CONTENTS
Monday, March 27, 1995
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 11029
Bill C-72. Motion for second reading 11036
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 11042
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 11048
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 11050
Bill C-69. Report stage 11050
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 11053
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11053
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11054
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 11056
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11058
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11058
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11058
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11058
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11059
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11059
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11059
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11059
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11059
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 11060
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 11060
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 11060
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11063
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11063
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 11063
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 11064
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 11064
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 11064
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11064
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11064
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11065
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11066
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11066
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 11067
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 11067
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 11067
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 11067
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11068
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11068
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11068
Bill C-69. Consideration resumed of report stage 11069
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 11076
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11076
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 11081
Division on motion deferred 11089
Bill C-68. Consideration resumed of motionfor second reading 11089
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11090
11029
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 27, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately make
an official public apology, accompanied by financial compensation, to the
hundreds of citizens of Quebec who were victims of arbitrary arrest and
unjustified detention during the enforcement of the War Measures Act in the
early '70s.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with some emotion, not to say very
strong emotion, that I rise in this House today to recall tragic
events in the memories of Quebecers, involving individuals and
the exercise of democracy in the 1970s. I will also be referring,
in the course of this motion, to actions and events that continue
today.
You have just read, Mr. Speaker, the motion that I tabled on
October 5, 1994 in this House, which, in brief, has two
objectives: to put the record straight with regard to the October
events, in particular the imposition of war measures, and to
recognize the victims of the imposition of the War Measures
Act, on the one hand, and on the other, to disassociate the
sovereignist movement from the unfortunate events of the time
initiated by members of the FLQ. I refer, naturally to the death
of Pierre Laporte in 1970.
Why are we making this motion in the House today? First, I
repeat that it was tabled in October 1994, at the time of the
release of the movie ``Octobre'' by director Pierre Falardeau,
depicting the days leading up to the death of Pierre Laporte. This
film was subsidized in part by the National Film Board, if I am
not mistaken, and aroused the indignation and ire of some of my
hon. colleagues in the Reform Party and in the Liberal Party in
this House.
What did my hon. colleagues say? I refer simply to the
remarks of the Reform member for Calgary Southeast, who, in
her criticism of the funding of Mr. Falardeau's film, linked
separatists, members of the FLQ and the cause of sovereignty in
Quebec. They implied-and so did several members of the
Liberal Party, this being the argument of our federalist
opponents-that such organizations were part of the same camp
as all the pro-sovereignty groups and individuals who have been
supporting the cause using democratic means for over 25 years;
I am referring naturally to the Parti Quebecois and its
predecessors, the RIN and RN, and to the Bloc Quebecois, which
has only been on the scene for the past few years.
I would first like to state loud and clear that no sovereignist,
no official spokesperson of the democratic sovereignist
movement, has never even considered supporting, in any way
whatsoever, the criminal acts committed by certain individual
members of the FLQ. On the contrary, in 1970, just days after
the assassination of Pierre Laporte and the imposition of war
measures, representatives from all sectors of Quebec society
denounced these actions, especially the late René Lévesque,
leader of the Parti Quebecois at the time. Making this distinction
is important because the individuals who perpetrated the crimes
assumed the consequences, were judged, sentenced and have
paid their dues to society.
I would first like to demonstrate the impact these incidents, in
particular the enforcement of war measures, have had on the
lives of many fellow Quebecers and on our collective
democracy in general.
In 1970, I was a member of the Parti Quebecois, and still am,
and back then, I was garnering support in the riding of
Frontenac, a rural riding in which Lac-Mégantic was the biggest
town at the time. I was working for the Parti Quebecois. We had
just been through our first election, on April 29, 1970. Please
bear in mind that back then being a member of the Parti
Quebecois was not easy in that kind of a community, a
community that I respect and which was adamantly against all
``ists'': communists, separatists, socialists, péquistes. It was not
easy garnering support democratically for the sovereignty cause
in such a context.
When Mr. Pierre Laporte was assassinated, it struck a
dissonant chord within me, I was bowled over, indignant,
frightened.
(1110)
In my heart of hearts, I did not feel that the cause I was
fighting for justified killing a man in order to achieve our goal.
Like hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens, I was and still
am convinced that this should be accomplished in a democratic
11030
fashion. That is why we, sovereignists, will not allow anyone to
question our desire to act democratically.
Second, I wish to point out that I was even more staggered and
even sickened when, a few years after the October 1970 events
and the imposition of the War Measures Act, I realized-like all
of Quebec-that the federal government of the day, of which the
current Prime Minister was a member, used the unconscionable
acts of a few individuals to plan what can be called a political
coup intended to destabilize the sovereignist movement.
I hear my colleague from the Reform Party groaning. I would
ask him to show a little respect and forbearance. He will be able
to speak after I have concluded. I am expressing what thousands
of Quebecers felt at the time. They were mistreated and felt
betrayed by the federal government, when they realized that it
was all just a political plot. In 1969, long before the October
1970 events, discussions about these groups of individuals
acting illegally in Quebec were held at the highest level of
government, also known as the cabinet. They knew that these
groups existed and surely knew who their members were, but
were careful not to intervene. They waited for the right moment
to impose the War Measures Act.
After this act was imposed, hundreds of people were arrested
and detained illegally, without any charges being laid against
them. I would like to quote a few figures and I would ask all my
colleagues to pay attention. It is not only two or three people
who were arrested, but more than 500. Five hundred people were
arrested and detained, in some cases for a few weeks, without
any charges being laid against them either during the October
events or afterwards.
There were 4,600 cases of search and seizure were carried out
throughout Quebec. The police entered private homes for all
kinds of reasons, conducting searches and frightening ordinary
people. Some 31,700 searches were carried out. These figures,
in my opinion, demonstrate the significant consequences of
imposing the War Measures Act. This act was enforced twice in
Canada, the first time in 1918 and the second time during the
October events.
(1115)
I would just like to come back to another point, namely the
fact that this is still going on today. Our friends from the Reform
Party should pay particular attention to what I am about to say.
Let us think back to the Grant Bristow affair, a few months ago.
Bristow, a Heritage Front militant and known agitator infiltrated
the Reform Party and moved in circles close to the leader of this
party. We must realize that this is still happening today. And on
the eve of the referendum debate, I ask the federal government,
our Liberal friends and our Reform friends to respect the wishes
of Quebecers. I ask that the federal government give the people
of Quebec the assurance that every effort will be made to ensure
that a democratic debate can take place, without the secret
services or CSIS attempting to manipulate public opinion in
Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bernier: I would like to take the few minutes remaining
to emphasize that such activities went on after the War Measures
Act was repealed, activities of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Agency (CSIS) which, I repeat, are known, having
been brought to light by a number of inquiries, such as the
Keable Commission in Quebec, which uncovered a whole string
of illegal acts committed by various individuals linked to the
Canadian secret service. The Macdonald Commission of Inquiry
also uncovered many illegal activities by RCMP officers.
I would also like to show how such activities affected the lives
of these citizens. Just take the case of this man, a respectable
Montreal lawyer by the name of Pierre Cloutier, who was
investigated by the RCMP without his knowledge. Mr. Cloutier
was under RCMP supervision for 11 years. What does Mr.
Cloutier do for a living? This gentleman is a respected lawyer
who was never accused of any wrongdoing and who acts as
arbitrator in Quebec labour conflicts. For some ten years,
employers and unions have called on him to settle their disputes.
His credibility therefore is unimpeachable. Again, because Mr.
Cloutier was somehow connected with individuals who were
involved in the FLQ, or because he is still active in the
sovereignty movement, the RCMP secretly followed him for 11
years, from 1970 to 1981.
An hon. member: This is a shame.
Mr. Bernier: When Mr. Cloutier asked to see his file, what
did he find? First, he found a file which is 1,500 pages thick.
(1120)
Just imagine: fifteen hundred pages on a single individual
who never ran into any trouble with the law. Moreover, 1,000 of
these pages are censored. This is the work of institutions which
monitor the activity of sovereignists who want to act in full
compliance with the democratic process. We all remember the
case of an individual arrested in 1970, and his wife too. I am
referring to Mr. Gérald Godin and Mrs. Pauline Julien. We all
know about the illegal and criminal activities of Mr. Godin: he
was a member of Quebec's National Assembly, and a Quebec
minister for some ten years.
There is no doubt that this suspicious individual was under
close surveillance by our federal institutions. Mr. Godin was
illegally imprisoned in 1970. He was detained without any
charges laid against him. What conclusion did he draw from
those days? Let me read you a poem written by Mr. Godin after
the October 1970 events. The poem is entitled ``October''. I
11031
apologize for my English pronunciation, but I must read this
poem in the language in which it was written by its author. In
reference to those events, including his arrest, Mr. Godin wrote:
[English]
They followed me, they taped me
They spied on me, they tripped me
They broke in on me, they fell down on me
They hooked me, they trapped me
They arrested me without a warrant
without a reason, without a word, without a look
and they frisked my brain
They jailed me, they banned me, they exiled me
They laughed at me, they tried to destroy me
And there was a big silence around here then
There was a sort of continental silence
All my friends had left town
None of the usual talkers could find his words or his breath
None of the usual writers could find his pen or his ink
But still I am here tonight
and I'm gonna be here for a long long time
decades and decades after they'll have disappeared from here
I'll be hanging around
looking for justice, looking for peace
looking after my brothers and sisters
[
Translation]
This is what Mr. Godin wrote following the October 1970
events, and I think we should all reflect on these words. Again,
the purpose of this motion is to ask the federal government to
apologize to the victims of illegal arrests, and provide financial
compensation.
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has
been suggested that the House of Commons make an official
apology to those who were incarcerated during the enforcement
of the War Measures Act in the early seventies and that these
people receive financial compensation. According to section 2
of the War Measures Act, the governor in council may issue a
proclamation that real or apprehended insurrection exists, and
this proclamation shall be conclusive evidence that apprehended
insurrection has existed.
Once the proclamation was issued, the governor in council
had the power to make orders and regulations to deal with the
situation. As a number of members will recall, the provisions of
the War Measures Act were invoked in October 1970, with the
announcement that a state of apprehended insurrection existed
in the Province of Quebec, in response to serious concerns
expressed at the time by the Quebec Premier, Robert Bourassa,
and the authorities of the city of Montreal.
In a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of
Quebec used clear and direct language to describe the dangerous
situation facing the provincial government. As he said: ``The
Quebec Government is convinced that such powers are
necessary to meet the present emergency. Not only are two
completely innocent men threatened with death, but we are also
faced with an attempt by a minority to destroy social order
through criminal action''.
(1125)
According to commentator Denis Smith, in referring to the
events of the fall of 1970: ``During an interview televised on the
CBC network, Robert Bourassa mentioned a five-step
revolutionary program: demonstrations, explosions,
kidnappings, selective assassinations and urban guerilla
warfare. The first three having apparently been carried out, Mr.
Bourassa was sufficiently convinced, on October 16, that the
``program'' was being systematically implemented to believe
that exceptional measures was necessary. We may question the
nature and the reliability of the evidence available to Mr.
Bourassa, but there is no doubt that at the time, Mr. Bourassa felt
it was conclusive''.
Mr. Bourassa and the Montreal authorities felt the evidence
was conclusive and, on that basis, the federal government
proclaimed the existence of a state of apprehended insurrection,
pursuant to section 2 of the War Measures Act. On the basis of
that proclamation, the government passed the Public Order
Regulations, 1970.
On October 16, 1970, during the debate following the tabling
of the regulations in the House, the then Minister of Justice, the
Right Hon. John Turner, gave his colleagues the following
assurances: ``The procedure by way of proclamation is found
within the War Measures Act. This is a completely
constitutional technique. Let me point out more particularly that
the regulations were issued under powers granted to the
Governor in Council by Parliament; so that the constitutional
source of this enactment was, and is, Parliament itself''.
The constitutionality of the procedure and of the War
Measures Act was subsequently also recognized by the courts.
In Gagnon and Vallières vs. Regina, the Quebec Court of Appeal
found, as had all court decisions up to then, that, under the War
Measures Act and the constitution as it existed at the time, no
judicial control could be exercised over the evidence in support
of the decision by the governor in council to declare that a state
of insurrection was feared. This decision was the exclusive
jurisdiction of the governor in council.
The Quebec Court of Appeal also implicitly recognized the
considerable precedents confirming the constitutionality of the
War Measures Act. The courts have always held that the law is a
valid exercice of Parliament's authority to adopt legislation for
peace, order and good government in Canada.
The government of the time made a value judgment, which it
was legally and constitutionally entitled to make on the basis of
information available at the time.
It must also be pointed out that the federal government got
involved in the Quebec crisis at the express request of the
Government of Quebec. Following the crisis, the Quebec
ombudsman investigated complaints of unfair treatment made
by a number of people involved in the matter. Some of the
complainants were compensated. Others had their claims
dismissed. In
11032
his annual report for 1971, the ombudsman noted that he felt
obliged to investigate each complaint submitted to him. He said
that he investigated the facts and reconstructed them insofar as
possible. He tried to understand each person's situation and was
able to consult files that seemed relevant.
The matter was settled provincially, and it is not up to this
government or to Parliament to re-examine it.
Almost 25 years have passed since the events of October
1970. In this period, the legislative and political climate in
Canada has changed considerably. We have witnessed the
emergence of a strong tendency to protect individual rights,
expressed more specifically in the enshrinement of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the constitution. Canadians'
changing attitude is also reflected in the broad interpretation the
courts have given to the charter.
(1130)
Not only has the constitutional landscape of Canadian society
changed since 1970, but also the legislation itself. The
Government and Parliament of Canada have replaced the War
Measures Act with the Emergencies Act, which limits the
amount of force which can be used to deal with an emergency.
The government would not be able to tap the wide-ranging
powers it did in 1970 as easily today. This is also a reflection of
how societal attitudes have evolved.
Judged within today's legislative, judicial and philosophical
framework, some people would question the government's
response to the events of 1970. Nevertheless, the fact remains
that, at the time, the government did what it judged was
necessary and what the constitutional and legislative framework
in place then legally entitled it to do.
During the November 4, 1970 debate in the House on the
legislation introduced to replace the regulations, Mr. Turner
said the following: ``And to suggest, as some members of the
opposition have, that because an insurrection did not occur,
therefore it could not have been apprehended, is an exercice in
false logic''.
This statement is more revealing 25 years after the fact than it
was immediately following it. In 1970, the Government of
Quebec apprehended an insurrection. The federal government
acted, and its actions were driven by that apprehension. The
measures it took were approved by tribunals and deemed to be in
step with the powers which the law conferred to the government
at that time.
We can and must learn from the past. The question begging an
answer is whether we should review the past or invest in the
future. We believe that the best choice is to use the government's
limited resources to secure a brighter future for generations to
come.
Any residents of Quebec who had been unjustly or arbitrarily
targeted by the measures have been compensated by the
Province of Quebec. In my opinion, it would be futile to rehash
yet again this rocky period in Canada's history.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to read the motion to make it clear. Motion
No. 332 reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately make
an official public apology, accompanied by financial compensation, to the
hundreds of citizens of Quebec who were the victims of arbitrary arrest and
unjustified detention during the enforcement of the War Measures Act in the
early '70s.
Should the War Measures Act have been invoked? The answer
is very debatable.
It might serve the purpose of the House to go through a bit of
the history of the time. In late 1969 some bombs were detonated
in Montreal at the Board of Trade and le Club Canadien. In
February 1970 Charles Gagnon, the FLQ leader, was freed on
bail. In May 1970 Pierre Vallières was freed on bail. In June
1970 the justice minister of Quebec, Jérôme Choquette,
announced a $50,000 reward for information on activities
leading to the arrest of key members of the FLQ. The reward led
to tips which allowed the various police forces, the Quebec
Provincial Police, the Montreal police and the RCMP, to make
arrests.
(1135 )
It is helpful to realize all those forces were at work. It allowed
them to make a series of arrests and uncover information which
cited the FLQ's intent to kidnap the Israeli and American
consuls as a sign of protest against American imperialism and
the FLQ's solidarity with the Palestine liberation movement.
On October 5, 1970, James Cross, the senior trade
commissioner at the British Trade Commission was abducted by
the FLQ. On October 10, Pierre Laporte, the minister of labour
in the Bourassa cabinet, was kidnapped. On October 15 the
federal cabinet agreed to use the War Measures Act if the
situation deteriorated. On October 16 the cabinet made the
decision and implemented it. On October 18, two days after the
implementation of the War Measures Act, the body of Pierre
Laporte was discovered. On October 19, one day later, the House
voted to support the government's decision.
On November 2 a bill called Public Order Temporary
Measures Act was introduced to replace the War Measures Act.
That bill correctly was limited to the FLQ. On December 1 the
bill was passed in the House, 174 to 31.
11033
Meanwhile, earlier in November the famous Montreal five:
Lemieux, Vallieres, Gagnon, Chartrand and Larue-Langlois,
were charged with seditious conspiracy and membership in the
FLQ. On December 3 Mr. Cross was freed. Finally in January
the troops were removed.
I would like to run that measure of events against my own
memory of the incidents. In 1964 I was a staff officer at the
headquarters of the eastern Quebec area when the Queen was
about to visit. The FLQ at that time was making a lot of noise. In
fact, the Queen's life was threatened. The general officer
command in Quebec command at that time went to Quebec City
and talked to me, among others, asking if the Queen's visit
should be cancelled. My counsel to that general at the time was
that we should not because we did not know the extent of the
FLQ presence. Surely this would be taking too reactionary a step
against an enemy that was supposedly very small and turned out
to be quite small. I think the counsel was correct at the time. It
was saying, do not over-react.
In 1970 I found myself as the commanding officer of the
Cinquième battalion de services à Valcartier. I was living
through all of these events. I was kept fairly busy because I was
first of all told to provide some of my troops to help the infantry.
I had to establish an advance base in Montreal and take part in
the security of base Valcartier.
My personal conclusion from all of these events was that the
invocation of the War Measures Act was not justified. The same
conclusion can be reached by others. If we look at the ``Queen's
Quarterly'' the Commissioner of the RCMP at the time, William
Higgitt, was even more blunt.
(1140 )
He made it clear that he had never been asked for his opinion
on the efficacy of invoking the act but only on the mechanics of
implementing it. He added that if it conferred certain advantages
to the police, there were many disadvantages, not the least of
which were the excessive powers granted the Quebec police and
the misuse of these powers that went on unchecked.
The commission pressed for documentation of the
apprehended insurrection. Higgitt said that there was none. He
went further to insist that he would have stopped somewhat
short of using the words ``rebellion'' or ``open rebellion''. I had
greater faith in the people concerned than that.
From all these things I would conclude that the Liberal
government of 1970 was a bit like the Liberal government of
today. It could see this thing coming but failed to act, or it
deliberately invoked the War Measures Act for political
purposes.
I can see the current Liberal government acting in the same
way. Look at the dock strikes. Look at the stevedore strike, the
railway strike. It is either too little, too late or it is just the
opposite, a total over-reaction. As one critic said at the time, it
is like cracking a peanut with a sledgehammer.
My conclusion on this motion is that the problem in Quebec
was with the Quebec forces as much as with the federal forces.
As we have seen, all the Quebec police forces; the QPP, the
Montreal city police and the RCMP were all involved in this.
In my judgment, the Bloc Quebecois is not wrong in making
this motion. I cannot go along with it but it is not wrong. It is
being used as a warning of what can happen in a democratic
country such as ours. At the same time, nothing can excuse the
crimes that were committed nor is the Bloc trying to excuse
them. Crimes were committed by the FLQ and nothing can
excuse that.
In my view the government of today is not in a position to
make an apology nor should it make financial compensation.
Undoubtedly there were some innocent victims in all of this but
we cannot prove it today. It would be of no value to try to bring it
all to light again and find out who was innocent and who was not.
The blame should be shared around. But I cannot condemn the
Bloc Quebecois for bringing the motion up today. Let it act as a
warning of what can happen in a democratic society.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
Reform colleague for his good judgment and honest approach.
As for the hon. member for Nickel Belt, once more he did what
the federalists have always wanted done when dealing with
Quebec, that is getting a French Canadian to use strong arm
tactics against other French Canadians.
I am pleased to rise on this motion, introduced by my friend
and colleague, the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. In 1970, I was 24, I was
married and the father of a young child, therefore old enough to
appreciate what was going on in Canada at the time.
Young Quebecers, troubled by inequalities, injustices and the
lack of opportunities in Canadian businesses, had joined in the
fight against the injustices suffered by the Quebec people. They
used means which we still disapprove of and which were
definitely wrong.
The Prime Minister of the time, Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau,
was in the third year of his mandate and he decided, after several
cabinet meetings, to put Quebec back in its place. Several
Quebec ministers sat in on those cabinet meetings, including, to
name just a few, the present Prime Minister, then Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin,
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce; Mr. Gérard
Pelletier, Secretary of State and Jean Marchand, people who
used to be called, in Quebec, the three doves, but whose hearts
were
11034
blacker than the blackest raven to be found along Highway 417,
coming into Ottawa.
(1145)
This small group decided at cabinet level to invoke the War
Measures Act, an act which, previously, had only been used in
wartime. Invoking the War Measures Act was enough in itself to
traumatize the people of Quebec which, at the time, was
overwhelmingly federalist and solidly disapproved of the
actions of the Front de libération du Québec.
The only other time this legislation was implemented was
during the conscription riots, in Quebec, in 1918. What was
different in the October crisis is that Canada was not at war. In
those days, Canada had three guns; I will remind you that two of
them were pointing at the crowd in Quebec City, while the third
one had gone to war in Europe. This is the kind of attention that
was paid to Quebecers in those days. And the great Canadian
army in all this? October 16, 1970 marked the first instance of
what was to become the army's trade-mark, namely action
involving civilian populations.
We saw what it led to, last year, in Mogadishu, in Somalia. We
saw the results of such involvement. The military trained in
Quebec City and in Montreal, and had their finest moment in
Somalia. I remember when the soldiers arrived in Montreal. I
was 24, I remember well. They wore helmets and battle fatigues
with locust tree branches stuck here and there. They carried a
canteen, their pants were dragging on the ground, and they
jammed their loaded M-1s in the ribs of secretaries and workers
on their way to the bus. What a show our great beautiful military
gave. During the Gulf War, it cost us $300 million to send our
soldiers to keep watch over latrines and tanker-trucks. This was
the same army which had practised on Quebec civilians. There is
nothing to be proud of. At any rate, I am not.
The War Measures Act gave certain powers to the governor in
council in case of war, invasion or insurrection. It stripped
citizens of their democratic and civil rights. The executive
reigned supreme and could act unchecked. The state of
insurrection only existed in the mind of the then Prime Minister,
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and of the members of his Cabinet,
including the current Prime Minister who was there then.
Things had been on the move in Quebec from the early 1960s.
Instruments of democracy were sprouting left and right. The
Caisse de placement et de dépôt du Québec, the nationalization
of electricity and the health insurance plan threatened the very
existence of powerful economic interests owned by the English
Canadian and British establishment. This situation had gone on
for too long, and it was time to end any idea of Quebec
autonomy.
The then prime minister attacked Quebec nationalism, just as
the military commanders of ancient times tried to batter down
the main gate of towns under siege, for once this gate was
breached, the towns were sure to fall. On closer examination,
this was not the first time the military machine had gone to the
aid of the political arm when the latter had exhausted its means
of persuasion.
In addition to the episode in 1918 that I mentioned earlier,
there were also the incidents involving native peoples and Métis
in western Canada between 1870 and 1884. A truly magnificent
army.
In 1837-38, there were not only francophone Patriotes, there
were also anglophone Reformers, and they were simply asking
for the establishment of responsible government and the
application in their jurisdiction of the principles of justice,
fairness and freedom.
Terrorism, from whatever sector of society, is no less an
attack on the basic principles of human existence, and Central
Canada and several English-speaking provinces have resorted
to it too often. I would remind the brilliant senator, who in his
time, sympathized with the Parti national social chrétien-the
famous blue shirts of Adrien Arcand-and who recently
expressed his concerns about Quebec nationalism, that the
Governor General drew a comparison between the deportation
of the Acadians and an all-expenses-paid Club Med vacation.
(1150)
Manitoba's language laws, which were declared ultra vires by
the Supreme Court of Canada nearly 100 years after they
produced their perverse effect; and the unilateral abolition of
powers at the Privy Council in London, which deserves a closer
look. It is a little like divorce. Both spouses would like to go
before the court to settle their differences but the wife could say,
for example: ``No, my mother will decide which one of us is
right''. That is about what the abolition of powers at the Privy
Council in London amounts to. Imagine the kind of justice that
can come out of this. It was then the only body still able to look
at both sides and to occasionally restore a semblance of justice
for Canada's francophones.
There was also Ontario's famous Regulation 17 prohibiting
French-language schools on its territory. That is an act of
terrorism. The Indian Act-back when the legislation referred
to them as savages-was aimed at confining this country's first
inhabitants to well defined areas. I would remind this brilliant
senator that his art would never have taken him to the pinnacle
of his career in the other place where he now sits, if he had
worked in Sault Ste. Marie or Queen's Park. The Minister of
Canadian Heritage summed up my thoughts the other day in this
House when he started talking about sheep; you can imagine the
rest.
Do this brilliant senator and the Minister of Industry know
that the first Jew to be elected to public office in Canada was
Ezechiel Hart, who became the member for Trois-Rivières in
Quebec's Legislative Assembly in 1908, and that he was
dismissed by order of the British government? He did not have
the right to sit in Parliament because he was Jewish. Catholics
were only recognized by the government in London in 1828.
Senator
11035
Roux and the anglophones who claim that Quebec nationalism
is unhealthy should be reminded of that.
Everyone agrees now that the War Measures Act denied the
most fundamental rights to hundreds of Quebecers. Take for
example the arbitrary arrest of these individuals by police
bursting into their homes, arresting them without a warrant and
detaining them for several days, and even weeks in some cases,
without even allowing their families to be informed.
I am not denying that this was an extremely volatile situation,
but the measures taken were far too extreme. Did our so-called
civilized society not assume, for a short while, the likeness of a
dictatorship? I would have so much to say, but I know that a
strict count of time is kept. Let me just say that, for these 32,000
searches, Quebecers are entitled if not to financial
compensation, at least to an apology. It is the least once can
expect.
Apologies have been made to the Italians, the Japanese, the
Chinese. It seems to me that apologies should also be made to
every francophone in Canada, and more particularly to those in
Quebec, for blunders such as the one made in 1970.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to discuss this motion asking the
federal government to make an apology to those who, let us not
forget, were the victims of arbitrary arrest and unjustified
detention. No charges were ever laid against these people. The
government ordered that these people be arrested and long
searches were conducted to see if there were any grounds to lay
charges. No charges were laid because no such grounds existed.
People were arrested based on claims, without any regard for the
habeas corpus procedure.
Let me tell you an anecdote. In 1970, I was a student at the
Saint-Augustin seminary, in Cap-Rouge. I was a member of the
Parti Quebecois, and so was my roommate. The evening that Mr.
Laporte died, my roommate tore up his PQ membership card. I
kept mine, and we debated an issue which is still topical today,
namely that the federal government of the time used the
reprehensible actions of the FLQ to kill the sovereignist
movement. The real aim of the operation was to kill the
sovereignist movement.
(1155)
Because of adverse propaganda, membership in the Parti
Quebecois dropped significantly. However, Quebecers also
learned a lesson from this episode, a lesson which they will
remember for a long time: Quebecers opted for democracy. In
fact, that choice had been made long before, since Quebec has
the oldest parliamentary institution in North America, as well as
an appropriate motto which says ``Je me souviens''. We are
patient; we are prepared to wait, but we will reach our ultimate
objective, which is Quebec's sovereignty.
In all its efforts to kill that project, the federal government
only succeeded in attacking the will of Quebecers to reach their
objective not by resorting to violence, but through democratic
means, and they will succeed.
The hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead
referred to Mr. Gérald Godin, who was arrested in 1970. The
best proof that Quebecers did learn their lesson is that, in the
1976 election, the same person beat Robert Bourassa, who was
then the federalist on duty. Quebec's long march toward
sovereignty is based on respect for democracy. The events of
those days had consequences which can still be felt. The federal
government's constant attempts to instill fear in Quebecers have
their roots in the actions taken then, and perhaps also in the
events which occurred with the patriots, back in 1837. They are
always trying to rekindle this fear.
No one among the federalists in Quebec is selling Canada as
an option for the future. They are only attacking the other
option, as if it was always necessary to come back to the same
arguments: ``Things will not go well, because the sovereignists
do not want a bright future for Quebec.'' This is in line with the
oath taken by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1970 to rekindle fear, to
ensure that one can, in a roundabout way, either as Minister of
Justice or as prime minister, achieve the same results.
During the October crisis, when Mr. Trudeau went on national
television to make a statement on the kidnappings, he said:
``Next time it could be the manager of a credit union.'' This was
a demagogic way to say that the FLQ was such a well-organized
group that it could strike almost anywhere in Quebec, but now
we know that some of the FLQ cells were backed by the RCMP.
This makes it a planned strategy to kill the sovereignist
movement.
What we can say today is that the sovereignist movement will
not die, it is here to stay. We have been using all the democratic
tools at our disposal since then. We have elected the Parti
Quebecois, as well as the newest offspring of our movement, the
Bloc Quebecois, which is here to represent a very strong and
very clear movement in Canada. It is obvious that as long as the
Constitutional crisis in Canada is not settled, we will remain
here, because we have a good memory and we will keep on using
existing democratic tools. This is how we have decided to carve
out a place in the sun for ourselves, and this is what we will do in
the future.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it would be nice for
those who were illegally arrested and who were never sent to
trial to get an apology, because their rights were indeed violated.
The purpose of the motion before us is also to send a message to
Quebecers and Canadians of the future, to my children, to your
children, to all young people who are growing up in our society,
that when errors are made in the system, when the system forgets
11036
that it is supposed to be democratic, we must have the courage to
rectify this situation. We must be able to tell all these young
people that, in Quebec and in Canada, things are done
democratically and that it is possible to achieve our goals that
way.
If this motion were adopted by the House, it would show
people not only that the federal government made mistakes in
the seventies, that it deliberately took actions that were
unacceptable, but also that these actions will no longer be
tolerated.
In any case, I think that Quebec will always respond through a
democratic vote. It will do so again in 1995, or whenever it is
deemed appropriate, so that Quebec can become sovereign at
last and not encounter obstacles like those that the federal
system put in its way in the seventies.
I urge the government to think about that. I believe that the
Reform Party must also think about the appropriateness of the
federal government making the official apology that the motion
calls for and to ensure that all those who were illegally arrested
are informed that the present federal government regrets the
actions taken by the government of the seventies.
(1200)
It would be an indication that members on both sides of the
House really want to promote democracy as the sole foundation
of political debates like the one that is going on right now in
Quebec and in Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
11036
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): moved that Bill C-72, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (self-induced intoxication), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think you will find there is an understanding in the House
that in respect of this bill the minister will be the one speaker for
the government. For the official opposition there will be two
speakers who will divide the 40-minute period allotted to the
second speaker in this debate without questions or comments.
For the third party in the House there will be a similar
arrangement in respect of the 40-minute period they would
otherwise have. Then there will be a 20-minute speech from a
member of the New Democratic Party. That should conclude the
debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Just to make this very
clear, the government will present one speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois will have two speakers, the Reform Party will have
two or three speakers, two speakers will also divide the 40
minutes, and finally I understand the New Democratic Party will
have a spokesperson for 20 minutes. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, on September 30, 1994 the Supreme
Court of Canada released its reasons for judgment in a case
called Daviault. The effect of that judgment was to change the
common law rules concerning criminal liability in cases where
the accused is extremely intoxicated at the time of the alleged
offence. The nature of that change, its effect in subsequent cases
and the concern it caused about the principle of accountability in
the criminal law lie behind the government's decision to
introduce Bill C-72 which we are debating today at second
reading.
