CONTENTS
Friday, February 18, 1994
Bill C-5. Motion for second reading 1539
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 1543
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, byunanimous consent, referred to committee
ofthe whole.) 1547
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1548
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1552
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1552
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 1557
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 1557
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 1558
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 1558
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 1558
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1559
(Notices Nos. 7, 8, and 9 withdrawn.) 1560
Motion for concurrence of seventh report 1560
(Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 withdrawn.) 1561
Bill C-7. Motion for second reading 1561
Motion for concurrence in sixth report 1563
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1564
Bill C-7. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading. 1565
1539
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 18, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that Bill C-5, an act to amend the customs tariff, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for
consideration by the House Bill C-5, an act to amend the
customs tariff.
The legislation I am introducing today seeks to extend the
general preferential tariff, commonly referred to as the GPT, for
another 10 years. The GPT is a tariff preference granted to
developing countries for goods originating in those countries.
Let me give some of the history of this preferential tariff. In
the mid-1960s there was widespread recognition that special
and differential tariff treatment for developing countries was a
means of fostering growth and well-being of those nations.
Consequently in 1968 it was agreed at the United Nations
conference on trade and development that a system of trade
preferences should be implemented for developing countries.
In June 1971 this decision was accepted by Canada and other
signatories to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Members of the GATT agreed that developing countries would
be permitted to award more favourable treatment to products
imported from developing countries than to similar products
from developed countries. It was also agreed that the
preferential tariff would be generalized, non-discriminatory
and non-reciprocal.
Canada introduced its general preferential tariff scheme on
July 1, 1974 for a 10-year period. The GPT was subsequently
extended for another 10 years until June 30, 1994.
With this history in mind I would like to outline for the benefit
of the House some of the essential features of the GPT. The GPT
provides for a reduction in tariffs of up to one-third of the most
favoured nation rates on certain types of goods from developing
countries.
(1005 )
In the case of the least developed developing countries, that is
the poorest countries known as the LDDCs, the tariff reduction
is even larger. These countries are entitled to duty free treatment
on all of their GPT eligible exports to Canada.
In all, more than 180 countries and territories are entitled to
zero or low tariffs on a wide range of products, primarily
manufactured and semi-manufactured goods.
In order for particular items to qualify for GPT they must
comply with the rules of origin and other regulations. More
particularly goods would only qualify for the GPT if at least 60
per cent of the factory price of the goods exported to Canada
originated from one or more GPT countries. In the case of the
LDDCs, the poorest countries, the content requirement is 40 per
cent.
In order to ensure that GPT products do not have an adverse
impact on Canadian producers, a safeguard system is authorized
by the Minister of Finance to withdraw GPT treatment for
particular goods.
The question before us is simple: Should the GPT be
extended? It is the government's view that the GPT should be
continued. The legislation I have tabled proposes to extend the
GPT for another 10 years to the year 2004. The government's
decision to extend the GPT is being made at a time when most
developed nations have already extended their preferential tariff
schemes. In other words we are in the mainstream.
The reasons which justified the introduction of the GPT 20
years ago still remain. While the GPT has supported growth in
the export sectors of many developing countries, they still have
a long way to go. Indeed many developing countries still need
preferential access to the markets of the developed world in
order to improve their economic status. By allowing developing
countries preferential access we continue Canada's tradition of
assisting the developing world. Moreover, the massive weight of
evidence from 50 years of trade liberalization supports the
principle that export expansion contributes to general economic
growth.
The GPT does not only benefit developing countries. As a
result of lower tariffs on goods from the developing world,
Canadian consumers enjoy access to imported goods at
competitive prices. Also Canadian producers who rely on goods
from GPT countries as inputs also benefit from the reduced
tariff. Accordingly the GPT contributed to the economic
development
1540
of the beneficiary countries while allowing Canadians to
benefit as well.
At the same time, and as noted earlier, in order to ensure that
goods from GPT countries do not injure domestic producers,
there exist legislative and quasi-judicial mechanisms for
withdrawing GPT status to goods that are injurious to domestic
producers. I wish to assure the House that where a reduced tariff
injures Canadian producers, the government can move to
disqualify such goods from the lower tariff. For example, rubber
footwear and rubber inner tubes have for a number of years been
excluded from the GPT scheme under temporary safeguard
measures recommended by the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal. The government has now decided to remove these
products permanently from the scheme.
Finally, in recent years we have seen considerable change in
the international economic and trade situation. Many
developing countries are now enjoying significant economic
growth while others need more assistance because their
economic situation has deteriorated over the past several years.
We have recently ratified NAFTA and the Uruguay round of the
GATT has just recently concluded. These trade arrangements
will result in reduced tariffs on many products. These changes
have significant implications for the GPT.
I also wish to tell the House that the government is studying
the ramifications of these developments with a view of making
changes to the GPT tariff structure in the next year or so. The
objective is to make the GPT an even better tool to assist the
developing world. During this year consultations will be held
with interested parties on possible expansion of GPT product
coverage and reduction of GPT rates, particularly for the least
developed countries. In addition, we will be examining the
desirability of maintaining the GPT for those countries that have
already achieved the high level of economic development.
(1010)
To conclude I call on all members of the House to support this
bill. Such support will show Canada continues to contribute to
economic growth within the developing world.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I
may start by greeting my colleague, the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions, who tabled this bill on
January 31 on behalf of the Minister of Finance. Aside from the
debate on the motion presented by the Reform Party last week,
when I had the pleasure of making a presentation which dealt
partly with international financial institutions, and in fact just
before the secretary of state gave his speech, this is the first time
he and I will have an opportunity to work together in the House.
He will be pleased to hear that we are probably on the same
wave length regarding the general implications of the bill before
the House today, and I hope this will be only the first of many
such occasions.
I would now like to comment more directly on Bill C-5 which
the House is being asked to consider and on the context that
makes it so important, namely, export development assistance
for developing countries.
This is a very short bill. It contains only one section, whose
purpose is to extend for ten years-until June 30, 2004-the
expiry date for the general preferential tariff applied by Canada
to developing countries. Since the various provisions of the GPT
have already been explained in detail by the secretary of state, I
do not think I have anything to add in that respect. The bill
amends section 45 of the Customs Tariff, under which the GPT
was to expire on June 30 this year.
However, the government reserves the right to change
subsequently, by order of the Governor in Council, the expiry
date of the extension, the rate of duty provided under the GPT
and the treatment given certain goods and certain countries.
Although not impressive in size, Bill C-5 has a considerable
impact through what it actually does.
I may recall that in the early seventies Canada, like all
industrialized countries, introduced preferential tariff treatment
for developing countries. The purpose of this measure was to
promote the economic growth of these countries by developing
their trade with Canada.
Every 10 years, parliamentarians are asked to consider
another ten-year extension for a measure that costs little and
provides a form of indirect aid to developing countries. In this
respect, the Bloc Quebecois reiterates its support for measures
that promote international development.
The provisions of this bill ultimately provide an attractive
market for the products of developing countries, removing the
dependency that conventional development aid will sometimes
create. This is positive aid that helps these countries develop
goods for export and promotes their integration and
participation in international trade, which is expected to
intensify in the years to come. That is why the Official
Opposition intends to support this bill.
Canada has acquired an excellent reputation for development
assistance, through the expertise and activities of
non-governmental organizations dedicated to international
development. We must continue this tradition, and I want to take
this opportunity to say that a sovereign Quebec will be guided by
the same concern for international equity.
1541
All of us have been exposed, from time to time, to the usual
series of statistics that point to wide gaps in economic
development and in the availability of basic resources ensuring
a minimum quality of life, which is the case in many countries
on this planet. More than one billion people or one-fifth of the
world's population earn less than one U.S. dollar per day,
comparable to a wage level that existed in Europe and the
United States at the end of the eighteenth century. In the
eighties, the per capita income of developing countries in Latin
America and Sub-Saharan Africa declined, in real terms.
However, there is light at the end of the tunnel, and there are
some indications that development programs can produce
substantial positive results.
(1015)
The average per capita income in developing countries, for
example, has doubled over the last three decades, which is a rate
of growth higher than in Great Britain during the industrial
revolution, or in the United States in the 19th century, or even in
Japan between the two world wars. Turkey, for instance,
doubled its per capita income over a period of 20 years, from
1957 to 1977. Brazil made it in 18 years, from 1961 to 1979;
South Korea in 11 years, from 1966 to 1977; and China in 10
years, from 1977 to 1987.
Infant mortality has been reduced by half and life expectancy
has been pushed ahead 10 years on average. A child born in
Shanghai is less likely to die before reaching one year of age and
more likely to learn how to read and to live longer than a child
born in New York.
Despite these very encouraging statistics, major differences
and unacceptable inequalities continue to exist and in some
cases to increase. It is therefore necessary to maintain our
efforts in order to promote development in the countries which
do not enjoy the great conditions we have here.
Clearly, magic formulas to achieve development in the Third
World exist by the million.
Just think of the drastic measures advocated by the World
Bank or the International Monetary Fund in order to bring
structural changes to the macro-economic policies of these
countries, even though they are very often accompanied by a
worsening of already serious social problems.
Some experts insist on growth of local savings, while others
favour a massive involvement of government in some sectors of
the economy.
Others advise a total or partial closing off of the country to
imports, in order to generate economic growth from the inside.
Finally, there are some who believe that opening the
economies of developing countries to the world is, in the long
run, the best way to achieve development. The abolition or
reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers and the adoption of
measures to promote exports would be some of the roads to
development.
Such measures would only ensure these countries do not
remain mere observers of this tremendous phenomenon called
market globalization. As for us, we must realize that we have
everything to gain from a reduction of the dependence of these
countries and from their involvement in, and contribution to the
increasing world trade.
Therefore, I believe that one of the ways we have to encourage
development in these countries is to open up our markets to their
goods and services. This is why, in my opinion, Bill C-5 is a
valid contribution to developing countries.
Some of these countries have already made the strategic
choice of promoting export growth to improve their economic
development. Results have been outstanding in most cases.
This strategic choice was made in the sixties by South Korea
and Taiwan, and in the seventies by Thailand. These countries
are living proof of the value of such a strategy.
Originally, the three countries had the social and economic
characteristics we observe in several developing countries and
those are a large and growing population, a low level of
investment and an economy largely based on agriculture.
In less than three decades, they achieved an absolutely
stunning rate of growth, along with some other countries in the
region.
This phenomenal success is the result, among other things, of
two strategic choices, one that I just mentioned, which is the
implementation of export-driven policies, and manpower
training as a major priority.
In this regard, Quebec is particularly sensitive to the
importance of implementing a manpower policy which is
consistent, flexible, structured and effective.
At the beginning of the sixties and until the early seventies,
South Korea and Taiwan launched a very aggressive strategy of
economic growth based on export promotion. A lot of incentives
were made accessible to industry in areas that, today, we call
soft sectors, for example textiles, clothing and shoes.
(1020)
Following the difficult 1970s, these two countries emerged
with leading annual growth rates of nearly 10 per cent between
1985 and 1991. They also succeeded in diversifying their
production in favour of goods with a higher value added.
1542
An interesting parallel can also be drawn with certain Latin
American countries. Before the 1980s, countries of Latin
America would have been hard pressed to pass for champions
of free trade. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Most of them had adopted trade policies aimed at protecting
their domestic market from foreign competition, instead of
policies which would have allowed domestic firms to exploit
their comparative advantages on foreign markets.
However, in the early 1970s, a number of Third World
countries and many Latin American countries such as Brazil,
Mexico and Peru, experienced a debt crisis. Consequently, with
the blessing of the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank, these countries were compelled to adopt outward-looking
policies, lowered tariff barriers, introduced import permits and
quotas and adopted export promotion measures.
During the 1980s, several Latin American countries rid
themselves of dictatorial regimes and replaced them with
democratically elected governments. Contrary to all
expectations, these governments managed to survive and, in
most cases, are still around today.
Conditions in several countries in this region, chief among
them Mexico and Chile, appear favourable to very significant
economic growth. It comes as no surprise, then, that the
adherence of other Latin American countries to NAFTA has
aroused considerable interest.
It should be noted, however, that the world trading system
still has some shortcomings which impede the economic growth
of developing countries.
According to the OECD, sectors such as agriculture and
textiles which represented the strength of many developing
countries after World War II, have in no time become the target
of protectionist measures imposed by industrialized countries.
As paradoxical as it may seem, the beneficial effects of
development assistance policies implemented by industrialized
countries have often largely cancelled out by the protectionist
trade measures theses very same countries have adopted.
Under GATT, agriculture was excluded de facto from the
usual applicable rules, thereby allowing industrialized countries
to protect their domestic market through the imposition of
tariffs and quotas.
Moreover, industrialized countries have not hesitated to
subsidize their agricultural surpluses around the world, pulling
the rug out from under developing countries in the process and
often rendering the latter's domestic production uncompetitive.
With your permission, I would like to quote an excerpt from an
OECD report released last year which states the following:
``Exports of Latin American agricultural products have also
been affected by the high levels of agricultural production
within OECD countries as well as by the ever-increasing level
of subsidies. In some cases, agricultural exports from
developing countries have been squeezed out of profitable
markets by highly subsidized exports from industrialized
countries''.
Furthermore, the tariff system in place in industrialized
nations penalizes imports of processed products by giving the
advantage to raw materials and other unprocessed products.
Developing countries would be at a disadvantage if they wanted
to diversify their economies and begin producing value added
products.
The success of the recent GATT negotiations should make life
easier for exporters in Third World countries, particularly
exporters of agricultural products, clothing and textiles. The
elimination of tariff barriers on a growing number of products
from tropical countries, along with the dismantling in ten years'
time of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, which will be included
under the GATT rules, should also be a boost to Third World
countries.
However, over the last decade or so, we have been witnessing,
unfortunately, a resurgence in trade protectionism. New forms
of protectionism, such as orderly market sharing agreements,
voluntary restrictions on exports and other quota measures, have
been introduced. Automobiles, semi-conductors and steel have
been targeted, along with other industries which successfully
lobbied for protectionist measures.
These measures add to those already in place for textile,
clothing and agricultural products. Anti-dumping measures,
so-called temporary safeguard measures and accusations of
unfair trade practices are popping up everywhere these days.
(1025)
Canada, as we know, is certainly not immune from this
insidious and looming return to protectionism, particularly from
its main trade partner, the United States, which is the market for
almost 80 per cent of its exports. Our trade problems with the
United States, especially with beer, steel, magnesium, softwood
lumber and agricultural products, constantly remind us that free
trade benefits are fragile and that we must watch our trade
partners' practices more closely.
Economic development formulas vary between countries.
Export promotion strategies are not, by themselves, a panacea.
Although they are important, there is no question that other
measures must also be contemplated.
People's happiness is not necessarily contingent on increased
individual purchasing power. We must allow societies to
develop at their own pace without forcing them to conform to
the economic development model dictated by market forces. It
is a decision that these societies must make for themselves. It is,
however, important and even essential to contribute to these
countries' economic growth by giving them preferential access
to our markets.
1543
Promoting the growth of developing countries' exports to
industrialized nations is therefore a most commendable goal.
The Bloc Quebecois does not deny it, of course. But if I may,
I would like to outline a number of concerns we, on this side
of the House, have about the practical application of the general
preferential tariff.
We must first of all recognize that the countries that currently
benefit the most from the general preferential tariff are newly
industrialized countries, mainly the new economic powers of
Southeast Asia. These are not, strictly speaking, third world or
developing countries.
Furthermore, China and Indonesia, for instance, which are the
beneficiaries of 38 per cent and 3 per cent respectively of
Canadian preferential tariffs, are regularly censured for their
repeated violations of human rights.
As the purpose of the general preferential tariff is to help real
developing countries to grow, without hurting the Canadian
economy in the process, we should be entitled to a more
in-depth study of products and countries benefiting from the
general preferential tariff.
This brings us to question the relevance of maintaining the
general preferential tariff for developing countries that have
since become newly industrialized nations. As a result, we must
determine if these countries still meet the criteria allowing us to
define what is a developing country, which, we agree, can be
very complex.
In the cases concerning us, we should ask whether newly
industrialized countries such as Hong Kong, South Korea,
Taiwan and Singapore should still get preferential treatment. If
all industrialized countries decided to take away from these
countries preferential tariffs generally extended to developing
nations, this could impact on their treatment by international
financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund,
the World Bank or regional development banks.
One must know that the United States no longer gives
preferential tariff treatment to South Korea and Hong Kong.
Japan, Canada and the European Community, for their part, have
still not made a decision on this issue.
The federal government has already announced its intention
to study how desirable it would be to continue to extend the
general preferential tariff to countries that have reached a high
level of economic development. In fact, such a study is
unavoidable in preparation for the meeting of the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development to be held in
1995, precisely about the general preferential tariff. Now that
the Uruguay Round is over, the government has also announced
its intention to review, and probably reduce, the extent of the
general preferential tariff.
In addition, we know that the government intends to consult
with Canadian manufacturers before making any decision on the
general preferential tariff, a move that we wholeheartedly
endorse.
It goes without saying, however, that any change to the
general preferential tariff as it applies to any product or country
could have major political repercussions.
(1030)
Taking the general preferential tariff away from South Korea
or any other newly industrialized country could lead to a
deterioration in our trade relations with them since they may not
like what Canada is doing.
The case of China, which has nearly 40 per cent of Canada's
preferential tariffs, could also arise. Like the United States,
which is wondering whether it should now deny most favored
nation status to China, mainly because of the repeated violations
of human rights in that country, Canada could show how
important it considers human rights to be by also considering
withdrawing the general preferential tariff from all countries
that blatantly violate these rights.
In that the government has said many times that it intends to
involve Parliament in Canada's foreign policy, and since any
change in the scope of the general preferential tariff is likely to
have political repercussions, would the government agree to
consider the possibility of consulting parliamentarians, as well
as Canadian manufacturers, before changing any component
whatever of the general preferential tariff and if necessary
amend this bill along those lines?
Such a consultation could proceed in a flexible and efficient
manner through the Standing Committee on Finance or the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Be that as it may, I eagerly await the government's response to
this suggestion, which I am making as a request, in view of the
importance which the government claims to attach to the
opinion and judgment of parliamentarians.
