions that Quebekers ask
themselves and which they will soon be able to answer, among
others, during a referendum on Quebec's political future.
In the meantime, the government could have made the best of
it and done something significant to prove its good faith
concerning what it calls national reconciliation. For all
provinces and especially Quebec, jurisdiction over cultural
matters is of the utmost importance. Their numerous demands in
that sense have always been rejected. For sure, the goal here is
not only to put an end to the waste generated by overlap, but also
to ensure cultural survival and development. And judging by
this bill, the government apparently failed to understand this.
Last week, the finance minister said that we were in hock and
that we could not go on like this. According to him, the
economic situation of this country is unbearable. One reason for
this unbearable situation remains that the Canadian government
uses its spending power indiscriminately in areas under
provincial jurisdiction. It insists on controlling everything
whatever the cost. Well, the cost is unbearable. This is what we
have been saying in this House, but to no avail.
(1710)
With the government threatening to cut social programs by
several billion dollars, what is even more unbearable is that the
Canadian government has clearly indicated in Bill C-53 that it
wishes to impinge on yet another provincial jurisdiction and to
ignore every primary rule of productivity and overspend. This is
why this bill also appears unbearable to me.
[English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege for me to speak on this bill on the reorganization of the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
This department has many extraordinary, important
responsibilities but the one I would like to speak about to the
House today relates to its responsibility for multiculturalism.
As the House knows, the Department of Canadian Heritage
will be responsible for the promotion of greater understanding
of human rights, fundamental freedoms and related values as
well as multiculturalism.
It seems to me that when we are speaking about this topic we
owe it to ourselves to look at it from the point of view of our
ridings, which includes our neighbours and our friends, and also
our country and the importance which this subject has for the
development of Canada. I would like to look at it from both
those perspectives.
I have the privilege to represent the riding of Rosedale which
includes some of the most complex areas of downtown Toronto.
In St. Jamestown, which is part of my riding consisting of about
10,000 people, we estimate there are some 57 language groups
represented. Some wonderful communities are there, including
the Filipino community. I belong to a group called the Circulo
Ilongo which is a group of Filipinos who come from a certain
part of the Philippines.
7256
I have learned a great deal about Filipino values and about
Filipino food and about Filipino love for one another and their
values and the strength they are bringing to my community of
Rosedale and to my neighbourhood that I never would have
known anything about had I not had the privilege of associating
myself with them as their elected representative. I am proud
to say to the member for Winnipeg North who is here with us
today as a representative of the Filipino community
``Mabuhai'', welcome and love from the members of the
Filipino community. He represents a great contribution that the
Filipino community is making to our society.
We have a Tamil community in my riding and there we have
located the Tamil resources centre. This centre, located in
Toronto, contains the largest collection of Tamil language
literature outside of India in the world. In Toronto today we are
publishing three books in Tamil. I could go on.
The question is does one see this as a threat, or does one see
this evolution in our society as a challenge and an opportunity?
There are two very diverse opinions. I have listened to the
speeches in this House on this subject. I listened to the member
for Wild Rose who, it seemed to me, considered this as really a
threat to Canadian development. I had an exchange the other day
with the member for Calgary South who seemed to have the
same attitude and who attacked the heritage languages program
of the department of heritage.
I listened to the member for Saint-Denis who lives in a
complex urban riding in Montreal and who cited the president of
the Royal Bank who said that it is precisely this complex, rich
cultural linguistic grouping that represents the strength of
Canada as we go into the 21st century, that represents the pool of
human capital that will enable us to participate in an ever
enclosed and more integrated global village in which we live.
I much prefer the perception of the president of the Royal
Bank and my colleague from Saint-Denis because it represents
the reality of Canadian cultural experience. It represents
Canadian values, those of tolerance and acceptance. It
represents Canadian interests in terms of how we are going to
deal with the future of the world and it represents the way the
world is evolving.
One of the members across the way called out that it
represents the Liberals. It does represent the Liberals. It
represents Liberal values. I am proud to speak for these values
and proud to speak for a party that represents those values and
insists on them. I am proud to be a member of a party that
recognizes the way the world is evolving.
(1715)
Members opposite can laugh. Are they not watching the way
the world is evolving? Do they not know what is happening
around them? I have talked to their representatives on the trade
committee. I have spoken to other members of the Reform
Party. They know what is happening in globalization. Their
members came with us when we travelled across the country
with our international trade committee. We heard in Vancouver,
Calgary and the Northwest Territories, where many Reform
members come from, about the tremendous import and export
opportunities that Canadians have.
We are living in an age of movement of goods, services and
people across all jurisdictions and boundaries. As Canadians we
have to be able to meet the demands of markets and complex
areas of services. We must have knowledge of those markets. We
have to be able to get into them. How do we get into those
markets if we do not have the language skills and a knowledge of
the culture of those markets in which we want to participate?
We have heard much about China in the House in the last
while and for good reason. Many people estimate that by the
year 2025 China will be the largest single economic factor in the
world. As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee
Kuan Yew said about China: ``It is not possible to pretend that
this is just another big player. This is the biggest player in the
history of man''.
Napoleon said, when China comes on the scene: ``Quand la
Chine s'éveillera, le monde tremblera''. This is true. Again, is
this a danger or is it an opportunity for us? It is an opportunity
for us. The third largest language group in Canada is Chinese. In
Toronto alone there are 350,000 people of Chinese origin and in
Vancouver there are more.
This month alone in Toronto we had four trade delegations
from China led by senior representatives of the Government of
China. All were spearheaded by relations that were established
by people in our communities who speak the Chinese language,
know the Chinese culture, are Canadian citizens and proud of it.
One of the proudest days of my life was a while ago when I
talked to a colleague of mine, a person I consider to be a great
friend who lives in downtown Toronto. He is Vietnamese. He
told me the story of how he came to Canada 20 years ago as a
Vietnamese refugee and how he barely survived. Today he has a
prosperous business in downtown Toronto.
He told me of going to the Vietnamese embassy a while ago.
He is Vietnamese of Chinese origin and so he speaks Chinese as
well. He told me very proudly: ``I went to the Vietnamese
embassy, not cap in hand as a Vietnamese refugee but as a
Canadian citizen who speaks Vietnamese and Chinese. I believe
I can build a bridge between this society and the Asian society
which is an important power of the future''.
7257
Those are the values to which this multiculturalism
department addresses itself. The member opposite from the
Bloc seems to consider this an invasion into the jurisdiction of
Quebec. Quebec citizens do not consider it that. They consider
it an opportunity to participate in an evolving, extraordinary
world.
We are a bicultural, bilingual, bijuridical society that has
become multicultural. By multiculturalism I do not mean dance
groups and festivals. I mean the creation of a society where
other traditions, values, languages and cultures are respected
within the Canadian mosaic and in which those cultures may
flourish alongside and strengthen our own.
