CONTENTS
Monday, February 14, 1994
Bill C-9. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 1277
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 1277
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 1279
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 1284
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 1287
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 1288
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee.) 1291
Bill C-8. Motion for second reading 1291
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1301
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 1302
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 1303
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1303
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 1304
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1305
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1305
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1306
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1306
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1306
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1306
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1306
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1306
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1310
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1310
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 1311
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 1312
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1312
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1313
Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 1313
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1326
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1328
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1332
Motion for concurrence 1336
Bill C-8. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 1336
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 1336
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee.) 1337
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.12 p.m.) 1338
The House resumed at 6.30 p.m. 1338
1277
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 14, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from February 9 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-9, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity
to speak on Bill C-9.
I would like to begin by informing the people who have tuned
in to the debate today of the contents of this bill. A lot of the
implementation measures in this bill came from the 1992 fiscal
statement from the previous government and also the budget of
April 26, 1993. As a government we recognized some of the
constructive initiatives the previous government put forward
and these are examples of legislation we supported.
(1105)
I can remember discussing many of these measures when I
was the opposition party critic for small business. I do not want
to suggest that the implementation of these measures represents
support for the previous government in its total economic thrust,
but part of its tax amendments, especially those related to small
business, we did our best to support when we were in opposition
and made sure they went through the House as quickly as
possible. I hope we can continue with that approach.
In the measures from the economic and fiscal statement
touched in this legislation, our number one priority is the
unemployment insurance premium relief for additional jobs. It
provides a refundable tax credit in respect of an increase in
unemployment insurance premiums payable by certain
employers in respect of 1993.
The second measure is the temporary small business
investment tax credit. It provides a temporary 10 per cent,
non-refundable small business investment tax credit for eligible
machinery and equipment. It is very important when
manufacturing companies are attempting to modernize and
upgrade so they can become globally competitive and is an
inducement to make such purchases.
The extension of the small business financing program
extends to the end of 1994. Under this program a small business
in financial difficulty may refinance up to $500,000 of debt at
low interest rates. It is very important right now, as I am sure
many members would agree-and I am going to deal with this a
little later in my remarks-especially when we are having such
difficulty in shifting the attitudes of banks toward small
business.
The bill repeals the penalty tax on excess small business
properties held by RRSPs and registered retirement income
funds from October 31, 1985. Another component of the bill is
the labour sponsored venture capital corporations. This adds
preferred shares to the list of eligible investments for these
corporations and it facilitates the issuance of shares to RRSPs.
Flowthrough shares allow 100 per cent of the first $2 million
of oil and gas development expenditures to be deducted by
shareholders. That should certainly be supported by most of the
Reform members.
The removal of mandatory deduction of Canadian exploration
expenses allows corporations carrying on a resource business to
choose to deduct lower amounts of Canadian exploration
expenses in order to utilize non-capital losses before they
expire.
Improvements to the tax credit for scientific research and
experimental development introduces a simpler method of
calculating the credit and allows for partial credits and clarifies
definitions and improves administrations.
Three major measures came from the budget. The annual
investment tax credit limit repeals the annual investment tax
credit limit for taxation years that begin after 1993. It is
basically housekeeping. The investment tax credit for scientific
research and experimental development extends the 35 per cent
tax credit to Canadian controlled private corporations with prior
year taxable income under $400,000 and provides a phase-out
of the $2 million expenditure limit. Last is the instalment
payments of income tax. Individuals generally have to make
quarterly instalment payments of taxes if the difference between
the tax payable and the amounts withheld at source is greater
than $2,000 in both the current and either of the two preceding
years. The previous amount was $1,000. Close to 300,000 senior
citizens with very low incomes had to make quarterly
instalments which were a tremendous burden for them. When
the bill is implemented it will be an added convenience or it will
take the
1278
burden of quarterly instalments away from over 300,000 low
income senior citizens.
(1110)
Essentially that represents the specific amendments in this
implementing legislation. As I stated in my opening remarks,
this is an example of legislation we got behind when it was
introduced in the budget statement and the fiscal statement
pre-Christmas last year. We are extremely sensitive. I believe
actually all members of this House are extremely sensitive that
we have to do things quickly to help motivate and mobilize the
entrepreneurial spirit today.
All of the measures in this bill are important but I believe they
are only going to be effective if the partnership of the financial
institutions with small business starts working again.
It was interesting this morning when I came in from Toronto.
On my desk was a speech that my colleague, our whip, gave at
Memorial University in Newfoundland on the weekend. The
whole theme of his speech was how the relationship between
small business and financial institutions had broken down and
how we, as members of Parliament, have to take a much more
aggressive approach in trying to rebuild that relationship.
In his remarks he talked about how easy it was for the
Reichmanns to have access to so much bank financing. Much of
the money did not even have security and they got it so easily.
This is a difficulty I have as a member of Parliament, with not
just the Reichmanns, and I am not singling them out in a
personal way, but I will give a more current example.
We have all read in the papers the last two or three days about
the proposed takeover of Maclean Hunter by Rogers. About a
month ago we were reading articles in the newspapers about how
they were having such cash flow difficulties. They were looking
for bridge financing to help them get through the next quarter
and were looking for a couple of hundred million dollars. They
were having great difficulty because of their debt load.
All of a sudden Rogers makes an offer to take over Maclean
Hunter and the banks are throwing money at the company. An
article which I am sure members read stated that close to $2
billion to $3 billion worth of commitments from all the
chartered banks have lined up to try to help Rogers.
I met with one of the vice-presidents of the Rogers
corporation Friday morning. The very first thing I said to him
was: ``How do you guys do this? How do you go from having a
cash flow crunch of $200 million a month ago and now all of a
sudden you have banks giving you over $2.5 billion? What is
your trick? What is your secret? Tell me what it is so I can
communicate what your trick is to the million small businesses
that seem to be having such difficulty in getting access to
capital''.
(1115 )
Mr. Adams: What was the answer?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): The answer was what
he just said, that we are in an industry that has a lot of current
appeal, the cablevision and electronic highway business. Right
now that is the issue that is turning on the leaders of the financial
institutions.
The bottom line was they did not really have a reason why all
of a sudden the banks were throwing money at them. I do not
begrudge them. If they can make that kind of situation happen, it
is in the spirit of entrepreneurship and free enterprise. As long as
it is not too much of a concentration in power then I really do not
have too much of a problem with it.
What I do have a problem with-
Mr. Gagliano: Why can't the banks do the same thing for
small business?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Exactly.
When I review, reflect and take a look at this piece of
legislation that we are going to be talking about here today-I
presume there will not be too much difficulty in passing it-I at
the same time have to ask myself this. What can we as members
of Parliament do to not just give amended tax laws to small
business? What can we as members of Parliament do to address
their number one problem, access to capital?
I am hoping that once again as we head toward a budget date
and toward committees that all members can be seized with this
notion of accessing capital to small business.
Our party believes-it was part of our red book-that the
greatest hope we have in this country for putting people back to
work rests with the small businessmen and women who are the
ones who take the chances. They are the ones who put their
homes, savings and RRSPs on the line.
I just wish there was a way that the financial institutions could
realize that they are part of the responsibility of joining with us
in facing the crisis of unemployment that is before us.
I do not really have a lot more to add on this bill but I want to
go back to the amendment which deals with senior citizens, the
instalment payments of income tax.
This is a very important amendment for our senior citizens. I
am repeating this because, as many members have heard, the
1279
parliamentary channel is watched by a lot of seniors in our
country. I think this is a welcomed amendment.
Many of our senior citizens were asked to make quarterly
instalments on very low incomes because of a glitch in the way
the legislation was written. With this amendment we will be able
to correct that instalment payment process for about 300,000
senior citizens.
I want to state again that this is a constructive piece of
legislation. It is geared primarily toward assistance for small
business using the tax act. Philosophically of course I would
prefer a different approach to helping small business if we could
do it in a comprehensive way.
I do not like using the tax act to run the economy. I prefer that
we go back and have a total comprehensive review of our tax act.
That of course is one of the reasons why I have been advocating
for many years the idea of a single tax, a system where one
basically takes the Income Tax Act, all of the 14,000 pages of
exceptions to exceptions which by now most of us have had a
chance to review because we have been here for almost a month.
Special preferences are buried in that act. Most multinationals
have the ability to benefit from the approach that exists in our
current tax act. I am optimistic that many of those special
preferences will be eliminated next Tuesday when the budget is
presented. I am hopeful.
(1120)
Is it not interesting that we are all being lobbied right now by
different people for their particular measure to be attended to in
the budget. I am sure many members have received the briefing
from the Business Council on National Issues. In that briefing
they talk about the fact that they want no new grants to business,
no grants to business.
I thought this was incredible. They think that grants are
moneys received directly from line departments, whether it be
industry, agriculture or whatever. The real grants that big
business receives in this country are buried in this tax act. I just
wish when the Business Council on National Issues says no new
grants or cut back on grants that it would include all the ones that
are buried in the tax act.
I am happy today to at least acknowledge the fact that 90 per
cent of the measures are for small business and I hope this bill
goes through the House quickly.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, I commend
the hon. member for his comments regarding small business and
senior citizens. In the riding of Halton-Peel small business
dominates. There is no large industry. Therefore, between farms
and small and medium sized businesses, it looks after about 90
per cent of people in those kinds of pursuits.
Not being a financial specialist as is the hon. member, I have
trouble keeping my household accounts in line. I would like to
make one small comment regarding the flow-through shares
issues and the resource industries that are going to be positively
affected by this.
Some years back flow-through shares were a common thing
in this country. I do not recall what year they were done away
with. We must remember that the technology of the mining
industry has been centred in Canada, much of it in southern
Ontario. Resource industries, which we tend to dismiss as we
move into high tech and electronic highways and these types of
things, still are the backbone of the economy of this country and
will continue that way for many years to come.
I wonder if the hon. member could enlarge on those elements,
the flow-through shares and so on that are going to positively
affect the mining industry.
Being a layman, and probably many who are watching this on
television will be lay people as well, I do not understand
flow-through shares. I do not think many of us do.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to first of all acknowledge the sensitivity of the member for
Halton-Peel to the small businessmen and women in his riding.
I have been through the member's riding many times. It is a
vibrant riding. This is an example. If his community has
incredible growth potential and if the small business sector gets
ignited again, I know it can pick up a lot of the unemployed
community that exists within the greater Toronto region.
(1125 )
I am not an expert on flow-through shares, so I do not want to
get into this in a technical way without having all of the
documents in front of me. I will give the member an undertaking
that I will get the specific meaning on how this will help the
mining industry. I will get it to him forthwith today.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): I would like to thank the
hon. member for his speech and ask him a question in line with
the small business comments which he made. He mentioned
small business a number of times in his speech.
I am from the riding of North Vancouver where there is a
pretty high concentration of small businesses and quite a large
number of home-based businesses. They certainly are
concerned about taxes and high tax levels. In fact I get a lot of
feedback from them in line with the member's wish that the tax
act be modified and moved toward a single tax of some sort.
There is a lot of support for that.
The other side of the equation is that the area of government
expenditures and spending creates the need for more and more
taxation. The hon. member mentioned that small businesses in
his riding give him plenty of feedback on the tax issue. Could he
tell me whether he receives regular feedback from small
1280
businesses in his area that the government should cut its
spending as well.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments of the hon. member for North
Vancouver. They are always constructive.