[Translation]
With this bill, Parliament would abolish self-induced
intoxication as a defence in the case of general intent offences
involving violence, where basic intent is the only criminal intent
required. Parliament would thus recognize a standard of care,
any departure from which would make an unlawful act a
criminal one.
[English]
In leading off second reading debate today, I propose to
develop the principles underlying the bill and to explain why the
government believes that Bill C-72 represents a prudent,
necessary and valid amendment to our Criminal Code.
May I first touch upon the state of the law before Daviault.
There has never been a formal defence of intoxication in the
Criminal Code. Judges in the facts of specific cases have been
left to formulate those rules by themselves.
Over the decades past, courts have approached this issue by
creating two categories of intent in the criminal law: general and
specific.
General intent has been taken to mean the basic intention to
commit a criminal act in a broad category, such as assaulting
someone or committing a sexual assault on someone.
The courts held that by way of distinction, a specific intent
involves a special purpose in addition to the basic intent. The
crime of murder, for example, requires the proof of a specific
intent. It must be established that someone intended to cause a
death. In theft it must be proven that the specific intent was there
to achieve the special fraudulent purpose of depriving someone
of specific property. With respect to the crime of breaking and
11037
entering with intention to commit an indictable offence, again
the crown had to prove that there was a special purpose in the
mind of the accused.
(1205)
Over the decades, the common law courts developed the rule
that intoxication could be a defence to crimes of specific intent
but were never a defence to crimes of general intent. As a result,
if someone was acquitted of a crime of specific intent by reason
of intoxication, they were almost invariably convicted of an
included general intent offence. Therefore someone who might
not be convicted of murder because of intoxication would be
convicted of manslaughter which required a general intent. A
person who was acquitted of robbery because of the lack of
specific intent might be convicted of assault.
This approach to intent and the effect of intoxication upon
criminal liability was one of the topics identified in the review
of the general part of the Criminal Code launched by the
Department of Justice last fall. It has been felt for many years
that it is about time Parliament became involved in clarifying
the rules with respect to defences and intention rather than
leaving it to the courts to fashion their own approaches. It was in
the course of that review of the general part that the Daviault
judgment was released and its effect became known.
As to the judgment in Daviault itself, the effect of that
judgment was to uphold the traditional distinction between
crimes of general and specific intent. Another effect was to hold
that extreme intoxication in some circumstances could be a
defence even to a crime of general intent.
The underlying analysis was that extreme intoxication can
cause a form of automatism. In the case of Daviault the evidence
related to the ingestion of alcohol. The court held that in that
automatic state, the state of automatism, a person would be
unable to appreciate the nature of the consequence of their
actions and would be unable to form the intention to commit the
offence in issue. The court also held that it would be a question
of fact in each case to determine whether that was so. The onus
would be upon the accused person to establish that it was so and
that scientific evidence would almost always be required to
establish those facts.
The majority of the court also held in Daviault that under the
current common law where self-induced intoxication was not
held to be a sufficient basis for criminal fault, it would be
contrary to the principles of the charter of rights and freedoms to
hold someone criminally responsible for their conduct when
they are intoxicated to the point of automatism.
I observe in passing that although the charter principles were
touched upon in the facta filed by counsel in Daviault and
although there was some reference to them in argument, the
charter principles were not argued extensively or developed in
detail. Furthermore, I observe that there was no section 1
evidence tendered by either party in the Daviault case. I also
observe that the Attorney General of Canada was not invited to
intervene in that case.
The Daviault judgment raised obvious concerns for members
of Parliament and indeed for all Canadians. The whole question
of accountability under the criminal law was brought into sharp
focus.
Specific concerns related to crimes of violence against
women and children. Indeed the Daviault case itself involved an
allegation of sexual assault against a woman. In the weeks that
followed the release of the Daviault case, there were other cases
in various parts of Canada applying its principle, each case
involving allegations of violence against women.
Concern grew that a person might be charged with murder and
defend on the basis of intoxication. If the extent of intoxication
was established to be sufficiently extreme, that person might
walk out of the courtroom entirely free because they were
incapable of performing a specific intent involving murder and
because the intoxication was such that they were exculpated
from the general intent crime of manslaughter. The result would
be that they would face no sanction at all.
Concerns were also expressed that people might manipulate
the legal principles so as to intoxicate themselves to some extent
for the purpose of committing a crime. They would then
intoxicate themselves further afterward before apprehension
and rely upon the degree of intoxication overall to escape
liability for the crime.
(1210 )
Following the release of Daviault and recognizing that change
was needed, the government examined a variety of options. It
looked at the prospect of legislating criminal intoxication as an
offence under the law. Indeed, this suggestion was made almost
10 years ago by the Law Reform Commission. It suggested that
we might approach the matter in that fashion. We rejected that
option for a variety of reasons.
The first reason was the penalty. Clearly, it was the view of the
government that if there was to be accountability in the criminal
law, then the maximum penalty for any new offence of criminal
intoxication would have to be the same as the maximum penalty
for the original offence. Otherwise, we have the spectre of
having created a drunkenness discount which would give people
who intoxicate themselves an option to have a lesser penalty for
the same crime. That obviously is unacceptable. If the maximum
penalty for the new offence of criminal intoxication was to be
the same as for the original offence, this would essentially be a
long and complicated way of saying that intoxication is no
defence.
The second reason for not pursuing the option of creating the
criminal intoxication offence related to the labelling of the
offence. The criminal intoxication option rests on the person
being found not guilty of the original offence and instead found
guilty of the new offence of criminal intoxication. The govern-
11038
ment believes that a person who becomes voluntarily
intoxicated to the point of losing conscious control or awareness
and in that state causes violence to another person is at fault for
the assault and should be held criminally accountable for that
offence and for nothing less.
To acquit the person of the assault and convict them instead of
a new offence of criminal intoxication would send the message
that they were not criminally responsible for the assault itself.
This would feed into the syndrome of blaming the alcohol
instead of the man for the act of violence.
Third, a detailed examination of the criminal intoxication
option in its various forms established that many of the charter
and legal theory problems identified by the Supreme Court in
relation to the common law rule as it applies to basic intent
would apply with almost as much force to any such new offence.
If the new offence were required to be charged, there would be
no opportunity to do so until trial, when the accused person
invariably raises the intoxication as a defence and the crown
becomes aware of it for the first time.
If the new offence were to operate as an included offence with
conviction to follow automatically from acquittal on the main
offence, a successful defence to that main charge which needs to
be proven by the accused only on a balance of probabilities
would be taken as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the new
offence of criminal intoxication. That anomaly might itself raise
serious charter concerns.
If conviction for an included offence of criminal intoxication
were to be not automatic but at the discretion of the judge or
jury, the question arises whether the simple fact of the acquittal
would be sufficient to form the foundation for liability for
criminal intoxication. Would the crown be required to adduce
additional evidence? If so, how?
The question arose of whether the offence of criminal
intoxication would include an element of causation to prove for
example that intoxication caused or led to the harm complained
of.
Last, the prospect of the charge of criminal intoxication raised
the spectre of the prosecuting crown attorney being required to
argue contradictory positions at trial. One position would be that
the person was not so intoxicated as to escape responsibility but
in the alternative the person was intoxicated and therefore
should be convicted of criminal intoxication.
The government also examined the prospect of a charge of
criminal negligence as a separate offence, criminal negligence
causing the harm contemplated by the crime in the code based
upon self-induced intoxication.
(1215 )
Once again we rejected that approach. It avoided
accountability for the central misconduct and provided a lesser
label for the underlying harm which we believe should be
addressed directly.
Having rejected those alternatives, we settled on the approach
disclosed in Bill C-72. Fundamental to that approach is the
principle of accountability. We are saying in substance that it is
no defence to violent crime that you have intoxicated yourself.
For Canadians this is not just an issue in common law. This is
a matter of common sense. I believe it is common sense which is
reflected in this legislation. The bill applies to the basic intent
element in all crimes of violence, including sexual violence and
domestic assault which are of particular concern in relation to
women and children.
This is not a course of mere technicality. The bill addresses an
important point of principle. People cannot be permitted to hide
behind drunkenness or other forms of intoxication to escape
responsibility for their criminal conduct. What the government
has said in this bill quite plainly, and as a principle of law, is that
those who make themselves intoxicated and while in that state
do harm to others cannot rely on their intoxication to escape the
consequences in law.
The government also believes the approach of Bill C-72
avoids the conceptual and procedural problems I have identified
in relation to criminal intoxication. I can report that in January
when I met with the provincial and territorial ministers of
justice and attorneys general it was this approach in Bill C-72
that was favoured by all present.
The question of the validity of Bill C-72, the constitutional
validity, has also been carefully considered by the government
in formulating this legislation. I observe at the outset that in the
course of the Daviault judgment the Supreme Court of Canada in
the majority ruling observed it was dealing not with a statute of
Parliament but with judge-made common law rules and
therefore did not feel obligated to show the deference it usually
pays to a statute in determining the validity of the rule to which
it created an exception in that case.
In Daviault the court expressly invited Parliament to
legislate, to fill the gap created by its analysis of the common
law. In essence the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in
the Daviault judgment said that while there is some fault in
becoming intoxicated, the legal logic of the common law did not
allow the court to relate that fault to the criminal fault
underlying the charge.
Bill C-72 provides for the link between the fault in
self-induced intoxication and the harm or fault in the criminal
conduct which forms the basis of the charge. Bill C-72 creates a
11039
legislative standard of care. It says expressly that if you
intoxicate yourself to the point at which you lose conscious
control and do harm to another, you have departed from a
standard of care we are entitled to expect from each other.
With that criminally blameworthy misconduct you are not
entitled to rely on your self-induced intoxication as a defence in
law. That is the link that was missing when the court analysed
the common law rule in Daviault. By this bill we are inviting
Parliament to provide that link and to demonstrate that
self-induced intoxication will not be a response.
While we are creating a legislative standard of care it is not
the case that the crown attorney will have to prove in each case
that there was a departure from the standard. It is not the case
that standard is open to different interpretations depending on
who is prosecuting, who is judging and where the case is being
tried. We are stating in Bill C-72 conclusively that intoxicating
yourself to the point at which you lose conscious control and
harm others is a departure from the standard of care.
(1220)
That is not going to be an issue at a future trial. It is a
conclusive assertion by the House of Commons and the
Parliament of Canada as the starting point for determining
criminal liabilities.
Another important feature from a constitutional perspective
is that the Daviault judgment was in relation to all crimes in the
Criminal Code. The analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada
was in relation to the criminal law generally.
Bill C-72 has been crafted so that it is relevant to crimes of
violence. Having narrowed the ambit of the principle for the
purposes that we have identified in this statute, we have
demonstrated this parliamentary response is proportionate to
the threat of violence and association with intoxication. It is a
reasonable response from the legislature in that regard.
While there was no section 1 evidence before the court in
Daviault, I hope when the bill is heard by committee there will
be evidence to establish the facts referred to in the preamble, the
close association between violence and intoxication, the
disproportionate effect of such violence on women and children,
and the extent to which that violence deprives women and
children of the equality rights to which they are entitled under
the charter so that a firm foundation will be laid for
demonstrating the valid purpose and power of Parliament in
enacting this legislation.
[Translation]
We must not underestimate the value and scope of the
preamble to the bill. It is an expression of the reasons and
considerations that have led Parliament to legislate in this way.
These reasons and considerations have been written down and
may usefully guide the courts in applying these amendments to
cases that come before them.
[English]
It was suggested during the consultation process leading to
the bill that as a matter of perception if we left Daviault alone
and did not legislate, the perception would be clearly given that
self-induced intoxication could excuse criminal behaviour with
the result of a decrease in the reporting of crime, including in
particular crimes of violence by men against women.
The feeling is if in the end result in any event the man were to
be held not accountable, what is the purpose of going through
the reporting of the prosecution. The preamble recognizes
violence and the threat of violence have a disadvantaging effect
and play a significant role in placing women and children at risk
and denying them the right of security of the person and equal
protection of the law guaranteed by the charter.
The new standard of care requires all members of society to
take responsibility for not harming others. It would thereby
assist in protecting the rights of all Canadians to the security of
the person and the equal benefit and protection of the law.
The 1993 violence against women survey demonstrated that
alcohol played a prominent role in violence against women. In
more than 40 per cent of violent incidents the abusers had been
drinking. The rate of assault for women living with men who
drank heavily was six times higher than for those whose partners
did not drink at all.
[Translation]
The preamble recognizes the close association between
violence and intoxication. A number of studies have suggested
that without necessarily being the cause, intoxication creates an
environment that is conducive to violence. The new standard of
care will reinforce among Canadians the obligation we all have
not to do violence to others, whether we are sober or in a state of
extreme intoxication.
(1225)
[English]
It is important that the bill go to committee so that a
parliamentary committee can hear evidence on these important
factual points to provide a foundation for establishing the need
for this legislation. I have already identified as an option which
the government is considering the prospect of referring the
legislation, after its enactment and before its proclamation, to
the Supreme Court of Canada to establish its validity before it is
proclaimed in force. That judgment will be exercised once we
have the opinions of Canadians on the issue of validity. If we
feel there are significant questions which require reference we
will keep that option in mind.
11040
Above all, we are anxious to have this law in place to restore
certainty and particularly accountability to criminal law.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the government's
indebtedness to the initiatives shown by Senator Philippe
Gigantès in the other place. Senator Gigantès presented Bill S-6
in the Senate shortly after the release of the Daviault judgment.
Bill S-6 proposed the offence of criminal intoxication. There
was an outstanding effort by Senator Gigantès to address the
underlying public concern arising from this judgment. In the
final analysis the government did not favour the precise
approach he described in that bill. However, we are indebted to
him for his initiative. In examining both his bill and his
assessment of the issues we were better prepared to address
those issues in Bill C-72.
I also acknowledge that the co-operation and collaboration of
the other parties today is making it possible for us to deal with
second reading on this one occasion. The bill will thereafter go
to committee for the consideration needed. I am indebted to hon.
members opposite for their collaboration in that regard.
I commend this legislation to the House for approval in
principle at second reading. It will improve and strengthen the
criminal law of the country.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first, I would like to remind you that I will be sharing my time
with the hon. member for Québec.
As the Minister of Justice mentioned earlier, it is in response
to the Supreme Court ruling in the Daviault case, among others,
that the minister finally tabled Bill C-72 on February 24, 1995.
As he said, that bill amends the Criminal Code and prohibits
self-induced intoxication as a defence in the case of violent
crimes.
Persons who become intoxicated to a degree where they are
unable to control their behaviour shall assume criminal liability
for their actions. Later on, I will examine in detail the criminal
acts affected by this bill, because it does not apply to all criminal
acts.
We are still a long way from a comprehensive reform of the
Criminal Code sections which set forth the fundamental
principles of criminal liability and the grounds for defence in
case of accusation.
This is still the stone age as far as criminal legislation is
concerned. The rules of criminal law have not really been
modified over the last 100 years. It was the Supreme Court that
urged the minister to take action. Without that ruling by the
highest court in the country, would the Minister of Justice still
be consulting the population and the various stakeholders?
Let us review the facts of the Henri Daviault case. Mr.
Daviault knew the victim, since she is one his wife's friends .She
was 65 years old at the time. She is partially paralysed and
confined to a wheelchair.
One evening, around 6 o'clock, she asked Mr. Daviault to
bring her a quart of brandy.
(1230)
The victim, that is the lady, drank less than a glass and fell
asleep in her wheelchair. When she woke up during the night to
go to the bathroom, Mr. Daviault grabbed her wheelchair,
pushed her into the bedroom, made her lie on the bed and
sexually assaulted her. He left the apartment around 4 o'clock in
the morning. Henri Daviault is now 73 years old; when the
accusations were laid against him, he was 70.
At the first trial, he said that he had spent that day in a bar
where he had drunk seven or eight bottles of beer. He
remembered drinking a glass of brandy when he arrived at the
victim's apartment, but did not remember what had happened
between that time and the moment where he woke up naked in
his victim's bed.
Mr. Justice Bernard Grenier acquitted him because he was not
absolutely sure that Mr. Daviault was conscious enough to form
the guilty intention, that is the intention to commit the sexual
assault.
The Quebec Court of Appeal quashed Mr. Justice Grenier's
decision and found Mr. Daviault guilty. On September 30, the
Supreme Court of Canada decided that an intoxication defence
could be made in this particular case and ordered a new trial.
So, time is short. The Bloc Quebecois has always asked that
people who voluntarily intoxicate themselves and then commit
violent acts be held more accountable for these acts. It is time
that legislators take their responsibilities and alleviate the
increasing concerns of the public as the result of the Supreme
Court decision in the Daviault case. We should not delude
ourselves: the Daviault case is only one example among many,
all equally revolting.
The results of a national survey on assaults against female
spouses, in which more than 12,300 women participated, were
released in March 1994. This survey reveals troubling facts on
spousal abuse. I use the word ``troubling'', but ``revolting''
would be equally appropriate. But no matter what words are
used, the majority in this House will not listen.
Violence against women is disturbing, so certain people
prefer to ignore it instead of looking at it. As long as it happens
to someone else, people do not feel that concerned. It is absurd
to think that just saying that violence is everyone's business has
become a cliché, something that everybody is tired of hearing.
I am not referring only to physical violence but to
psychological violence as well, which has effects just as harmful
and lasting. Disparaging remarks, abusive language and insults
can
11041
be just as harmful as a slap in the face or a punch. They leave
deep scars that almost never disappear.
When a woman is told by her husband that she is good for
nothing, that she is too stupid to understand, that she is not a
good mother and spends too much time with friends and not
enough time at home, when her husband tells her that he should
have left her long ago, she gradually loses all self-esteem.
Life is a nightmare. Fear replaces the feeling of well-being
that every human being needs. Isolation prevents victims from
blowing the whistle on their abusers and it becomes very
difficult for anyone to guess that a shy smile may hide terrible
secrets. Injuries to the soul are the most painful, but they are the
most difficult to see.
The national survey done last year by Statistic Canada on
violence against women attempted to verify the theories on the
existence of a link between physical and psychological
violence. About one third of the women who are, or have been,
married reported that their spouse or estranged spouse had been
psychologically violent against them. Former spouses are
considered more violent psychologically speaking than present
spouses in a proportion of 59 per cent. Although psychological
violence can occur without physical violence, the two types of
violence occur together in a majority of cases.
Three-quarters of the women who said they were victims of
physical or sexual violence reported having also been victims of
psychological violence.
(1235)
Eighteen per cent of the women who are not subjected to
physical abuse at the hands of their partner have said that they
experience psychological abuse. Physical abuse can take many
forms. The main types that are described in the survey are
pushing, grabbing or shoving around one's partner. The next
type is threatening to hit, slapping, throwing objects at, kicking,
biting and punching one's partner. Many women have been
battered, sexually assaulted, choked, struck with an object, or
threatened with a firearm or a knife. Mr. Speaker, could you ask
my colleague behind me to listen quietly during my remarks? I
will do the same when he takes the floor.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member for
Saint-Hubert is asking that the House co-operate in terms of
any ongoing discussions, that possibly they could take place
behind the curtains. I ask for the co-operation of the House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will continue with my
remarks. I was just saying that many women have been battered,
sexually assaulted, choked, struck with an object, or threatened
with a firearm or a knife. Very few cases are reported where only
one form of abuse is involved. The most frequent injuries, in 90
per cent of all cases, are bruises. Then we have cuts, scratches,
burns, hairline fractures or broken bones. Almost 10 per cent of
injured women said they had suffered internal injuries or had
had miscarriages.
The worst part of it all is that the victim of such abuse finds
excuses for the abuser. Victims seldom lay charges. On average,
the police are notified in only one-quarter of all of the cases of
spousal abuse. When charges are laid, the victims withdraw
their complaints or decline to testify. Those victims are afraid
and, by that very fact, sanction the actions of the aggressors.
How often have the courts heard victims say that they have
decided on reconciliations, that the husband's actions were not
that bad, that he had problems at work or because he had no
work, that the children were annoying that day, that he was tired
and that he had been drinking?
Precisely, he had been drinking. As if it were an excuse. It is
not; it is an aggravating circumstance. The survey in question
shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the relationship between
alcohol and violence. It reveals that alcohol is a prime factor in
spousal assaults. The aggressor had been drinking in half of all
the reported incidents. More specifically, the rate of assault on
women living with men who drank regularly, that is at least four
times a week, was three times higher than for abstinent
husbands.
Women whose husbands drink often-five drinks or more at
one time-were six times more exposed to assault than women
whose husbands do not drink. In 1993, fifty-five per cent of the
men who killed their partners had consumed alcohol. Native
women are particularly at risk when alcohol is present. It was a
determinant factor in nearly every case of sexual assault on
native women. Alcohol also played a part in every other offense
against native women.
The Criminal Code contains no provisions dealing
specifically with intoxication. Bill C-72 will change all that by
adding to the Criminal Code section 33.1, which will prohibit
the accused from using intoxication as a defence for violent acts.
Before specifically speaking of the use of intoxication as a
defence, I must stress that it is important to understand the
elements of a criminal offence and the types of offences for
which the drunk defence can be invoked.
The concept of criminal responsibility requires that all
material and mental facts, the elements of fault, be proven
beyond any reasonable doubt for there to have been a criminal
offence.
11042
(1240)
So, on the one hand, self-induced intoxication can diminish
moral responsibility for normally criminal behaviour. But, on
the other hand, the person who has committed a criminal offence
while in a state of self-induced intoxication should not absolved
of his or her responsibility.
Since the drunk defence does not exist in the Criminal Code, it
must be drawn from case law. Where intoxication was not the
result of a deliberate act, the accused could always plead the
drunk defence.
Involuntary intoxication may come about through fraud or the
actions of another person or through the bona fide use of a drug
prescribed by a doctor, the effects of which were not known to
the user.
So Common Law recognizes involuntary intoxication as a
defence. By maintaining this defence, Bill C-72 codifies the
jurisprudence. The new section 33.1 will still allow the
involuntary intoxication defence, as is now the case.
Before Daviault, the question was whether the intoxication
was self-induced, whether it resulted from the fault of the
accused; it could not always be used as a defence.
However, in the case of offences requiring specific intent,
such as manslaughter or robbery, intoxication can be used as a
defence. Courts went to great pains to distinguish between the
two categories. Even today, many legal scholars are hard put to
understand the distinction between the two. Yet, this distinction
is very important when the defence is based on the intoxication
of the accused.
In the grey area of criminal law, there is no clear dividing line
between specific intent offences and general intent offences. I
will give an example. According to the Criminal Code, a murder
is first degree murder when, and I quote the code: ``it is planned
and deliberate''. This is a specific intent offence. The homicide
must be premeditated, the accused must have planned the
ultimate consequence of his action, that is the death of the
victim.
Under section 322 of the Criminal Code, for a theft to be
considered a theft, it must be committed, and I quote: ``with the
intent'' to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of the
object which has been taken. Here again, one could plead
intoxication as a defence because it is also a specific intent
offence.
We must remember that Bill C-72 does not change in any way
the distinction between a general intent offence and a specific
intent offence. In other words, a person accused of severe
offences such as murder, theft, robbery, extortion, breaking and
entering, and torture, will still be able to plead self-induced
intoxication as a defence.
Sexual assault becomes murder when it results in the death of
the victim. In this case, murder being a specific intent offence,
the offender will be able to use the intoxication defence. He
could not have presented such a defence if his victim had not
died, since the offence he would have charged with would been
sexual assault causing bodily harm, which is a general intent
offence.
Which leads to the following nonsense. If the aggressor hits
his victim hard enough to cause her death, he can plead that he
was too intoxicated to know what he was doing. If his victim
recovers from her injuries, he will no longer be able to use this
defence. We must eliminate the arbitrary distinction between
crimes of general intent and crimes of specific intent.
This legal fiction was created solely for the purpose of
allowing drunkenness or intoxication as a defence. Criminal
intent should include specific moral elements for each offence.
Offences should no longer be divided into two distinct
categories, but classified on a gradual basis according to their
seriousness.
Bill C-72 is a step in the right direction, and I am convinced
that it is constitutionally valid. The preamble to the bill will
make it possible for judges to interpret section 33.1 in a way
consistent with the principles of a free and democratic society. It
will stand the test of section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
(1245)
However, the justice minister should amend the general part
of the Criminal Code without delay. The rules of criminal law
are archaic and many of its fundamental principles are not
included in the general part, as they were elaborated by the
courts.
Precedents shape the law, and lawmakers are always lagging
behind the judiciary. The time has come to reverse the roles, and
for lawmakers to act responsibly. Thus, the justice minister will
be able to stop trying to play catch up, and Parliament will be
able to decide in which direction criminal law will be heading in
the coming years.
Stopping violence against women will have to be part of this
new direction. I urge the justice minister not to wait for another
Daviault case to happen before he finally acts.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on this debate regarding Bill C-72, introduced in
the House by the Minister of Justice.
This bill is of particular interest to women and is part of the
legislative process aimed at curbing violence against women
and children. I will therefore analyze it in this context.
First of all I will try to resume the historical background of
legislation regarding the defence of self-induced intoxication,
11043
since it is the topic of this bill. Then I will establish the
relationship between violence against women and the
aggressor's intoxication. I will then look at the bill itself and I
will conclude with its consequences for the problem of violence.
The authors Côté-Harper, Manganas et Turgeon define
self-induced intoxication as follows: ``There is self-induced
intoxication when a person over-estimates his or her resistance
to alcohol or drugs, with the result that, then, his or her actions
cannot be considered intentional''.
Therefore, if I consume more alcohol that my body can take I
will be responsible for my actions. Self-induced intoxication
was accepted as a defence by the courts in 1920, in the decision
Director of Public Prosecutions vs. Beard. In that case, the court
decided that a person whose self-induced state of intoxication
was such that he could not form the intention of committing a
crime could not be found guilty.
Therefore in the case of murder, the Crown must prove that
the accused was seeking to cause the death of the victim. If the
accused was intoxicated to such a degree that he could not gauge
the consequences of his actions, he cannot be found guilty of
murder. He will, however, be charged with manslaughter, with
an included offence, because his intoxication did not prevent
him from forming the desire to carry out the action which led to
the death.
It is understandable that the courts have developed, uniquely
for the defence of self-induced intoxication, two types of
offences: those requiring specific intent-to cause death, in our
example-and those requiring general intent-such as to beat a
person, who then dies. In R. v. George, 1960, Mr. Justice
Fauteux of the Supreme Court of Canada explained the
distinction as follows: ``A distinction must be made between the
intention to commit an act in terms of the intended purpose and
the intention to commit an act independently of the intended
purpose. In certain cases, the intention to commit an act is
sufficient for there to have been an offence, while in other cases
there must be, in addition to the general intention, a specific
intention to commit the act''.
The courts had always maintained this distinction, when
allowing the accused to use the defence of self-induced
intoxication. It was reserved for crimes of specific intent.
On September 30, 1994, the Supreme Court of Canada set off
in a new direction when it handed down its decision in the
Daviault case. Very briefly, it allowed the accused, who had
been charged with sexual assault, therefore general intent, to
plead self-induced intoxication.
The court relied on the interpretation of sections 7 and 11(d)
of the Canadian Charter in concluding that it was unjust not to
allow a seriously intoxicated accused the right to use this
defence because a crime of general intent was involved. In an
obiter dictum, the court recommended that Parliament resolve
the issue through legislation. The decision raised a general
outcry, both from groups defending women's rights and from
police forces and some members of the legal profession.
(1250)
I will not go into the details, but rather move on to certain
aspects of the wife abuse problem and then come back to the
Supreme Court decision.
Studies have shown time and time again the link between
violence and intoxication, whether produced by alcohol or by
drugs. This link is common in spousal abuse.
A Statistics Canada study conducted in March 1994 on
spousal homicide revealed that, in 1991-92, thirty-seven per
cent of the wives and 82 per cent of the husbands who were
killed had been drinking. Based on statistics on murderers
reported by police, 55 per cent of the men and 79 per cent of the
women were under the influence of alcohol, and 18 per cent of
the men and 13 per cent of the women were on other drugs.
A previous investigation by the same organization had
revealed that alcohol played a major part, i.e. 40 per cent of
abusing spouses were under the influence of alcohol.
It also indicated that the risk of becoming victims of violence
was three times higher for women living with a man who drank
regularly than for other women.
Alcohol is therefore a factor that should be considered when
dealing with violence against women. We need to ask ourselves
what impact a decision like the one rendered in the Daviault
case, which allows a man who assaults a woman while under the
influence of alcohol to plead drunkenness in defence, will have
on the spousal abuse issue.
Let us start by looking at the general effect on the abusing
spouse. Officials who work with violent men agree that the key
to eliminating violent behaviour in men is to make them aware
of their responsibilities by punishing them and making them
aware of the fact that they could benefit from therapy.
Ginette Larouche is a social worker who has written three
books on domestic violence. She also participated in the soon to
be defunct Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
In her opinion, by not sending abusers to jail or by doing so only
for a ridiculously short time, which is often the case, society is
trivializing the criminal act they have committed. Then, by
having them join support groups, we are telling them they only
have a little behaviour problem to deal with.
This analysis is supported by Steven Bélanger, a psychologist
heading Pro-Gam, the first therapy group for violent men in
Quebec, which was founded in 1982. Listen to what he says. ``A
long term solution must be sought at a more comprehensive
11044
level. We must stop thinking that violence concerns only those
who batter their spouse. Everybody is concerned. Having said
that, I believe that the immediate solution lies in both court
action and psychological assistance.''
As we can see, both of these experts consider referral to the
court as both a deterrent and a cure.
Women, even those not subjected to spousal abuse, live in
fear. Why? Two professors at the School of Social Work of the
University of Montreal published, in the International Review of
Community Action, the results of a study on women's fear of
crime and the various forms of violence to which they are
subjected.
First of all, their report is a reminder that our published
statistics on crimes committed against women are distorted.
One of the reasons is that many women feel guilty for being
assaulted, particularly if it happens while they are under the
influence of alcohol or drugs or when they are in places that are
``not nice''.
I also mentioned previously the statistics on drinking in cases
where one spouse murders the other, which is the ultimate form
of spousal assault.
The authors also establish a link between spousal assault and
society's attitudes in general. They blame the psycho-social
approach used until very recently to deal with the issue.
The family being considered as a dynamic unit, responsibility
for violent crimes committed within it had to be shared by all
members. At that time, the expression ``dysfunctional family''
was used instead of referring to victims and assaults, in order to
trivialize and decriminalize aggressions.
The authors also maintain that their study shows that women
in general live in fear of being assaulted, that victimized women
are also afraid of denouncing their assailants and finally that the
women who have the courage to go to court must deal with the
confrontational nature of our legal system. The traditional
attitudes in our society are of no help to these women, especially
since they are conveyed by men who do not have to face the
same reality.
(1255)
How does Bill C-72 help to somewhat improve the current
situation of victims of assault?
First of all, it is important to remind people that this bill was
introduced to neutralize the negative effect of the judgment
made in the Daviault case and dealing with violent crimes. The
bill makes it clear that a defendant will not be allowed to use
intoxication as a defence when a crime of general intent was
committed involving interference, or the threat to interfere, or
any kind of assault vis-à-vis the integrity of another person.