I close by reiterating our total support for the basic principles
underlying the extension of the general preferential tariff for the
so-called developing countries. At the same time, I also
reiterate my concerns and questions about applying this tariff to
the newly industrialized countries and to developing countries
which openly violate human rights.
I trust that the government will follow up our request for prior
consultation with parliamentarians before any change is made to
the general preferential tariff structure.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to be involved in this debate. First, I would like
to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for the extensive
outline of not only the benefits but the concerns with regard to
Bill C-5.
1544
I would also like to thank the Minister of Finance for the
co-operation of his staff in providing information to us as a
caucus, not only on this bill but on other bills as well. The staff
responded very quickly and briefed us well in an open manner
and presented us with a very good case for and against the bill
and we were able to make a judgment as a caucus.
As we well recognize, the purpose of Bill C-5 is to extend
Canada's general preferential tariffs for developing countries
from June 30, 1994 to June 30, 2004. That is a major
commitment we are making as Canadians to the needs of other
countries in terms of industrial and social development, in our
attempt to bring their economic base closer to what we enjoy as
Canadians. In terms of a world responsibility as Canadians we
are to be well commended for taking that approach.
The Reform Party, after examining this bill and going over the
presentations that were made to us, supports the bill. We feel
that it is right in principle and that it is an obligation we should
take on as Canadians.
There were some very positive qualities of the general
preferential tariff that we felt should be noted at this time in our
presentation to the House. First, it will lower import barriers, a
concept we support as the Reform Party. Second, the lower
tariffs will stimulate economic growth in developing countries.
Third, it is very wide ranging in terms of its unconditional
nature as to how it can assist these countries. More than 180
developing countries and territories qualify for lower Canadian
tariffs. That is certainly a benefit.
Another reason for our support is that while in a sense Canada
loses in terms of bookkeeping some $156 million because of the
lower tariffs, we recognize as Canadians that we benefit because
the general preferential tariff will also enable us to have lower
prices in terms of goods as consumers in this country. That
certainly is a direct benefit in that sense. However, we do have
some concerns.
(1035)
First, while businesses in our country can benefit from lower
input costs under this system, there are some questions with
regard to savings that may actually be passed on to consumers.
We would be remiss in our responsibilities if we moved into
the marketplace and said that we should implement some type of
legislation to prevent that. I think more supervision by
government, more public servants to do that which would cost
us as taxpayers more money, or more interventionist actions are
certainly not the way.
We must have confidence that the forces of the marketplace
will take care of that concern. It may not in all cases but I think if
we let the marketplace work properly, it certainly will.
Second, while this system will help developing countries, I
believe we should go one step further by using this opportunity
to encourage a responsible government in those nations. We
certainly want to give disadvantaged nations a chance to grow
economically.
However, we want to ensure, and I am sure we all feel this as
parliamentarians, that these countries uphold a major standard
of human rights such as we enjoy here in Canada. It is part of the
obligation and part of the message that I think we want to send
indirectly through this bill to those nations that are benefiting
from our compassion here as Canadians.
Third, we should ensure that rebates to developing countries
are not part of the deal. The government should ensure that
countries only benefit from the reduced tariffs. I am sure the
government will keep a watchful eye in that area.
Fourth, we as a government must prevent any kind of dumping
of cheap imports into other countries as that may strain relations
with our trading partners. For example, a commodity should not
be imported into Canada at a reduced tariff and then dumped into
the United States to cause a distortion in the American
marketplace.
In summary, as I said before, we support the bill and
encourage the government to move quickly in this direction. It
was explained in our briefing sessions that if changes need to be
made quickly, regulations can be changed and are in place and
they can be amended to protect any industry that may be
adversely affected by these tariffs.
Those industries have the right to appeal and to make
presentations. If the government in its wisdom following those
presentations sees that there is a negative effect which affects
our industries or our businesses, it can act very quickly by
changing those respective regulations. I think that is a good
addendum to this bill.
If we take these points into consideration I believe we will be
upholding Canada's trading interests, a goal that we certainly
want to strive for. I encourage Parliament to support the bill and
proceed with it as quickly as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, I will cover
five points in my remarks. To help my colleagues follow, here is
the plan. I will start with underdevelopment and the poverty gap.
I will then set Bill C-5 in context. I will talk about Canadian
official development assistance. I will reiterate the Bloc
Quebecois position as stated by my colleague and, finally, I will
describe a certain number of concerns.
1545
Out of a world population of five billion, four billion people
are living in developing countries, one billion of whom in total
deprivation.
The United Nations has reported that the gap between have
nations and have-not nations has doubled over the past 30 years.
The economic growth rate of developing countries has been
dropping steadily, particularly in Africa and Latin America. In
the Bruntland report, the World Commission on Environment
and Development stated, and I quote: ``Deteriorating terms of
trade, rising debt-service obligations, stagnating flows of aid,
and growing protectionism in the developed market economies
caused severe external payment problems. The increased cost of
foreign borrowing, at a time when exports were depressed, also
helped to plunge many developing countries into debt crises.
Growth was cut back and many social objectives fell by the
wayside, including those having to do with employment, health,
education, environment, and human settlements''.
(1040)
The United Nations development program authorities
estimate that protectionism in industrialized countries will
deprive the South of $500 billion a year in export income, or ten
times more than it receives annually in development assistance.
At the same time, due to structural adjustment programs
imposed on them, developing countries are forced to abandon
any form of tariff protection and what not.
This means there can be no sustainable development without
fair and equitable reform and restructuring of international
financial, trading and policy systems. Less trade protectionism
on the part of industrialized countries would be a first step in a
true financial reform.
Just recently, we have heard the president of the GATT
general assembly warn industrialized countries against
reintroducing protectionism on the basis of preserving human
rights and the environment.
In that context, industrialized countries have taken steps in
the seventies, with the general preferential tariff, to promote a
reduction of duties for developing countries. In 1974, Canada
established the GPT under the Customs Tariff Act. Since then,
the tariff has been extended every ten years.
The purpose of this bill is to support the economic growth of
developing countries by promoting exports from these countries
to Canada through tariff reduction.
The general preferential tariff is beneficial in many other
ways as well. First of all, the GPT is a unilateral tariff reduction
program, and Canada remains free to change tariff preferences
without breaking any commitment under the GATT agreement.
The Canadian GPT would be one of the best in the world as it
would not be used to put financial or political pressure on
developing countries, as is the case in other countries.
Canada also made sure that imports under the GPT caused no
injury to domestic producers. That is why the GPT does not
apply to all products imported from developing countries, but
only to those products which do not adversely affect the
competitiveness of Canadian producers. Also, safeguard
measures have been developed to protect Canadian businesses
affected by the importation of goods under the GPT. Two such
safeguards are presently applied to rubber soles and inner tubes.
It should be pointed out that, in 1992, gross imports under the
GPT yielded approximately $90 million, or 5 per cent of Canada
Customs' revenues.
Bill C-5 extends the general preferential tariff for another ten
years. The Bloc Quebecois supports this government bill with
reservations, but we will get into that later.
Canadian development assistance has been drying up for a
few years. Difficult economic conditions in Canada have often
been set forth to explain or justify this drying up. Budget cuts in
official development assistance have reduced contributions to
the assistance program to 0.4 per cent of the Canadian GDP.
(1045)
To put things in perspective, Norway spends 1.16 per cent of
its GDP on international assistance, Denmark and Sweden 1.03
per cent, the Netherlands 0.86 per cent, France 0.63 per cent, and
Finland 0.62 per cent. In other words, although Canada is
generous in absolute terms, it is not in the lead group and it is
rather far from the internationally recognized standard of 0.7
per cent.
The reality is that, in the nineties, we almost gave up any
measure which could have enabled us to reach that level. More
recently, the April 1993 budget restricted to 1.5 per cent, as of
1994-95, the budget increase for Canadian international
assistance.
A large part of Canadian development aid is provided through
bilateral assistance and it covers more than 150 countries.
Projects implemented are the subject of agreements between
Canada and each beneficiary country. However, Canada also
looks after its own interests, since 80 per cent of goods and
services targeted for this bilateral aid come from our country.
Tied aid, as it is called, has the effect of considerably reducing
the value of the help provided to beneficiary countries.
For all intents and purposes, bilateral aid is a disguised form
of subsidy to Canadian exporters. This creates a danger in that
profiteering could play havoc with the priorities of assistance
programs, by giving too much importance to commercial
interests.
1546
In 1993-94, bilateral aid is distributed in this fashion: Africa
and the Middle East get 45 per cent, Asia 37 per cent, and Latin
America 18 per cent. It must also be noted that this form of
support represents 44 per cent of total Canadian aid to
developing countries.
In spite of some flaws, preferential customs tariffs are an
important tool of Canadian development aid. In an increasingly
global economy, foreign trade, and this is particularly true for
Canada, plays a vital role in the creation and retention of jobs.
It is precisely because Canada is free to classify developing
countries, from the poorest to the most developed, that the GPT
could be a flexible tool to direct aid to those who need it most.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees that promoting export growth of
developing countries is a very commendable objective.
However, we do have some reservations.
First, a large number of those countries which benefit the
most from the GPT are newly industrialized countries,
especially Brazil and the dragons and tigers of South-East Asia
to which the hon. member referred. Those countries can no
longer be considered as genuine third world nations. Yet, they
are the main beneficiaries of that tariff.
Moreover, importing certain products from these countries,
such as auto parts, could adversely affect the setting up of
manufacturing plants for those parts close to auto builders in
Canada, to use the same example.
Also, some countries like China and Indonesia, which largely
benefit from preferential tariffs, are known for repeatedly
violating human rights. If the Canadian government was
consistent in the implementation of its foreign policy, it would
have some reservations about favouring countries which do not
respect human rights, as it does in the case of its development
aid policy which, as you know, is conditional upon the respect of
those basic rights.
Since the general preferential tariff is designed to help the
growth of developing countries without causing a prejudice to
the Canadian and Quebec economies, we would be justified to
ask, at this time, for a more in-depth study on countries and
products benefitting from the GPT.
This leads me to the classification of developing countries
into newly industrialized countries. Does the government think
that the general preferential tariff program still meets its
objective, which is to promote the growth of developing
countries, considering that some of the beneficiary countries
have already reached high growth levels? And since newly
industrialized countries are entitled to this tariff, does the hon.
member think it is appropriate for the national treasury to forgo
millions of dollars in annual revenues which is being not
collected by customs services?
(1050)
How to determine which countries no longer meet the criteria
used to define developing countries is a complex issue. But we
have to wonder if countries like South Korea, Taiwan, and others
should still be entitled to a preferential treatment concerning
customs duties.
Since my colleague already mentioned it, I just want to
remind the hon. members that the United States have already
withdrawn the benefit of a number of preferential tariffs.
It seems that the Canadian government wants to wait a little
longer before taking a stand on this issue. However, it would be
important for Canada to determine its position before the 1995
meetings of the United Nations conference.
In short, the Bloc Quebecois believes that we should reflect
on the possibility of linking the general preferential tariff to
some criterias, such as the industrialization level of the
beneficiary, the human rights situation in that country, the
alignment of its foreign policy with that of Canada, compliance
with established rules of public international law, such as
non-violence in its international relations and peaceful
resolution of conflicts in which the beneficiary is involved.
As you see, before extending the benefit of the general
preferential tariff, Canada should take into account these
principles which should influence our foreign policy. But
Canada should also consider the restrictions of its trade policy.
For example, withdrawing the benefit of the general preferential
tariff from any product originating in China could jeopardize
trade relations with this country or other countries. However,
since development assistance should be provided to the people
who most need it, the list of beneficiaries of the general
preferential tariff should be revised.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that such decisions should flow
from consultations and discussions within the Canadian
Parliamentary system, including the Standing Committee on
External Affairs and International Trade.
Unfortunately, under the Customs Tariff Act, the government
is under no obligation to undertake such consultations. On the
contrary, the government may, on the recommendation of the
Minister of Finance, by order in council, amend the list of
beneficiaries to the general preferential tariff without any
consultation. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, think it is unfortunate
that the House of Commons does not have any say in the matter.
The Bloc Quebecois urges the government to undertake
consultations with its Parliamentary partners, at least for the
review of its position on the general preferential treatment
before the 1995 meetings of the United Nations Commission on
Trade and Development, as well as discussions on its general
policy concerning the classification of countries.
1547
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the speech of my colleague from Louis-Hébert.
First of all, I want to congratulate and to thank him. His speech
was very interesting because his arguments confirmed those I
developed in my own speech, arguments to the effect that the
general preferential tariff can be profitable for developing
countries.
Of course, Canada considers this general preferential tariff to
be part of its assistance program to developing countries.
However, the question is this: Can this tariff have an adverse
impact on the Canadian market? I said a moment ago, and the
minister has made the same point before, that the government
intends to consult Canadian manufacturers on their position so
that they do not find themselves at a disadvantage because some
products have easier access to the Canadian market thanks to the
general preferential tariff.
Of course, the general preferential tariff represents a plus, an
important asset, for developing countries that would like to
export their production overseas, particularly to Canada.
(1055)
Here is my question: What are the advantages or
disadvantages of this general preferential tariff for Canada?
Mr. Paré: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that there are really any
disadvantages, because under the customs tariff, products from
developing countries against which Canadian products can
compete are excluded from the general preferential tariff when
imported into Canada.
As for the advantages, I will say that since it is a well
established fact that Canada often ties its development
assistance to trade with developing countries, it is a major
beneficiary of those imports. So, as I said, there are no real
disadvantages because of the safeguards included in the
legislation.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to congratulate my learned colleague for his brilliant speech. He
talked about reviewing the list of countries benefiting from
general preferential tariffs and about developing countries, but
he added that we should examine the issue of assistance given to
countries which are not necessarily at the developing stage but
where such assistance would have important commercial
impacts and therefore could also impact on our future
relationships with them.
Could the member tell us what countries he had in mind by
that? And since, according to what we saw this last month, the
government seems ready to hold debate after debate, and
yesterday was even prepared to create a special committee on
national defence, would it not be appropriate to have that list of
countries and the assistance given through preferential tariffs
reviewed by a committee, be it a new one or an existing one,
where members of all parties would meet and where they could
also think of ways of increasing the assistance given to
developing countries?
Mr. Paré: Mr. Speaker, it is true the general preferential
tariffs are applied to more than 150 countries, 180 to be exact.
Evidently, these countries are not all at the same development
stage. Some are at the first stage, others are more advanced. In
fact, tariffs are adjusted according to three categories.
Given that tariffs are renewed for ten-year periods, we should
think about this gradation and try to determine if it still
appropriate to classify certain countries as underdeveloped
when in fact they have experienced dazzling growth, as some
Asian countries have.
We must keep in mind however that if we are to strike a
country off the most advantageous list, we will have to do so
with considerable tact and diplomacy because such a measure
could have an impact on our commercial relationships with that
country or other ones.
I think it will be important to proceed in co-operation with the
House, so the House should be aware of these data. Indeed, the
House has a tool in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade. I feel it would be quite in order that
issues of such importance no longer be determined by order in
council on a simple recommendation of the minister. In keeping
with the spirit of the red book, the government should allow all
members of the government and of the opposition to participate
in the review of these questions which could affect the very
image of Canada.
(1100)
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think
there may be a disposition to deal with this bill immediately at
second reading, in committee of the whole, and call it for third
reading immediately thereafter with unanimous consent.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by
unanimous consent, referred to committee of the whole.)
The Speaker: It being 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to statements by
members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
1547
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I
have received a number of phone calls, letters and faxes from
constituents in my riding of York-Simcoe expressing a great
deal of concern about the possible taxation of health and dental
benefits and a reduction of the RRSP contribution limit.
1548
I urge the Minister of Finance to be sensitive to the views
of these and all Canadians. We must take a fair and balanced
approach when tackling the very difficult financial challenges
we face as a nation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker,
since May 1993, members of all other parties in the House have
presented petitions against the federal government's official
language policy.
I deplore the attitude of Liberal and Reform members who
table these petitions in the House and thus support Canadian
extremists who want to ban the use of French by the federal
administration. I also want to condemn members who table
these petitions while claiming they do not support them.
I would ask my Liberal and Reform colleagues to stop this
hypocrisy. If they believe English should become the only
official language of the federal government, let them say so.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois support maintaining the use
of both official languages in federal departments and crown
corporations, and I would ask all members to show the same
flexibility and tolerance.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
members of the Reform Party would like to congratulate, on
behalf of all Canadians, the young athletes who won medals at
the 17th Winter Olympics in Norway.
We congratulate Edi Podivinski, Isabelle Brasseur and Lloyd
Eisler, Jean-Luc Brassard and our latest gold medal winner,
Myriam Bédard.
[English]
These athletes are shining examples of hard work and
dedication to their sport. We are very proud of them and wish
them every success in their future endeavours.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the house today, literally in the 11th hour, to make an
appeal to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services to support the extension of the
RRSP home buyers plan.
I am presenting a list of almost 1,000 names of residents of the
greater Toronto area and Mississauga who have made the effort
to mail in letters in support of the continuation of this plan.
It is a federal program that has helped thousands of Canadians
to achieve the benefits of home ownership without requiring
direct financial assistance from the federal government.
To date, the plan has assisted more than 200,000 Canadians in
buying a home and has generated substantial economic activity
across the country.
Supporting the extension of this program beyond the March 1
deadline will be invaluable for the many Canadians who would
not otherwise be able to achieve the dream of home ownership.
* * *
(1105 )
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
recognize multiculturalism week in my home province of
British Columbia, as proclaimed by the Hon. David Lam,
Lieutenant Governor.
From February 13 to February 19, British Columbians will
take part in events and activities throughout the province,
affirming the diverse cultural heritage that is integral to life in
our province.
I thank all those groups participating in this week's
festivities. Their active involvement in the lives of our
communities is crucial. It enhances understanding of the
different and vibrant cultural traditions of Canada.
I am proud that the federal government is a willing partner in
this effort. We will initiate measures to promote Canada's
cultural heritage.
I hope all Canadians and all levels of government will support
these initiatives to bolster our cultural institutions and shared
citizenship values.
Today our culture and identity as Canadians are threatened.
More than ever, Canadians across the nation need to renew their
commitment to cultural development and linguistic duality.