What I hear from the small business community in my city is,
first of all, that the regulatory burden that exists for them, the
paper burden, is number one. This is after bank financing. The
overall complaint, of course, is access to capital. Then it is paper
burden and tax reform.
In terms of government spending, I hear from small business
that what we have to eliminate duplication and eliminate
government waste.
If a program is meeting a good public policy objective and we
are getting value for the money, most people I talk to can
understand that. What they cannot stand and what they resent is
government waste. I am totally in support of the member's
concern for government waste. When we eliminate government
waste we are cutting government spending. That type of
government cutting I am totally in support of, as is our entire
party.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, I just have a
few comments for the hon. minister and I would like his
feedback on these comments.
First, in terms of banks not lending to small business, I think it
is understandable that they are not doing so as readily as one
would expect them to. The reasons have been made clear to me
in my constituency.
My constituency also depends on small businesses, as do most
across the country. These small business people are farmers and
other types of small business people. They have told me that the
biggest problem, as the hon. member alluded to, is
over-regulation, too much paperwork, that it is too expensive
just to set a business up and to operate a business because of
regulation and, in particular, the new environmental
regulations. Environmental reports that have to be filled out by
banks to lend to a small business have made it too expensive for
banks to lend.
The second reason I am given for banks not lending to small
business is that there is just not a high enough profit margin.
Taxation in this country is too high. Too much of what would be
profit and what is profit goes to taxes. They are too high.
The third area is the lack of confidence that business people
have in the economy. This lack of confidence is due, certainly in
large part, to our incredibly large debt and our incredibly large
annual deficit. If business people do not have confidence
themselves why would banks have confidence enough to lend to
them?
(1130)
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the member for Vegreville for his question.
First on the issue related to environmental requirements I am
totally in support of it. Any business person I have ever talked to
who converted to green business movement has ended up
making more money because of his commitment to the
environment. I would not want a lesser commitment to the
environmental sustainable development. I would want as much
or more than we currently have.
The second point in terms of the non-profitability of small
business to banks I do not accept. Aside from clipping bonds for
the Government of Canada, I think the small business
community is the most profitable sector of all the banks with the
spreads on interest and the service charges. It is unacceptable
that a bank person would say there is no profit in the small
business sector.
Besides that the banks of the country have a unique banking
charter organized by the Chamber under the Bank Act of
Canada. It is not only to protect depositors' funds. We recognize
that, but aside from protecting depositors' funds they are also
mandated in that unique charter to lend to business. It is
unacceptable if any bank person would say there is no profit in
the small business sector. I hope the member for Vegreville
would challenge the bank person who said that to him.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has now expired for questions
and comments. Normally we would pass to the Reform Party but
a spokesman for the party has indicated that its members have
done all the speaking they wish to do on the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, when the hon.
member for Scarborough East, speaking for the Minister of
Finance, moved for second reading and referral to a committee
of Bill C-9, he said: ``We have carefully reviewed the measures
in this legislation and believe we can support them in their own
right''. He added, however, that one of the measures in the old
legislation had been dropped and that, as for the other measures,
to quote the minister: ``Our primary criticism generally is that
they represent only a small piecemeal effort by the previous
government to deal with a large and pressing need in this
country to strengthen the economy and to create jobs''.
A little further the hon. member said the following: ``I ask my
colleagues and my hon. friends opposite to consider this
legislation not as an indication of the approach this government
takes to economic management''.
Since the Liberals have now been in power for four months
and we still do not know what this government intends to do,
perhaps I may comment and express some of the reservations we
have about the economic measures this government intends to
implement very shortly.
The newly-elected federal government announced in the
speech from the throne on January 18, 1994, that it attached the
highest priority to job creation and economic growth. The
1281
government has said repeatedly, both in the speech from the
throne and in its red book, that it will focus on small and
medium-sized businesses because they will be the decisive
factor for economic recovery. So far, we have seen no
significant measures to help small and medium-sized
businesses, with the exception of Bill C-9, which was drafted by
the now defunct Conservative Party and which, in the opinion of
the hon. member for Scarborough East who introduced the bill,
reflects an approach that combines slash and burn with
ineffective tinkering.
(1135)
It is high time the government recognized the considerable
potential for job creation in the small business sector. In fact,
small businesses as a whole continue to provide the jobs that are
so badly needed in this country at a time when large companies
are downsizing.
From 1979 to 1989, companies with fewer than 50 employees
represented 85 per cent of net job creation in the private sector.
In 1990, although the country's economy was not doing well,
small businesses with fewer than 20 employees took up the slack
created by downsizing of large companies as a result of cost
cutting and business closures.
Net job creation by expanding and new small businesses
represented practically all net job creation since the beginning
of the recession in 1990.
Even in 1991, when due to the recession more businesses went
bankrupt than were created, net job creation by very small
businesses with fewer than five employees helped cushion the
impact of substantial job losses elsewhere in our economy.
Canadian small businesses are ready and able to act as a
springboard to a much needed economic recovery. They are
better adapted to a changing economy where markets have
become more specialized and decentralized. They represent an
invaluable potential for job creation and economic growth.
According to a survey conducted by Angus Reid for the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business, these businesses
survived the recession and are now ready to hire more
employees. They will if small and medium-sized businesses are
confident that conditions are improving. However, despite
lower inflation and interest rates and the lower value of the
dollar, they are still hesitant to make such decisions.
Unfortunately, this attitude is reinforced by the increasing tax
burden on consumers and small businesses, generated by all
levels of government. The federal government particularly has
shown during the past 20 years that it is incapable of or little
inclined to control a steadily growing deficit.
Now more than ever before, businesses want and need
government policies that create a climate of certainty. They are
justifiably afraid of being hit by more taxes, regulations and
administrative red tape.
The federal government has told everyone who would listen
that it understands the needs of small businesses. However, it
keeps drifting off course with measures that are the exact
opposite of what small businesses feel they need, for instance
fewer and less cumbersome regulations, which would provide
relief for small businesses and consumers.
Bill C-9 contains fiscal measures to help small and
medium-sized businesses with the purchase of production
equipment, including machines, materials, and so forth. We
must not forget, however, that there is already a long list of
federal and provincial programs to assist small businesses, all
with more or less the same objectives. Just to illustrate my point,
I will give a non-exhaustive list of federal and Quebec agencies
in charge of helping small and medium-sized businesses
modernize and conduct research and development.
(1140)
At the federal level we have the Federal Business
Development Bank, the National Research Council, the
Department of Industry and the Federal Office of Regional
Development for Quebec.
In Quebec we have the following agencies: Centre de
recherche industrielle du Québec; Fonds de développement
technologique; Société de développement industriel; ministère
de l'Industrie, du Commerce et de la Technologie; Caisse de
dépôt et de placement du Québec.
I should say that these are only the main agencies. We could
add a lot of sectoral organisations, or municipal, regional,
semi-public or non-profit organizations.
I excluded from the list the provincial tax incentives to
encourage investment, and the federal and provincial programs
for export, computerization, automation, expansion, growth or
marketing. Job training or retraining programs are also
excluded, as well as those dealing with technology transfer,
start-up and general financing.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there is quite an array of
programs which overlap or offer the same services in the various
departments or the different levels of government.
The situation is so complex and so confusing that small and
medium-sized businesses would require the services of
consultants or tax experts that most of the time they cannot
afford to find the programs which could best answer their needs.
I recognize that small businesses need help, but to make all
the measures at their disposal effective and efficient, we urgent-
1282
ly require serious thinking in order to try to eliminate overlaps
and duplication, and their tremendous cost.
We should look first for a simpler way of qualifying
expenditures to facilitate small business access to these
measures; second, we should streamline aid programs to reduce
their excessive administrative cost; third, we should have a
single entry point for all forms of aid to small businesses, as
suggested by the Montreal Chamber of Commerce; fourth, we
should eliminate overlaps between the federal and provincial
programs, by delegating to the provinces which apply for it, the
management and preparation of business assistance measures.
In the second part of my speech, I would like to focus on
another amendment to the Income Tax Act proposed by Bill
C-9. This is the extension to March 1, 1994 of the home buying
program. The amendment extends by one year the program
which allows first time home buyers to use part of their RRSP to
buy a new home.
What I will say is largely based on an analysis of the program
prepared by W. Paul McCrossan for the Canadian Real Estate
Association.
The federal government has often used housing programs to
stimulate the economy during recession periods. This particular
program was introduced in the February 1992 budget. It allows
buyers to withdraw, tax-free, up to $20,000 from their RRSP to
use as a downpayment when buying or building a new home.
However, the money withdrawn must be returned to the RRSP
by way of an equal payment plan over 15 years. Originally,
people had until March 1, 1993 to take advantage of this
measure, but now Bill C-9 extends the limit to March 1, 1994, a
couple of weeks from now.
(1145)
On September 1, 1993, the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation published data showing that in 1992 consumers
using the home buyers' plan accounted for 26 per cent of all
sales at the national level.
Department of Finance statistics show that during the first
year of the plan, which ended on March 1, 1993, a total of
153,452 persons benefited from the home buyers' plan.
Moreover, according to raw data for the five months from March
2 to July 29, 1993, the department has received 45,500
additional requests for withdrawal of funds from RRSPs. These
data clearly show that this plan is still fulfilling real and urgent
needs.
As I mentioned before, Angus Reid recently published the
results of a vast survey ordered by The Canadian Real Estate
Association, which clearly illustrate the relationship between
the economic situation surrounding the usage of the home
buying plan and the demographic characteristics, the attitudes
and the views of those who take advantage of it.
According to the survey, households withdrew on average
$13,965 from RRSPs for a downpayment on a house. Almost
half of the households, that is 47 per cent, used their RRSPs to
buy their first home. More than a third, precisely 34.5 per cent,
of the total amount invested by those who took advantage of the
plan came from RRSPs. However, among families with a total
income of less than $30,000, almost half the capital invested
came from RRSPs, that is 46.8 per cent.
Even if there are no restrictions in the plan for first home
buyers, one of the social effects of the plan's provisions is to
give those who otherwise would never be able to afford a house,
the opportunity to buy one. Nearly half, that is 47 per cent, of
those who took advantage of the plan were buying their first
home.
Furthermore, among first home buyers, 86 per cent mentioned
that the plan was a decisive factor in their decision to buy a
house. Analysis by income category also shows that middle and
low-income Canadians were mainly the ones who benefited
from the plan.
Among users of the plan chosen at random for the survey: 28
per cent were from the upper middle class with an annual income
between $50,000 and $70,000; 23 per cent were of the lower
middle class with an income of between $30,000 and $50,000;
and 10 per cent were of low income, that is below $30,000. They
are the ones who have the hardest time buying a house.
The key question raised by the home buyers' plan is whether
or not this plan supplements the existing system allowing for
retirement income high enough to be taxable or if it encourages
immediate goods consumption at the expense of retirement
income security?
Participants were asked to indicate on a one to seven scale the
importance of various elements with respect to retirement
income security. Ownership of a house came first with 6.1,
followed by personal savings-5.8, RRSPs-5.7, Canada
pension plan-4.5 and old age security-4.5.
Not only do low income and lower middle class Canadian
families consider owning a house as the single most important
factor for their retirement income security, they also gave it the
highest rating among types of incomes, that is 6.2.