So, the bill covers the majority of violent crimes, the others
falling into the specific intent category, which can lead to a
conviction for an included offence, as I said at the beginning of
my speech.
To answer the question, we can say that the bill will facilitate
the conviction of the aggressors. At the present time, a person
charged with a general intent offence can plead voluntary
intoxication. If this defence is allowed, the person will be
cleared of all charges. So the bill takes us back to the situation
that existed before the Supreme Court decision.
Such a move will send a message to society that aggressors
must be punished because acts of aggression are serious and
cannot be tolerated. At the same time, victims will feel
encouraged to file a complaint. The cycle of spousal abuse can
be broken only if violence is denounced, the aggressors
punished and the victims helped.
Furthermore, like many other pieces of legislation, this bill
will serve both as an educational and a dissuasive tool. It clearly
states the zero-tolerance position of this Parliament against
violence. We find the policy position of the House in the
preamble to the Bill. Thus, the direct link between violence and
the violation of women's rights to security of the person and to
the equal protection and benefit of the law is mentioned. The
principle of criminal accountability of the person who
deliberately becomes intoxicated is also recognized, and that is
very important. And, in addition, the victims' right to protection
is recognized.
Finally, the bill refers to a standard of care defined in relation
to the prohibition of violent behaviour towards another person.
This legislation is a step in the right direction and it meets the
expectations of human rights groups, particularly those who are
involved with women who are victims of domestic violence.
Violence is a problem that must be eliminated, and we recognize
that this bill is part of the solution. That is why we will support
it.
However, other measures must be taken both in terms of
legislation and government decisions. We have to make sure that
groups who work with victims have all the support they need to
reach their goals.
We can deplore the fact that the government has been
withdrawing part of its funding for anti-violence support
programs. In six years, financial assistance to these
organizations has been reduced by 23 per cent. The number of
grants has also been reduced by 47 per cent. The best intentions
will never be more than intentions if they are not followed up
with financial support.
The recommendations made by the various task forces and
commissions will also have to be examined and implemented if
we want to be able to say one day that gender equality really
does exist in our society.
11045
The government will also have to be consistent and adopt
other pieces of legislation concerning other forms of violence
towards women, including those involving genital mutilation.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this very
important bill. At the outset I remind the House that I will be
sharing the time with my hon. colleague from Wild Rose.
The Reform caucus supports the bill 100 per cent, without any
question, without any equivocation whatsoever. We are solidly
behind both the intent and the desire of the government in the
bill.
The Minister of Justice in his comments spoke for quite some
time and quite well about the notions of specific intent and
general intent. He lost me after about five minutes with the
various intents going back and forth. I guarantee that he lost the
vast majority of Canadians when the whole issue of intent,
specific versus common intent, was raised. That highlights the
problem I would like to address in my comments today.
(1300)
It took 15 minutes for the justice minister to use the words
most associated with what should be common law in our
country, that is common sense. Without the foundation or
without the basis of common sense in law it does not really
matter what happens because we lose everybody else.
The basic test our laws must meet is the standard of common
sense. Before I get into addressing that I point out that a week
before the Minister of Justice introduced the bill I introduced
Bill C-303, largely based on Senator Gigantes' bill introduced
from the Senate.
My bill is on dangerous intoxication which addresses the
issue from the perspective already covered by the Minister of
Justice. When the bill was drawn in the lottery I went before the
committee of the House of Commons which was to make the
decision on whether or not it would become a votable bill. My
advice and my suggestion to the committee was that anything
which could possibly impair the development of or hinder in any
way the application of Bill C-72 should be withdrawn. The
decision should be made by people in the Department of Justice
who are far more qualified than I am to make such decisions.
As parliamentarians we do not want anything to confuse the
issue. Our caucus is solidly behind the Minister of Justice when
he says that intoxication is no defence and no reason to slide out
from under personal responsibility for the results of one's
actions.
The bill rests in kind of a limbo waiting to see what happens.
If it is necessary or if there is a problem, there are other ways to
address the issue which may not be as efficient or as good as the
bill. The reason we have come to this point is that in the first
place the Supreme Court of Canada misread the intent and
where it is relative to the Canadian population at large.
We do not really have a problem with the common law statutes
that existed prior to the Daviault decision. In my view we have a
problem with the Supreme Court expanding the envelope of its
jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court does not have the responsibility to make
laws. The Supreme Court has the responsibility to interpret
laws. If this were a single instance where the Supreme Court
were seen to lose touch with reality, we could say that perhaps it
had a bad day or perhaps it was having tea or sherry in a club and
thought: ``What can we do? How many angels will dance on the
head of a pin? Why don't we get the Minister of Justice to dance
around a bit to see how he responds to this bone headed
decision?''
If it were in isolation we might be able to say that but the
reality is that it is not in isolation. This is a consistent pattern the
Supreme Court has laid down over the last few years.
About 10 years ago late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
Bora Laskin, said: ``The Supreme Court is a quiet court in an
unquiet land''. How things have changed as a direct result of the
charter of rights and freedoms. The charter of rights and
freedoms essentially says that individual rights in society are
paramount. The Supreme Court is kind of between a rock and a
hard place, which is why many of its decisions that seem to defy
reality are split decisions.
If the Supreme Court does not defend the notion of due
process-and by due process I mean dotting the i's, crossing the
t's and making sure everything is done absolutely
correctly-decisions would be overturned based on the charter
of rights and freedoms or other considerations.
(1305)
Meanwhile Parliament and the vast majority of Canadians are
concerned with crime control and common sense. We have the
Supreme Court on the one hand and the population and by and
large parliaments assembled all across the land on the other
hand. Somewhere in the middle, I suppose, is justice.
Recently the Supreme Court brought down a decision in
which a woman arrested for impaired driving before she blew
the breathalyser was allowed to go to the washroom. When she
was in the washroom the woman alleged that she consumed
more alcohol and that when she blew over the limit it was as a
result of having alcohol subsequent to her arrest. Therefore they
could not prove that she was driving impaired. The Supreme
Court, in a move that defies logic, in a move that defies the last
30 years of trying to get drunks off the road, chose to say that the
woman was innocent.
11046
Recently the Supreme Court decided that someone arrested
for impaired driving has x amount of time to find a lawyer of
choice. If one is nailed for impaired driving, one is nailed for
impaired driving. The benefit of the doubt rests with the
potential victim: the innocent bystander who gets hit by a
drunk. We are trying to stamp out drunk driving. We are not
trying to figure out what is legal.
What about ordinary Canadians when laws come down from
Parliament that are written for lawyers and not for ordinary
people? They should not need law degrees to figure out what is
right or wrong.
The Supreme Court may review debate in the House when the
time comes to review the law again because it wants to get the
judgment of the people. We in the House represent the people of
Canada who are upset and disgusted with a Supreme Court that
comes out with decisions such as it has recently. I want the
Supreme Court to be cognizant of the debate. I want the Supreme
Court to hear me speaking about it in the House of Commons,
saying that average Canadians have gone beyond the point of
being filled with contempt for it. People are just dismissing it.
If the Supreme Court continually comes out with decisions
better suited for a faculty club, with no basis of reality,
obviously the laws will not connect with people. It is like a
municipal police force installing a new sign which says 60
kilometres an when everything is designed for 100 kilometres an
hour. People will ignore the law, get tickets and feel resentful.
When the Supreme Court makes decisions that do not make
sense it brings discredit and disrepute not only to the Supreme
Court but to Parliament as well. That includes all members who
were elected to represent the people.
It is the righteousness of law, the essence of law that ordinary
people instinctively understand is right, which imparts moral
authority to law. If a law does not enjoy moral authority, if it
does not enjoy the goodwill of the people, if ordinary people
cannot look at it and say that it makes sense and they will obey it,
what good is it?
In the absence of a foundation of common sense, laws will be
ridiculed and with them the people who write the laws and the
people who interpret the laws. That is the bottom line. We do not
want to bring discredit to the whole notion of jurisprudence and
the law in the way we work as citizens and in the way we relate to
one another. Laws keep us civilized and we must respect them.
(1310 )
This brings to mind what we can do about it. We have a charter
of rights and freedoms, which in my view would be greatly
improved if it were the charter of rights, freedoms and
responsibilities. We are not likely to lose the charter of rights
and freedoms because people feel that it gives great protection.
Perhaps it is not all bad, but it has changed the way the country
works. It has changed our relationship as legislators to the
process of making and interpreting laws. As parliamentarians
we have to start looking at a new way or another way of
confirming people appointed to the bench.
When a person is appointed to the bench historically the
procedure has been that the decision will have a host of
considerations: where the person lives in the country, what
language the person speaks, whether the person has standing in
the community, whether the person has standing in the legal
community, and whether the person has standing within the
community of the political party that makes the appointment.
That might have been okay. By and large Canadians can be
very secure in the knowledge that over the years we have had and
do have a court that has the most profound respect of people
from coast to coast. We have to be careful not to throw the baby
out with the bath water.
There has been and is a continuing concern about the wisdom
of decisions coming out of courts all across the land and not just
the Supreme Court, decisions interpreted by some as decisions
to promote or to enhance a particular lifestyle or a particular
point of view. There seems to be tremendous inconsistency in
the interpretation and the application of law from coast to coast
and from court to court.
Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to consider after a person
has been appointed to the bench, not just the federal benches but
all benches, holding some sort of ratification process. I do not
think it would be advisable to have members of the bench or of
the Supreme Court in particular fearing for their jobs or being
recalled.
I concur the positions should be until retirement because we
need consistency and long range thought. We want to make
changes slowly, not arbitrarily. We want to ensure that
institutions of the country such as the Supreme Court do not
reflect a bias that is here today and gone tomorrow. We need it to
apply long range thought to decisions.
When the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Minister of
Justice, makes a decision to appoint someone to the bench, it
would not be a bad idea if the appointment were further ratified,
not turned over or dismissed, by a committee of the House,
probably the justice committee.
The terms of reference would have to be well defined. I do not
think Canadians want or would put up with the confirmation
hearings of our friends to the south that we see reported and that
become partisan attacks. It would be an extremely important
idea at the time of appointment that judges to all courts,
particularly the Supreme Court, be very clearly told and
understand that their job is to interpret laws and that our job is to
write
11047
them. Their job is to push the envelope to ensure that what we
do is done correctly and that the checks and balances work.
(1315)
A confirmation of some description would have far more
value not to the judge who has been appointed but to those who
are making the appointment to know that if they are making an
appointment of someone who does not bear the scrutiny of a
carefully crafted confirmation hearing they probably should not
be there in the first place.
It would be a check and balance to those of us who are elected
and make these appointments to make sure the appointments
will stand the test of time, the test of open debate and the test of a
little sunshine coming in so people understand these laws and
the people who interpret them belong to the people of Canada.
Our laws do not belong to the court. They do not belong to the
Queen. We live together in society in a social contract because
we have confidence and faith in our laws.
When someone commits a crime in all of our courts it is
always the Queen, Regina versus the defendant. Perhaps we
should expand that and say it is the Queen representing Canada
at large and the person affected, the family affected versus the
defendant. It is not an abstract third party deal if one has lost a
friend or a mother, a father, a brother, children or a spouse either
through criminal activity like murder or through violence or
second degree offences such as impaired driving where there
was no necessary intent.
We have to realize we are not talking about abstract ideas. We
are talking about real honest to God people impacted on
positively and negatively by the results of our actions, by the
results of actions of others.
I put these suggestions on the table. These are the things
Canadians from coast to coast want. Whether in British
Columbia, the maritimes, Ontario, Alberta, in the north or in the
south, whether Canadians are French speaking, English
speaking, male, female, black, white, have been here for 10
generations or 10 days, we want security of the person. We want
to feel secure when we leave our homes. We want to know that if
we have been hurt or injured by someone else, the law of the land
is here to protect us, not to protect the guilty, not to protect the
perpetrator. The due process should belong to the innocent
victim.
Unless we start to put the rights of the victim ahead of the
rights of the criminal we will never ensure that people in the
social contract between independent citizens who have given of
themselves to the state, given their duty and fidelity to the state,
get a fair return in exchange.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
endorse what my colleague said at the beginning of his
statement, with all due respect to the minister and the speaker
from the official opposition. It is rather difficult for an ordinary
fellow with my education to keep up with lawyer talk. I get lost
from time to time. If we use lawyer talk we might as well use
doctor talk because I do not understand that either. However, I
do understand the intent of this legislation. I commend the
minister.
My colleague felt we were caught between a rock and hard
place. I am going to change that from a stone to a hard place in
respect of our minister so there will be absolutely no confusion.
I hope my speech will reflect the voice of ordinary Canadians,
that which I have heard for quite a while on this issue. As we live
from day to day we all have a habit of taking things for granted.
(1320 )
When I hear of a crime being committed by someone who is
intoxicated I immediately take it for granted that he will be
charged and probably convicted. However, when I learned there
is no conviction because he was drunk, I am flabbergasted. I
never dreamed for a moment that being drunk would be a
successful defence. I began to ask myself how this could be.
Who would ever have imagined being drunk would be an excuse
to commit a crime?
My life prior to becoming a member of Parliament allowed
me on many occasions to come to the aid of those involved in
family problems in general and specifically in family abuse. In
about 90 per cent of the cases liquor was a contributing factor. In
other words, the physical abuse would probably not have
occurred if the assailant had been sober.
With courts now deciding drunkenness can be used as a
defence all our efforts to stop spousal abuse and child abuse
would be for not. One only has to be drunk to be declared
innocent. How ridiculous can we get?
Laws are written to protect the public. I find it unbelievable
that normal human beings would decide that drunkenness is a
defence. If it is because of the wording of legislation or the
wording in the charter of rights and freedoms, for heaven's sake
let us fix it.
I support and commend the efforts of the justice minister in
preparing legislation to deal with this problem. I encourage each
member to support it to the fullest so every judge in this country
will get the message that the law makers of this land clearly state
that under no circumstances will drunkenness be used as a
defence in criminal activity. The best message we can send is
that this legislation receive 100 per cent support, and the sooner
the better.
As members of Parliament we are responsible for addressing
the concerns of our constituents. As members of this House we
are responsible for instituting legislation wanted by our
constituents. Therefore the Supreme Court should be listening
to
11048
Canadians and parliamentarians when deciding the difference
between what is law and what is legal.
No member of this House can say the people of Canada agree
with the Supreme Court decision that drunkenness can be a
defence for violence or actions that deprive someone of their
personal dignity. Conversely, no Canadian can understand how
the Supreme Court can condone voluntary extreme intoxication
or that voluntary consumption of large quantities of an
intoxicant absolves a criminal of all blame for actions following
drunkenness.
It is time to force the Supreme Court to decide whether it will
continue to be a law unto itself or whether its decisions will
follow the wishes of the people. It is time to send the Supreme
Court a message that making decisions not accepted by
Parliament or the people of Canada will result in change. That
message can be sent today. We have no need to wait or build a
body of evidence for or against extreme intoxication as a
defence for criminal action.
All Canadians want those who choose extreme intoxication to
be held accountable for their crimes. All members expressed
outrage that voluntary extreme intoxication can be used as a
defence for criminal action. Everyone but the Supreme Court it
seems understands there is some responsibility that must be
accepted for a criminal offence that follows when choice was not
impaired.
Let us send a message to all Canadians that parliamentarians
acting on behalf of the citizens of Canada determine what is
right and what is wrong, what is legal behaviour and what
behaviour must be punished.
The justice minister wishes to send this to committee to
solidify the foundation to implement the bill. I believe he
suggested something along those lines. The foundation for the
implementation of the bill has been built by the people of
Canada in their outcry against the recent decisions in the courts
of Canada regarding drunkenness. This outcry was heard by
each one of us in the House. The voice of Canadians has
provided the strong foundation necessary to make the bill law.
(1325)
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent for the following motion:
That Bill C-72, an act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced
intoxication), be now not only read the second time but sent to committee of the
whole and passed at third reading this day.
I ask this so all Canadians and parliamentarians can send a
clear and loud message that states no one can or will accept
voluntary extreme intoxication as abdication of responsibility
for criminal actions, and that intent of or criminal action is
decided by all Canadians, not by an appointed few.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I will explain
briefly why I do not agree to the suggestion made by the hon.
member for Wild Rose.
The government is considering the possibility of referring
this law to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling with respect
to its constitutional validity before it is proclaimed into force.
We may not do that but it is an option we are considering.
Whether or not we do that, the validity of this law may be
challenged in the fullness of time and may be considered by the
courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada.
If this issue is to be before the court, it is terribly important
the court have before it not only the statute but the evidence on
which the Parliament of Canada opted for this approach to the
issue.
When the bill goes to committee it is our intention to call
witnesses who can speak to the nature-
Mr. Stinson: How long will it take?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, it will not take long.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I hesitate to interrupt. Not
to diminish in any way the importance of the subject matter to
members on both sides of the House, but clearly I do not want
the House to engage in debate on what was raised as a point of
order, although it might have become more of a point of
clarification, which would lead to debate.
I understand there have been some negotiations between the
parties and an agreement made. Going back to the member for
Wild Rose, there was a motion put before the House. Unanimous
consent was requested and has been denied.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to support Bill C-72. I
commend the Minister of Justice for responding quickly to the
Supreme Court of Canada decision on this matter.
This is a matter of concern to all Canadians. It is clearly a
problem that has been identified in the criminal justice system.
It is appropriate the minister respond, as he has indicated, and
preclude a person from being able to rely on self-induced
intoxication as a defence.
It is also proper that the minister is considering the most
appropriate way the proposal can be introduced into our
criminal system. It would be irresponsible not to consider the
constitutional ramifications of the proposal.
(1330 )
As we all know, Canadians are becoming increasingly
concerned about their safety, the safety of their families and the
safety of their communities. Their confidence in the criminal
justice system and its effectiveness in reducing crime rates have
given rise to concern over the last few years. There is increasing
11049
demand that the government take action to deal with this
situation.
I believe firmly and my party believes firmly that society
should take stern, tough measures against violent crimes and
those that commit them. I also believe just as strongly that we
must balance the approach by putting in place programs to
effectively prevent crime. We must be both tough on crime and
tough on the causes of crime.
It is true that Canadians need to believe that those who
commit violent crimes for whatever reason will be properly
dealt with in the courts. This bill will address one concern: that
someone can use the defence of intoxication to get away with a
crime of violence. It is appropriate that the punishment fit the
crime.
Unfortunately it is a knee-jerk reaction that is not good
enough. From experience we know that simply expanding the
incarceration system, the prison system, spending more money
on courts and prisons, making more and more laws to punish
more and more people has little positive effect on the overall
sense of security and overall levels of criminal activity.
The Minister of Justice recently pointed to this problem. He
said that building more jails, filling them with criminals and
throwing away the key will not solve Canada's crime problems.
In a speech to the Empire Club of Toronto he stated: ``I believe
we have to go beyond the slogans to the substance of the issue to
prefer logic to rhetoric''.
He continued: ``If crime prevention is to be successful, it has
to be a co-operative effort by law enforcement agencies, social
agencies, the education system, community workers and health
professionals. The goal is preventing crime. Making the streets
safer has as much to do with literacy as it does with laws, human
rights and living standards''.
``Crime prevention means recognizing the connection
between the crime rate and the unemployment rate, between
unsupervised access by young people to movies saturated with
violence and the way they behave toward one another and how a
kid behaves in a school and whether he has a hot meal''.
The Minister of Justice is entirely right in linking the causes
of crime to the level of criminal activity which has caused so
many people concern.
Before I go on to comment more about that let me talk about
this defence. We know that the conduct of Henri Daviault, who
consumed 40 ounces of brandy and seven or eight beer before
raping a 64-year-old, partially paralysed woman is something
that is reprehensible, something that every decent member of
society finds absolutely disgusting.
Carl Blair, drank 40 ounces of rye, 40 ounces of vodka and a
large quantity of beer and then brutally beat his wife. This kind
of activity cannot be tolerated. We have to do everything within
our means to address this effectively.
One of the things we can do, one of the things that we have the
power to do, is ensure that drunkenness cannot be used as an
excuse for violent behaviour, that it cannot be used to avoid a
criminal sanction for such reprehensible acts.
Where did this activity come from, where did this seeming
disregard for the rights of women come from, why do people
turn to these actions? We know from reports by the standing
committee on justice and the solicitor general on crime
prevention that those represented on the committee maintain
that the identification and punishment of criminals are, on their
own, ineffective means of reducing future risks of victimization
and promoting community safety.
Over the past decade we have seen the United States and some
states in that country spending unprecedented sums of money on
more judges and more prisons. In some states the building of
prisons is the largest industry. Yet there, as here, citizens
continue to report an increasing fear of crime in their
communities. Pouring more money into punishment and
incarceration cannot be seen as the complete answer to the
concerns Canadians have about their justice system and safety in
their communities. It cannot be seen as the complete answer to
the problem of criminal activity that we experience. While the
punishment must fit the crime, we must also act to eradicate the
conditions that lead to individuals violating those laws. We must
find new, effective and cost efficient ways of addressing the
causes of crime.
(1335)
There is a growing recognition in Canada and in our
communities that any effort to reduce crime must include
programs targeted at its root causes, as the Minister of Justice
indicated in his recent speech to the Empire Club. Evidence
points to a strong connection between social and economic
conditions and crime. The minister admitted as much. Extensive
hearings by committees of the House have identified, among
other things, unemployment, poverty, physical and sexual
abuse, illiteracy, inadequate housing, social and economic
inequality as major contributors to crime.
The social and economic conditions that lie at the root of
criminal behaviour are of course complex. A safer community
strategy must look well beyond the criminal justice system to
incorporate all levels of all governments and a variety of
community groups to seek real answers to these real problems.
A successful response will recognize that employment policy,
educational policy, family policy, youth policy, health policy
must be understood in the context of their impact on crime. We
know there is a strong connection between poor economic
conditions, unemployment and crime. Study after study point to
these contributing factors and point the direction we must
11050
pursue if we are going to effectively deal with criminal activity
in our country.
In closing, simply reacting to crime is not the answer.
Apprehending, prosecuting, sentencing, incarcerating and
treating offenders cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars
annually. While these measures are important, while we must be
tough on crime and criminals, they will continue to be
ineffective until they are coupled with long term solutions for
prevention, until they are coupled with long term solutions to be
tough on the causes of crime also.
Crime prevention through social development involves
positive interventions in the lives of the disadvantaged and
neglected in order to bring about a reduction in deviant
tendencies. This approach aims to reduce crime and create safe
communities by tackling the social and economic conditions
that breed crime.
To approach the issue of criminal concerns in our country, the
difficulties with our criminal justice system in the piecemeal
way with which the government is proceeding, is simply not the
answer. The government deals with the specific issue of the
intoxication defence. It is only reacting because of public
pressure which arose as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada
decision.
This is not a planned approach to effectively dealing with
crime in our communities. There may be differences of opinion
in how we address this problem, but what the government needs
is a holistic, wide ranging, complete approach to the issue of
criminal justice. As with all things we must focus on prevention
rather than just picking up the pieces afterward. If ever we want
to see a contrast we only have to look south of the border to see
what is happening in the United States. If we do not deal with the
causes of crime we will continue to reflect more similarly the
tragic social, economic and criminal situations which exist
there.
While the Minister of Justice is proposing a few useful,
though piecemeal, measures such as this one to deal with
concerns with the Canadian criminal justice system, the
government is attacking the very programs which would assist
in getting tough on the causes of crime. The Liberal
government's attack on social programs can only be seen to
serve to increase the sense of insecurity in our communities and
to increase the causes of crime.
We have seen this over the years with the last government.
This government is pursuing the same, even more aggressive
attack on social programs and we will see it increasing the
tensions in our communities and giving rise to greater stress
which will give rise to greater criminal activity.
What the government needs is two things. It needs a
comprehensive criminal justice approach, not a piecemeal
approach. Canadians deserve to see a plan, some vision, some
effort over the long term to see where the justice system should
go. It needs to be based on informed opinion, not on the
reactions of the public to individual concerns. Only responding
to public pressure on individual issues is not good enough. The
government needs to get tough on the causes of crime as well as
on crime.
(1340)
Second, it needs to stop eroding the very programs which
serve to prevent crime. Its neo-conservative attack on social
programs means Canada is bound to lose the war on crime.
Canada and Canadians deserve better.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-69, an act
to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries
commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, as
reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the
admissibility of the procedural acceptability of Motion No. 4
standing in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse which
purports to amend clause 16 of the bill now before the House.
I realize Your Honour is about to make a ruling in respect of
the procedural admissibility of a number of proposed
amendments. However, I want to speak to this particular one
because in my submission it fails to comply with the practices of
the House in regard to such amendments.
The effect of the amendment, if it were accepted by the House,
would be to change the method of calculating the number of
seats assigned to each province under the Constitution Act. I
have concerns about that because the Constitution Act is not up
for a review or a revision in the amendments that are before the
House under Bill C-69.
11051
The bill, as agreed to in principle at second reading, has
nothing whatever to do with the calculation of the number of
seats for each province, but is entirely confined to the
determination of the boundaries within each province for each
of the districts after the calculation has been done in conformity
with section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Constitution
Act could have been amended in the bill that was put before
the House but it was not.
If I may review for you, sir, the legislative history of this bill,
Your Honour will recall that there was a motion brought before
the House instructing the procedure and House affairs
committee to undertake a study in relation to various matters
outlined in the motion which included a review, if necessary, of
section 51 of the Constitution Act in so far as the allocation of
seats among provinces was concerned.
The committee did this study and filed a report in the House
with the draft bill in it. The draft bill contained no reference to
section 51 of the Constitution Act. The bill that the government
subsequently introduced in response to a concurrence motion on
the committee's report is Bill C-69 and it also contains no
reference to section 51 of the Constitution Act.
What we have here is an opportunity, afforded by the hon.
member in putting this motion, to make changes to other acts
which in my view are outside the principle of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act which is currently before the
House. It is a whole new act but it deals with the adjustment of
electoral boundaries, not with the assignment of seats to
provinces. It is a different matter and is dealt with in a different
statute and always has been dealt with in a different statute.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse
is a backdoor attempt to amend section 51 of the Constitution
Act. He has used the word notwithstanding but it does not get the
proposer of the amendment off the hook. It is an attempt to
amend another act which is in no way open for amendment by
Bill C-69 as agreed to in principle at second reading.
The amendment goes beyond the principle of the bill as
agreed to at second reading and opens up an entirely different
subject not dealt with by the bill before the House.
(1345 )
I would like to quote from Beauchesne's sixth edition,
citation 698 which says in part:
An amendment which is out of order on any of the following grounds cannot
be put from the chair:
(1) An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope
or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived.
(8)(a) An amendment may not amend a statute which is not before the
committee.
There are various references in support of each of those
citations.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that had this amendment been
put in the committee after second reading of the bill, that is, not
in its prestudy, but in its own study or in its own draft bill, in an
amendment to the bill, as committee chair, I would have had no
option but to rule it out of order because in my view it is beyond
the scope of the bill.
It should be pointed out that attempts to use the word
notwithstanding in order to sneak in a back door amendment to a
statute not before the House is not a new device, nor is it one that
the House has accepted.
In earlier years, previous governments were sometimes called
to order for trying to legislate through estimates. This is an
unacceptable process whereby statutes other than appropriation
acts were amended by adding words or items in the estimates.
One of the more frequent patterns of attempting to do this was to
insert words in the item that notwithstanding such and such an
act, the following shall be done or not be done, as the case may
be.
I checked the precedent for this. On March 10, 1971 at pages
4126 and 4127 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux rendered a
decision in respect of the supplementary estimates (c) for the
financial year ending March 31, 1971. In a ruling on a motion
that was brought forward by the President of the Privy Council,
Mr. MacEachen, to refer these supplementary estimates to
committee, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux ruled that certain of the
supplementary estimates were not properly before the House
because they purported to amend statutes through the estimates
process and therefore went beyond what estimates could do.
The words that were used in the estimates fit the description
of the words being used in this amendment. As Mr. Speaker
Lamoureux pointed out on page 4126:
Let us, if you will, examine the items singled out by the hon. members. The
first one is vote 35c. It proposes to amend the Pension Act and the Civilian War
Pensions and Allowances Act. The vote proposes to repeal schedules A and B of
the Pension Act and substitute therefor new schedules A and B as found in vote
35c.
I could go on but I do not need to read it all. The point is that
the Speaker found the estimates were seeking to amend statutes
and of course those statutes were not before the House for
amendment. The Speaker held, I think very properly, that the
practice of amending statutes by the estimates was out of order.
He made that ruling on page 4127. He said that ``in view of the
situation created by the new rules, these items are not before the
House in proper form''. He declined to allow them to go to
committee.
Mr. Speaker, if that was the view then, I suggest that same
view must apply to this amendment. What the hon. member for
Bellechasse is trying to do is amend the Constitution Act,
11052
section 51, by amending this bill and by simply saying that
notwithstanding and it is changed so this and such happens.
Successive Speakers have found this was an unacceptable
device because the word notwithstanding did not disguise the
real purpose which was to amend another act not opened by the
estimates process. The same rule must apply in respect of this
act.
The provisions of the Constitution Act 1867 are in no way
opened up by Bill C-69. The word notwithstanding does not
disguise the fact that the only purpose of the proposed
amendment is in fact to open those provisions of another act
which would have not been opened by the bill and which should
therefore not be opened up by this amendment.
I invite Your Honour to rule that the amendment is out of order
and not properly before the House at this time.
(1350)
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for recognizing me on the point of order raised by the
hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
If you read Motion No. 4 in the Notice Paper, you will see it
relates directly to clause 16 of Bill C-69. So much so that
subsection 16 (2) says:
(2) On receipt by the Chief Electoral Officer of a return referred to in
subsection (1) in respect of a decennial census, the Chief Electoral Officer shall
calculate the number of members of the House of Commons to be assigned to
each of the provinces, subject and according to the provisions of section 51 of
the Constitution Act, 1867.
The amendment I proposed, which is in the Notice Paper, would
be added to this.
However, when they refer to section 51 of the Constitution
Act, 1867, in subsection 16 (2), what are they referring to?
Certainly not the text adopted in 1867 by the Westminster
Parliament, pursuant to the Imperial Act which created the
federative kind of constitution we know today.
Section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, referred to in
subsection 16 (2) of Bill C-69 which is before us, refers to a
legislation adopted by this Parliament, which received assent on
March 4, 1986. At that time, the federal Parliament of Canada,
acting on its own pursuant to section 44 of the Constitution Act,
1982, did adopt the provisions of section 51 of the Constitution
Act, 1867.
With your permission, I will table the 1986 legislation, that is
chapter 8 of the 1986 Statutes, to show how this new section 51
was introduced and became part of an act entitled
Representation Act, 1985. It is highly appropriate, when we talk
about electoral redistribution, to establish a fundamental rule
which will apply right at the beginning, which will govern the
provinces, and then to say to the officer or the chief returning
officer: before making any other distribution, you must consider
that 25 per cent of the seats must be assigned to Quebec. It is in
that same spirit that the amendment has been moved today.
To make matters clear, Representation Act, 1985, was
challenged in our courts. It was challenged in a case called
Campbell vs. Attorney General of Canada-which is reported in
1988, 49 Dominion Law Report, 4th Edition, p. 321-where the
British Columbia Court of Appeal, comprised of five judges in
this particular case, decided: ``That the Federal Parliament had
all the authority to vote the above-mentioned act in 1985, that it
did not need the support of the provinces, that the
proportionality criteria in representation should be understood
within the Canadian dynamics of proportionality, where there
were Senate clauses, where deviations were made, and that this
act, even at the time, did not affect the proportionality criteria''.