As I said earlier in this speech, my riding of Rosedale has as
many as 57 different language groups represented. All these
groups have rich cultural experiences to offer Canada and
through Canada to the world. In that sense Canada may be, as
has been said by others, the world's first non-nation country.
We are not a nation in the tribal sense of 19th century nations
but rather a country which in many ways reflects the global
society of which we are a part. Many other older states are now
evolving in this direction.
We in this party and in this government are anxious to create
instruments of government which reflect this new national and
global reality. This bill moves us toward that important goal. I
am proud to be a part of it and proud to support it.
(1720)
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in the House to discuss Bill C-53, an act to
establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.
As a new member of the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage, I have been looking forward to this time when I can
stand before my colleagues in the House and have the
opportunity to hold the government and particularly this
department accountable for its actions and decisions.
Bill C-53 is a prime example of what is wrong with the
country. It lacks leadership and direction. This was a perfect
opportunity for the government to show Canadians that it truly
does care about the future of Canada, not just in the short term
but in a future which our children's children can enjoy.
Bill C-53 was an opportunity for the government to take the
lead and make some hard decisions regarding funding practices.
We are, as everyone knows, in rough waters. Canada is currently
barely treading water. Our debt and deficit are reaching
astronomical levels. For that reason federal spending must be
controlled and ultimately reduced.
We are spending $110 million more each and every day than
we are currently collecting in revenues. To make matters even
worse, we are continually funding programs and activities that
must be seen as low national priorities when the debt is
considered. These would include multiculturalism, official
languages and amateur sports.
In fact, in a survey conducted in 1991 Canadians were asked
whether they agreed or disagreed that the government should
stop funding multiculturalism and make these projects
self-financed by multicultural organizations themselves. Over
two-thirds of all respondents agreed and in fact 45 per cent of
them strongly agreed that multiculturalism should be funded by
multicultural organizations rather than the federal government.
Another area of contention is official languages. The Reform
Party would eliminate the unnecessary federal funding and the
divisive official language policy and would instead implement a
policy of territorial bilingualism, maintaining official
languages in key institutions such as Parliament, the Supreme
Court and in federal institutions where demand is sufficient to
warrant cost effective minority language services.
A final illustration of the program which I will describe as low
national priority in the Department of Canadian Heritage is
amateur sports. However, I want to make it clear that this list of
three, multiculturalism, bilingualism and amateur sports is by
far not inclusive.
There are presently 88 sports organizations that are solely
funded by the federal government. This amounts to
approximately $45 million plus an additional $12 million
through areas such as major games hosting, athletic assistance
programs and applied sports research. The overall consensus by
these same 88 sport organizations is that there are insufficient
funds available and that the current funds are spread too thinly
among a large number of sports.
The federal government cannot be all things to all sports and
the issue of core sports must be addressed. The concept of core
sports financing should be supported in the short term with the
criteria for eligibility of the core program becoming more and
more selective until such time that the federal government no
longer funds amateur sports.
The Reform Party has a commitment to balance the federal
budget in three years and therefore the time of priority spending
must begin. Therefore, the elimination of amateur sports
funding over a three-year period would enable them sufficient
time to find funding in the private sector. We feel that more
emphasis should be placed on community based involvement
regarding funding through such areas as corporate sponsorships,
membership fees and volunteers.
7258
(1725 )
Canada has also created a bureaucratic, top-heavy sports
bureaucracy. It ensures that the majority of funding which we as
a government are allocating is not going where it was intended,
to the athletes. It is for these reasons that the only role for the
state in amateur sports is the provision of sports facilities which
would be accessible to all Canadians.
Bill C-53 attempts to give Canadians the illusion that the
government is streamlining its activities. We in the Reform
Party live in the real world and see that the bill is not streamlined
but rather an ocean of overlap and confusion.
To illustrate my point, between the departments of heritage
and industry there are overlaps in such areas as the Broadcasting
Act, the National Telecommunications Power and Procedures
Act, Telesat Canada Act, Radio Communication Act, Canadian
Radio and Telecommunications Commissions Act, and the
Copyright Act.
It is incomprehensible to me that we need such an overlap and
duplication in areas where for the most part government has no
business becoming involved in the first place. The level of
separation and degree of responsibility created through Bill
C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry, and Bill
C-53, an act to establish Canadian heritage lack clarity.
On the one hand we have Canadian heritage which ultimately
oversees overall regulations for the CRTC and the Department
of Industry becoming more and more entangled in the overall
direction of industries involved in the information highway and
technological industries.
The questions that must be asked are: Why is the Department
of Industry interfering in the natural progression and expansion
of the private sector by over-regulation? Why is the department
of heritage interfering with the natural progression and
expansion of the private sector by over-regulation?
The answers to these questions are unclear. Perhaps it is
because the government sees an opening where it can generate
more revenues in the form of some sort of taxation, or perhaps it
just enjoys over-regulating certain industries.
Both of these explanations are plausible. It is my obligation as
a Reform member of Parliament not just to criticize but to be
supportive where warranted and to always present an
alternative.
I would like to tell my hon. colleagues that both
over-regulation and overtaxation stifle business growth so stay
out of the private sector as much as possible.
From my research and dealings with the information highway
every expert I have talked to has told me the same thing, that the
government is for the most part one or two years behind the
private sector and their involvement only impedes the growth
and productivity of firms involved. I reiterate we must stay out
of the private sector.
Specifically, looking at Bill C-53 the government has in its
ultimate wisdom left the cable industry in heritage while
transferring the telecommunications industry to the industry
committee. Have the Liberals read the CRTC
telecommunications decision 94-19 which deregulates the
telecommunications industry which, in short, opens
competition to local telephone markets and means the cable
companies will now be able to compete with phone companies
for local home and business service. If comments coming from
the chairman of the CRTC, Mr. Keith Spicer, are any indication
there will be more deregulation in both cable and
telecommunications industries.
Yet these two similar industries are now under two different
ministers. I feel therefore I have to give the Liberals credit here
as they are truly looking as if they know what they are doing,
even though nobody on this side of the House, or the business
sector, or the Canadian public knows what they are doing or why
they are doing it.
What the Liberals have to understand is that less government
will ultimately mean more freedom and more prosperity for all
Canadians.
(1730)
We as parliamentarians have an obligation not only to our
constituents but to all Canadians. We must start to make the
right decisions which will enable our country to lower our
deficit.
It is for these reasons that I am opposed to Bill C-53. It does
nothing to reduce government spending or waste, government
mismanagement or incompetence, government overlap or
duplication. It does not set an example for other ministries nor
does it have the direction needed to lead this country.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to
amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on the amendment at second
reading of Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of
Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
7259
(Division No. 92)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-44
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bertrand
Bhaduria
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Zed-163
PAIRED MEMBERS
Nil/aucun
(1800)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to proceed immediately with the vote on the main
motion on second reading of Bill C-46.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on the main
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
7260
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 93)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bhaduria
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Zed-122
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-86
PAIRED MEMBERS
Nil/aucun
(1805 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and
Government Services, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a),
the House will now proceed to the taking of a deferred division
on the motion of Mr. Dingwall, second reading stage of Bill
7261
C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and
Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts.