(1150)
Regardless of their age, all respondents said that owning a
home was very important, 55 per cent said it was fairly
important, 19 per cent found it to be important, and 13 per cent
declared that it was important for Canadians as a whole, in terms
of their retirement income security. The importance of owning a
home for retirement income security was confirmed when 84 per
cent of all respondents said that as far as they were concerned, it
was from very important to rather important.
1283
Only 6 per cent of respondents believed that they could count
on old age security or the Canada pension plan; 90 per cent were
of the opinion that they would have to rely much more on their
own resources in the future. This cynicism regarding
government pension plans was more pronounced in the 25 to 35
age group, 3 per cent of whom believed they could rely on old
age security or the Canada pension plan, compared with 95 per
cent who believed that they would have to support themselves.
To conclude, in view of such attitudes and given how
important owning a home is for these respondents to secure their
retirement income, it is hardly surprising that the maximum use
of the RRSP home buyers' plan is found in the 25 to 45 age
group.
As a result of these survey findings, I suggest that the
government extend the home buyers' plan another year, or better
yet, another three or five years. At the end of this period, the
program should be reviewed, taking into account the suggested
economic activity, the demographic characteristics of the home
buyers, and the actual amount of loans paid back to the RRSP.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have received many letters and on behalf of the constituents I
represent I would like to underscore the member's comments
with regard to the continuation of the RRSP program for home
purchasers.
I wonder if the hon. member could speak to some degree about
the validity of continuing the use of RRSP money for major
home renovations. That area is labour intensive and would be
very good for the economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague
for the interest he showed in my speech and tell him that having
access to their RRSP, the only money most people managed to
save allows them to tap their own savings to improve their way
of life, prepare for their retirement, and invest in the only thing
they still put their trust in.
Each time we open the door so that these people have easier
access, either to ownership or to home improvement, we give
them a greater sense of pride, at no cost to the government since
it is their own savings they are using. The money in an RRSP is
money invested by savers. In fact, it is a form of tax deferral,
money that will eventually be put back into the public purse; it is
not lost for the government. In the meantime, let these people
have access to it, as easily as possible.
We could take additional measures. For example, the
government is planning to eliminate the $100,000 capital gains
exemption. The wealthiest members of our society already took
advantage of the $500,000 exemption, which was brought down
to $100,000, and only the middle class and the less fortunate
members of our society could benefit from it. Unfortunately, the
government is planning to do away with this exemption,
penalizing once more the least fortunate. We objected to such
measures and will continue to do so; we are hoping to get the
support of our colleagues in the Reform Party, who should be
equally interested in protecting the less fortunate members of
society.
I urge them to take a position in support of our action, and I
hope that they will do so.
(1155)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the member to reconsider his position with regard to
the capital gains exemption. As the member knows the $100,000
lifetime exemption did come in under a previous government
two Parliaments ago.
There were two very serious flaws in regard to that
exemption. First, it did not establish a V-day value for
investments. Therefore anyone who had a holding gain prior to
the introduction of that exemption got an automatic windfall.
Second, it did not restrict the types of eligible investments under
that exemption. Therefore investments in matters such as
Florida vacation properties were eligible for an exemption. I
have to ask the member whether he believes that kind of
investment really benefits Canada.
One has to consider whether or not there is a logical stopping
point. There is no question that some have benefited from this
exemption and there is no question that others would like to.
Where do we stop the process? There is no logical ending point.
The question therefore is if today we had no exemption would
the hon. member consider introducing it as a measure which
would benefit Canadians today? I think the answer is simply no.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, what I find surprising about my
hon. colleague's comments is his belief that maintaining these
exemptions would be dangerous. We have reached the point
where it is members of the middle class and the less fortunate
would could benefit from them.
Why were these same concerns not raised when the wealthier
members of our society were taking advantage of the
exemptions? Why did we not criticize this mismanagement or
these so-called new objectives which surprised us because the
plan was not producing the anticipated results? And all the while
we were trying to achieve objectives we did not want, we were
letting the wealthy members of society benefit from them. Now
that the wealthy class has filled its pockets, it is the turn of the
middle class and the less wealthy to take advantage of these
1284
exemptions and here we are telling them: we have to put a stop to
this. It is over. Your turn will never come.
This is unacceptable. There cannot be a double standard in our
system. While those with money were able to take advantage of
these exemptions in the months and weeks following the
introduction of the measures, unfortunately this was not the case
for other people who had to wait and save their money before
eventually making a profit.
I am sorry to hear say that this measure must be eliminated
because it is now the turn of the little people in our society. As is
often the case, they will not get their kick at the can. Most of the
measures we can expect to see in the government's upcoming
budget could put us in the same situation.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I listened to
the question from my colleague from Mississauga South. He
was not suggesting we should not be sensitive to middle income
earners who have that exemption. He was saying we should
make sure that tax measure is not designed in a way to encourage
investment outside of Canada, such as Florida properties and I
support the hon. member on that.
The hon. member has made a compelling presentation today
for first time home owners through the RRSP and I salute him
for that. It is one of the best I have heard. We can only hope in the
next couple of weeks that the member's recommendation is
listened to.
I want to talk about the point he made in the first part of his
speech relating to the duplication of provincial programs for
small business and Government of Canada programs for small
business and the fact that we should streamline the process.
(1200)
The member talked about decentralizing. Would he consider a
decentralizing or streamlining of the programs if they were
operated by the Government of Canada in the regions or in the
provinces? Or, is the member advocating that the Government of
Canada should just get out of the business of helping small
business, period? What is the member's position?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of
interest to the comments of my hon. colleague opposite,
particularly when he said that the intention was not, apparently,
to eliminate the $100,000 capital gains exemption, but rather to
stop the flow of capital out of the country. If there were some
way to do away with this irritant without denying the middle
class and the less wealthy the opportunity to benefit from the
exemption, then we would welcome this timely initiative and we
would certainly support it.
As far as decentralization and duplication are concerned, the
Bloc Quebecois maintained throughout the election campaign
that the federal government should withdraw from certain areas
and leave responsibility for program administration up to the
provinces. We have spoken at length about occupational
training. This is a good example of an area from which the
federal government should withdraw. Responsibility for
manpower training should be left to the provinces because it is a
matter of education and under the Constitution, education falls
under provincial jurisdiction. If the present situation persists,
there will continue to be unproductive duplication in this area.
We could give other examples, health and research and
development, for instance. It is unfortunate that we have not
succeeded in eliminating duplication, the reason being that the
federal government wants to maintain a high-profile in
provincial areas of jurisdiction. And yet, every Quebec premier
over the past 30 years, whether blue, red, separatist or
sovereigntist, has called for responsibility for these areas to be
handed over to the province. I think there is a major consensus
within the province of Quebec, especially on this issue. And I
hope the federal government ultimately recognizes this fact.
The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for questions and
comments has now expired. Resuming debate, since there are no
more Liberals or Reform party members who wish to speak, I
recognize the hon. member for La Prairie representing the Bloc
Quebecois, the Official Opposition.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, the proposals
contained in Bill C-9 implement measures announced, as you
will all recall, by the previous government in its economic and
fiscal statement and April 1993 budget.
The new government, already short of ideas on new tax
incentives to offer small business owners and workers, is
borrowing ideas from an old government worn out by nine years
in office.
This bill in fact proposes 12 amendments to the Income Tax
Act. As we all know, the first measure deals with unemployment
insurance premium relief for additional jobs. It provides a
refundable tax credit in respect of an increase in unemployment
insurance premiums payable by certain employers for 1993.
How much does it cost to administer this extensive red tape?
That is the question. This kind of relief is reminiscent of GST
refunds. The government collects some $13 billion in GST.
Once you subtract all the associated administrative costs and
refunds, you realize that this tax, while it was supposed to
reduce the debt and eliminate the annual deficit, is really
1285
bringing in very little revenue because of the red tape and all the
efforts put into levying it.
It is the same thing with the unemployment insurance
premium relief proposed in Bill C-9. What is the use of
increasing taxes and premiums without eliminating loopholes?
That is basically what is suggested here: reductions, relief for
certain target groups. Why favour those groups over others? At
the end of the day, all those taxes and premiums are of very little
benefit to the community as a whole.
(1205)
This morning I had before me a copy of the federal Income
Tax Act. It is a four-inch thick document. The main objective of
income tax should be to enable the government first to collect
the money it needs to operate and second to redistribute the
wealth among the population.
Why all these tax credits, these extensions, these abolitions
and so on, if not to feed and support the whole bureaucratic
machine and all the professionals gravitating to it.
A friend of mine who owns a small business was telling me
last week: ``A small business with 20 employees must have a
full-time person, I repeat full-time, just to fill out government
questionnaires and forms, including the endless changes, like
those proposed in Bill C-9, that the government is constantly
making to its laws and regulations.'' This friend is the owner of
a small business employing some 20 people.
And to think that, during the last election campaign, one could
read on page 19 of the Liberal Party's red book: ``Expenditure
reductions will be achieved by cancelling unnecessary
programs, streamlining processes, and eliminating duplication.
This effort will take place in partnership with provincial
governments''.
Unfortunately, the red book does not mention that the
government will stop constantly increasing taxes and expanding
the tax base by always creating exemptions for various groups,
as proposed in Bill C-9. If the government conducted cost
benefit analyses before creating new taxes or raising
contributions such as unemployment insurance premiums, it
would know the real, net benefit from each type of tax or
contribution.
The tax or contribution collection costs should include the
true cost of the bureaucracy needed to collect this tax, as well as
the cost of all these relief measures, tax credits, tax deductions
and program extensions such as those proposed in the bill before
us today.
If we add up all tax collection costs and all changes and relief
measures to make taxes less regressive for the poor or less
detrimental to investors or investments creating jobs, the real
benefit of various taxes or contributions is often minimal in the
end for the government.
Bill C-9 is aimed at amending the very foundation of the
income tax act. We in the Bloc Quebecois want to tell this to the
current government: We already have in Canada a four-inch
thick Income Tax Act. Let us stop making it more complicated
and trying to make it more complex. What taxpayers want is
simpler tax procedures. We should redesign this legislation
from top to bottom and stop making it more complex, only to
feed, as I was saying earlier, the whole bureaucratic machine
and all kinds of tax consultants.
If we read carefully the 12 changes proposed in Bill C-9, what
do we see? The first measure provides for premium relief. The
second one refers to a tax credit that, in fact, amounts to a
temporary exemption for small business. It is a kind of tax
shelter, another exemption. Why create so many tax measures
when there are so many exemptions in the end?
The third measure is also an extension for small business.
This begs the question: Why do we always have to rescue fiscal
lame ducks unable to make it on their own?
The fourth measure abolishes a tax. The fifth concerns
labour-sponsored venture capital corporations. It is another
addition to the current Income Tax Act. The sixth measure also
extends an existing plan. The seventh measure refers to
flow-through shares. It is a tax deduction, another tax shelter.
The eighth measure removes a deduction; it amends an existing
measure. The ninth measure is also an improvement to an
existing credit.
The question we should be asking is this: Why all these tax
shelters? On this subject, the economist Jean-Luc Migué tells
us: ``Why subsidize investments? If they are profitable, they
will be made; if not, they should not be made from an economic
standpoint''.
(1210)
These first nine measures of which I just spoke are taken from
the former Conservative government's economic and fiscal
statement, as was mentioned before. As I also said, did this
government inherit its fiscal imagination from the former
Conservative government?