This opinion from the British Columbia Court of Appeal is most
interesting.
Now, what about the way we have to deal with this bill?
Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which concerns
amendments, reads as follows: ``Subject to sections 41 and
42''-where the consent of the provinces is
required-``Parliament''-which means us-``may exclusively
make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to
the executive government of Canada or the Senate and the House
of Commons''. As the Campbell case indicates, we are well
within federal jurisdiction here. Section 44 does not specify a
particular procedure. I may recall that unlike other amendments
that may be made with the support of the provinces, in this case
we can amend the relevant provisions through a bill.
(1355)
When I move a motion in amendment that refers to the
Constitution Act, 1867, as Parliament was in 1985 when it
passed the 1985 readjustment legislation, I am well within the
scope of this debate, and I submit, with respect, that my motion
in amendment is entirely admissible at this stage.
We are merely establishing a basic rule, one of many basic
rules in this kind of legislation, rules according to which the
commissions may deviate by up to 25 per cent and special
circumstances may be taken into consideration when
establishing certain electoral districts. Establishing an
additional rule that would guarantee Quebec 25 per cent of the
seats is, I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, just another rule to
add to the bill that would make it more comprehensive. I submit
this with all due respect, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of clarification, I
certainly agree with what the hon. member said about the
authority of the Parliament of Canada to amend laws and to
amend the section of the Constitution Act we have been
discussing.
11053
However, the problem is, in my opinion, that this cannot be
done unless the government includes a clause to that effect in
the bill before second reading. That is the problem we have
today. There is no amendment to the Constitution Act in Bill
C-69. So the hon. member cannot use an amendment to make
this kind of change in the bill. He must do so in a separate bill
which is not now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): A short comment by the
hon. member for Bellechasse, because I do not want to get into
debate.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Where the
bill refers to section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as
amended in 1986, what we want to do is not change this
provision but simply say that for the purposes of Bill C-69, it
should be interpreted in such and such a way. I believe that is all
I wanted to say.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I have listened
carefully to the representations made by the parliamentary
secretary and the hon. member for Bellechasse with respect to
Bill C-69 and, more specifically, Motion No. 4. I will take the
arguments presented by both members on Motion No. 4 under
advisement.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I also want to advise the
House of the ruling of the Speaker on Bill C-69.
There are seven motions in amendment standing on the Notice
Paper for the report stage of Bill C-69, an act to provide for the
establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the
readjustment of electoral boundaries.
[Translation]
Motion No. 6 has been withdrawn. Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and
7 will be grouped for the purposes of debate. A vote on Motion
No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7.
[English]
Before proposing Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 to the House, I
believe the Speaker will want to proceed with the next order of
business. We will follow up on Bill C-69 following question
period.
[Translation]
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, it being 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5), we will now proceed to Statements by
Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
11053
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the recent recovery, 433,000 jobs were created in
Canada. However a closer analysis will show that there is a
disturbing problem underlying this.
Young people with a university education had a 25 per cent
increase in the number of jobs. Those who had some level of
diploma program after high school had a 14 per cent increase in
jobs.
However, those who had only a high school education had a 23
per cent decline in the number of job opportunities. Accordingly
it is very important for all Canadians to do what they can to
encourage our young people to pursue their education.
The national high school dropout rate is 18 per cent. This is
not acceptable for Canadians. I urge all members to do what they
can to address this serious problem. As we all know, an
investment today in our youth is an investment in our future for
all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after
cutting $5.5 billion on the backs of the unemployed in 1994-95,
and at least $700 million in the latest budget, the government
continues to hound the unemployed by hiring 600 new UI
investigators.
From the government's cuts to unemployment insurance, we
learned that the Liberals' new job creation credo was to consider
the unemployed lazy. Now the government considers them
cheats as well.
In the meantime, the government's measures to recover $6.6
billion in unpaid income taxes are not enough to remedy the
situation. With the banks reaping profits of over $5 billion, the
government is asking them supposedly to do their share by
paying temporary income taxes of $100 million. The
government's priorities are more than questionable, to say the
least.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is certainly a proud day for Calgarians. Yesterday Calgary's
Jan Arden swept the Juno awards by winning in three categories:
female vocalist of the year, best single of the year and songwrit-
11054
er of the year. It is the artistic excellence exemplified by Jan
Arden that typifies the superior calibre of art in Canada. The
future success for Canadian artists is boundless.
Another group bound for success hails from Newfoundland, a
province that has produced more than its fair share of Canadian
stars. Artistic Fraud of Newfoundland is a theatre company
trying to raise funds to take its production to the Fringe Festival
in Edinburgh.
Instead of seeking financial support from the government it
has focused its attention on raising funds from the corporate
sector. David Somers, a spokesperson for the company, said: ``I
am not under the impression that anybody owes us anything as
actors or theatre people. It is entirely up to the artistic
community to ensure its own survival. Businesses have been
funding plays since Shakespeare's time and probably before''.
With an attitude like that we know the group will be a success.
This is a proud day for Newfoundlanders, Calgarians and all
Canadians from St. John's to Victoria.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are proud to celebrate Red Cross Month this March.
For nearly a century the Canadian Red Cross Society has been
working hard to prevent and alleviate human suffering across
Canada and around the world.
The Red Cross has a distinguished history of helping those
most in need by providing emergency relief to foreign countries
devastated by war or natural disasters, helping victims of house
fires and other tragedies, teaching prevention and safety through
first aid and water safety programs, and ensuring an adequate
supply of blood for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Last year, Fitness Canada provided $95,000 for water safety
services and $51,000 for fitness programs for seniors.
[English]
Please join me in recognizing the contribution of the two
million Canadian volunteers who regularly donate blood and
support the programs and services of the Canadian Red Cross.
We all wish you a very successful Red Cross Month.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to acknowledge the outstanding work and dedication
of the organizers of the 14th Annual National Women's Hockey
Championship. It took place this past weekend in Summerside,
Prince Edward Island.
The winning team from Quebec is deserving of the title of
national champion. It emerged on top after three days of intense
and high calibre competition, although I do not think it
competed against a Newfoundland team.
Women's hockey has seen remarkable growth over the past
decade. Today over 15,000 girls and women play the sport on a
competitive basis, adding every year to the talent pool that has
given Canada three world championship titles.
We can now look forward to the 1998 winter Olympic games
when we will have the opportunity to cheer the Canadian
women's hockey team since women's hockey has now been
added to the Olympic games schedule.
Congratulations to all those involved with this year's national
championships in P.E.I.
* * *
(1405)
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
easy to tell the end of the fiscal year is upon us. Furniture trucks
have been lining up at government offices all across the land as
officials try to spend every last cent in their budgets before April
1. In my riding of Hillsborough, as elsewhere, the furniture
trucks arrived on the weekend to deliver the goods at various
government offices.
This would be all well and good if they were spending their
own money. However, they are spending the tax dollars of every
single Canadian. When a family is finding it difficult to make
ends meet it cuts expenses and delays buying things. The
government is having difficulty making ends meet and it also
should delay the purchase of such things as furniture. Taxpayers
have had enough of this wasting of money every year in March
madness.
As we saw in this morning's Ottawa Citizen, the National
Capital Commission spent $3 million on new furniture and over
$300,000 on new telephone equipment. The people of
Hillsborough and the rest of Canada want to see this amount of
government waste ended.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate World Theatre Day. In Quebec
the event will be marked by performances and plays, which the
public is encouraged to attend in droves.
On this day we want to stress the importance of the theatre and
the people in it, who give life on stage to plays that move us to
11055
tears or put a song in our hearts. Theatre expresses life in its
most tragic and most comic forms.
It is also a cultural industry with a considerable impact on the
economy. The theatre also provides artistic and technical talent
in all disciplines to other cultural industries such as television
and film.
I wish all the people in the theatre and all those who love it a
fine celebration. This is another moment of glory in your long
history. Let the curtain rise.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
following are the words of over 10,000 Canadians in and
surrounding the town of Palmerston, Ontario, where 82-year old
Oscar Noll was charged with assault with a weapon following
his success in saving himself and his property from damage and
theft at his place of business:
We the undersigned are both concerned and provoked that Oscar Noll should
be charged for protecting himself and his property against illegal intruders. We
feel he used reasonable force under the circumstances and attempts to penalize
him are unwarranted.
This statement as well as dollars sent in to support Oscar
Noll's defence are a clear sign that the 1990s law of the Liberals
is not satisfactory.
I take this moment to remind the government, especially the
Minister of Justice, that Mr. Oscar Noll is the victim of crime,
not the criminal. I urge the government and the minister to
answer the wake-up call of Canadians and fix this problem.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, March 21 to March 28 is the United Nations week of
solidarity with the people struggling against racism and racial
discrimination. During this week we bear in mind the threats to
peace posed by lack of tolerance among the world's peoples.
Since the end of the cold war in many countries ethnic conflict
and human rights violations against minorities have intensified.
On a more positive note, next month we will celebrate the
second anniversary of the end of apartheid and the first
anniversary of democratic elections in South Africa.
In a world darkened by ethnic conflicts that tear nations apart
our country has stood for the whole world as a model of how
people of different cultures can live and work together in peace,
prosperity and understanding. However, we must realize that
many people still face racism and discrimination every day and
that firm, forceful and repeated educational work must be done
to eliminate it from Canadian society.
On behalf of all members of the House I urge all Canadians to
recognize their responsibilities to one another and to society so
that together we can continue to make this country the envy of
the world.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of political parties that do not
keep their promises. As the Reform Party dusts off its reform
blue sheet Canadians see a political party, like so many others,
failing to keep its promises.
Promise No. 1: end double dipping. Reality: one of their own
collects a provincial pension while sitting as a member of
Parliament.
Promise No. 2: adequate punishment for young offenders.
Reality: vote against a bill that does just that.
Promise No. 3: fiscal responsibility. Reality: a party that
cannot control its own finances. Newspaper reports say the party
is in debt.
Promise No. 4: representation which reflects the wishes of a
majority of its constituents. Reality: vote against gun
registration, despite majority support.
Reform supporters and all Canadians see the list of broken
promises in the blue sheet of the Reform Party. It is enough for
all of them to see red.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.) Mr.
Speaker, March is National Epilepsy Month. Epilepsy is a
functional disorder of the brain that temporarily blocks
awareness. It is characterized by seizures, uncontrollable
shaking, convulsions and confusion.
More than 280,000 Canadians, primarily youth, suffer from
this condition. In approximately 75 per cent of the cases there is
no known cause. New medications have been developed to
control seizures but drugs are not the cure and often can have
severe side effects. In addition, 40 per cent of seizures are not
successfully controlled by current medication.
Epilepsy Canada is a voluntary organization dedicated to
helping people with epilepsy and their families to overcome
problems associated with this disorder.
I ask all members of the House to join me in applauding
Epilepsy Canada and the work of its many volunteers. I also urge
members to work to promote medical research so that we can
find a lasting cure.
11056
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the events of the last few days have exposed the many
shortcomings of the federal labour relations legislation. The two
special acts voted in over the last two weeks to bring workers
back to work are the most recent examples of the warped effects
of archaic federal legislation.
Cabinet is hiding behind proposed reforms to the Canada
Labour Code which apparently are now being studied. Yet, the
provisions on strikebreakers have been well known for several
years. It has been 17 months since the Liberal government was
elected, and still nothing has been done regarding the issue.
When the time comes to bring in laws denying workers their
rights, the government can work quite quickly, but when it
comes time to correct provisions which victimize workers, the
Liberals are happy enough to adopt an intolerable wait-and-see
policy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
honour of Oscar night I present the top 10 Liberal excuses for
keeping the fat cat pension for life plan.
(10) Hey, come on, we work weekends.
(9) The Deputy Prime Minister is going to need it when she
resigns for not keeping her campaign promise to scrap the GST.
(8) If it were not for this plan Liberal members would not be
of such high quality, like the member for Halifax, Nova Scotia.
(7) It is the only long term financial commitment the
government can make.
(6) How else will they afford health care in their golden years?
(5) You do not expect them to rely on the Canada pension plan,
do you?
(4) After they retire they will have to pay for their own trips.
(3) There is not room for all of them in the Senate, is there?
(2) If you think about it, their pensions are small when you
compare them with the national debt of $550 billion.
(1) The Prime Minister will need the money for a place to stay
when the leader of the Reform Party moves into 24 Sussex
Drive.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, those who speak on behalf of and know the
problems faced by the less well off in Canada today pointed out
the complete about face of the Liberal government on social
programs and health care.
Seven billion dollars less in the two years 1996-97 and
1997-98 is deeper than stated in the budget and will mean severe
cuts in health care, post-secondary education and social
programs across Canada. With federal government spending
declining soon the federal government will have no power to
ensure accessibility to health care, post-secondary education
and social programs to all. It is the end of medicare and, with the
end of CAP, provinces will not have to have social programs at
all.
Canadians did not vote for this. The Liberals did not campaign
on the total dismantling of Canada's social safety net and
Canadians do not want to see the continuing Americanization of
our society, whether it be carried out by Conservatives or by
Liberals.
Newt Gingrich's Canadian fellow travellers Ralph Klein, the
leader of the Reform Party and now the Prime Minister are
turning back the clock to the thirties. Canadians need a
government that works for Canadians and they deserve to have a
government which keeps its promises. We used to say-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to congratulate
the Tragically Hip for their success last night in winning two
Junos: entertainer of the year and group of the year.
The Hip have now won five Junos, including entertainer of the
year for the third time. The group of Gord Downie, Gord
Sinclair, Paul Langlois, Johnny Fay and Robbie Baker is from
my riding of Kingston and the Islands and has a strong
commitment to the Kingston community.
(1415)
The entertainer of the year award is voted on by fans and is
testimony to the band's wide appeal in Canada. The Tragically
Hip sold out its recent 20-event tour of Canada in three days and
has sold over 500,000 copies of its recent album ``Day for
Night''.
While the Hip was winning Junos and praise in Canada on the
weekend, it was also making a break into the American market
with an appearance on ``Saturday Night Live''.
11057
I join with millions of Canadians in congratulating the
Tragically Hip on its success and wish it further great singing
in the future.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to congratulate the St. Catharines-Niagara Class A
World Rowing Committee on its bid for the world rowing
championships.
Rowing Canada has endorsed the committee's bid and will be
putting the St. Catharines-Niagara bid forward on behalf of
Canada in Finland later this year.
In 1970 St. Catharines hosted world rowing. We know we can
do it again. We are pulling together to bring the world back to
Niagara. We have the facilities, the expertise and the experience
to make the 1999 World Rowing International Championships a
great success.
_____________________________________________
11057
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on March 10, the Minister of Transport announced
that his government was granting the coveted Hong Kong route
to Air Canada. This weekend, however, we learned that the
minister had done an about-face and refused without any
justification to allow Air Canada to fly to Hong Kong before late
December 1995.
How can the Minister of Transport explain his government's
decision to delay until late December 1995 Air Canada's access
to the Hong Kong market, when this airline was all set to begin
service to Hong Kong right away?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second designation policy which we announced is
not limited to Air Canada and Hong Kong. The predetermined
passenger volume levels setting off the process also apply to
Germany, for instance.
All these decisions were made after a long period of reflection
and extensive negotiations, and we feel that it is in everyone's
interest to ensure total openness in granting landing rights.
I must say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that I really
appreciate the way Air Canada President Hollis Harris reacted
by saying that he appreciated the work done by the Government
of Canada with regard not only to the Hong Kong matter but also
to the bilateral agreement with the U.S., and especially to Air
Canada being given access to the Japanese market. That is
something he had been seeking for many years.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, how could the President of Air Canada afford to
offend the route granting minister who is holding his company's
future in his hands? The employees themselves are not so happy.
During his March 10 announcement, the minister bragged
about his balanced distribution giving Air Canada a route to
Hong Kong and Canadian access to several countries in Asia,
not to mention the vast majority of available flights to New York
and Chicago.
In this context, does the minister admit that it is unfair to
delay the launch of the Hong Kong service until December,
when the decisions benefiting Canadian take effect right away?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I know that the hon. Leader of the
Opposition is very interested in this matter. I share his interest
since we have been working on this without respite since we
came to office. These are extremely complex situations that
have existed for a very long time.
I wish to repeat once again that, when the announcement was
made, it was not only a matter of granting landing rights in Hong
Kong. It is not necessarily true that only the Hong Kong decision
was delayed. All decisions based on national landing levels are
at stake and that includes Canadian Airlines International's right
to land in Germany.
(1420)
The management of both airlines, including both presidents,
Mr. Harris and Mr. Jenkins, reacted to all our air transport policy
announcements by saying that they were very satisfied with the
work done by the government, the negotiators and all those
involved. The work was extremely difficult and very complex.
At the end of this year, both air carriers will have the
opportunity to compete in all markets around the world, a first in
Canadian air transport history.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, if it was so obvious that the decision would not take
effect immediately, how come Air Canada had already taken all
necessary steps to start flying to Hong Kong, spending money
and getting ready to begin service right away?
Can the minister tell us if it is true that the decision to delay
Air Canada's landing rights was imposed by the Prime Minister
and that this delay prevented the immediate creation of 500 jobs
in Montreal?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the
decision was not imposed by the Prime Minister. It was the
result of a great deal of work.
11058
I point out to my hon. friend that Air Canada, prior to the
announcement on the second designation levels for Canadian
carriers, had already announced that it was going to employ
nearly 1,000 Canadians in its operations as pilots, as flight
attendants and as ground personnel.
The growth and future of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines
International will be the result of a series of initiatives
undertaken by the government after a great deal of work.
In response to the question of the hon. Leader of the
Opposition, I believe the attitude exhibited by Hollis Harris and
Kevin Jenkins ushers in a new era of confidence for the
employees of Canadian Airlines International, of Air Canada, as
well as the shareholders of both companies and the Canadian
travelling public.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. The
Financial Post reported
last week that the Prime Minister's former employer, the law
firm of Lang Michener, confirmed that a one and a half hour
meeting had taken place in January 1990 between the Prime
Minister and the Matthews Group, the main partner in the
consortium that eventually secured the Pearson Airport
privatization contract.
In view of the fact that Mr. Matthews said he met the Prime
Minister to discuss the privatization of Pearson International
Airport, contrary to what the Prime Minister stated in this House
on December 8, does the Prime Minister still maintain that the
subject of privatization never came up during that meeting?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is clear: the answer is no. I even took the time
to check with the lawyer who represented the Matthews Group
in the office. I spoke with him and he confirmed that the Toronto
airport was not discussed at all. At that time, I was not aware of
the privatization plan.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
again according to the Financial Post, Mr. Matthews's
recollection is that the Prime Minister, who was then running for
the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, asked for $25,000
in support for his campaign.
Considering how serious the allegations made in the
Financial Post are, and to dispel any doubt regarding his
personal involvement in this matter, does the Prime Minister not
think that he should commission a public inquiry into the
circumstances surrounding the privatization of Pearson
Airport?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, I never solicited funds and Mr. Matthews
himself says he did not contribute a penny to the Jean Chrétien
leadership campaign.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the
Minister of National Defence announced his long awaited public
inquiry into the Somalia affair he promised it would get to the
bottom of all questions surrounding DND headquarters and the
military hierarchy.
Former deputy defence minister Bob Fowler is at the centre of
the allegations. Yet we learned that Anne-Marie Doyle, one of
the three commissioners appointed to look into the Somalia
incident, is a close personal friend of Mr. Fowler.
How does the Minister of National Defence plan to deal with
the perception that the impartiality of the inquiry has been
compromised?
(1425)
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the three
commissioners were appointed because of their knowledge of
the government process and public accountability, and their
breadth of experience and impartiality.
If any one of these principles is compromised in any way then
the matter will be addressed.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform
Party is not questioning the abilities or the integrity of
Anne-Marie Doyle. We are questioning the ability of the
minister's staff. Surely the minister should have known about
Ms. Doyle's 27-year friendship with Mr. Fowler.
This is not the first time the minister's office has dropped the
ball. Last month it was the third airborne video. Last week it was
the investigation of the military police. This is getting rather
ridiculous.
I have a supplementary question. Who nominated the
commissioners and why was the minister unaware of Ms.
Doyle's 27-year connection to Bob Fowler?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
inquiry was called under part I of the Inquiries Act. Therefore it
is a government inquiry and a number of government
departments were involved.
As to the specifics of what the hon. member is saying in his
supplementary question, I think I addressed them in my answer
to the first question.
11059
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
continues to skate around the issue. All we really want are the
facts and we want to see some impartiality surrounding the
Somali inquiry. We do not want it to be compromised.
Despite the reassurances of both the minister and Ms. Doyle
there is a public perception that the inquiry is no longer
objective and that it will be hindered in getting to the bottom of
the Somali affair.
Will the defence minister restore the integrity of the public
inquiry by removing Anne-Marie Doyle immediately?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I gave
the three criteria the commissioners had to have before they
were appointed. One of them was impartiality.
If it is found that is not there or if there is any other call into
question of the integrity of these individuals it will be
addressed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it was
reported in the media last weekend that some individuals
illegally took possession of Oka residences bought by the
federal government. Apparently, these actions were based on the
``might is right'' rule.
How can the Minister of Indian Affairs explain that the
``might is right'' rule still applies in Kanesatake, and that these
federal properties are illegally occupied?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the
hon. member that between Judge Réjean Paul and the negotiator
Michel Robert a housing authority was set up and 178
individuals were assessed on the basis of need. They were
categorized. The houses have been allocated. A couple are
giving problems but overall the process is working.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
media were not reporting minor problems but a major one,
which is the illegal occupation of federal properties.
Given that the majority of honest citizens put their names on
waiting lists to be allowed to live in these houses, will the
Minister of Indian Affairs confirm that his officials are
negotiating leases with those who took illegal possession of
these properties, so as to regularize their occupancy as quickly
as possible?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the situation north of
highway 344 still persists. I am pleased to report to the member
that because of the progress made south of 344 and the process
in place based on need, we are now making some progress north
of 344 which I inherited.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Serious
allegations are being made about the Prime Minister's role in the
Pearson privatization contract.
Not only has he met on numerous occasions with parties in the
Claridge group but there are now questions on whether he
advised the Matthews Group in its contract bid on Pearson
airport.
Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House the nature of the
advice as a lawyer or otherwise given to Jack Matthews
specifically or the Matthews Group generally with respect to the
privatization of Pearson airport?
(1430 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said in French, I never gave advice about the
privatization of the Toronto airport to anybody involved. The
allegation is absolutely false.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister previously suggested there is no
conflict of interest with him on Pearson because he is the one
who cancelled the deal.
Given that Matthews refused to donate to the Prime
Minister's leadership campaign and donated instead to that of
his principal competitor, will the Prime Minister submit himself
to a full review by the ethics counsellor and then table that report
in the House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we never talked about it and he did not give me a damn
cent. Therefore there is absolutely no conflict of interest.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
While honest citizens are eager to move into properties
bought by the federal government, the normal allocation process
is jeopardized by the illegal occupation of these houses. Indeed,
11060
these Kanesatake residences are illegally occupied and the
minister is aware of that.
Will the minister confirm that those who illegally and
forcefully occupy these federal properties will be excluded from
the waiting lists and that these lists will only contain the names
of those who fully complied with the law?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the same question that
was just put to me. It is identical.
One hundred and seventy-eight people have been assessed.
Houses have been allocated. Three or four south of 344 are
causing us problems, but that is nothing like the problem I
inherited. We all inherited Oka which wasted $230 million of
Quebec and federal government money.
This is a much better way to deal with the problem, not to
aggravate it but to negotiate in good faith and solve it.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows that some properties are still illegally occupied
in Kanesatake. He is not answering our questions.
Following the discussions he had with his negotiator, Michel
Robert, can the minister tell us if the allocation of the residences
bought by the federal government will take place in the near
future and in compliance with the criteria set by the
government?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question
directly. If my friend wants to be positive, he should go to the
Quebec government and have the Quebec government recognize
the peacekeepers at Oka.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question for the Minister of Finance is with regard to the new
Canada health and social transfer.
The CHST states that health care transfers to provinces may
be reduced or cut off whenever the Minister of Health ``is
satisfied'' that a province is not in line with her own
interpretation of the Canada Health Act. The cabinet then gets to
decide how much funding is cut from the province. This sounds
like a recipe for arbitrary command from Ottawa.
Why is the formula of funding reductions not based on an
impartial formula laid out in the law?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we made it very
clear that the new social transfer would incorporate the
principles of the Canada Health Act. Indeed, it is those
principles and those principles alone that will govern. There is
no discretion. It is the Canada Health Act and that is the
covenant of this government.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
makes no sense for the government to claim that the best way to
maintain the standards in the Canada Health Act is by cutting off
funding every time a province tries to innovate. The Minister of
Health will have the power to arbitrarily yank the plug on
federal health care spending.
Can she explain to this House how this is supposed to improve
the quality of health care in Canada?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada Health Act remains as is. It has not nor is it
meant to prevent innovation. It is meant to preserve and
maintain those principles which have served Canadians very
well, which Canadians expect and indeed deserve to have to
protect them.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Last Friday, the
government repeated that Canada was very concerned about the
Turkish military offensive against the Kurds in northern Iraq
and said that it would meet with the Turkish ambassador
regarding the issue. Today, there is every indication that Turkey
firmly intends to carry on with its forays.
Will the minister confirm whether Canada has indeed raised
this issue with other NATO members, as the Minister of
National Defence led us to believe last week, and will he tell us
what measures Canada and NATO intend to take to make Turkey
see reason?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question, I can say
that we have not done so.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister wants to be taken seriously, at a time when it has come
to light that civilians have been hurt in the Turkish offensive,
does he intend to refer the matter to the UN's Security Council
and to immediately suspend all negotiations regarding the sale
of our CF-5 jets to Turkey?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have already said in this House that we were only
at the preliminary stages of negotiating the sale of these
airplanes and that a number of countries or potential buyers
11061
were being considered. Therefore, the hon. member is wrong
when he implies that we are pursuing advanced negotiations
with Turkey. They have not reached an advanced stage at all.
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It
concerns something raised regarding negotiations to sell
Canadian CF-5 fighter jets to Turkey, a country which
according to Amnesty International is ``a serious and systemic
violator of human rights''.
Can the minister possibly assure this House that these
Canadian planes will not be used to jeopardize the rights of
innocent people?
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for asking me a question
similar to the one I just answered. I can confirm that the
negotiations regarding the sale of the CF-5 jets are at a very
preliminary stage. Canada is studying the possibility of selling
them to a number of people who have shown interest.
I can also confirm what I just said to the hon. member, which
was that there is no cause for concern with regard to Turkey,
since negotiations are at a very preliminary stage and since, at
any rate, the government rigorously reviews sales of this kind
and obtains specific commitments from purchasing countries.
Undoubtedly, we will take every action necessary to ensure that
whatever country buys the jets, be it Turkey or another, it would
not use them against civilians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer of the Minister of National Defence to
previous questions on the Somalia inquiry were totally
inadequate. The point remains whether the inquiry is or is not
going to be impartial and conducted at arm's length.
Will the minister replace Anne-Marie Doyle with someone
whose impartiality is unquestioned?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I already
answered that question.
An hon. member: Cover-up.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's unwillingness to answer this question
leaves me and others in this House to believe that something is
being hidden. He is doing nothing at all to instil public
confidence in the inquiry into the whole Somalia affair.
(1440 )
Will the minister restore the integrity required by the public
by demanding that Anne-Marie Doyle be removed
immediately?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
answered the question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Between 1990 and 1994, Quebec lost 8,054 jobs in the defence
industry, mainly in Montreal. These lost jobs account for more
than half the jobs in the 40 largest military equipment
companies and indicate the urgent need to set up a real
conversion program. However, in the last budget, no money was
allocated for this purpose.
Could the Minister of Industry explain why the government
decided not to provide any money to set up a real conversion
program for the defence industry, considering the promises the
Liberal Party made in its red book?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member may not have had the opportunity to
consult with corporations and business associations in Quebec
and throughout Canada.
Had he had the time to do so, he would have found out, as we
did, that the corporations and all the business associations are
against subsidies to the private sector. What they want from us is
strategic information and help in finding foreign markets. This
is what our government has been doing, not only through the
measures contained in the budget, but also through Team
Canada, which has been promoting sales overseas.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the minister recognize that by cutting the DIPP program by
$41 million, money that could be used to set up a real conversion
strategy, the Montreal area will continue to lose thousands of
jobs and be penalized compared to its foreign competitors for
whom such programs are in place?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is far more pessimistic than I am
about the strength and capability in international markets of
many of the firms in Montreal.
I happen to believe that companies have been traditionally
strong in both the defence sector as well as in the dual use sector.
For example, there is CAE Electronics which I visited on Friday.
It entered into a new contract with the Canadian Space Agency.
It is precedent setting and will be useful in helping that company
11062
as well as the CSA provide training for use on the mobile
satellite system. It goes on and on.
What companies in Canada want is advice, assistance,
network connections and the support of their government in
making the sales overseas that will make them successful
internationally. That is what we understand, but clearly not what
the Government of Quebec understands.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Last week renovations that will cost $500,000 started at the
Immigration and Refugee Board's University Avenue office in
Toronto. This remodelling, done at a time when 45,000 civil
servants are to be let go, is causing outrage in the office itself.
With the downsizing of the board, even more offices will be
emptied. Nonetheless, expansion is proceeding.
Will the minister immediately call a halt to this incredible
waste of taxpayers' dollars?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will have to take
notice of the hon. member's question and get him an answer as
soon as possible.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the minister of immigration.
The minister knows about this mess but as usual he has tried to
pass the buck to the chair of the IRB. I have received a petition
signed by 300 civil servants, many of whom work in the Toronto
IRB office, demanding a halt to these wasteful renovations.
Will the minister of immigration recommend that these
renovations be halted now, or will he ignore these employees
like he has ignored other critical employees in the past?
(1445 )
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it should be said that no
minister ignores his or her employees. In fact it could be said
that the harmony between the government and the civil service
has never been higher in terms of the partnership that the
government has with the public service.
Second, as the Minister of Public Works said, I too will take
the question as notice because I am not aware of the specifics of
which the member speaks.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Today is the anniversary of the very tragic death of Nicholas
Battersby in a drive-by shooting. Since then other similar
incidents have occurred in our communities across the land.
Will the minister inform the House of the steps the
government has taken and is planning to take to make convicted
young offenders more accountable for their acts?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the government
announced almost a year ago, our approach to youth justice has
two aspects: first, immediate statutory changes to the Young
Offenders Act to strengthen it, and second, a longer term,
critical reassessment of the youth justice system in general.
With respect to the first matter, last February 28 the House
passed at third reading Bill C-37 which is now before the other
place. It represents a toughening of the statute to deal with
violence and a recognition that for non-violent crime, jail
should be the last resort in favour of community based
rehabilitative programming.
We have doubled the maximum sentence for first degree
murder. We have provided for the presumptive transfer to adult
court of 16 and 17-year-olds charged with crimes of serious
violence.
In the second phase of the strategy, the parliamentary
committee on justice and legal affairs will later this year
commence a comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act,
travelling across Canada to listen to Canadians about other
improvements that can be made to the statute.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in Quebec, the fiscal arrangements provided for in the
POWA agreement expire on March 31 of this year. The Quebec
Minister of Employment, Louise Arel, has informed the
Minister of Human Resources Development of her willingness
to renew the current fiscal arrangements pending a review that
would make the program more equitable for workers.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us
what his intentions are regarding the renewal of the agreement
with Quebec?