Mr. Boudria: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if
you would seek unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken
on the main motion on Bill C-46 to the motion on Bill C-52.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See List Under Division No. 93]
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, the bill stands referred to
the Standing Committee on Government Operations.
It being 6.12 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7261
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary had
six minutes remaining when the House adjourned last time.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my
remarks regarding Bill C-226, an Act to amend the Criminal
Code.
[English]
There is no doubt that the creation of section 745 was unique
in the criminal law of this country. However, this section was
included in the first reading of the original bill in 1976 and it
was fully reviewed and discussed by the justice and legal affairs
committee before it was finally debated and passed by
Parliament.
Rather than the original proposal to have three judges to hear
a case, Parliament amended the bill so that a jury would decide
the case instead and this was done specifically to increase public
participation in the process.
There was even a press release at the time which highlighted
this provision in the proposed legislation. Clearly there was
debate and communication in the public arena and efforts were
made to make the resulting judicial review hearings as public as
possible.
Let me review briefly how the provision works because there
are many misconceptions about the process. An offender whose
parole ineligibility period exceeds 15 years may apply for a
judicial review hearing after at least 15 years have been served.
Provided the criteria are met a superior court judge in the
province in which the offender was convicted empanels a jury to
hear the application.
In making a decision on the application the jury considers the
character of the applicant, the applicant's conduct while serving
his or her sentence, the nature of the offence for which the
applicant was convicted and such other matters as the presiding
judge deems to be relevant.
[Translation]
Some people who are against section 745 hearings suggest
that the judicial review process is equivalent to automatic
parole, but this is not so.
First of all, I would like to say that even though it is true that
36 applicants out of 47, or 77 per cent, have obtained favourable
decisions to date, the fact is that juries are free to reduce or
maintain the period of ineligibility for parole.
Several juries, particularly in Ontario and in Alberta, have not
allowed some offenders to apply for parole. Moreover, a
decision in favour of the applicant does not mean that he will
automatically be granted parole.
As noted by the Supreme Court, section 745 simply allows the
offender who obtains a favourable decision to submit an
application to the National Parole Board. There is no guarantee
that parole will be granted.
Therefore, based on information they are given, jury
members, our fellow Canadians, choose to allow some offenders
to apply for parole.
The jury does not have the mandate to determine the length of
the sentence or the manner in which it must be served. An
offender who has received a life sentence will serve his sentence
for the rest of his life, whether or not his period of ineligibility
for parole has been reduced.
Parole does not mean the end of the sentence, but rather the
beginning of the ``community phase'' of the sentence. In short, a
life sentence never ends, it stays in effect throughout the
offender's life.
[English]
Another misconception is that all or even most offenders
convicted of murder will apply for a judicial review hearing.
This has not proven to be the case. At the moment 128 offenders
are eligible to apply for a judicial review but only 71 have
actually made an application.
7262
(1815)
One argument frequently put forward to discredit section 745
is that families of victims are left out of the process and their
rights are ignored. I would emphasize that judicial review is a
public process. Although judges have not admitted victim
impact statements as evidence so far, this government has
introduced legislation in the form of Bill C-41 which would
permit the introduction of victim impact statements as a matter
of course in these hearings. When passed, this amendment
would give victims a greater role and achieve a better balance in
the process.
In conclusion, I would urge my colleagues to contemplate
seriously what the courts have said in relation to this provision.
For example in Regina v. Vaillancourt, the court concluded that
section 745 hearings strike a balance between the considerations
of leniency for the well-behaved convict in the serving of his
sentence and the community interests in repudiation and
deterrence. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the purpose of
a section 745 hearing is to call attention to changes in the
applicant's situation which might justifiably impose a less harsh
penalty.
While cynics such as the opposition Reform Party members
may say that offenders cannot change, the Canadian Sentencing
Commission noted that some offenders, and I quote: ``genuinely
repent or make changes in their lives which alter their risk to the
public or alter the public's interest in seeing them so severely
punished''.
[Translation]
Obviously, the courts and the Canadian Sentencing
Commission think it is both fair and justified to have a section
that provides for a review of sentences, since human beings can
change and rehabilitate.
The clearest message of all probably comes from jurors, who
are ordinary citizens like you and me, Mr. Speaker. To this day,
36 juries have determined that the parole ineligibility period
should be reduced for some applicants. Is this not clear evidence
that this section is both fair and desirable?
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour for me to rise in this House today and speak in favour of
Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code. We are debating
this evening the repeal of a section of the Criminal Code that has
raised outrage from coast to coast across Canada.
Section 745 allows early release of convicted murderers. This
section of the code sends a confusing message to Canadians. It
sends a message that the federal government does not believe
that murder is a very serious offence. It sends a message to
judges that their sentences are not taken seriously any more. It
sends a message to victims of violence that their pain is just not
as important any more. It sends a message to criminals that their
crimes will be tolerated. It sends a message to all Canadians that
their streets and playgrounds will not be as safe.
Unfortunately a family in my riding has had personal
experience with section 745 of the Criminal Code. I want to
share with all members of the House the experience of Joanne
Kaplinski whose brother was brutally murdered.
On January 29, 1978 her brother Ken Kaplinski was working
as a night clerk at the Continental Inn in Barrie. He was a hard
working law-abiding citizen working to support himself and his
little boy John who was then only three years old.
The Continental Inn was robbed that evening of
approximately $2,000. Joanne's brother was taken by car some
two hours north of Barrie and was shot twice in the head at close
range, execution style. His decomposed body was found in a
snowbank some two months later. Subsequently two men,
Edward Sales and Allan Kinsella, were each convicted of first
degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no
parole for 25 years.
But on January 29, Ken's survivors received a life sentence of
their own. They became members of a very exclusive club to
which no one wants to belong. The initiation fee is the death of a
loved one by violence. Membership dues are extracted from the
members each anniversary of the death of their loved one, each
birthday that cannot be celebrated, each Christmas their loved
one cannot come home for, and each and every day as survivors
of such violence.
(1820 )
The Kaplinski family endured two months of not knowing the
whereabouts of Ken. They endured the police investigations, the
public rumours, the media intrusions loaded with wild
speculation and accusations. They endured the identification of
his personal effects and the anxious wait for forensic
identification of his body. They somehow survived the funeral
and the clean-up of the remnants of their brother's life. They
raised his young son. In sum, they have spent some 16 years
coping with the aftermath of these two killers' actions.
They got on with their lives, or rather got on with picking up
the pieces of their shattered lives. Never would they see the
world through the same eyes again. Evil was no longer some
abstract concept; it became real and tangible. Their profound
despair came from being forced to look into the abyss of human
cruelty and selfishness.