The last three measures were also announced in the former
government's budget of April 26, 1993. Here again, measure 10
is a tax credit, measure 11 is another tax credit and measure 12
concerns instalment payments of income tax. These 12 fiscal
measures are a heterogeneous assortment, with no overall
vision.
We would have expected imaginative, innovative fiscal
measures that would have created jobs, but they give us
adjustments to old tax measures that only further entrench this
Tower of Babel which the federal Income Tax Act is.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance always tell us
to wait for the next budget when we ask them what fiscal policy
this new government intends to adopt. Why have Bill C-9 when
1286
the next budget will likely change everything again on February
22?
I will let this House consider the study conducted by André
Lareau and a team at Laval University, which says: ``If the
government is not more imaginative, the reason is that the
lobbying is done not by families but by companies. Thus,
parents must pay tax on diapers, but there is no tax when you buy
shares in a company''.
We might also add that the lobbying is not done by
middle-class individuals or the most disadvantaged people and
this new government acts only in response to well-organized
pressure groups, which explains an Income Tax Act that is
changed and gets bigger in response to pressure from various
quarters.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that Bill C-9 says
nothing about helping families who have to pay taxes, indeed
income taxes.
Mr. Yves Séguin, a former Minister of Revenue in Quebec,
said in La Presse on February 6, 1994: ``Former spouses, in most
cases ex-wives, who receive alimony must add it to their
income. This alimony is calculated very strictly, on the basis of
the children's needs, and gives the mother absolutely nothing.
Instead of paying 25 per cent income tax, for example, in many
cases she has to pay 37 per cent or more, perhaps $2,000 or
more, and she does not have the money to pay it''.
Finally, nowhere in this Bill C-9 do we see any tax measures
directly for the people, individuals or families, but rather
abatement measures intended for businesses, and most of these
abatement measures are inherited from the former Conservative
government.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the hon.
member's comments on clauses 9 and 11 that pertain to
scientific research and experimental development. He did not
like the changes being recommended in the bill.
I thought any movement toward targeting money more
efficiently for R and D would be welcomed by the hon. member.
If he feels these specific clauses are not good amendments to the
bill, I am wondering whether he would recommend alternate
clauses to replace them.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélisle: Mr. Speaker, as I said during my speech, we
would have liked to see in Bill C-9 some income tax measures
affecting individuals and families more directly.
(1215)
In Quebec, the provincial tax legislation contains a whole
slew of measures designed to help parents more directly,
especially parents of young children. One has to recognize that
this bill contains provisions which are more directly targeted to
businesses.
The hon. member referred to measures 9 and 11 concerning
research and development. I do hope that, for once, these
measures can benefit Quebec. We know that in the last ten years,
all the help provided to R and D has essentially benefitted
Ontario, at the expense of Quebec. During the period from 1980
to 1989, Ontario got most of the federal subsidies for research,
namely 50 per cent. Historically, Quebec only received 17 per
cent of federal grants for research and development.
I do hope that this bill will, for once, benefit Quebec as much
as the other provinces of Canada, especially Ontario.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member on his intervention in this debate on
Bill C-9. I want to add some clarification.
If I understood the member's statement correctly the GST
revenue was somewhat less than $15 billion and after expenses
it really contributed none.
In fact in terms of gross collections by the government the
GST contributed some $29.5 billion. However, that was reduced
by the $10.7 billion which the government paid in rebates,
particularly to exporters because the input credits exceeded the
taxes collected on their sales to non exports. That was further
reduced by the rebates paid to schools, municipalities, et cetera
which generally get about a 50 per cent refund of GST paid.
Finally, there was a deduction of some $2.5 billion which was
paid to low and middle income Canadians as a GST credit.
Therefore, on a net basis after all those expenses the GST
revenue to the government was $14.9 billion for the year ended
March 31, 1993.
Having said all that we certainly do know the federal sales tax
collected some $18 billion net. The GST has been a less efficient
tax in terms of generating revenues for the government. Right
now the finance committee has been working diligently looking
into alternatives for replacing the GST to make sure there is
efficiency and equity within our taxation system.
I raise those points for the member to ensure there is no
misconception by Canadians on the present state of affairs.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélisle: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
his comment. Indeed, I was referring to GST revenue, which was
something like $13 billion or $14 billion, give or take a billion
or a billion and a half.
This tax brings in between $13 and $15 billion annually. This
is more or less what I wanted to point out regarding Bill C-9,
namely that the government should conduct cost benefit
analyses or more in-depth studies before creating new taxes,
and that it should also eliminate loopholes. I am not strictly
referring to
1287
tax loopholes, but also to all those exceptions which are made
whenever a new levy or tax is implemented.
Of course, the government wants those taxes to be the least
regressive possible. Reductions and exceptions are provided for
the poorest individuals or households. In this case, I think you
mentioned the figure of $17 billion for GST related credits to
exporters, and 50 per cent of the GST for schools and hospitals.
If you eliminate all that and add the cost of the administrative
work done to collect the tax, you end up with $14.9 billion when,
as you rightly pointed out, that tax initially brings in $29.5
billion. Therefore, once all the exceptions have been taken into
account, the tax does not even bring in 50 per cent of what was
originally expected. Indeed, we start with an amount of $30
billion and, once all those exceptions have been taken into
account, we are left with $14.9 billion. And we are told that the
previous federal tax, which did not have all these exceptions,
used to bring in $18 billion.
(1220)
So, all these efforts were made to create a new tax which, in
the end, brings in $3 or $4 billion less in revenue. What I am
saying is that before implementing a new tax measure or a new
federal tax to replace the GST, some in-depth analyses and
studies must be done to try to eliminate administrative costs to
businesses.
This $14.9 billion which we are left with in the end does not
even take into account the efforts made by businesses to collect
the tax by using new accounting techniques and computer
systems. We are told that the previous tax used to bring in $18
billion. However, the economy must be considered as a whole: if
the government is not paying, then it is businesses, and the latter
paid several billion to implement this tax; it is hard to figure out
exactly how much, but it could be somewhere between $5 and
$10 billion. So, in the end, we are maybe talking about $7 or $8
billion in revenue for the government. Indeed, there may be only
$4 or $5 billion left in the end. So, all these efforts were made to
replace a tax which used to bring in four or five times more in
revenue. Consequently, we must really be careful and conduct
more in-depth analyses before implementing a new tax.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the
member on his sensitivity to the cost benefit analysis of the
GST. I also share his view that the GST has been a disaster,
especially for the 1.9 million registrants, most of them small
businesses. It costs them about $3,000 to $5,000 a year just to
administer it, not counting the paper burden.
I want to deal with research and development. I know it is a
sensitive issue with members from Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition. I want to recognize first that there is a little bit of a
disadvantage on the pure dollars of research and development
that do not go into the province of Quebec. The member quoted
50 per cent, but when analysing the research and development
component the Ottawa region cannot be ignored. We had this
discussion before.
The Ottawa region includes many research and development
facilities in which many constituents from the province of
Quebec participate. When one sees the amount of research and
development that goes into the Ottawa region one will find that
on a per capita basis we are a lot closer to a more reasonable
share of the research and development dollars.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélisle: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the
comment made by the hon. member to the effect that the figures
may be distorted by the fact that a lot of investments in research
and development are done in Ottawa and that, on a per capita
basis, as he said, the gap between Ontario and Quebec would
probably be much less significant. I do hope the hon. member is
right and I will take another look at the figures. I want to point
out though that instead of referring to Ottawa, it might be more
accurate to say the national capital region, which also includes
an important part of Hull, on the Quebec side.
(1225)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: We are back to debate now. I
understand there are two people who wish to speak, the hon.
member for Edmonton Southwest and the hon. member for
Trois-Riviéres. There are no members to speak from the
government side. By our principle of rotation we would go to the
government side and then to the Reform Party so I think it would
be fair for the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest to speak
next.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the House very much for the opportunity to participate in
this debate. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I address my comments
to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry.
Earlier today, the hon. member was speaking about the need to
raise capital for small business. We recognize that capital for
small and large business is difficult to raise. I wonder if I could
get his comments in two areas.
The first is the effective guarantees on the ability of small
business to raise capital, specifically the use of joint and several
guarantees. This has the effect of making whoever is signing a
guarantee on behalf of a company with the deepest pockets to be
the first the guarantor goes to in the event of default, even
though there is the opportunity obviously in a guarantee position
to limit guarantees. If there is one party to the guarantee with
significantly deeper pockets that party is sometimes reluctant to
1288
get involved in guaranteeing a small emerging business. That is
one item I would ask the government to consider.
The other is the notion of extending the use of RRSPs beyond
the traditional to the new and very effective use in home
ownership. That would be under very strict controls, but
consider the notion of extending the use of RRSP money and an
arm's length transaction to supporting and providing capital for
small and emerging private business as opposed to public
companies.
There is quite a distinction between a company that needs to
raise $1 million and one that needs to raise $10 million. If
businesses were able to raise money under very strict conditions
on an arm's length basis by using their RRSP or RRSP
contributions that could be a very significant capital pool for the
use in developing small business and emerging new
technologies in Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: This is a switch. Normally it is the
parliamentary secretary asking the questions which I think he
will want to do now.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, we have often stated this is going to
be a Parliament of reform. This is true reform today because we
are changing the normal process.
Dealing with the joint and several guarantees, I share the
member's view that right now when most financial institutions
have a guarantor on the hook which has, to use the member's
words, deep pockets, it tends to be the victim if there is default.
The bank tends to go after the guarantor.
We have to deal with this issue. Within the next couple of
months the industry committee in deciding its first order of
business will have a session to listen to all the Canadian
financial institutions. They can talk about what they are doing
for small business and the various structures the banks employ
which inhibit capital getting to small business or people taking
risks. I suggest the hon. member bring forward his concern to
the bank presidents appearing before that committee and maybe
we can get some amendment.
On the second point, the RRSP conversion into small business
is an interesting idea.
(1230)
I have to say the Reform Party is always reminding us about
how sensitive we must be of the treasury in terms of cutting and
costs to the treasury. The member should realize that would be a
cost to the treasury. It would probably be an enormous cost but,
in the interest of getting small business moving again and
inspiring more diverse ownership in small business, I would
certainly think it should be something the Minister of Finance
should consider.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, this is really and truly a debate
because we are asking questions and getting feedback. I thank
the member for his observations.
I really have difficulty understanding how that would be an
additional cost to the treasury. We would have to be concerned
about the RSP money being used at an arm's length basis to
finance small and emerging small business. Provided that
money was already invested in an RSP vehicle, it would be
money already in the financial system. Instead of being involved
in mutual funds or a large public company this money would be
directed to a smaller company.
There would be the risk element involved, but we are trying to
get more and more people involved in the lifeblood of the capital
pool of our country. It would not take any more money; it would
use existing money and move it into small business instead of
move it into large business through stock.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I have a
short response. I am glad the member clarified that this would be
no new extension of the RSP, that it would be moneys existing. I
think his idea is a good one and I hope the Department of
Finance and the minister will consider it.
The Deputy Speaker: I say to the member for Edmonton
Southwest who I see is rising that unfortunately his time has
expired. I think the last speaker in this debate among recognized
parties is the member for Trois-Rivières.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, as
industry critic for my Party, I am very pleased to take part in the
debate concerning Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Income Tax
Act.
