CONTENTS
Wednesday, September 27, 1995
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 14917
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14920
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14921
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14921
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14922
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14922
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14922
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14923
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14924
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14925
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14925
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14925
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14925
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14925
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14926
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14926
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14926
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14926
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14927
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14927
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14928
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14929
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14929
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14930
(Motion agreed to.) 14932
(Motion agreed to.) 14933
Bill C-45. Motion for third reading. 14933
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 14943
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 14944
Motion M-382. Consideration resumed of motion 14947
14917
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, September 27, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since
1980 the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics has reported more
than 100,000 charges for impaired driving in Canada every year. In
1993 alcohol accounted for one death or injury every five minutes.
Drinking and driving is the largest single criminal cause of death
and injury in Canada. It is not just car related. Seventy-three per
cent of all victims killed in snowmobile and all-terrain vehicle
crashes had been drinking. Seventy-seven per cent of boating
accidents were alcohol related.
Today I want to acknowledge the contribution made by Mothers
Against Drunk Driving, MADD Canada, which has been actively
working since 1981 to reduce deaths and injuries due to impaired
driving and to help the victims and survivors of such tragic
senselessness.
In this regard I would like to mention Lynne and David Magee
and Barbara Rintoul of Wingham, Ontario, whose sons were
victims of an impaired driver. These people have taken their
tragedy and in dedication of young lives so needlessly lost,
channelled their energy into positive action by forming the
Huron-Bruce chapter of MADD Canada.
I would like to commend them for their strength at a time of
such-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even
though there are no partisan signs on it, last night vandals spray
painted the No slogan on my home. Unfortunately, it seems that I
am not the only victim of this type of rather excessive argument
from frenzied partisans. There is no question that acts like the one
committed on my property are a direct result of the excessive and
intolerant comments we have heard in the past few days from
spokespersons for the federalist side.
The comments by Garcia, Maciocia and others, who talk of
treason and of crushing their opponents, have no place in a
civilized and democratic debate. It is high time, before the
referendum campaign turns sour, for Daniel Johnson to show
courage by calling his spokespersons to order and clearly
dissociating himself from their comments and provocative
gestures. Since the Prime Minister allowed himself to say: ``They
will get clobbered'', it is obvious that some of his supporters are
taking him literally.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Jesse Cadman, Sean Simmonds, Laurie Wood, Linda Williams,
Chris Lussier, Paul McDaniel, Graham Niven, Sukhjit Sangha,
Pam Cameron, Mindy Tran, Melissa Deley, Melanie Carpenter and
the list goes on. These are not just names. They were people with
family and friends who loved and cared about them, people whose
hopes and dreams and possibilities were cut short because our
criminal justice system and the government's lack of corrective
action failed them.
The government allows a justice system to exist which is too
lenient in sentencing convicted offenders and too generous in
doling out parole. It consistently fails the victim.
Steven Carpenter, his family and supporters are calling for
justice system changes. It is time the government listened to the
people and did something meaningful and positive.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, as the country
faces a deficit and a spiralling debt, a study by the University of
Quebec in Montreal reveals that we are losing billions of dollars in
tax revenue because our tax laws are so generous toward large
Canadian corporations. This study, in which Professor Léo-Paul
Lauzon participated, looked at 767 large corporations established
14918
in Canada and showed that our tax laws allow many businesses to
pay no taxes at all despite substantial profits.
As we are about to carry out a reform of social security, we
should make fewer cuts to essential services and a few more cuts to
tax loopholes of all kinds, including deferred taxes. It is high time
to institute a minimum corporate tax. I hope that all levels of
government will have the strength and courage to make the right
decisions.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Thursday, October 12 I will be attending a ceremony in my riding
of Brampton where In-Touch Graphics will announce its active
partnership in the fight against deforestation in Canada.
In-Touch Graphics will commit itself to plant three trees for
every single tree it uses for its printing requirements. This
translates into 3,100 newly planted trees over the next 12 months.
Residents of Brampton can be proud that a local business is
taking this environmentally responsible initiative. All Canadian
companies that use large volumes of paper products should take
notice and follow this example of good corporate citizenship.
Henry David Thoreau once wrote: ``What is the use of a house if
you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?'' It is through
responsible environmental initiatives like this one that Canadian
companies can do their part to ensure that we live on a tolerable
planet.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
night St. John's City Council gave unanimous support for the
government's gun control initiative, Bill C-68. City council's
resolution was in response to a letter from the Canada Safety
Council.
The city agreed with the safety council that the failure to pass
this bill would undermine the efforts of people working in the
criminal justice, safety and mental health fields.
City councillors know what the Reform Party refuses to
acknowledge: the majority of Newfoundlanders support stricter
gun control. As a member of the St. John's Women's Council said:
``Placing restraints on weapons can only help public safety''.
A number of headlines from the St. John's Evening Telegram
also show support: ``Gun control in Canada, the tougher the
better'', ``Gun lobby scare tactics ineffective'' and ``A national
gun registry? Of course, the sooner the better''.
If the Reform Party and members of the other place truly want to
represent the will of Atlantic Canadians they must support Bill
C-68.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to speak in favour of
Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act.
Today many Canadians who have been victimized by crime
appeared on Parliament Hill to voice their feelings and frustrations.
Bill C-45 is proof that the Liberal government has not forgotten
them. The bill's intention is to make our streets and homes safer.
(1405)
In our continuing efforts to strengthen penalties faced by
offenders, the government has passed Bill C-37, Bill C-41 and has
introduced Bill C-45.
While a strong justice system is vital in holding offenders
accountable for their actions, tougher sentences and penalties are
only half the solution. Prevention is the other half.
Each year Canadians spend approximately $9 billion on
policing, private security, courts, corrections and insurance.
Studies such as the one conducted by High/Scope Perry reveal
that high quality active learning-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, workers at the Bombardier plant in La
Pocatière gave their president, Laurent Beaudoin, a lesson in
democracy. They will not let their boss tell them how to vote in the
referendum.
This was not Mr. Beaudoin's first attempt at manipulating his
employees to make them vote according to his political
convictions. Back in 1992, he wrote his employees a letter stating
his support for the Charlottetown Accord. This action was
denounced by the chief electoral officer at the time and Mr.
Beaudoin was later convicted of violating the Quebec Elections
Act.
This week, Mr. Beaudoin commented that Quebec would be too
small a country for his business. Yet his business was born and
raised in Quebec and has been quite successful there. The Bloc
Quebecois salutes the workers who have contributed to the success
14919
of Bombardier in La Pocatière and encourages them to remain
steadfast in their beliefs. As a plant worker said, votes and work do
not mix.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for the third time in less than a year I rise in the
House to comment on the murder of a young Surrey girl. In the
early hours of September 6, 10-year old Melissa Deley was asleep
in her bed, that is until Bret Neff decided to break into Melissa's
house.
Neff left the house with the TV, the VCR, the family car and
Melissa. Some time over the next few hours, Neff sexually
assaulted and murdered Melissa.
Like Fernand Auger before him, Neff spared the Canadian
taxpayers a great deal of money by taking his own life.
However we are still left with the legacy of three young Surrey
girls, abducted at random by strangers from the street, the
workplace and the home, sexually assaulted and murdered.
On this National Victims Day we remember those who fell prey
to brutal and cowardly attacks. We must also commit ourselves in
this House to ensure that Pamela, Melanie and Melissa did not die
in vain.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
has been said that the only things certain in life are death and taxes.
True for most of us, but not for Canadians wealthy enough to hire
lawyers to concoct a tax free non-residency under the Income Tax
Act, aided and abetted by the way Canadian tax law mollycoddles
such tax avoidance.
By taking up residence in tax havens, wealthy tax refugees are
not legally required to file tax returns or pay Canadian income tax
on the wealth they have taken out of the country, and pay a much
lower rate of tax on any remaining Canadian investment income.
Meanwhile, they can and do spend a lot of time in Canada with
family and friends and attending to business. After years of such
behaviour, they can easily decide to take up residence again and
benefit from things like medicare for which they have not paid.
Canadian tax refugees, like Americans, should be obliged to
continue to file tax returns and pay Canadian tax while residing
abroad. We should say to tax avoiders: Hasta la vista baby, but pay
your taxes first. Republicans in the U.S. call such tax avoiders
traitors. Let the record show that the NDP can agree with the
Republicans on at least one thing.
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian finance minister described as a separatist dream the
proposed political and economic union between an independent
Quebec and Canada.
On December 3, 1993, the PQ leader himself raised serious
doubts about the feasibility of such a partnership with Canada soon
after Quebec's separation. He said that believing that, upon
Quebec's declaration of sovereignty, we will be able to negotiate a
multitude of economical and political changes with Canada is like
asking for the moon.
The Minister of Finance is right: economic and political union
will not be possible after the referendum because Quebec
separatists want Quebec to separate, and our answer to that is No.
* * *
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we learned that the following Saint-Jean-Baptiste societies have
joined the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste of the Sherbrooke diocese
and expressed their pride in being part of Canada.
(1410)
They are the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste of the diocese of
Valleyfield and the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste of the diocese of
Quebec City, which met last weekend with the Société
Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Sherbrooke, in the eastern townships, and
sang the ``Ô Canada''.
To all these men and women who are not afraid to show that they
are proud to be Quebecers and Canadians; to all our French
Canadian ancestors who built this country; to Wilfrid Laurier who,
almost one hundred years ago, became the first of many Canadian
prime ministers from Quebec; to my friends from the Bloc
Quebecois who have dreams of sitting again in this House after the
next election; I want to say that, like all of you, I am very proud to
be a Quebecer and a Canadian.
However, it is important that we all say no to separation.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the word
``confusion'' perfectly describes the precautions taken by separatist
leaders to package their project so as to make it as vague as
possible.
As evidence of that, let us look at the findings of a poll
conducted by Créatec and made public this week. Fifty per cent of
those who intend to vote yes think that separation will only occur
after the conclusion of an agreement with Canada. As for the
14920
famous June 12 agreement, only 19 per cent of the public knows
more or less what it is all about.
The poll also shows, and this is nothing short of tragic, that 28
per cent of those who would vote yes believe that a sovereign
Quebec would remain a Canadian province.
The whole separatist strategy is nothing but a smoke screen used
to hide the real objective, which is to separate Quebec from
Canada. However, Quebecers do not want that and they will vote no
on October 30.
* * *
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Foreign Affairs committed an outrageous blunder in
referring to the situation in the former Yugoslavia.
What did he mean by saying that ``We have not yet started
killing, killing one another, and I hope that the situation of the
former Yugoslavia will never apply to Canada''. This statement,
fraught with hidden meanings as it is, requires clarification.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian government
ought to be ashamed of making such insinuations.
For this reason the Bloc Quebecois most strongly condemns
these absolutely thoughtless words spoken by the minister during
his visit to the UN. The irresponsibility of the minister speaks
volumes about the no side, the intolerance, insult and abuse the no
side has to offer to the people of Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today the voices of victims of crime are being heard on Parliament
Hill.
They are calling for more than platitudes from the government.
They are demanding real change to our criminal justice system.
Across the country people are outraged because they believe our
courts are too lenient and that parole and statutory release have
become a licence for criminals to reoffend.
In Calgary where my riding of Calgary North is located, four
women have been killed in the last eight weeks. As an added insult,
one of the accused killers was granted bail within one week of
being charged and is back out in the community.
Canadians have a right to ask why they are not being protected
from thugs and criminals.
Today, citizens from across Canada have come to Ottawa to send
a message to their elected representatives. Victims of crime must
come first in a system where public safety is the number one
priority. Reformers say Canadians expect and deserve no less.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, would it be as easy for an independent Quebec to
become a signatory to the North American Free trade Agreement,
also known as NAFTA, as the separatists claim?
The federal finance minister said yesterday it would not. He even
warned that reopening negotiations with our American and
Mexican partners would put a number of sectors of the Quebec
economy in a vulnerable position.
I would also like to quote James Blanchard, the U.S. ambassador
to Canada, and Sandra Fuentes-Berain, the Mexican ambassador to
Canada, each of whom indicated that there were no guarantees an
independent Quebec would automatically become a member of
NAFTA.
They expected to keep Professor Ivan Bernier quiet by keeping
his study on NAFTA under wraps, but they will not be able to do
the same with everyone. As the finance minister said yesterday, it
is time to get rid of this myth cultivated by the separatists.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the PQ Premier said in a radio
interview that the National Capital Commission of Canada had sent
all its employees in Hull a letter telling them not to come in on
October 31 if the Yes side wins, which we know perfectly well will
not happen.
Mr. Parizeau said that based on that kind of statement, they
would know what to expect. After the facts were checked, the
reference made by Mr. Parizeau was shown to be completely
untrue, and his office even had to apologize. After the
constitutional document which the PQ Premier tried to link to the
Quebec Liberal Party, the Premier is back with an alleged letter that
in fact never existed.
Mr. Parizeau should concentrate on explaining his separation
plans to the public instead of getting involved in these exercises in
scaremongering.
14921
[English]
The Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the presence
in our gallery of members of the United States Association of
Former Members of Congress and Senators who are our guests in
Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
14921
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in an apocalyptic speech delivered yesterday in Montreal,
the Minister of Finance claimed that Canada could not guarantee its
present economic union with Quebec would continue because the
Americans would use it as an excuse to renegotiate NAFTA. He
also contended that a sovereign Quebec would have to wait a very
long time before becoming a member of the World Trade
Organization, which recently replaced the GATT.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he acknowledge
that the proposal a sovereign Quebec will make to Canada for a
new economic and political partnership is entirely within the spirit
of the World Trade Organization treaty and of NAFTA and would
guarantee American business the same conditions of access to
Canadian and Quebec markets they now enjoy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there is to be an
economic and political union between Canada and Quebec, that is,
if Canada were to give a separate Quebec special favours it does
not give other countries, the Americans and the Mexicans would
insist on being at the negotiating table, just as Canada did when
Mexico and the United States wanted bilateral negotiations. We
said no, we had to be at the table.
Here is what Canada would run the risk of losing if it were to
accord Quebec this special agreement: its agricultural policy, its
cultural exemption, the Canadian Wheat Board, the financial
services sector, the rules of origin for the automobile industry and,
even more importantly, the binational panels protecting us against
American reprisals.
As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, Canada's exports
to Quebec represent $33 billion; its exports to the United States,
however, represent $165 billion, and Canada cannot risk losing
this. It is not because it would not want to, but because it would
have too much to lose.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think we can all see that the minister is in the same
apocalyptic state as he was yesterday. The minister is grossly
twisting the reality of freer trade between countries by wrongly
ascribing to NAFTA the power to prevent greater integration
between Quebec and Canada, as the partnership in fact proposes.
Will the minister acknowledge that his gratuitous remarks are
contradicted by established rules of international trade and by the
prevailing custom whereby sovereign states can conclude more
complex regional agreements in parallel with other agreements
such as NAFTA? Will he not acknowledge that this doctrine has
even been enshrined in paragraph 4 of article XXIV of the GATT?
(1420)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as in everything else,
unfortunately, the separatist movement has been overtaken by
events. The GATT has been replaced by the WTO, and in article 12
of the WTO, on accession, there are no rights of succession and no
principle of status quo ante.
The problem is that Quebec would be like any other country
seeking membership, because there is no precedent. And Quebec
would be put in the position of having to make huge concessions,
first to become a member of the WTO and particularly to become a
member of NAFTA. This is very clear.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, paragraph 4 of article XXIV, which I just cited, was
negotiated only last year and is currently in effect. This article
provides, even in the case of a national treatment clause, for
automatic exception when a parallel agreement is to be concluded
between two countries, provided its intent is to free up trade. The
whole point was to free up trade, not stop it. It is a bit odd to hear a
government, which vehemently opposed free trade and us in order
to prevent its passing, now citing it.
The Minister of Finance also intimated that the Americans could
oppose a partnership agreement between Quebec and Canada the
day after a yes vote. Will he not admit that the Americans, as
reasonable and experienced individuals, will rather want to avoid
any upset in the existing economic flow between Quebec and
Canada, particularly because they will continue to enjoy the same
conditions of trade and access to the Quebec and Canadian markets
as they do now? Does he not see that any steps the Americans take
will only be to calm the nervous and the emotional who want to
refuse to negotiate and who prefer to see everything in terms of
gloom and doom?
14922
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, rather than asking
inflammatory questions and making speeches of this sort, he
should put his cards on the table. We are talking here about the
future of Quebecers. It is his duty, as one of the leaders of the
separatist movement, to tell Quebecers the truth about the real
consequences of independence.
If you-yes, Mr. Speaker, I am looking at you and I would much
rather look at you-if you want to identify the things the
Americans will attack today, and this is no figment of the
imagination, they will attack agricultural policy; the dairy industry
in Quebec; the cultural exemption Quebec enjoys today with regard
to films, television, broadcasting, books and magazines; textiles;
preferential access to American markets; the purchasing policies of
the Government of Quebec and Hydro-Quebec; the binational
panels. There is a whole list.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in his speech yesterday in Montreal, the Minister of
Finance asserted that a sovereign Quebec would have difficulty
joining the World Trade Organization or WTO, which recently
replaced GATT. The Minister of Finance stated that Quebec would
have to stand in line behind the 32 countries that have applied to
become members of the WTO.
Does the Minister of Finance admit that, under the WTO
accession clause, Quebec's admission will be all the faster and
easier because Quebec already meets membership requirements?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. I
have just read a list of Quebec practices that will not be accepted by
other WTO members. That is exactly my point.
(1425)
These practices will be challenged by the U.S., the European
Community and other countries. That is why the cost of joining the
WTO and NAFTA will be so high.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): It is
obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance does not know
what he is talking about.