I extend my gratitude to the people of British Columbia for
taking the lead this week.
* * *
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, an article in the February issue of
Vogue magazine tells
the story of a young constituent of Saint-Henri-Westmount
named Lisa Campeau.
1549
Miss Campeau, who is 24 years of age, has spent the last two
years working at great personal risk on a UN relief operation
in Sudan. She has developed a reputation as one of the toughest
relief workers in Africa.
When the leader of a group of 2,000 Sudanese people told her
to give them food or someone will come in the middle of the
night and kill her, she replied: ``It is pointless, if you kill me it
will stop the relief flights in this area''.
Despite the tremendous danger of her job and even the murder
of several fellow relief workers, Lisa Campeau continues her
mission. She wants to make a career in development and has
ambitions of shaping the program she now helps administer.
Lisa Campeau is an example of how many young Canadians
are working daily to make the world a better place. All
Canadians should take pride in their commitment and idealism
and support them in their initiatives.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, speaking
on behalf of my colleague from Charlesbourg, on my own behalf
and on behalf of all Quebecers, I wish to draw the attention of
the House to the exceptional performance of Myriam Bédard at
the Winter Olympics in Lillehammer.
This morning, Ms. Bédard won the gold medal for the
15-kilometre biathlon and joins our two other athletes from
Quebec who won a medal, Jean-Luc Brassard and Isabelle
Brasseur.
I may recall that Ms. Bédard won the bronze medal at the
Games in Albertville and the gold and silver at the 1993 world
championships.
The Bloc Quebecois salutes the courage and perseverance of
this fellow Quebecer and outstanding athlete. As we know, Ms.
Bédard has had to overcome many problems throughout her
career, which were caused by Biathlon Canada. We hope the
Minister of Canadian Heritage will take steps to deal with the
many problems faced by athletes from Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to express the feelings of many Edmontonians,
particularly those in Edmonton-Strathcona, regarding
Canadian Forces Base Edmonton.
While I recognize that some restructuring of our military
must be considered in terms of fiscal responsibility, I would ask
that the Minister of National Defence consider the following
regarding CFB Edmonton.
It is the largest supply and service depot in western Canada. It
has recently undergone a $10 million expansion. It contains the
fourth largest runway in the world.
What concerns me most is that the department is considering
these base closures before it has determined the new role of the
Canadian military. It would seem logical to first conduct such a
review and then decide what bases should be closed.
CFB Edmonton is the gateway to the north and it is extremely
well suited to serve Canada's needs in the next century.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
today the Royal Bank branch in the village of Lynden in my
riding is closing its doors after 92 years of continuous operation.
It is a move that will seriously affect the small businesses in the
community, for the branch draws hundreds of people every week
from the surrounding farms.
Royal Bank officials have admitted that the branch is
profitable. Their decision to close was based on what they said
was poor growth potential in the area.
(1110 )
They have turned a deaf ear to petitions, protest marches,
extensive coverage in the local media and letters to both the
bank chairman and president. They have insisted that bank
customers remove themselves to a new drive-in branch in the
city of Brantford.
It is ironic that this government yesterday declared a
moratorium on closing rural post offices in order to preserve
rural communities.
The Royal Bank received its original mandate, its charter,
from the people of Canada. It is a pity that now it chooses no
longer to listen to them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker, many
small and medium-sized businesses find it difficult to get
financing from major banks.
And this, in spite of the fact that only 13 out of 1,000 loans to
small businesses are not paid back. In other words, 98.7 per cent
of borrowers are creditworthy. Under the present circumstances,
98.7 per cent is a rather impressive average we cannot ignore.
1550
Given the fact that there are more than 900,000 small
businesses in Canada and that they account for more than 4
million direct jobs, banks must be encouraged to become their
partners instead of their adversaries.
Small and medium sized businesses, which are the driving
force of the economy, must have guaranteed access to capital in
order to develop new technologies and find new markets. Let us
not forget that today's small businesses could be tomorrow's
multinationals. Let us help them prosper.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
announce today to this House and to Ottawa residents watching
at home the second annual gala for child poverty here in Ottawa.
This successful event is sponsored by the Fund for a New
Generation, a group of young people from the public, private
and university sectors determined to bring hope to Ottawa's
poor children.
On February 26 at the Canadian Museum of Nature this group
of young people hopes to raise $5,000 more than last year's
target of $10,000 for the Ottawa-Carleton Child Poverty Fund.
The proceeds contribute to communal meal and early
education programs.
This is why I am calling for your support. There is a hotline
number. Please call 769-5012 for tickets or other information.
I issue the challenge to local Ottawa businesses to help these
young people. I commend these people for their initiative and
hope that it serves as an example of what we can do together to
improve our children's future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, we have just heard an unconfirmed report that a
statement will shortly be issued by the Minister of Indian
Affairs concerning relocation of the population of Davis Inlet,
in Labrador. That relocation has been sought for much too long
by the community, which has suffered greatly because of
government indifference and negligence.
Once again, we wish to express our concern about government
inaction and our hope that the minister is really prepared to
respond to repeated requests by the Inuit of Davis Inlet and to
give them the promised lands, which are better suited to a decent
life, something to which all Quebecers and Canadians are
entitled.
The minister was thus responding to repeated pleas by the
Bloc Quebecois to improve living conditions for native peoples.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I provide today another example from my riding of
New Westminster-Burnaby why government spending is out of
control.
The Western Economic Diversification Fund previously
announced it would provide $5 million to Consumers Paper
Corporation to build a tissue paper plant in Redcliffe, Alberta.
This was to create 150 new jobs. In reality it was to subsidize an
ill-advised venture that would be in direct competition with
Scott Paper of New Westminster.
There are already about 100 brands of tissue paper on the
market with over-capacity of production. The new scheme
would just add to the excess. If the mill made it, jobs would be
lost elsewhere. If the plan failed, taxpayers would again foot the
bill and families in Redcliffe would be victims of a bad
government decision.
Government intrusions of this type create dependency. Why
should taxpayers' money be put at risk on questionable ventures
in a time of record federal deficits?
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, February 17 will be remembered as a great day for rural
Canada. It is the day that the ill-conceived Tory plan to shut
down all rural post offices was finally put to rest.
Rural Canada will be able to breathe again. Rural post offices
will be the heart of our small communities as they have been in
the past.
The minister responsible for Canada Post and the Prime
Minister and indeed all of cabinet deserve our praise. I am sure
all rural Canadians are grateful.
Now let us turn to the next postal issue. Let us all join together
to convince Canada Post to stop harassing rural mail contractors
and to provide rural mail contractors with some kind of dignity,
the kind of dignity they had in their employment under previous
Liberal governments.
1551
(1115)
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
welcome the announcement made yesterday in Brussels by the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization that a moratorium on
cod fishing in international waters off Newfoundland will take
place immediately.
This ban was called for by our party during the last election
and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has worked hard for its
implementation.
As a member from Atlantic Canada where so many fishermen
and the fishery itself are affected by foreign overfishing, this
moratorium is welcome news. A small ray of hope now
glimmers at the end of the tunnel for the fishery off the east
coast.
I appreciate as well that the Canadian proposal to extend until
the end of 1994 the pilot on board program that places observers
on vessels to ensure the moratorium is maintained has been
implemented. The minister should be complimented for his
efforts.
However we must continue to be vigilant in everything we do
nationally and internationally to ensure that the Atlantic cod
fishery survives to be a viable economic industry in the future.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I am concerned
about yesterday's refusal by the Reform Party House leader to
allow a ministerial statement in the House.
Private members fought long and hard against Brian
Mulroney's policy of ignoring this Chamber. He broke the
longstanding tradition of making government announcements in
the Chamber. Instead he and his ministers made statements to
the press, often off the Hill, which members would read about
afterward.
If this Chamber is ever going to get back its ancient role of
being able to control and contain government spending, it must
reclaim the right to hear all ministerial announcements that
affect spending. Forcing ministers out of the House, as the hon.
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster-
The Speaker: Order. The Chair would hope that members
would refrain from attacking other members personally.
The generally accepted rule of the House has been that we
have allowed a certain leeway on attacking party policy. But I
would encourage hon. members to refrain from attacking each
other personally or from imputing any kind of motive.
If hon. members could consider that as a guideline it would be
very much appreciated.
_____________________________________________
1551
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The
Mohawk leader of Kanesatake, Jerry Peltier, said yesterday that
he had the government's assurance that there would be no police
or military intervention on that territory to end the criminal
activities of certain individuals who are terrorizing the
population. The situation has become so serious that the chief
editorialist of
La Presse, Alain Dubuc believes that tough action
from the police and, if necessary, from the armed forces has
become inevitable.
Is it true that the government has formally assured the chief of
the Mohawk communities that there would be no intervention
from the police or from the army to end the smuggling once and
for all?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, absolutely not.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, it is always curious to see the reactions following
meetings between Mohawk leaders and the government; there
are always at least two versions. At least two.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether she considers
acceptable what a Mohawk spokesman from Akwesasne said
when he threatened armed reprisals for any police intervention
to end smuggling activities.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I consider these comments
as repugnant as the comments of the Leader of the Opposition
yesterday when he compared the situation in Bosnia to the
tobacco problem here in Canada.
(1120)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): That is not
what the Leader of the Opposition said, and she knows that
perfectly. I know that she is aware of repugnant statements, she
is quite familiar with them.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Can she
confirm the statements of the spokesman for the Mohawk
community of Akwesasne, Mr. Russell Roundpoint, who said
that many smugglers have AK-47 and AK-15 machine guns
which they have admitted using to protect their cargoes of illicit
goods in the Akwesasne-Cornwall corridor?
1552
This government wanted names. Russell Roundpoint made
those statements. That is one name. What does the Deputy
Prime Minister think?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the member wants to quote
people and now he says that the quote of the Leader of the
Opposition is not true.
I want to emphasize again that the Government of Canada
does not agree with statements like this one the Leader of the
Opposition: ``We are courageous enough to maintain peace in
Bosnia, but when we have a problem here, we cannot solve it.
Come on, it makes no sense. There is something wrong with
that. International opinion will have to realize that we have an
obligation to preserve our own societies''.
How dare he compare the situation in Bosnia with a situation
here, where the sale of contraband cigarettes has dropped
dramatically in a week! Why is the Leader of the Opposition not
here to applaud us?
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, it is
easy to see that the Deputy Prime Minister does not understand
the difference between intervention and situation.
The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister would
have the general public believe that the Bloc Quebecois is trying
to tarnish the Mohawks' reputation. Everyone, including every
person involved in this, knows and recognizes that illicit
smuggling activities on Mohawk reserves can be blamed on a
handful of armed individuals who are imposing a reign of terror.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does she
recognize that smuggling on reserves is done by a small number
of individuals whose activities threaten the safety of the
Mohawk people and the surrounding communities?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition
continue to claim they have no hidden agenda here, yet since
Monday, according to La Presse, 22 questions to the government
have been on this topic.
The problem of cocaine did not begin this week. The problem
of cocaine is not exclusive to Indian reserves across the country.
The problem of illegal drug abuse has existed for many years,
including the years that the Leader of the Opposition was sitting
in Brian Mulroney's cabinet.
If the member would like to point the finger at Indian reserves
and suggest there is a cocaine problem exclusive to them, let
him go outside and say that. The reality is that the contraband
cigarettes, the drugs, the other issues, are problems of organized
crime which are as prevalent in the cities of Hamilton, Toronto
and Montreal as they are in Kanesatake and Akwesasne.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, we
are well aware that the RCMP itself has declared that the
territory is a hub. The supplementary question I want to ask the
Deputy Prime Minister is this: The Mohawk leaders' alarmist
declarations have raised the already high level of tension on the
reserves. Is it not the Prime Minister's duty to meet with the
Mohawk leaders to demand that they promise to co-operate with
the government to end smuggling and to ensure respect for the
law on their territory like everywhere else in Canada, as the
government claims?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, if there is one group
responsible for feeding the crisis, it is the opposition.
Just last week, a member of the Bloc visited the reserves,
supposedly for a door-to-door survey. ``Do you own weapons?
Do you buy contraband goods?'' Just imagine, Mr. Speaker,
what would the reaction of Quebecers and Canadians be if
members of Parliament went knocking on their constituents'
doors to ask them about their illegal activities at home. Is that
what Bloc members mean by democracy? I do not think so.
* * *
(1125)
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and deals with the
fiscal reality facing the House.
Yesterday the Government of Saskatchewan brought down a
provincial budget with no tax increases and a 33 per cent
reduction in its deficit figure. Yesterday the Quebec premier
said that his next budget will feature deficit reduction and a
possible tax cut.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House the extent to
which federal deficit fighting measures are being co-ordinated
with those of the provinces and whether the federal government
is leading or following?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform
Party will have his answer in four days and I know he will be
very happy with it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
what I am asking is something that is relatively straightforward.
I asked whether the federal government was co-ordinating its
activities with the provinces, the answer to which is not
dependent at all on the budget being brought down.
My supplementary question is this. All three levels of
government raise their revenues from the same taxpayer, yet no
government budget in the country to date explicitly
acknowledges the total tax load carried by Canadians.
1553
Does the federal government believe that total tax load must
be taken into account in making any changes to federal taxes?
Will it ensure that background information on total tax load is
included with its budget presentation next week?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, many provinces have more
than three levels of government. There are four levels of
government and obviously this government is very cognizant
that there is only one taxpayer.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
we can see why the Deputy Prime Minister is not Minister of
Finance.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Manning: My third question is this. As the Deputy Prime
Minister knows, Canadian business, capital and jobs have been
leaving the country in recent years, citing high tax loads as one
of the principal reasons for leaving.
Does the federal government believe that Canada has room to
further increase the total tax load carried by Canadians without
driving more businesses, more capital and more jobs out of the
country?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the
government believe that any government policy on finance has
to be two track. It has to relate to taxes and jobs.
We did not make the kinds of promises that were made by the
leader of the third party in the last election and that may be why
he is the leader of the third party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, I want to
talk about another contraband product.
It appears that losses related to smuggling of liquor might be
more important than first thought. According to the Association
of Canadian Distillers, this illegal activity results in a loss of
$1.2 billion in uncollected taxes. In Quebec, liquor smuggling
has increased 35 per cent and now affects 1.7 million cases of
liquor, and 2.2 million cases are smuggled into Ontario each
year.
Will the Minister of National Revenue order an internal
inquiry, following allegations to the effect that some senior
customs officials are involved in liquor smuggling?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, the claim that there are customs officers accepting
bribes is one we take extremely seriously.
The Solicitor General and myself announced yesterday that
the RCMP would carry out an investigation of these allegations.
That is all they are: allegations.
I would point out to the hon. member that the document in the
program which indicated this was taking place was dated prior
to the last election. It may be that this program is dealing with
very dated news. I cannot tell. The information is not there for us
to know at what time this program was made and who was
speaking.
(1130)
I would again point out that the allegation was not in fact
made by the CBC but was made by another individual who
claims to be a smuggler and a thief. To rely upon this person's
statement with respect to customs officers is perhaps the wrong
thing to do until an inquiry has been held.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker,
considering the scope of the problem, will the minister consider
a concerted effort with the provinces to curb the spread of this
illegal activity?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, yes, the hon. member can rest assured that we are in
fact in touch with our provincial counterparts on the issue of the
anti-smuggling campaign. May I remind him that the measures
taken last week by the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General and
other members of the government were not designed only with
cigarettes in mind.
We believe the reduction in tax on cigarettes is an important
element of a strategy with many parts. Certainly the campaign is
against smuggling which includes liquor, illegal arms,
pornography, illegal aliens and kidnapped children.
We will continue to maintain the closest links with the
provinces to make sure that the interdiction activities of Canada
Customs are as effective as they possibly can be.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the
Prime Minister.
In recent days our Prime Minister-
The Speaker: Order. Earlier in the Question Period there was
reference to members either being here or not being here. It is
the accepted practice of the House that we do not make mention
of whether or not members are here for the simple reason that all
of us are called away for various reasons.
1554
If hon. members would refrain from mentioning anything like
this it would be appreciated.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you are here. My question
to the Deputy Prime Minister has to do with the fact that our
Prime Minister has gone on and on recently about the need for
members to use their judgment. Yet the last time this House
voted on the question of physician assisted suicide back in
March 1993 the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition,
failed to show up to cast his vote.
Canadians are wondering when the Prime Minister-
The Speaker: I know the hon. member will want to rephrase
her question just a bit and she will be putting the question.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, if for some reason some member of
the House chose not to vote on that sensitive issue, whom would
he or she be representing: the party position, his or her personal
judgment or conscience, or the wishes of his or her constituents?
The Speaker: The Chair is having a bit of difficulty in the
sense that this question, which was put at another time, does not
refer directly to the administrative responsibility of the
government.
However, I guess in a general sense all hon. members are
responsible for voting the way they wish. If the Deputy Prime
Minister chooses she may answer.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, to refer to the comments
made by the Prime Minister, the point the Prime Minister was
trying to make was that in any decision of government we reflect
on the views of our constituents, on the position of our party, on
the knowledge we have garnered from listening to input, and
ultimately we have to make our own decision.
I think the member is treading on very dangerous ground
when she is suggesting that we should be mere voting machines.
The member will remember that the leader of her own party who
took a very strong position against the Charlottetown accord
was not supported by his constituents. They in fact voted in
favour of the Charlottetown accord, yet he continued to
campaign against it.
(1135 )
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister can try to legitimize this mandate
all she wants, but the fact remains that not a single word was
campaigned on about physician assisted suicide, specifically in
the Liberal red book.
In the absence of a national referendum what guarantee could
the Deputy Prime Minister give that government members will
effectively represent their constituents' views on this issue?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has
made it very clear it is the view of the Liberal Party and of
Liberal members of Parliament that they are sent to Parliament
to exercise their judgment; they are not voting machines.
If we are to be reduced to mere voting machines in this age of
technology, it seems to me we might as well abolish the House of
Commons and just put the buttons in everybody's homes so they
can vote immediately.
The reason we have members of Parliament is so that we can
come to this place, engage in a vigorous and informed debate,
and ultimately exercise our judgment in our votes as members of
the House of Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, agreed yesterday to put
in place a one-year moratorium on cod fishing in the southern
region of the Grand Banks off the coast of Newfoundland.