These amendments to the Income Tax Act implement certain
measures announced in the Economic and Fiscal Statement of
December 2, 1992 and the Budget of April 26, 1993.
Overall, 12 measures are mentioned, nine of which come from
the economic and fiscal statement and the last three from the
budget. The first nine measures are as follows:
1. Unemployment insurance premium relief for additional
jobs;
2. Temporary small business investment tax credit;
3. Extension of the small business financing program;
4. Abolition of penalty tax;
5. Labour-sponsored venture capital corporations;
6. Extension of the home buyers' plan;
7. Flow-through shares;
8. Removal of mandatory deduction of Canadian exploration
expenses;
1289
9. Improvements to the tax credit for scientific research and
experimental development.
As for the measures from the budget announced on April 26,
1993, they are: first, annual tax credit limit; second, investment
tax credit for scientific research and experimental development;
and third, instalment payments of income tax.
As you may have noticed, these measures are particularly
involved. Just by listing them, you can see how complex they
are, not only for the legislator, but also for the small business
community.
That is why we think it is erroneous and pointless to undertake
a detailed analysis of these measures in the House. These
measures should be referred to a committee, and undergo a
judicious and in-depth analysis before any necessary
recommendations can be made.
(1235)
It is also clear a thorough review is needed of small business
financial assistance programs, to identify any overlap in the
administration of these programs and to simplify their
implementation.
We must realize what small and medium-sized businesses
have to put up with from a government bureaucracy that often
interferes with the way they manage their affairs, that sets
deadlines, asks for explanations, even intimidates business
owners, wastes the time of employees and acts as if small
business was at its beck and call.
Studies on the subject agree that at least 20 per cent of the
time and effort that go into small business management and
administration is spent dealing with government paperwork.
That is both unacceptable and contrary to the goals of being
competitive and efficient, the magic words government officials
are so fond of repeating.
We must help small business expand and not crush them under
bureaucratic paperwork. We must help small businesses whose
names are not on everyone's lips, which do not have an export
plan or technology projects and whose equipment does not
necessarily have to be updated, but which produce goods in
response to local and regional needs. They are often
well-managed or may experience problems but, most
importantly, provide local jobs for 5, 10, 20, 40 or 60 employees
who without this plant would be unemployed, unlikely to find
another job and, as a result, have to live on unemployment
insurance and then welfare.
I am thinking of door and window manufacturers, machine
tool shops, manufacturers of food products, clothing
manufacturers and sawmills, for instance.
We must acknowledge the fact that this type of business exists
and help them consolidate their position, because they create
and maintain the jobs in our regions that make it possible for the
government, with the tax revenue from these businesses and
their employees, to provide incentives for other businesses to
either export or update their equipment or get technological
development projects.
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the
government, considering the geopolitical changes that have
taken place in recent years, of the importance of encouraging the
conversion of our defence industries to the production of
civilian goods. The government must help bring about this
conversion, otherwise our entire industrial framework may lose
its competitive edge to neighbouring economies.
The red book makes this clear, and I quote: ``The defence
industries today employ directly and indirectly over 100,000
Canadians. The end of the cold war puts at risk tens of thousands
of high-tech jobs. A Liberal government will introduce a
defence conversion program to help industries in transition from
high-tech military production to high-tech civilian
production''.
That being said, questions arise about the federal
government's framework for acting effectively in terms of
incentives to streamline operations.
In Quebec, the agency closest to the customer is the Federal
Business Development Bank which, oddly enough, reports to
the Minister of Finance, although one could legitimately assume
that industrial conversion programs would originate from and be
inspired by Industry Canada, which has no regional offices,
being mainly based in Montreal. One can hardly expect
programs that are designed and administered well away from the
potential user to be effective.
One also wonders what the FBDB, the Federal Business
Development Bank, is doing in the Department of Finance.
To get back to the content of the bill as such, one of the items
in the bill refers to labour-sponsored venture capital
corporations. I am reminded of one particularly remarkable
example, the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs, a venture
capital corporation founded 10 years ago this year by the Quebec
Federation of Labour. Today, the corporation has 193,000
shareholders with net assets of $797 million and an investment
portfolio worth $414 million, invested in Quebec businesses.
Shareholders have seen their businesses revive or expand
considerably, thanks to the fund's assistance.
(1240)
In 1993 alone, the fund was responsible for nearly $175
million in new investments benefitting 43 businesses. The very
existence of the Fonds de solidarité and its success illustrate the
potential for creativity and innovation of Quebec and the people
of Quebec, which in turn explains our confidence and pride in
the economic potential of a sovereign Quebec.
1290
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the
hon. member. What caught my ears was his comments about
small business being harassed by government bureaucracy.
He mentioned that 20 per cent of energy went to fill out
government forms and what not. He also mentioned that small
businesses provided jobs on a local level. I could not agree with
him more. If we want to kickstart the economy, if we want to
stimulate the economy, we have to help small and medium sized
businesses stimulate the economy and create jobs. Then I think
we will see the recession behind us.
In canvassing my riding of Parkdale-High Park, which is in
the city of Toronto, the complaints I get from small businesses
are about the lack of co-operation they get from the banks. Yes, I
get some complaints about bureaucracy or red tape, but if they
want to modernize their plants and expand to export their
products-and he mentioned such products as doors, windows,
et cetera-they go to the bank and the bank refuses them capital
loans. Under the Small Businesses Loans Act small businesses
can borrow up to $250,000 and 90 per cent of the risk is
guaranteed by the federal government. Even with that
motivation, that stimulus, the banks are not co-operating.
Just yesterday an angry constituent with a small business in
real estate called me. He had a client who used to pay him by
cheque every month, a $1,000 cheque he would deposit in the
bank. The service charge for that was 75 cents. The other day he
was paid in cash. He took the cash to the bank and the bank had
the gall to charge him $2.20. The principle is that small
businesses get angry because of this kind of attitude on the part
of banks in Canada.
Is it just businesses in Toronto, businesses in my riding, that
have these problems with banks? Or, does he experience the
same difficulties with the banks as do small businesses? If so,
would he have any recommendations? How can we get after
these banks to co-operate in stimulating the economy and not
throwing roadblocks in the way of small businesses?
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. Having been involved in economic regional
development for 25 years in my region of
Mauricie-Bois-Franc -by the way, I take this opportunity to
pay my respects to the people of that region as well as my
constituents-I totally agree with the hon. member when he says
that-and this matter was raised by the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood in the Standing Committee on
Industry-there is a discrepancy between what the presidents of
the major banks are saying and the attitude displayed by local
bank managers. Every one is looking after their own interests,
but no one is there for the small businessman who is really the
one taking the risks.
More and more, especially in difficult times, banks have only
one thing in mind, to look after their own interests, to protect
what they have. Often they do not hesitate to pull the plug on the
other party, that is to say the business, the industrial
entrepreneur and the employees.
(1245)
I think it is a matter of mentality, of attitude. Someone who
had been studying the operation of European banks once told me
that their attitude and approach with respect to private
investment are totally different in the sense that the operating
philosophy of the bank is to take a chance with the small
business owner.
Perhaps pressure should be brought to bear to foster a change
in attitudes, in that respect. While the Canadian banking system
is said to be one of the most performing and comforting in the
world, there may be fundamental choices to be made by banks.
We may come to realize that our system has its faults, its
weaknesses, seeing that unemployment-because that is the
ultimate result-is growing steadily from one decade to the
next. When I was young, the unemployment rate was 3 per cent
and now, I think that Statistics Canada is saying that the best we
can hope for is 8 per cent.
It may be this kind of management and operating philosophy
that causes banks to gradually discourage people who start up
businesses with potential: when the going gets tough, the bank
loses any loyalty to its client. That is a question that will be
examined by the standing committee on industry.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, I have
examined Bill C-9. I know there are people who are watching us
on television. This is Bill C-9.
There are all kinds of interesting things in this bill and one
may think that, with its proposals, the government wants to
increase business competitiveness and enable people to improve
their situation. For example, it talks about reducing the
unemployment insurance premiums to promote the creation of
extra jobs. It is very interesting to see how the government is
concerned with businesses.
However, how are businesses going to learn that these new
provisions will take effect? The day after this bill is proclaimed,
will their accountant rush to the phone and tell them: ``Here, in
your case, you really have a wonderful opportunity''? I doubt it
and what saddens me is to see such nice intentions-the
extension of the small business financing program, venture
capital corporations for workers, the extension of the home
buyers's plan-that will not necessarily be communicated with
the
1291
appropriate timing and in a usable way to businesses and
individuals who could otherwise benefit from them.
I would like my colleague from the Bloc to share his thoughts
with me on this.
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with my
colleague that transmission of information gives rise to another
kind of problem.
On the one hand, there is so much government intervention,
and on the other hand, the system is so complicated that even the
government does not have the tools to deliver the information.
Small business has to pay to set up a system whereby the
information first goes through its tax expert, its accountant, who
will hopefully make sure the information goes around. Such
systems seem to work in a vacuum.
In a sense, government and small business are essentially
parallel organizations. They are like two different worlds that
can only meet from time to time, according to the goodwill, the
ability, the dedication and maybe also the fees of the specialists
hired by the companies.
Speaking of harassment, it seems that business is at the
service of the government. In our economic system, things
should be different, since the government is supposed to be at
the service of the business community. There are undoubtedly
changes to be made and we might begin by decreasing
government interference in business management. That would
go a long way to resolve many problems.
The Deputy Speaker: As no hon. member wishes to take the
floor, is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
(1250 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved that Bill C-8, an act to amend the
Criminal Code and the Fisheries Protection Act (force), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of Bill C-8 the
government proposes an amendment to section 25 of the
Criminal Code that will bring to culmination a process of reform
that started as long ago as 1969 with recommendations of the
Ouimet committee.
The subject of this amendment is the use of force by peace
officers in dealing with persons who take flight in order to avoid
arrest. In short, the proposed amendment will first of all
recognize the right of peace officers to resort to force in such
circumstances, including such force as may occasion death or
grievous bodily harm to the person to be arrested.
Second, it will introduce an element of proportionality
between the threat of harm posed by the fleeing person and the
degree of force that is permitted by law.
Third, it will extend the concept of permissible force such as
is reasonable in the circumstances to persons who perform
similar duties on behalf of the public, including prison guards
and those peace officers who attempt to stop foreign fishing
vessels that are alleged to be breaching Canadian law.
In introducing second reading of this bill, I would like to deal
with three matters which the House may find useful as it
embarks upon its considerations.
First, the manifest unsuitability of the present section of the
Criminal Code that deals with matters of this kind. Second, the
process of consultation in which the government and the
previous government engaged in order to bring forth these
proposals. Third, the particulars of the amendment that is
proposed that commend the amendment to the government and,
I hope, to all members of this House.
Let me first deal with the present state of the Criminal Code so
far as it deals with the use of force by peace officers to detain
persons who are fleeing to escape arrest. The provision is now
found in section 25(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada and is
known broadly as the fleeing felon rule. Indeed, the antiquity of
that name itself indicates the time that has elapsed since we have
methodically thought through the appropriateness of the present
regime.
The concept of course is quite sound. The concept is as sound
today as it was when the provision was first enacted. It is
appropriate for the legislature to acknowledge and give
authority to the need for peace officers to use such force as is
reasonably necessary to protect themselves and members of the
public when confronted with a person who is fleeing to avoid
lawful arrest.