This past December they were once again forced to revisit that
pain, to relive the nightmare of 1978. All their pain and horror
was resurrected by the section 745 application of one of the
murderers, Allan Kinsella. They thought that after the original
trial the men responsible for taking Ken's life in such a cruel and
brutal fashion were being made to pay for their actions by
forfeiting at least 25 years of their lives under the conditions of
incarceration. They simply could not believe that release after
serving only 15 years was an option. For Kinsella to have early
7263
parole seemed to them to make a mockery of the original
sentence handed down by the trial judge.
The public perception of lack of truth in sentencing serves to
further erode the public's confidence in the justice system. They
feel duped by the delays and doublespeak of the bureaucrats. By
making available section 745 the judicial system is sending out a
very clear message to society that murder indeed will be
tolerated. It conveys a very sad statement about the value of our
lives, yours and mine, as Canadian citizens.
Fortunately for Canadian society and the Kaplinski family,
justice was served in the Kinsella hearing. The jury rendered a
decision to deny the application for a reduction in parole
eligibility.
However, the story does not have a happy ending. The family
will again be required to revisit their pain when the
co-convicted advances his application. They may never cancel
their membership in the victims club, a club where membership
indeed has no privileges.
Joanne Kaplinski may not have had to endure a finding in
favour of Allan Kinsella, but this is the exception and not the
rule in most of these hearings. As of the end of March of this
year, 43 reviews have been held under section 745 and only 11 of
these convicts have been denied a reduction in sentence. In the
majority of hearings, 31 in total, the criminal has received
partial or full parole. This is totally unacceptable in the eyes of
most Canadians.
Our criminal justice system is overloaded with cases and
burdened with high costs. The Kinsella hearing cost taxpayers
over $100,000 and there are 600 more convicts waiting in line
for their turn at a potential cost of some $60 million. Why would
we even consider revisiting the final conviction of the worst
kinds of criminals when there are so many more important cases
to try?
This country has a serious debt problem. There is no
justification for spending our limited resources on such
questionable reviews. Let us get the sentence right the first time,
at the conclusion of the original trial and put the offender away
for the full sentence with no exceptions.
Many of the proponents of section 745 like to talk about how
good it is that victims of violence will be able to read an impact
statement at the judicial review. They mention the fairness that
this implies. In their view this balances victims' rights with
those assigned to the convicted.
The truth is that currently there are no legal requirements for
the crown to notify the victim's family so they may testify at
these hearings. The judge may decide not to allow such
statements. Even if such statements are allowed, what about the
victims of the violence? What about the pain they must relive
and the public scrutiny they must endure? Many victims may be
fearful of the convicted and refuse to testify, and with good
reason considering the recent case of Allan Kinsella and the
testimony of Joanne Kaplinski.
(1825 )
Now, as many members of the House will be aware, one of
Ken Kaplinski's murderers has escaped from a so-called
medium security prison near Kingston. As a result the Kaplinski
family lives in terror. Joanne Kaplinski is now under 24-hour
police supervision because she had the courage to stand up as a
victim at the section 745 trial of Allan Kinsella, a trial that
should never have taken place.
Many of the supporters of section 745 have talked about the
value of offering inmates faint hope. They believe convicts will
be better behaved and work toward rehabilitation. We should not
be providing incentives for prisoners to behave, this should be
expected. Rehabilitation of prisoners is of secondary
importance to deterrence and punishment. These arguments in
favour of offering faint hope are just plain wrong.
We have an immediate example in the case of Allan Kinsella.
This brutal murderer should never have been given the time of
day let alone an expensive court hearing and the right to intrude
on the lives of his victims once again.
There is no fairness in the system for the victims of violence.
Sentencing should be certain and should be determined by the
original judge in the original trial.
The justice minister stated in this House yesterday that an
amendment would be made to section 745 so that the courts
would have to hear from the families of the victims. What if
these families are too frightened or pained to testify? What if
this is interpreted by the courts as non-interest by the victims
and a point in favour of early release? This amendment would
offer no guarantees to a public concerned about its safety.
There are three principles that are fundamental to sentencing:
deterrence, punishment and the protection of society. All of
them may be violated by section 745 of the code. Deterrence is
lessened by section 745 because a potential criminal knows his
crime may not receive the otherwise full punishment available.
Punishment may of course be violated because murderers who
have been given a full sentence may get away with only serving
three-fifths of it. Protection of society is lessened as more
criminals are freed to commit more crimes and serve less time.
For the sake of Joanne Kaplinski, for the sake of her family
and indeed for all victims of this most brutal violence, let us put
a stop to this madness and remove section 745.
7264
Clearly there is a problem with the criminal system in this
country. The criminal system needs the justice put back in it.
This was an election issue and I was elected on a very specific
platform. The Reform Party introduced a comprehensive policy
on criminal justice during the 1993 election. It states very
clearly where we stand on section 745.
We support a criminal justice system that places the
punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens
above all other objectives. We also state very specifically that
we support amendments to the criminal law which ensure
greater certainty in sentencing.
I will close by asking all members to think of the Kaplinski
family and indeed all other families who have lost loved ones to
such senseless and vicious killers. Support Bill C-226 and
remove section 745.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-226, tabled by the
hon. member for York South-Weston.
I have to admit that, when first asked if I wanted to discuss
this issue, I almost decided to resort to demagogic comments
such as: A criminal is the victim of his own action. All sorts of
ideas like that are expressed and, unfortunately, too often by
parties in this House, including the Reform Party, which I
certainly respect. However, these comments sometime distort
the reality.
I have met a few individuals who did truly regrettable things,
including murder. Some of them never repented; they wilfully
committed their crime. Even after a rather long time in jail, they
had not learned anything. I think they would have been capable
of committing the same crime again. Yes, there are such
individuals.
(1830)
We also have in mind the recent example of people who
committed unfortunate acts. We know famous elected officials
who ruined their careers by mere shoplifting, like the one who
took a jacket from a department store.
That is why I have always said that the brain is the weakest
organ in the human body. The brain sometimes betrays its
owner.
Recently, in the Gaspé region, a father threw himself off a
bridge with his three children. If this man had survived, I think
he would have been the unhappiest of men. This unexplainable
act is still a mystery.
When dealing with a mistake made without forethought and
often unintentionally, our society must not act out of revenge in
handing down sentences and guarding prisoners. It is not up to
society to avenge victims.
Society benefits from the incarceration system, which
removes dangerous offenders from its midst. However, it
eventually realizes that these people are rehabilitated-as we
often realize from the outset that rehabilitation is possible by
reading pre-sentence reports, etc. As soon as offenders start
serving their sentences, correctional officers have a pretty good
idea if they will eventually be able to reintegrate society.
Jailing people also entails social costs, major repercussions
on their immediate families, not to mention purely financial
costs. Unfortunately, there have been reports lately that our
prisons are overcrowded.