Earlier, I heard my colleague say how delighted he was about it.
Could the government explain why members of NAFO have
settled for a one-year moratorium, while Canada was stressing
the need for a three-year moratorium in order to rebuild cod
stocks?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
who until very recently was in Brussels-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member is taking away my thunder.
Mr. Anderson: On behalf of a Canadian representative who
has recently been in Brussels may I say to the hon. member that
the success of the negotiations on NAFO with respect to cod is a
tremendous achievement for the minister and the Canadian
government.
I would point out that we have had almost no movement with
respect to the members of NAFO on this issue for many years
despite previous ministers of fisheries adopting a heckling,
blustering tone which our minister of fisheries has failed to
adopt. The diplomatic approach has succeeded.
1555
I would like to say that we had a vote. It was not a unanimous
vote but it was an excellent vote. There were three abstentions
and I believe eight votes in favour. We now have the beginning
of an agreement.
It would be unfortunate if we attempted at this point to ask for
too much. We have the start of an international agreement. It is
the very first time we have had this. I think hon. members on
both sides of the House will agree that if we try for too much at
this stage we may indeed lose again. The appropriate,
diplomatic and low key approach of the minister of fisheries has
been enormously successful. I would like to applaud his success.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, I
understand the answer the minister just gave us. However, will
the Deputy Prime Minister, the minister or God knows who from
the other side of the House, acknowledge the fact that this
moratorium will have a limited scope, since Norway and the
European Union have refused to support the moratorium other
members of NAFO have agreed upon?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, it is true there were three abstentions, but we believe
even when nations abstained in the past they did not necessarily
go against the majority decision of NAFO.
We hope and trust that in this case we will have the same
experience and we will find that in fact the moratorium is
successful. After all, this is the very first time many of these
members of NAFO have agreed there is a fundamental
conservation issue on those two areas to the Grand Banks.
That is an enormous step forward in the negotiations we have
had with the Europeans on this issue.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The government recently introduced changes to the standing
orders to make the work of parliamentary standing committees
more meaningful. Reform members have heard that the
government has a plan to prevent Reform MPs from receiving
any vice-chairs on these committees.
(1140)
What precisely is the plan that the government members are
supposed to follow? Is this type of arm twisting really
compatible with the freedom of members in committee as
promised in the speech from the throne and in recent
amendments to the standing orders?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the whole premise of the
member's question is false. In fact the government does not
change the standing orders. They are changed by the House of
Commons.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the minister.
Would the minister then be willing to send a memo to all
government backbenchers advising them that they are free to
vote in committee using their judgment which the Prime
Minister-
The Speaker: Again the Chair is having a bit of difficulty
with the formulation of the question. Perhaps I might suggest, if
the question could be put in more general terms the member
could get the information he is seeking.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, regarding this business of the
House, the Prime Minister declared he had placed much
confidence in the judgment of his members rather than them
being mere voting machines.
Therefore, would the minister respond on behalf of the
government that it will give its backbenchers freedom to vote
and act in committee using that judgment?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
it is my understanding that the House itself cannot discuss
matters that go on within committees. However, in order to be
helpful to the hon. member, if he would like to raise this matter
with me at one of our House leaders meetings, we will see what
we can do to come up with a reasonable response.
It is certainly not the desire of the government to prevent
members from doing their jobs. I regret the hon. member has
made such an unwarranted innuendo.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Industry will not mind if I put
my question directly to the Deputy Prime Minister on a matter of
great concern to Montreal.
Several times in the past Liberal critics have asked for
changes in the POWA program. This income support program
for workers affected by collective lay-offs discriminates against
Montreal, because one of the criteria provides that 100 workers
must be laid off for a company to be eligible for the program. In
fact, when the hon. member for Saint-Léonard was still in the
opposition, he presented a petition with 8,000 signatures
condemning this rule.
1556
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this outrageous
discrimination should be stopped, and is she prepared to make
lay-offs involving more than 20 employees eligible for this
program?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon.
member's suggestion, and if he wishes to table a Private
Member's bill, we are prepared to discuss it. As for making a
single change that would involve the Canada Labour Code, when
we realize that the province has the lowest minimum wage in the
country, I think there are many other priorities to consider.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, this is a true meeting of the minds, since I have made
arrangements to table a Private Member's bill. In fact, I would
like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to support it, since she
made the suggestion herself. In fact, I see this as a sign that the
government is willing to support this initiative.
I would also like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister for
assurances that when the next budget is brought down on
Tuesday, appropriate action will be taken to stop this
discrimination.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Of course, Mr. Speaker, and I think the
hon. member of the Bloc should also realize that the Canada
Labour Code affects the employees of about 10 per cent of the
companies across this country.
I suggest that before the Bloc Quebecois goes ahead with this
bill, it would be a good idea to check with the Quebec
government and make sure there is no conflict between federal
and provincial legislation. I assume he will do so before tabling
his bill. Once that is done, his bill will be considered.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
A vibrant aerospace industry exists in my riding of Winnipeg
St. James. Companies such as Bristol, Standard Aero, Boeing
and Paramax have benefited a lot from government and private
contracts. However, the industry suffered setbacks when, a few
years back, the CF-18 contract was not awarded to Bristol and
more recently with the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter
contract.
(1145)
Can the minister inform the House what his department is
planning to do to maintain a strong aerospace industry in my
riding of Winnipeg St. James and in fact in the whole city of
Winnipeg?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker,
first of all let me say that we agree that the strength and the
health of the Canadian aerospace industry are of vital
importance. This is a niche in which Canada has been very
successful. In terms of sales, our aerospace industry is fifth in
the world.
I am very well aware, as the member has made me aware, of
the fact that there are a number of companies that are very
important in the aerospace sector in the Winnipeg region.
Bristol Aerospace is expected to win a very large contract very
shortly from the U.S. government. Boeing expects to play an
important role in the 737-X program.
The fundamental means of providing support to the aerospace
industry, apart from the general policy framework that we have,
is the defence industry's productivity program. That will be the
cornerstone as promised in the red book of our defence
conversion initiatives. We expect that we can continue to use
that program as a very vital tool-most of its contributions are
repayable-to ensure that the Canadian aerospace industry in
Winnipeg and in the rest of Canada continues to be very
competitive in the world.
* * *
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
At present the United States standards for blood collection
exceed those of Canada. The Canadian Red Cross recently
decided to meet the U.S. standards so that Canadian blood can
continue to be sent to American blood plasma extraction
facilities.
Will the minister commit to raising Canadian blood collection
standards to meet those of the United States?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let
me assure the hon. member that our standards for blood
collection are certainly not inferior to those of the U.S.
Our standards are different and in some instances they may
even be superior because basically we are dealing with very
different blood collection systems. In the U.S. it is a fee and for
profit type of system whereas ours is a voluntary system.
I believe we will continue to make sure that our blood
collection systems are extremely safe.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker,
statements have been recently made to the Krever commission
indicating that the Canadian Red Cross centres are supposed to
be inspected every two years, but in fact have not been inspected
for at least five.
Why does the minister's department not enforce its own
inspection regulations?
1557
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
since I have become the Minister of Health I have instructed
my officials to complete a total inspection of all 17 blood
collection centres in Canada before the end of March 1994, that
is before the end of this current fiscal year.
I have also instructed my officials to completely inspect all 17
facilities every year from now on. I believe the inspection will
be completed as instructed by the end of March.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, the
International Joint Commission presented its biannual report on
the water quality of the Great Lakes. It lists a series of
catastrophic consequences for human health. Birth defects in
newborns, lower sperm count, an increased incidence of breast
cancer, and a decreased learning capacity among school age
children are all cases in point.
(1150)
In view of this report, does the government intend to ban the
dumping of chlorine in the Great Lakes by Canadian industries?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my hon.
colleague had a chance to read the report which says, on page
seven I think, that the use of chlorine should not be banned until
the economic impact of such a decision is examined. If he wants,
I can send him a copy.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, this
same commission has been making roughly the same kind of
recommendations since 1978.
Why is it that the minister refuses to commit herself to
following through with the recommendations of a commission
which provides for Quebec's participation in the agreement on
the Great Lakes water quality, while her own department
acknowledges that 40 per cent of the toxic load of the St.
Lawrence River originates in the Great Lakes?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to
point out that in the 100 days that we have been in office we have
begun a process to abolish a number of toxins. I think it is
important to point out that this is not the first report of the IJC.
In fact, I personally made a presentation to the IJC several years
ago dealing with the issues specifically of prenatal problems and
the problems of breast cancer.
I think it is significant that this particular report is receiving a
tremendous amount of attention because it is the first time that
there is a relationship between the toxins and the problem of
spermatozoa. We have known for many years that there are some
serious problems.
The report also points out that the level of toxicity took 50
years to achieve. The report further underlines that there is no
immediate call by the IJC for a ban on chlorine. In fact, the IJC
report is very specific that any eventual chlorine ban should only
be precipitated by a serious study of the effect on the basin of the
Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.
We are prepared to table within the next four to six months a
list of timetables and schedules for the sunsetting of all problem
chemicals including the possibility of sunsetting
organo-chlorines.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
Through research I have to this date come up with the names
of 23 first-degree killers who were paroled and then went on to
kill 32 more people while on parole. This list is certainly not all
the examples but it is a sample of the last five to six years that I
know of.
Will the minister agree that our present parole system and
parole board is incompetent and that automatic parole should be
stopped until this incompetence is addressed?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has raised an important concern. I do not think
there is automatic parole. In any event, it is the intention of this
government to have the parole system operate in a way that puts
security of the public as a major priority.
I would be happy to have the hon. member's research to see if
it will help us to achieve our Liberal government objective.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): A supplementary, Mr.
Speaker.
Will the minister agree that a major contributor to this
incompetence is based on patronage appointments rather than
stringent criteria that checks the qualifications of such a board?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
it is the intention of this government that appointments to the
parole board will be based primarily on merit and competence.
I look forward to having the support of the hon. member and
his party for this approach.
1558
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that Canada's standards of safety in the
production of food are considerably higher than those of most
nations, including the United States of America, will the
minister tell us when we can look forward to country of origin
labelling for all food products so that Canadians might be more
aware of the source of the food they both purchase and consume?
(1155 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, with the hon. member and all
Canadians, I am very proud of the standards that we have in this
country in terms of health, safety and the quality of our
agricultural production.
The question of country of origin labelling is a subject that I
am very interested in pursuing. I thank the hon. member for
raising the issue.
The issue has implications of course for the private sector and
for the provinces. It also has certain trade implications in terms
of our obligations with respect to the new GATT and GATT
rules. With those and some other cautions in mind, I would be
very happy indeed to pursue the principle of this type of
labelling in the Canadian national interest.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The
Junior Bar Association of Montreal is calling on the Canadian
government to amend the Criminal Code so as to criminalize
acts of pedophilia committed abroad by Canadian nationals.
Certain European countries have recently moved to criminalize
acts of pedophilia committed abroad.
My question is as follows: Does the government intend to
follow up on the request from the Junior Bar Association of
Montreal to criminalize acts of pedophilia committed abroad by
Canadians and if so, will the Deputy Prime Minister undertake
to table a bill on this matter before the House rises in June?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, of course we take this
request from the Junior Bar Association of Montreal very
seriously. Pedophilia is repugnant, regardless of where it
happens. If Canadian tourists are travelling abroad to take
advantage of pedophile networks, as is the case in certain
countries, then clearly the Minister of Justice will be looking
into the matter raised by the hon. member. I can already tell her
that the Liberal caucus has brought this matter to the minister's
attention and I am confident that he will deal with it as soon as
possible.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister will do her
best to ensure that appropriate draft legislation is indeed tabled.
Nevertheless, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister give us her assurance that this
bill will contain provisions to deal with those who organize what
are commonly referred to as sex tours?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of
Justice is already aware of these very difficult and repugnant
issues. I am confident that once he has considered what steps the
Canadian government can take to prevent the growth of this kind
of tourism-and I hesitate even to call this tourism because it
involves disgusting acts-the Minister of Justice will do his
utmost to ensure that these kinds of things do not happen here in
Canada or anywhere else in the world.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On February 16, 1994, BCTV News carried an interview with
the Hartwick family of Surrey, B.C. Bonnie Hartwick wants her
son, Mike, charged with auto theft after being caught driving a
stolen vehicle. Mike is apparently part of a juvenile car theft
ring that has stolen more than 100 cars in the last four months.
The authorities could not oblige Mike's mother, Bonnie,
because Mike is only 10 years old.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this: Will this government
lower the age limits of the Young Offenders Act to make young
offenders accountable for their criminal activity?
(1200 )
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
would be happy to answer the hon. member's question as Acting
Minister of Justice.
I too heard the press report on the radio and found it quite
disturbing. I would be very happy to draw her representation to
the attention of the Minister of Justice because I know that he
and his department are actively reviewing the Young Offenders
Act.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
1559
During the interview, 10-year old Mike stated that he was
likely to continue stealing cars because it was fun. He knows
that the police cannot charge him. Can the minister explain how
this behaviour and attitude is in the best interests of either
society or young Mike?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the attitude the hon. member referred to is certainly troubling.
This is why I have already said that I want to make sure the
Minister of Justice is aware of this case so we can give it full
attention in the review of the Young Offenders Act which I know
is under way at this time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mme Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The government has
announced an indefinite moratorium to the effect that no new
post office will be closed in the rural areas of Canada.
In view of this moratorium, does the government intend to
rectify the past errors and re-open some post offices, such as the
one in Saint-Clément, which was criticized by the Liberal Party
when it was sitting in the Opposition?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Public
Works had been able to make his comments yesterday, he would
have told you that the decision only applies to post offices that
are not now closed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of the Environment.
I made available two letters to the minister yesterday, one
from the former leader of the opposition, the present Prime
Minister, and the other from the former environment critic, the
present Minister of Finance. These letters relate to the
environmental assessment review panel's report on the Oldman
dam project.
Would the minister please clarify the government's current
position on these letters?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
advance notice of his question. I have already been in touch with
my colleague, the minister of fisheries, to ensure that the
requirements of the environmental assessment review panel are
respected.
I am very happy to hear environmental concerns about the
Oldman dam expressed by the members of the Reform Party
also.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I wish to draw to your attention
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Niels Helveg
Petersen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of
Denmark.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make it clear to you, to the hon. member for
Mackenzie and to all hon. members that my refusal yesterday to
permit the minister's statement was based solely on an ongoing
matter of giving prior and proper notice of statements as agreed
on by House leaders.
To suggest that either I or my party is not in support of
ministers-
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member probably has a very
good point of debate, but it would not be a point of order at this
time.
_____________________________________________
1559
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the House
prayer.
(1205 )
I would like to advise Your Honour and members of the House
that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
has come to a unanimous recommendation in respect of the
prayers of the House. It recommends that the following form of
prayer be adopted for usage by the House of Commons to
supersede previous ones and with the leave of the Chair and the
House I would propose reading the brief prayer we have
recommended so members may hear it.
The prayer reads: ``Almighty God, we give thanks for the
great blessings which have been bestowed on Canada and its
citizens, including the gifts of freedom, opportunity and peace
that we enjoy. We pray for our sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, and
the Governor General. Guide us in our deliberations as members
1560
of Parliament and strengthen us in our awareness of our duties
and responsibilities as members. Grant us wisdom, knowledge
and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for
the benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions.
Amen''.
There will follow a moment of silence for private reflection
and meditation with another ``Amen'' at the end.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to move concurrence in this
report later on this afternoon.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which
is a list of changes in the membership of committees of the
House. I would ask that the House dispense with the reading of
the report.
I wish to advise the House that if there is unanimous consent I
will move adoption of this seventh report on motions in a few
minutes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Mr. Speaker, some time last week I gave
notice to the House that I would be introducing three private
member's bills Nos. 7, 8, and 9.
I would like the consent of the House to withdraw those
notices for the time being.
The Speaker: Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Notices Nos. 7, 8, and 9 withdrawn.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
with leave of the House, I move, seconded by the member for
Elgin-Norfolk, that the seventh report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled in the House
today, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a
petition on behalf of my constituents asking the government to
bring in changes to the Young Offenders Act to make it tougher
in how it deals with dangerous young offenders.
This petition is presented in memory of Rosalynn Dupuis. I
support it and hope that the government will respond to it
favourably.
(1210 )
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my privilege to rise in the
House to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of
Petitions on behalf of many concerned constituents of
Nanaimo-Cowichan and surrounding areas.
The petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to enact
legislation providing for a referendum binding on Parliament to
accept or reject two official languages. Given Canada's current
fiscal restraints, the petitioners feel the existing official
languages law is very expensive and is actually more divisive
than cohesive.
[Translation]
I suggest our colleagues listen carefully to the speeches we
will be making next week on that issue.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
with unanimous consent I would also propose that the items
standing as Motions Nos. 1, 2, and 3 under government business
on today's Order Paper be withdrawn. The three motions are
those that are take note motions that have already been debated
in the House and it is not intended to extend those debates. To
save printing costs we propose removing them from the Order
Paper at this time.
1561
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 withdrawn.)
_____________________________________________
1561
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health) moved that Bill
C-7, an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their
precursors and other substances and to amend certain other acts
and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to
Bill C-7 today. This bill, the controlled drugs and substances
bill, addresses one of the most compelling issues with which
society is faced today, the issue of drug abuse.
Members will no doubt recall that Canada's drug strategy
launched in 1987 created a comprehensive co-ordinated effort
to reduce the harm caused by alcohol and other drugs to
individuals, families and communities.
The harm caused by substance abuse includes, among other
things, sickness, death, social misery, crime, violence and
economic cost to all levels of government.
My department plays a leading role in Canada's drug strategy
but we have many partners who co-operate in its
implementation. These partners include other federal
departments, the provinces, businesses, law enforcement
agencies, labour and professional and volunteer organizations.
The strategy responds to four areas of need: prevention;
treatment and rehabilitation; information and research; and
enforcement and control.
As each member of this House is only too aware, drug abuse
and the untold suffering it causes knows no geography, no
socio-economic class, no social graces. I would think that every
one of us has met constituents who have experienced the anguish
of a son or a daughter, a sister or a brother, a friend or a
neighbour consumed by the ravages of drug addiction.