The fact of the matter is that the present section of the code is
overly broad. It discloses on its face a lack of the kind of
proportionality that legislatures and courts have worked toward
in more recent enactments. For example, on its face the existing
section of the code would permit an officer to use deadly force to
detain someone who was fleeing to avoid arrest for shoplifting.
1292
I hasten to add that police forces themselves, both in their
training and in their procedures and practices, have shown both
professionalism and restraint in the way they have used the
discretion and authority conferred by the present section.
(1255 )
This is in terms of the training that officers receive at the
police colleges, in the manuals of procedure that are made
available to forces as they work, and in practices adopted by
police officers individually and by forces across the country.
One can see a recognition on the part of police officers
themselves that the present section is not sufficiently subtle or
flexible. It does not deal with the right proportionality to reflect
a balancing of the competing interests that are presented in
circumstances of this kind.
Indeed, in the 1989 report of the Ontario Race Relations and
Policing Task Force it was observed that the police themselves
are uncomfortable with the broad discretion provided at present
by section 25(4) and the police college instructors caution new
police officers not to take the powers literally.
There has been concern expressed about the present provision
by minority groups across the country. Always keenly aware of
their relationship with police forces, they have expressed worry
that the section does not expressly contain the kind of criteria
that should reasonably be found there for reference by peace
officers before resorting to such force as might cause death or
serious bodily harm in detaining those who flee for the purpose
of escaping arrest.
[Translation]
When the provision applicable to dangerous criminals fleeing
for the purpose of escaping arrest, which is being amended by
the present bill, was first introduced, it applied only to the most
serious crimes, most of which where punishable by death. At
that time, when dangerous suspects where found guilty, they
were almost always executed. One can understand why
dangerous criminals did not hesitate to use any means, even the
most violent, to escape arrest.
At the same time, if the suspect was not arrested then, there
was little likelihood that he would be arrested later, since the
tools at the disposal of the police forces where quite
rudimentary, communication networks were primitive and
investigation methods rather crude.
[English]
Over the years there have been complaints about the present
section and calls for its reform from, among others, the Uniform
Law Conference and the Law Reform Commission of Canada.
In April of last year the section was declared unconstitutional
by a judge of the general division of the Ontario court on the
basis of the very same flaws that I have identified here today.
Surely it is time for Parliament to catch up with the
jurisprudence, with the police practices in place in this country,
and to amend this section of the code so that it reflects current
values and current approaches to policing matters.
Let me deal briefly with the degree and nature of consultation
that took place as the government worked toward the
amendment that is now before the House. I hope members
throughout the House will agree that consultation has been
thorough, thoughtful and constructive.
The most recent round began for present purposes in
mid-June 1990 at the federal-provincial-territorial conference
in Niagara-on-the-Lake at which there was general agreement
that an initiative should finally be taken to change the code.
The following June, June 1991, the Department of Justice
released a consultation document identifying four alternatives.
In September 1991 at their conference in Yellowknife, the
federal-provincial-territorial representatives agreed in
principle on the approach that should be taken. Following that,
there were a number of federal-provincial-territorial
discussions at various levels on the precise shape of the
amendment.
(1300)
On August 17, 1992 a further discussion paper with detailed
proposals was released at the time of the meeting of the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Throughout this
process and in the months and years since it started, the
Department of Justice has had the benefit of views expressed by
members of Parliament, by senators, by provincial and
territorial attorneys general and solicitors general, by chief
justices, by ethnocultural groups, by representatives of the
ethnic press, by provincial police associations, the police press,
the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian
Police Association, bar associations, law deans, law societies,
aboriginal police forces, non-governmental organizations and
other interested individuals.
Thanks are due to all of those who took part in this important
discussion. The suggestions and the observations they have
made from time to time are reflected in various aspects of the
legislation.
What will this bill achieve? May I observe, as I introduce
debate at second reading, that this bill will maintain and
reaffirm the ability of peace officers to protect themselves and
the public from serious harm or death; will clarify when peace
officers can use deadly force to stop suspects who are fleeing
arrest, or inmates attempting to escape from penitentiaries; will
justify a police response to the threat posed by a fleeing suspect
that is in proportion to the seriousness of that threat; and, will
1293
modernize the law by updating an archaic provision of the code
that is inadequate and no longer fits the reality of present day
Canada.
The bill provides that force that is intended or is likely to
cause death or grievous bodily harm to arrest a fleeing suspect
may only be used when reasonably necessary for the protection
of any person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily
harm, and only if the flight cannot be prevented by reasonable
means in a less violent manner.
This bill calls for a proportionate response and respects the
principle of restraint.
[Translation]
I want to make sure that police officers can continue to protect
themselves and the public from serious injury or even death.
Bill C-8 specifically authorizes the use of whatever force is
necessary to protect the public or police officers.
[English]
The proposal for a new subsection 25(4) focuses the decision
on whether to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect against
the risk of physical harm posed by the fleeing suspect if not
immediately apprehended. The subsection provides that the
physical threat posed by the fleeing suspect may be imminent or
future. As a result, the subsection would allow for the use of
deadly force against a fleeing suspect in situations where the
danger to the public would be increased and not reduced by
allowing the fleeing suspect to avoid arrest.
By adopting that standard, Parliament would be saying that
only in those circumstances is the use of deadly force justified.
At the present time there is in the current provision no
requirement that the fleeing suspect be dangerous before deadly
force can be used.
Admittedly, the assessment of future danger is a difficult one
to make. But retaining the word as it appears in the amendment
would make it clear that the provision would apply, for example,
with respect to a dangerous mass murderer, or a person with a
record of violent offences fleeing from arrest who constitutes a
danger to society, even though the anticipated harm may not be
immediate.
The assessment that the fleeing suspect poses a threat of death
or grievous bodily harm is to be based, according to the
amendment, on the circumstances as the user of the force on
reasonable grounds believes them to be. In this way the test
merges the police officer's subjective belief about the
seriousness of the danger posed by the fleeing suspect with the
objective test of reasonableness of such belief. This approach is
consistent with the test currently used in subsection 25(3) of the
Criminal Code.
(1305)
The bill also proposes, in new subsection 25(5) of the
Criminal Code, that deadly force be allowed in order to prevent
the escape of an inmate from an institution in which it is known
that there are inmates who would be dangerous if they escaped.
This proposed amendment once again reflects the current policy
and practice relating to the use of force in penitentiaries.
Whereas the use of force against escaping inmates is justified by
the present subsection 25(4), peace officers in penitentiaries
would not be able to perform their job properly and public safety
could be jeopardized by the proposed use of subsection 25(4),
because paragraph 25(4)(d), if applied to the prison officers
would be found inappropriate to the special situation that they
face in penitentiaries.
In penitentiaries it is practically impossible for peace officers
observing an escape to assess whether the particular inmate
attempting to escape is likely to be dangerous if the escape is
successful. What is more, the peace officer in such
circumstances would be unlikely to know the factors that
determine the risk the inmate presents at that particular moment.
Deadly force would only be permitted as a last resort after other
reasonable, less violent means, if possible in the circumstances,
have been tried.
In comparing escape from a penitentiary to the flight of a
suspect, the inmate is already in the custody of the law, has been
convicted and sentenced for having committed an offence. The
social and psychological significance of an escape is very
different from a fleeing suspect trying to escape arrest, in that
the person who flees on the spur of the moment while escaping
from a penitentiary is very rare. Ordinarily such escapes involve
planning and premeditation. It is necessary also to bear in mind
that it is necessary to maintain discipline and respect for lawful
authority in penitentiaries. This amendment would assist in
achieving that objective.
Last, the bill includes an amendment to the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act to provide the authority in accordance with
regulations to be made under the act for a protection officer to
use disabling force against a fleeing foreign fishing vessel in
order to arrest the master or other person in command of the
vessel.
The amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act is
being proposed to ensure that the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans retains the same powers it has at present to use disabling
force when necessary. No new powers are being added.
Fishery officers employed by the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans to enforce regulations concerning the fisheries are peace
officers under the Criminal Code. They have duties and training
that are similar to those of other peace officers. These people
may, on occasion, have to use force to disable a foreign fishing
vessel that has violated our laws and tries to escape.
1294
If disabling force could not be used it would not be possible to
arrest such vessels if they tried to escape and they could violate
our laws with impunity. The use of this disabling force is being
authorized only against foreign fishing vessels, not against
Canadian ones. Domestic fishing vessels and their masters
routinely remain in Canadian waters or return to Canadian ports
where they can be apprehended so the disabling force in those
cases is not required.
The amendment includes a regulation making power to
further control the use of disabling force. The regulations will
establish the procedures in accordance with which and the
extent to which disabling force is to be used. The government
intends to develop these regulations so they will be consistent
with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The
regulations will also be consistent with a recognized and
reasonable international practice in the use of disabling force at
sea. There will be a number of steps that would have to be
followed and satisfied before the use of disabling force would be
permitted.
[Translation]
I think this bill achieves a good balance between, on the one
hand, the capacity of peace officers to ensure public safety and,
on the other hand, the protection of Canadians' rights.
(1310 )
[English]
I believe that the bill marks a significant step forward from
the archaic fleeing felon rule. It allows us to put in place new
legal protection balancing the rights of peace officers, who must
do their jobs in increasingly difficult circumstances, and the
rights of citizens for protection against deadly force when it is
not reasonably necessary.
It is my hope that the hon. members of the House will provide
this bill with their support.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Since the standing orders do not allow
questions or comments under such circumstances, I give the
floor to the hon. member for Gaspé.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): First, Mr. Speaker, I have a short
question. I see that time is running out. I believe we are allowed
a 40-minute period for the first speech and I was told that one of
my colleagues would then make a 20-minute speech and two
other colleagues would speak for 10 minutes each during the
day. I believe you were informed of that. As for my 40 minutes, I
think that I will have finished before the oral question period.
The Bloc quebecois will approve Bill C-8, in general. But we
have serious reservations about it and we will ask for some
amendments. After expressing these reservations, I will tell you
about our intention to move these amendments, which we hope
will clarify the bill and limit potential abuse.
I will stick with the fisheries issue. My colleague will explain
to you later the more detailed position of the Bloc concerning
the first part of the bill dealing with wardens in penitentiaries, I
think, in any case the one that amends the Criminal Code. He
will do it, I believe, more eloquently than I, at least I hope.
As I said, as the fisheries critic and also as the representative
from the Gaspé riding, a traditionally maritime riding, I will
dwell on the fisheries aspect of Bill C-8, because in fact the
second part of the bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection
Act.
After briefly explaining to you the substance of the
amendment, I will also explain the risks involved.
In short, before its amendment, this provision, in our opinion,
seemed as brief as imprecise. We understand what the
government has done about this. So far, this legislation reads as
follows: ``A protection officer may arrest without warrant any
person who the officer suspects on reasonable grounds has
committed an offence under this act''.
With its amendment, the government gives a structure to the
power given to a protection officer. Once this government
amendment is adopted, the new provision will read as follows:
``A protection officer is justified in using, in accordance and to
the extent permitted by the regulations, force that is intended or
is likely to disable a foreign fishing vessel in these
circumstances-'' I wil not read all the conditions, but that is the
basic point of the new legislation.
So what does this amendment intend?