11063
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are presently reviewing
the program, as the Quebec minister indicated a necessity to do.
We are endeavouring to set up a meeting. We look forward to
being able to share our joint assessments of these programs at
such a time as a meeting can be arranged.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for more than a year now, the minister has been
promising a review of POWA, which, I would remind members,
excludes a considerable number of workers.
Will the minister make a commitment to take, this year, the
corrective action that has been requested since 1992 by both the
previous Liberal government of Quebec and its present
government?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important that we do a
broader assessment of the circumstances affecting older
workers throughout Canada.
We all recognize it is emerging as one of the more serious
concerns we have as the labour market changes. A number of
workers are being dislocated from their jobs. We have to find
ways of helping them to re-enter the job market and to maintain
some security for themselves and their families.
As the hon. member knows, we have a number of experiments
going on across the country. There is the job corps in New
Brunswick. Recently we initiated a wage subsidy program under
the unemployment insurance program. That is beginning this
spring. It is a very important way to help older workers re-enter
the job market.
I want to be in a position to be able to share the results of these
initiatives with my provincial counterparts at an early date. At
that time we will certainly take on board representations made
by the provinces concerning how we can help older workers in
the country.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
defence minister's staff regularly failed to inform him of
important facts until it was too late. The case of Anne-Marie
Doyle is another example.
With his answers today regarding the public inquiry into the
Somalia fiasco, is the minister confirming that Anne-Marie
Doyle will remain as one of the three commissioners?
(1450 )
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I made
an announcement last week setting up the commission. The
terms of reference are broad. The three commissioners were
chosen for their impartiality, knowledge of government and
knowledge of the public accountability process. If any one of
those people do not measure up to any of those characteristics,
that will be addressed.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, here is a
quotation from Anne-Marie Doyle: ``It was no secret that
Robert Fowler and I have been close colleagues and friends for
27 or 28 years''.
It is no problem, except that it should disqualify her for the
job. Will the minister do her a favour and not have a situation
where a friend has to judge a friend?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
answered this question four times in this question period. The
hon. member will have to be satisfied with that answer.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the
call that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
has made with respect to the Tobin tax.
Given that the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees has called on governments of the world to introduce
the Tobin tax in order to finance human rights work around the
globe, I wonder whether the minister is now prepared to endorse
this concept and say that at the G-7 meetings in Halifax the
Canadian government will be putting forward a proposal in this
regard.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Tobin tax, as
the hon. member knows, is quite an imaginative approach to
both the financing of international obligations as well as the
problems arising from speculation.
There are some problems with the Tobin tax, not the least of
which is that unless it is applied on a worldwide basis it will not
work. It would simply give rise to ways around it and other
forms of financial instrumentation. For that reason the debate
will continue.
11064
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
while the debate continues I wonder if the minister could tell
us what the Canadian position is with respect to how the debate
should proceed.
Will the Canadian government be looking for ways to do this
that meet some of the concerns of the minister? Will the
Canadian government, when it gets to Halifax, and in other
international fora, be putting forward proposals for creating a
financial world order in which the power of speculators to
destabilize national and regional economies will be contained?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the principal
purpose of the Halifax summit, which is to take a look at
possible or necessary reforms to international financial
institutions, primarily the Bretton Woods institutions, is going
to be first and foremost on the agenda. That will be a
wide-ranging discussion and it would not be incumbent upon
me to limit it here.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, sugar
beet producers are concerned that negotiations to open the U.S.
border to Canadian sugar exports are being put on hold pending
the Revenue Canada investigations into allegations of sugar
dumping by the U.S. and Europe.
My question is for the Minister for International Trade. Can
the minister assure the House that negotiations are still being
pursued even during the Revenue Canada investigations?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the discussions that were held on March 16
were part of an ongoing process of consultation with the United
States. When we have had a chance to review further the United
States information and material given to us on March 16, we will
again be consulting the United States.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the same minister.
Could he indicate what approach the government is taking
with regard to sugar? Is sugar being negotiated as one
commodity alone, or is it a commodity being negotiated with a
package of goods relative to the GATT?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question of sugar is being negotiated
alone.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
The federal government has just granted a subsidy to the job
search project La Relance in order to help young people with no
income find a job. Until now, the Department of Human
Resources Development had funded only the program for young
unemployed workers.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development
explain his department's decision to give financial assistance to
La Relance when it withdrew funding from Carrefour
Jeunesse-Emploi because that centre dealt with young welfare
recipients?
(1455 )
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we did not withdraw
funding from the Carrefour Jeunesse. In fact the department is
supplying something like $200,000 worth of project support this
year.
As far as the project Relance is concerned, we are providing
an additional $20,000 at the end of the year to make up a backlog
of cases. I am not sure why the hon. member would be so critical
of any attempt to help young people in the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the minister's answer that,
from now on, he intends to support all groups pursuing the same
objectives, whether they deal with people on unemployment
insurance or with people who do not receive unemployment
insurance benefits?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House
before, in the spirit of the new federal philosophy of
decentralization where we want to give far more responsibility
to our officers at the local region who make decisions about their
priorities, we will be responsive to those kinds of decisions.
It indicates a new kind of federalism. We want the programs to
be tailored to the actual needs and priorities as determined by
people working in those communities.
11065
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a Court of
Queen's Bench in Alberta has found the orders in council passed
by the past Tory government pertaining to firearms legislation to
be invalid because section 116(2) of the Criminal Code had not
been adhered to.
My question is for the justice minister. Why has he followed
the same procedure in passing orders in council before
Christmas, a procedure that has been declared invalid by the
courts of this land and has not worked its way through the appeal
courts? Why did the minister choose to follow a procedure that
has been declared invalid by the courts?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the judgment that has
been referred to is under appeal because the federal government
believes at first instance it was simply wrong. Without meaning
any disrespect to the court, we have every confidence in the
validity of the order in council.
The appeal is pending yet government must continue. The
government has exercised an authority which it believes has
been done validly and lawfully in the best interest of the public.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
understand the response of the justice minister. However, he
could have followed the procedure outlined in section 116 of the
Criminal Code. I observe that in Bill C-68 he has made that
provision.
Why would the minister not follow the procedure set out in
the Criminal Code and have the orders in council passed by the
elected representatives of the people as section 116 of the
Criminal Code demands and as the Court of Queen's Bench in
Alberta has indicated is a valid procedure?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is because that
section is not relevant to this exercise.
Two sections in the code speak of orders in council. One has to
do with the general power on the part of government to prohibit.
That order in council need not be placed before the House. The
second and different kind of order in council deals with such
matters as regulation, fees, businesses selling firearms. Those
orders in council must be placed before the House.
We have distinguished between the two. We are confident of
the validity of the steps we have taken. We feel in good faith the
judgment at first instance in Alberta was wrong. We will pursue
the appeal with every confidence that we shall win it.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry who is responsible for
the-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, as usual I am flattered by all of the
attention.
My question is for the Minister of Industry who is responsible
for the Canada scholarship program for science and engineering
students. The government's main estimates in 1995-96 said the
``program was very successful in encouraging Canadian
students, particularly women, to enter and stay in
post-secondary science, engineering and technology studies''.
Given the evaluation and the success of the program with the
private sector and the rhetoric of the government on
post-secondary education and R and D, why did the minister cut
the program?
(1500 )
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am always happy to receive a question from the leader
of the fifth party, particularly one who will know that the
funding for the Canada Scholarship Plan has been fulfilled to the
extent that it was approved and put in place by the previous
government. Nothing was cut. Rather the funding accorded by
the previous government has run out.
I would like him to know that we are working very hard to find
means to supply the Canada Scholarship Program in other ways
and perhaps with the participation of the private sector so that a
program like this is able to continue.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
a supplementary question.
Given the fact that the government will not continue to reward
the excellence of students in the area of science and
post-secondary education, my question is for the Minister of
Human Resources Development.
Why is it that his department has not continued a stay in
school program that seeks to help young Canadian men and
women to pursue their studies so that we as a society can do
everything we can for young men and women to obtain all the
skills they need in their lifetime to participate fully in Canadian
society? Why has he cut that program?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were put in the
unfortunate position that the previous government had only
provided limited five-year funding. I have made a special effort
in the past year to
11066
provide an extension of the funding so that I could then use the
time to begin to recruit the assistance and enlistment of the
private sector.
We have been able to obtain a number of private sector
sponsors as part of the stay in school program. Next fall when
the new national basketball association team opens up in
Vancouver and Toronto the stay in school logo will be part of its
promotion. It has become one of the major sponsors of the
program.
It shows we are interested in maintaining the very valuable
necessity of keeping our young people in school.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, congratulations are in order to the hon. member for
Restigouche-Chaleur on his private member's bill which will
allow UI claimants to serve on jury duty without losing their
benefits.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development assure
us that there will be no delay in implementing the measures and
that individuals receiving UI will be immediately entitled to
their benefits while serving on a jury?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly join in
congratulating the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur who
for the first time has established a precedent. His private
member's bill has not only received royal assent but royal
recommendation for the spending of government money.
I am pleased to report to the House that with its passage
yesterday in the Senate and the giving of royal assent, at two
minutes past midnight this morning all persons asked to serve on
jury duty who receive UI benefits can continue to collect them.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of the Hon. Simon Upton, Minister for
the Environment, Research, Science and Technology and
Minister for Crown Research Institutes of New Zealand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
11066
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
25 petitions.
* * *
(1505)
[English]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have six petitions with a total of 471 names to present.
The petitioners are praying and requesting that Parliament not
amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act
or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would tend
to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
should like to table a petition signed by over 2,000 Canadians
from the Niagara peninsula, Hamilton, London, Burlington,
Toronto and surrounding areas, and other Ontario cities.
The petitioners call on Parliament to condemn the actions of
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in its application to
televise the Paul Bernardo trial.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present a petition in a course of action undertaken on
behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early release of
Robert Paul Thompson from prison.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making the
streets safer for citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murders.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from citizens of
Trois-Pistoles who consider that voice mail technology must be
rejected, and who call upon Parliament to ask the government to
11067
abandon its projected use of voice mail with senior citizens,
since they do not feel they get adequate service especially when
dealing with income security matters.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I want to present a petition organized by
Suzanne MacDonell, one of my constituents.
The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and
freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including
amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of
sexual orientation.
Not only am I pleased to present the petition but I endorse it as
well.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a petition signed by 40
electors from my riding and surrounding regions.
They ask that Parliament ensure the present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide will be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a
petition signed by approximately 60 people from Saskatchewan.
They request that Parliament not amend the human rights
code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights
and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition from in and around the city of Winnipeg.
The petitioners request that Parliament support laws that will
severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the
commission of a crime, support new Criminal Code firearm
control provisions that recognize and protect the rights of
law-abiding citizens to own and use recreation firearms, and
support legislation that will repeal and modify existing gun
controls that have not improved public safety.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions to put before the House from constituents
in Langley, Aldergrove and Abbotsford, British Columbia.
They first request that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with
section 718.2 as presently written and in any event not include
the undefined phrase of sexual orientation as a behaviour people
engage in does not warrant special consideration in Canadian
law.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my second petition requests that Parliament reduce government
spending instead of increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer
protection act to limit federal spending.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my third petition calls upon Parliament not to enact any further
firearms control legislation, regulations or orders in council.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another petition to present. It calls upon Parliament to
oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that provide for
the inclusion of the phrase of sexual orientation.
All the petitions I do so endorse.
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present to the House today pursuant to
Standing Order 36.
(1510 )
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 that would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to present three petitions.
The first one was signed by 26 people from Killarney,
Manitoba. The attention of the House is drawn to the fact that 38
per cent of the national highway system has fallen below
accepted standards and that the benefits of the proposed national
highway program are numerous.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to request that the
government support all measures to make the national highway
system upgrading possible.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition was signed by 31 people from the
Brandon-Souris area.
It calls upon Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights
act to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
11068
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition was signed by individuals from
Cromer, Oak Lake, Kenton and Virden.
They call upon Parliament to ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code that prohibit assisted suicide be
vigorously enforced and that Parliament make no changes in the
law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by 40 people from my riding to
present.
They pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the present
version of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
change in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
I concur with the petition.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition signed by 40 people to present.
They pray and call upon 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.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the next petition was signed by 112 people from my
riding.
They pray and call upon Parliament not to amend the human
rights code, the human rights act or the charter of rights and
freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality.
I concur with all the petitions.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
first petition I wish to present calls upon Parliament not to allow
drunkenness as a defence.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition I am introducing calls upon Parliament to reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition speaks in favour of inclusion of sexual orientation
in the Human Rights Act.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition I wish to present calls for stiffer sentences under
the Young Offenders Act.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to table two petitions signed by the constituents
of Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding areas that have been
duly certified by the clerk of petitions pursuant to Standing
Order 36.
In the first one the petitioners call upon Parliament not to
impose any amendments to the Canadian human rights act or the
charter of rights and freedoms that provide for the inclusion of
the phrase sexual orientation.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners request that the
Criminal Code of Canada and other relevant acts be amended so
that extreme drunkenness as a defence in any criminal case
could not be used.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to present three petitions on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre.
The first petition is on the issue of euthanasia. The petitioners
request that Parliament not sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition deals with the issue of sexual orientation.
The petitioners request that the Government of Canada not
amend the human rights act to include the phrase sexual
orientation.
The petitioners fear that such an inclusion will lead to
homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal privileges
as married people.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third and final petition is from my riding and it is quite timely. It
was collected by small businessmen from my riding, including
Mr. Don Campbell, Ms. Helen Russel, Dr. John Hunter, Ms.
Karin Knitter, Mr. Dan Mallory, Mr. Michael Douglas and Ms.
Faye Chappell.
The petitioners request that with Canadians already
overburdened with taxation due to high government spending
Parliament should reduce government spending instead of
increasing taxes.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the petition has been certified correct as to form and
11069
content according to Standing Order 36. It has been signed by a
number of constituents from Restigouche-Chaleur.
The petitioners pray 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 that would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
(1515 )
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions today. The first one states that Parliament should bring
in gun control measures that are effective, not ones that pick on
legitimate sportsmen.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition asks Parliament to bring in taxpayer protection to limit
federal spending.
I wholeheartedly concur with both petitions.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition today signed
by numerous residents of the province of Ontario, many from
Kingston, some from Toronto, Waterloo and Thornhill.
The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to put an end to
discriminatory treatment in Canada of gay and lesbian citizens
and their familiar relationships by amending federal legislation
which currently allows unequal treatment, including an
amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if Question No. 121 could be made an Order for Return,
the return would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 121-Mr. Strahl:
With regard to all departments and agencies of the government, what were the
numbers of air flights taken during the fiscal year 1993-94 by
department/agency, what is the total cost of air travel by department/agency,
how many of those flights were business class and how many were economy
class by department/agency, and what was the proportionate cost of business
versus economy class, again by department/agency?
Return tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
11069
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-69, an act to
provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries
commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, as
reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.)
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-69, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 17, page 2, with the
following:
``electoral districts in the province varies by 15''.
Mr. Milliken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you
would find the consent of the House, to save time, that we
dispense with putting the question to the House on Motions Nos.
2, 3, 5 and 7, and that they be deemed to have been put to the
House as we did on Saturday morning in respect of the other bill.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, could I have further
clarification on exactly what is being suggested here?
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the motions be
taken has having been read before the House, rather than having
the Speaker read each of them.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-69, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 2, page 3, with the
following:
``in the province varies by less than 15 per''
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-69, in Clause 19, be amended:
(a) by replacing lines 24 and 25, page 11, with the following:
``for province shall, subject to subsection (1), be governed by the following
rules:'' and
11070
(b) by replacing line 34, page 11, with the following:
``than 15 per cent from that quota, which''
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-69, in Clause 19, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 42, page 12.
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, here we are again on Bill C-69 which started out as
Motion No. 12 or 13 some time ago when there was a revolt on
the Liberal backbenches because they saw some new maps
which changed the boundaries of their ridings shortly after the
last election.
Now we are at the stage where we have a new readjustment act
nearing its final stage of debate. We are at report stage. There
will be third reading and then it will go to the Senate.
We have proposed several amendments but they can be
categorized in two major groups, the first being Motion No. 5
which has implications to Motions Nos. 1 and 2. Motion No. 7 is
the other. Motion No. 5 is related to Motion No. 7.
These amendments are proposed to bring Bill C-69 into line
with the principle of equality of vote. First, the population range
within which constituencies are allowed to vary from the
provincial quotient should be reduced from plus or minus 25 per
cent to plus or minus 15 per cent. Second, whatever variance is
in place should be an absolute limit.
Our second group of amendments takes away the discretion of
the boundary commissions to exceed the limit in exceptional
circumstances. It relates to clause 19(2) which sets the variable
quotient at 25 per cent. Our amendment reduces the quotient to
15 per cent. This change is listed as our amendment No. 4.
(1520)
Our first and second amendments are consequential to this
change and are necessary for the continuity in legislation. They
appear earlier in this bill which is why they must be dealt with
first, even though they are consequential.
Let me touch on the reasons for moving to a 15 per cent
variance in the population quotient for a province. Large
variances in the population of constituencies are basically
unfair. Constituencies significantly lower than the provincial
average population are over represented in Parliament. Because
the number of seats within a province is fixed, if one group is
over represented another group must be under represented. This
unfairness cannot be entirely eliminated but it must be greatly
reduced to tighten the variance.
Many jurisdictions would see a variance of even less than 5
per cent. Certainly we are being most reasonable when we
suggest the variance be limited to plus or minus 15 per cent of
the provincial norm.
Equality of voting power is already stretched because our
Constitution provides more seats in certain provinces than they
would ordinarily receive based solely on their population.
A 25 per cent variance allows for constituencies to be
established with up to a 67 per cent difference in population as
of the time of census. Redistribution occurs three to four years
later. The population variance could be even greater by the time
redistribution is done. By contrast, a 50 per cent variance allows
for a 35 per cent variance in population of the ridings within the
same province.
A 35 per cent difference in population gives enough discretion
to the boundary commissions to allow for considerations such as
reasonable criteria regarding community of interest, rapid
growth and the concerns of rural areas.
Allowing a 67 per cent difference in the population creates too
much opportunity for drawing boundary lines around linguistic,
cultural and ethnic communities. It is important that all aspects
of electoral law treat all citizens equally regardless of race,
gender, culture, religion or ethnicity. A tighter variance
encourages the equitable treatment of all citizens by the
boundary commissions.
Unusually large ridings do not need significantly lower
populations to make them workable. There are other ways to
accommodate those members and their constituents; for
example, slightly larger office budgets or extra staff for travel.
Increased use of communications technology can negate the
need for some of the travel. When interconstituency travel is
necessary, additional travel points can be used for travel within
extremely large constituencies.
One complaint we heard over and over again primarily from
Liberal backbenchers and also from a few of the Bloc Quebecois
MPs at the committee was they were concerned about the
unmanageability of their large rural constituencies. They
seemed to feel that putting at risk the high standards we hold for
the quality of voting power of Canadians was a worthwhile
sacrifice to maintain their rural ridings at their present sizes.
Some argued they were too large and should be made smaller.
The House of Commons is built on the principle of
representation by population, not representation by geography
of region. It therefore stands to reason that if any given area
loses population, either in absolute terms or relative terms, on
principle the number of MPs should also decrease.
It is important to tighten the variance used by the majority of
constituencies because the legislation also proposes allowing
special case ridings to exceed the population limits. A large
variance in the exception rule is individually bad. In
combination they weaken the concept of voter equity to the
point at which it is almost meaningless.
11071
A number of rural MPs were concerned about the geographic
size of the ridings they had to represent. A smaller but also a
strongly supported argument before our committee was that the
urban ridings were growing so quickly they also became
unmanageable for their members. It was rather odd to see urban
and rural members arguing for two different clauses in section
19 of the bill which were at counter purposes to each other, both
hoping they would be able to protect their own turf.
(1525)
What this points out more than anything else is the
importance of members not being on the front lines of
negotiations when boundary lines are being drawn. In many
instances members showed a rather sad self-interest in the
whole process. They wanted to maintain the status quo because
they wanted to maintain their own riding boundaries so they
would be more comfortable. This is natural but that does not
mean it is correct.
The other issue that we took exception to is clause 19(3),
which allows boundary commissions to go beyond the minus 25
per cent rule. If the plus or minus 25 per cent rule was not
enough, this clause actually allows the commissioners to exceed
that variance and put additional ridings under a schedule. Our
amendment deletes this entire clause. This makes the population
variance an absolute number. This is listed as amendment No. 7,
and amendment No. 3 is a consequential amendment to this
change.
There are reasons for opposing exceptions to the rules.
Allowing boundary commissions to exceed the population
limits for constituencies makes whatever variance is in the act
meaningless. If boundary commissions are permitted to exceed
the limit any time they want, why have a limit? It would be like
being allowed to exceed the speed limit if it were for a good
reason.
The increased over representation caused by exceeding the
minimum population defined by the variance would create more
under-representation elsewhere in the province and that would
stretch voter equity even further.
There are very few ridings under the schedule now. Many MPs
were arguing there should be more. They were saying: ``My
riding is not under the schedule at the current time. I would sure
like it to be there. Let us make sure that we draft a piece of
legislation that allows for my riding to be included''.
We saw many from northern Ontario. We saw a very
interesting amendment in the Order Paper. Fortunately it has
been withdrawn. It stretches believability that some members
from northern Ontario could be so protective of their turf and not
want to lose their riding, even though the population of Ontario
dictates that should be the case. We saw the same ridiculous
arguments from the province of Quebec and the separatists. It is
funny that the Liberals and the separatists should be speaking
from the same page on this one, both trying to represent
sparsely populated rural ridings, trying to put them on the
schedule for partisan purposes. It is very unfortunate.
If exceptions to the rules are included in the legislation,
everyone with a rural or northern riding will be trying to prove
they deserve to be exempted. This will create difficulties for the
commissions which will be faced with many costly and time
consuming appeals for exceptions.
Liberal backbenchers may again demand the maps be redrawn
to their liking if they do not get all the exempted ridings they
want. It will be very interesting to see the response of many of
these members when they see the new maps, yet again for the
second time, and see their concerns were not addressed. We
simply cannot draw the boundaries where they were the last time
when redistributing the ridings.
If the 25 per cent variance has already passed for ridings
within the same province, which will already be allowed to vary
by 67 per cent, no further allowance can in any way be justified
as necessary to meet the unusual circumstances.
We have in one end of the country Labrador. It is a scheduled
riding because it is not a part of the island of Newfoundland.
That seems to be justification for this large rural riding to be set
apart. We see on the other coast the riding of North
Island-Powell River. The boundaries of that riding are partly
on the island but extend to the mainland. It is rough, wild,
natural terrain, beautiful country. Why should there be two sets
of rules, particularly if we have a variance of plus or minus 25
per cent to begin with?
If exceptions are allowed some ridings within the same
province could be established at the time of redistribution which
would double the population of others. In Newfoundland the
difference between the largest and smallest riding population is
well over 300 per cent, more than triple. Labrador has about
30,000 people and St. John's West has 101,000. Is that kind of
distribution of voting power fair to the people of St. John's? No,
it is not. That needs to be looked at.
This legislation will encourage that practice to continue,
rather than discourage it because it has the very broad term
extraordinary circumstances. Of course, extraordinary can be
interpreted just about any way the commission feels reasonable.
There is very little direction in this act as to what extraordinary
circumstances are as far as isolation and difficulty of
accessibility are concerned.
11072
(1530)
In Ontario the last distribution map stayed within the plus or
minus 25 per cent limit. However, the difference between
Algoma and Scarborough North, the smallest and largest
populations, is 42 per cent.
One of the reasons the Liberals squashed those redistribution
maps is they said the maps were unfair to the north. In other
words, there already was an inequity of 42 per cent between the
most populous riding and the least populous riding in the
province of Ontario with the maps brought forth last year.
However, that is not enough. They want a greater discrepancy
than that. Forty-two per cent is not acceptable to either the large
rural ridings of the north or to the urban ridings, particularly
those close to Toronto.
Now the Liberals want to put these ridings into the schedule.
They want the difference to be greater; they want more than a 42
per cent variance in the province of Ontario. That is not good
representation for the voters of Ontario and certainly is not good
for all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how you are going to be ruling on
the Bloc amendment so I will not be able to speak to it at this
time. I hope I will be able to because there are some democratic
principles in place.
I hope the Liberals will come to their senses and support these
amendments. For the betterment of the country, let us finally see
them do the right thing, the thing they argued in committee was
right but what they then backed away from and voted against,
only to bring in an inferior bill.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Since there is no speaker on the
governement side, I give the floor to the member for
Bellechasse.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the comments by the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster. I was very surprised to hear him say
that the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior, who made a first
rate presentation before the procedure and House affairs
committee, had ulterior motives. He defended not only the
interests of his riding, but a global vision of rural Canada, which
has been slowly emptied of its population and has had to have its
boundaries redrawn.
It is with great pleasure that I acknowledge the presentation
made by the member for Cochrane-Superior to the procedure
and House affairs committee, which revealed, among other
things, how difficult it was to work with a schedule, and showed
that it would probably be better to include a clause in the bill
dealing with the special circumstances resulting from
geographical isolation. I will come back to these points in a
moment.
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster seems to
believe that the history of Canada started on October 26, 1993,
the day he was elected to this House. Since the beginning of
Confederation, we have had nine constitutions, including the
1982 Constitution. If the member had looked at the British
North America Act, he would have found that the first schedule
to this act deals with the electoral districts of Ontario. The 82
electoral districts are listed in there, and what do we find?
That, in 1867, the founding fathers had decided that electoral
boundaries would essentially be determined by county.
Therefore, in 1867, counties became the basis for representation
throughout Eastern Canada, which included Ontario, Quebec,
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. People's sense of belonging
started with their county. Suffice it to list the constituent
counties of 1867. I will name the first nine only. They are the
counties of Prescott, Glengarry, Stormont, Dundas, Russell,
Carleton, Prince Edward, Halton and Essex. The list goes on,
because there are 82 of them. When a county had to be divided,
because the population was too large, it was indicated. However,
the territorial division, and people's sense of belonging found
expression in the county, as clearly established in the British
North America Act.
(1535)
The riding I now represent, Bellechasse, comprises four
counties: Dorchester, Bellechasse, Montmagny and L'Islet. In
the past, it was represented by four members in this House-one
for each county. Nobody threw stones or threatened to blow
things up because representation varied from one riding to
another.
It was in 1964, when we began to no longer use the county as
the basis for representation in the House of Commons, that we
upset the whole system. Now people, wherever they live in
Canada, have a hard time identifying with their electoral
ridings, which have changed, naturally, because of significant
shifts in population.
We believe in the principle of representation by population, to
start with, but in a tempered form, which must reflect the history
of Canada and the fact it started out as a rural country and
remained so for a very long time. People drifted toward the
cities, but their first loyalties had been to the rural areas in each
of the provinces of Canada-in the Atlantic, in Quebec, in
Ontario or in the western provinces.
Today, of course, there are fewer people in the rural ridings
and an adjustment must be made. However, does it have to be to
the third decimal point to avoid there being any variation
between provinces or between ridings? Should we work towards
the 15 per cent proposed by the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster, or should we stick to the traditional
way of doing things in this country, a tolerant and open-minded
electoral system which for the fact that the number of voters in a
riding which is made up of 50 or 60 different communities is per
force much lower, while at the same time allowing for the
boundaries
11073
of a given urban riding to be modified to take in new
constituents subsequent to an extension to one of this riding's
main arteries into what would have been another riding and
would have divided a natural community?
We should decide on a case by case basis, determine whether
the social fabric is homogenous in a given urban riding and
whether adding a block or two would upset anything. If the
fabric is not homogeneous in another urban riding, for example,
if there is a variety or a mosaic of populations to be represented,
the situation is different. Let us avoid generalizations and the
Reformers' approach which is to generalize everything, level
off both peaks and valleys any way they can and split hairs in
their counts. It is an approach, an attitude which, from the point
of view of legislation and electoral representation, we believe is
to be condemned.
We would much prefer living with a variation of 25 per cent
between ridings. But the Reform Party goes much further. It
would like to drop subclause 19(3), which would permit
commissions to allow a variation of more than 25 per cent
because of geography, geographic isolation or inaccessibility.
Obviously, we cannot agree with the Reform Party's proposal.
This would rule out a separate riding for the Magdalen
Islands, considerably expand the riding of Manicouagan in
Quebec, affect the riding of Cochrane-Superior, the riding of
Nickel Belt, all of northern Ontario, as well as his own riding.
The hon. member may have a death wish, but you can be sure
that I will not fly in his plane.
In our opinion, clause 19.(3) is an inadequate safeguard. What
we proposed in committee was to maintain the current situation
allowing the commissions to depart from the rules on the 25 per
cent variation every time they see fit to do so for reasons related
to a community's special characteristics or the various interests
of people in different parts of the province. The government has
considerably reduced the impact. The commission will now be
able to deviate by more than 25 per cent, but only below that
percentage. This means that it cannot go above 125 per cent.
Therefore, this criterion is also inadequate in a homogeneous
urban riding.
(1540)
As you can easily understand, Mr. Speaker, there is no way we
can support either of the amendments proposed by the Reform
Party of Canada. Could you tell me how much time I have left?
The Deputy Speaker: I was not in the chair this morning, and
have been advised that we are debating Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3;
Motion No. 6 has been withdrawn; the Speaker will rule on the
acceptability of Motion No. 4 momentarily. You should
therefore have enough time to finish your speech.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, what are we to make of a political
formation, namely the Reform Party of Canada, which calls for a
triple E Senate where the provinces would each be represented
by six senators-every one of them, from Prince Edward Island
to Quebec, to Ontario, to British Columbia-regardless of their
relative population, but not when it comes to representation in
the House of Commons? They would like to make this House as
uniform as possible, with every member exactly the same
height. If they could all come in a five foot eleven and 172 pound
format, that would perfect. That is pretty well what the Reform
Party of Canada is suggesting.
The Reform Party had better make up its mind. How can it be
for a triple E Senate, with six senators representing 120,000
people in one case and the exact same number of senators
representing Ontario, the largest province in Canada, with 30
per cent of the total population? This does not make sense.
Either the Reformists are for equal representation or they are
not. Somehow they manage to be both at the same time.
I hope that Reform members will rise on this issue and
elaborate on their view of a tripe E Senate, while the House of
Commons can function very well with a deviation of plus or
minus 25 per cent.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, so far I agree with the position of the hon. member for
Bellechasse concerning the amendments put forth by the hon.
member for Kinderley-Lloydminster. I am pleased to speak
after him in this debate because he has set out so clearly the
major aspects of this issue.
[English]
I also want to make my own point to the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster. I know he has had lots of practice in
making that speech.
We considered this question in committee in the days of when
we were deciding what to do. The House had a debate on this
issue in referring the matter to the committee. The issue was
first raised then. We studied it in committee and made a report to
the House. We had a motion for concurrence at which time this
was one of the hotly debated issues and we heard the hon.
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster then.
We had a bill for second reading which was passed without
debate, but then in committee we went back into this issue as we
studied this clause in the bill. We made some changes that the
hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster did not like. I see
that one of his amendments is to delete those good changes.
Then we come back to the House and here we have it again. I
will lay dollars to doughnuts that we are going to hear the same
debate from the hon. member on third reading. He is persistent, I
grant him that and he has had lots of practice giving his speech.