The problem is widespread. According to a United Nations
survey, trade in illegal drugs is second only to world trade in
arms. Such is the clout of the global industry that we are up
against in our efforts to control drug abuse in Canada.
Recent statistics reveal that within a single year almost 15 per
cent of young Canadians ages 15 to 19 have admitted to using
cannabis.
(1215 )
Moreover, the incidence of drug abuse rises considerably
among teenagers and young adults who are school drop-outs,
unemployed or homeless. Further evidence shows that over a
one year period 2 per cent of Canadians claim to have used
cocaine.
These are formidable figures. What do they mean? Just what
is their significance? They mean heartache; they mean
suffering. They mean a toll of crippling misery being exacted on
those caught in that seamless web called addiction. The real
importance of these figures goes well beyond their statistical
relevance. They translate into many millions of dollars spent on
health care, family welfare, unemployment benefits and
disability pensions.
As a further response to this ongoing challenge, the
government announced two years ago its renewed commitment
to Canada's drug strategy.
[Translation]
On March 31, 1992, Canada's drug strategy was allocated
$270 million over a five year period. Seventy per cent of these
funds are directed to reducing demand for drugs through
prevention, education and treatment programs. This new bill is
one element of the other 30 per cent that is dedicated to law
enforcement.
The bill now before us, along with the Proceeds of Crime
legislation passed by this House in 1989, are fully consistent
with the strategy's objectives relating to enforcement and
control.
It takes direct aim at those who seek to profit from exploiting
the young and the vulnerable. The bill is intended to consolidate,
modernize, enhance and streamline the government's drug
control policy underlying two current Acts of Parliament; and to
fulfil Canada's obligations under three international
conventions.
In 1961, the government of the day enacted the Narcotic
Control Act. In 1961 and 1969, Parliament passed Parts III and
IV in essence, much of our existing legislative framework is
now more than 30 years old.
Furthermore, as signatory to three international agreements
on the illegal drug trade, Canada is obligated to the terms of the
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, the Convention
on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 and the United Nations
Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychoactive Substances of 1988.
Consequently, the controlled drugs and substances bill is
designed to achieve three prime objectives: to provide the
government with the flexibility required to better control the
import, production, export, distribution and use of controlled
1562
substances; to provide the mechanisms needed to implement our
obligations under international agreements-this relates to the
restricted production or trade of internationally regulated
substances destined for medical, scientific and/or industrial
purposes-and to enhance the ability of the police and the courts
to enforce our laws. The bill actually provides for the seizure
and forfeiture of property used in offences involving controlled
substances.
The existing Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act
do not deal effectively with emerging trends in drug abuse.
These trends point to the increasing availability of new illicit or
new designer drugs which, under current law, can escape
effective control.
Under the aegis of the drug strategy, the government remains
committed to a working partnership whose ``raison d'être'' is
the reduction of drug abuse in Canada.
(1220)
[English]
The controlled drugs and substances bill is an integral part of
the strategy. It consolidates, modernizes, enhances and
streamlines drug abuse provisions contained in the two current
laws. Simply put, it builds on the government's current policy
on drug abuse.
Those who profit from this are undeniably resourceful,
determined and cunning. Their methods, their tactics and their
products are forever undergoing change. We need flexible
legislation which allows those on the front lines of enforcement
to adapt quickly to these new developments as they occur.
For example, one of the more recent developments in the drug
underworld is the production and illicit sale of so-called
designer drugs and look alike drugs. Designer drugs are potent
substances with slightly different chemical structures than
substances presently controlled by the Food and Drugs Act and
the Narcotic Control Act, substances like stimulants,
tranquillizers and pain killers. These drugs affect abusers in
similar ways and can lead to the same health and social problems
produced by more conventional drugs.
Look alike drugs, on the other hand, are substances made to
resemble illegal drugs. The manufacturers of these malicious
offerings can mimic the more powerful drugs. Much harm can
result from the abuse of these drugs and primary targets of these
merchants of misery are often school-age children.
The manufacture and sale of designer drugs and look alike
drugs can be a very profitable business. Sadly, it is a business
with terrible consequences for hundreds of thousands of
customers, many of them young people.
Under the current Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic
Control Act, drugs must first be listed on a schedule to the act.
This regulates the conditions for the sale of that particular
substance in Canada. Only once a given substance is listed can it
become an offence to sell it. To correct this deficiency the
controlled drugs and substances bill proposes interpretive
clauses to include these substances.
Under this proposed act, new illicit drugs appearing on the
street which fit this description will be covered automatically.
The bill also permits the control of precursors. Precursors are
chemical substances used to produce controlled substances.
New provisions contained in this bill will enable authorities to
regulate the import and export of these substances.
Other sources of drugs sold on the street are substances
intended for medical or scientific use. They may be stolen from
a hospital, obtained through illegal prescriptions, secured by
obtaining numerous prescriptions from different doctors for the
same ailment, or via a forged prescription. People who deal in
diverted pharmaceutical drugs are collecting very large profits.
The bill enhances present controls that deal with this issue.
Under this bill the monitoring of the distribution of drugs will
continue.
[Translation]
To ensure compliance with the law and prevent diversion,
inspectors, in close co-operation with law enforcement
authorities would continue to visit pharmacies, hospitals,
licensed dealers, dispensing practitioners, researchers and
laboratory analysts.
We know there exists a criminal element which is using more
and more sophisticated networks to illegally produce, sell,
export or import controlled substances in Canada.
These people buy property and consumer goods to further
their criminal activities and bolster their personal wealth.
As I see it, such people should be prevented from retaining
illegally obtained capital and goods.
The bill before us today, together with the proceeds of crime
legislation, strikes at the heart of criminal enterprise.
Together, these enactments will enable the courts to strip
criminals of profits and property illegally amassed through drug
dealing.
Trends in illegal production, distribution and use of
controlled substances change frequently and quickly.
This bill is designed to deal with current problems and to
anticipate future needs. There is no doubt that there is a very real
problem of drug abuse in Canada.
1563
(1225)
It causes death, injury and illness; leads to lost productivity in
the workplace; is a burden on our health care system; and,
increasingly, puts a strain on our courts and police forces.
In spite of these glaring facts, some people still doubt that
drug abuse is a real concern for the majority of Canadians. They
imagine that it is a local problem, affecting relatively few
teenagers, primarily among low-income groups in large cities.
It is true that it is not possible to measure accurately the full
scope of drug abuse in Canada.
What the statistics fail to show are the personal and social
costs-in a word the real costs. We can only guess what the real
costs of abuse are: the loss of the potentiel achievements of our
youth; the crippling of promising professional careers; the
painful destruction of homes and families; the costly disruption
of productive communities. These are the disturbing facts of life
in virtually every corner of the nation.
Fifteen per cent of teenagers using cannabis. The total number
of Canadians using cocaine-500,000 persons. These facts, as
unsettling as they are, deserve our attention. They deserve our
attention as legislators.
[English]
More important, they deserve our attention as parents, family,
friends, colleagues and neighbours to those in need, for nobody
is immune. I believe the bill proposes a significant
strengthening of our current legislative framework.
At the present time three levels of government spend millions
of dollars each year on drug law enforcement. In spite of these
enormous expenditures, the fact is that police forces and the
courts are hampered by outdated provisions in the laws they
seek to uphold.
I welcome debate on the bill. While there are bound to be
differences of opinion, I believe this bill merits, nonetheless, the
support of members on all sides of the House. In bringing the
bill forward I am asking on behalf of the crown that we as
members of this place do our part to help equip the government
with a new set of tools that will allow us to get on with the job at
hand.
It may well be that striving for a drug free society is an
unrealistic if laudable goal. Given what is at stake I submit that
Canadians expect us to act.
_____________________________________________
1563
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
there have been some consultations between the parties and I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this
day, be concurred in.
I want to say very briefly how much I appreciate the
co-operation that has been shown on this very delicate issue on
all sides of the House. This is concurrence in the report
concerning prayers.
I should note for the record that there was a question raised the
other day by the hon. member for Saint John who is ill and
unable to be here today. She has heard this prayer and agrees
with it. I have consulted with many members on all sides of the
House including the hon. member for Hamilton West in respect
of this issue.
I think there is agreement that this be adopted. I am pleased to
move this motion for concurrence this afternoon and I thank all
hon. members for their co-operation.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): I rise on a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. Are we now at the tabling of the motion imposing
the new prayer upon us? The hon. member asked for unanimous
consent; we would be happy to give it, provided that those who
would want to say a few words about this new version of the
prayer could do so.
(1230)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if the Chair
could ask for the assistance of the parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader and of all members. Would there be
unanimous consent for members to make interventions-and I
would hope brief interventions-with regard to this motion? Is
it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I commend the committee for
having thought about a new prayer. It seems to me that the
traditional one was old-fashioned and had to be updated, since
nowadays members of this House practice different religions.
However, I am surprised and I personally disagree with a
specific part of the prayer, but as a member of my caucus, I will
go along with the majority's wishes. What I disagree with is the
reference to Her Most Gracious Majesty.
1564
When I am sitting in the House, I am very surprised to see
all the members from the other parties stand up and very loudly
express their pride in being Canadian. Yet, as soon as there is
a symbol that would reflect this pride in being Canadian, what
do we do? We use the Queen of England. We do not say the
government speech, but the throne speech. We do not have a
typical Canadian signing a bill, we have royal assent. We
always use the symbol of Great Britain. Are we a colonized
people? Or are we an independent country? That is the problem
that I have with this prayer.
It is ironic that a member from the Bloc Quebecois would
have to remind the others parties in the House that they are
Canadian. They are not a colony of England, they are Canadian.
In fact, all the symbols that they have as Canadians often come
from the French reality.
We have sung Ô Canada in French for one hundred years,
while you were singing God Save the Queen. After a hundred
years, you started to sing it too, in English, and you made it the
national anthem. We asked for a flag for 50 years, but you
preferred the red ensign. We wanted Canadian symbols, because
we were of French descent.
I am often told: You are more committed to the Quebec flag
than to the Canadian flag. Of course I am, because ever since the
1950s, we have identified with that flag, we did not have any
other. Everywhere we looked we saw the British flag.
I am surprised that at a time when you have the opportunity to
declare yourself Canadian, at a time where you could choose a
Canadian symbol for the prayer which starts the day in this
House, you decide to beseech the Queen of England. I cannot
understand-
Mr. Milliken: She is also the Queen of Canada.
Mr. Plamondon: Really? She is also the Queen of Canada,
says my colleague. Of course, she is a symbol, a tradition, she is
part of our history. Is it not high time that you adopt your own
symbols, if you are truly Canadian, if you really want your own
identity?
Every time someone in the Bloc makes a reference to a
sovereign Quebec or something like that, you rise and claim that
you are Canadian. I am surprised.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would like to remind all
members that they should address themselves to the Chair.
When ``you'' is used in English, or ``vous'' in French,
something may be lost.
Would the hon. member for Richelieu like to conclude?
Mr. Plamondon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaking through
the Chair is a fine Canadian tradition and I respect it with
pleasure.
I was about to conclude on the prayer issue and I did not make
this remark in a aggressive way.
(1235)
It is just a thought. It is just something I have noted every day
over the nine years I have been in this House. Each time you
have the opportunity to adopt Canadian symbols, you fail to do
so. The fact is that British symbols always come back, with
words like royal assent, The Queen in the prayer, the throne
speech, and so on.
Of course, I agree that we have to modernize the prayer, but
again I just wanted to conclude my remarks on this note.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I have not prepared a speech but I served on the
procedure and House affairs committee and was somewhat
involved in this process. It is a very delicate issue that affects
not only members in the House but all Canadians in a very deep
and meaningful way.
I commend all members of all parties involved in the
discussion and the process. I know it is impossible to please
everyone, but I find this prayer acknowledges an almighty God.
I believe this was important to the members on the committee
and I believe it will be acceptable to Canadians. It also reflects
our system of government, the fact that we are functioning in a
parliamentary system. It also reflects that we do want to serve
Canadians. We want to see our country prosper and go forward.
The process also allows for a time of reflection which I think
is very important. It allows people of all faiths-and certainly I
know Reformers strongly support the concept-the right to
freedom of religion. By this means all members of the House are
able to reflect in a way that they deem most appropriate.
Therefore, although I do not expect there is unanimous
agreement that it is 100 per cent perfect in its construction, I
believe that all members who look at this format believe the
process is there so that they can effectively reflect and pray at
the beginning of each session of the House. It properly reflects
the make-up and nature of Canada.
Therefore I think there is general agreement among
Reformers in the House that we would be very happy to proceed
with this new structure for our Speaker's prayer.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a comment if I may because I participated in
the proceedings of that committee. Let me remind the House of
some elements that were already announced concerning what we
call Prayers.
We have been debating the question for several years and I
think the committee has done a magnificent job in trying to unite
everyone around one fundamental form of prayer. We all know
that Prayers open every sitting of the House; what we have now
constitutes a great improvement compared to the previous text
which made some members ill at ease on religious grounds.
1565
You know the Chair must open every sitting by determining
if there is a quorum before starting to say prayers. Given the
general discomfort among members, the committee could not
accept that a few of them feel unconcerned by these first
moments of the sitting of the House and have no other recourse
but to stay outside if they do not feel involved in what is going
on. This is the first element of importance.
Our objective was then to include all elected members in the
discussions and that prompted us to prepare a text almost free of
any references to specific religious beliefs and acceptable to
almost everybody. All members also had to feel the House was
their place and that this activity was meant for them. Of course
my colleague mentioned the reference to the Queen, but above
all, our aim was to design a moment of reflection intended for all
members of the House.
We are practicing democracy at its best here today in trying to
recognize all religions and I think this is very positive and
valuable, even more so when you think that prayers do not
necessarily have to be a formal text; that is an argument I
presented to the committee.
(1240)
We know that any prayer is something very personal, it is a
conversation with what each of us calls God, but one's own
personal God, according to one's own values. In that
perspective, we are extremely satisfied that all faiths are
recognized here through what I would call multiple persuasions.
The second element is that the intimate nature of prayers is
recognized by the moment of silence each member of this House
will respect and, in so doing, will feel concerned by the very first
opening instants of each sitting of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It was agreed
unanimously to make brief remarks. If we do not have
unanimous consent on the motion proposed by the member from
Kingston and the Islands, I could suggest that there be further
negotiations.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, we are ready. Of course, you do
not have to beg us to speak about prayers. We are ready to give
unanimous consent, as we have already said. We can go on with
the debate or agree unanimously to adjourn at 2.30 p.m. without
any extension of the sitting. If I have the Government House
leader's promise to that effect, we will stop pleading.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker
if there is unanimous consent right now to adopt the motion
presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government
House Leader, I would be happy to give a commitment that this
House will not sit past 2.30 and will adjourn at that time. Again,
that is on the condition there is unanimous consent given
immediately for passing this motion and we return to second
reading debate of Bill C-7.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Members have heard the
terms of the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Government House
leader gives us his word that we will adjourn at 2.30 p.m., we
agree to give unanimous consent to have the vote on the prayer.
We are more than willing to do so.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon, members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
1565
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, drug trafficking, possession and intoxication is a very serious problem that modern society must face. We all know that adults, teenagers and even children get intoxicated with and addicted to drugs.
This is why I ask all those who are watching to listen carefully
to what I say. If you have a videotape recorder, I advise you to
record what I am about to say.
[English]
What we are going to talk about should interest everyone.
People may think there is nothing exciting in the new bill. That
is not so today.
[Translation]
As a matter of fact, during the next 40 minutes we will be
dealing with issues that are of interest to everyone, honest
people, sick people, health professionals, law enforcement
people but also those who produce, distribute, possess and use
drugs. We will be talking about Bill C-7.
(1245)
This bill deals with certain drugs, their precursors and other
substances. It was tabled in the House of Commons and passed
the first reading stage on February 2. The passing of this bill at
third reading would result in the Narcotic Control Act, and
certain sections of parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act,
being repealed.
1566
It is important to note that Bill C-7 is, for all intents and
purposes, identical to Bill C-85, an Act respecting the control
of psychoactive substances, which was tabled by the
Conservative government on June 11, 1992. That bill passed
the first and second reading stages on June 11, 1992 and May
6, 1993. The committee tabled its report on June 3, 1993. Bill
C-85 died on the Order Paper when the elections were called.
Bill C-7 is part of the national drug strategy. It consolidates
and adds to the provisions of the Narcotic Control Act, and of
Parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act. Last but not least,
Bill C-7 would enact certain provisions of the Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, dating back to 1961, and of the
1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Both
international conventions were ratified by Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois believes it is necessary for Canada and
Quebec to be able to adequately and efficiently control narcotic
drugs on their territories. Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois
recognizes that legislating to that end is an obvious necessity.
Let us quickly review the situation as it is presently in
Canada. At the present time, under the Narcotic Control Act and
the Food and Drugs Act, drugs must be listed in a schedule to the
act for their sale on the streets to become an offense.
Consequently, new drugs are not considered illegal as long as
they have not been analysed and added to a schedule. This
process takes a lot of time. Meanwhile, people who use these
substances, and society in general, may and do suffer grave
prejudices.
It should be noted that Bill C-7 includes the provisions of the
present legislation. Under clause 2 we find the same definition
of the word ``sale'' as including distribution, whether it is made
for consideration or not, that is to say free of charge.
Certain provisions, however, have been added. For example,
besides manufacturing, synthesizing, cultivating, propagating
and harvesting, ``produce'' also includes offer to produce, as
mentioned in clause 2.
Moreover, according to clause 3(1), a substance included in
the schedules is deemed to include not only any substance
capable of producing an effect similar to that of a substance
included in these schedules, but also any substance represented
or held out as such by the purchaser, whether acting in good faith
or not.
Thus, every person who, whether acting in good faith or not,
traffics in a substance represented or held out as a substance
included in the schedules, is guilty of an indictable offence or of
a punishable offence, pursuant to clause 6(1), (3) and (5).
The mere act of possessing, for the purpose of trafficking,
even if no money is involved, a substance included in the
schedules, is an indictable offence or an offence punishable
under clause 6(2) and (3). The bill provides for harsher penalties
for substances included in schedule I and the severity decreases
from one schedule to another. It should be noted that cannabis is
listed in schedule I. Every person producing cannabis, no matter
to what extent, is guilty of an indictable offence liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, under
clause 8(2)(b).