I believe that section 745 of the Criminal Code, which this bill
seeks to strike down, has its purpose in the sense that, in certain
cases, it provides for the re-evaluation, after the fact, of the
state of mind of individuals who committed crimes and allows
for an assessment of the advisability of their release. There is
nothing mandatory in section 745. The jury hearing the
application is not obliged to release the inmate. This review can
only take place 15 years after sentencing. Then, people who
know right from wrong and can weigh the pros and cons, may
recommend that the individual be released.
I believe that in a society like ours, we must be able to afford
acts of mercy of this kind since, as I mentioned before,
sometimes people who committed crimes were not in their right
minds at the time, a situation which can change after a while.
Therefore, in my opinion, it would be mean and would not
benefit society. It could even be costly. When people are truly
repentant, when they acknowledge their wrongdoings, take
appropriate actions to solve their problems while in prison, and
get positive results, keeping them in prison would be an act of
revenge on the part of society.
A society which acts out of revenge is often ill-inspired and
ill-advised. Revenge is a very poor adviser.
(1835)
I know that there are heinous crimes. The Reform Party never
fails to mention a few during Question Period. It is like an
endless round of quotes from reporters on the police beat: ``In
Winnipeg, between 42nd and 32nd Avenue, at 2.25 a.m.,
So-and-so stabbed and killed Ms. Someone, as she left the
hospital where she worked. She was wearing hushpuppies''.
And so on.
We hear this time and time again, and every time the Reform
Party asks for stiffer or longer sentences. There is truth in what
they say. Society must not leave crime unpunished and violence
should not rule our society. I heard the hon. member for York
South-Weston during the referendum debate. I was not a
member then, I was not even in politics, but I heard him speak
heinously of Quebec. That was at the time of the Charlottetown
and Meech Lake agreements and the hon. member was probably
driven by his well-known fiery spirit. I can understand that, but
in Quebec we were hurt.
7265
We do not bear a grudge against the hon. member who
introduced this bill. We understand that this fiery spirit of his
and boundless love for this beautiful country can lead to the
fits of anger he is known for.
I read in the papers, yesterday, that the hon. member was
himself the target of violence, and that he had to seek help and
protection from the authorities, and I feel for him. I said to
myself: a man of his intelligence must realize how violence
feels-parliamentary violence, or verbal or political violence or
whatever-we could even talk about ecological violence, for
instance. Violence in any form, no matter who the perpetrator, is
always bad, and I am sure the hon. member for York
South-Weston realizes that now, which probably explains why,
since last year, he has become extremely civil in his dealings
with his colleagues in the Bloc.
I think the hon. member has seen the light. He is aware that
society can and must exercise a measure of clemency at some
point. If society does not believe in rehabilitation, why did we
get rid of capital punishment?
I am somewhat baffled by all these considerations. The
section they want to abolish was used by 40 people in the past 28
years. I have seen no statistics to show that these people became
repeaters or abused their freedom.
For all these reasons, and considering the small number of
cases that have come before the courts since this section came
into effect, I am inclined to vote against this bill.
[English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this debate to strongly oppose Bill C-226. As
has been mentioned the bill would remove the 15-year review
with respect to parole eligibility for convicted murderers. I want
to make clear that the provision we are talking about does not
deal with the reduction of sentence. It deals with a change in the
parole eligibility date, that is the date at which an individual
offender can go before the parole board and request parole or
release on to the street.
We are talking about a provision which can change the parole
eligibility date between 15 years and 25 years. It is not a
reduction of sentence, because the sentence for murder is a life
sentence and a life sentence cannot be changed by any provision
in the Criminal Code.
(1840 )
Prior to 1976 when capital punishment was on the books in a
very limited way and the sentence for murder was life, the parole
eligibility date was 10 years. When it was set at 10 years there
were very few tragedies. As a matter of fact the average date of
release on parole was not 10 years, although that was the
eligibility date. It was more or less 15 years. The average date
for people who were paroled was near 15 years. A good number
of people who were eligible to go before the parole board at 10
years were never released; they spent their entire lives in prison
under a life sentence.
The suggestion that parole eligibility dates mean automatic
parole is nonsense, misleads the public and misleads the House.
With the abolition of capital punishment in 1976 once again
the sentence for murder was fixed at life. The parole eligibility
was set at 10 years for second degree murder and 25 years for
first degree murder but with the provision that an offender could
seek review of the parole eligibility date at 15 years. Once again
I repeat the sentence remained a life sentence.
I hear people talking in this debate, in the press and so on
about a 25-year sentence being reduced to 15 years. That is not
the case. By the way, no one is automatically released at either
15 or at 25 years. Offenders are paroled by the parole board and
not by the provision of section 745. They are subject to
conditions of parole, must report to a parole officer and can be
returned to prison to continue a life sentence if they commit not
only a minor offence but if they break the conditions of parole. I
will deal with that in a minute.
A person on parole is serving his sentence on the street,
outside the institution, rather than serving it inside the
institution. Under the section 745 process the offender must
apply to the court in the province where the offence was
committed for a review of his parole eligibility date. If the
parole eligibility date was 25 years, the offender can ask the
court to reduce it to at least 15 years. It can be set at any time
between 15 and 25 years. The matter goes to a jury and the jury
can only make a decision to reduce the eligibility date with a
two-thirds majority; it is not a simple majority.
If the jury reduces the parole eligibility date by a two-thirds
vote the person is not released as suggested by the Reform
member who spokes a few minutes before me. When the date
arrives, if it is 17 years, the individual offender must go to the
parole board to prove that he is no longer a danger to the public
and has been rehabilitated. If he cannot prove that he is not
paroled. It is never automatic. It is not automatic with the
section 745 process and it is not automatic before the parole
board.
Furthermore the provision is not a loophole, nor was it ever
hidden. It is a very specific provision written into law and set out
very clearly. When members of Parliament voted on the measure
in 1976 they knew exactly what it was and so did the press. It
was not hidden. It was in the bill like any other measure. It can
be read in the law right now. It is not a gap or a crack in the law. It
was provided for intentionally. It was Liberal Party policy put
forward by a Liberal government and supported by the majority
in the Liberal Party and by the majority in the House. It is
consistent with long time Liberal policy.
7266
Why is it there? It was put there because we in the Liberal
Party believe that a reasonable parole eligibility provision is
an incentive to reform. It gives hope. It provides for correction.
It provides for redemption. It provides for an opportunity to
start over again. It is also a control mechanism. When there are
reasonable parole provisions people who work in the
penitentiary or the institution can expect that prisoners will
attempt to behave well. There are carrots or sticks and parole
is a type of carrot which is an incentive to good behaviour and
to reform.
(1845 )
In addition, if the person is really reformed and no longer a
danger to the public, that person after 15 years can be put back
on the street to earn his or her living, to support his or her family
and to pay taxes rather than being paid for by the state while in
prison, while the family is being supported by welfare. I am
talking about a person who is no longer a danger to the public,
who is no longer a risk and who is deemed to be rehabilitated by
the parole board.