I enjoyed his remarks this afternoon. I know he had hoped he
had convinced me that we should agree to some changes in this
part of the bill and accept his amendments. I do not agree with
the amendments he has put forward and I want to give him, the
11074
House and Canadians the reason the government is not agreeing
with these amendments.
I listened to the evidence. After hearing all the evidence, I
came to my conclusion. It is a good conclusion and I invite the
hon. member to support it.
What he said was that as a result of the changes in this bill
voter equity was almost meaningless. I have to disagree with
that. The essential principle dealing with redistribution in
Canada is set out in clause 19(1) of this bill. If he goes back to
that basic principle, I think he will agree with me that what we
did was right. It says:
The principle that shall guide each commission in preparing a report is that
effective representation be the paramount consideration in determining
reasonable electoral district boundaries in the province for which the
commission is established.
(1545 )
As a person who represents a mixed rural and urban riding,
but almost all urban, I would have expected that equality would
require every riding in Canada to be the same size in terms of the
number of electors.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): In
principle.
Mr. Milliken: In principle. I recognize the principle of
effective representation, which is the principle we are striving
for as set out in section 19 of the act. Coincidentally it is the
principle enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in its
decision with respect to redistribution in the province of
Saskatchewan, where the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster resides and which he knows quite a
lot about I suspect. The principle demands that in determining
effective representation one looks at more than the number of
electors residing in a particular geographic area.
We looked at this. We looked at Canada as a whole. We looked
at the maps and we heard from members of Parliament from
across the country who came to the committee and expressed
their views on what effective representation meant. They told us
about the problems they have in representing electors in some of
the remote ridings.
Strangely, the hon. member for Labrador did not come. Yet it
is one of the ridings that has been accepted for some time as a
separate riding under the current redistribution rules. He did not
come to complain to the committee that he had grave difficulty
in representing his riding. Some of us know some of the
problems he has.
The hon. member for Nunatsiaq who has over one million
square kilometres in his riding-one-third of the country is in
his constituency-did not come to the committee to complain
about the problems he faces. However, there is not much he can
do. He has a small population but they are scattered over an area
that would make most of us blush-
Mr. Hermanson: Tell the whole story.
Mr. Milliken: I am telling the whole story. He has a special
case. He had a special riding created. The Northwest Territories
is assigned two ridings under the Constitution. It will keep those
two. They are going to be small for awhile. Some day maybe
they will not be, but for the moment they are small.
Looking at the rest of the country we have tremendous
diversity. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster in
his speech mentioned British Columbia. There are significant
differences in population in ridings in British Columbia. I do not
think there were any in the last proposals put forward by the
commission that were exceptions in that province. There may
have been one before but I do not think so. I do not think there
was in 1987 either. Yet still there is a fair variation.
The commissions in the province of Saskatchewan drew the
boundaries very close to the limit. They stayed very close to it so
there is not a big discrepancy. I congratulate the commissions on
their work. However, in some provinces it is hard to do that. In
some it is harder than in others. The size of the provinces of
Ontario and Quebec, for example, has resulted in a difference of
view as to whether we should have a 15 per cent limit or a 25 per
cent limit in variation. The bill proposed 25; the hon. member in
his amendment is proposing 15.
I suggest that his doom and gloom scenario, his suggestion
that ``voter equity would be almost meaningless'' is not correct.
Under the previous law where 25 per cent was the variation, in
1987 there were five constituencies in all of Canada that were
beyond the 25 per cent limit, either above or below. One was
above, four were below. That is five constituencies out of 295. It
is not something that renders voter equity almost meaningless,
as suggested by the hon. member.
In the 1994 redistribution proposals that the commissions
completed that the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster
says were so unpopular with Liberal members and I say were
unpopular in large part with his own-he does not like to talk
about that-
Mr. Hermanson: No. How many appeared before the
committee?
Mr. Milliken: No, he says. Yes, I say to him. He knows
perfectly well that many of his members were quite unhappy,
almost weepy at the proposals that were put forward by the-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Milliken: Now I hear them laughing because they do not
like to think of them weeping, but a few months ago it was not
quite that way.
The fact is there were two ridings in all the 1994 proposals
that were above or below the 25 per cent quotient.
11075
This is not a case of rendering voter equity almost
meaningless. For the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster to engage in that kind of rhetoric is
not something I would expect of him. I am sure he did not really
mean what he said.
Mr. Hermanson: You were arguing the same thing in
committee.
Mr. Milliken: No. I want to turn to the words of the act itself
because I think this is important. I do not normally like to read
statutes in the House because it is pretty tedious.
(1550 )
I would like to quote from the old Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act that dealt with the power of commissions to
go beyond the 25 per cent rule. It stated as follows:
The commission may depart from the strict application of the rules set out in
paragraph 1(a) and (b) in any case where:
(a) special geographic-
Mr. Hermanson: Dispense.
Mr. Milliken: I want the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster to hear this because he said this is
bad.
It stated:
(a) special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparsity or
density of the population of various regions of the province, the accessibility of
those regions or the size or shape thereof, appear to the commission to render
such a departure necessary or desirable, or
(b) any special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of
various regions of the province appears to the commission to render such a
departure necessary or desirable,
In other words, those were the tests that the commissions
appointed in 1993, and that rendered their reports late last year,
had as their guideline.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to compare those words with the words
in clause 19(3), which the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster says will render voter equity almost
meaningless. In 19(3) it states:
A commission may depart from the application of the rule set out in
paragraph 2(a) in circumstances that are viewed by the commission as being
extraordinary because a part of a province, the population of which is less than
75 per cent of the electoral quota for the province calculated in the manner
described in subparagraph 2(a)(i) or (ii), is geographically isolated from the rest
of the province or is not readily accessible from the rest of the province.
In other words, the test is narrowed. It is not widened, it is
narrowed. It is harder to get a special riding under the new rules.
It must meet one of two tests. The old rule allowed the shape, the
density or sparsity of population and all kinds of different things
to enter into it. That is no longer a consideration. Accessibility
is now the test. There are two tests: geographically isolated from
the rest of the province or not readily accessible from the rest of
the province.
We have narrowed the test. The hon. member is still
complaining that voter equity is rendered almost meaningless
by this test. I suggest to him that he should re-read the old act,
read the new bill, and he would conclude, as I do, that his
amendment is not well-founded. He should leave those words in
the new bill and support this change. It is a good change and one
that will result in the basic principle for which we are all
striving, that is, effective representation.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his intervention.
Earlier today the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
raised a point of order. It was before question period. It was on
the procedural acceptability of Motion 4 in the name of the hon.
member for Bellechasse. He argued that the motion went beyond
the scope of clause 16.
I have now had the opportunity to review the arguments made
earlier this day by both hon. members and I do thank them for
their interventions and their arguments.
The Chair has no difficulty in finding the amendment relevant
to the clause and the bill since the concept of the formula of
section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, is clearly introduced in
the said clause. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Chair that
the amendment does not seek to amend section 51 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, but rather it seeks to add a
supplementary consideration for the Chief Electoral Officer in
the determination that he must make pursuant to clause 16.
For those reasons I will allow the amendment to go forward.
[
Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Since the Speaker has now ruled on
this matter, we can now deal with Motion No. 4. Someone could
move that all the amendments be grouped together for debate.
The hon. member for Bellechasse, on a point of order.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get an indication
from the Chair as to how we will debate the motions.
Since Motion No. 4, which is under my name and which is
seconded by the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, is of a different nature than
those which relate to a variation of 15 per cent or to the deletion
of special clauses, would it not be appropriate to debate them
one after the other, and to vote on them separately?
11076
(1555)
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. Many
members have already told me that these motions do not belong
to the same group. We continue with the group which includes
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Then, we will deal with the other
group. Has the parliamentary secretary concluded his remarks?
Mr. Milliken: No, Mr. Speaker. Do I have any time left?
The Deputy Speaker: The time allocated to the hon. member
has expired.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on
Bill C-69, and particularly on the amendments proposed by the
Reform Party. I will start by making some comments on the
speech of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
It goes without saying that, when the member for Kingston
and the Islands rises in this House to support the Bloc
Quebecois, it gives him additional credibility.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): This
also reflects the open-mindedness of the Liberal member. I do
hope that this expression of intelligence will have a positive
effect on his colleagues, but I doubt it. As my grandmother used
to say, we have our work cut out.
I support the views expressed by the hon. member for
Bellechasse and I reject the amendments proposed by the
Reform Party concerning the application of the 15 per cent rule.
According to the arguments put forward by the Reform Party, we
would not have to conduct an in-depth review of electoral
boundaries and it would probably be a simple matter of feeding
some formula into a computer which, in a matter of minutes,
would come up with a new riding and a new electoral map for the
whole country.
It seems to me that the review of electoral boundaries should
be a more fundamental and serious exercise than that.
Provisions in the bill that would allow a difference of 25 per cent
would seem to be entirely justified under the circumstances, for
very obvious reasons, especially when we are talking about
so-called rural areas, and this applies to many of our Reform
Party friends and in fact, to most members in this House. It
seems to me that commonality of interests should take
precedence over nearly all the criteria that are considered when
it is time to review electoral boundaries.
To represent a riding is not just a matter of being here in
Ottawa a few days a week to listen to the arguments of other
members. It is about considering the interests of our respective
communities and making them known to the federal
administration, in this case, and it is also a way for us to play a
leading role and act as a catalyst in our communities. In other
words, commonality of interests is essential.
(1600)
When I look at my own riding, I remember the readjustment
that had been proposed in the now defunct Bill C-18. It would
have created a situation that people in the area would have
considered absurd. I had an opportunity to make this point
during the debate on Bill C-18. My riding was turned upside
down. Overnight, communities were grouped with other
communities, and one example was the MRC du Granite, whose
main city is Lac Mégantic, which all of a sudden found itself in
the same riding as Thetford Mines. Now the people of Thetford
Mines are all very nice, and its business people are very friendly,
including the member for the area and my colleague, Mr.
Chrétien.
However, the two communities have very little in common
since they did not evolve the same way and do not have the same
interests. Geographically, they are next door to each other. On
the electoral map, we see that the asbestos area is next door to
the Granite region. However, when we consider the background
of these communities, including their economy, their
educational facilities, where their children go to continue their
education, their cultural facilities, we realize that these two
communities are not developing the same way and do not have
the same geography.
These aspects should be considered when the time comes to
revise electoral boundaries. We must consider commonality of
interests and the numbers rule should be subordinate to this
principle. We need a degree of flexibility that will let us
consider commonality of interests. It seems to me that the 25 per
cent rule allows for a certain degree of accommodation that
encourages compliance with this rule. That is why it is quite
natural that the Bloc Quebecois should reject the amendments
proposed by our Reform Party colleagues and is in favour of
maintaining the 25 per cent rule.
I may add, and I am nearing the end of my speech, that we
need provisions in this bill that will allow for setting up
so-called special electoral districts, in other words, districts
that may be under 25 per cent. We gave certain examples. I
remember the case of the Magdalen Islands, which for many
years, from 1947 to 1968, had been an autonomous electoral
district. From 1867 to 1946, the riding was joined to Gaspé and
now, since 1968, it is part of the riding of
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la- Madeleine. This is a case in point,
when we consider the very special character of the Magdalen
Islands. There are of course other examples that were raised by
other colleagues in this House. So again, those were the reasons
why we should maintain the 25 per cent rule.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I must say at the outset of my remarks that I was not
prepared to speak today, but after listening to some of the
11077
comments from my hon. colleagues I was impelled to rise and
add my two cents worth to the discussion.
(1605 )
I would like to correct the record concerning some comments
attributed to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. He
mentioned that the Reformers were disappointed although we
opposed Bill C-18 a year ago and I think the phrase he used was
that we were weepy about some of the proposed changes. He
implied that although we opposed the bill, we actually were not
disappointed when it passed and the existing electoral
boundaries commissions were subsequently disbanded.
I would like to say for the record that yes, we had some
legitimate concerns about the proposed changes. However, we
felt and still feel that those concerns could have been adequately
addressed through the appropriate process that was in place at
the time.
We saw no need to suspend the existing provincial electoral
boundaries commissions. We felt that elected representatives in
this House should not have any priority over the concerns of the
average citizen and that we should make our case either orally in
front of the commissions when they travelled around the various
provinces or through an appropriate paper trail.
Speaking for myself, I took leave of that opportunity and
presented myself to the electoral boundaries commission for
British Columbia in Prince George on June 2. I made my case
against the proposed changes that it had communicated.
I am pleased to represent one of the larger ridings in British
Columbia. It encompasses about 212,000 square kilometres. As
we have heard today from a number of members, some rural
ridings are very difficult to represent. It is very difficult to get
around to all the various areas in one's riding.
I certainly consider my riding one of the more difficult ones in
the country to get around. It is the only riding that straddles the
Rocky Mountains. Some 60 per cent of the population of my
riding is on the Peace River side on the east side of the Rockies
and 40 per cent is over on the other side. I had some concerns, as
did some other Reform Party members and members from other
parties.
I made my presentation at the hearing. Lo and behold,
miraculously the commissioners did listen to my presentation.
Subsequently, the commission was disbanded and submitted its
final report. I was privy to that report when it came out in
November. I found that the committee had listened and had
responded appropriately concerning the changes it had
previously proposed for the Prince George-Bulkley Valley and
the Prince George-Peace River ridings. What had actually
happened was that the committee had listened to the member for
Prince George-Bulkley Valley and myself and left the ridings
as they now exist.
It is also appropriate to mention that even with the existing
population of British Columbia which is estimated at some 3.3
million, the number of ridings from the 1991 census will be 34
rather than 32. As I am aware, Elections Canada pegs the
number at some 96,531 for the average riding size for a
population the size of British Columbia.
The riding of Prince George-Peace River as it currently
exists would fall under the 15 per cent variance as proposed in
the amendment by my colleague. Therefore, even a large rural
riding and one of the more difficult to travel around would still
qualify under the reduced variance that Reform is proposing.
That should be noted.
One other point I would like to make concerns some
comments made by the hon. Bloc members. They seem to have
some difficulty understanding how Reform on the one hand
supports the concept of a triple E Senate and on the other hand
speaks against this larger variance. It is very easy for us to
understand. I do not know why it is so difficult for them to
understand.
(1610 )
It gets back to what we believe is the fundamental principle of
democracy in a two house system. The lower house should be
represented as closely and as accurately as possible by
representation by population, while the upper house should
represent the regions in a geographical sense. I do not
understand why the hon. members from Quebec find that so
difficult to understand.
I note with real concern that amendments put forward by the
Bloc suggest that Quebec should somehow always have some
traditional right to 25 per cent of the seats in this House. It goes
completely contrary to the defeat of the Charlottetown accord.
As Reformers travelled around the country and particularly in
western Canada speaking out against the Charlottetown accord
during the referendum campaign, one of the concerns we heard
from Canadians was that no area should have a right to a set
number of seats in this Chamber and that they should be set by
population. Who knows what is going to happen in the future?
That was the real reason a lot of people voted against the
Charlottetown accord.
In closing, I make note of that for the hon. Bloc members.
They should remember their history. Remember that one of the
reasons people voted against the Charlottetown accord was that
they completely discount this opinion by some Quebecers, not
all, that somehow they have an inherent right to 25 per cent of
the seats in this House.
11078
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I will therefore talk about the amendment proposed by the
Reform Party to narrow the deviation from the provincial
electoral quota from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. First, I would
like to point out that Quebec also voted against the
Charlottetown Accord. Obviously for different reasons, but this
is probably the only point in history where we agreed. This is
just about the only time in the year that the Bloc Quebecois and
the Reform Party agreed. It was, nevertheless, for a good cause,
basically.
In order to understand what the 25 per cent and the 15 per cent
situations represent, we must situate ourselves both
geographically and demographically, since our role in the House
is not just to represent an area and not just to represent people,
but to represent the people in a given area. From these two
starting points, we must look at the two elements in the process.
There are regions where it is easy to comply with the principle
through geographic juggling or playing with certain boundaries
and thus relatively easy to move the scale 25 per cent or 15 per
cent higher or lower. It is a matter of mathematics.
Clearly mathematics does enter the picture at some point.
However, where mathematics takes a back seat is where
geography comes into play. There are regions, not only in
Quebec, but in Ontario and in the Yukon, where this is not
possible. I am sorry, but our role here in the House of Commons
is not a static role where we represent people mathematically.
We are here to represent people according to the demographics
of regional characteristics. Within the process, certain basic
elements must be taken into account. I will give you a specific
example. Naturally, I will give you the one I know best, that of
my riding.
My riding is the third largest riding in the country: 465,000
square kilometres. It is a little more than half the size of Ontario,
just to give you an idea of what 465,000 kilometres means. It is
not the kind of vast area where people live in 10 square
kilometres and the rest is forest. No, there are people living
throughout it in its farthest reaches. There is even a place where
there are fewer people-at the heart of it. So, reasonably, a
member has to take the time to visit the people, and the people
also are entitled to see those they voted for, those who represent
them, whether they voted for them or not, because they are there
to represent them.
(1615)
Mr. Speaker, 465,000 square kilometres, that is over 82 times
the size of Prince Edward Island, which has four MPs.
Therefore, if we were to calculate the ratio, there should be 328
MPs for the riding of Manicouagan, which is more than the
number of members currently in the House of Commons. If you
want to talk math, so will we.
It makes no sense, except that there would be a lot of Bloc
Quebecois members. We are losing in all this, but what can I
say? It is something we must accept.
Now, back to the debate, because we must not lose sight of any
of these issues in the parliamentary process. And when we take
into consideration goals that we must strive to attain and, I
should add, never give up on, this is stricly in the interests of the
good representation of the taxpayers who pay our salaries.
It takes three hours by plane to get to Blanc-Sablon, in the
eastern corner of my riding, and if I want to visit other taxpayers
in the north end of my riding, I have to first go back to Sept-îles
before taking another three hour flight. I have to block off
several days, even weeks, if I want to go to Blanc-Sablon. In
fact, I had to prepare a schedule when I appeared before the
committee.
To really visit everyone in my riding, not in a whirlwind tour,
but to actually go to each location and meet an organization, for
example the municipal authorities at city hall or the members of
a chamber of commerce, it takes three weeks non-stop, with no
days off, and that is if weather permits. I must honestly admit
that over the last year and a bit, I still have not been able to do a
complete tour of my riding because all too often the fog prevents
us, slows us down, makes us push back our schedule by a day.
Taxpayers nevertheless have the right to meet their elected
representatives. And it is the duty of elected representatives to
meet taxpayers on their own turf so that they can better
understand certain peculiarities, because regional
particularities do come into play.
In the north, for example, we find native communities, where
hunting and fishing are the main issues. In the southwest, which
covers the area from Sept-îles and Port-Cartier up to
Franquelin, including Havre-Saint-Pierre, we find mostly
mining and logging companies, naturally. Fermont is another
mining town a little further to the north.
That is where the road ends. That is another factor to be
considered. There is a proposal to amend the variance from 25
per cent to 15 per cent. When the road ends, it does not matter
whether it is 15 or 25 per cent. These people have the right to
live, to have access to food, to health and public services.
We are talking about quite a different set of logistics just to
meet with them. There is no comparison. In this sector, 75 to 80
per cent of the inhabitants live off the fishery. But there is no
road. There is only the boat or the plane, and in winter, the
snowmobile.
We know what happened recently in Blanc-Sablon. There is a
great deal of snow, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, we must not take our search for a mathematical
formula to extremes. We must continue to be proud of the work
we are doing, and proud as well that we are able to improve the
11079
quality of service to these people, because they too have rights
and obligations, as do we, their elected representatives. We
must not allow a mathematical formula to make a mockery of
what we do.
In order to bring it into line, my riding would have to be
enlarged by almost half the area of the entire province of
Quebec. We would be looking at more than one House of
Commons. No. I think that, out of respect for taxpayers, we
should stick with figures that take geography and demography
into account.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib): Mr.
Speaker, I want to address two items in connection with the
amendment proposed by the Reform Party in relation to setting
the variance from quota that would be used for the creation of
new riding boundaries in the forthcoming redistribution.
(1620 )
I note, as my colleague from Kingston and the Islands has
already noted, the 25 per cent maximum variance has already
been found to be charter compliant. It is a measuring stick that
fits within our charter. At the end of the day it is the charter
which governs how our electoral redistributions will take place.
That is the foundation on which our democratic rights and
privileges are built.
In relation to the actual population numbers I draw to the
attention of colleagues the possibility that during this debate
some of us are focusing on existing population numbers when
we look at the variance from quota that existed over 10 years ago
when the boundaries were last redistributed around 1987.
When some members ask whether the current variance in a
particular riding of close to 25 per cent is democratic, I point out
that a lot of these statistics did not exist 15 years ago. When the
boundaries were created 15 years ago many of these ridings
were much closer to population quota. Subsequent growth has
caused the populations to increase or decrease and depart from
the quota. We have to be careful in discussing that because it is
not fair to say that because a riding is 23 per cent above quota
now that is what would be the case if the electoral boundaries
commissions were to reshape the boundary now.
The electoral boundaries commissions will be expected to
follow very close to quota when they do their work. That is how
they operate. I have been through the process once back in the
eighties.
The change to the statute at committee involving the deletion
of what was called the schedule was done for some pretty
calculated reasons. I know they were good reasons. I debated it
at committee. By deleting the schedule we have not rid the
ability of particular ridings to continue to exist outside the 25
per cent variance.
However, we have circumscribed fairly precisely the basis on
which they could be outside the 25 per cent variance. The
circumstance must be extraordinary. I leave the definition of
that to the electoral boundaries commissions. The riding must
be geographically isolated or not readily accessible to the rest of
the province. If the electoral boundaries commission is to
permit a riding to exist, not just varying from the quota but
outside the 25 per cent variance, they must give cogent reasons.
If some democrats from the Reform Party or the Liberal Party
or the Bloc Quebecois believe that being outside the variance
does not comply with the charter there can always be access to
judicial interpretation.
We have made a reasonable compromise. We have put in place
a reasonable mechanism to address what is truly an incredible
variety of electoral circumstances in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I already had a few opportunities to speak about the
readjustment of electoral boundaries.
(1625)
With regard to the amendments put forward by the Reform
Party, I should explain to the people listening to us that this is
not a complex technical matter. The Reform Party is simply
asking us to make ridings larger and give greater importance to
urban communities and less importance to the other criteria,
including territorial settlement, thus affecting our whole vision
of Canada's development.
Through seemingly very technical criteria, the amendments
put forward by the Reform Party would lead to a very clear
choice, namely ensuring that future development is based only
on natural population migrations without considering that any
region may experience a temporary decline in population and
take steps to revitalize the community. The amendments
proposed by the Reform Party would only speed up the
community's decline and reduce its political representation. It is
obvious at this point, I think, that we must make sure this
amendment is rejected.
The second amendment, which is aimed at eliminating the
possibility of deviating by more than 25 per cent, further
increases the imbalance with constitutionally protected ridings.
For instance, in Prince Edward Island and a number of other
places, certain ridings are protected, and preventing any
variance above 25 per cent will only increase the discrepancy
between levels of representation.
What kind of an advantage is a riding under constitutional
protection given over other ridings in terms of representation?
Because this argument of representation is coming up and I
think that the rural communities of Western Canada must be
surprised indeed at the position the Reform Party is taking
today, a position which would make ridings already covering
11080
huge areas extend even further. I find it very odd indeed that the
Reform Party should take such a stand.
It also seems to me that, beyond the mathematics of
representation, the idea is to ensure that representation is fair
and accurate. Fairness is not just a matter of arithmetic.
Otherwise, this whole thing could be resolved with a calculator
and we would save a great deal of money. But when one riding
covers, say, six blocks in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver while
another one encompasses 55 or 60 municipalities, should we not
take into account other criteria to ensure that rural and urban
ridings are equally represented in this Parliament?
I do not think that anyone here will deny that these
circumstances affect how we carry out our duties and that we
need different ways to reach out constituents, one being to
reduce the number of constituents in all ridings. It was just
established that the act already provides sufficient variances to
ensure this kind of representation in the future.
We were asked earlier how we, from the Bloc Quebecois,
could not share the triple E Senate vision of the Reform Party. It
is because a triple E Senate would exacerbate the problem. In a
triple E Senate, all provinces would have the same number of
representatives. I have nothing against the people of Prince
Edward Island, but let us compare the size and population of this
province to Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia.
Quite obviously, this is not an adequate solution. In any case,
Quebecers had at least 15 other reasons to reject the
Charlottetown Accord and this is certainly not the only one
which led them to reject that deal. The accord, which was bad for
all of Canada, had been cooked up by negotiators behind close
doors. Afterwards, we realized that the people they claimed to
represent had no intention of agreeing on such a deal, and they
massively rejected it, which was a good thing for Quebec and
Canada.
As regards the second amendment proposed by the Reform
Party, it is important to look at its impact, for example, on the
Magdalen Islands, in Quebec.
(1630)
The Magdalen Islands are a very distinct region of Quebec.
My Bloc colleague mentioned that his riding is too large, but
there are other specific realities which have already been
acknowledged by the federal government, such as being
islanders. The distinct riding is gone. However, these
constituents can benefit from what I would call a greater
open-mindedness, a wider vision in terms of Quebec's
development.
In the Quebec Election Act, the Magdalen Islands are deemed
to be an exception to the rule of 25 per cent. In fact, they are
currently the only exception in the Quebec legislation. Everyone
is pleased because we provide specific representation to people
who have very specific and distinct problems, as can be seen
right now with the fishing debate.
We should ask the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to tell us about his
experience as the member representing the Magdalen Islands, as
well Bonaventure. How can he ensure adequate representation
for both regions? This is almost impossible.
The member finds himself dealing with chambers of
commerce which are unhappy because their interests are not
properly looked after. It is not necessarily a matter of individual
qualifications but probably far more a question of being able to
represent all one's constituents. How can he do his job as a
member in Ottawa, as well as representing Bonaventure and a
district 500 kilometres away, surrounded by the sea?
I think that if the Government of Canada wanted to show that
it understands the particular needs of regional development and
especially this region, it would accept the proposal presented by
the Bloc. At the very least we must defeat the amendments
proposed by the Reform Party which would preclude any
flexibility in this respect. I think we have to send a message to
that effect.
I would like to take this opportunity to respond to a question I
was asked in committee, a question I felt was particularly
insulting to the people in my area. The hon. member from
Kindersley-Lloydminster asked me whether it was to protect
the electoral districts consisting of 100 per cent, ``pure laine'',
French Canadians, as he put it, that I was telling them to protect
the five counties in Eastern Quebec.
At this point, I had to give him a history lesson, because he
was unaware of the fact that in addition to francophone
communities there were also anglophone communities that were
established long ago, at the time the Loyalists left the United
States to settle in the Gaspé.
There are also aboriginal communities in these ridings which
would like proper representation. So our intervention was not to
protect the French Canadians in this area but to ensure that all
citizens enjoy adequate representation.
I think this is symptomatic of the contempt in which the
Reform Party holds members of this House and the role they
have to play. I do not think anyone in this House makes
representations to ensure he will be re-elected. In any case,
changes are so unpredictable.
If during the last election, the Conservatives had done
everything they could to protect themselves, instead of two
members they might have had four or five, but basically, the
result would have been the same. I do not think members make
proposals to protect their ridings but to ensure that citizens are
satisfactorily represented.
So, I believe it is important that all groups in our society, all
individuals, but also the type of communities that they form--
11081
Native, English, French and other communities in
Canada-have an adequate representation, and it is certainly not
by applying the two amendments moved by the Reform Party
that we will achieve this result.
So, it is important to reject these two amendments in order to
ensure that the federal distribution map, if it needs to be used
again in the future-I personally hope that we will never need it
again-because, if there is a conclusion that we come to beyond
the issue of the distribution map, it is the fact that double
representation, with federal and provincial members of
Parliament, is confusing to people. They do not know who is
responsible for what any more. It would be very important to
change this situation.
If I were a federalist, I would say: ``Let us clarify in the
Constitution the roles of everyone so that we do not trip over the
same responsibilities''. But as a sovereignist, and because of my
own experience over the past 30 years, I believe that the solution
is obviously for Quebec to achieve sovereignty.
(1635)
But, in order to respect Quebecers' right to representation,
and also because we were elected not only to promote the cause
of sovereignty, but to defend Quebec's interests, I think it is
important that we pass legislation that will allow for the best
possible representation of all voters in Canada-in my
particular case, those of Quebec-and therefore I hope that
these amendments will be rejected so that we can ensure proper
representation for all the people who deserve it, for all citizens
of Quebec and Canada.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8),
the recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The
recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the
House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Delta-Fisheries.
[Translation]
The House will now proceed to consideration of Motion No.
4, which will be debated and voted on separately.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-69, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 44, page 8,
with the following:
``Constitution Act, 1867 and, notwithstanding the foregoing, when by
application of this subsection the number of members to be assigned to the
Province of Quebec is less than 25 per cent of the total number of members in
the House of Commons, the Chief Electoral Officer shall assign at least 25 per
cent of the total number of members to the Province of Quebec.
(2.1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall cause a notice to be published in the
Canada Gazette forthwith setting out the results thereof.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are finally at the heart of the debate.
We are nearing the point where we will know whether or not this
House recognizes Quebec a right we have always considered
normal, as one of the two founding peoples, the right to be
represented according to our historical participation in
Canadian institutions. Aside from what my friend, the hon.
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, was saying
awhile ago-since we hope that this bill on electoral boundaries
will not apply to Quebec-we must continue to live with the
institutions where we have been called to serve and work, in the
hope of improving them until such time when Quebec
democratically chooses to separate.
The Constitution Act of 1791, the first providing for elected
representation, gave Quebec a large majority of seats. It means
that in 1791, francophones controlled the legislative assembly.
The Union Act of 1840 reduced Quebecers' share to half the
seats in the House of the Province of Canada although, at the
time, their numbers were far greater than those of the English
speaking population.
(1640)
On the eve of the union of 1867, there were, right here in
Ottawa, in the Parliament of the Province of Canada, 65
members from Quebec and 65 members from Upper Canada. We
had half the seats. What happened since then? From 65 out of
130, or 50 per cent, as we were on June 30, 1867, we went the
very next
11082
day to 65 out of 181, or a third, at least theoretically since the
elections had not been called yet.
Today, as we sit in this 35th Parliament, we are 75 out of 295
and, should the trend continue, should we remain in this federal
system which is relentlessly stifling us, we will have only 75
seats out of 301 in the 36th Parliament. Then it will be out of
310, 330, 340. This is Quebec's slow agony. Today we are called
on to say if we accept this slow agony for Quebec, regardless of
the referendum results. I am in good company to comment this
situation.
Fortunately, we have Hansard, the official report of the
debates, which allows us to see how our friends in this House
looked at this issue, in 1992. I refer especially to page 12795 of
Hansard of September 9, 1992, in which the hon. member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel, the current Canadian Minister of
Foreign Affairs said, and I quote: ``Another demand is the
preservation of Quebec's representation within common
institutions to fully reflect its particular status in Canada. Item
21 guarantees that Quebec will be assigned no fewer than 25 per
cent of the seats in the House of Commons''.
The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel goes on to say:
``This is in fact an extraordinary gain showing the remarkable
generosity of our Canadian partners who thus recognize
Quebec's distinctiveness''. The hon. member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel, who is now a government minister,
will surely not change his mind when the matter is voted on. He
will surely remember a speech he made as recently as September
9, 1992 and support the amendment tabled by the Bloc today.