(1250)
[English]
This being said, is Bill C-7 substantially different from actual
laws in regard to unlawful drug distribution? No, not at all.
[Translation]
It is important to make this statement to correct any other
perception which some may have had following the recent
comments made by the Solicitor General.
Indeed, on February 15, the Solicitor General said to
journalists that Bill C-7 was the best way to curb cocaine
smuggling activities by warriors on aboriginal territories. These
comments tend to imply that current laws are not sufficient to
adequately fight this traffic.
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Like Bill
C-7, the existing Narcotic Control Act makes the smuggling,
importation and exportation of drugs a criminal activity. That
act also says that it is illegal to have goods directly or indirectly
linked to the commission of an offence, in or outside Canada.
Bill C-7 only adds the notions of conspiracy and attempt to
commit an offence. The same is true in the case of laundering
proceeds of certain offences. The powers to search, seize and
detain are very clearly defined in the existing act.
Therefore, it appears that the legislation already provides the
Solicitor General with all the necessary tools to intervene now
on aboriginal territories to stop cocaine smuggling by warriors.
As for the Solicitor General's statement to the effect that Bill
C-7 will allow police to make controlled sales, thereby allowing
undercover agents to infiltrate smuggling rings and catch
criminals by proposing deals, I wonder if that is anything new.
Indeed, the power to investigate already allows police to
conduct undercover activities and make controlled sales.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the Solicitor General would
try to use Bill C-7 to buy time and delay any action against
smugglers who use aboriginal territories for their operations.
The fact is that current laws contain all the necessary provisions
to allow the Solicitor General to make a move. To claim
anything else would only confirm that there is no political will
to act, which cannot decently be true, naturally.
Having said this, I think we should question how effective Bill
C-7 will be once it comes into force.
1567
For instance, how many more people are expected to be
arrested and convicted thanks to this bill? Who do we expect
to arrest and convict? What kind of a reduction in trafficking
and use is expected? Finally, will the judicial system be able
to absorb the extra caseload? And what is provided in this law
for the unfortunate people who have become addicted to drugs?
Answers to these questions are either non-existent or
unsatisfactory, as we will demonstrate in this debate.
Indeed, we consider that Bill C-7 has several significant
flaws and not only ignores the parameters to be defined in
effective drug control strategy but also opens the door to some
major adverse effects. In the time at our disposal, my colleagues
from the Bloc Quebecois and I will try to express our concerns
so that this House and the general public can cconsider this bill
in the light of accepted modern values.
The flaws that we have identified in Bill C-7 can be grouped
under four questions. First, are legitimate activities of
physicians, pharmacists, vets and dentists properly protected
against abusive application of the legislation and especially
against regulations the scope of which we do not know at the
moment?
(1255)
Second, will the significant powers granted to inspectors, to
be designated directly by the minister, not possibly lead to some
errors which could unduly penalize health professionals and
their patients? Will Canadians be able to take on the added
responsibilities arising from this bill? And is this bill in line
with the rights and privileges of provincial governments,
especially Quebec?
Third, how will the confidentiality of medical records be
ensured when the bill allows absolutely anyone designated as an
inspector by the minister to reproduce documents found in a
physician's office or in a pharmacy and to seize electronic data.
Fourth and foremost, why are drug-dependent persons who
need to be treated and not jailed considered criminals in this
bill?
I will now address each one of these issues in order to
determine the provisions which need to be improved and which
are, in our opinion, crucial for the purpose of this Act and for
avoiding disastrous secondary consequences.
Let us begin with our first concern. Are legitimate activities
of physicians, pharmacists, vets and dentists properly protected
against an abusive application of this act and especially against
regulations the scope of which we do not know at the moment?
I would like to remind hon. members that the Canadian
Medical Association expressed its concerns, last May, before
the legislative committee on Bill C-85, because physicians will
have no way of knowing which activities are legal or illegal
before the regulations have been promulgated. Hence, they do
not have all the information they need to properly examine this
bill. In fact, since regulations can be amended by the
bureaucracy, how can physicians and their patients be informed
of such changes? The lack of information in the bill on which
medication will be controlled also added to their feeling of
uncertainty.
For example, the Canadian Medical Association was
concerned about the definition of practitioner in clause 2, which
is left to the regulations, especially for the purpose of the
definition ``provide'' in section 54z.1.
We understand that the purpose of Bill C-7 is not to cause
problems for health care professionals or their patients.
However, it has recently come to our attention that the Canadian
Medical Association clearly indicated that the bill requires
some clarification so as not to cause undue prejudice to medical
practitioners.
Dr. Barry Adams, chairman of the Council on Health Care and
Promotion of the Canadian Medical Association, had this to say
when he appeared before the legislative committee last May,
and I quote:
The Canadian Medical Association is extremely concerned about the changes
brought about by this legislation, because some seem to be directed at legitimate
patient and physician activities. Our concerns are twofold. First, the changed
definitions of some offences will have direct and undesirable consequences for
physicians in their daily practices, and also for their patients. Second, the new
regulatory powers will inappropriately and ineffectively regulate the prescribing
practices of physicians, and will give increased access to confidential patient
information.
[
English]
We share those important concerns expressed by the Canadian
Medical Association. In particular, we are seriously concerned
by the important modifications that will affect all individuals
treated by two or more doctors.
(1300)
[Translation]
Is indeed guilty of an indictable offence or of a punishable
offence a person who, having obtained within the preceding
thirty days a substance included in the schedules or an
authorization to obtain such a substance, neglects to mention
that fact to a practitioner from whom that person obtains or
seeks to obtain any substance included in the schedules or an
authorization to obtain it.
The Canadian Medical Association points out that this new
provision applies not only to patients who consult two doctors
within a period of thirty days but also to any person obtaining or
seeking to obtain a drug from a person authorized to provide it.
This would include doctors who are obtaining or seeking to
obtain drugs for legitimate medical reasons as well as every
patient wanting to treat real symptoms.
1568
[English]
The Canadian Medical Association stresses that the law does
not clearly define what is unlawful. Consequently an individual
would have to know if he or she is authorized to request drugs
and who is an authorized drug supplier.
This creates an unacceptable uncertainty for the doctors as
well as for their patients.
[Translation]
Does that mean, for instance, Mr. Speaker, that you and I and
everyone will have to memorize the schedules to the act in order
to avoid committing an offence unwittingly? If such a substance
was legitimately injected while unconscious in a hospital, would
it be a crime to neglect to mention that to the pharmacist you are
asking to fill a prescription for that substance or any other
substance included in the schedules?
Does that mean that every one of us, in Quebec as well as in
Canada, will have to ask our doctor or pharmacist for a list of
everything that is prescribed, sold or administered to us, and a
list of the drugs a third party has been authorized to sell or to
administer to us, whether or not that sale or administration
happened? If clause 5(2) of the bill was to be taken literally, the
nightmare I just outlined would become a definite possibility.
[English]
To those who think that no one in his right mind would apply
the law so strictly and so foolishly, my answer is we should
know better.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, there is no doubt somebody will choose to
enforce the act rigidly and blindly, if given the opportunity to do
so. The only thing that remains to be seen is where and when
and, above all, who the unfortunate victim will be! It is our
responsibility in this House to have a bill that is crystal clear and
deals with the true goals to be achieved and leaves law-abiding
citizens and pharmacists alone. The House should legislate and
not leave it to well-intentioned bureaucrats to regulate.
There is another concern due to the fact that patients are
included in the definitions given in the bill. In this context, we
should consider the case of pain-relieving drugs used to spare
unnecessary pain to the sick, the chronically ill and terminally
ill cancer patients. If, under this bill, the physician must ask
himself each and every time he writes a prescription whether he
is breaking the law or not, then Mr. Speaker, I ask you: How
many sick persons will be denied the drugs they really need?
The bill must be explicit and make a clear-cut distinction
between an unlawful behaviour on the part of a physician and a
questionable way of prescribing drugs.
The medical association emphasized also that it was not sure
the federal government could legitimately regulate the
prescription and administration of drugs by physicians to their
patients. Moreover, it is far from certain that the enforcement
mechanism will be effective. It thinks that the use of penal law
to regulate quality in health care is counterproductive and
inconsistent with modern management theory.
Mr. Speaker, I notice I still have a lot more notes to go
through. How much time do I have left?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion, you still
have 15 to 18 minutes, that is until 1.20 p.m.
(1305)
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to tell you
about the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, which also
testified last May. The president of that association, Mr. Leroy
Fevang, said: ``We have four concerns: the uncertainty about the
type of substances which will be affected by the bill; the extent
of the administration and enforcement powers provided by the
bill; the possibility that the bill will force pharmacists to give
information in such a way as to almost incriminate themselves;
and the uncertainty caused by the lack of information on the
nature of the regulations and the lack of any mention of
medication in the bill. The Canadian Pharmaceutical
Association wants the act to specify clearly what substances a
pharmacist can legally handle''.
The association also wondered how we should define
``stimulant effect''. Do we even have a standard to measure it? If
one definition could cover everything, would there be
exemptions for people who can have unusual reactions? Who
would decide what is a so-called psychotropic substance? How
would this information be given to pharmacists in order to help
them to start exercising some control over those substances?
The association mentioned, for example, the risk which a
pharmacist would incur in selling or packaging
over-the-counter drugs that are not listed in the act and have
minor or unexpected effects that can be associated with
psychotropic properties.
I will now discuss the second aspect, and I am referring to the
wide-ranging powers given to inspectors appointed directly by
the minister, powers which I think will perhaps not encourage
but at least open the door to errors that would unduly penalize
health professionals and their patients. Will the public be able to
deal with the new responsibilities it has under this bill? And how
can this legislation co-exist with the prerogatives of Quebec and
the provinces for dealing with their respective jurisdictions?
Bill C-7 appears to grant quasi inquisitorial powers to the
minister, through inspectors, adjudicators and justices. Last
year, the Legislative Committee on Bill C-85 wondered whether
the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian
Rights and Liberties Federation would have something to say
1569
about the compatibility of measures provided in the bill with the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially in matters
concerning the Criminal Code.
For instance, the committee had some questions about
searches without a warrant. It seems that in 1984, in the Hunder
and Southam case, the court ruled that a warrant was necessary,
except under very special circumstances.
Bill C-7 provides for circumstances in which no warrant is
required. It not only does that, but it also says in clause 29(1)
that the minister may designate any person, literally any person,
as an inspector for the purposes of this Act. These appointees
will enjoy quasi inquisitorial powers. These powers are
considerable and sufficiently broad to cover any kind of abuse,
whether it is accidental, voluntary or the result of a conspiracy.
So the inspector is appointed by the Minister of National
Health and Welfare. There are some questions about the
minister's discretionary powers in this respect. First of all, this
political appointment provides no guarantees that the inspector
has the qualifications to perform his duties. Since the minister
may designate anyone as an inspector, the appointment may be
purely partisan.
The inspector's powers are considerable. According to clause
30(1) of this Act, ``an inspector may, to ensure compliance with
the regulations, at any reasonable time enter any place used for
the purpose of conducting the business or professional practice
of any person licensed or otherwise authorized under the
regulations to deal in a controlled substance or precursor''.
(1310 )
[English]
This article means that an inspector can visit and thoroughly
search your doctor's office or your drugstore and all this without
a warrant.
[Translation]
We understand that the intent of the bill is to give these
powers to the inspector so that he can fulfil his administrative
duties. But since the evidence that he accumulates could be used
in a criminal court and a search warrant is required for any
criminal proceedings unless there are very special
circumstances provided for by the law, it seems to us that these
circumstances should really be exceptional. However, the
inspection powers go way beyond the principle that I just
mentioned.
Let me explain to the House what we are talking about. We are
talking about clause 30 concerning any person authorized or
licensed under the regulations, such as the pharmacist, the
doctor or the hospital.
Regarding these people, the search powers of the inspector are
practically without any limitations, the warrant often being only
required for a dwelling-place. The inspector can visit any place
at any time that is convenient to him, he can search and examine
any thing, including computerized data, he can use any
computer or copying equipment in that place, without any
compensation to the person in charge of that place, he can take
away with him any thing that he wants and he can use force.
Moreover, any person present in the place, including the patient,
undoubtedly, is required to help the inspector and to give him
any information without interfering with his work, even by
omission. And I remind this House that the Minister can literally
appoint anybody to that job.
I would like to mention also that this bill infringes on the
jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. According to the
Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, under the present
system, the provincial governments grant pharmacists licences
which allow them to sell and package pharmaceuticals.
According to that Association, it is not necessary for the federal
government to issue new licences for the sale and packaging of
controlled drugs, as this could create duplication and even
greater confusion.
Consequently, this bill infringes on provincial jurisdiction.
For example, Quebec grants inspection power to the
Corporation des médecins. The inspector working for the
Corporation can, upon prior notice, visit physicians in their
offices to make sure that everything is in agreement with
common medical practice.
The Government of Quebec, like the governments of the
Canadian provinces, also gives the syndic of the Corporation the
power to inspect the practice of a physician when it receives a
complaint alleging that the physician prescribed harmful drugs
to a patient. This is true for physicians and pharmacists
everywhere in Quebec and Canada. This part of the bill would
allow the federal government to enter areas of jurisdiction of
Quebec and the provinces.
Bill C-7 gives the Minister of Health and the Governor in
Council increased powers. Clause 34, for example, gives the
Minister, without prior notice to the person believed to have
contravened the regulations, the right to make an interim order
prohibiting the person from doing anything he or she would
otherwise be permitted to do under their licence, permit or
authorization. So, without knowing it, a licensee who has not yet
received notice of the order issued and continues to carry on
with the normal activities permitted under his licence, permit or
authorization, becomes an offender.
Similarly, according to clause 43, the minister can designate
any person as an analyst for the purposes of analyzing or
examining any substance or sample taken by the inspector. As in
the case of the inspector, this analyst can be appointed on purely
partisan grounds and his appointment is no guarantee of his
qualifications.
Another example is clause 55 of Bill C-7 which says the
minister may exempt any person or class of persons or any
controlled substance or precursor from the application of all or
any of the provisions of this act or regulations, for medical or
scientific purposes or if it is in the public interest. This
ministerial discretion could have a major impact.
1570
For example, the minister could feel forced to exempt some
controlled substances because of the pressure put on him by
scientific or medical lobbies, even though these substances
could entail a potential threat to public health.
(1315)
We must not forget that the scientific community can easily
carry out research which is contrary to humanistic ethics, all in
the name of science and of the sacrosanct well-being of
humanity.
This bill also gives the Governor in Council, the cabinet in
other words, various powers and authorities with regard to
regulations. The Bloc Quebecois and all the stakeholders of the
health community should therefore carefully examine the
regulations that will be tabled.
Clause 54(1) gives the Governor in Council the power to make
regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this
act, including the regulation of the medical, scientific and
industrial uses and distribution of controlled substances and
precursors and the enforcement of this act.
Paragraph h) of this clause provides that the Governor in
Council may make regulations:
respecting the qualifications of persons engaged in the production,
preservation, testing, packaging, storage, selling, providing or otherwise
dealing in any controlled substance or precursor or any class thereof;
Yet, in this clause giving major powers to the Governor in
Council, we can see that paragraph c) encroaches on one of
Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. This paragraph provides that the
Governor in Council may make regulations:
respecting the issuance, suspension, cancellation, duration and terms and
conditions of any class of licence for the importation into Canada, exportation
from Canada, production, packaging, sale, provision or administration of any
substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V or any class thereof;
We must recall that pharmacists' sales licences are issued by
the Government of Quebec and by the provincial governments.
This is another case of federal interference in Quebec's and the
provinces' areas of jurisdiction.
And while the bill gives some powers that are not obviously
necessary, it does not seem to give the powers that would really
be needed. Last May, Scott Neward, general counsel of the
Canadian Police Association, told the legislative committee that
there could be a potential problem. What would happen, he said,
if a court objectively decides after the fact that the force used in
locating the drugs was not reasonable? Although he admitted
that the police could be liable to prosecution for ripping up a
floor, he was concerned that the 10 pounds of heroin found under
the floor boards could then be ruled inadmissible evidence. He
concluded by suggesting that it should be made clear that any
violation relating to that subsection should not affect the
admissibility of evidence.
[English]
I am sure we all want the law to be without mercy for the
so-called druglords, but is Bill C-7 up to that task? I am not so
sure. For instance, why is there a double standard concerning
cannabis offences? Carefully bear with me.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis, senior counsel for the criminal law
policy section of the Department of Justice, made the following
remarks when addressing the committee:
The purpose behind creating a hybrid trafficking offence for cannabis was
really not geared towards attacking the leaders of drug trafficking groups but
rather to deal with the difficulty of court delays. By creating a hybrid trafficking
offence for cannabis, it would be possible for prosecutors to prosecute by way of a
summary conviction, and thereby reduce or eliminate access to jury trials and to
preliminary hearings, thereby cutting down considerably on court delays. The
entire purpose behind creating the hybrid trafficking offence for cannabis was
not to attack drug trafficking ringleaders but rather to deal with the fairly
complex issue of court delays, part of which is the result of mounting trafficking
offences which linger in the courts because of the time it takes for them to get
through the court process.
Obviously, this bill has not been properly thought through. It
could potentially disturb honest people's peace of mind. We are
rightfully questioning its ability to reduce drug use and
trafficking.
I will stop for a moment. I voiced my concern earlier and
attempted to speed up, but I still have a few pages left to read. I
wonder if the House would allow me to go over my allotted time.
(1320 )
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Members have heard the
request of the hon. member for Portneuf who anticipates
exceeding his 40-minute time limit on his intervention on Bill
C-7. Is there unanimous consent to allow the member to extend
his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank the
House.
[English]
The House will remember that our third issue was medical file
confidentiality. How can medical file confidentiality not be
threatened by a law that literally allows an inspector to copy
your file in a doctor's office or in a drugstore or even in a
hospital and further allows this guy to get at your computerized
data?
1571
[Translation]
Allow me to quote once again the Canadian Medical
Association. This organization is very concerned about some of
the changes proposed in this bill, namely those which seem to
take aim at legitimate activities conducted by medical doctors.