My question to him is this: How can the Minister of Finance
claim that Quebec will have to take a number to join the WTO,
when he knows-and I hope he knows it-that the reason these 32
countries are waiting for admission is because they do not have a
market economy; that Quebec already meets WTO requirements;
that Quebec is not too small, and that we are not incompetents
either since Quebec is the Americans' eighth largest trading
partner? Does he at least know this, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Saudi Arabia and
Taiwan have market economies and they are on the waiting list.
Yesterday, Mr. Landry said that only countries from Eastern Europe
were on the waiting list.
Let me tell you something: Taiwan is in Asia, and Saudi Arabia
is in Arabia. I know full well that separatists need lessons in
economics, but we now see that they also need geography lessons.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, hundreds of Canadians have gathered on the lawns of
Parliament Hill today and it is not over a concern with respect to
the Quebec referendum or trade treaties that has brought them
together.
It is a more fundamental concern about the safety of their
children and their loved ones. These are ordinary folks and their
demand is very simple. They want the government to do more to
protect the lives and property of Canadians from criminals. They
want the rights of victims to be placed above the rights of
criminals.
What does the justice minister propose not to say but to do for
Melanie Carpenter's father and all of the victims of violence who
feel that in Canada the state, the law, the government, the parole
board and the justice system have failed them in a tragic and
fundamental way?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was my high privilege to address
that rally on the lawn of Parliament Hill an hour or two ago. It was
my honour to meet yesterday morning with Steve Carpenter, the
father of Melanie, and with Maurice Rose whose son was murdered
in Montreal.
As I told those gathered on Parliament Hill today, since I have
been Minister of Justice I have made it a point to meet with victims
and the families of victims of crime, not because it is easy-it is
often terribly difficult-but because I believe that through the
tragedy they have suffered they have something to offer. They have
a perspective to offer on criminal justice reform which has helped
me in my work.
When I spoke to that group today I recounted some of the things
the government has done over the last 15 months. We have
introduced more meaningful reform to the criminal justice system
than any federal government in memory.
The leader of the third party and his colleagues want to know
what has been done. Let me remind the leader of the third party
what has been done often over the objection and with the
opposition of the third party: meaningful amendments to the
Young Offenders Act, introducing DNA provisions under the
Criminal
14923
Code, meaningful gun control, improvements to the parole system,
strengthening the criminal justice sentencing process, and ruling
out self-induced intoxication.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the minister had done all these wonderful things for the
victims of violence there would not be hundreds of people on the
lawns of Parliament today.
(1430 )
Victims of violence listen politely to these recitations from the
minister of all the things he is supposedly doing, but their greater
concern is with the things the government is not doing: the failure
to repeal section 745 of the code; the failure to create a registry of
sexual offenders by September, as the solicitor general promised;
the refusal to include real victim compensation in Bill C-45; and
the absence of a victims rights package in anything the minister has
presented to the House.
Besides the cosmetic changes the minister has referred to, what
more does he plan to do to change the justice system so that
Canada's streets are safer from violent criminals, sex offenders and
murderers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my list was not of things we are
talking about. My list was of measures that have already been
achieved.
Instead of just speaking about a list of victims rights, which is
something the third party is fond of doing, instead of just
proclaiming a bill of rights for victims which is politically
attractive, we prefer to enact those rights as we have done.
If the leader of the third party does not know, let me tell him that
what has been done has been to amend the Criminal Code to
provide for victim impact statements wherever they are prepared;
to allow for the return of stolen property; to protect the identity of
victims and witnesses of sexual offences and extortion; to levy
victims fine surcharges; to amend the code to permit the courts to
order restitution to victims; and to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act to recognize the role of victims in relation
to federal corrections. This is the list of action taken in the name of
victims.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister refers to enacting rights. There is a growing
conflict in the country between the rights of victims of crime and
potential victims of crime and the rights of persons accused or
convicted of crimes. In more and more cases the scales of justice
are tipped on the side of violent criminals, sex offenders and
murderers. This cannot be allowed to continue. When rights clash it
is the rights of the victims that ought to prevail over the rights of
the criminals.
My question to the minister is on rights since he raised the
subject. When the rights of victims conflict with the rights of
persons accused or convicted of crimes, what is he doing to ensure
that it is the rights of the victims that prevail in Canadian law?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first and most fundamental
right of any victim is the same as the first and most fundamental
right of any Canadian, to a fair, responsive and strong system of
criminal justice. Since our first day in office that has been our
focus.
Before concluding, I am constrained to observe that for a party
so consumed with the rights of victims it is passing strange that it
turns a deaf ear when the victims rights groups, including CAVEAT
and its principal, Priscilla de Villiers, speak passionately and call
for the Reform Party to support our proposals on gun control.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
debt is close to $600 billion. The Quebec government has made it
clear that a sovereign Quebec would take its share of the
responsibility for the federal debt. Yesterday in his speech, the
finance minister, who excluded any negotiations with a sovereign
Quebec, remained strangely silent on the division of the federal
debt.
(1435)
Would the finance minister agree that the federal government's
enormous debt will make it incumbent on the government, in its
own interest and in view of its responsibilities, to start negotiations
with Quebec the day after the referendum, starting with the
division of the debt?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the day after the
referendum we will all continue to build Canada together, because
it is quite clear the No side will win.
Am I to understand that the hon. member is repeating the
unfortunate statement made by Mr. Campeau three or four months
ago and this morning by Mrs. Dionne-Marsolais, that an
independent Quebec will not accept its fair share of the federal
debt? Is that what the hon. member is saying?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is
exactly what I am not saying. I just explained to the minister, and I
will repeat my explanation, to make sure he understands, unless he
has no answer and that is why. I will explain.
The Quebec government has very clearly announced its intention
to assume its responsibility in connection with the tremendous
federal debt. Yesterday the minister avoided any questions on the
14924
subject by saying he would not negotiate with Quebec in any area
whatsoever. He did not broach the subject of the debt.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that, faced with pressures
from the financial community, he has no choice but to negotiate
with Quebec after a win for the Yes side, because Canada is
incapable-
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, during Question Period I
allow as much time as I can for the questions that are put, but we go
somewhat beyond the limit, even ask questions that are
hypothetical-
An hon. member: The minister's speech is hypothetical.
The Speaker: We get either hypothetical speeches or
hypothetical questions.
An hon. member: Ha, ha.
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members when they start rise to
please ask questions that are relevant to the government's
administration. Now if the finance minister wishes to answer this
question, he may.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will answer, since
they have so much trouble asking questions.
If the hon. member wishes to ask hypothetical questions, we can
do that too. If the debt of a separate Quebec were to triple or worse,
how high would the resulting interest rates be for us Quebecers?
How much would our income tax go up? What kind of cuts would
we see in social services? They would be draconian.
[English]
The Speaker: I invite you to return to concrete questions and
concrete answers.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian agenda has more to it than the referendum. Law and order
are still on the decline in the country.
Not only do we have violent offenders roaming our
neighbourhoods and streets, there are areas where policing has
almost ceased to exist. Ipperwash is one example. Sexual assaults,
firearms discharged at persons, arson, break and enter go
uninvestigated. In fact Ipperwash-
(1440)
The Speaker: I know the hon. member is having a tough time
with his voice. Perhaps I can help him by asking him to put the
question.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, the list of victims is growing in
Ipperwash. When will the solicitor general take action to ensure
that the law is applied equally to everyone, which includes militant
natives?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the approach of the federal government is that the law applies
equally to everyone.
We should praise the professionalism and expertise of the RCMP
when, working as the provincial police on behalf of the attorney
general of British Columbia, it diffused without violence and loss
of life the Gustafsen Lake situation, with the people involved being
brought before the courts and facing criminal charges.
When it comes to the Ipperwash situation, that involves the
application of the Criminal Code by police of local jurisdiction
who, I am sure the hon. member should know, are the Ontario
Provincial Police.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should tell that to the people who live there. They have
lost faith in the police, especially with the do-nothing Liberal
government that refuses to act.
People are now arming themselves for protection because they
have been abandoned by the federal government and fear for their
lives. The minister is neglecting his responsibility to Canadians
because he is catering to special interest groups.
Why is the solicitor general allowing a group of organized armed
thugs to bully the federal government, the police and the people of
Ipperwash?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government is not allowing any such conduct. It is
certainly ready, at the request of the solicitor general of Ontario,
Mr. Runciman, to provide support along the lines of the standing
arrangements we have.
In the meantime this is strictly a matter for the Ontario
Provincial Police. If the member does not think his Conservative
friends in Ontario are doing their job, he should tell them directly.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance indicated that chances of an
economic union between a sovereign Quebec and Canada were
non-existent. He went so far as to say that, even if he wanted to, it
would not be possible.
14925
My question is quite down to earth. Will the Minister of Finance
come back to his senses and admit that Quebec is the second
largest market in Canada, with 400,000 Canadian jobs depending
on trade with Quebec, and that Ontario alone enjoys a net surplus
of $4 billion per year in its trade with Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the more reason
for Quebec to remain in Canada. What I said yesterday was very
clear. I did not say that there would be no trade between Quebec
and Canada. What I said is that there would be no economic union
between Quebec and Canada as described in the referendum
question. And the reason for this is very obvious: while $33 billion
in goods are sold to Quebec by the rest of Canada, $165 billion in
exports go to the U.S., and Canada can never put this at risk.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
light of what I said and what the minister himself just said, will the
minister finally admit that an economic union is not only desirable
but inevitable in the interests of both partners, Canada and Quebec,
especially since he knows full well that the U.S. stands to benefit
from this continued union because they will have access to the
Canadian and Quebec markets under the very same terms they now
enjoy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. members are
having a hard time understanding. At present, Canada is part of
NAFTA. This agreement was signed and ratified. So, cultural
exemptions, the agricultural policy, binational panels, all those
things are already in place and Canada will continue to enjoy them.
The only problem would be if Canada wanted or agreed to
negotiate an economic union. All this would then be at risk.
(1445)
The difference between Quebec and Canada is that, if Quebec
wishes to join NAFTA, this will mean no more agricultural policy,
no more cultural exemptions, no more binational panels and no
more procurement policy.
At present, Quebec is part of NAFTA and things are working
well. If Quebec separates and then wants to join NAFTA, it will be
undermining the basis of the Quebec economy. That is what I call
putting your cards on the table.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
appears that the Minister of Human Resources Development has
used the unfortunate financial situation of the Winnipeg Jets to line
the pockets of his campaign contributors.
The minister gave $533,000 to Manitoba Entertainment
Complex Inc. Is the money the minister gave to Manitoba
Entertainment Complex Inc. in any way related to the campaign
contributions its president gave the minister for the 1993 election?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask that in the phrasing of the question we
not try to give reasons why one thing or another happens. I will
permit the hon. minister to answer that question.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once you subtract the
hyperbole, exaggeration, and the overtone of character
assassination the hon. member introduced into her question, I
certainly welcome it. It gives me the opportunity to clarify a
misleading story that appeared.
The best way to do that is to cite the response made by the
regional director general of HRD in Winnipeg, who pointed out
that this project had at stake close to 1,400 jobs potentially lost to
the city, involved all three levels of government, municipal,
provincial, and federal, involved hundreds of representatives from
the private sector, virtually all the major businesses in Winnipeg,
plus tens of thousands of residents of the city, all of whom were
interested in trying to preserve the jobs and the economic
development. The program was simply designed to ensure that the
proper diligence and feasibility was done to make sure that was a
good public investment to make.
It has nothing to do with campaign contributions. The hon.
member should know better than that. She should deny and retract
that allegation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, even
the perception of abuse of taxpayers' dollars is unacceptable. I
would like to continue with my question.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1450 )
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, may I caution you about
imputing motives in the question. I will permit the hon. member to
put her question now.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. My colleagues, as we all know, points of
order that arise in the question period will of course be heard by me
at the end of question period.
I would invite the hon. member for Calgary Northeast to put her
question. The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
14926
I am sorry, I thought the hon. member had said she would pass.
You will forgive me if I misunderstood. I thank God we only have
one Wednesday every week. The hon. member for Calgary
Northeast.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, it is Calgary
Southeast, not Northeast.
The Speaker: And I apologize. Calgary Southeast.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my question is
put with sincerity and focused on the issue at hand.
Can the minister explain to the House why he appears to be
taking advantage of the financial plight of a hockey team in his
riding to line the pockets of his election contributors?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister ruled out the possibility of a customs union
between Canada and Quebec when he said: If Quebec separates,
what interest would Canada have in meeting the needs of the
foreign country it would have become?
The minister knows full well that it would be in the best interests
of Canada to maintain the current customs union. Are we to
understand from the comments he made yesterday that the minister
intends to personally set up barriers to impede the free movement
of Canadian goods sold in Quebec, including controls at the
border?
(1455)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not me but the
NAFTA provisions which would require that the United States and
Mexico get the same benefits and privileges. Our country would be
opposed, because it would stand to lose too much.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, is the Minister of Finance telling us that he personally
wants to make life difficult for Ontario companies which, every
year, sell vehicles and automotive accessories to the tune of $1.3
billion in Quebec, for Albertans who sell us 51 per cent of their
cattle production, and for his Bay Street friends who, year in year
out, provide financial services worth close to $3 billion in Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is
that the Canadian government will not be prepared to do what the
separatist movement is willing to do, that is to jeopardize the
protection afforded to the agricultural sector, and to also jeopardize
the automobile industry, the bilateral panels and the cultural
exemptions.
Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member prepared to jeopardize the
safeguards that we have put in place to protect French language and
culture?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, indeed it is wonderful Wednesday. My question is for the
minister responsible for the infrastructure program.
I continue to receive enthusiastic reports on the infrastructure
program from the mayors of municipalities throughout
Carleton-Charlotte. They praise the program for its assistance in
completing the many projects that have benefited their
communities and citizens.
Can the minister tell the House what the second year of the
infrastructure program has accomplished for Canadian
municipalities and their citizens?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it has been almost two years since the program on infrastructure
was launched with the municipalities and with the provincial
governments. The program has been a great success in
implementing a promise made by this party in the last election
campaign.
To this point in time, of the $6 billion originally allocated by the
different orders of government, 93 per cent of it has been allocated
in some 11,000 projects right across the country. Those projects are
helping to strengthen the infrastructure of our local communities,
attracting additional investment dollars, and are putting over
100,000 Canadians to work, creating the kinds of jobs we need in
this country. That is the kind of agenda Canadians want from this
government.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to know that justice
was done in the Somalia inquiry.
On Monday, former sergeant, now private, Mark Boland was
denied standing before the Somalia commission. Apparently senior
ranks are allowed standing because the commission may ``make
pronouncements that reveal their misconduct or give voice to
14927
allegations that bring discredit upon them. Lower ranks such as
Boland have no need for official standing''.
Does the Minister of National Defence agree that rank should
automatically grant standing, or will he accept that involvement
and knowledge of the situation should be the deciding factors?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member should know by now that the commission is the master of
its own procedure.
The commission has extensive terms of reference. I do not
believe there has been any argument made by anyone as to the
degree to which the commission can investigate the deployment to
Somalia. It is for the commission to decide who has standing and
who has not.
If an individual feels aggrieved by the procedural decisions of
the commission, they have the right to recourse through legal
means.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the commission said: ``Our terms of reference are very clear that it
is the chain of command system and leadership within the chain of
command that is to be our concern''.
Mark Boland was given orders and he gave orders. He is in the
chain of command. He has knowledge that can provide connective
tissue to shape the body of evidence in this case. He must be able to
pose questions. The right question to the right person at the right
time will reveal the whole truth of the Somalia inquiry.
(1500)
Will the minister now intervene to ensure that Mark Boland is
granted standing before the Somalia commission?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not the role
of the Minister of National Defence to intervene in an inquiry
constituted under the Inquiries Act.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. He appears to reject the
idea of a monetary union between a sovereign Quebec and Canada.
In addition, the leaders of the No side are questioning the ability of
a sovereign Quebec to continue to use the Canadian dollar.
Does the Minister of Finance confirm that it is in Canada's very
best interest to not only acknowledge that a sovereign Quebec may
continue to use the Canadian dollar, but also to wish for this,
specifically for the purpose of maintaining its value?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, not in the least,
but that is not the question. The question is this: How can it be that
a Quebec desiring independence not only wishes to use the
currency of another country but also is prepared to turn all of the
control and influence a country must have over its monetary policy
over to that other country?
This is the touchy situation in which Quebec will find itself, this
is the fundamental tool it will have forgone.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Minister of Finance acknowledge that the worst thing that could
happen to the Canadian dollar would be for Quebecers, who have
ownership of it, who have earned it with the sweat of their brows,
to decide to collectively unload the one quarter of the money
supply that is in their hands, some 100 billion dollars, whereas
mutual interest and common sense militate strongly in favour of a
monetary union?
Hon. Paul Martin Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what would it
accomplish to put Quebec in the same position as, say, France is
with respect to the Bundesbank or the bank of some other country?
When Canada is in a period of full growth, if there is a downturn
in Quebec, monetary policy will be set in Canada to the detriment
of Quebecers.
Tell me, what point is there in becoming independent if the tools
of independence are handed over to another? It is totally pointless.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, despite
all the rhetoric from the government about the need to cut spending
at CBC, the auditor general's report in July revealed it is very fat
and that there is all kinds of waste going on.
On Monday when a document was circulated around, the CBC
annual report indicated discretionary spending had gone up $50
million last year, we can imagine how taxpayers must feel ripped
off.
What is the minister doing about this matter?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate our colleague for putting his first
question as critic for the heritage portfolio.