This is a Liberal Party policy and always has been. I can
understand members of the Liberal Party wanting to change it if
it did not work, if there was some massive failure in the 745
provision, but that is not the case. Since 1976 when this
provision was brought in, 128 people have been eligible to apply
under section 745.
Only 71 people have applied. The others perhaps felt they
would not be accepted and did not even bother applying. As of
March 31, of the 71 that have applied, 43 cases have been heard
by courts with judge and jury. Of those 43, 19 were granted full
reduction from 25 years to 15, 13 were granted a partial
reduction, which means somewhere between 25 and 15, and 11
were denied any reduction whatsoever.
My colleague from the Reform Party did not mention that
those persons that were granted a reduction in parole eligibility
date were not released from prison. They had to go to the parole
board when the eligibility date came up to apply for parole.
What happened to them? After a change in their parole
eligibility date, 30 of those cases finally went to the parole
board. Of those only 11 were granted full parole; 6 were granted
day parole; 2 were granted temporary absence and 11 were
denied any kind of parole.
Through this provision, of the 128 eligible since 1976, only 2
have been returned to prison. One was returned, not for
committing an offence, but for breaking the conditions of parole
while out on the street. This person was put back in to serve a life
sentence because the conditions of parole were broken. The
other was put back in for an armed robbery offence.
It means that out of 128 eligible people, one person was
returned to prison for committing another offence. That is not a
failure of the provision. Kinsella was mentioned in the examples
that were given. Kinsella was turned down by the system.
I have heard reference to Clifford Olson as if he was going to
be accepted for parole. Of course Clifford Olson will have the
right to go to the court in 15 years and ask for parole eligibility
to be reduced, but he will never get it. He would have to go
before the parole board.
I ask my colleagues to look at the profiles of the cases of those
who have been released and those who have been turned down.
They would realize that it is a red herring to suggest that Clifford
Olson would be released under this provision. Charles Manson
in the United States has gone to the parole board in that country
six times because he was eligible. He has been turned down
every time. He is not reformed, he is not rehabilitated and he is
still a danger to the public. It is not automatic. We are simply
talking about parole eligibility date.
The Liberal Party definition of justice is not the Reform Party
definition of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is not
revenge. That is not our definition of justice. We believe the
purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect the public,
including the public who work in prisons: the teachers; the
correctional officers; all the people that must work in prison.
They deserve protection too. That is the purpose of the criminal
justice system. We believe that one of the best ways of
protecting the public is by rehabilitation through treatment,
through correction.
Once people are rehabilitated and no longer a danger to the
public it is ridiculous to keep them in prison forever, when they
can be on the street doing good. One of the persons released
under this provision won the medal for the best volunteer in
Montreal a few years ago. That person came out of prison and
established a reputation as an outstanding volunteer in the
community.
My time is up, but I want to say that the bill being presented
by my colleague is not a Liberal bill. It is more of a Reform Party
policy rather than a Liberal policy and it should be defeated.
(1850 )
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-226 today.
This is the type of legislation for which Canadians from all
parts of the country have been calling. This is the second hour of
debate on the bill and much of what has been said related also to
the death penalty. I am not going to be addressing that issue. It
remains part of the background of everything that we say. I am
not speaking in cliches.
Unfortunately I was not able to be in the House during the first
hour of debate. However I did read Hansard to check what the
other members of Parliament had to say about this bill. I was
particularly outraged by what the Bloc Quebecois members
said. I will quote from Hansard directly: ``For a person who has
received a life sentence the parole system is the light at the end
of the tunnel. I do not think that the victims' relatives will suffer
after 20 years. They certainly have suffered and everybody
7267
deplores that fact. However, we do not have to always give in to
the people who shout the loudest''.
This statement is absolutely appalling. If the speaker had ever
experienced the murder of a close friend or a relative I doubt that
he would be speaking so casually. I do not think that the
sentiments of that member represent mainstream Canadian
values.
On February 24, 1976 the Solicitor General of Canada
introduced Bill C-84. This bill defined two categories of
murder: first and second degree. As well Bill C-84 abolished the
death penalty.
According to section 231 of the Criminal Code, first degree
murder is that which is planned and deliberate, the murder of
police officers or prison guards acting in the course of their
duties; or murder committed during hijacking, sexual assault or
kidnapping.
When Bill C-84 was introduced Jim Fleming, then
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications,
said that it was most important to give criminals a glimmer of
hope. He said that some incentive has to be left when such a
terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all criminals.
Incentive for what? My observation is incentive to con the
system.
Last week I received a fax from a citizen in Mississauga,
Ontario who wrote of the horrendous story involving the murder
of RCMP Constable Brian King in 1978. The writer is a nephew
of Mr. King. I understand that the member for York
South-Weston had previously mentioned this story in his
speech, but I think it is too important not to mention it again.
Constable Brian King was an RCMP officer in Saskatchewan
and was on that fateful night to be the trophy of two men who
were full of hate, determined to stalk, capture and kill a cop.
They wanted their friends to see how powerful they were. The
two successfully distracted Brian, overpowered him, seized his
service revolver, secured him with handcuffs, threatened him at
gunpoint and eventually went on to murder him with two rounds
into the skull. This was no crime of passion. This was cold,
calculated, premeditated murder.
They were both sentenced to life imprisonment with no
eligibility for parole for 25 years. When the two men were
sentenced one commented: ``What's 25 years?''. Twenty-five
years is not a deterrent.
Under section 745 these two same murderers were eligible for
an early review. Constable King's family now has to suffer
through months of reliving the memories and the grief as well as
the fear that these convicted cop killers will be out, possibly to
kill again.
The Bloc member who said that the families will get over it in
20 years has not read a letter like this nor has he spoken with any
person who has gone through such a trauma. What kind of
representation is that?
There is more to section 745 than just the simple direction of
it. The entire parole system is in disrepute with Canadians. My
office has received letters concerning the operation of the
parole system. In almost every case the comments are that the
parole board does not do what it is supposed to do. However, the
mission statement of the National Parole Board paints a rather
nice rosy picture. It states:
The National Parole Board, as part of the criminal justice system, makes
independent, quality conditional release and pardon decisions and clemency
recommendations. The board, by facilitating the timely reintegration of
offenders as law-abiding citizens, contributes to the protection of society.
On October 6 the new chairman of the parole board appeared
before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. At
that time I asked him whether he could give me a written job
description of exactly what the chairman does. Unfortunately at
the time he was not aware of any written documentation on this
but stated that he would get back to me with some information.
I received a letter from Mr. Gibbs this past Monday but no full
job description that could be used for performance evaluation
was included. Instead this was what was written: ``Further to my
recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs on October 6 and your request to be provided with
a copy of the chairman's job description, I wish to report that
such a document has never been produced. I can assure you
however that although no written mandate has been provided,
my role is well defined in law and policy and my expectations
very clear''.