Among other things, the new regulatory process will ensure
easier access to the confidential files of patients.
I am also quite concerned to hear the Canadian
Pharmaceutical Association say, again through Dr. Leroy
Fevang, that it co-operated with the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs
to develop a single electronic standard for computerized
prescription delivery, in order to simplify the setting up of a data
base on drug consumers.
Such a data base would provide detailed information on the
pharmacotherapeutic history of any individual and,
consequently, on his or her physiological and mental profiles. Is
this really the object of Bill C-7? Of course not! Therefore, this
legislation must be redrafted so as to allow what is useful and
necessary, while prohibiting what is not and what constitutes
undue and unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of honest
citizens.
[English]
May I now tackle our fourth issue? Although it is the last I
believe it to be the most important one. I ask this House: Why
does this law make criminals out of addicted people who need to
be medically treated rather than jailed?
[Translation]
Indeed, Bill C-7 makes criminals not only of those who are
involved in drug smuggling, but also of those who use the drugs.
Instead of treating those who suffer from a dependency, the law
makes criminals of them. Thus, Bill C-7 is a tool to control and
suppress crime rather than to promote health. In fact, prevention
and rehabilitation are two concepts on which this bill is
absolutely silent.
We all know that the illegal consumption of drugs results in
the commission of various offences by those who have
developed this kind of dependency. Some must steal and even
prostitute themselves to be able to afford the daily dose which
their sick body is so dependent upon. What slavery!
Where do they steal? Very often in our homes, where they take
electronic appliances and jewellery which they quickly resell at
a very low price to receiver networks. These poor people are sick
but, because they are afraid to incriminate themselves, they
cannot seek medical treatment and are therefore condemned to
steal in order to satisfy their drug addiction. They have become
the absolute slaves of drug dealers who grow richer with the loot
stolen by these unfortunates.
That is the real problem. We must help these people, prisoners
of their drug addiction. Once there are no more drug addicts,
drug dealers will have to close shop. Alas, this bill does not
show any concern about rehabilitating people found in
possession of drugs. In particular, this bill aims at suppressing
the drug trade. While it provides for the imposition of fines for
possession of narcotics, there is no mention of providing access
to rehabilitation programs.
(1325)
The focus of Bill C-7 is controlling supply of drugs. It
completely neglects the need to control demand, as well as
aspects such as prevention, treatment and rehabilitation.
The May 27, 1993 issue of the Globe and Mail contained an
article by Professors Usprich and Solomon about the bill now
before this House. The article states the following: ``-the new
legislation fails to address the vast majority of the problems that
stem from the existing legislation and raises many new
concerns. The proposed legislation is more complex and
impenetrable than previous laws. The bill maintains the punitive
nature of the law which is based on preconceptions which the
findings of the LeDain Commission should have done away with
once and for all twenty years ago. In its present form, the bill
makes drug addiction a crime''.
In addition, Dr. Reginald G. Smart, Chief of Social
Epidemiology at the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research
Foundation, has this to say: ``Many drug addicts in need of
treatment end up in jail for possession of narcotics. We do not
have in place a diversion process which would enable judges to
give the accused a choice between jail or a treatment program.
Our laws do not allow for this kind of choice, whereas such an
approach is commonplace in many other countries in the
world''.
If we put a drug addict in jail, not only will we have a
miserable, sick prisoner, but it will cost us an added $70,000 per
year for most of his life. A withdrawal treatment and a
rehabilitation program would only cost a few thousands dollars
and would return to society an individual capable of greatly
contributing to his or her community.
Do not tell me that this concern will be addressed in another
bill. We have before the House Bill C-7, which can and should
legislate in such areas as rehabilitation and withdrawal
treatment. Thousands of our young and not so young fellow
citizens, who are trapped by their drug habit, cannot wait any
longer.
One more thing before I conclude. I want to mention two
well-known psychotropic substances which have been left out
of this bill. They are, predictably, nicotine and alcohol. Even
though Canada and Quebec have always been relatively tolerant
about the use of such substances, the population is very aware of
the fact that nicotine is harmful, causes serious health problems
and reduces the quality of life and life expectancy of people.
1572
As for alcohol, driving a vehicle with .08 per cent or more
of that substance in your blood is already a criminal offence.
I wonder then if this would not be the right time to recognize
the true nature of these substances and include them in Bill C-7
with observations that would reflect our modern tolerance and
awareness.
In conclusion, we acknowledge the necessity of legislation
like that proposed in Bill C-7 in order to control drug possession
and trafficking. However, we strenuously insist that the bill
should also deal with rehabilitation and detoxification.
Finally, it is of paramount importance that Bill C-7 be
explicit about the legitimate activities of health professionals
and patients. We should not rely on regulations to specify what
should appear in the act itself. Furthermore the bill we must
provide an adequate framework for the powers it confers to
individuals and institutions.
Accordingly, we recommend that Bill C-7 be referred to the
Standing Committee on Health which should revise its content
in view of our concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kind attention, and I thank
the hon. members of this House for theirs.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, it was my
intention when I started to address Bill C-7 to speak to the
positives in it. However, I must admit that the best laid plans of
this member to find something positive about this bill have gone
astray, just like the contents of this bill.
(1330)
The intent of this bill was a noble enterprise definitely needed
in today's society. Instead of taking the time and making the
effort to properly research, plan and develop a bill that would
fulfil today's needs, this government has simply borrowed Bill
C-85 from the previous government, made some cosmetic
changes and put this bill forward as its own.
With laziness comes regret and the regret here is that the
government was lazy. The only saving grace in this bill is finally
a government is addressing the use of weapons, drug dealing
near schools, and is requesting judges to offer written reasons
for not incarcerating those convicted of using weapons in drug
deals or dealing drugs near schools.
I will outline the faults with this bill as I see them. This
government would have members of this House pass a bill
before the regulations outlining what is permissible are even
published.
Those regulations are needed in conjunction with Criminal
Code rulings so that Canadians are aware of what is legal
process. Ignorance of the law is not an admissible defence in
court. Under this bill every Canadian would be denied a legal
defence in court. They will be ignorant of the legal process until
those regulations are known.
The people of Canada should never be governed by
regulations. They should be governed only by law. Passing this
bill before the regulations are complete and known will entail
giving the regulations superiority over law. I cannot support
that.
Further, this bill is so poorly written charter challenges leap
off the page every time I turn one. Perhaps this government
believes that Canadians have not had their fill of being tied up in
courts, criminals being set free and large pay cheques for
lawyers because of poorly written legislation.
Let me assure this government that belief is wrong. Let me
assure this government Canadians want laws and legislation that
will stand the charter test. Bill C-7 will have an extremely
difficult time doing that.
The Supreme Court ruled in violation of the charter previous
legislation having the same errors in construction as section 12
of this bill pertaining to search and seizure. The Supreme Court
ruled in violation of the charter previous legislation having the
same errors in construction as section 13 pertaining to the
necessary force.
Section 34 of this bill allows the minister to remove a person's
right to a livelihood such as a druggist or a doctor and then asks
them to present a case before an adjudicator.
This bill allows a minister to presume someone is guilty and
then asks that person to prove they are innocent.
Do the words Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms strike
any note of familiarity with this government? Nowhere in this
bill do I see any reference to rehabilitation. I believe this
government thinks this side of the House will support any bill
offering jail terms for criminals.
Let me assure Canadians we believe in rehabilitation. We
believe society and taxpayers are better served by having first
time, small quantity possession addicts sent to cost efficient
drug rehabilitation centres, offering them hope that they can
return to normal life.
(1335 )
We believe excluding in this bill any option for rehabilitation
is a sad oversight and shows Canadians the only understanding
this government has for a judicial review is punitive measures.
How can any Canadian who is a slave to drugs or a slave to
drug pushers and organized crime make a decision for a better
future when the only option is to remove them from society?
1573
This bill shows the true light of this government. This bill
not only shows this government has a complete lack of
understanding for judicial reform, but this bill also shows this
government does not understand the concept of justice. The
punishment should meet the crime. According to this
government, seeking help for an addiction would be a crime.
No one believes in the right of citizens to feel safe in their
homes, in their schools, in their streets and in their communities
more than I do. I also believe victims include those who are
addicted to these soul-stealing drugs.
Nowhere in this bill do I see where this government allows
victims of drug addiction any hope of rehabilitation. I really
wanted to support this bill. I really wanted this bill to offer
protection to society against designer drugs. What do I see
instead? I see a bill that is so poorly written, so broad in
language that a charter fight will surely result.
The wording in this bill could cause charges under section 3
for giving someone too much coffee. Caffeine in large amounts
creates similar stimulative effects as amphetamines. According
to this bill, an attempt to keep a friend awake with several cups
of coffee could result in charges.
I do appreciate the intent of this bill and believe legislation
must be enacted to address the issues intended, but this bill is not
the answer. This bill will create more legal and more social
problems than it will ever solve.
It is a shame that this government did not take this issue to the
serious extent that is required. This government simply
borrowed an inept bill left over from the previous government to
address a problem that most Canadians want correctly solved.
This bill confuses regulations with criminal law. It presents
far too wide powers for inspectors enforcing regulations, not
laws. It offers wide powers that will lead to charter challenges,
invalidating any evidence found and letting criminals escape
from justice. It offers no hope for rehabilitation. It will force
undue hardship on medical practitioners and pharmaceutical
corporations.
I must discourage support for this bill. I also must encourage
this government to return this ill-conceived and poorly worded
bill to the drawing table. Then let the government return to this
House with a bill that will stand the test of modern
jurisprudence.
At that time I will be more than happy to support a new bill
and its intention to bring controlled substances and those who
are involved in the trade of controlled substances before the law
and to justice.
There are penalty provisions in Bill C-7 for small amounts as
severe as large amounts of drugs, except a special provision for
cannabis, but sharing cannabis with a friend can equal 14 years,
according to this bill.
(1340 )
It could cause prescription problems for doctors. Doctors
could be charged with trafficking, especially if a substance is
not on one of the schedules.
It allows inspectors access to confidential doctor-patient
records. It gives the minister the power to impose sentences for
substances not yet on schedule, arbitrary power of
imprisonment.
The size of this document amazes me. This document, with all
its contents and the way it has been written and all the matters
that pertain to judicial matters, is then turned over to the health
committee to study and to bring back to this House. If I were on
the health committee I would wonder why such a document so
full of judicial matters would be before us.
Illegal drugs need to be dealt with.
As many members know, I was the principal of a
junior-senior high school for 23 years. I have a colleague who is
also a principal in Quebec. We could probably share a lot of
stories about illegal drugs and what I have seen them do to
youth. I have attended many funerals in those 23 years, some of
which were the result of drugs and the way they are handled.
I suppose what bothers me more than anything is that over the
last two decades or so we from the educational, community and
parent levels have asked and continually ask governments and
politicians, those in power, to please take charge of the situation
and do something about it. It is out of hand, it is getting out of
control and it is serious.
I am really disappointed that over the last 23 years I have seen
no such progress. If this 35th Parliament would only get the
political will and the intestinal fortitude, the courage and the
guts it takes, it could take on illegal drugs in the same manner in
which it was so brave to take on cigarettes. When they moved in
and did those things in such a harsh manner and told the whole
world that they meant business it caused the health practitioners
throughout the country to cheer and applaud.
When we continually slide by other drugs that cause many
serious problems, Canadians wonder when we are going to take
the action. Then again, maybe I should not encourage my
colleagues on that side of the House to get too much involved in
doing this sort of thing just yet. After all, if they want to
continue with a lackadaisical attitude they had when they put
this bill together and continue to ignore the wishes and desires
of Canadians, that should probably make me happy. If that kind
of attitude continues they will be occupying some seats on this
side of the House after the next election because Canadians are
not going to stand for that any longer.
There are problems out there and we are saying that is too bad.
1574
I remember going to the police and how they agreed with me
that one individual, an adult, was responsible for trafficking
most of the drugs in the small town I was in. Every time they
got close to bringing this person under the thumb of the law,
some kind of technicality or charter challenge would prevent
that. In frustration we could only talk about how we could
overcome that kind of a situation.
(1345 )
Yet what I see today is a document that is full of the
opportunity to continually cause more and more charter
challenges. Why do we not get away from that? Or, do we all
have some kind of stock or interest in a law firm and the busier
we keep our lawyers the fatter their wallets get and the less we
do for society?
Many members make a mockery of these words. It is too bad
they were not at some of the funerals I was talking about. It is too
bad they were not there to watch the 14-year old blow his own
brains out under the influence of a drug over which he had no
control. It is too bad they do not get a little closer to the people as
politicians to get a little more feel of what they are trying to tell
us. Once they understand and get a feeling for it, they will
understand why I desire getting something done.
Things can go right when a 34-year old man is caught and
charged for trafficking drugs in a small community in my riding.
Everybody cheers because students in the area are the ones who
were being supplied by the individual. They are glad he has
finally been caught. However, there is something terribly wrong
when three weeks later, after going to court and being charged
under due process of law, he is out in the same town doing the
same thing. It is just one example of thousands: a little tap on the
wrist and ``don't do that again''.
I will repeat. If the government had the political will, the
courage and the guts, I guarantee it would have the approval of
the Canadian people to take action. The government should get
with it. I will join it and be pleased to work with it to come up
with documents that will make sense and put an end to this
problem. This is not a Liberal problem. This is not a Reform
problem or a Bloc problem. This is a Canadian problem
affecting our youth. When brain burning drugs are free and easy
in our society it is time we started doing something about it.
I had the privilege of going on prison missions once every
month for a number of years. The prison where I served my
missions was the Bowden Institute in my riding, a federal
maximum security prison. I find it amazing that in our penal
system it is easier to get access to drugs than it is on the streets.
When I went on missions to the prison sometimes it was very
difficult to counsel some of the individuals I was scheduled to
counsel. They were already high or had come down off of a high
because of drugs they had been using while in prison. They are
readily available to them.
Sometimes we as politicians continually challenge our penal
system to rehabilitate, to fix these fellows up. Instead of turning
out rehabilitated people from these prisons we are turning out
more addicted individuals into society, saying that they have
been in the penal system and should be able to walk out into
society and function well. However they are already addicted.
What kind of a system would allow that to continue? It should
never be a Canadian system. It can be fixed and we need to fix it.
But do we have the courage? Does the government have the will?
So far I have not seen an example of it.
(1350 )
I am waiting for somebody to do something other than come
down with a massive document that is full of irregularities, full
of things that will cause nothing but more grief and more
problems. Would it be possible to break this document down so
that we have a judicial section and a health section?
I would imagine it would drive the health committee right up
the wall when it comes to dealing with the judicial aspect. Being
on the judicial committee, I certainly would not be comfortable
dealing with this document when it comes to all the health
aspects. It is a quick and easy way to brush it aside. They can
make sure they take care of it and then go out and brag to
everybody in their ridings about the wonderful bill they have
passed. It is not worth the paper it is written on. It accomplishes
nothing toward long-term drug rehabilitation and putting a stop
to illegal selling and trafficking.
When a country has billions of dollars in revenues from
activities such as illegal drugs, is it something to be proud of?
Do members want to run to another country somewhere and say
that they are from Canada and our fourth biggest industry is
drugs? Is that wonderful? Wherever it fits in, members can be
assured it is very high on the ladder.
Are members going to do their jobs in Parliament as people
who have been asked to address these problems on behalf of
Canadians throughout the country? Members could do it. For
once they could focus on the victims and potential victims out
there, waiting to fall into the trap created by the crime that is
going on.
I looked at certain areas throughout the world. Singapore was
one. I understand from the statistics that it is down to 5 per cent.
In my last year of school I was fortunate to have a 17-year old
exchange student from Singapore for six weeks. I asked him
whether there was a drug problem in Singapore schools. He said:
``Not on your life. If you get caught with drugs, bang, you are
dead''. I said: ``Really?'' It sounds pretty barbaric, does it not?
Singapore has a 5 per cent problem or hardly any problem. There
is no problem in the schools. It certainly is not causing a health
problem. Traffickers are fearful of being in that country.
1575
However I am afraid trafficking in this country is very
inviting. When I visited the prison at Drumheller I was amazed
by the numbers of drug traffickers from other countries who
were there for short terms. For some of them to open their
mouths and say the reason they are in Canada is that it is a haven
for traffickers ought to be a message. They believe the easiest
and most logical place to work is in a country like Canada that
has namby-pamby rules when it comes to catching people like
them.
They can do something about it. Do they have the will? Do
they have the courage? May God grant it to them because it
needs to be done and it needs to be done now.
It has even been suggested to me by a few that the real answer
to our problems is that we need to legalize some of these drugs.
Hogwash. Who would ever suggest such an idea? They should
shake their heads and think again. Then they come back and say:
``But prohibition never worked''. Maybe it did not, to whatever
extent they are talking about, but I can guarantee that when
alcohol was finally legalized-and I do not think anybody would
have to work too hard to research and verify this-it was one of
the problems that caused more divorces than anything else.
(1355)
What is causing more financial breakups? Alcohol. What is
causing more bankruptcies? Alcohol. Why are more people in
prison than ever before, 70 to 80 per cent of them? Alcohol. Was
it a great and wonderful deal to legalize alcohol? Were we good?
Now we want to turn around and consider doing the same kind of
thing to these other drugs.
To those who would even suggest that we consider legalizing
these kinds of drugs I say: ``Move away from me immediately or
we will have a serious argument''. There is no way, after seeing
what I have seen through the experiences I have had with the
youth of the country, that I would say for a single second
legalization of drugs is what we need.
In Canada we need law and order. We need legislators who
will say it is time to make the country safer. We can do it and
they are the people to do it. They had better find the courage and
guts to do it. If it is not done it will continually get worse and we
will regret the day that members of the 35th Parliament sat back
in their chairs like all other Parliaments have done and let it go.
It does not matter if we are left or right; we can write a common
sense bill. We can look at it, think about it and then think of our
children.
I doubt seriously if there is one of the 295 members in the
House who could stand and say: ``It really does not apply to me
because drugs have never had an effect on my life''. If we look at
grandchildren, nephews, nieces, friends and families all around
us we will find somebody. I guarantee it. That is how widespread
it is. Yet we are making it better and better for those who want to
sell, traffic or make a living in bringing these drugs into our
country.