The management of the CBC is now engaged in a very serious
review of the financial dimensions of the corporation, as we have
seen in the press. What it has in mind is to cut down on any possible
14928
waste, increase the effectiveness of the CBC and make it one of the
most modern and efficient broadcasters in the world.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, every
day CBC's ratings drop. It spends more money. The CBC president
is pleading with the minister to bring in a mandate now so that he
has the latitude to make the cuts he needs to make.
When will the minister show some leadership and bring in that
new mandate?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our colleague should know that is precisely what we
asked for, a panel of three people to make recommendations on the
mandate. His wish will be granted. In the meantime the
management of the CBC is managing at arm's length, as we all
know.
* * *
(1505 )
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as amended by the
House last year, the Minister of the Environment is charged with
the duty of creating a participant funding program.
Can the minister tell us what she has done so that Canadians with
a serious interest in an environmental assessment can have access
to funding in order to participate?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the
previous Minister of the Environment, now the hon. Leader of the
Opposition, who stated in the House on April 5, 1990: ``The federal
government has very clear jurisdiction in the area of environmental
impact assessment''.
This jurisdiction is not challenged and it cannot be challenged.
We have gone even further in the government. We have entrenched
in law the principle of participant funding. In the last fiscal year
there was about $860,000 available for the public to participate in
the environmental assessment process enshrined by the previous
Minister of the Environment.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs has an opportunity to ease
anxiety among those who believe the Indian land claims process is
too slow, too complex and too uncertain.
Has the minister of Indian affairs considered the 1994-95 report
of the Indian claims commission and will he respond positively to
its first recommendation, the establishment of a new independent
land claims policy and process?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the highest respect for
the work of the Indian claims commission. Part of our red book
commitment is to make the system more efficient and more just.
The problem I have, which the member knows, is whether it
should be a justice system with binding judgments or a mediation
system similar to what it is now, going through the convoluted
process of having first to be turned down by the Indian claims
commission.
That has not been settled by the chiefs. When I have some
direction from the chiefs we could certainly move ahead on the
desires of the Indian claims commission.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the presence
in the gallery of Mr. Vassillis Geranidis, member of Parliament for
Salonica, Greece.
I also draw the attention of the House to the presence in the
gallery of the Hon. John Efford, Minister of Public Works and
Transportation of Newfoundland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
The Speaker: I have a point of privilege which I will hear before
the points of order. The point of privilege is coming from the
Minister of Human Resources Development. We usually need
notice before, but is it arising from question period?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during question period the
member for Calgary Southeast made some statements alleging
behaviour on my part and which imputed motive, neither of which
is acceptable under the rules of the House.
There can be many differences of opinion in the House and we
can certainly have questions about one's actions in terms of
whether they are right or wrong in a political sense.
I have been a member of the House in public life for 24 years and
I never at any time had my behaviour imputed the way the hon.
member suggests. I ask her to withdraw and apologize because
nothing wrong was done, as she imputed, and it really requires her
to clear the record.
14929
(1510 )
The Speaker: Before I go to the House leader of the Reform
Party, because another hon. member has been mentioned in the
House I wonder if the hon. member for Calgary Southeast would
like to intervene before the House leader of the Reform Party.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with
all due respect to the Minister of Human Resources Development, I
am putting questions to the House similar to those asked of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage regarding the same kinds of
improprieties. The perception needs to be clarified. Therefore I will
not withdraw and I will not apologize.
The Speaker: On the same point of privilege, the hon.
government whip and then I will go to the House leader of the
Reform Party.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I turn to section 409(7) of Beauchesne's in relation to
casting aspersions on persons within the House in addition to the
fact that some of the allegations made by the hon. member alleged
criminal activity on the part of another person regarding the
relationship between that person and a minister of the House. The
combination of those two things leads me to believe the language
in question was unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.
I urge Mr. Speaker to request that any such expressions,
including the language used in the question referred to, be
withdrawn forthwith.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in speaking
to this matter of privilege I bring your attention to the question, the
operative part of my hon. colleague's presentation to the House.
It was very clear in the question that the member for Calgary
Southeast asked a deliberate question of whether there was a
relationship between two actions. That was not inferred nor did it
reflect on the minister. Before making a final decision on this, Mr.
Speaker, I ask that you take this into consideration.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I put on the record of the House what the whip for the government
was referring to in section 409 of Beauchesne's, which reads in
part:
In 1975, the Speaker expressed some general principles in order to clarify the
regulations and restrict the negative qualifications which traditionally have
guided the question period.
Subsection 7:
A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House in terms of inferences,
imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of
it.
The hon. member for Calgary Southeast did exactly what is not
supposed to be done according to these guidelines put on the record
by one of your distinguished predecessors, Mr. Speaker. The hon.
member cannot get away with an improper statement by putting it
in an interrogatory fashion, and therefore she should withdraw.
(1515 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, during question period, as you have
seen in the last little while, we tend to be using stronger and
stronger words in putting questions but also in giving answers.
Here is what we have, I believe. We have an hon. member who,
when she stood in her place, was cautioned about the language she
was using in her question. I permitted the question to stand with
that caution and the hon. minister answered the first question.
In my view, the second question was clearly out of order and I
ruled it as such by moving ahead and not letting the minister
answer.
Now this is being raised as a point of privilege. One member has
asked another member to withdraw the statement. The other
member has replied that she does not feel this particular statement
was imputing motives.
As the Speaker, it would seem to me that the more we permit
ourselves to go down this road and not frame the questions in such
a way that they can be related to the administrative responsibilities
of individuals, we are getting ourselves into a quagmire.
I wish there were an easy way out of this. I do not believe and I
ruled that this is not a question of privilege. However, in the name
of civility and in the name of good conduct in this House, may I
appeal to the member for Calgary Southeast to reconsider.
Although I do not believe there was any intention but even if the
words carried the impugning of motives, I wonder if the hon.
member might reconsider and withdraw the statements as they
were made.
The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question of you for clarification?
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: Withdraw.
The Speaker: I have clearly ruled that there is not a point of
privilege. That is my decision. However, again I appeal to the hon.
member, although this question may or may not be allowed, I of
course heard what the member said. Once again, in order that this
House might carry out its responsibilities in a civilized manner on
all sides, I would urge and ask the hon. member if she would
consider withdrawing her statements or any impugning of motive.
Would the hon. member consider that?
14930
(1520 )
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect to you, because this is not a point of privilege I will not
withdraw nor will I retract any of my statements.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have made a ruling on a point of
privilege and that ruling will stand. I very much regret that the hon.
member has not withdrawn but I am going to let the matter rest
there.
I will go on to another point. If there is another point of order
exclusive of this, I will hear it. For now, I would like this point to
rest.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order under sections 485 and 486 of Beauchesne's with
regard to unparliamentary language and also language that reflects
on members in this assembly.
I heard very clearly comments of the member for Willowdale
that called the member for Calgary Southeast a slimeball not only
once but twice and I think even a third time across the floor of the
House.
There was a lot of concern in this House by the hon. member for
Burlington concerning reflections on whether a person is a male or
female. This type of comment to a male would have one type of
inference but to a female, it certainly has another kind of inference
which I will not accept. I ask that it be withdrawn and that that
member be dealt with.
The Speaker: I must say that your Speaker did not hear these
words and I do not know if they are in Hansard. We can have a
look.
Because an hon. member was named in this House and was
named directly I would ask the hon. member for Willowdale if he
has something to add to this point of order.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am guilty
and I withdraw. I ask your advice as to what other word might
express better my utter repugnance for this type of question in our
House of Commons.
The Speaker: May I ask the hon. member for Willowdale this. I
did not hear all of the end of it and I do not really want to hear it.
Would the hon. member please just stand and withdraw? He said he
was guilty. Would he withdraw the statement, just the statement.
(1525)
Mr. Peterson: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in light of the ruling you just made with regard to the words of the
hon. member for Willowdale, I would like to draw your attention to
citation 484 of Beauchesne's which reads in part as follows:
(3) In the House of Commons a Member will not be permitted by the Speaker
to indulge in any reflections of the House itself as a political institution; or to
impute to any Member or Members unworthy motives for their actions in a
particular case-
Mr. Speaker, in light of this citation and in light of the ruling you
just made with regard to the language used by the hon. member for
Willowdale, I respectfully raise as a point of order a request that
you apply the same principle to the question asked by the hon.
member for Calgary Southeast which in effect involves an
unworthy aspersion on a member of this House.
If it is fair for the hon. member to be requested to withdraw and
for the hon. member to comply, as he did with the request to
withdraw the word he used, and I am referring to the hon. member
for Willowdale, I respectfully submit it is equally fair for a request
to be made and for the hon. member for Calgary Southeast in the
same spirit of conciliation and goodwill to withdraw her remarks.
The Speaker: I had asked earlier, with all respect to the hon.
leader of the government and the House, that it was an unfortunate
situation that occurred in the House.
I have made a ruling on it and I will stay by the ruling. Your
Speaker tries as much as possible in the course of question period
to hear from all sides. Although I have ruled, I permitted the House
leader to go on.
If in some way the House could draw itself away from the type of
strong language that we have been using I think the House would
be better served on all sides.
For now I would like to close this matter of the member for
Calgary Southeast.
I have another point of order, the hon. whip of the Reform Party.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
you may be relieved to know this is a point of order on a different
subject. You may not be too relieved.
The point of order is under Beauchesne's citation 317(2) which
calls for an interpretation of the rules of procedures to be decided
on by the Speaker.
The rule in question is Beauchesne's citation 765(3) which
specifies that membership in committees is in the same proportion
to membership of political parties in this House. Under this the
Bloc Quebecois and Reform should each have three members on
the public affairs committee.
14931
I hasten to add that I am not seeking the Speaker's intercession
on a matter rising in committee which would be contrary to
Beauchesne's citation 168(7). What I am seeking is for the
Speaker to uphold the rules of this House, specifically
Beauchesne's citation 765(3). If others are allowed to ignore the
rules or put an erroneous interpretation on them, which is the case
here, then it makes a mockery of Beauchesne's and a mockery of
this House.
I tried without success to get the two other whips and the
committee on procedure and House affairs to act on Beauchesne's
citation 765(3). The stand taken by both is that the chair of the
public accounts committee constitutes a separate committee
position. Therefore the Bloc Quebecois should have four positions
including the chair as opposed to the Reform's three.
(1530)
We contend that this is an erroneous assumption as Beauchesne's
781 calls only for the chair to go to the opposition, not the official
opposition. We would also cite Standing Order 106(2) which is
silent on who fills the chair.
Since I have been unable to redress this grievance in committee
or with the whips, I ask for the Speaker to uphold the rules of the
House, specifically Beauchesne's 765(3), perhaps by using
Beauchesne's 764 to communicate with the committee.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the beginning of my colleague's remarks he referred to
citation 317 of Beauchesne's to plead for the Speaker's
intervention in the case. I should remind the Speaker that the
reference to citation 317 was perhaps selective and should remind
the Speaker of what it says. Citation 317(2) states:
A question of order concerns the interpretation to be put upon the rules of
procedure and is a matter for the Speaker or, in a committee, for the Chairman to
determine.
In other words, a reading of the complete citation tells the
Speaker that this is an issue to be raised at the committee and not in
the House.
In reference to the issue at hand, the membership of the
committees in question, the issue was brought to the attention of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with the
hon. member pleading the case that there should be an additional
member of his particular political party on the Standing Committee
on Public Accounts.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in its
wisdom decided that it had been customary and agreed at the
beginning of this Parliament that the party which holds the
chairmanship of the particular committee loses a member able to
participate in the debate because the chairman customarily, as the
Speaker knows more than anyone else in the House, does not
participate too frequently in the debates. That was agreed to at the
beginning of this Parliament, at the beginning of the previous
Parliament and the one before it.
In each one of those prior Parliaments and in the present one the
official opposition, which traditionally chairs the public accounts
committee, has an additional member to compensate for the fact
that it loses one member in the debate.
Finally the argument was made by myself at the procedure and
House affairs committee that if we add another member from
another party to the public accounts committee, we disturb the
whole balance within the committee. We then have to add two
Liberal members to the committee to achieve the balance we must
start off with under the rule invoked by the hon. member in
question.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will not quote Beauchesne because one can use different
citations to make different points. One thing is for sure, when we
conducted negotiations at the start of this Parliament two years ago
and two whips ago for the Reform Party, which is now on its third
whip-the government whip was not there at the time but you
were-the three whips of the day, including myself, submitted
various proposals on the right to speak, on question period, on
members' statements and on committee membership. At that time,
the Bloc Quebecois even offered five vice-chairmanships to the
third party, which refused them because they were not to their
liking.
They have now changed their minds. Fine by me but there were
nonetheless recorded divisions in each committee. Under British
parliamentary tradition, a specific role is reserved for the official
opposition. We are aware of that. I would point out to the hon.
member from the third party that the Quebec legislature, one of the
oldest in the world, was operating as early as 1791. It is one of the
oldest parliaments in the world, also under British parliamentary
rules.
We understood that we were the second party because we had the
second highest number of members in this House.
(1535)
If the hon. member for Beaver River could stop talking, I could
conclude my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we understood at the time. Had we been
the third party, we would have settled the matter very quickly by
following the practices of the previous Parliament. I think this goes
without saying. It was often said at the beginning that the Bloc
Quebecois was here to hinder proceedings. On the contrary, it is the
third party, the Reform Party, that hinders the proceedings of this
House with points of order, by calling into question the way
committees operate. I thought that everything was clear. That party
is the third party. If the situation ever changes, things will be
14932
different. It may become the fourth party but until then it is still the
third party.
In the meantime, let us apply existing rules and debate the real
issues-because there are important problems in both Canada and
Quebec-instead of fighting on matters that were rejected by that
party two years and two whips ago.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to clarify something in this debate since I was the whip for the
Reform Party at the time mentioned by the whip for the Bloc.
I had understood that negotiations and exploration of issues
between whips were confidential. Now we have the whip for the
Bloc accusing and misrepresenting what those negotiations
actually did. I object to that. That is not the kind of behaviour one
would expect from someone of goodwill.
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware because you were part of the
discussions, the talk about chairmanships and vice-chairmanships
of committees hinged around our contention that the Bloc was
getting a disproportionate share of air time on question period. In
order to quiet down those objections the Bloc made this offer of the
vice-chairmanships of some of the minor committees.
In our view the air time on question period and the proportion of
questions asked should not be mixed up with vice-chairmanships of
committees. That was our objection at the time. It remains our
objection. It certainly should not be used to suggest that we are not
interested in vice-chairmanships of committees. We just do not
think those kinds of tradeoffs are appropriate.
We have a situation in the House where there are two opposition
parties, one of which is wanting to break up the country and one of
which wants to get on with the national agenda. We think there
should be fairness and parity at the very least in this situation, and
that is what we are asking for in this point of order.
The Speaker: We are getting into a rather long debate. Permit
me to make these comments.
The membership, as we all know, is struck by the House affairs
committee pursuant to Standing Order 104(1) and it becomes a
decision of the House. Citation 781 of Beauchesne's is a reference
to a custom or a practice which has developed over time. It is the
House that ultimately decides and that order should stand until the
House decides otherwise.
Members are asking the Speaker to make a decision which
would virtually override the decision made by the House. I do not
believe that the Speaker is empowered to do that. The Speaker is a
servant of the House.
Therefore, with all due respect, I believe that this should be left
to the House affairs committee because it has been empowered to
appoint the membership pursuant to Standing Order 104(1). That is
where I would like the particular matter to be solved.
(1540 )
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I just want to know, on a point of order,
if the barbeque is still on tonight.
The Speaker: The response is yes, and you are going to have
roasted Speaker.
_____________________________________________
14932
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table in this House today, in both official
languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were
made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 22 petitions.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That the following member be added to the list of associate members of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Darrel Stinson.
The Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
14933
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another motion.
I think that you will find unanimous consent for the following
motion. I move:
That three members and two staff of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs be authorized to travel to Winnipeg, Manitoba, on Sunday,
October 1, and Monday, October 2, 1995, in order to participate in the Canadian
Congress on Criminal Justice.
[
English]
The Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege to present a petition on behalf of my constituents
of Surrey North.
The petitioners allude to the tragic murders of Pamela Cameron,
Jessie Cadman, and Melanie Carpenter, whose father Steve is
organizing the public rally outside today for National Victims Day.
The petitioners ask Parliament to call upon the government to
bring forward legislation to protect Canadians from dangerous and
high risk offenders.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present a petition from 32
petitioners of the riding of Halifax West who call upon the
government not to change the present tendering process for moving
in the Department of National Defence.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by 138
people from the four provinces of Atlantic Canada.
Whereas the Government of Canada has enacted legislation, the
charter of rights, and whereas the rights of repeat sex offenders are
given precedence over the rights of innocent children as in the case
of Sarah Kelly of The Pas, the petitioners humbly pray and call
upon Parliament to enact legislation which would make the safety
of our children a priority.
They request changes to be made to the charter of rights which
would enable residents to be notified when repeat sex offenders are
released into the community.
* * *
(1545 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all notices of motions for the production of papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
14933
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and
Reformatories Act, and the Transfer of Offenders Act, be read the
third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move third reading of Bill
C-45. This is a bill to update our corrections and parole system.
[Translation]
When I last spoke on this bill to open second reading debate, I
noted that it was part of a strategic framework of initiatives that
work together in order to carry out our red book agenda and
demonstrated our commitment to safe homes and safe streets for all
Canadians.
14934
[English]
This is a goal this government takes very seriously. Over the past
year this government has been working hard and has consistently
delivered on this commitment.