It gives to a protection officer the right to inspect a foreign
vessel. Therefore, the right of a protection officer to act is now
included and protected by the law. We have to keep in mind that
any protection officer already had this right and this bill simply
confirms a current practice which brings us to ask a technical
question first: Do the protection officers have the training
required of people who hold such an important power? It is up to
the minister to answer this first question.
In the end, what are our reservations about this bill?
(1315)
First, let me point out that illegal fishing is only one aspect of
the Canadian fisheries issue. Stock depletion is a complex issue
which cannot be confined to illegal fishing.
Thus, the fisheries problem is much more than just a question
of stock depletion as mentioned by the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans. We believe that the entire structure of the industry must
be revisited. Instead of addressing these structural changes
necessary to respond to the cyclical changes in stocks, the
government-as it did in the speech from the throne-is still
1295
looking for those responsible for stock depletion when it is the
government that is responsible for stock management.
Surely, the government cannot allow illegal fishing. But it
must also take other action. It must concentrate first on
restructuring the fishing industry, on developing new trading
practices. It must emphasize all sorts of alternatives in order to
put more than 50,000 people back to work in this country. Illegal
fishing must be stopped, but the problem goes beyond that. In
our view, this bill looks like another element of a broader
smokescreen. We hope that our fears are unfounded.
Now, here are some tangible reservations we have about Bill
C-8. The Criminal Code allows a peace officer to use force in
order to arrest a person who wants to flee. We agree with this
principle in the context of the Criminal Code. However, we
consider this is a poor approach when it comes to fisheries. The
situation in the fisheries industry is so precarious right now that
the amendment could result in violent incidents. Let me explain.
In the past, using deterrent firing has not permitted to inspect
foreign ships at fault. Therefore, once the bill is adopted, the
protection officers may think they can use a degree of force
greater than the one they are using now to achieve what they set
out to do. As I said, the situation is precarious and using a
greater degree of force to disable a foreign fishing vessel may
encourage illegal fishermen to respond to the measures taken by
Canada by arming to defend themselves. So, without being
alarmist, we believe that the risk is real and should be
considered by the minister.
Second, one of the objectives of Canada is to show the
international community its determination to stop illegal
practices.
This is a commendable objective. However, it entails the
inherent risk to view force as the ultimate solution to the
problem. We refuse to view force as an end in itself. Using force
does not allow us to get to the root of the problem of illegal
fishing. It is only a short-term solution. The real solution will
come from concerted international action.
In fact, and here I come to our third concern, Canada will not
be able to stop illegal fishing practices without the help of other
countries. Negotiation efforts with the international community
must be pursued. Even though we keep a close watch over the
200 mile area, if, for instance, fishing activities outside that area
are allowed to go on and harm our fish stocks, the amendment to
the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act will not solve the problem
in any way. Canada cannot legislate in an international area.
Therefore, negotiation is the only possible solution. We must
not forget that when examining this amendment.
Other countries' input is all the more important since it is our
firm belief that using force is only a temporary solution, one that
we want to eliminate as soon as possible. Force is a short-term
measure. We reject it on the whole but for purely dissuasive
purposes, we tolerate reasonable use of force, that is force
aimed at disabling a fishing vessel without putting any human
life at risk.
(1320)
Contrary to what the Criminal Code says, we do not tolerate
using force likely to cause death in the case of fishing vessels. In
our view, illegal fishermen are not criminals; often crewmen are
not even aware of what is going on. We must understand that but
since we must act rapidly, we are ready to accept it.
We take it that the bill applies exclusively to foreign ships
because, in the case of Canadian vessels, there are alternatives
to force which we cannot use in the case of foreign ones. In the
case of Canadians, we could, for example, arrest identified
offenders dockside or at home.
Therefore, through international treaties, the government
should strive to have the countries involved implement arrest
procedures similar to those we have on our territory. It would be
the only efficient way to avoid using force and at the same time
succeed in punishing those guilty of violating the law. We could
avoid using force even in the case of offenses; through bilateral
or multilateral agreements, we could have a ship captain
arrested by the police of his own country. In such cases, if the
fines were high enough, we could discourage smugglers without
using any force.
While I am on the subject of international treaties, let me take
this opportunity to talk about those that already exist, for
example those with the United States and Quebec. I would like
to give the House the following example, should Quebec ever
become a foreign nation. Eighty per cent of resources found in
the Gulf of St. Lawrence are already shared among the bordering
provinces under an individual quota system.
This system is backed by a dockside monitoring program. The
Department of Fisheries and Oceans is able to know, on a daily
basis, what is being unloaded, where it is being unloaded,
precisely at which dock, and by whom. Therefore, should
Quebec choose sovereignty, contrary to what some of my
colleagues claimed last time I rose in this House, we would not
be locked into endless constitutional arguments; on the contrary,
the work has already been done.
Resource sharing agreements are already in place. In the
worst case scenario, the colour of the paper might change but the
basis is already there. So, whether Quebec is a neighbour or a
foreign state, using force, under international agreements,
might not be necessary, or so I hope.
There are alternatives to using force. I would like to give other
examples. Apparently, as we approach the year 2000, a satellite
orbiting around the earth can read a newspaper over my
shoulder. How can it be then that we are unable to keep up with
new technology and track any vessel in our waters? We could
increase security at sea and better protect our sovereignty on the
1296
ocean. I do not claim to know everything there is to know in the
field of electronics, but I do know that things can be done.
These alternatives to violence may prove important if we
consider that the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code
could be applied to worse crimes than poaching. It may be
justified to use lethal force against a dangerous criminal but it
would be unacceptable to do so with poachers, who pose a
totally different problem.
We can arrest a captain because he caught too many fish,
because he was fishing in the wrong place, because he caught the
wrong species or because he did not have a licence. These are all
serious fishing regulation offenses but none is so serious as to
justify endangering the lives of the captain and crew while
trying to stop their ship. This aspect of the problem is covered by
an amendment we will bring forth later.
(1325)
I want to get back to another point that I touched on briefly a
while ago. I will phrase my comment in the form of a question.
Is it really lawful to pass legislation that applies only to
foreigners?
Clause 8.1 applies only to foreign fishing vessels. The bill
does not authorize the use of necessary force to disable a
Canadian vessel. We realize that other measures are in place to
track down offenders in Canadian territorial waters.
Consequently, there is no need to resort to the use of force in
their case. We ask the Canadian government to apply the same
policy to foreigners so that altercations can be avoided.
We understand that until such measures are put in place, the
Canadian government must resort to the use of force. However,
we will not stand for a policy based on a double standard.
Therefore, it is imperative that we implement, along with the
international community, effective measures to stop vessels
from fishing illegally and to change a system where two kinds of
law apply, one for Canadians, and one for foreigners.
In addition, it seems clear that the government is again,
through this legislative provision, focussing attention on
foreign fishing. At least that is how I see it. It seems to still be
looking for a scapegoat when instead, it should re-examining
the whole issue of the Canadian fishery.
The fourth point about which the Bloc Quebecois has
concerns is the matter of the possible additional overlap
between government departments. National defence vessels are
already equipped to disable foreign fishing vessels. The
inclusion of clause 8.1 could prompt the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans to further equip its vessels so that they
have enough strike power to intimidate foreign vessels. Should
these investments be considered a priority given the crisis in the
fisheries?
Furthermore, one can question the relevance of giving
fisheries protection officers the mandate to disable a foreign
fishing vessel. There is indeed overlap between the different
department when it comes to maintaining maritime sovereignty.
The report of the Malone Committee on maritime sovereignty
states in no uncertain terms that savings could be realized if
there were more co-operation and co-ordination between the
departments of Transport, Fisheries and Oceans, National
Defence and the RCMP. Today's amendment does nothing to
restrict overlap and could quite likely increase its incidence.
To respond to some of its concerns, the Bloc Quebecois will
move an amendment to the government's bill. We will add a line
to the end of section 8.1 as follows: the use of force cannot be
tolerated if the lives of the crew of the escaping boat are
endangered. I do not claim to be a lawyer, but I submit that this is
a very sensible resolution and I say it most sincerely.
The purpose of this amendment is clear: to set limits for the
use of force. Since subsection 25(3) of the Criminal Code does
not apply to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, use of force as
mentioned in section 8.1 of that Act is not limited by law. The
Bloc's amendment is intended to limit the use of force in order
to avoid possibly nasty incidents. Foreign fishermen are human.
They do not deserve to die just because they wanted to make
ends meet. In many cases, the people on the ships will not even
understand the language used to arrest them and thus
unreasonable use of force could lead to serious incidents.
(1330)
I have another question about this bill: the government does
not define what ``disable'' means when it says ``force that is
intended or is likely to disable a foreign fishing vessel''. Since I
am not a lawyer, I looked in the dictionary and saw that a
``disabled'' ship is unable to move because it has been damaged.
Damaging a ship on the high seas-I do not know if some of you
have ever fished, but any kind of weather may be going on out
there at that time. Various kinds of vessels, made of various
materials, exist: iron, wood and fibreglass. A .303 bullet hole
could perhaps sink a ship, but if it did, it would be because it was
fired through the hull as a warning, apparently. But if a shot were
fired through a fibreglass fishing boat, I would not want to be a
fisherman asleep between decks.
So I think that the use of force requires prudence and good
judgment. And we know that life at sea can be tough. So
remember that this right to use force must be exercised
carefully.
This amendment is even more important in that the
application of the law is subject to regulations issued by the
Governor in
1297
Council. It is really the regulations which will determine the
scope of the law. If the regulations are too lax, the law as worded
is dangerously open to abuse.
The bill in itself is not bad, but what seem less attractive are
the motivations for it.
The government is giving fishermen a target, namely
foreigners. When the cod stocks started to decline, some said
that the increase in the seal population was mainly responsible.
After all the twists and turns we have been through, scientists
now tell us that seals are only one predator among many. Since
the scapegoat is no longer there, another one must be found!
What better than foreigners? Let us gladly hide the real
problems behind the wicked foreigners. In the meantime, we do
not talk about what will happen to the fishing industry after May
16. In the meantime, fishermen forget that the federal
government was responsible for managing the stocks and that it
is mostly to blame.
According to NAFO, barely 5 per cent of the cod stocks are in
the nose and tail of the Grand Banks where the illegal fishing is
now going on and about which this government is making so
much fuss. We wonder why the minister is making such an issue
of it. Does the government realize that it is politicking instead of
solving the real underlying problem?
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans itself recognizes that
it is practically impossible to estimate the cost of illegal fishing.
What I am saying is that we should be discussing the fisheries of
the future instead. The seals have always been there and the
stocks did not collapse. Foreigners have always fished some of
our stocks and our stocks did not collapse as they have now. Our
whole industry must be rethought and quickly, because many
people are idle and frustrated. These are capable people.
Seafaring people are resourceful, but the government does not
listen to them.
However, the traditional management imposed by the federal
government disdains local initiatives for solving the problems
of the fishing industry. Indeed, this is not the first big crisis of
the fishing industry. I repeat what I already said, and I think it is
important to repeat it. In the early 1970s, cod stocks were in
almost the same state as they are today, but the resourceful
fishermen then turned to crab fishing. A little later, in the late
1970s, with the collapse of haddock fishing in the Gulf, some
fishermen turned to shrimp.
(1335)
I gather from this that these maritime communities can adjust
when allowed to interact. They can signal the presence of other,
less popular species that can then be marketed. But this requires
rapid channels of communication between decision-makers and
the people on the front line, namely the fishermen. Quebec lost
the opportunity for feedback in 1982, when the then Liberal
government repatriated the fisheries jurisdiction. It is about
time, in my opinion, that the federal government opened its
eyes.