(1855 )
After reading this and understanding the climate of
unaccountability that this represents, I know exactly why
Canadians are upset that they are paying top level bureaucrats
six figure salaries to state that they only know by word of mouth
what their job entails. It is a matter of trust. It is a matter of
public accountability.
Let me talk briefly about the success rate of our great parole
system. From April 1978 to March 1988 there were 17,444 cases
of offenders released. As of March 1993, 73.6 per cent
successfully completed their terms of supervision.
Some might look at that and say that is an excellent result. I do
not. The remaining 26.4 per cent were split between two
categories: 2,494 cases violated their conditions of parole and
2,111 cases violated parole because of committing a new
criminal offence. All in all, this is a rather poor success rate.
This past summer Allan Kinsella, a convicted murderer, asked
the court for release after serving 15 years of his life sentence.
His appeal for a section 745 hearing was denied. Because of that
Kinsella got mad from this procedure and then with another
inmate escaped last week. Police are still searching for these two
men who are considered to be dangerous.
7268
Let me recap these events. First, Kinsella commits a murder
and is sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 25
years. Second, at 15 years into Kinsella's sentence section 745
of the Criminal Code kicks in. Third, December 13, 1993 the
section 745 review is denied. Fourth, in July Kinsella is
transferred to the Bath institution in spite of the fact that the
assistant attorney general for Ontario sent letters to the
Solicitor General warning that Kinsella was dangerous and
unsuitable for transfer and that there was a good chance he
would attempt to escape. Fifth, on October 19 Kinsella and
another inmate escaped and are now considered dangerous.
I should not be having to give this example because if section
745 had not even been put into place and had the Solicitor
General of Canada been doing his job, Kinsella would now be
locked up in Kingston Penitentiary, a maximum security prison
for dangerous offenders, exactly what Kinsella is and always has
been.
The Minister of Justice has stated in the House that the
government's position is crystal clear. Let me quote from
Hansard: ``We introduced an amendment to section 745 to
provide plainly that whenever an application is brought under
this section that the court is obligated to hear from the families
of the victims''.
I say including the victim in a process may be good but it is
not good if a murderer gets out on early parole. I would really
question whether Liberal backbenchers across the way know
what the minister is really saying. People are fighting for life to
mean life and not to make a statement at a parole hearing that
might have little effect on keeping a prisoner in prison.
My question to the justice minister yesterday certainly
revealed that the government is completely out of sync with
what Canadians want on this measure.
People are in prison for a reason. In the case of murder they
took someone else's life and for that they should serve life.
Section 745 brings disrepute to the operation of the justice
system and its presence in the Criminal Code has implications
beyond the technicalities of the section.
I call on the members of this House, the people have spoken
and now it is time for the people's representatives to speak and
vote for this bill regardless of what the justice minister says.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-226 which seeks to
repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.
In 1976 Parliament restructured the law of homicide. At that
time Bill C-84 essentially brought into being the current regime
for murder. It reclassified murder according to degrees, first and
second degree murder, and provided a mandatory minimum life
sentence. For first degree murder parole may not be considered
for 25 years. For second degree murder that period is generally
reduced to between 10 and 25 years as imposed by a judge.
Bill C-84 at that time also created the application for judicial
review which has become section 745 of the Criminal Code.
That section provides that a person who has been convicted of
high treason, first degree murder or second degree murder with a
parole eligibility date beyond 15 years to apply to the
appropriate chief justice in the province where the conviction
took place for a reduction in the offender's parole ineligibility
period. The application may only be made after the offender has
served at least 15 years.
(1900)
Some hon. members and others would have people believe
that this provision was hidden away in the bill and was sneaked
through Parliament without parliamentary scrutiny. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
The solicitor general of the day who sponsored the bill called
attention to the proposal during second reading debate. During
the deliberations of the House of Commons Standing Committee
on Justice and Legal Affairs, to which the bill was referred, the
provision was again closely examined.
Indeed during the committee hearings the provision was
amended. The amendment was subsequently endorsed by the
House of Commons and by the Senate. At second reading of Bill
C-84, the solicitor general of the day explained that the proposal
provided a built in additional incentive to motivate the inmate to
rehabilitate himself or herself and provide a protection for
prison guards.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code provides these same
benefits today. The very fact of having section 745 in the
Criminal Code can serve as an incentive for an inmate to attempt
to change his or her ways. As many murderers are ultimately
released on parole, it behoves us to do all we can to encourage
these persons to rehabilitate themselves. The interests of public
protection are better served having section 745 in place than by
repealing it as the bill seeks to do.
We should also keep in mind the enormous economic and
social costs of detaining inmates for prolonged periods of
imprisonment. Moreover, to repeal this section would make the
life of prison guards that much more difficult in managing
murderers serving life sentences, people without hope within
the walls of our penitentiaries. I am one of those Canadians who
feels that prison guards perform an important and difficult task
for the benefit of the rest of us and that they deserve our
protection and our support. Accordingly section 745 should
remain in the Criminal Code.
7269
Originally Bill C-84 proposed that the offender would have
the right to apply to a chief justice for judicial review. The chief
justice would then appoint three judges to consider the
application. An amendment was moved at committee to have
the proposed three judges replaced by judge and jury, in which
two-thirds of the jury must agree on the decision to retain or
reduce the parole ineligibility period.
According to the procedure which still exists today the
public's interest is expressed by the persons acting as a jury in
these proceedings. The change was made to ensure that
sufficient public input would be brought to bear in these
hearings. The change was a good change because it ensures that
the community's view of the matter will prevail over the system
professionals. It was a change that made sense and it is not
surprising that it received parliamentary support.
Even today the decision to retain or reduce the offender's
parole ineligibility period at section 745 hearings rests with the
jury. Jury members are drawn from the province in which the
conviction took place. They represent that community.
In making its decision the jury shall consider the character of
the applicant, the applicant's conduct while serving his or her
sentence, the nature of the offence for which the applicant was
convicted, and such other matters as the presiding judge deems
relevant in the circumstances. The jury is thus not bound to
agree to the applicant's request. It makes its decision in light of
information brought forward at the hearing.
I believe these hearings can be very difficult for the families
of victims. Part of the reason for this is that in the past victims'
families have been frustrated by being denied any participation.
In many cases they could not make representations or be heard at
all.
The present Minister of Justice in Bill C-41, the sentencing
bill introduced in the House last June, addresses the issue. That
bill proposes to amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to
ensure that if an offender applies for early parole eligibility, the
court will be obliged to admit into evidence information from
the victim's family. This evidence will be considered by the jury
in deciding to retain or reduce the period of parole ineligibility.
This proposed change would help victims' families. It does not
force them to testify. It makes their evidence admissible.
(1905)
It is worth noting that there are a number of other proposals in
Bill C-41 which deal effectively with other concerns of victims.
I would like to make one thing very clear. Because an offender is
allowed to apply for early parole this in no way means that it will
be granted. The jury has the absolute power to say no to an
offender who applies for a reduced ineligibility period. A
reduction or immediate termination of the offender's parole
ineligibility period is not guaranteed. Further, if the jury
decides to reduce or terminate this period, the offender's actual
release on parole is not guaranteed.