We have brought forward amendments to the Young Offenders
Act to respond to a number of concerns about it. Through Bill C-41
we have reformed the sentencing process by placing a new focus on
better addressing public safety, ensuring more consistency in
sentencing, and being more responsive to the needs of victims.
We have also made a lot of headway on preparing and presenting
legislation on gun control, on a new witness protection program,
and on DNA analysis. Also, legislation is being prepared within the
government to take steps to deal with high risk violent offenders,
which I will discuss further in my remarks.
There is a widespread desire to ensure that we have an effective
federal corrections and parole system. This makes it all the more
important for us to look closely at problems that are identified and
seek concrete and meaningful solutions to these problems.
There may be some violent offenders who are unlikely to ever be
able to lead law-abiding lives in the community. However, simply
locking up more and more of the other kinds of offenders for longer
periods of time will not achieve the long term safety of our
communities that we all care about. Surely the United States
experience proves this every day.
Where a sentence of imprisonment is considered necessary by
the court, we must be mindful that the vast majority of offenders
are given definite sentences with fixed terms. Therefore, they will
eventually be released into the community. A conditional release of
most offenders at a point in their sentence that is consistent with
public safety, along with support and surveillance in the
community during the balance of the sentence and programming
while incarcerated, would appear to provide the best chance for the
offender to be a stable, law-abiding member of the community. I
submit that this offers the best prospects for the safety of our
communities in the long term.
(1550 )
Bill C-45 is one building block in this government's response to
the complex issues involved in having a criminal justice system
that contributes to the overall protection of the public and the
safety of our communities. Bill C-45 by itself is not the sole
answer, but I believe it makes important reforms that demonstrate
forward movement.
As I outlined to the House during second reading debate, the bill
makes improvements in a number of substantive areas. There are
situations where the protection of the public means the usual
conditional release process should not apply. Therefore, the bill
strengthens the detention process by responding to concerns about
the early release of sex offenders who victimize children, which in
the bill includes persons under the age of 18. The law will make it
much easier for the parole board, at the request of the correctional
service, to keep such persons in prison for their entire sentence.
Where a further offence against the child is likely, such an offender
can expect to serve the full sentence in custody without any period
of conditional release in the community.
I would like to reiterate that this measure is not needed because
we believe sex offences against children are considered more
serious than those against adult victims, but because the current
legislation has proven less effective in cases involving children.
The second main area of change in the bill relates to the
accountability and credibility of the National Parole Board. There
have been many changes in the board's operation in the past year.
This government has placed an emphasis on recruiting
experienced, knowledgeable individuals. I believe the
government's record of appointments in the past year bears this
out.
The members of the board have an extremely difficult job to do,
one that few of us in this Chamber would willingly take on. I think
we should recognize the challenges involved and the dedication of
the members. The board makes thousands of decisions a year and
sometimes, despite everyone's best efforts, unforeseen tragedies in
the community do occur. These are sad moments and are clearly
very painful for those who are directly affected by them.
Every effort possible is being made and will continue to be made
to improve the quality of the board's decision making. To support
this, the board has recently adopted a code of conduct as well as
performance standards. Renewed emphasis has been placed on
training and evaluation.
Where problems arise and no other resolution has been
successful, Bill C-45 provides for a review of the board member's
performance and a process for remedial action to be taken. This
amendment in Bill C-45 is there to be used where a board
member's performance has clearly fallen below acceptable
standards.
Frankly, I think the provision will prove to be a success if it does
not have to be used. This may seem paradoxical, but I say this
because if it does not have to be used it will mean that we are
appointing top-notch individuals, we are providing the necessary
training and support, and that corrective action is being taken
before serious problems arise in the performance of board
members that would necessitate use of the new procedure. At the
same time, if the House adopts this measure and it is adopted by the
other place and given royal assent, which I hope and expect it will,
then the procedure is in the act and of course it is there to be used if
circumstances require it.
14935
The third area of reform in the bill is the provision relating to
calculating the sentences of offenders who commit multiple
crimes or who reoffend while on conditional release during the
sentence period. Clearly, tougher provisions are needed to deal
with these repeat offenders. Bill C-45 will help eliminate the
situation whereby many such offenders may be immediately
eligible for parole, notwithstanding the imposition of a severe
consecutive new sentence, something that is possible under the
current law.
(1555 )
Bill C-45 will cure in large measure the problem of the merger of
sentences which has been raised with a great deal of concern by
many organizations of the community, including police
organizations. I hope this will help bring about the support of the
House for this measure.
A fourth area of reform will give the National Parole Board the
authority to impose residency conditions on offenders being
released on statutory release who pose some risk of committing a
violent offence but who do not meet the detention criteria that
would, if met, allow the National Parole Board at the request of the
Correctional Service of Canada to detain a person until the end of
that person's sentence. This amendment was brought by the
government during clause by clause study of the bill in committee
in response to recommendations by the Canadian Police
Association, the Stephenson inquest, and the standing committee
itself.
Bill C-45 was one of the first bills to follow one of the new
routes for legislation I proposed to the House as House leader and
which was agreed to early in 1994. I am talking about referral of a
bill to committee prior to second reading.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs devoted a
great deal of time and energy to reviewing this bill. In a little over
three months the committee heard from over 60 witnesses on both
this bill and Bill C-41, the bill on sentencing. Those individuals
who testified represented 32 different organizations, including
victims' groups, police organizations, professional groups,
women's groups, aboriginal organizations, as well as a range of
organizations from the voluntary sector.
During both the committee's clause by clause review and the
debate during report stage in the House last week, a much broader
range of motions was debated than would have been likely under
the system of review of a bill in committee only after second
reading.
While I know that some members may have been disappointed
that not all the motions they put forward were adopted, this new
process allowed members to consider and discuss issues that
otherwise would have simply been ruled out of order. I want to
thank the members of the justice committee for their work and I
want to point out that at least some of the suggestions from
members, including opposition members, have been accepted by
the government.
I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks several other
important legislative initiatives taken by this government to help
provide safer homes and safer streets for Canadians. As my
parliamentary secretary reminded the House last week, significant
advances have been made by this government over the past two
years to protect the basic rights of Canadians to live in peaceful and
safe communities.
I want to conclude my remarks by mentioning some of the
initiatives that were taken that did not need legislation to be
adopted by this House.
In November of last year I announced a national information
system based on enhancements to the Canadian Police Information
Centre, or CPIC. This will make more and better information
available to organizations across the country to help them screen
out convicted sex abusers applying for work with children. These
improvements to CPIC have allowed organizations to more
thoroughly screen the backgrounds of individuals applying for paid
or voluntary work with children or other vulnerable persons.
This government made a commitment in the red book to help
prevent the sexual abuse of children by people in positions of trust
and the government has acted on this commitment. While the CPIC
system is now in place, as I have said, these measures will only be
truly effective if organizations working with children are aware of
the changes and the need for screening in general and make use of
the new system. We have a role to play in providing leadership,
education, and awareness to make sure this happens.
Along with partners involving the Department of Justice, the
Department of Health, and the Canadian Association of Volunteer
Bureaus and Centres, work is under way to create educational
materials and to deliver training to voluntary organizations across
the country on screening volunteers and paid staff in positions of
trust with children and other vulnerable individuals. These
measures will help us to communicate the importance of screening
to help prevent child abuse. I am sure this is a goal we all share.
(1600)
Another positive example of this kind of co-operative effort is
recent work in the area of high risk offenders. In January of this
year the Minister of Justice and I met with federal, provincial and
territorial colleagues in Victoria to discuss the report of our task
force on high risk offenders.
[Translation]
Not only did we achieve consensus around the criminal justice
recommendations put forward in that report, we also had the
14936
opportunity to meet jointly with representatives from federal,
provincial and territorial health ministers.
[English]
This allowed us to have a frank and useful discussion of those
issues which crossed traditional criminal justice and mental health
boundaries.
I believe we must take a comprehensive view in developing
meaningful solutions to the issue of high risk violent offenders.
This involves seeking effective answers which draw on the
facilities of federal, provincial and territorial systems.
I think it was helpful that the task force looked at the system as a
whole. It examined strategies at its front end as well as situations in
which offenders are approaching release into the community. The
report stressed and ministers endorsed a focus on improved
measures at the front end of the system so we would hopefully have
fewer problems arising at the eleventh hour when an offender is
nearing the point of release.
Implementation of the report is under way and we will continue
to fully involve our provincial partners.
Some of the matters in the report require further development
before they can be put into operation, while we have been able to
move more immediately on others. For example, I announced the
implementation of a flagging system which will assist prosecutors
in identifying cases which would be appropriate for a dangerous
offender application.
The House will recall that if the court at the time of conviction
and sentencing rules the accused to be a dangerous offender, that
person can be imprisoned indefinitely. In a large country such as
Canada where there is a high degree of mobility it is not always
easy for a provincial crown prosecutor in one corner of the country
to have all the information available which would have a bearing
on how a case may be prosecuted. The flagging system which also
makes use of the Canadian police information centre will help
make that information link.
Similarly, a research project, the crown files project, is nearing
completion. This project will provide concrete information about
the factors which are significant predictors of dangerousness and
which are central to successful dangerous offender applications.
The Minister of Justice and I are also working on legislative
changes to make it easier for provincial crown attorneys to make
more frequent and more effective use than is the case at present of
the existing dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code.
One key element involves making an indefinite sentence of
imprisonment the only sentencing option for those found by the
courts to be dangerous offenders. Another would provide for new
expanded presentence risk assessments in place of the current
requirement for the evidence of two psychiatrists, one for the
prosecution and one for the defence.
Another important amendment we are working on in line with
the task force report is to change the Criminal Code to create a new
category of long term offender which would give the courts a new
sentencing option. This would require long term supervision of the
offender for up to 10 years following the end of the offender's
penitentiary term.
In May the Minister of Justice and I convened a forum involving
constitutional and legal experts, including those working with
police and with victims groups, to tackle the matter of those
offenders who remain dangerous at the end of their court imposed
sentence. The forum was a productive session that is assisting us in
addressing some very fundamental issues such as constitutional
questions and how we identify those offenders with the greatest
risk of reoffending in a violent manner.
We are working to develop further legislative action to deal with
this important and troubling aspect of the matter of high risk
dangerous offenders.
(1605 )
We must recognize the criminal justice system is a system.
Activities and events in one part of it have a ripple effect through
all the other parts.
[Translation]
More vigourous law enforcement places increased demand on
courts and corrections, prosecutorial policies can direct more or
fewer offenders to community or prison, the availability of
community programs may determine what sentences courts view as
realistic.
[English]
Actions seen as positive from one perspective may have
unintended negative side effects. Clearly the criminal justice
system is very complex. Moreover, the various segments which
make it up come under the authority of different levels of
government.
Nevertheless, it is truly one which can work best only if it is well
integrated and co-ordinated. It is clear all levels of government, all
sectors of the system, social policy groups, police and victims
groups must work together. That is one reason last year the
government created a national crime prevention council.
I believe we have made an extremely good beginning on
improving the criminal justice system in the interests of all
Canadians over the past few years. I thank members of the House
for all their efforts on the criminal justice front and I look forward
to our continuing good co-operation.
I ask that the House give full and speedy approval to the bill in
this third reading debate so its useful aspects, every part of the bill,
can go into effect very soon to help ensure all Canadians have safer
14937
homes, safer streets and the best possible communities for
themselves and for their children.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
spring in this House we debated Bill C-41 on sentencing. That bill
was given royal assent on July 13. Bill C-45 is the legislative
cousin of Bill C-41; it is a logical continuation to the bill on
sentencing. One cannot function without the other, without placing
the cohesion of our penal justice system in jeopardy.
Bill C-41 has now become a sort of road map for judges in
determining sentences. Bill C-45 attempts to do likewise for the
members of parole boards. It lays out the path to take, the modus
operandi to be followed.
Today, we begin third reading of Bill C-45, a new step toward its
passage by this House. This bill is wide-reaching in that it modifies
the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code,
the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and
the Transfer of Offenders Act.
Bill C-45 does not reform the key principles underlying the
detention of offenders, and that is a great pity. Despite its obvious
shortcomings, however, Bill C-45 represents at least a baby step in
the right direction. The Bloc Quebecois has always had protection
of the public at heart, particularly the protection of child victims of
sexual offenders.
That protection requires a more rigid approach to parole, to the
calculation of eligibility in consecutive or concurrent sentences,
and to the conditions for release. A totally new tack is needed, but
Bill C-45 veers only slightly off in a new direction, far too little.
Public safety must no longer be jeopardized by efforts to
rehabilitate offenders. The solicitor general has caught the germ of
compromise from his colleague at justice.
(1610)
In its red book, the Liberal government promised to enhance
public safety. Bill C-45, however, remains silent on protecting a
specific category of victims.
Let me explain. The bill will change the criteria used to
determine whether the perpetrator of a sexual offence involving a
child should serve his full sentence. At the present time, the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act permits the National
Parole Board to detain, until the end of their sentence, sex
offenders and other high-risk offenders who are likely to commit an
offence causing death or serious harm after their release.
When the victims are children, the serious harm may not become
apparent for a number of years. The victim may be too young to
express the impact of what was done. It is therefore difficult for the
Parole Board to prove that a child has suffered serious harm, to
justify keeping an offender in detention.
Clause 42 of Bill C-45 would, in the case of a sexual offence
involving a child, relieve the National Parole Board of the need to
establish the presence or likelihood of serious harm. It would be
enough for the Board to be convinced of the likelihood of a further
sexual offence involving a child before the expiration of the
sentence according to law.
In other words, if the Board is convinced that the risk is too
great, the offender is kept behind bars. The burden of proof is
substantially reduced.
As I said earlier, this is a small step in the right direction.
However, this measure only affects sexual offenders whose victims
are children.
What about adult women who are sexually assaulted? Are they
not entitled to the same protection? When we talk about harm
assessment, could the real harm possibly not become apparent until
many years later in the case of women as well? If the individual
assaulted a woman, it will be easier for him to get parole than if he
assaulted a child.
The entire public needs protection, children of course, but also
women, the other victims of sexual abuse. The solicitor general
should reread the preamble to Bill C-72 which is about the problem
created by the use of self-induced intoxication as a defence in cases
of sexual assault, for instance. The victim in the Daviault case was
67 at the time of the assault.
For the benefit of the minister and those who have again
overlooked women as victims of sexual assault, this is what it says
in the preamble of what is now Chapter 32 of the Statutes of
Canada, 1995, and I quote: ``Whereas the Parliament of Canada is
gravely concerned about the incidence of violence in Canadian
society; whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that violence
has a particularly disadvantaging impact on the equal participation
of women and children in society and on the rights of women and
children to security of the person and to the equal protection and
benefit of the law as guaranteed by sections 7, 15 and 28 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; -whereas the
Parliament of Canada desires to promote and help to ensure the full
protection of the rights guaranteed under sections 7, 11, 15 and 28
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians,
including those who are or may be victims of violence''.
That is what this government has to offer the public. Hollow
sounding words that mean nothing except to Liberals suffering
from acute navel-gazing.
The Liberal government says it wants to protect victims and
potential victims, but when we look at the means it proposes to
achieve this, we see the government still does not take this
seriously.
14938
(1615)
I ask the solicitor general to go and recite this magnificent
preamble to women who are victims of sexual aggression. I think
he would have very attentive listeners.
What victims of sexual aggression should be getting from the
solicitor general is the assurance that their aggressors will remain
behind bars as long as possible and not return to haunt them
through premature release.
What the solicitor general is telling them today is that they will
not enjoy the protection the law should be giving them, because
they were adults at the time the sexual aggression took place.
In 1994, 31,690 cases of sexual aggression were reported in this
country. The victims may be divided as follows: approximately one
third of them were under 12 years of age; another third were
between the ages of 12 and 17. This leaves us with more than
10,000 adult victims. Are they not entitled to the same protection?
Will the solicitor general finally have the courage to say that his
promise of safer homes and safer streets applies to only one
category of victim and not to others?
The solicitor general confided to this House on September 20,
1994, and I quote: ``Turning to the bill itself, I believe it is
important because it addresses significant issues of public
protection in the area of corrections and parole. These are issues on
which this government promised action in that same red book as
part of its agenda to bring about safe homes and safe streets for
Canadians. With this bill we are delivering on these promises''.
When the solicitor general said his government was delivering
on its promises, I wonder what promises he is referring to.
Certainly not the one about everyone being entitled to the same
protection at home and in the street. The government did not
deliver on this promise. Bill C-45 is merely the beginnings of a
solution.
I will give the solicitor general only a passing grade, because this
is not the only failing of the bill.
The solicitor general promised on September 20, 1994 as well,
and I quote: ``We will also be making other improvements in the
availability of treatment for sex offenders in the community and in
prison''.
In theory, gradual supervised reintegration into the community
and the provision of help and support services constitute, according
to some, the safest way for criminals to be released. I say in theory
because, unless he agrees to undergo treatment, the offender may
be a time-bomb just waiting for an early release to explode.
Another major flaw of Bill C-45 is that it says absolutely nothing
about the kind of treatment individuals found guilty of a sexual
offence involving not only a child but any adult victim should be
given. It is wrong to say that the mere fact of making treatment
more easily available will automatically reduce the risk of repeat
offences.
Let me explain. At present, section 88 of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act states that treatment shall be conditional
and dependent upon the inmate voluntarily giving an informed
consent thereto and ``an inmate has the right to refuse treatment or
withdraw from treatment at any time''.
The treatment referred to includes the care of a disorder of
thought, mood, perception, orientation or memory that
significantly impairs judgment, behaviour, the capacity to
recognize reality or the ability to meet the ordinary demands of
life.