I hope the words I have said today do not fall upon deaf ears. I
can guarantee that most of the ridings I visited prior to the
election and after are worried about the economy, about the
deficit, about the jobless, and about many other things. However
right behind their first worry is their worry about the safety of
their children and their grandchildren, their grandmothers and
their grandfathers.
Only last week I appeared on a talk show in Calgary where it
was suggested to me that crime was not nearly as bad as it used
to be. However the very first phone call was from Catherine, 83
years of age, living in Calgary which really does not have a high
rate of crime, violence or things of that nature. She said: ``I live
alone; I only have my cat. All I want for the rest of my days in
this world is to have a little peace and security but I cannot even
sleep at night because I am so afraid''. She lives in a community
where the seniors are totally afraid that any day somebody is
going to break in, bash them over the head and steal what they
have. Most of the time that is done to support some kind of drug
addiction.
(1400 )
In the rural community of Wild Rose, in the smaller
communities police service is not available because they are
quite far out. These are towns and communities of 200 or 300. I
invite members to come and look at the bars on the doors and the
windows of the businesses and homes. Behind the bars are
law-abiding citizens. That is the only way they can protect their
property in that part of the country.
I wonder where have we come to when law-abiding citizens
are locked behind bars and the rest are out running around. It
does not make sense to me and it is time that we did something
about it.
For crying out loud, take a good look at Bill C-7. Do not brag
about what a wonderful thing it is until you do so. If you cannot
see what I have seen going through that, I suggest that you go to
an eye doctor and have the doctor take a good look at your eyes
because that piece of paper will not solve the problems that this
country needs solved.
I encourage members to vote down this bill and then go back
and get serious about addressing these problems. Be prepared to
go out into the country and the communities and say to the
people that you are going to draft some legislation that is going
to stop protecting the criminal. We are going to put a stop to you
being a potential victim because we are going to start
concentrating on the criminal from another aspect. Instead of
seeing what we can do to keep him safe and to make sure his
rights are looked after, we are going to see what we can do about
putting him away where he belongs so you as a law-abiding
citizen can enjoy a little peace and security in your own land.
1576
We can do it. Let us do it. But we are not going to do it with
Bill C-7.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time you have given me
today. This is serious. Some members may not want to take it so
seriously. It is more fun to make noise on that side than it is to
get serious, but they had better be serious because this is killing
this country.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to support the second reading of the
controlled drugs and substances act.
This government recognizes the need for legislative reform to
modernize and improve the drug abuse provisions currently
contained in the Narcotic Control Act and parts III and IV of the
Food and Drugs Act.
In fact some of the present legislation is over 30 years old and
is ill suited to deal with law enforcement requirements arising
from the dangerous and complex Canadian drug scene of the
1990s. As the Minister of Health has already pointed out, drugs
have a devastating impact on our society, particularly our youth.
The health minister has described to this House why this bill
is important and how it will help safeguard the health of
Canadians.
It is true that drug use has slightly diminished in recent years
but that has been countered by the increasing potency of drugs,
the new and dangerous ways in which drugs are injected and
increasing use of different drugs in lethal combinations.
New emerging trends in drug abuse include hydroponic
cultivation of potent strains of marijuana, the clandestine
manufacture of designer drugs such as PCP imitations and the
sale to children and teenagers alike of so-called look alike
drugs.
[Translation]
Obviously, this legislation, which was passed 30 years ago,
can no longer keep up with new drug trends today. The new bill
will make Canadian drug control legislation meet the needs of
the 21st century.
(1405 )
[English]
The Minister of Health has already made clear the important
health dimensions of this bill. As Solicitor General I want to
discuss the equally important aspects of the law enforcement
dimensions of the proposed legislation.
The increasing complexity of the drug scene has been
matched by the increasing sophistication of drug traffickers and
their ability to evade conventional police methods of fighting
drug trafficking.
In the past the courts have repeatedly recognized that ordinary
police methods are often ineffective in investigating drug
offences. They have suggested on more than one occasion that
legislation needs to be passed that would expressly authorize
our police forces to carry out effective undercover operations
against drug traffickers.
[Translation]
The controlled drugs and substances act which we are
presenting will meet this need and give police the statutory
instruments needed to fight drug traffickers in a way that
complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[English]
This bill will also help us fulfil our international obligations
related to the suppression of drug trafficking. In 1990 for
example the United Nations convention against illicit traffic in
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances came into force in
Canada. This international agreement is currently in force in
over 70 countries. It provides for co-operation between nations
and is aimed at suppressing the illicit traffic in various
psychoactive drugs and the chemicals used in their clandestine
manufacture.
This convention also calls for the use of specialized
investigative techniques which are often necessary to infiltrate
sophisticated trafficking operations and to identify and bring to
justice the ring leaders and their helpers.
Techniques such as ``reverse sting'' or ``sell bust'' operations
have been used by police forces in other countries to excellent
effect in the fight against sophisticated drug trafficking
organizations. During this type of sting operation it is frequently
necessary for the police to sell small quantities of drugs to the
traffickers to establish credibility and further the investigation.
Until now, however, such an operation in Canada has had no
basis in legislation and has therefore been open to legal
challenge. The new bill will confirm that the police have the
statutory foundation they need to carry out such operations. This
bill will also allow Canada to fulfil its obligations under two
other international conventions: a single convention on narcotic
drugs and the convention on psychotropic substances. The bill
will do this using a four point approach.
First, it will provide for controls on the import, export,
production and distribution of psychoactive substances while at
the same time allowing for the use of the substances for medical,
scientific and industrial purposes.
1577
Second, it will provide a control on the import and export
of precursors, which are chemical substances used to produce
controlled substances.
Third, it will enhance enforcement measures available to all
police services, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and
provincial and municipal police forces to suppress unlawful
import, export, production and distribution of psychoactive
substances.
(1410 )
It will provide for the forfeiture of any property used to
commit such offences. On the home front this bill will make it
easier for the police to deal with those who produce illegal
drugs.
Under the old legislation new drugs were not considered to be
illegal until they were analysed and identified. Needless to say
this process took time. This bill instead uses a broad description
to define psychoactive drugs. In the future new drugs appearing
on the street that fit this new generic description would
automatically be covered by the bill. This would give the police
the authority to arrest traffickers dealing in these new illicit
drugs.
Last but by no means least, this bill will help us better protect
our young people. I do not think anyone in this House would
argue with the statement that our children represent our most
precious resource and that we must do everything in our power
to protect them.
Unfortunately one of the facts of modern life is that our young
people are often the most vulnerable to the temptations of drug
use. Drug traffickers know this and take full advantage of any
opportunity to peddle their deadly products in places where
young people congregate. Today's schools and even
playgrounds are no longer safe from the attentions of drug
traffickers.
To help protect children from this influence, the bill will
introduce new criteria known as aggravating factors to assist
judges in determining sentences for drug traffickers. Examples
of these factors include dealing drugs in a school, near a school
or to minors or involving minors in drug trafficking operations.
There are also other aggravating factors, such as previous
drug convictions, possession of a weapon or the use of violence
while engaged in drug trafficking. These are laid out in the bill.
Generally under these new provisions a convicted drug
trafficker can expect to receive a stiffer sentence, particularly a
jail term. Judges who do not impose a prison term in such
circumstances will be required to give the reasons for their
decision.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I believe that the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act will give Canadians the tool they need to better
protect their health which is threatened by the harmful effects of
drugs.
From the Solicitor General's point of view, in terms of
enforcement, this bill will give the police the power they need to
organize more effective anti-drug operations, especially against
major traffickers.
[English]
The proposed legislation will broaden the impact of existing
proceeds of crime legislation which allows the police and the
courts to strip the traffickers of the profits of their criminal
enterprises. This bill will also enable the police to deliver a
more forceful one-two punch to drug traffickers to severely
curtail their deadly trade.
[Translation]
This is the kind of approach that the people, the courts and the
police have rightly demanded to deal with this type of criminal
justice problem and our government is committed to such an
approach.
[English]
I ask members on all sides of the House to give early and full
support to this bill.
I have listened to the concerns raised by opposition
spokespersons about it. I believe those concerns should and will
be addressed in committee when the bill is considered in detail
following second reading. This is the place to go into the
concerns that have been raised about the bill, its purposes, its
approach and so on.
Therefore I urge hon. members to give early second reading to
the bill to enable it to go quickly to committee so that all the
points raised by opposition spokespersons and by other
members in the House can be looked at and dealt with in the
seriousness with which they were raised in the first place.
(1415 )
I say this because I believe this bill will provide important
additional tools to the enforcement community and the courts to
fight the drug problem everywhere in this country.
Again, I ask this House to give this bill its early and full
support.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, one of the
instructive things when one has been on the opposition side of
the benches and one moves to the government side allows one to
look back at how one referred to a bill when one was in
opposition. I encourage the members opposite to do that.
I have taken the opportunity to go back into the committee
hearings and look at comments made by the hon. member when
he sat over here.
Is it appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for me to refer to one comment
made by one member when that member was in the opposition?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I believe so.
1578
Mr. Hill (Macleod): This comment was made on this bill
when the hon. member was in opposition: ``As I have told you,
the subject has not been given any media attention at all. Yet
I understand it was given first reading almost a year ago in June
1992. To rush through it within a couple of months will not
speak well of Parliament, to say the least''.
When the present government was in opposition a bill was
introduced very quickly by the Conservatives, put into
committee with a very similar undertaking, not well thought out
in this House at all. As the committee comments will show, there
were serious problems. I ask the government to listen very
carefully in this House to the problems with this bill before it
goes to committee.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are not asking that the bill be dealt
with without debate or without consideration of the concerns
that have been raised or are yet to be raised. However, the format
of consideration of legislation under the rules is such that the
way to respond to these concerns is to do so in the course of
committee proceedings and then through the report stage
following committee proceedings.
There are a lot of points that have been raised which are quite
technical which apply to individual clauses of the bill, for
example, and I will not attempt to deal with them now. Second
reading debate enables us to discuss these matters broadly but
does not enable us to make the kinds of changes which may or
may not be required in the light of parliamentary considerations.
That is why I am not saying that there should be no debate but
that the best vehicle for examining in depth the kinds of
concerns that have been raised and making changes, if they turn
out to be changes that are necessary, is in the parliamentary
committee. It will look at this bill in the next stage of debate.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, I had the
pleasure almost a year ago of attending a conference on crime
prevention and community safety. It was chaired by a member
who is no longer with us, Mr. Horner, I believe.
I was very impressed when I went to the conference because it
was an all-parliamentary committee that produced a unanimous
report. The committee took the approach that crime prevention
could be best handled through better enforcement as well as
social development.
I bring that up because in this past campaign I tried not to play
politics with the whole issue of crime, justice and law
enforcement. What impressed me was that there was
all-parliamentary agreement. Every member of each political
party had the same position in the committee when the report
was finally put in place.
(1420 )
I would really hope that approach will continue with this bill.
The reason I say that is that the problem of crime is a complex
one which the committee report stated very ably.
If we as a country, not just political parties, are going to be
able to deal with the issues of crime we cannot look for
simplistic solutions. We have to understand the complexity of it.
It behoves us all to try to give it the serious consideration it
deserves.
If one looks at models in different communities or different
countries, when Canada is compared to the United States of
America, we are an incredibly good model. Our communities
are a lot safer, there is a lot less crime, we have fewer people in
prison and we do not execute people. We have a much safer
community than they have in the United States of America.
We have to look at the issues as to why that is. It is important
that as much as possible we take the politics out of it. Partisan
politics are dealing with issues that have such an impact on our
nation and our communities. We have to work together to solve
the problem.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterloo has
made some very important comments. They reflect his own
professional experience working with young people who have
had difficulties. I am glad to see him here in this House to
provide us with the benefit of not only his experience but also
his wisdom.
I look forward to this House approaching these kinds of
matters with the same type of constructive and non-partisan
approach which reflected the report about which the hon.
member spoke and which was published in the last Parliament.
We are dealing with serious matters involving the fabric of
our communities. We are dealing with serious matters involving
our young people and their future. They are very complex.
Certainly no one piece of legislation, whether it is this piece of
legislation before us or any piece of legislation, can deal with all
the complexities by itself.
Certainly we need to make a serious effort toward crime
prevention. That is why this government is working to bring
forward a national crime prevention council. Certainly we need
measures of rehabilitation. That is why this government is
moving to bring forward amendments to the corrections and
conditional relief act.
There is also a place for enforcement unfortunately but it has
to be addressed and recognized. That is why we are bringing this
legislation forward. It is to deal with the enforcement aspect of a
very serious part of the concern for the breakdown of law and
order in this country, that is traffic in drugs.
I ask the House to approach this and similar legislation on the
basis of the very good advice given us by the hon. member for
Waterloo. I hope in considering this matter they will recognize
1579
that this piece of legislation is a serious and well intentioned
attempt to deal with not all aspects but one aspect and an
important one of the very serious problem linked with traffic in
drugs.
It is in that context that I invite the House to consider it, to
debate it, and to give it relatively prompt second reading so that
in committee we can approach it in the spirit urged on us by the
hon. member for Waterloo and as a result, come out with the best
possible legislation to address a very serious concern.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my concern is precisely the importance of this bill
and its emphasis on the justice system that we have heard so
many people talk about this afternoon.
It is a very serious area of concern. It confuses me why this
bill would be passed on to the health committee to be looked at
rather than the justice committee. I and many others would feel
more comfortable if this were going before the justice
committee to look at those issues that have serious
consequences long term rather than it being referred to the
health committee.
Perhaps if there was some change in that, more of us would
feel more comfortable.
(1425 )
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, the very same thought has crossed
my mind. I intend, after consultation with the Minister of
Health, to see if there would be some disposition in the House to
amend the motion for second reading to have this bill referred to
the justice committee.
Looking over the bill in preparation for taking part in the
debate, frankly the very same thoughts went through my mind as
were expressed by the hon. member. If we present a motion to
amend the motion for second reading to have the justice
committee consider this matter, I hope we will have the support
of the hon. member and others for the reasons she has
mentioned.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would like to make a
suggestion to the House. The minister began his intervention at
two o'clock. Under the Standing Orders-we are presently
under Standing Order 74-he would have had 20 minutes to
speak and 10 minutes for questions and comments for a total of
30 minutes. This will bring us to the magical hour of 2.30 which
is the agreed upon hour to terminate today's sitting.
The minister spoke for 15 minutes. If I could be allowed to be
so creative we could extend the question and comments by five
minutes, which will still represent the 30-minute allotment that
is allowed the minister on a subject of such great interest, as I
see many people still seeking the floor. In the five minutes left I
will recognize both the member for Wild Rose and the member
for Portneuf, recognizing that both these members have already
spoken, that the preamble will be short and the questions
succinct, to allow the minister to respond before 2.30.
I will begin by recognizing the member for Wild Rose, if the
House agrees.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend from B.C. took care of the question I had. I will pass to the
next person.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In fairness, would there
be anyone else from the Reform Party who would care to take the
time. The member for Macleod, with the same consideration.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, the comment made
that we could have the justice committee involved in this bill
certainly satisfies a lot of my concerns. However, the medical
community needs to be represented as well. So it looks to me as
if the committee might well need to have joint responsibility.
Could the minister comment please?
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will have to see what we can do
under the rules. But I would remind my hon. friend that under
the rules any member can attend any committee, even a
committee in which that member is not a regular participant, and
take part in the discussions. In fact, a committee like the justice
committee-if that is the way it turns out-could and would
have to have the Minister of Health and her officials appear.
If it turned out that the justice committee would be the best
overall vehicle, this would not exclude consideration of the
health aspects or prevent members who are more interested in
the health aspect from participating. That is my understanding
of the rules.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, so that the
Solicitor General can understand the context of my comment, I
can tell him that my question deals with the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. Bill C-7 criminalizes dealing in controlled
drugs, as well as import and export of those drugs. This is
already in the present Act, and we have no problems with that.
The bill also criminalizes possession of property obtained as a
result of certain offences, but this is also in section 19 of the
current legislation, so I see no problem here either. But perhaps
you could tell me whether or not you anticipate any problems
with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We also know that concerning the laundering of proceeds of
certain offences, section 19 of the current legislation and clause
10 of the bill are pretty similar. Regarding search, seizure and
detention, clause 12 is the equivalent of sections 11 and 12 of the
Narcotic Control Act. As for the power of infiltration and
making supervised sales, clause 54(2) of the new bill provides
for things that were essentially covered already under section 18
of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
1580
However, where there is a departure from all this, it is in the
powers given to the inspector. And I will conclude my question
here. We know that, on the one hand, there are administrative
powers used by the inspector and, on the other hand, there are
judicial powers-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I hesitate to
interrupt the hon. member for Portneuf, but the minister will
have very little time left to respond. The hon. member has had
the opportunity to make an eloquent speech on this very
important matter. Seeing that time is running out, if the Solicitor
General could please respond.
Mr. Gray (Windsor West)): Mr. Speaker, I intend to read
over carefully the meaty speech of the Bloc Quebecois critic as
it raised very complex and interesting issues.
I would like to respond briefly to his last comments. He feels
that a certain section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act
gives police sufficient powers to control sales, but based on
court decisions and legal opinions from our counsels, it is not
enough. That is why we came up with clause 54(2).
I may not be an expert in the field, but it seems to me that the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act cannot give powers to other
police forces, like the Sûreté du Québec or the OPP, the Ontario
Provincial Police. That is why we need the amendments
proposed in this bill.
I can assure you that I take great interest in preserving the
freedoms guaranteed to Canadians from coast to coast under the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, it is the
duty of the Justice Department to let us know whether or not a
bill meets constitutional requirements, including those set in the
charter. Without their advice, no bill could be tabled in this
House.
[English]
The interesting comments made by my hon. friend indicate
why, although there is a place and a need for general debate, in
my opinion we should get this bill into committee as quickly as
possible so that we can deal in depth with the very interesting
points the hon. member has made and so that we can give all
possible explanations and assurances with respect to the charter
of rights and freedoms and in general with respect to the
foundation and need for this law.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would like to conclude
by thanking the minister and all members present for their
co-operation.
It being 2.30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)