Discussions of section 745 bring out a tide of emotions on all
fronts. Victims' families and victim action groups must have a
strong voice in our criminal justice system. Their experience
and perspective offer very specific and valuable input. With the
victim impact statement they are given the opportunity to have
their voices heard. We need to establish a balanced approach
toward every aspect of our criminal justice system, and I think
section 745 provides that balance.
With this in mind it is important in this debate to say a few
words about conditional release and to discuss the important
role that the National Parole Board plays in the overall process.
As well, ongoing initiatives by the government to strengthen the
National Parole Board merit our attention.
The decision whether to grant parole to an offender is the
responsibility and the decision of the National Parole Board.
The granting of parole is not guaranteed to an offender who has
been successful before the court in having his or her parole
ineligibility period reduced or terminated at a section 745
hearing.
Understandably the National Parole Board has a difficult job
to do but it is equipped to do it. National Parole Board members
come from diverse background and from all regions of the
country. They take their jobs seriously. Board members are
assisted in their decision making by a set of criteria developed
by the board to assess an offender's chances of obeying the law
if released on parole. They are also assisted by information
provided to them by Correctional Service Canada, the RCMP
and other police services throughout the country.
I am thoroughly in support of the government's steps to
strengthen the National Parole Board. The appointment process
is currently under review to make certain that appointments to
the board are on the basis of competence. As part of this process
openings for full time board members will be advertised in the
Canada Gazette. The qualifications of applicants will be
carefully examined with board members chosen on the basis of
merit, competence and integrity.
As hon. members will know, last June the Solicitor General
tabled Bill C-45. Among other things the bill proposes that a
mechanism be created to permit the discipline or removal from
office of National Parole Board members in specified
circumstances. This measure was introduced to increase
accountability.
The board itself remains committed to ongoing training for
board members. The training programs are geared to improving
sensitivity in decision making and to increasing responsiveness
to community needs. All new members, for example, undergo an
intensive orientation program.
7270
To conclude, I believe that section 745 hearings serve a
useful purpose. Mechanisms are in place to ensure adequate
public protection. The Minister of Justice has introduced Bill
C-41-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member's time has
expired unless there is unanimous consent. There are two or
three minutes left in the debate. Does the member wish to seek
unanimous consent to continue?
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton): Yes.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is requesting
unanimous consent to continue with her remarks. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton): Bill C-41 proposes to
codify the right of victims' families to make their views known
in these hearings. The Minister of Justice will also continue to
monitor the operation of the section to determine if any other
improvements need to be made. In addition, initiatives are under
way to strengthen the composition and the workings of the
National Parole Board.
(1910)
As you can see from my remarks this evening, Mr. Speaker,
there are several reasons for which I cannot support Bill C-226.
The Deputy Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley wishes to start his speech.
Since he wishes to take the floor next time we will call it 7.12
p.m. and the member will have the floor next time the matter is
before the House.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7270
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the opportunity to ask a question
with regard to manpower training and I could feel the minister
does not really understand the situation in Quebec. Therefore, I
would like to take this opportunity to give more information so
that people understand the basis for the consensus existing in
Quebec on the issue of claiming jurisdiction over manpower
training.
You know there is, in Quebec, an agency called Forum sur
l'emploi. It is a forum for stakeholders from every field of
endeavour, such as social sciences, economics, or culture, and
they all came to the same conclusion: ``Quebec forms a specific
region in the economic, cultural and social terms. It is a natural
unit and, if we want to implement a dynamic employment
policy, if we want Quebecers to make the best possible use of
their human resources, we must have control over all the
development programs related to manpower training''.
This is all the easier because both the Canadian Constitution
and the British North America Act state that education comes
under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, the issue of manpower
training as we now call it, including the reform of social security
programs and continued training, should also belong to Quebec.
Quebec would then have all the necessary tools for its
development.
We must remember it was only in the 1942 Constitution that
unemployment insurance was turned over to the federal
government. Before that, provinces also had jurisdiction in that
area. So the Fathers of Confederation really meant for anything
related to training and manpower, or just simply training, to be a
provincial responsibility, in particular because of Quebec's
French identity.
That is why I am asking the government why it does not agree
to that totally logical request, which has met with unanimous
approval in Quebec, and allow the province to have control over
the development of its human resources, which are, and which
will increasingly be, the source of all development.
By making the fullest use of our potential, we will build a
society better suited to adapt quickly to all aspects of
competition on the global market. There is always, in the
background, the special situation of Quebec, the only place in
America where you find a majority of francophones, which
implies different practices, in particular regarding population
mobility.
As regards mobility we cannot apply the same policies,
objectives and national standards to Quebec as we do to the rest
of Canada. That is why I am asking the government to explain its
lack of understanding of the Quebec fact and to tell us why it
does not accept our request, which is made not only by the Bloc
Quebecois but by all stakeholders in Quebec.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was very interested to hear what the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup had to say, and, of course, he
conforms to the separatist rhetoric. I agree that the Constitution
provides for the rights of the provinces in certain jurisdictions.
7271
In this particular case, the federal government has made it
very clear where the difference lies between the two
jurisdictions in Canada.
[English]
One of the elements of the federal government's agenda is in
fact the rebuilding of Canada's social security system. Creating
jobs and growth requires the modernization of our social labour
market and learning programs. One of the key principles of the
reform that has been proposed is to provide greater clarity, as I
indicated, in the roles of the federal and provincial
governments.
[Translation]
The federal government has taken a major step towards a new
partnership on labour market programs. The federal
government's main objective is to improve services for
Canadians, to make those services more effective and to
eliminate any duplication and wasteful spending.
[English]
As a result, in June of this year the Minister of Human
Resources Development invited interested provinces and
territories to assume increased responsibilities in the labour
market sector. The federal offer entails implementation of a
three year interim labour market agreement with each province
which could be put in place immediately. The
federal-provincial discussions are currently under way across
this country.
[Translation]
However, we are still waiting for a reply from the Government
of Quebec. The federal offer includes:
[English]
Provincial planning of $480 million worth of federal labour
market programs in Quebec, about 60 per cent of the federal
labour market program budget; provincial management of
federal purchase of institutional training, valued at $140 million
in the case of Quebec; provincial planning and implementation
of a network of single window offices that would put together
under one roof the programs and services of both levels of
government; and provincial management of certain other
federal programs such as co-operative education, stay in school
programs and Canada employment centres for students, valued
at $12 million in Quebec.
With regard to the estimates of massive wastage, although the
federal government has heard a number of such claims over
recent years, there has never been any serious analysis to
support these kinds of numbers. These huge claims have no
basis in fact.
I invite the hon. member to consider the federal proposal and
urge the Government of Quebec to support it.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 7.18 p.m., this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.18 p.m.)