In most cases, this treatment is for the very behaviour disorders
that have landed the offender in prison.
(1620)
If treatment remains elective and dependent upon the good will
of inmates, those who refuse treatment are in fact refusing to
change their behaviour and will not have changed a single bit by
the time they are released.
The fact that Bill C-45 remains silent on this subject is
disquieting to say the least. Remaining silent when it comes to
tackling the real problem and boasting about keeping promises is
the kind of attitude that is the trademark of this government. With
respect to public safety, the solicitor general certainly did not
deliver.
We have every right to wonder why Bill C-45, whose provisions
affect thousands of inmates who are released into our communities,
remains silent in this respect.
For example, in 1993, 10,317 inmates were granted full parole
by national and provincial parole boards. Full parole is a form of
conditional release, granted at the discretion of parole authorities
that allows an offender to serve part of his sentence in the
community.
Parole boards are administrative tribunals with powers to grant,
refuse, amend, end or revoke parole for inmates.
Bill C-45 corrects a shortcoming that I have denounced several
times in this House. The Federal Court has a general power of
supervision over the National Parole Board. This is not enough.
There was a need to develop some safeguard mechanisms within
the framework of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Bill C-45 provides for disciplinary or remedial measures against
commissioners who do not follow good practices with competence
and diligence.
Under new clause 155.2, the chairperson may recommend that a
member of the board be investigated. The investigator reports to
the solicitor general and may recommend removal or suspension
without pay if he thinks that the member in question is unable to do
14939
the job properly, for example, because he or she is guilty of
misconduct or has failed in the performance of his or her duties.
The National Parole Board is an administrative tribunal with
significant discretionary powers; the solicitor general had a duty to
act on our repeated demands. For once, we got our message across
to the other side of this House.
As for the Reform members, it does not augur well. They
continue to swagger about and think of themselves as gladiators in
the parliamentary arena.
It is easy to behave like a cowboy when discussing parole and
conditional release. Our western cowboys do so every day with
their thundering comments on sad cases which, I agree, still affect
too many victims and their families. But it is easy to make political
mileage at the expense of these people.
We realize that our criminal justice system is not perfect and that
there will always be room for improvement. Bill C-45 is flawed in
certain respects, but it is nevertheless a step in the direction which
the Bloc has always advocated.
However, our reform cowboys would rather get rid of the whole
system to bring justice to the victims. The wild west has a way of
its own. The member for Wild Rose best exemplifies that way of
doing things. During the debate at report stage, he invited the
solicitor general's parliamentary secretary to visit his riding and to
explain the government's ideas regarding Bill C-45. The member
for Wild Rose said, and I quote: ``You want to sell my people in
Wild Rose all your wonderful solutions to crime? You are welcome
and good luck. If you think I am loud, wait until you get out there''.
(1625)
As you can see, Reform members have innate knowledge and
they know what is good for Canada. This is yet another reason for
Quebecers to distance themselves. Quebec uses a different
approach because it does not deal with the same type of criminals.
The results conclusively show that we are on the right track and
that our system should serve as an example.
In 1994, Quebec had the lowest rate in Canada for violent crimes
of any category, including sexual assault, assault and kidnapping.
Quebec also has the best record for other types of offence to the
Criminal Code, including the violation of conditions for release on
bail, crimes against public order, arson, prostitution and use of
offensive weapons.
Western solutions are not adequate for Quebec. Quebecers are
peaceful people. They advocate civic-mindedness, tolerance and
balanced solutions to their legitimate concerns regarding public
safety. Although not perfect, Bill C-45 deserves the support of the
Bloc Quebecois.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
not sure where the member who just spoke gets her information
about the west. Perhaps she might want to visit out there. I live out
west and I do not in any way meet the description which she has
given the House. I am a little bemused by that kind of simplistic
labelling. Perhaps she will have an opportunity to see other parts of
the country one day.
Today we are debating Bill C-45. It has been introduced in the
House, examined by a committee and is now at third reading which
means that if it passes third reading, it will become law very
shortly. Therefore, I would like to give a bit of an analysis of this
bill and whether it could be improved.
As the House is aware, the Reform Party introduced quite a
number of motions to this bill, none of which were accepted by the
government. Those motions in our view would have gone a long
way toward achieving the stated aim of the bill which is to make
our justice and corrections system more effective, particularly in
protecting the public. As most members know, there have been 78
re-offences by people who were out on parole in the last year.
These people have killed, terrorized and invaded the homes and
lives of innocent people.
Canadians have been asking for many months that something
concrete and decisive be done about this situation. Therefore, we
looked anxiously at Bill C-45 to see whether that had in fact been
the result of this bill. Unfortunately we find that it is not.
Bill C-45 is very technical. It has a lot of administrative details
about the transfer of prisoners, the calculation of sentences and the
figuring out of when people are eligible for parole and when they
are not. However, there are some real flaws in the bill. It is
interesting to note that the bill was floating around the Department
of the Solicitor General in the last Parliament when the Tories were
governing. It has now been introduced by the Liberals in a watered
down version. It is not even as effective, as strong or as decisive as
the original bill. We find that extremely unfortunate.
We feel a number of the provisions in this bill should have been
and could have been made much stronger and given a lot more
teeth. We wish the government had listened to those proposals.
Unfortunately it did not.
(1630 )
For example, we talk about the detention of people who commit
offences while on parole. When people are on parole, given a
chance to go back out into society and be upright citizens, they
have been told: ``You do not have to serve the whole sentence you
have been given. Now you can go back out into society''. We do not
have in the bill a requirement that when people abuse that privilege
14940
they have to serve the rest of the sentence they should have served
when they were out on parole and the entire sentence for the new
offence. Again they are eligible for parole on the second offence
they committed when they have already abused the privileges and
the opportunity they were given as parolees. We really object to
that.
When offenders have shown once that they have no respect for
the privilege of parole, an early opportunity not to have to serve
their full sentence, why should they be given the same
consideration the next time out? How many times do they have to
be sentenced and not have to serve their full sentences before we
start sending the message that we really mean business about
people who violate the rights of others?
That was not done in the bill. It should also have demanded full
term detention for all dangerous offenders deemed capable of
repeating their offences.
As justice critics we visited prisons over the last few weeks to
familiarize ourselves with aspects of the justice system. One of the
questions I like to ask when we talk with prison administrators,
representatives of guards and prisoners is: ``If there were one thing
you could change about our justice system, what would it be?''
Quite often the answer includes some demand or plea.
Officials and frontline workers in prisons know the offenders
who are likely to reoffend. They know these people. They work
with them every day. They know their attitudes. They know the
way they think. They know the way they operate. They know how
they respond to opportunities they have been given. They say:
``When we know good and well that these people will reoffend,
please let us keep them off the streets and out of our communities''.
The bill was a golden opportunity for the government to allow
that to happen. It did not do it and it did not support a Reform
amendment that would have allowed it.
There are administrators and guards in our prisons who say:
``Please do not make us put these people who are a danger to
society back out on the streets''. Our government says that it is all
right and out they go. There has to be something wrong with our
justice system. It is no wonder the people who work in the system
are as frustrated as the citizens and the victims of repeat offenders.
Other people have mentioned the concern in society that sexual
assault is not deemed in and of itself to be a danger or to cause
harm to adults. Clause 129(3) of the bill states that the parole board
may order an offender not to be released from imprisonment before
the expiration of his term if the board is satisfied that the offender
is likely, if released, to commit an offence causing serious harm to
another person or a sexual offence involving a child before the
expiration of what otherwise would have been the offender's
sentence.
We are very unhappy with the distinction made in this clause
between serious harm to another person and sexual offence
involving a child. We would have thought that offenders who were
deemed to be likely to commit a sexual offence against anybody
should be made, at the very least, to serve their full term. Never
mind going on, as we have suggested, and being incarcerated
indefinitely if they are deemed to be likely to commit a sexual
offence.
(1635 )
Sexual offences against children are the only crimes that would
make a person serve his full term. We just wonder about that. The
government makes very loud noises about caring and compassion,
particularly for women, and then it says that a sexual offence
against an adult woman may not be deemed to be causing serious
harm. It has to be shown that a sexual offence against an adult
woman involves serious harm.
Sexual offence against any female whether she is eight or eighty
is by definition a serious harm to the individual. I am very
surprised the government would make a distinction and say that
sexual offences against children will keep somebody incarcerated
and not be too concerned about sexual offences against any other
woman of an older age. I object to that and I think all Canadians
should object to that. I find it a very unacceptable distinction in the
legislation.
Much is made by the government side about holding the parole
board more accountable. All the bill does is allow the chairman of
the parole board to call an inquiry when an offender released on
parole by the board reoffends. Can we imagine a chairman of the
board who let an offender out who reoffended being the best person
to decide when the actions and the decisions made by the parole
board should be investigated? Is that not a bit like asking the fox to
guard the hen house?
If we have a parole board that has screwed up, that has let
somebody out who has hurt other people, should the chairman of
that body decide whether the particular decision should be
investigated?
One of our amendments was to mandate an investigation of the
parole board decision in any case where an offender was let out into
the public on parole and reoffended. Here we have a situation
where only the chairman of the parole board can mandate that kind
of investigation.
When Liberal members applaud the bill as putting restrictions on
the operations of the parole board, the public should be aware of
how toothless those restrictions really are in that the power to hold
the board accountable can only be exercised by the chairman of the
board. Certainly that is not what the public has in mind when it
talks about holding the parole board more accountable and having
its foul-ups reviewed.
14941
There was an opportunity in the bill to do a number of things
that the public has been asking for. Yet we see that the bill has
fallen far short. We in the Reform Party are in a real dilemma
about the bill. The weak, almost ineffectual steps taken in the bill
will not necessarily hurt anything. The government should have
done much to help straighten out the system and get it more
decisively and solidly on the side of making sure that our justice,
corrections and parole systems really do the job for Canadians.
The bill just does not do it.
What do we do? There is nothing here we could not support
because there is really nothing in there at all, except a bunch of
administrative add-ons that may or may not make very much
difference. How can we support a bill that should have done
something substantive for Canadians, for the criminal justice
system and for the reforms that the Liberals are so fond of talking
about, promising and saying are a piece of the action, when it just
does not deliver?
On balance, when the government introduces a bill that should
have done the job decisively, strongly and effectively and fails
miserably, how can we support that? How can we say this is
something worthy of support? We cannot do that.
(1640)
For some of the reasons I have mentioned and some of the
reasons my colleagues will be mentioning, we say to the
government that the bill is not good enough for Canadians. It is not
something the House should support. It is not something we can
even in any way suggest does the job that should be done.
We ask the government to take back the bill and give us
something that does the job. Then we will support it 100 per cent.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to speak today on the motion for third reading of Bill C-45,
an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and
related statutes.
Recent polls and letters received from constituents indicate that
crime is a major concern among Canadians today. Among other
vital issues such as national unity and the health care system,
individuals are greatly concerned with crime. Only matters relating
to the economy and the deficit seem more important to our fellow
citizens. It is clear that the government must assume leadership in
this area.
We have already made a commitment to address the issue. The
red book stipulated our commitment to fight crime and violence by
more effective measures and social reform. Last fall the solicitor
general introduced the bill as part of a strategic framework of
initiatives for safe homes and safe streets for all Canadians.
I will address the second main area of change resulting from Bill
C-45, the accountability of National Parole Board members.
However first let me briefly explain the concept of parole.
Canada's discretionary conditional release system is based on
the principle that a gradual, controlled re-entry to the community
better serves the interests of public safety than does direct release.
It is a way of managing with supervision and conditions the
transition from incarceration to life in the community. The
numbers support the principle.
Clearly the performance of the National Parole Board is only as
good as the decision it makes. Consequently the credibility and
accountability of the board are directly linked to the qualifications
and judgment exercised by its own members and to the quality,
completeness and accuracy of the information provided to the
board for review. The requirement for board members to have the
relevant skills and knowledge to make sound decisions is essential
in order to perform their responsibilities professionally.
Board members face the difficult task of making decisions about
the timing and conditions of an offender's release in a manner that
contributes to the long term protection of society. It is therefore
only logical that the individuals who make those decisions are
chosen from the best qualified candidates.
As mentioned by my hon. colleagues, there has already been
considerable progress in this area and in others. Over the last
several months a number of important events and activities have
taken place which have helped to shape a renewed course for the
National Parole Board.
This was largely brought about with the appointment of a new
chairperson, Mr. Willie Gibbs, who brought to the board
impressive knowledge and experience in the criminal justice
system. Mr. Gibbs was chosen after a comprehensive selection
process, and a similar system is now in place for all member
appointments. Already new board members have been recruited
under these provisions. It should be noted also that the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has the ability, which it has
been using, to call new appointees before the committee for
questioning.
Let me explain these measures in more detail. These
appointment provisions include a set of revised criteria which all
applicants must meet, emphasizing experience and knowledge of
the criminal justice system and in particular corrections and
conditional release systems in Canada.
National Parole Board vacancies are now advertised in the
Canada Gazette and include the qualifications and abilities
required. After a screening process those who ranked highest in
meeting the criteria are interviewed by a committee chaired by
either the chairperson or the executive vice-chair of the National
Parole Board. A list of successful candidates is then submitted to
14942
the Solicitor General of Canada. That list is then reviewed and sent
to the Privy Council Office for the final appointment.
In all regions of Canada applicants have gone through the
process and new part time and full time board members have been
selected.
(1645 )
The revised appointment process does not preclude the fact that
current board members are competent, but it does underscore that
the Government of Canada recognizes the difficulties of being a
board member and ensuring the challenges are met with the kind of
knowledge and competence these positions demand.
In addition to the improvements I have already mentioned, the
National Parole Board adopted a code of professional conduct and
performance standards to guide all board members in their duties.
The specific provisions of the code of professional conduct cover
such areas as promotion of integrity and independence, general
conduct, conflict of interest, decision making, conduct during
proceedings, continuing professional development, and
disqualification and reporting, to name just a few.
These standards and the code of conduct were created to better
articulate board members' individual accountability as decision
makers and to preserve the integrity of the board itself. They
represent the members' acceptance of the highest ideals of
professional conduct and the responsibility of board members for
decisions that directly affect the interests and safety of entire
communities as well as individual victims, offenders, and their
families. Most important, these high standards promote respect for
the law and will help to improve public confidence.
The proposed amendments for the adoption of a disciplinary
system for board members were made in order to correct a board
member's performance if it has fallen below acceptable standards.
The enactment authorizes the chairperson of the National Parole
Board to recommend to the minister that an inquiry be conducted
by a federal court judge to determine whether a board member
should be suspended without pay, be removed from his or her
office, or be subject to other disciplinary or remedial measures.
This measure is not intended to second guess board members or to
respond punitively where a case has gone wrong despite everyone's
best efforts. Rather, this would be a review mechanism available
where a member is clearly not performing up to acceptable
standards.
The solicitor general has stated that he hopes this provision will
never be used. I am confident this is a hope all of us share on all
sides of the House, as it will mean that the renewed appointment
process and proper training are working well.
The solicitor general also mentioned the need to improve the
quality of decision making at the National Parole Board. This is
another area in which the board continues to adapt to changing
needs to ensure the best possible decisions are made. These
measures have already been implemented and I name here just a
few.
First, the board has created a national training framework. Board
members require comprehensive orientation and continuous and
continual training and development to keep abreast of changes in
law, policies and procedures, risk assessment and management, and
generally to improve their performance.
Second, thorough reviews of specific case audits in national
investigations are used as training tools to ensure procedures are
followed and duties are performed in accordance with the law.
Investigation findings and recommendations may also be used in
performance appraisal systems.
Third, all board members are currently subject to annual reviews
of their performance. The first round of appraisals is now
completed and has provided the board with an opportunity to
address any weaknesses identified, provide the needed training,
and take appropriate corrective action in certain cases.
Fourth, a new training package is provided to board members,
which addresses the area of risk assessment alone. This cohesive
training package focuses on how current research, theory, and
opinion in the human and social sciences can assist National Parole
Board members in their decision making relating to risk
management and risk reduction.
It is obvious that despite the most recent and precise risk
assessment tools available, tragedies can and do occur. These
tragedies affect all of us deeply and we must react by seeking
solutions to prevent further tragedies. However, we have all come
to recognize that each case represents different and often complex
challenges and that even the best research can yield less than
perfect predictions of reoffending. Our corrections and conditional
release system is based on human assessments of fellow human
beings. Even with all of the available information, predicting
human behaviour has never been and will never be an exact
science.
I think it is important for Canadians to have a clear
understanding about the success of parole as measured by
recidivism rates. A successful parole is measured by completion of
sentence time without revocation of parole. Follow-up studies done
for the parole board over the last few years have shown a success
rate of approximately 70 per cent for full parole releases granted by
the board. Studies showed that some 15 per cent of full parolees
were returned to prison because of breach of a parole condition,
while 13 per cent committed a new crime.
14943
(1650)
Primary consideration of any parole board decision revolves on
the concern always for public protection. We should also note that
the average annual cost to incarcerate an adult in Canada is
$46,000, while supervision of an adult in the community costs on
average $8,500 per year.
There are other areas in which we can work together to minimize
the risk posed by offenders. Bill C-45, including its changes to the
National Parole Board, clearly represents a step toward the
government's commitment to public safety and security. The
changes dealing with the National Parole Board have not been
created and will not be carried out in a vacuum. They are only as
good as the criminal justice system in which they operate. Every
effort must be made to work in partnership with other agencies and
with the communities we represent so that use of the limited
government resources is maximized to ensure public safety at
every stage in the offender's contact with the criminal justice
system.