Other people not known as sovereignists have considered this
issue. These people have expressed conflicting constitutional
positions. A case in point is Senator Jean-Claude Rivest who,
when he appeared before the Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs on June 21, dealt in particular with the issue of a
minimum level of representation for Quebec, what this
minimum level should be and why.
In the June 21, 1994 issue, No. 18, of the Minutes of
Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, Senator Rivest is quoted as saying: ``However, the
constitutional system that the Canadian constitution imposes on
the various provinces varies considerably from province to
province. In particular, the constitutional obligations that were
imposed upon Quebec in 1867, and which were maintained in
the 1982 Act are much greater than those imposed on other
provinces.
One only has to recall the special language requirements
imposed upon Quebec concerning the use of French and English
in the legislature and in the courts, the provisions that were
renewed concerning Quebec pursuant to section 23 of the
Charter having to do with the language of instruction, and the
constitutional obligation that only the government of Quebec
has to maintain two school board systems''.
So, says Senator Rivest: ``The principle that the various
provinces should be constitutionally equal is contradicted by the
very text of the Constitution, which opens the way for the
government of Quebec to demand, strictly at the constitutional
level, i.e. in terms of the House of Commons, the Senate and the
Supreme Court, special constitutional status that corresponds to
the sociological, linguistic and historical reality of Quebec
within the Canadian federation''.
(1645)
Senator Rivest added: ``One example would be the 25 percent
representation rule within the House of Commons, along with
the fact that in the current Senate, Quebec has a markedly
greater representation than do the other provinces of regions of
Canada. A second example would be the Supreme Court. Only
Quebec is guaranteed three seats on the Supreme Court. So when
it came time to negotiate about the House of Commons, as I just
said, we demanded 25 percent representation. From a federalist
point of view, the basic problem of Quebec's society-and this
is still Senator Rivest talking-and not the problem of the
province of Quebec, is that it is inconceivable and no doubt
unacceptable for Quebecers, for Quebec's society, to be part of
the Canadian federation without the assurance and the
constitutional and legal guarantees that the various Quebec
governments have always sought and with which Quebec could
retain, at the institutional level, not a majority, not equality, but
enough of a critical mass to have influence corresponding to its
historical, sociological and cultural reality within the Canadian
federation. For Quebec, this is something that is not
negotiable''.
I am quoting Senator Rivest, who has not yet joined the Yes
camp in the referendum debate. I asked Senator Rivest this last
question when he appeared before us: ``If Quebecers were to
decide to postpone their move toward sovereignty, would you
now be in favour of including a constitutional clause that would
guarantee them 25 per cent representation''?
Senator Rivest replied: ``I think that no matter how the Senate
is reformed, it will be extremely difficult for the Premier of
Quebec, assuming that the federal system continues, to agree to
any constitutional standard, regarding the number of members,
that would be below a 25 per cent threshold''.
I just quoted two staunch federalists, two people who actively
participated in the abortive attempts to reform Canadian
federalism.
I see across the way some of the members who supported this
minimum of 25 per cent, this critical mass that Quebec so badly
needs in this House. The member for Cochrane-Superior voted
in favour of the motion, as did the member for Saint-Maurice
and current Prime Minister, the member for Sudbury, now
Minister of Health, the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, of
course, after what he said, voted in favour of the motion and,
oddly enough, the only two paired members, the hon. member
for Kingston and the Islands and the former Solicitor General,
Mr. Lewis. I hope that he will not be paired in the vote, and that
11083
he will support, as his colleagues have done, a minimum
representation for Quebec.
The vote that will be held in this House will send a message to
those Quebecers who still have doubts about the willingness to
reform federal institutions. It will tell them whether there is,
among the Liberal members opposite, the willingness to give
Quebec a minimum guarantee that the Liberals themselves,
when they were in opposition, felt so strongly that Quebec
should have.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I always respect the views of the hon. member for
Bellechasse which he expressed so well this afternoon. I think
the problem is that he chose a subject that is not part of the bill.
Actually, the issue he raised today by proposing this motion in
amendment is a constitutional issue, one for a debate on the
Constitution like we had during the debate to which he referred
in his speech, right up to the vote. Was it on the constitutional
question? Or was it on the Charlottetown accord? It was either
one or the other.
I remember that evening when I was not in the House to vote
on this question. It was a very important question, and I
supported the Charlottetown accord.
(1650)
I supported the accord, and the voters in Kingston and the
Islands voted for it, but I am sure the hon. member for
Bellechasse did not support the Charlottetown accord. I hope he
did, but I am afraid he voted against it. I am sure that Reform
Party members in this House voted against Charlottetown, and
that is too bad, because it was a good accord and I supported it,
as I said before.
[English]
The Charlottetown accord died. While some of us worked
very hard on the referendum campaign to ensure its success, as I
did, it was rejected by the people and we must respect that
decision and try to get on with life.
If the hon. member wants to amend the Constitution of
Canada to provide some minimum number of seats for another
province, that is fine. We already have some of those in the
Constitution, with respect to Prince Edward Island and New
Brunswick at the moment. We can deal with amendments to the
Constitution of Canada. However, I am not going to support
efforts to make those changes through the back door by changing
the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
The hon. member knows this is a back door way of trying to
achieve something that requires a front door approach. What he
is asking us to do is ensure that another province be added to the
list of those guaranteed protection under the act. In my view we
have too many of them now. In addition to the two guarantees in
favour of a Senate floor in all provinces but that are now full
force in effect in respect of both Prince Edward Island and New
Brunswick, we have the grandfather clause introduced into the
Constitution by the previous government.
The grandfather clause ensures that provinces will not drop
below the number of seats they had in the House in I think 1979.
That clause is protecting several other provinces which in a
normal redistribution would lose seats to more populous
provinces.
Now we have the spectacle of the Reform Party urging on the
House a reduction in the number of seats in the House. It would
have abolished the grandfather clause and reduced the number
of seats in many provinces. I am afraid we would have said
goodbye to the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister
because his province would have lost a very large number of
seats. I can only imagine that when the electors got a chance to
deal with him, having put forward such a proposition, they
would have made short work of his political career, which I am
sure would be a matter of considerable regret to many of us in
the House.
The government rejected this idea and I see it has not come
back in amendments today. I can understand why. I suspect that
if the members of the Reform Party pushed the reduction in seats
in amendments with the dire consequences that we all know
would follow for the province of Saskatchewan among others,
they would be in difficulty today.
Mr. Hermanson: It is beyond the scope of the bill.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminister from his seat said it is beyond the
scope of the bill. I agree with him, but then so is this one.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Chair
has made a ruling on whether the Bloc amendment was in order
and within the scope of the bill. I wonder if he might withdraw
that.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary
would know better than to do that. We must put a positive
interpretation on that.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that it has
already been ruled to be in order. It does not mean that I do not
have my views on what the amendment was. I made them earlier
today. They are on the record. The hon. member may wish to
re-read my remarks.
Looking at this motion today, the hon. member for
Bellechasse should also bear in mind that what we are trying do
by this law is get a law that will survive court challenges. He
knows as well as I do that when we were considering the bill in
committee we looked very carefully at previous court decisions
in respect of representation matters in Canada.
11084
We tried to come up with wording that would ensure our bill
fell within the parameters laid down by the courts, interpreting
the Constitution Act in ways to see that this complies in every
respect with that act so that we will not have the electoral
boundaries drawn up by a commission thrown out as being
contrary either to the Constitution Act or to the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act and that will ensure the
provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act are
not held to be inconsistent with the Constitution Act.
(1655)
Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that the
number of members of the House of Commons may be from time
to time increased by the Parliament of Canada provided the
proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this
act is not thereby disturbed.
The question is will a change provided for in this act disturb
the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by
the Constitution Act. It would or could depending on the number
of seats added or taken away in order to achieve the result
desired by the hon. member in his amendment.
Therefore the amendment may be contrary to section 52 of the
Constitution Act. If it were, it could throw out the entire
redistribution all across the country after it was complete. What
needs to be amended here is not the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act but the Constitution Act to attain the result
the hon. member desires.
Furthermore, if a guarantee of 25 per cent of the seats for
Quebec affects the principle of proportionate representation
then the motion could require this constitutional amendment
under the seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population rule
pursuant to section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which
provides as follows:
(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following
matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1);
(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House
of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
Given that this kind of constitutional amendment, this kind of
guarantee, may require the consent of seven provinces
representing 50 per cent of the population and may not be done
by a simple act of Parliament, again I suggest this is an
inappropriate way to do it.
He knows perfectly well that the Charlottetown accord
provided such a vehicle and amended the Constitution of Canada
in respect of certain matters but adopted the requirements
required by the Constitution for the 50 per cent where necessary
in unanimity in certain other cases.
The constitutional accord was worked out on that basis. His
amendment needs to be worked out on that kind of basis because
it does affect the principle of proportionate representation of the
provinces in the House.
Accordingly, it is a matter that needs to be dealt with as an
amendment to the Constitution of Canada, not as an amendment
to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
For that reason in spite of the very eloquent remarks he made
and in spite of the suggestion that members of the House have
voted previously in support of the general principle of this
proposition, in this case the House would do very well to reject
the amendment he has proposed and allow it to be brought
forward if he wishes as a private member's bill to amend the
Constitution Act or wait until the House gets a bill before it that
deals with the Constitution Act and the representation of the
people in that act. We can then touch on it.
I note that for the record in respect of the committee's own
proceedings on this matter it recommended that a review of the
question of the size of the House, the number of members here or
whether there should be a reduction, should be referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the next
Parliament when the 1996 quinquennial census will be complete
and in the hands of Parliament so that members can look at the
representation of the population in the various provinces and
make a decision as to whether we should attempt a freeze or
reduction in the number of MPs based on the shifts in population
reflected in the quinquennial census.
I am optimistic that a new committee will come up with an
answer to the hon. member's problem and look at amending the
Constitution at that time to achieve that result. We should keep
our socks on and be patient. Perhaps in the next Parliament we
will be able to deal with the issue.
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister will
probably give us an earful on that as well.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with some interest and almost disbelief that I
hear some of the arguments, particularly put forward by the Bloc
today, suggesting Quebec should be entitled to 25 per cent of the
seats of the House of Commons in perpetuity regardless of the
role that history will play in the future of our country and a
number of other reasons.
Before I respond to that I will quickly respond to the hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands who suggested that if
Saskatchewan were to lose a few seats in the House along with
other provinces somehow it would reflect badly upon those of us
who suggest Canadians want less government rather than more
government.
11085
(1700 )
I say to the hon. member that in the province of
Saskatchewan, while there are many things the provincial
government has done which I disagree with, one of the things it
has done that I do agree with is that it has reduced the number of
provincial seats from 66 to 58. If the current provincial
government in Saskatchewan gets re-elected, one of the reasons
it may win re-election is the fact that it has reduced the number
of seats in the province. This is contrary to the wisdom of
Liberal members in this House who seem to think we need to
expand the number of seats in this place to please Canadians and
to serve them better.
With respect to the amendment proposed by the Bloc, the
Liberals agreed with the Reform Party on most of the proposals
which were put forward, including this one. On the others, the
Liberals backed away from these principles. The Bloc pursued a
very interesting strategy in that it supported the government
even though it disagreed with the government on this issue all
the way through the progress and development of this bill.
It seemed rather odd that the Bloc would stand with the
government. Liberal and Reform members did not agree at any
point that Quebec should be guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats
in the House. I am not too sure why, but all of a sudden the Bloc
decided that this had become a major issue and it would have to
reverse its position on the bill.
Let us take a look at what would happen if we followed the
Bloc proposal. The Bloc want to guarantee that Quebec will
have 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons
regardless of population. It claims this is Quebec's historical
proportion of seats. The Bloc may be proposing this because it
knows it will lose the referendum and it wants to remain in the
House.
In any case, it violates the principle of representation by
population. Seats are added to provinces to account for
population growth and proportional shifts. If all the provinces
insisted on retaining their proportion of seats, a provincial
redistribution would simply not occur. That would create even
greater discrepancies in the population of provincial
constituencies as the country continued to grow. I would like to
give a couple of examples of this. I hope the Bloc members are
paying attention.
In 1925 Saskatchewan had 21 out of 245 seats in this House. If
Saskatchewan demanded to have its historical proportion of
seats, it would now receive 26 seats out of 301 in the next
redistribution. That is almost double the current total of 14
seats.
Who would give up those seats? Certainly, Quebec could not
because that would not guarantee its 25 per cent. I guess those
seats would have to come from the province of Ontario. Or
perhaps the province of British Columbia would give up a few. I
am sure all of us would have to give a bit to make Saskatchewan
and Quebec happy if they were guaranteed their historical
percentage of seats. Saskatchewan would have to have 26 seats
and Quebec would have to have 25 per cent of the total. It would
be a big problem.
Let us look at an even more interesting scenario. The province
of Nova Scotia at one time had 21 out of 213 seats in this House.
That was at about the turn of the century. A few years later,
Alberta and British Columbia received their representation and
they only had seven members in this House. If we locked things
in in that scenario, Nova Scotia would now have 30 seats in this
House and Alberta and British Columbia would probably still be
under 10 seats, even though their populations far surpass the
province of Nova Scotia. What would we do about that?
Seats are allocated on the basis of population shifts relative to
the population of the entire country. It has to be that way because
Canada is a nation which has always grown at different rates at
different stages and times in its history. The government must
adapt and pass laws to fit the reality of the day, not the reality of
a century ago. We cannot always navel gaze into the future to
predict exactly what is going to happen.
Fixing seat allocations at an arbitrary moment in time is folly.
No one can know how the country will develop in the next
century. We must not create something which future generations
cannot live with and cannot change which, in fact, would be
reason to continue some of the divisive arguments we have
heard in the past between different regions and provinces within
the country.
As Quebec currently has one of the slowest growing
populations in Canada according to Elections Canada
projections, in order for Quebec to retain 25 per cent of the seats
in the House of Commons other provinces would have to
surrender them. Otherwise more seats would constantly have to
be added to the House of Commons and given to the province of
Quebec. The House would become enormous in no time if we
followed that practice.
(1705 )
The current formula predicts a House with 318 members by
the year 2016 AD, with 75 seats going to Quebec. If Quebec
were to have a guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats, other
provinces would have to surrender five seats. If the other
provinces were not prepared to surrender five seats, then six
seats would have to be added to the province of Quebec to bring
it up to the 25 per cent mark. As time went on, the number of
extra seats required in an already growing House would
increase.
This is clearly anti-democratic. It is typical of members of a
party and a movement in Canada that cannot even agree on a
question regarding the future of this country and whether or not
Quebec will remain in Canada. They want to make sure the
question will be carried in their favour. They cannot agree on the
referendum question and the timing for that question because
they want to guarantee the answer will be the one they want.
Therefore, they will design the question to fit the scenario.
Certainly this is anti-democratic, just as it is anti-democratic
11086
for the Bloc to be declaring that Quebec deserves 25 per cent of
the seats of the House of Commons regardless of its population.
It was these types of principles and this type of reasoning
which defeated the Charlottetown accord. I am disappointed the
member for Kingston and the Islands was defending the
Charlottetown accord, an accord that demanded a double
majority in the Senate based on language and one that also
guaranteed Quebec 25 per cent of the seats in the House of
Commons. The member cannot have it both ways. He cannot
speak against 25 per cent in this House now and then speak in
favour of the Charlottetown accord which included those same
measures.
Also, the member for Kingston and the Islands and others in
this House have suggested that because the Charlottetown
accord called for an elected Senate somehow we compromised
in our position. I remind all hon. members in this House that we
called for a triple E Senate which was not only elected but also
had equal representation from each province to overcome the
concerns of the province of Quebec. Should its population
decline it would have had that protection in the Senate with an
equal number of representatives in the upper House, the same as
every other province in Canada.
It makes sense. It is the way this country needs to be governed
and it is about time that the members in this House from the
other parties realized it.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, to start with, I would like to respond to the Reform
Party's contentions. Just because you neglected to come to the
defence of your people in Saskatchewan, we do not have to
follow suit in Quebec. We were elected to defend the interests of
Quebec.
The Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member please direct
his comments through the chair?
Mr. Crête: I will repeat, then, that if the Reform member
raised the issue of Saskatchewan, but failed to defend the
province as he should have, it is not my problem. We were
elected to defend the interests of Quebec and defending the
interests of Quebec entails ensuring that we will have a
minimum to look forward to, in the future, in Canada.
I have never represented Canada in the House. I represent a
riding in Quebec which is part of Canada and I hope that it will
cease to be a part of it in the very near future. The Parliament of
Canada will be sending a clear message to Quebecers if it
decides that Quebec does not deserve 25 per cent of all seats. A
message that Canada will give us no minimum guarantees, that
we are not one of the founding peoples and that we do not even
deserve 25 per cent of the seats in Parliament.
If Parliament votes against our proposal, it would mean that
Quebec deserves less protection than Prince Edward Island,
because Prince Edward Island has a guarantee under the
constitution. And it does have, for its population, a very large
guarantee indeed. And the people of Quebec will always
remember this clearly, whether from within the current system
or from their own sovereign state.
I invite the Reform Party to come and just try to sell its
opinion to Quebec that we do not deserve 25 per cent of the
seats. Quebecers will be quite clear in their reply, particularly to
Reformers but also to any other party which would come to
Quebec with the message that we in Quebec, who founded this
country, do not deserve 25 per cent of the seats. I look forward to
seeing the day that the Liberals come to Quebec to say that they
rejected our proposal.
(1710)
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands told us earlier
that he was very concerned about the legality and
constitutionality of this clause. I would urge him to vote on this
amendment based on the substance of the issue and to let the
Supreme Court determine the validity of the argument. It is not
for us to interpret whatever decision the government makes on
this issue.
I would also like to remind my colleagues in this House of the
remarks made by a true Canadian visionary, Mr. René Lévesque.
During the 1970s, Mr. Lévesque said: ``If we stay in this system
as it is now, we will shrink. With the ever increasing majority,
we will always remain a minority and will never have the
opportunity to become a nation within this country''.
For us, the proposal on the table is the least we need to see if
you are ready to treat us on an equal basis in this society and to
accept a minimum number of changes.
When the hon. member said earlier that a constitutional
amendment might be needed, well, if this is what it takes to
guarantee equality to francophones in Quebec and the whole
population of Quebec, then it is up to you to introduce it. If you
do not, you will be burying you head in the sand and giving
Quebecers even less hope for a future within Canada than they
have now.
I would like to point out that the first time my grandfather
voted in his life, he voted for Laurier. This was the first he voted.
He would often tell me this story, and he was very proud of it.
The prime minister, then only a candidate, used to travel by train
and stop in every municipality on the way. From the last car, he
gave a short speech in each municipality, and it was on the basis
of this that people voted.
11087
It was then that my grandfather understood that the debate
in Canada would always be about who best answered the
question ``Will French Canadians be treated as the equals of
English Canadians?'' This was how he saw the situation. He
used to say that the British North America Act had been signed
by Quebec, by Quebecers, because they felt it gave them a
minimum of security with respect to their expectations.
The same man, several years later, voted for what was called
the Bloc populaire. This party was no longer talking about
equality in Canada. This came after a very significant moment in
history when the importance of the 25 per cent was brought
home. It was when Quebecers voted in an overwhelming
majority against conscription, but had it shoved down their
throats anyway.
Our great fear is that without this guarantee in the future, you
will treat us more than ever like a minority, systematically
reducing our representation to 15, 12, 10 per cent and maybe
even achieving what some might like to see happen. But if we do
not get this commitment from the present government-and I
think that the proposed amendment is an amendment in
principle-it will be a clear message, a very symbolic and
significant sign that Canada no longer wants Quebec, no longer
wants it to play the role it has always played since the
introduction of the British North America Act.
In voting on this amendment, the Liberal majority, and
Reform members too, because we are told that it is a free vote
for them, will be making an important statement. Furthermore, I
have the impression that there are among the ranks of the
Reform Party a few hon. members who will, on their own,
decide that the amendment is very acceptable.
In conclusion, I would say that this type of amendment is one
of the very reasons for our presence here. The Bloc was elected
to defend the interests of Quebec, to let Quebecers see the
machinations of the system, because if we had not been here,
this amendment would not have been tabled. If the Bloc
Quebecois did not form the official opposition, if it were not a
significant party in the House of Commons, there would never
have been a debate on this issue. Our question to the federalists
is this: ``Are you ready to let Quebec take its rightful place or do
you want to put it in its place?'' I hope that you will make the
right choice.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a few brief comments on the matter raised by
hon. members opposite.
(1715 )
I listened carefully to the remarks of the mover, a colleague
with whom I have worked on a number of parliamentary matters.
I have to give him great credit for working very well in the
parliamentary committee system and making a significant
contribution there and in the House.
I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague from
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. On the issues of providing a
minimum number of seats in Parliament to the province of
Quebec and of capping the number of members elected in total
to Parliament, I think members opposite would find a fair bit of
support on the government benches, at least for the capping.
I can only speak for myself. If the Constitution is capable of
providing a floor for the province of Prince Edward Island for a
particular reason-whatever it was at the time-I do not see why
the people of Canada would not be prepared to discuss a floor for
the province of Quebec for whatever reasons exist at a particular
point in time. I can see what the reasons are, as can members
opposite.
Conceptually I do not have a problem with capping or with
floors if that is what the political discussions yield. However,
those discussions, those changes are constitutional as my
colleague from Kingston and the Islands has pointed out.
We are not going to be able to wag the dog with its tail here.
Capping of the House of Commons and providing a floor to a
particular province or region is a constitutional matter which we
are incapable of addressing in this bill.
The Speaker has already ruled that the motion is not out of
order. We could legislate. However, given the remarks of my
colleague from Kingston and the Islands, I am not too sure that
adopting this provision would have the result intended. It might
skew the interpretation of the Constitution.
I wanted to signal to my colleagues opposite that I hear, I
understand and I am not unsympathetic to the concept. However,
I believe it is constitutional. It is odd and I find it odd. I know
members opposite will understand that it is peculiar to say the
least that members opposite would be looking for changes in a
Constitution they have indicated they wish to abandon within a
few months.
That regrettably points out perhaps an Achilles' heel, perhaps
a weakness in the perspective of the Bloc, which makes a
contribution to the problem. We do not always agree; many
times we do not. However, to the citizens in the province of
Quebec, I think it is fair to say that the only way we will get
constitutional resolutions to the many issues that may confront
Canada is to get back into that envelope of discussion. That is in
the hands of the Prime Minister and the premiers. It is a matter
they do not want to address now.
At the present time we have to deal with redistribution the
way it is. I want the record to show those remarks.
11088
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to rise this afternoon to speak on a matter that
seems to be only a technical consideration of figures. However,
basically, it is an opportunity to show Quebecers how the rest of
Canada envisions Quebec.
(1720)
My hon. colleague opposite mentioned a moment ago that
since the Bloc Quebecois sanctions Quebec's sovereignist
agenda, we should not give too much importance to the
readjustment of electoral boundaries since Quebec will have
ceased to exist as a province within a few months. He is
perfectly right. If there is something which does not motivate
me to speak too long, it is certainly the rearrangement of an
electoral map including Quebec, because I fervently hope that
sovereignty will be proclaimed very soon. But it is a good
opportunity to show Quebecers what the rest of Canada thinks of
the role of Quebec in the Canadian confederation.
Giving Quebec 25 per cent of the seats is more or less
proportionate to what we pay in taxes. There is an old maxim
that says ``No taxation without representation''. Let us go back
in time to see how we have been treated since the conquest of
Quebec, or New France, by England.
It must be realized that some 250 years ago, this territory was
totally owned by New France. We had families, we spoke
French, and economic, social and cultural activities were all
conducted in French. Then came the conquest. It did not simply
transfer custody over the country from the King of France to the
King of England. It also brought forth assimilation dynamics
which caused the territory to be separated between Upper
Canada and Lower Canada a hundred years later.
We must not forget that at the time, the economic situation
was critical in Upper Canada whereas it was very comfortable in
Lower Canada, Quebec in other words. The Union was
essentially a means for Quebec and its sound economy to help
finance Upper Canada where the economic situation was rather
on the slow. And the federal government did not stop there. To
finance wars which were continuaaly breaking out, it introduced
taxes to get even more money. Was that money put to good use
for Quebec and Quebecers? Just looking at the way investments
were made tells us that it is not the case.
Why are decisions made the way they are? Simply because
Quebec no longer carries any political weight. If we have only
25 per cent of the seats, it means that we are losing 75 per cent of
the political power. It is easy to understand that the sovereignist
agenda would finally give back to Quebec 100 per cent of all the
powers required to ensure its own viability, protect its economy
and take on its role on the world scene.
Today, we have the opportunity to show that even with 25 per
cent, which is exactly what Quebec has been requesting all
along, even with 25 per cent, we face opposition from the
government.
I ask all Quebecers: Is it worth staying within a Confederation
when common sense requires that we get what we are entitled to
according to historical rights, and that raises objections and
eyebrows? I am thoroughly convinced that I could have
explained all of this to empty benches and that the government's
position would have been the same.
(1725)
I hope this will make Quebecers understand that there is no
alternative to the historical decision we must make. There is
only one solution, the one that will give us 100 per cent of our
powers and not limit us to a mere 25 per cent or even less.
Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am obviously very happy to be part of this debate.
The reason of the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois is
that Quebec be guaranteed by Canada a minimum of 25 per cent
of the total number of members in the future. I think that many
arguments have been put forward and I think it is very important
to be aware that we are going through a significant moment of
our lives.
We have asked on several issues in the past for a sign that
would allow Quebec to try and understand or see if Canada truly
wants a Quebec that stands up within Canada. It is not in the
interest of Canada to have a weak Quebec but rather a strong
Quebec which will be able to keep its representativeness,
because Quebec is a nation. It is a people, a founding people.
In 1982, Canada undertook a societal project that denied
Quebec its distinctiveness and said that henceforth there was
only one national identity in this country. This society project
treats all ten provinces on an equal footing. As a founding
people, as my colleague just said so eloquently a moment ago,
francophones were present on the whole territory and even
further down to the south since they were even to be found in
Louisiana, and when each of the provinces joined the
Confederation, francophones formed a majority almost
everywhere.
The population in Quebec also experienced significant
growth, but if we analyze the immigration policy of Canada we
will see that Canada has deliberately increased Ontario's
population by immigration and it has anglicized this country.
This was a deliberate decision on the part of the government. We
are asking for a concession from this country that wants to keep
us all together. Everyone says that Canada is much better off
with Quebec. If that is true, make some concessions. Give us the
minimum we are asking for, which is 25 per cent of the
representativeness. That is all we are asking.
11089
I wonder why the government would be stubborn about that.
Earlier, when I was behind the curtains, I heard the hon.
member from Kingston and the Islands say that he had doubts
about the legality of the amendment. I think that is not a very
strong argument because at this point in time, I do not see how
we could question the decision made by the Speaker to the
effect that this amendment was admissible. Therefore, if the
Speaker said that the amendment was in order, I wonder how
we could challenge that. Other arguments must be found to
justify a vote against this amendment.
(1730)
It seems extremely important to me that we recognize that
Quebec does bring an essential contribution to Canada.
Confidentially speaking, between you and I, if English speaking
Canada is not already an American state, it is because we are
here. We make the difference. Without French speaking people,
what makes us different from the Americans? We eat like them,
we drink like them, we do the same things, we watch the same
TV. Everything will reach us much more easily. As you know,
American imperialism is expanding all around the world. It will
cross our borders much more easily.
What makes a Canadian a Canadian is the fact that he can say
he lives in a bilingual country. Canadians are in a country where
a large percentage of the population, 25 per cent, is francophone.
It is a country with a dual culture. It has the underlying wealth of
two cultures, the English and the French cultures.
What other country in the world can claim such a cultural
wealth? We are really, I believe, vital to Canada. We have said
that, so long as we are not sovereign, we will defend the interests
of Quebecers.
It must look rather odd for a sovereignist to rise in this House
and say: ``Hang on to the furniture, give us at least 25 per cent
representation''. We have not left the country yet. We are still
here, and our duty, what we see as our basic responsibility, is to
say to the all of the hon. members in this House that it is their
duty to give us 25 per cent representation. We were here first;
you conquered us. We formed a union in 1840. We decided to
live together. We established a sort of trade agreement. We built
a railroad that we are in the process of demolishing. At least give
us 25 per cent representation. It will not cost you anything. On
the contrary, it will mean a lot for you. You must realize this
while there is still time.
After we go, if ever we leave, because we are basically hoping
to, it will not have cost you a thing to give us the 25 per cent we
are asking for as a gesture of openness and understanding toward
a nation you claim you want to keep with you. It seems to me
that, if the government really wants to prove conclusively that it
cares for us, it must maintain our level of representation.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The vote is on Motion No. 4, standing
in the name of Mr. Langlois. 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 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:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8),
the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the
division on the question now before the House stands deferred
until Tuesday, March 28 at 5.30 p.m. at which time the bells to
call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
* * *
(1735)
The House resumed from March 13 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other
weapons, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: When the bill was last before the
House, the member for Souris-Moose Mountain had four
minutes remaining in his time.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak again to Bill C-68
and the proposed amendment.
An item of the bill that I really feel needs to be addressed is
the issue of non-compliance. Many citizens of Canada would be
put in a position of being criminals if they did not register their
11090
guns. I hope as we review the bill that we will not allow this to
fall into the Criminal Code with regard to registration.
I have some very serious reservations about the search and
seizure provision. It needs to be looked at thoroughly. Can it be
put in another framework in the bill? If the police want to enter
on to one's property, then a search warrant should be obtained.
That document would identify the reasons why a search is
deemed necessary.
I have some concerns about heirlooms, those items that may
be passed on from generation to generation. We have to make
sure that we clear up in the minds of the people writing the bill
what constitutes an heirloom. Do citizens have a right to pass
them down through the family from generation to generation?
I really feel very strongly about collectors and museum
pieces. If expensive museum pieces have been collected and
retained in families, and they are going to be removed through
confiscation, then fair compensation should be paid.
I have a tremendous problem with the five year and $60 fee
licensing provision. I would rather see a licensing provision of
$5 a year and $25 for five years. That way we can at least
indicate to the public that it is not a tax grab.
As I have said before and I reiterate, I am prepared to register
my firearms. I believe many people are. However, I would much
prefer to see voluntary registration with a five-year lead-in
period. At the end of the first year of the registration period we
should evaluate whether it is doing what we wish it to do, that it
is efficient, affordable and enforceable for everyone involved.
I have some difficulty with the taxpayers of Canada paying
approximately $85 million, as suggested, to go through the
business of registering firearms. I am not so sure that at the end
of the day we will be able to show that the criteria are met.
The committee was completely unified in its position that it
would go with voluntary registration with a five-year lead-in
period. I would like to think we could go back and look at that
one again.
Everyone in the House supports the minister wholeheartedly
in those aspects of the bill that deal with the criminal element.
We support wholeheartedly the four-year mandatory sentence
for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. I would
rather see a two-year mandatory sentence for the use of a fake
firearm in the commission of a crime. I could support that.
With regard to the bill overall, I feel this is the place to voice
my concerns. I say today and I will continue to say that as the
present bill is put forward, I am not prepared to support it.
(1740 )
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the amendment to
split Bill C-68.
By creating an omnibus bill with two distinct and opposing
objectives, the Minister of Justice has made it almost impossible
for many members of Parliament to represent the views of their
constituents.
In my riding of Prince George-Peace River, the people have
made it very clear that they support stronger crime control
measures directed at law breakers. At the same time they are
opposed to increased sanctions against law-abiding citizens.