As the MP for London West, I have spent time in my city visiting
the facilities and the people involved with our parole system. As
the solicitor general has stated, the system will work best if it is
well integrated and co-ordinated.
I am sure we all seek an efficient, professional corrections and
conditional release system. To this end, I join with my other
colleagues in the House in urging all members of the Chamber to
support the amendments reflected in Bill C-45.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
do have one question relating to the statistics and the demographics
the hon. member has put before the House.
I constantly hear from the government, in particular in the last
speech, about success rate, how successful the parole board has
been and how successful the management of crime has been as far
as the government is concerned. I would like to ask what the
member would do or what the government would do with the
unsuccessful circumstances. For instance, I got a telephone call in
my riding from a parole board member who went on and on about
the 87 per cent success rate. I reminded that individual that this
means there is a 13 per cent failure rate and that it is the failures
that are affecting family after family.
When will the government look at the failure problem and not
rely on statistics from the government department that has the
problems? Those statistics are typically about success rates. Could
the member please respond?
Mrs. Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
The parole system is very difficult to understand if you have not
been involved with it personally or if it has not been thoroughly
explained.
Failures will always occur in any system invented and dealt with
by humans. Unfortunately, we are not clones of one perfect being
on this planet and there will be error. We have to strive to create the
best system we are capable of.
The law will change and will continue to change. I do not think
any of these ministers who are trying to accommodate the concern
of the public and the reality of our system of justice in the country
will stop providing better and better legislation as time goes on. We
move forward one step at a time. What I want to point out to the
member though, is that what this act talks about are sections
dealing with the parole decisions. It is a fact that we do have more
successful interventions by our justice system with the parole
system where people get conditional releases than if they just hit
the wall where they are released into the public, where there is no
parole given.
(1655)
In actual fact, our success rate is much higher than if somebody
comes to the end of the time they have to serve by law and walks
onto the street, because there has been no management in the
community with the assistance and the tools that we can provide,
and this act provides, if we just say the time is up and let them go.
Our success rate is better with this parole system. Fortunately for
Canadians, these are the statistics and they are correct.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I read with
great attention the speech by the hon. member. I found it
interesting, especially when it comes to improving the parole
board. I think there is a need to improve the way the board operates
as well as the appointment process. I hope that the government will
keep its word because we were also promised that there would be
no partisan appointments to the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee
Board, that appointments would be based on competence, but we
are not quite there yet.
My question has to do with the application of this bill. Why does
it not apply to sexual offenders whose victims are adult women? As
the hon. member for Saint-Hubert said, last year, over 10,000 cases
involved adults and not only sexually abused children.
[English]
Mrs. Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the
way. I do want to address that, because there is a misapprehension
that we somehow care less about adult sexual assault victims. That
is not the case.
14944
The case is that we really want an equalized treatment. Most
adult women who are sexually assaulted do realize and recognize
very rapidly the impact of that assault and are usually in some
manner able to articulate that well. The parole board can be given
information by the victim of that assault and that will be in the
case preparation material. They can file materials that will help
build that case. But that is not true and that has not worked for
young sexual assault victims. There are many instances where
young children are sexually assaulted and they have great
difficulty in articulating this and sometimes keep secret what
happened.
In that instance, we have taken corrective action in this act. It is
not to minimize assault to any person, but there is a mechanism
there to prevent something that was not allowing us to realize the
impact of the serious harm done to somebody.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for the fifth time to speak on Bill C-45.
Before addressing some of the specific things that are not in this
bill and are in fact refused by this government to be put in this bill,
I want to talk about a couple of semi-quotes that were spoken here
today.
First, my colleague across the way says that we must move
forward one step at a time. This is once again the Liberal way of
managing, one step at a time. It astounds me that this government
cannot take a bigger step rather than one little step at a time. What
is the problem with this government which insists we take just a
little bit at a time? A good example is the Young Offenders Act that
the justice minister spoke about at noon today in front of the
Parliament buildings. He expounded on how good a job the
Liberals have done on the Young Offenders Act. It is a poor job. It
is an abysmal failure. One only has to ask the victims of violence
groups who are involved with the Young Offenders Act what they
think. They will tell you it is an abysmal failure. One step at a time
is not good enough today.
(1700)
I have a couple of other comments. The solicitor general in
talking to this bill said: ``Sex offences are considered more serious
against children than adults''. Just where does a Liberal
government get that idea from?
I could refer the government time and time again to cases I have
been involved with relating to adults who were viciously and
sexually attacked who would disagree with that comment. I know a
lady by the name of Joan who is watching now. We went to court
together to deal with the creep who got her. Joan is 63 years old. I
do not think for a minute that Joan, who was sexually attacked,
would agree that sex offences are considered more serious against
children than adults. What kind of statement is that coming from
any government much less a Liberal government?
The previous speaker said: ``Most adults realize the effects of a
sexual assault''. That is some kind of convoluted reasoning to
provide more impetus, something for the victims of child assault
than for adults. What kind of reasoning is that? Most adults realize
the effects of a sexual assault. That is a reason to downplay the
effects of a sexual assault on an adult? What kind of logic do we
have in this House of Commons?
They can shake their heads but we are right.
An hon. member: You're far right.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Far right, thank you.
The solicitor general talked about bringing forward the Young
Offenders Act and how the government did a good job on it. He
then talked about gun control, another abysmal failure of dealing
with crime. We now have to realize that the largest percentage of
this bill was in the House before. You may recognize it. It was
brought in by that party from Jurassic Park. That goes to show us
where those two parties come from, the same bent. There is no
change and there is no plan.
There is going to be some accountability in the National Parole
Board. When I asked my question of the previous speaker I asked it
for a clear reason. It was because of the numerous discussions I
have had with parole board members and my attendance at
numerous parole board hearings. The difficulty I have with some of
the reasoning of the government comes from the fact that it leans
on success rates. Success rates, while nice, do not give any
accommodation to the failure rates, the victims.
When a parole board member phones me and says they have an
87 per cent success rate, I tell them to give some thought about the
13 per cent failure rate. Those are the people coming through our
doors.
Let us have a little look to see what things were put forward to
the government by the Reform Party which the government said:
``No, we reject that in Bill C-45''. Let us see if the Canadian people
would agree with this Liberal government. We said: ``Why not
provide for compensation to victims of crime and for medical
treatment for victims of sexual assault to be paid for by the
perpetrator?'' Was that accepted by the government? No, indeed.
Why? Ask a Liberal. If Canadians were to ask the people on this
side of the House we would say there is more to the problems of a
victim than just room and board payback.
(1705)
This is the government that still gives old age security and CPP,
guaranteed income supplement, GST rebates to inmates. The
government is still intent on saying it can now introduce a 30 per
cent charge for room and board. Come on.
We talked about no statutory release for violent offenders.
Would the government go along with that? No, it would not. What
is wrong with no statutory release for violent offenders? The
government knows darn well that the greater percentage of inmates
14945
will reoffend when they get out. If it does not believe that through
statistical data it should ask the wardens, talk to the inmates. They
will confirm it.
We said: ``Why not ensure that criminals serve their full
sentences if conditional release is revoked or suspended?'' What is
wrong with that? The Liberals do not agree. In other words, if an
inmate gets out on unescorted temporary absence and reoffends he
is hauled back in. His parole is revoked but he is entitled to apply
and gets back out on parole. If these people are getting out on
parole, perpetrating the same or similar crimes, do you think they
have been rehabilitated? Do you really think it is a wise idea to
allow them to apply for parole again? My goodness.
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask that the hon. member please
direct his remarks to the chair. I would be most obliged if he would
do that.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, there is
something wrong with this kind of thinking. In one particular
parole board hearing I was at an individual was before it for a
revocation of his parole. He was a fraud artist. What was he doing?
He was up setting up his next scam while on parole. What
happened? His parole was revoked. Is he entitled to get back out?
Yes, indeed. He can apply again for parole.
Something has to be wrong somewhere if the government cannot
acknowledge the fact that there has not been rehabilitation, that this
individual will reoffend and that it is not healthy for the victims to
allow him out. That does not seem like such a difficult problem to
resolve.
We said that we would ensure that criminals served their full
sentences if conditional release is revoked or suspended. The
government said no, it cannot agree with that.
Let us talk about a child sex offender registry. We suggested that
a complete registry be established. The government says: ``No. Do
not do that. CPIC will look after it''. CPIC is the system run by the
police.
(1710)
Why can the Liberals not acknowledge the fact that everybody is
concerned about sex offenders and everybody wants and should
have the right to know? They should have that right.
If I am living in any community in this country, before my
children go out on the street I want to know if there is a sex
offender living next door. It is not appropriate simply to leave it to
the police. The police are not going to sit outside this guy's door all
day long.
An hon. member: They are too busy registering guns.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): It only stands to reason that
the police get involved with the next sex offence of that sex
offender after he perpetrates the crime. The best defence for
victims is to know who is living next door or down the street.
That is why people like Sandra Cunningham are leaders in this
country. She was out in front listening to the wonderful words of
the justice minister today. She prints the tri-cities child care guide.
She prints the pictures, the MOs, the dossiers of pedophiles. That is
necessary in this country.
I know there is not much agreement across the way because
probably that pedophile's rights have been infringed upon.
Alan Winter came from my riding. The Liberals call these
isolated incidents. I have more isolated incidents in my riding than
most. At last count Alan Winter had victimized 31 children. He was
incarcerated as a dangerous offender. He got 16 years.
Unbeknownst to every single one of those victims he was allowed
out in just over five years. Nobody knew he was out. There was no
registry. I am not even sure the police knew about him. The only
reason they found out is because more victims were going to lay
charges against him and they said: ``He is not in here any more''. It
does not make sense. This is not partisan politics, this is the real
world. These are real, sincere problems.
Another amendment we asked for was a mandatory review of
parole board decisions where a violent offender is released early
and commits another violent offence during release time. That was
rejected by the government.
I have spoken about Wayne Perkin in the House more than once.
Motion No. 19 was very appropriate for Wayne Perkin. Good old
Wayne knocked on a door in Aldergrove in my riding and
encouraged the lady to go out in her garden shed to get a
lawnmower. When she went in with him what did good old Wayne
do? He beat her over the head with a hammer, taped her hands
behind her back, injected her with cocaine and raped her. That was
not sexual assault as the lawyers would call it, it was rape.
What did Wayne get courtesy of our judiciary in Canada? Six
years. Her life will never be the same.
(1715 )
The parole board let him out early, the good old parole board.
What did Wayne do? One would think maybe a miracle had
happened and after two or three years and maybe good old Wayne
turned into a good fellow. Maybe he took an anger management
course. They let him out early.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Do not get too angry.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Do not get too angry? What
do these people think we are talking about here? Good old Wayne
14946
went into an apartment and injected Angela Richards with cocaine.
Is this familiar? He stabbed her 20 times, killing her.
When I was sitting in court during the sentencing I thought there
was something missing in the courtroom besides the 50 of us who
were allowed in crying. Where was the parole board that let him
out early? Angela Richards would be alive today. The board should
have been sitting there listening to the rest of us cry. Then there
should have been a mandatory review. Those responsible should
have been fired and taken out the door as fast as Wayne Perkin was
when he was let out of prison.
What do we ask for in the bill? We would have required a
mandatory review of parole board decisions when a violent
offender is released early and commits another violent offence
during release time. Is that too much to ask? The answer over there
is no, we do not need that.
Perhaps the Wayne Perkin case was an isolated incident. The
members across know it was not. For the life of me I do not
understand why these backbenchers do not get on the cabinet to get
its members to change their minds on some of these things.
It is like digging holes on a beach; the water keeps coming and
the sand keeps filling the hole. How do we make this government
listen? How many people does it take out in front of the House of
Commons to put some sense into a Liberal government? Is it that it
just wants a really good fight in the next election? We will see who
comes out on top on this issue.
What I talked about the other night bears repeating, the mentality
we are dealing with in corrections today. If I can recall all 23
reasons why it pays to be a criminal in this country I will riddle
them off. We are talking about charging an inmate 30 per cent for
room and board. It is not 70 per cent, not 100 per cent, but 30 per
cent. They cannot have very much behind closed doors in prison.
Let us see what an inmate gets in prison and what our senior
citizens or those with little or no income get on the outside. We
know they get room and board. We know they get counselling,
which is good. Anger management courses always work, they say.
They have the right to refuse to work. They get free condoms, let us
not forget that. They have the right to call their legal aid lawyer
when they want. It is ironic that we have a government today that
had to serve an injunction to Clifford Olson to stop him from filing
lawsuits against the crown. At last count he had 30.
(1720)
They have bleach for their needles; project bleach, as it is called
in my riding. They get a one ounce bottle of bleach to prevent the
spread of HIV. They sterilize their needles for cocaine intake.
Wait a minute, something tells me this is the same kind of logic
we are dealing with for the parole board. There is a better way. Stop
the drugs from coming into the prison. They are not allowed
alcohol in prisons so perhaps they would allow the prisoners to
have Diet Coke and ice cubes in the event they bring in booze. This
is the convoluted logic we see.
Let us not forget any additional income an inmate may have.
They get old age security. I found one individual, a double
murderer, getting old age security. My grandmother would be less
than pleased about that. They get the Canada pension plan, the
guaranteed income supplement and GST rebates.
It is so frustrating to drive by Ferndale penitentiary, a couple of
miles from my house, and see a nine hole golf course. It is
frustrating when the law-abiding citizen has to go up the road and
pay $30 or $40. I asked the warden why there was a nine hold golf
course. The answer was for rehabilitation. They have to learn to get
along on the outside. There is a difference. Many of us do not golf
today. It is expensive. All of us have to pay for it.
If the government is trying to rehabilitate them I suggest it is
going about it the wrong way. If members think this is Reform
rhetoric, ask the employees of corrections. They will say some of
this is a waste of time. It is not right.
When we compare people on the outside to people on the inside
we wonder who is getting punished. They offer lots of taxes. They
offer frustration. When we checked to see how much smokes are
inside a prison compared with outside, they run anywhere from 42
cents to $1.62 cheaper per pack.
With Bill C-45 the government is out to lunch.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
from the comments I have heard from the Reform member, one
would think we were opening up the prison gates and letting the
prisoners go free all over the country to commit murder and
mayhem. What we are doing is tightening up the system,
toughening up the system, having more concern for the protection
of Canadians.
(1725 )
I suppose if the Reform Party members were writing this bill it
would be perfect and another crime would never be committed in
Canada. If Reform Party members are planning to vote against this
piece of legislation perhaps they would like to explain why they
want to vote against holding parole board members more
accountable for decisions they make and why they want to vote
against retaining people who are a danger to society, particularly a
danger to children.
I do consider a crime against a child as the most serious, most
heinous crime that can be committed. That is not one bit to
14947
undermine the horrendous damage done by any crime against any
person, particularly a crime of violence or crimes that violate the
sanctity of the person, as sexual assault or rape does.
When added to that is the abuse of the innocence of a child, I
regard that as the most horrible thing anyone can do. As a woman I
well understand-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West
will have the right to reply.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it is not right to
assume the Liberals would be opening up the gates and letting these
prisoners go free. In many cases I am not sure why they would want
to go free. That was precisely my point.
It is difficult to oppose at times some bills in the House. This is
where I get to the problem with the Liberal government legislation.
Those members come half way to doing the job and we are saying
the government has to take it all the way.
What do we do? We are in a conundrum of either supporting it or
saying the government has not gone far enough. The government
makes it difficult in those situations to get agreement from this
side. That is truly unfortunate because the amendments to the bill I
mentioned were not unreasonable.
The example the member gave about a crime against a child
being a more severe crime is not the point. The point is if there is a
sexual crime against a child or an adult, make them both tough. Do
not isolate the child. Make it child and adult. Why could the
government not have done that? That is the point.
The government is taking these issues half way. If it would take
them all the way and incorporate some of these things and toughen
up on this crime like the people of the country are asking for, there
would be support from this side of the House.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
14947
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from May 18, 1995, consideration of the
motion that, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the following initiatives for addressing the underground
economy: (
a) an enhanced information campaign to educate the
public and to encourage their participation in addressing the
problem; (
b) a limited amnesty on interest and penalties otherwise
payable when a taxpayer voluntarily declares income previously
undeclared; (
c) a tax credit to taxpayers on home improvements
and renovations to provide an inducement to create the essential
paper trail and to serve as one of the primary vehicles for the
information campaign.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Mississauga South regarding the underground economy. I would
like to begin by addressing the thrust of his proposal and comment
on its three elements, because this proposal is really threefold.
Let me say right away that we agree with the thrust of the
proposal, because I think everyone agrees that action must be taken
to tackle the problem of underground economy. There are all kinds
of numbers being put forward and debates taking place, some
excessive, some not, but the fact remains that a lot of money is
slipping through the government's fingers.
Naturally, taxpayers are not the only ones at fault here. It is
because the tax system is becoming more and more complex and
less and less acceptable to taxpayers, to the point that they feel
justified in turning to the underground economy.
Let us look at the three components of the member's motion.
First, he proposes an enhanced information campaign to educate
the public. I think everyone will agree with that suggestion.
However, we must be careful not to end up with some complex
bureaucratic structure merely to explain the harmful consequences
of an underground economy.
I think the public is quite well aware of the issue. However, such
a measure would certainly be useful, and it would also be
consistent with the concept of the people's responsibility as
citizens. As elected representatives, we all have an obligation to
promote individual responsibility, and we must also serve as an
example. It might be necessary to make some members and
ministers aware of the impact of the measures which they take and
which lead people to reject our tax system.
The second proposed initiative is a limited amnesty on interest
and penalties otherwise payable when a taxpayer voluntarily
declares previously undeclared income.