They view gun registration as an ineffective exercise which will
not increase public safety but will waste valuable police time,
scarce tax dollars and impose unnecessary and costly
restrictions on the people who are already obeying the law.
Because this is such an important issue in my riding I have
sought the views of the constituents through a number of means,
including small group discussions, local meetings. I have also
requested input regarding anticipated gun legislation in two
householders.
Last May while the justice minister was still making
comments such as banning all handguns in the hands of private
citizens, and suggesting all firearms within city limits should be
stored at a central armoury, I asked constituents whether they
felt gun control legislation was sufficient before the
amendments in Bill C-17 came into effect.
I do not know if many people from my riding ever get called
when the justice department does its gun control surveys but
only 21 per cent thought we need more gun control.
In November I sent another householder to the homes in my
riding and asked if there should be a universal registration
system for all guns, including shotguns and hunting rifles. Over
80 per cent of the 1,000 respondents answered no. I have already
tabled petitions with over 2,500 signatures which do not support
the proposed gun legislation. I am assured by people in the
riding there are many more petitions to come.
I have also received hundreds of letters from my riding in
opposition to gun registration and I might add thousands of
similar letters from other parts of Canada. The focus of 99 per
cent of these is crime control, not gun control.
The Union of B.C. Municipalities endorsed the following
petition put forward by my home town, the city of Fort St. John.
It requested that the federal government ensure that legislation
with regard to firearms be geared toward the criminal element
and not the law-abiding, responsible gun owner. The elected
11091
representatives from our town councils would not have passed
these resolutions without the knowledge that the majority of
their constituents supported them.
I would like to read a letter from the most popular radio talk
show in the B.C. Peace. The host, Grant Mitton says: ``I
conducted a poll on `Contact' this morning and asked the callers
two questions: one, are you in favour or opposed to the gun
control regulations introduced by justice minister Allan Rock;
two, will you comply with registration requirements for your
firearms when they come into effect? The answer as anticipated
to both questions was a resounding no''.
``During our 40 minutes on air, 65 people said they were
opposed to the new measures and 51 said they would not comply
with the registration requirements. One caller said he was in
favour of the regulations''.
``These people are not wild-eyed radicals. They are for the
most part normal Canadians interested only in pursuing their
lives in peace and enjoying the use of their firearms as they have
in the past. Many of those who responded wondered how these
new regulations will have any effect on the criminal element and
suggested the focus should be on enforcing a mandatory prison
sentence on anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a
felony''.
``The really disturbing part of the survey is the large number
of respondents that say they will defy the law. Surely Mr. Rock
must see that his proposals will be very difficult to enforce if
possible at all''.
The people of Prince George-Peace River do not support the
bill in its current form and therefore it must be divided. Aside
from the widespread resistance to gun registration, the Minister
of Justice knows there are a number of other serious flaws in the
firearms act. He is trying to slip them by the Canadian
population under the pretext of greater law and order. The bill
represents a significant attack on the rights enjoyed by the
Canadian people.
We believe we live in a free and democratic society. Yet this
bill erodes some of those fundamental rights. I am referring for
example to sections 99 through 101 which provide police and
other designated officers with the right to inspect any place
where they have a reason to believe there are firearms,
ammunition, a switch blade or even just records pertaining to
them.
(1745)
The police can take samples of anything they find whether or
not it is related to a firearm. If the occupant does not fully
co-operate with the investigating officers, under section 107
they are subject to up to two years imprisonment.
The minister and other gun control proponents are quick to
point out that a warrant is needed to search a dwelling house but
that is not what the legislation says. It says either consent of the
occupant or a warrant.
When confronted with police at their kitchen door, how many
Canadians know they have the right to refuse entry to the
officers? Does a teenager home early from school constitute an
occupant? Even if the occupant refuses the police entry, officers
just have to demonstrate to a justice that they have a reason to
believe firearms related records may be present and a warrant is
issued.
These powers of inspection are granted to authorities where
no crime is suspected. The fact that someone has a registered
gun can be used as a pretext to inspect a premises and take
samples of anything found. This bill gives them the power to go
on fishing expeditions.
Under section 117 of part III of the Criminal Code even more
extensive search and seizure powers are granted to police if they
suspect a firearms offence such as a non-registration of a gun
might be committed.
The police I know will not be going into homes unless they
have reason to believe there is a serious offence being
committed. If they are not going to use them, why are they
giving the police such extensive powers of inspection and search
and seizure?
If police suspect a crime they should go through the process of
obtaining a proper search warrant. Despite government claims, I
am not trying to increase paranoia or inflame anti-police
sentiment. It is very important that Canadians fully understand
all the possible ramifications of the various clauses of the bill.
Passage of this bill will mean that at least seven million gun
owners in Canada will have fewer rights under the charter of
rights and freedoms than other Canadians.
Canadians have entrusted the government with the job to
protect the rights and freedoms that make us the envy of so many
other people in the world. This bill seriously erodes our
democratic rights in another area. It represents a growing trend
to pass meaningless bills through Parliament, giving all the
power of implementing regulations to cabinet.
Under section 110 it takes more than four full pages just to
describe all the areas in which the governor in council will have
the authority to create regulations. These range from licensing
requirements and the establishment and operations of shooting
clubs to circumstances such as whether an individual needs a
gun to protect their family-clause 110(c).
In section 110(t) the governor in council can make regulations
respecting the manner in which any provision of this act or
regulation applies to any of the aboriginal peoples in Canada and
adapting any such provision for the purposes of that application.
When will the government realize that all Canadians should
be treated equally and we should not be entrenching
mechanisms and laws for creating different Criminal Code
penalties or rights based on race?
11092
Most of section 112 lets the minister bypass the House
entirely without laying certain regulations before the House for
review if in his opinion the changes are so immaterial or
insubstantial or the need is so urgent that section 111 should
not be applicable.
Section 112(6) reads: ``For greater certainty a regulation may
be made under part III of the Criminal Code without being laid
before either House of Parliament''. This means that through
order in council a cabinet can make regulations that put
Canadian citizens behind bars-no accountability, no review, no
appeal.
Is this how a democratic society functions? How can the
justice minister justify this extreme abuse of democratic
authority? Do not deny Canadians the right to have their voices
heard when it comes to laws that affect them.
This bill is fundamentally flawed and the principles of justice
and democracy on which our nation is founded are under attack.
I can support many of the changes to part III of the Criminal
Code with some amendments but I cannot support the erosion of
our democratic rights under the guise of a harmless gun
registration bill.
(1750)
I urge all members to support the amendment to split Bill
C-68 into its two very distinct components.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his statement.
Approximately one week ago 82-year old Oscar Noll was
working in his jewellery store. Oscar Noll is five feet tall and
weighs about 100 pounds. He goes to work at three o'clock in the
morning to work on watches. He heard a crash from the window
and two thugs came into his store. Remember, he is 82 years old,
weighs about 100 pounds and is very frail. He reached under the
counter, removed a revolver, fired some shots and scared away
the perpetrators. Does the hon. member believe that the
individual has the right to protect his life and his property in that
manner?
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, in my
opinion Canadians do have a right to protect themselves and
their families and to use a firearm to help them in protecting
themselves. That is not the view shared by hon. members across
the floor. A large percentage of them are opposed to that.
However, I firmly believe that Canadian citizens do have that
right.
I have spoken about this before. The police, no matter how
well intentioned, if we look at the statistics, simply cannot
respond quickly enough, even in cities, to intervene when the
crime is being committed. Canadians have to take responsibility
for protecting themselves. Unfortunately the police cannot.
Usually when the police respond it is after the crime has been
committed and their job is to apprehend the criminal and bring
him or her to justice, not to protect the citizens of this country.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
you would think this bill was about guns. To me it is not. It is
about matters of life and death. It is about what kind of society
we want to live in and it is about what kind of society we want to
leave our children. It is about progress as a civilized nation. That
is what it is about.
I have seen in the campaign against this legislation the kind of
lobbying I usually associate with the United States, the kind of
lobbying done by the National Rifle Association, based on
misinformation, half truths and out and out lies.
I keep hearing about law-abiding gun owners and yet I keep
hearing about law-abiding gun owners who intend to defy the
law. There is something contradictory in that. I keep asking gun
owners who come to see me to talk about this legislation what
will diminish their pleasure in partridge shooting because their
gun is registered. I have not heard a good answer to that. I do not
think there is one.
Reform members keep telling us they want to support
grassroots democracy, that they want people to have more say
about how their elected representatives vote in the House.
(1755 )
They know perfectly well that 90 per cent of their constituents
support this legislation and support the very aspect of it they
make the most noise against, the registration of guns.
The NDP has sat in the House for the time I have been here,
since 1988. It has had a party policy in support of stronger gun
control. I sat in the House, as did the member for Halifax and
numerous members who are here, listening to the NDP,
including its leader who now intends to vote against gun control
legislation. We listened to those members accuse the previous
government of legislation that was not tough enough, not strong
enough. Now they have tougher and stronger legislation and
they intend to vote against it.
I have to talk about the kind of feedback I have had from
meetings of those who are against this legislation and against
gun control. I have heard out and out misrepresentation of this
legislation. I have heard over and over again: ``This legislation
means a police officer can come into my house at any time
without a warrant, inspect my home and seize my guns''. No it
does not. Let us get the facts out if we are going to debate a bill.
The bill gives the police no right to come into anybody's home
and take anything without a warrant unless they believe there is
an illegal gun in there.
Let me talk about the contradictory messages I am getting.
The Ontario Association of Anglers and Hunters is opposed to
registration. Its members wrote a very impassioned plea to our
11093
local newspaper asking for the support of another organization
in their campaign for the universal registration of hunting dogs
for the protection of the dogs. Is that not a contradictory
message?
Let me remind people out there why we are doing this, why
guns make our society violent, less compassionate, less safe.
The vast majority of gun related deaths and injuries are not the
result of shootings at the corner store, the drug deal gone bad, or
the bar. The vast majority of deaths and injuries by guns are in
the home. It is a greater problem than the criminal misuse of
guns in the streets.
The largest proportion of homicides occurs in the home. Of
the 1,400 deaths per year caused by guns, fully 1,100 are
suicides; over 200 are homicides and the remainder are
accidents. The greatest threat of homicide is not at the hands of
strangers on the street, in the corner store or even in the break-in
at home. The majority of gun homicides-86 per cent-is
caused by family members, friends or acquaintances.
Guns are a particularly serious threat to women. If I take this
bill seriously there is very good reason. Some members have
already said that a woman is killed every six days. She is killed
in her home 67 per cent of the time. From 1981 to 1990 almost
one-half of women killed were killed by spouses or ex-spouses.
A further 27 per cent were killed by acquaintances. Almost
one-half of women killed by their partners are shot with a gun.
Yet the members from the Reform Party can sit there when we
talk about a serious issue like the deaths of well over 1,000
people a year and say: ``Pow, pow'' as if it is a little game.
Seventy-eight per cent of the guns used in these killings of
women are legally owned. Police are likely to have intervened in
domestic violence before it comes to the point of homicide.
However, right now without a registration system they have no
way of knowing before they go into a violent situation in the
home whether there is a gun there. That is one reason police
associations and the Association of Chiefs of Police support this
legislation.
Domestic and other intimate assaults are 12 times more likely
to result in death if a gun is used. Yet members on the opposite
side of the House think this is not a serious problem for our
country.
(1800)
We also know that young people contemplating suicide
sometimes act impulsively. If firearms are not readily available,
lives can be saved.
I want to talk about a 15-year old teenager who attended a
meeting with the justice minister. He said that he had gone home
from school one Friday afternoon determined to kill himself.
Not too long after a friend of his who was worried about him
decided to check on him. By doing this, his friend prevented him
from killing himself.
The young man told the justice minister and other members at
the meeting that if there had been a gun in the house, he would
have been dead before his friend had arrived. As it is, he is a
15-year old who is still in high school, doing well and has a
great future ahead of him.
This legislation, if it prevents one death like that of this
15-year old boy, will be worth it. We cannot forget our children.
Since 1970, 470 children have died in accidents with firearms in
their own homes. These are largely guns owned by their own
families.
I am also particularly supportive of the measure to include
handguns in the prohibited weapons category. Let me give a
ridiculous example.
Recently, the city of Chicago banned the sale of spray paint
because the cost of cleaning the graffiti on buildings is
exorbitant. For us as a society, the cost of death by firearms is
exorbitant. A similar ban on handguns will help prevent some of
those deaths.
This bill is about what kind of a society we want. Frankly, I
want to move forward into a future where violence, power and
physical control are not the things that determine how we govern
ourselves and how we live. This bill is a progressive step
forward to that better future.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if ever evidence was needed that this debate is very
highly polarized and charged probably with misinformation on
all sides, it is in this debate today.
When I became embroiled in the whole gun control issue it
was evident to me that the position a person would take on the
debate depended at which end of the barrel that person was
going to find themselves. We can see this in the House today not
just on this side but on the government side and perhaps on the
Bloc side, if they would speak on this.
Very clearly this is a debate on the bill which is charged
emotionally and divides the country, as if we needed one more
reason to be divided. This divides us on rural-urban issues
rather than language issues, cultural issues or some other issue.
Anyone who would suggest this is not a rural-urban issue has
not been following it because very clearly it is.
Our country, as everyone knows, is thousands of miles across.
All areas of the country are different. One rule of law on guns
may not make sense in downtown Toronto but perhaps it makes
sense somewhere else, either the maritimes or the prairies.
There is wisdom in splitting this bill and I urge the Minister of
Justice to carefully consider this. It would be an opportunity for
people from both sides of the House and from all over the
country to come together on that part of the bill about which
everyone agrees, namely those issues aimed directly at crime
control, such as mandatory sentencing.
11094
There are other aspects of this bill which concern most
Canadians from that part of the country which is less
enamoured with the whole notion of gun control. For example,
there is the registration of handguns, which is already a fait
accompli. We are supposed to be registering them now.
If anyone were to purchase a rifle or a shotgun today, it would
be registered. There is nothing wrong with the notion of
centralizing the registry of these weapons. Your name and
address would be taken. There is no problem with that. It is the
notion of a universal registration.
(1805)
Before I get into the heart of what I want to talk about, I want
to say that I am going to be voting against this bill despite the
results of a survey I commissioned and which I believe to be
accurate. Residents in my constituency, a majority of 69 per
cent, would prefer to see universal registration. However, I am
prepared to go against that in the full knowledge that this is
causing me some grief.
Before I get into that, I would like to spend a couple of
minutes to pay a particular vote of respect to two people for
whom members may not expect to hear many kind words from
this side of the House. They are Wendy Cukier and Heidi
Rathjen from the Coalition for Gun Control.
When Heidi's friends and associates she went to school with
were killed at the École polytechnique in Montreal, it caused her
to do something. She wanted to rid our country of the kinds of
weapons that caused that outrage and terrible massacre. We do
not need automatic weapons in our country; we just do not need
them. Many years ago she set upon this long journey to rid our
country of these weapons. She enlisted the aid of Wendy Cukier
and between them they formed the Coalition for Gun Control.
I would bet that they did not think they would ever have the
sun, the moon and the stars all line up to find themselves with
the Liberals in government wanting to address the issues of the
people in the vote rich areas of downtown Toronto or Montreal.
This decision was made in order to get elected. In my opinion it
was not based on what was right for the country. It was a
decision on what they could do to get elected. They appealed to
people who, for good reason, were afraid of guns. The idea then
became a red book commitment.
In some way that is unfair to the intent of Wendy and Heidi.
They wanted to rid our country of the dangers posed by weapons
and from the crimes involving the use of weapons. They wanted
to focus attention on this. I do not think in their wildest dreams
they ever expected everyone, no matter where they lived in the
country, was going to be forced to register shotguns and rifles.
In any event, this is the point we are at now.
By justice department estimates, it is going to cost $85
million to set up the national registry over a five-year period,
plus a further $60 million if you accept the fact that there are six
million long guns presently in the country. If that is the case,
over five years it is going to cost $145 million to register guns.
That is a modest estimate. Others say it will cost upward of $500
million or even more, but let us go with the low end at $145
million.
Our country is going into the hole at the rate of $110 million a
day. We would be using money to register all of these weapons
for which there is not one iota of evidence it will prevent one
single, solitary illegal use or crime committed with a gun. The
last time I checked, criminals do not get a permit nor do they
register their guns. We will be spending $145 million so that
some people, particularly those who wrote the Liberal red book
can feel warm and fuzzy when they go to bed at night. That is not
an honest or prudent way to run the country.
If there were a shred of evidence to prove that registering long
guns would in any way prevent crime, then I would be most
happy to support this bill. However there is no such evidence.
We will then go to the money markets of the world and our
children and grandchildren will be borrowing money and paying
interest on that money and they will have a standard of living
depreciated by the fact that we will be raising this money to
spend on registering long guns. Imagine if we used that same
money, the same $140 million over five years, for breast cancer
research. Would that be a more efficient use of the $145 million?
(1810)
It is not easy to stand here because I am not a hunter. I do not
have a gun. I have not had a gun for years. I originally
commissioned a poll in my constituency to buttress my
argument within our own caucus. In so far as this is not a moral
or ethical issue I am not bound by the poll. It was for guidance. I
wanted it to buttress my argument. I wanted to have that
argument buttressed within my own caucus so that when I voted
against our caucus position I could say clearly this is why, I am
representing my constituents.
In evaluating what I was doing here in Parliament over the last
year and a half I came very clearly during the Christmas break to
understand that I was here for three specific reasons: to restore
fiscal responsibility to our nation; to put the rights of victims
ahead of the rights of criminals; to restore the bonds of trust
between the elected and the electors.
I cannot in conscience spend $140 million to accomplish
something clearly not accomplishable through the expenditure
of this money, and on one hand spend the money and on the other
hand try to save it.
My constituents have very clearly sent me here to bring fiscal
sanity to the spending affairs of our country. That is why I will
regrettably vote against Bill C-68.
11095
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, almost
everything has been said about this very troublesome piece of
legislation.
I listened with concern and share the concerns of the hon.
member for Souris-Moose Mountain. I listened to the concerns
and share the concerns of the hon. deputy whip. I listened to the
statistical projections of the hon. member from the Reform
Party. I do not know whether there are many more details to add
to the debate. I will add a few and then make a few points.
I do not know that every concern regarding registry has been
addressed. There is still the concern about weapons that have no
serial number, weapons that are home-made. There are still
some people whose hobby it is to manufacture firearms and
ammunition. I have not seen anything in the bill which covers
that.
It was pointed out to me the other day by one of my
constituents that serial numbers can overlap, that there can be
the same serial number on more than one weapon if there are two
licensed manufacturers of the same model of firearm. I put those
forward as a concern.
Other concerns about the issue of confiscation and so on,
about the provision for firearms that have special significance
for families to be preserved, will be addressed in the justice
committee. Handguns in prohibited classes will be addressed in
the justice committee. Firearms used in re-enactments and
heritage events will be definitely addressed in the heritage
committee.
I have asked for time to address that committee in order to
highlight some of those concerns.
(1815)
I also realize that registry is an issue that is larger than
individual weapons, unless I misread the bill. The registry goes
beyond individual ownership and gives the government the right
to have other weapons in transition registered so that the law
enforcement people will be able to calculate the shrink that
comes from a shipment of weapons into the country.
I will restate what many other members have pointed out. The
bill has three legs. One leg has to do with the smuggling of guns
and the attack on smugglers. I think everyone agrees with that.
Regardless of whether we are Reform members, rural members
or urban members we all very much agree. We all appreciate
some of the stepped up activity of the police, especially around
the area where I live. Recently they have been able to seize large
quantities of weapons.
The second leg is the question of sentencing, the imposition of
a four-year mandatory sentence. With the imposition and with
the moves the Minister of Justice will make on the issue, I
sincerely hope the offence will not be plea bargained away in the
future as has been done in the past. I find the plea bargain aspect
offensive in itself.
The third leg concerns registry and the other aspects of
firearms ownership. I have concerns. It has been painful to go
through the exercise, but I point out to those who are opposed to
registry that every law made in the country is in one way or
another an infringement of rights.
Laws are not made for the vast majority of law-abiding
citizens but are made for the few. There is no dichotomy here
with the laws regarding guns. These laws are brought into being
for the few who have no regard for human life, who lose regard
for human life, or who want to use a firearm to commit a crime
and have no conscience about doing so.
I plead with those who are opposed to consider that laws
concerning robbery, laws concerning theft and laws concerning
speeding are not made for the many. They are written to protect
the many from the few. I must go on record as saying that there is
no right to bear arms in Canada. Ownership of firearms in the
country is a privilege and not a right. We should always
remember that.
With the struggle I have personally had as a member with the
bill and my struggle with the conviction that a registry will be
effective, I do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
I want to see the legislation go to committee to be amended
without affecting the principle of the bill necessarily but
injecting some common sense and projections into the bill so
that legitimate firearms owners will feel comfortable and that
the sacrifices they are making will be made in the spirit of
protection of the many.
(1820)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this has
certainly become a very partisan and polarized debate on gun
control.
I hope the Minister of Justice will listen to the argument being
put forth by the Reform Party in favour of splitting the bill into
two parts. Presumably the focus is on the reduction of crime and
the enhancement of the safety of Canadians.
With the way the Minister of Justice is proposing the bill we
would think every gun owner in the country is a criminal. That is
far from the truth and an insult to Canadians who own guns.
There are approximately 2.7 million Criminal Code
infractions in the country per annum. The number of gun related
incidents under the Criminal Code would be about one-half of
one per cent or even less. Yet the Minister of Justice proposes to
spend a couple of hundred million dollars or more to try to
reduce the one-half of one per cent.
11096
This will not be money spent finding criminals. This will not
be money spent prosecuting criminals. This will not be money
spent keeping criminals in prison. It is a couple of hundred
million dollars to address the fact that one-half of one per cent
of crime is committed with firearms.
The minister quoted statistics. He said that the majority of
Canadians were in favour of gun control. Let us remember that a
large segment of Canadians do not own guns. I happen to be one.
When we ask Canadians if they are in favour of registration
and they do not own guns, chances are good that they would say
it does not bother them a bit so why would they be opposed?
Last fall the Minister of Finance held his prebudget hearings
across the country and listened to Canadians talk about the
budget. They all said the deficit had to be addressed. They said:
``We have to increase taxes but don't increase mine''. Or, they
said: ``We have to cut expenditures but don't cut me''. It is the
same rationale when we ask people if they are in favour of gun
control. If they do not own a gun they will be in favour of gun
control because it means absolutely nothing to them.
Section 85, as it currently exists, is one of the few sections of
the Criminal Code that calls for a mandatory sentence. Quite
often it has been plea bargained away. We in the Reform Party
have always said that if the present law is not working perhaps
we could change it. They should demonstrate to us that the
minister's proposals will be an improvement.
Last fall I wrote to the Minister of Justice and I asked him how
often section 85 was plea bargained away. Section 85 calls for a
minimum mandatory jail sentence, no fines, for using a firearm
in the commission of an offence. How often do we plea bargain
that away? The minister said that he did not know. He said that
he did not have the statistics to know how often we plea
bargained it away.
Therefore we do not know if what is on the books today would
work if used properly. The Minister of Justice admitted that he
did not know. Why is he putting forth gun registration and why
does he think it would work?
We also asked the Minister of Justice: ``Since you tell us that
this will reduce crime, by what measurement would we know
that your proposals are a success?'' He could not answer. He did
not have any measurement by which he could tell us how many
lives would be saved or how many crimes would not be
committed because of registration. The minister has no facts to
back up his arguments.
Four points should be looked at when one proposes
legislation. Is it relevant? Is it effective? Is it an efficient way of
addressing the situation? Is there a better way? Let us take a look
at them.
Is it relevant? Yes, we have crime in the country. Every
country has crime. Yes, we should be tough on crime.
(1825 )
The Minister of Justice is proposing that we be tough on
people who destroy their guns and do not send in a piece of paper
to the authorities. They will get five years in jail for not sending
in a piece of paper.
What about somebody who does not have a proper licence?
They will get 10 years in jail. That is what the minister is
proposing. Yet Denis Lortie walked out as a free man after 10
years in jail. He murdered three people in the Quebec legislature
and injured thirteen more. After 10 years he was a free man, and
for not having a piece of paper the Minister of Justice is
proposing the same punishment.
Is it relevant? Laws that will stop criminals from committing
acts and punishing them severely for their wrongdoings will be
supported by the Reform Party. That is relevant. Does the
minister feel that registering all guns at a cost of $200 million or
more will reduce crime? I am quite sure he know it will not.
Therefore it is not relevant and the section he is proposing to
force upon thousands of Canadians is totally absurd.
Will the bill be effective in meeting its objectives? There is no
evidence whatsoever the universal registration the minister is
proposing will reduce crime. He even said so himself. He could
not answer the question when we asked it. Since then he has not
put forward anything to suggest he has any concrete measures by
which it would be a success.
The minister should look at the Reform proposal to split the
bill into its two segments. We find registration irrelevant.
However addressing the criminal use of guns and firearms is
relevant and we would support it.
I have already talked about the crime of failing to produce a
certificate, five years in prison and so on. Let us compare using a
gun to a drunk person driving a car. The minister of justice spoke
eloquently about drunkenness today in the bill he introduced in
that regard. More people are killed on the road by drunk drivers
committing illegal acts than by Canadians using firearms
illegally. We do not have anything nearly as draconian as he is
proposing.
If a person fails to renew a car registration form I understand
in the province of Ontario the fine is $5.50 a month. If a person,
however, fails to register a gun it is 10 years in jail. That seems a
rather strange dichotomy: 10 years in jail for not registering a
gun and $5 a month for not registering a car. Under illegal
circumstances they are both every bit as lethal. That is the point.
What about people who drive without a licence? In the
province of Ontario the fine is $265 and in the case of a gun it is
10 years in jail.
11097
Will the legislation be efficient in addressing the problem?
We have said as Reformers that if it is split into the criminal
aspect it will be efficient. If it is split into the other segment,
registration for all Canadians is totally and absolutely
inefficient. My colleague from Edmonton Southwest said: ``My
goodness, we have to borrow $200 million more and pass the
bill on to our grandchildren, just so the Liberals can say they
are trying to do something about crime when in fact they are
doing nothing''.
In closing, we are saying to the Minister of Justice that 99 per
cent of gun owners handle their firearms safely. They store them
securely. They use them responsibly. Therefore they should be
left alone. The other 1 per cent who are criminals and commit
criminal acts are the ones he should be focusing on. That is what
Canadians want and deserve. They do not want a Minister of
Justice simply playing politics and not doing his homework to
produce the statistics to support his argument.
_____________________________________________
11097
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1830)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
Dartmouth last September NAFO established a total allowable
catch of 27,000 tonnes of turbot for 1995. In announcing the
NAFO agreement, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans assured
Parliament that ``Canada will have for the first time the right to
board and inspect the vessels catching turbot and to ensure that
the proper rules are being followed to conserve this important
stock,'' something he has failed to do.
On February 1 NAFO met to allocate the 27,000 tonne catch.
The practice for such decisions is to seek consensus because
members have the right to object to decisions and withdraw.
Against the advice of members who would later support Canada,
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans forced a vote on a Canadian
proposal for quota allocation. The resulting agreement gave
Canada 60 per cent of the catch, up from about 10 per cent. The
European Union got 12.5 per cent, down from about 75 per cent
of the catch for the previous three years.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has made every effort to
make his dispute over the allocation with the EU into an exercise
in eco-aggression. As the Financial Times of London noted:
The fact that Canada had tried to garner such a large proportion of the
quota-some 70 per cent against 12 per cent for the Europeans-somewhat
tarnishes the country's claim that it had to intervene to save the fish from
impending extinction.
Tony Pitcher, director of the Fisheries Centre at UBC said:
``Canada's newly acquired 60 per cent share of turbot was a
radical shift in allocation that came too quickly for some fishing
nations to accept willingly''.
In our desperate need to find a hero out of all this bumbling
and blustering, we ignored the fact that the Estai had been
boarded for inspection by Canadians 11 times since January
1994. On each of those occasions Canadian officials could have
and should have inspected the holds and found evidence of baby
fish being caught. They could have and should have waited until
the net was hauled in and discovered the liner.
The only advantage to the bumbling and bluster has gone to
the Spanish who can now fish without fear of inspection. With
the arrest of the Estai, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans lost
the ability to board and inspect foreign trawlers fishing in the
NAFO regulatory area beyond our 200-mile limit.
The size of the fish on the Estai should not have been a
surprise. They were consistent with the catch reported by
Spanish and Portuguese trawlers in 1993 and reported in NAFO
scientific papers in 1994. Those papers report a shockingly
steady decline in biomass from about 225,000 tons in 1984 to
37,000 tons in 1992 and that few fish larger than 46 centimetres
were sampled in the 1993 catches. Considering that sexually
mature turbot will be at least 60 centimetres long, it is
questionable whether we should have agreed to fish turbot at all
this year, let alone try to out-manoeuvre the EU for a larger
allocation.
On the Flemish Cap we now have the worst of both worlds,
neither NAFO inspection by Canada nor enforcement of the new
regulations. On March 3, 1995 when the regulations were
enacted we were told they were essential to deter overfishing by
Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels on both the nose and tail
of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.
The 1994 NAFO Scientific Council report cautioned that
since the turbot is a single stock, it is necessary to regulate both
the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap. To fail to do so, in the
words of the report, could lead to the collapse of the fishery.
The March 3 regulation prohibited Spanish fishing on both the
nose and tail and on the Flemish Cap. Since the regulation
became law, the government has backed off, leaving the Flemish
Cap exposed to unregulated fishing.
The test of the government's action is whether it advances the
protection of turbot stocks in the NAFO regulatory area on both
the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. The
question is, why did Canadian officials fail to carry out adequate
inspections of the Estai and other Spanish fishing vessels?
11098
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the member for Delta for his question.
The member opposite has raised two related issues, namely
undertaking more inspections as well as the results of an
inspection by Canadian fisheries officers of the Spanish vessel,
Estai in January. Let me deal with each in turn.
First, the question of conducting more inspections. As the
minister told the House last Friday, given the increasing tension
between Canadian fisheries officers and the Spanish fleet,
unarmed fisheries officers would not be asked to conduct any
activities which would pose a threat to their safety. I believe that
the member would endorse the minister's position.
Let me also provide some background on the NAFO
inspection system. As the member should know, NAFO provides
inspectors from contracting parties with the authority to board
and inspect vessels in the NAFO regulatory area. However DFO
inspections take place in less than ideal conditions. NAFO
procedures require that the inspections be conducted in a
manner that prevents interference and inconvenience to the
vessel's operation.
In the limited time provided for inspections, it is neither
practical nor feasible to search for duplicate logs at sea.
Searches of the hold are restricted by time, the volume of fish
product in the hold and the inability to move product, given the
vessel is in motion and the restricted space available in the
freezers. It is only too easy to hide illegal catch in areas which
would be accessible only after a comprehensive search,
accompanied by removal of the product from the hold.
In addition, fishing vessels know that the patrol vessels are
operating in the area and can avoid the use of illegal gear during
times when inspection may be likely. For example, liners in the
nets may be removed during the day when weather permits
boarding. Inspectors cannot verify vessel logs against the
contents of the hold given the volume of product on board.
While inspectors may suspect misreporting, they are often
unable to find the proof required to issue a citation.
Despite these limitations Canadians carried out NAFO
inspections and issued 52 citations in 1994, 44 of them to
European-
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary only gets
two minutes under our rules at this moment.
Pursuant to our standing orders, the motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.)