Our system already provides for an amnesty on penalties for
voluntary disclosures. As for the interest payable, we have to be
cautious. Such a measure should be of a temporary nature, should
have a time limit set. Otherwise, some people might be tempted to
not declare income in a given year, since they would not have to
pay any interest, even if they got caught. Such a scheme would
enable these people to use the money for a year or two, before the
department tracked them down.
If we are to have an amnesty, it should be defined and limited in
time. It would be a way to go back to square one and do things
properly from then on.
14948
The third part of the motion is an interesting approach that
should be explored. When we talk about the underground
economy, what comes to mind most of the time is the construction
industry. The underground economy flourishes there because
regulations are so complicated. There are other consequences, but
that industry is very much affected by underground activity, and
sooner or later we will have to regain control over that industry
because we are losing a lot of revenue. Entrepreneurs who want
to operate within the law have a hard time fending off fierce
competition. Just about everywhere, things are done under the
table.
A tax credit for taxpayers seems like a good approach, but we
should determine how far we are willing to go, how much the credit
should be compared to the savings to be made by turning to the
underground economy, because that is what the population will try
to figure out, and how much it will cost the government compared
to the revenues the tax credit will generate. If the credit is not high
enough, it will not work. It will cost us more than before, and only
some people will use it. But this is a good start, an approach to
consider.
However, it must be done in close co-operation with the
provinces, especially where Quebec is concerned. Each province
may have its own set of rules for the construction industry, and the
approach used must be consistent with the way tax revenues are
generated in this sector.
The hon. member for Mississauga South has moved a motion
which makes a lot of sense and which we will support. I would like
however to address other concerns I have about the underground
economy.
There was a lot of discussion in this House, in Canada and in
Quebec when the GST was introduced. Many people link the
increasing popularity of the underground economy with the
implementation of the GST. I would like to remind everyone that
the GST was not a new tax. It replaced another tax which the
population did not see, because it was hidden, but the GST did
replace another tax. What is new is that the GST applies to
services.
When we talk about the underground economy and the taxation
of services, we have a problem, because nothing is easier to avoid
than a service tax. When a carpenter, a plumber or an electrician
comes to your house and does not charge for his labour by the hour,
it is very hard to find out whether he did or did not work or how
long he worked. Ever since the government decided to get into
taxing services, there is one element that is almost impossible to
control because it all depends on the good faith of the public, a
public that felt governments were taxing them enough already. This
new tax has increased public dissatisfaction.
Oddly enough, I saw a poll when we were considering the
GST-which has yet to be amended, but I will get to that-and it
seems people work harder to avoid the GST than they do to avoid
paying income tax. This despite the fact that income tax rates are
often 30, 35, 40 or 45 per cent, which means 30, 35, 40 or 45 cents
on a dollar earned, while in Quebec, the combined QST and GST is
14 per cent. Nevertheless, people will work harder to avoid the
GST because they are upset by this tax and find it very hard to
accept it.
(1735)
Much of this can be blamed on the Liberal Party opposite. When
the GST was adopted, they were up in arms and even made a major
commitment during the last election campaign to abolish the tax.
After that they said very discreetly that they wanted to replace it
with something else. Once in power, they said they could not afford
to forgo 15, 16 or 17 billion dollars worth of revenue, depending on
the year. Something else had to be found. But how, meanwhile
trying to convince people that they got rid of the tax? Voters are not
easily fooled and talk about it to their members, I am sure, because
these are subjects that often come up in caucus meetings,
apparently. Their commitment was not met because they were
forced to collect this revenue, contrary to their campaign promises.
The Prime Minister has repeated this in the House. I quote him
from memory but correctly I think: ``We hate that tax and we are
going to abolish it''. That was two years ago. In my opinion
discussing a tax, replacing it or abolishing it, can take a certain
amount of time from the point the decision is taken. In reality,
application can take a minimum of six months, generally at least a
year, due to the time needed to explain it, to have people
understand it, to try to gain its acceptance.
So two years of the mandate are down now, and after three years,
for it will take at least a year, there will still have been no change,
because agreement with the provinces on taxation reform is not
possible.
There is a problem when the government creates expectations,
when it wants to make this type of changes and does not make
them. That does not do anything to increase people's confidence in
the taxation system, much less in those who design it and those
who have to administer it. The government will have to act at some
point. It is nice to have these motions, I have nothing against the
member who is moving it, but he will have to exert some pressure
on his colleagues at Revenue and at Finance, and on the cabinet, so
that they live up to their commitment and come forward with
proposals, because we have not seen anything yet.
While they are talking about taxation, I would also like to talk
about something else. In Quebec, at one point there were different
views of the economy, and the government of Canada was perhaps
more active on the economic front in the post-war era. During the
war, it had taken over a lot of taxation power from the provinces,
particularly Quebec. It never gave it back.
14949
As a result, in Quebec, we have two income tax collection
systems. Revenue Quebec and Revenue Canada both collect taxes,
they each have their own income tax return; every year, we must
fill out two income tax returns, because taxation can be a powerful
economic development tool. Through taxation, each government
imposes its own vision of things, and taxpayers have a hard time
sorting things out. Very few of them are able to fill out their
income tax returns on their own, not because they are lacking in
skills or ability, but because the returns are just too complicated.
I am convinced that there are not many members in this House
who fill out their returns on their own. And yet, we are the
lawmakers and the ones who pass legislation and establish
policies.
So there is indeed a serious problem which, over the years, has
led to confrontation between Quebec and Canada because Quebec
would have liked to have full control over its tax system and use it
as an economic development tool. But this is not the case. I would
also like to remind people who are watching us today that, not only
do we have two systems, not only do we pay taxes to both Quebec
and Ottawa, but there are transfer payment mechanisms to transfer
money from one government to another. We send our tax money to
the federal government, which gives it back to the province through
transfer payments, not always in the proportions that we would
like. This system is cumbersome and complicated, and requires a
lot of manpower.
To conclude my remarks, since I only have thirty seconds left, I
want to say that the hon. member's motion makes a lot of sense, but
I would like him to remind his colleagues that they have made a
major commitment and that they will have to put forward concrete
proposals, hopefully before Quebecers make a decision on October
30, on what they intend to do with regard to our tax system,
particularly with regard to the GST.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great
pleasure to address the House this afternoon on Motion No. 382
sponsored by the member for Mississauga South. I would also like
to take the opportunity to commend my hon. colleague for his work
in this area.
The underground economy that is the focus of this motion is of
major importance and has implications for Canadians right across
the country. There has been a great deal written about the size,
extent, nature and causes of the underground economy.
(1740 )
As members are probably aware, estimates on the size of the
underground economy vary widely, depending on the methodology
that is used, from 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent of GDP to over 20 per
cent. That translates into $20 billion to $140 billion a year.
The greater the activity in the underground economy the less
revenue is available to governments. Underground economic
activity creates unfair competition for honest businesses. Jobs are
lost. Therefore, honest taxpayers are forced to pay more than their
fair share of taxes.
We all know that deficit elimination and the eventual repayment
of the federal debt will depend primarily on long term economic
growth and job creation. While spending cuts may contribute to
deficit reduction, why should we continue to cut programs when
the collection of legitimate tax revenue could be substituted?
We need to seek out options and solutions. It is imperative that
an attack on the underground economy be part of the overall
solution.
For many individuals and businesses the underground economy
has become a convenient way to avoid paying taxes. When these
people take their financial transactions underground they are
failing to make their contribution in support of Canada's social and
economic programs. These people do not pay for the services they
use. Instead, other Canadians are forced to pay more.
People who deal in the underground economy may feel that their
financial situation justifies their actions. It may be because it has
been several years since their last raise. It may be because they feel
the tax system is too complex or unfair. Or it may be just basic
greed. They see cheating the tax department as a victimless crime.
Let me say that, whatever the reason, underground economic
activity makes victims of us all. Indeed, all Canadians are victims
and this does not sit well with me.
I ask members as well as all Canadians to consider the real cost
of underground economic activity. The cost is large. It shows up in
reduced essential services, taxes higher than they would otherwise
be, unfair competition and a reduced standard of living for the
honest taxpayer.
How does the underground economy affect a legitimate business
which is trying to be competitive? The Canadian Homebuilders
Association is concerned. Indeed, home renovators who evade
taxes have an unfair advantage over honest contractors. Honest
businesses are at a competitive disadvantage because they cannot
offer a customer the same deal as that offered by someone who will
do the work but not collect the taxes. The end result is that the
legitimate business faces unfair competition and job loss.
I ask the members to put themselves in the place of an
entrepreneur who plays by the rules and who diligently collects and
remits tax to the government. How would they react if they lost
work because someone dealing under the table outbid them for a
contract? I would certainly be upset and I would insist that the
government do something to restore fairness to my situation.
We must not forget the dishonest consumer. The dishonest
consumer who takes the lower price and pays cash is cheating the
14950
system and becoming a party to the evasion of taxes. These
consumers benefit from the full range of government services but
do not pay their fair share. All they have done is take part in a
transaction which jeopardizes our health, education and other
essential economic and social services. This is simply shortsighted
and unfair. It is illegal and criminal.
The underground economy results in lost revenues for the
government which, as I have said, jeopardizes essential social and
economic programs and forces honest Canadians to pay more
taxes.
The motion before the House is a three-pronged motion. It
suggests that the government educate the public and encourage
their participation in addressing the problem. I agree that
Canadians need to know the facts about the seriousness of the
underground economy, how it affects each and every one of us and
what can be done to reduce it. I also agree that governments cannot
solve the problem alone. We, the citizens of Canada, all must do
our part and fulfil our responsibilities.
We must tell Canadians the facts about the seriousness of the
existence of the underground economy and how they can help to
eliminate it. We must address the myth that everyone is doing it.
We must emphasize that tax evasion is a crime and that it is not a
victimless crime, as it is often argued. All Canadians are victims.
Tax evasion leads to job losses, an increase in the deficit, honest
taxpayers carrying more of a burden and legitimate businesses
operating in an environment of unfair competition which often
leads to bankruptcy. We must stress that people who evade taxes
are cheating honest taxpayers and those in need. We must publicize
the fact that 14,000 calls are received by Revenue Canada each year
from Canadians who know tax evaders. Many more would call if
they only knew that the follow-up would take place.
(1745)
To ensure that everyone is aware that the government is serious
about prosecuting those who deliberately defraud the tax system,
the Minister of National Revenue publicizes convictions for tax
evasion. The increased publicity and resulting embarrassment of a
fine or imprisonment coupled with the payment of taxes, interest,
and penalties, has had a deterrent effect.
During the past year, officials of Revenue Canada have been
actively consulting with individuals and associations across
Canada on the issue of tax evasion, the underground economy, and
smuggling. Revenue Canada has sought and received the support of
these groups. With the Canadian Institute of Chartered
Accountants, for example, the department established a working
committee to investigate the causes of the underground economy,
examine audit techniques and identify training that would assist in
tracking down unreported or under-reported income, and identify
opportunities for reducing the cost and administrative burden of
compliance for businesses and individuals.
These groups are taking the message of the risks of dealing in the
underground economy back to their membership. Every citizen and
every business has a role to play in eliminating the underground
economy. Individuals can start by refusing to deal with businesses
and tradespeople who ask for cash payments. Businesses can do
their part by turning down demands to do work off the books. Yes,
all Canadians must do their part, individuals and businesses.
Simply put, they must say no.
The second prong of the hon. member's motion calls for a
limited amnesty on interest and penalties otherwise payable when a
taxpayer voluntarily declares income previously undeclared. My
colleague has stressed that the amnesty pertains only to interest and
penalties, not to the taxes owing. The preferred approach is to
encourage voluntary compliance. It does work, as 95 per cent of all
revenues are collected without the need for enforcement action.
Revenue Canada currently has a program in place for voluntary
disclosure which would waive penalties if an official audit had not
yet been initiated. However, interest would still be payable.
We must encourage an amnesty because it is very important to
give underground economy operators the opportunity to come
clean. We must be clear that underground economy is not normal
business and that Canadians will not continue to tolerate dishonest
business practices at their expense. Here is a chance for the
business person to come out.
The third prong of my hon. colleague's motion is a tax credit for
taxpayers on home improvements and renovations in order to
provide an inducement to create the essential paper trail and to
serve as one of the primary vehicles for the information campaign.
By offering an input tax credit for the GST paid on home
improvements or renovations, the taxpayer would be required to
submit the original invoice as part of their income tax return. The
objective would be to create a real paper trail in an area of abuse
with which most people are familiar. It is a good vehicle through
which we could educate the public on the crime and discourage
action under the table. It would also help to support the honest
businesses that are prepared to provide an invoice.
I have spoken to the people of my constituencies about the
underground economy. Those who follow the law and pay their
taxes do not like having to pay higher taxes because others are
trying to cheat the system. Entrepreneurs who are trying to make an
honest living say they do not like being at a competitive
disadvantage from businesses and tradespeople who ask for cash
payments to avoid paying tax. My constituents are also worried
about how lost revenue is affecting the government's ability to
maintain the social and economic programs so important to our
well-being.
I will support my colleague's motion. I want to see that all
legitimate taxes are collected so that the honest taxpayer does not
14951
have to bear the burden of both higher taxes and lessening of
programs. The underground economy is not the norm and it is not
acceptable to Canadians.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as I start to make a few comments about this bill, I would
first like to recognize the hon. member for Mississauga South, who
proposed this motion. I would like to acknowledge the fact that it is
aimed at correcting a serious problem we have in our country,
which is the evasion of taxes, specifically the GST.
As the GST is such a magnet for all of the discomfort and
discontent with the tax system in the country, it is not seen by the
ordinary citizen as theft. It is not seen as stealing from each other
by evading the GST.
(1750)
I think the hon. member opposite has brought to the House a very
important consideration. The social contract we all have is based
on the premise of fairness, that we are all going to pay our fair
share and that we will do so more or less willingly, provided
everybody else is paying a fair share.
When we combine the fact that the GST is such a horribly
unpopular tax with the fact that the average Canadian is just barely
getting by and does not like to pay the tax in the first place, there is
very fertile ground for tax avoidance. When people avoid paying
taxes that are legitimately owed it means that somebody else is
carrying their load, and that is just not right.
I want to commend the member opposite for bringing this
motion before the House. Members know, but for the sake of
Canadians who are watching I should point out that a motion
brought to the House will not bind the government in any way to
act on it. It is really just a means of trying to get the attention of
cabinet and say that this is something we should do. Although it is
votable, it is not binding. I am sure the hon. member would like to
see it binding, but it just plain is not.
There are many things that happen in politics in the House and
outside the House that are not binding, such as promises that are
made during election campaigns. During the last campaign,
members will recall members of the Liberal Party made a lot of hay
out of the fact that they were going to get rid of the hated GST. As a
matter of fact, I recall specifically being ridiculed on a campaign
platform by my Liberal opponent because I said we could not
possibly get rid of the GST without replacing it with another tax.
The GST generates $18 billion in revenue. We just cannot say poof
and it is gone. We have to deal with reality.
Here we are a couple of years later and the GST is still in place,
still being corrected. That brings me to the problem we have in
supporting this bill. We have to do more than just cure the
symptom; we have to cure the cold.
We are in complete agreement that the GST has led to a
burgeoning underground economy. Simply offering a limited
amnesty is not of its own accord going to bring people back to the
market. Advertising or letting people know that avoiding the GST
or working underground is in fact stealing and is not something that
should be condoned in our country would be a very worthwhile
thing to do, with or without any of the other items in this bill. It
would not hurt to use some of these Dr. Feelgood ads that are
running across the country right now to say that if you are working
in the underground economy you are stealing from your neighbour.
As earlier speakers have pointed out, how would you like to be in
the renovation or construction business competing with and losing
jobs to somebody who is constantly being paid under the table?
I had some extensive renovations done in my home a year ago.
Just try to get them done and pay the GST. It is not an easy chore.
There are quite a number of people in the construction and
renovation business who will not do any work if it requires
receipts. This is not to mention all the service industries that work
under the table. We all know it exists.
The problem is that it is like a speed limit on a highway. You are
tooling down a highway at 110 kilometres an hour and for no
apparent reason the speed limit is 80 kilometres an hour and there
is a radar trap there. Well, citizens will go wherever it makes sense.
The reaction to the GST was a visceral reaction to the taxation
levels in the country. That more than anything else is the reason
people are not paying the GST. It is not seen by the ordinary
Canadian to be a crime.
(1755)
Rather than tinkering with this, rather than treating the symptom
and not curing the cold, I would ask the hon. member opposite to
give thought to joining with other colleagues in the House in a
bipartisan approach to see if we cannot do something about the
underlying problem in the tax system, which is a disincentive for
reinvestment. My hon. colleague for Mississauga South well
knows-far better than I because of his experience as a chartered
accountant-what a disincentive it is for people in our country to
reinvest profits. That is a much bigger problem than the GST
problem.
My specific objection to this bill is not the thrust of the bill,
which I think is honourable and in the right direction in saying that
people have to get out of the underground economy. My objection
is not to the limited amnesty, which would give people the
opportunity to get out if they have become involved in the
underground economy. While we would offer them a carrot, we
should also offer a fairly substantial stick.
14952
I do have a problem with the notion of offering a tax credit to
people for renovations. We might be able to square that circle and
address that problem if for instance we were to allow people to
use an RRSP to do a renovation, just as they can for buying new
homes, depending on the equity level in the home, but only if they
bring in a qualified receipt showing the GST. That would then
ensure the public purse does not get hit twice, once for the RRSP
and again for the tax credit. What about the people who might
do it themselves, or whatever?
I do not think we should be giving tax credits to induce people to
obey the law. People should obey the law because it is the right
thing to do. The advertising should be there, amnesty as the carrot,
and a substantial stick for breaking the law. This is not to induce
people to do the right thing because we are going to pay them to do
it; they are going to do the right thing because it is the right thing to
do and because the underground economy is no longer seen in the
community as tolerable.
I would reiterate that the Liberal government promised to get rid
of the hated GST. When I go out to buy my next article at the store I
am pretty sure I am going to be paying the hated GST, which is two
years after the fact. I would be very surprised if in the life of this
Parliament the GST is gone.
Mr. McCormick: You will be surprised.
Mr. McClelland: I would be very surprised, delighted.
Members opposite say that I will be surprised. I take that as a
reaffirmation of the promise made during the election to get rid of
the GST. You heard it here first. Once again the Liberals opposite
are affirming their promise to get rid of the GST.
We should hope that perhaps the way they will do it is to get
behind the notion of a flat tax and work with us and other parties,
with members opposite like the member for
Broadview-Greenwood, who has been working at developing a
notion of the single tax for years. Finally it seems like this might be
the opportunity. Let us put all of our energies together to cure the
cold and not the symptom.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I
address the House today on Motion No. 382 introduced by the
member for Mississauga South. My hon. colleague has done a great
deal of study on the underground economy and I acknowledge all
the work he has put into this.
I have given this matter considerable thought because many of
my constituents have been directly affected by the underground
economy. They are people who operate legitimate businesses. They
have told me how their businesses are being hurt by the so-called
under the table entrepreneurs. They want the government to do
something about the problem before it is too late. These so-called
under the table entrepreneurs are not the entrepreneurs I grew up
with and started businesses with.
The greater the activity in the underground economy, the less
revenue there is available to governments. Underground economic
activity creates unfair competition for honest businesses. Jobs are
lost and honest taxpayers are forced to pay more than their fair
share of taxes. For many individuals and businesses the
underground economy has become a convenient way to avoid
paying taxes, to not pay their fair share.
(1800)
When these people take their financial transactions underground
they are failing to meet their contribution in support of Canada's
social and economic programs. These people do not pay for the
services they use. Instead other Canadians are forced to pay more.
I ask all members, as well as all other Canadians, to consider the
real cost of underground economic activity. The cost is large. I
believe it is phenomenally large. It shows up in reduced essential
services, taxes being higher than they should be, unfair
competition, and a reduced standard of living for the honest
taxpayer. If every Canadian paid their fair share everyone would
pay less. We have heard this before and we have to think about it to
realize how we can all gain in this situation.
How does the underground economy affect the competitiveness
of legitimate businesses? Many groups have talked to us. A major
group is the Canadian Home Builders' Association. It is very
concerned. Home renovators who evade taxes have an unfair
advantage over honest contractors. Many small legitimate
businesses in my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington are being threatened by others operating underground.
Right from the start honest businesses are at a competitive
disadvantage because they cannot offer a customer the same deal as
offered by someone who will do the work but not collect the taxes.
The end result is that the legitimate businesses face unfair
competition and many jobs are lost.
My hon. colleague for Mississauga South has put forward new
specific approaches in the motion to address the underground
economy. He is offering a limited amnesty on interest and penalties
when a taxpayer voluntarily comes forward in an effort to crack
down by engaging more investigators on a contract or commission
basis. People will hear that this message is for real and people will
come forward.
This phase will continue as long as there is a favourable
payback. We have to let the public know that when they patronize
the supplier with a cash price without an invoice they are actually
condoning fraud, and that by refusing to do business with those
who do not give invoices they also help the business of honest
taxpayers.
14953
Turning to an input tax credit, this offer for GST to be paid on
home renovations would be required in a very simple process. The
taxpayer would submit the original invoice either as part of his
or her tax return or by separate filing. The objective is to create
a real paper trail. We all know about this area of abuse and it is
time we recognized it.
A tax credit would be a good vehicle through which to educate
the public on the crime and to discourage under the table action. A
taxpayer would help to support honest businesses that are prepared
to provide invoices.
Revenue Canada's voluntary disclosure policy allows
individuals, partnerships, corporations, trusts, and non-profit,
charitable or other organizations to come forward to correct any
deficiencies in any reporting to the department. The policy operates
on a simple premise: When a disclosure is made voluntarily before
the department has started an audit or other enforcement action, no
penalties or other sanctions such as a prosecution for tax evasion
will be imposed.
The taxpayer will only have to pay the amount, either taxes or
duties owing, plus interest. This is fair since the interest reflects the
true value of the money and the fact that those who have not paid
their taxes on time have had the use of these funds.
Revenue Canada under its voluntary disclosure policy generally
takes a responsible approach to collections. Arrangements can be
worked out so that taxes owing to government are paid in a manner
which does not cause undue hardship for the taxpayer.
Persons can make a voluntary disclosure by contacting any
Revenue Canada office directly or by having their accountants or
lawyers do it for them. A disclosure will be considered voluntary as
long as it is made before Revenue Canada has started an audit or
other enforcement action.
(1805 )
In my experience we get what we pay for. When we go
underground to provide services or when customers accept
underground services, we can expect lower quality work and lower
quality materials because those businesses do not have to comply
and will not comply with industry regulations.
As well and most important, consumers do not get the protection
and the guarantees they would otherwise have if they had an
authorized purchase order and/or an invoice. When the customer
goes underground as well he or she has no recourse and no
protection.
A little over a year go an elderly woman in a village near my
home was visited one day by three gentlemen in a pickup truck.
They knocked on her door and said they knew that the winter had
been severe. They wanted to check out her home in case they could
do any little touch-up jobs for her and save her a lot of money. They
spent half an hour wandering around her home in a village
originally called Rogues Hollow, no pun intended.
They knocked on the door after they inspected the home and
said: ``The winter was very severe. There are a lot of problems with
your back wall. Bricks are coming loose. Your chimney is ready to
fall down. We have an estimate here for you; it is $6,200. If you pay
us in cash, I have these professional men available who will do the
work now. We can do the job for you today for $3,100''. It is a true
story. They did $300, $400, $500 or $600 worth work that morning
and she paid them the $3,100.
She was sick the next day. She phoned me at home. What can I
do? It was in cash. Do we have to get hurt time after time,
especially seniors, to see that these are not business people but
crooks?
Hon. members opposite spoke about the most hated tax in
Canadian history and how it has added greatly to the underground
economy. I agree that when the GST arrived on the scene the
underground economy exploded. Small businesses such as the
retail business my wife Rita and I operated face the burden of more
paper jungles. Our ministers have told us that when they change the
GST there will be less involvement, less paper and less work for
small businesses. I eagerly await that and will gladly remind my
ministers.
My colleagues opposite have spoken of the GST. Small
businesses are finally being recognized by the government. The
Liberal government recognizes that jobs will come from small
businesses. Recently the Minister of Industry announced
micro-loans of less than $5,000 for small businesses. They will
make a great difference. We can encourage businesses to come out
of the closet and become legal or legitimate businesses.
The motion before the House suggests the government educate
the public and encourage its participation in addressing the
problem. I agree that Canadians need to know the facts about the
seriousness of the underground economy and what can be done to
reduce it. I applaud the member for Mississauga South for his
efforts to stimulate decision on the issue. I urge members of the
House to carry the message back to their constituents and I will to
mine. I urge members to talk with their constituents about the
underground economy, its seriousness, and how it can be reduced.
I also agree that governments cannot solve the problem alone.
We must all do our part and fulfil our responsibilities. I urge all
members to support Motion No. 382.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the member for Mississauga South for bringing an
important issue before the House which demands the attention of
members on both sides. The seriousness of the underground
economy cannot be understated.
14954
I am sure other members have talked to constituents about how
difficult it can be to compete with those who deal in the
underground economy and who insist on being paid cash. The
greater the activity in the underground economy, the less revenue
there is for government.
Underground economy activities create unfair competition for
honest businesses. Jobs are lost and honest taxpayers are forced to
pay more than their fair share. The government is committed to
ensuring fairness in the tax system and has a strategy in place for
ensuring compliance with the law. In November 1993 the Minister
of National Revenue announced a series of measures to address
non-compliance underground economic activity and tax evasion.
The department has strengthened its ties with the private sector and
the provinces.
(1810)
During the past year Revenue Canada has consulted with more
than 240 groups, which has helped the department to define its
strategies, identify areas of non-compliance and explore measures
for improving compliance.
Co-operation arrangements are in place with all the provinces.
This has led to joint audits with the provinces, the sharing of audit
strategies, training material and expertise. The department has
strengthened its ability to identify non-filers and non-registrants
and has increased and targeted its audits to focus on areas of high
non-compliance.
The construction and home renovation sectors are being paid
special attention. Revenue Canada officials in their consultations
with industry and trade representatives have been told how
revenues and jobs are being lost. Consumers lose out. They forfeit
any guarantees of a quality product backed by a reputable firm.
Workers seeking steady, secure employment are also cheated.
The government has taken steps to respond to the needs of an
industry battling under the table entrepreneurs. The reason is
straightforward. No business that plays by the rules should have to
face unfair competition from those that do not. The honest taxpayer
should not be disadvantaged by those who are cheating.
Revenue Canada has put special audit teams in place to look into
transactions. The department examines the classified ads and visits
construction sites in search of information that will help identify
non-filers and non-registrants. With information from the financial
records of lumber yards and building supply companies Revenue
Canada can verify that the people who purchase construction
materials are paying the tax they should on the work they perform.
There is also follow-up on leads from private citizens which
often include individuals who are unhappy with the work they paid
for and who could not get their cash contractor to respond to their
complaint.
Revenue Canada has been working with the Ontario Association
of Lumber and Building Supply Dealers. The association has
agreed to display in its member stores a flyer which emphasizes the
pitfalls for consumers when dealing under the table.
The department is involved in ongoing consultations with the
Canadian Home Builders Association. Specifically Revenue
Canada and the CHBA have established a working group to
co-ordinate efforts to address the underground economy in the
home renovation business. The working group considers how the
CHBA and its local associations can assist Revenue Canada to
identify those businesses involved in under the table activity. The
CHBA and Revenue Canada can work together to ensure Canadians
are aware of the risks associated with dealing in the underground
economy. Consultations between the department and CHBA are
taking place at the local and national levels.
The February budget measure for a reporting system for
payments to subcontractors in the construction industry is a direct
result of consultations with representatives of the construction
industry. The measure and others in the budget reinforce the
government's commitment to a fair tax system and a level playing
field for businesses.
Revenue Canada is now discussing with representatives of the
industry and trade associations as well as professional accounting
and legal associations how the reporting system should operate and
what other measures might be taken. The government wants to
improve compliance in a way that does not increase the burden and
cost of compliance for business.
The motion of the member for Mississauga South contains a
proposal for a tax credit for home improvements and renovations as
a way to create a paper trail. I support the intent of this proposal. It
is something the government might wish to look at but it must be
recognized that there would be a cost associated with its
implementation.
Revenue Canada already reviews records of GST rebates paid
out for substantial renovations along with provincial sales tax
credits to ensure that proper deductions and claims have been made
by taxpayers. This paper trail is very helpful.
(1815 )
I thank the member for putting forward the motion allowing us
to debate an issue of key concern to Canadians.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a few
comments on Motion No. 382 as sponsored by the member for
Mississauga
14955
South. I congratulate my hon. colleague on this initiative first and
foremost.
The issue that is the focus of this motion is of major importance
to all Canadians right across the country. For many individuals and
businesses the underground economy has become a convenient way
to avoid paying taxes, not paying their fair share.
People who deal in the underground economy may feel their
financial situation justifies their actions. It may be because it has
been several years since their last pay raise. It may be because they
feel the tax system is much too complex or unfair. It also may be
basic greed. They see it as cheating the tax department, a victimless
crime.
When these people take their financial transactions underground
they are failing to make their contributions in support of Canada's
social and economic programs. These people do not pay for the
services they use. Instead, other Canadians are forced to pay more.
Each time someone participates in the underground economy,
money to help pay for programs such as health care and education
is lost. It is revenue that may never be recovered.
Whatever the reason, underground economic activity makes
victims of all of us. The cost shows up in reduced essential
services, higher taxes than would otherwise be the case, unfair
competition and a reduced standard of living for the honest
taxpayers. This is simply unfair and shortsighted.
The motion before the House suggests the government educate
the public and encourage their participation in addressing the
problem. I agree Canadians need to know the facts about the
seriousness of the underground economy and what can be done to
reduce it. I also agree governments cannot solve the problem alone.
We must all do our part to fulfil these responsibilities.
The government has recognized that solutions to this problem
and others now facing Canadians cannot be found in isolation. We
must understand the problem and its consequences. It is for this
very reason that in November of 1993 the Minister of National
Revenue made education a fundamental element of his action plan
to address the underground economy.
Officials of Revenue Canada have been actively consulting with
individuals and associations right across Canada. These groups are
taking the message of the risk of dealing in the underground
economy back to their membership. Every citizen and every
business has a role to play in eliminating the underground
economy.
Individuals can start by refusing to deal with business and trades
people who ask for cash payments. Businesses can do their part by
turning down demands to work off the books.
To ensure everyone is aware the government is serious about
prosecuting those who deliberately defraud the tax system, the
Minister of National Revenue is publicizing convictions for tax
evasion. The increased publicity has been a deterrent and has had
an effect.
The number of voluntary disclosures received by the department
where people come forward to voluntarily correct their tax affairs
has doubled in the past year. In addition, the number of referrals
received from people each year providing the department with
leads on potential tax fraud has risen by some 19,000.
(1820 )
As members of the House are aware, Canada's tax system is
based on taxpayers voluntarily filing and paying their taxes. A
voluntary self-assessing system is the most effective way for a
government to collect taxes owing.
A cornerstone of a sound tax system is the reality and perception
that everyone pays his or her fair share. It does not ask for any more
or any less, just everyone's fair share. The underground economy
undermines the fairness of the tax system.
Regardless of its size there is no disputing the underground
economy exists and that it exacts a toll on Canadian society from
unfair competition for honest business to taxes higher than they
would otherwise be for honest taxpayers, to business closures, to
unemployment and to lost revenues which government uses to
support Canada's social and economic agenda. It is a problem we
cannot afford to ignore.
I am confident, however, that we are making progress in dealing
with the underground economy and other forms of tax evasion. I
applaud the hon. member for Mississauga South for his efforts to
stimulate discussion on this issue. I certainly solicit the support of
all members of the House to support the motion.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too
compliment my colleague from Mississauga South for bringing
forward this initiative on an issue which is important to all
Canadians.
One principle Canadians want in their tax system above all is
fairness. Everybody should pay their fair share.
The underground economy has increased the burden on those
law-abiding taxpayers who voluntarily report their income
honestly every year. The underground economy has a certain
segment of our society saying it will carry on business and benefit
from the economy of the country but it will not contribute to it.
It hits us in a number of ways. People who do not report income
from jobs they have performed obviously avoid paying income tax
on that revenue. They avoid paying the GST and provincial sales
tax on the work they have performed. All governments lose when
that happens and all Canadians lose.
14956
We have only to sit in the House every day to hear the
tremendous financial pressures on the government and on all
Canadians. We know we are in a period of finding any way we
can to save on expenditures. It is leading to some very difficult
decisions which will not necessarily help the economy or our
standard of living. However, we know they are necessary because
for a number of years now there has been a serious imbalance
between what we have to spend and how much we are taking in.
This motion goes to the heart of how much we are taking in.
While there may be disagreements about the extent of the
underground economy and the amount of money being lost by
unreported income, nobody can deny it is substantial and that it has
grown dramatically in recent years.
What is it costing us when people are not paying their fair share?
We have all heard from constituents who are worried about the
future of our health care system. We hear about waiting lists at
hospitals. We hear about pressures to close hospitals. Certainly that
is very much an issue in Ontario today and in the national capital
region.
(1825)
We hear about reducing the benefits to people who are
unemployed and need the assistance of the unemployment
insurance system. We hear about a reduction in the money
available to those in need to survive through difficult times. We
hear about less services being available to support children in our
community. We hear about less resources being available to fulfil a
major role that Canada has always played in the world in terms of
international development. It goes on and on.
This motion gives a committee of Parliament the opportunity to
examine how we can bring this under control. There are people
who are making money in the economy and cheating their fellow
Canadians by not paying taxes on that income. How can we get
those people back into the mainstream of society, contributing what
they should be contributing so that others do not have to pay more
than their fair share? This would make it possible to carry on doing
for Canadians those things that are important to the building of a
prosperous and sane society.
We all know people who have had work done around their
homes. I recently had some work done and as a member of
Parliament I insisted on an invoice and that the GST was
documented. However I can understand someone who has had their
income frozen for the last five years, or perhaps had their income
drop because they have moved to another job which pays less, or
perhaps is unemployed and has to get some necessary work done,
would look for the best possible bargain to get the cheapest
possible price, even if they suspect that the person doing the work
is not paying the taxes and, therefore, is not paying their fair share
of being a member of Canadian society.
This motion offers an opportunity. I want to pay tribute to a
constituent of mine who brought a suggestion to my attention a
couple of years ago and which I have been promoting with the
Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue. The
idea is to give homeowners an incentive to ensure that anybody
doing work around their home is part of the economy, is
contributing, is paying the taxes on that work. It could come from a
number of ways.
This motion gives an opportunity to a committee of Parliament
to look at a variety of means by which we can start to ensure that
the vast majority of Canadians who are honest-and our tax system
is really based on honour-and abide by that system are not
penalized to the benefit of the very few who choose not to pay their
fair share.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to the
Standing Orders, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m.
tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)