I have another, more recent example. In 1986, this feedback
mechanism would have allowed inshore fishermen, who were
the first to notice the decline of cod stocks, to adjust. While cod
stocks were in decline, other species wrongly seen as unfit
should have been made more attractive.
I want to reiterate that my motto on fisheries throughout this
session will be this: A valid industrial policy on fisheries can
only be consistent if the provinces share in the management of
resources. The vulnerability of Quebec and the other provinces
with respect to fisheries is due to the fact that the most decisive
powers in this area are held by the federal government.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should talk about a new
partnership between the various stakeholders in this sector. He
should talk about the steps he intends to take to put fishermen in
Canada and Quebec back to work. What tools will he give
maritime communities to help them pull through?
Where I come from, we have a saying: ``If you give a man a
fish, you will feed him for one day, but if you teach him how to
fish, you will feed him for life''. I think it is also a Chinese
proverb. We are very cultured in the Gaspe, are we not?
What tool should we use to enable former fishermen to find a
new path? Similarly, what tool will we use to diversify this
industry so that it can live through the next stock variation
cycles? As I was saying during the election campaign, ``A local
problem calls for a local solution''. The real solutions will not
come, I am sorry to say, from Ottawa.
Today, because of the federal government's management
mistakes, these communities are seeing their world turned
upside down. Their lives will never be the same. They must find
a new way of life. This revolution requires the various
governments to provide maritime communities with new
development tools.
The fishing world is undergoing massive changes and it would
be an insult to all fishermen to unduly target illegal fishing or
smugglers. We hope that this bill is not part of a plan to obscure
reality and cloud the real debate on the fisheries' future. We
support this bill, as I said earlier, but we hope it will be
amended. Most of all, we are in favour of the government
assuming its responsibilities and facing the crisis in a sector that
is vital to many Quebecers and Canadians. That, Mr. Speaker, is
something I have yet to see.
In closing, I would like to reiterate-because I have been
talking a lot-the few questions I want to ask the government. I
would like the government to answer these questions; I do not
know how, but it should be able to respond before tabling the
final draft of its bill.
1298
My first question is this: are protection officers adequately
trained to exercise such important powers? I know a few of them
from my hometown but I know that Canadian regulations have
different applications, regarding the bearing of weapons, for
example. I know that two of the five Maritime provinces have
asked for permission to refuse the bearing of weapons.
(1340)
What will be the attitude of protection officers with regard to
a use permitted by the regulations, although I do not know what
regulations will be made under this legislation? That is a
question I would really like answered.
Did the minister also think of the possibility that government
initiatives could make things worse? The point I am making is
that the fisheries are already in crisis. I would not want fuel to be
added to the flame. Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
also step up his efforts in negotiating with the international
community? And will the government reduce the current
overlap between various federal departments, as I said earlier?
The Malone report referred to a four-way approach.
Finally, will the regulations made under this legislation be
tabled in the House of Commons to allow us to assess whether
they are too lax and are leaving the door open to abuse or not?
In closing, I would urge the government to consider carefully
the amendments the opposition will be proposing. This bill has
numerous implications and deserves careful consideration.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Since there are no questions or
comments on the speech made by the member from the Bloc
Quebecois I would go directly then to the Reform Party member
for New Westminster-Burnaby who has the same time as the
first speaker for the two other parties as of today when the rules
come into force.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in response to Bill C-8 which is laid before
this House.
The bill strikes at the heart of what it is all about for
communities to delegate authority on their behalf, to have police
officers, to give them lethal weapons and to give them the power
not available to ordinary citizens. This bill clearly strikes at the
heart of the authority of a policeman. The bill clearly
circumscribes and brackets to a greater degree the existing law
which is the discretionary authority where force, such as
bringing possible harm or death, may result to a perpetrator of a
crime.
First, I note that this bill appears to be a top down fix or a
response to a charter argument made in the Lines case. It is said
that the current provisions of the Criminal Code are too broad.
Second, there appears to be some desire for this measure from
certain community groups that in particular circumstances too
much force was used and the Criminal Code guide and
parameters were far too broad.
However, I do not detect a community outcry that the police
are shooting people and that forces are really abusing their
community trust. If anything the community feels that the police
are hamstrung and that their hands are tied and do not generally
have enough authority to carry out their duties. Where is the
current community bottom up drive for this change?
It is said, however, that subsection 25(4) of the Criminal Code
is a problem. That subsection empowers a peace officer who is
proceeding with lawful arrest of a suspect who may be arrested
without a warrant to use as much force as is necessary to prevent
escape unless there are other reasonable and less violent means.
This is what is known as the fleeing felon rule. It is evident from
plain reading of the section that the only judgment requirement
of the peace officer concerned the availability of other means.
It is said that subsection 25(4) of the code breaches the
suspect's rights and the rights of innocent bystanders under
section 7 of the charter which is life, liberty and security of the
person or section 9 which is protection from arbitrary detention
or section 12 which is protection against cruel and unusual
treatment.
The fleeing felon rule was developed at a time when most
felonies were punishable by death. If a felon could be executed
on conviction then it was apparently felt that the death of a
fleeing felon was not terribly disproportionate. To those who
protested that this amounted to a so called execution before trial,
the answer could be well made that the fleeing suspect could not
have been terribly interested in his trial or he would not have
fled in the first place.
In any event this rationale for the rule no longer exists in
civilized societies where no crimes are punishable by death in
Canada.
It is said that the bulk of academic and law enforcement
opinion is that the deadly force justification found in subsection
25(4) is quite simply too broad.
(1345 )
Police officers of the RCMP, Ontario Provincial Police and
metropolitan police forces all receive instructions and
guidelines that limit their use of deadly force more narrowly
now than is allowed in the Criminal Code.
The common thread of these limitations is the requirement of
some element of actual or reasonably perceived danger to the
officer or to others of death or bodily harm. The public interest
in the use of force, even deadly force, is equally obvious. It is to
facilitate law enforcement and prevent the escape of criminals.
1299
It is thought by some that if criminals come to know that they
may flee from arrest with impunity then they will do so and
chaos will result.
There is some easy agreement in the extreme cases. I will take
the extreme case to illustrate the point. That is not always so
when the lines of delineation are not all that clear.
The case is raised for example about the hypothetical
doughnut thief. If the peace officers found a thief in the act he
would perhaps would be entitled to arrest without a warrant. If
no other means were available he would be entitled to use lethal
force to prevent the escape. No sane person would ever suggest
that it should or could be used in that circumstance. I do not
think we have a history in Canada of that kind of abuse.
Other provisions also limit this peace officer who might
coming upon an armed bank robber spraying bullets in every
direction. Few would suggest that he should not use lethal force
to prevent escape and the possibility of further harm to the
public.
What about the policeman who finds someone in the act of
smuggling large quantities of cocaine or heroine into the
country? The suspect is unarmed and takes flight. The crime is
extremely serious. It involves bodily harm and often death
among users. It fosters often violent crime by addicts to gain the
wherewithal to feed their habit. It frequently fosters violent
crime among its distributors but at the moment of flight the
suspect offers no immediate danger to the officer or anyone else.
Should the officer fire?
What about the future harm of a hypothetical Clifford Olsen?
It is said that provisions such as those that exist in the Criminal
Code now authorize the use of lethal force whenever no less
violent means of capture are available and that that violates the
charter concerning the right to life and security of the person.
The prospect of deprivation thereof for some offences is not in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Can section 25 be justified under section 1 of the charter as a
reasonable limit on the right of liberty and security of the
person? Clearly the detention of fleeing suspects is a pressing
and substantial concern. The use of force to prevent flight is
clearly designed to achieve that objective and is rationally
connected to it.
The use of deadly force does not impair the right as little as
possible. The potential use of deadly force in a broad range of
situations as may be envisioned is said to be over broad and
entirely lacks proportionality.
The example is given of the spectre of the doughnut thief. It is
simply that. It is only a spectre. There is no evidence that
doughnut thieves are being gunned down in unprecedented
numbers in Canada.
The evidence is that police officers are instructed to fire their
revolvers only in circumstances much more stringent than those
in section 25(4). In short the argument is made that peace
officers can be relied upon not to abuse the force authorized by
the code.
It is the potential for harm and not the reality that matters.
Does the seriousness of the crime matter or is the sole question
about the danger present? What is the danger? Is it grievous
bodily harm or some serious physical injury? What is the risk
level? Is it that it might, may or likely possesses substantial risk
of injury? Who is protected aside of course from the arresting
officer? Is it those who are immediately present both spatially
and temporally or those more remotely at risk? The fleeing
rapist might have slaked his lust but for how long?
These issues today are being dealt with by those who are
responsible to the electorate. This is a political debate.
For example, in the Lines case the Criminal Code was
declared indeed to be an unconstitutional violation of the
suspect's charter right to life and security of the person.
Let us review. More clearly, subsection (4) currently permits
a peace officer and anyone lawfully assisting such a person to
use as much force as is necessary to prevent flight from lawful
arrest if the additional circumstances set out within the
subsection are met. It must be shown that there is a lawful basis
for the arrest either with or without a warrant.
Second, the person to be arrested must flee to avoid that
arrest.
Third, it must be shown that there was a no less violent means
of stopping such flight than was reasonable.
If an officer crosses into another jurisdiction in the course of
such a chase, the officer retains the status of the peace officer for
the purposes of that section.
In deciding in a particular case whether a police officer had
used more force than is authorized by subsection 4, general
statements as to the duty to take care to avoid injury to others
made in civil negligence cases cannot be accepted as applicable
without reservation. The performance of the duty imposed upon
police officers to arrest may at times and of necessity involve
risk or injury to other members of the community. Such risk in
the absence of a negligent or unreasonable exercise of a duty is
imposed by the statute.
(1350)
The right of a peace officer to use force to prevent escape is a
limited one and the right may be exercised only if the escape
could not be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent
manner. A peace officer cannot in any circumstances justify the
use of excess force and where the right to use force exists, it
must be exercised in a reasonable manner. If it is to be exercised
in a negligent manner, a peace officer is liable for all loss or
damage caused by his negligence. That is the current situation.
1300
In summary, it could be viewed that the proposed changes are
administrative only and only bring into line what is now
accepted practice which is housekeeping. That remains to be
seen.
We need only to get this bill into committee, call witnesses
and have a more thorough reflective examination. It may be that
the court and the justice community elite have already decided
what has to be done. What remains is the community
conversation that we can have about this bill. This is the most
fundamental power the community has. It delegates to its police
force for peace, order and good government.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to address this piece of legislation presented
by the justice minister.
So often in this House when we debate legislation we are
dealing with it usually on an intellectual level somewhat
divorced from the real life circumstances in which we intend the
legislation to apply.
In this particular case however, on a very personal note I could
not help but notice that the drive for this legislation commenced
with a decision of an Ontario court judge who found that the
existing Criminal Code provisions strayed from the
requirements of our charter. I believe this is rightly so. He did
find that correctly. That particular judge was a lawyer for whom
I had first worked as an articling student some 20 years ago.
The case involved a police officer who had apprehended a
suspect and in connection with that had fired his gun. That
police officer lived right across the street from me in Toronto.
This particular amendment is a little bit more than just an
intellectual exercise for me.
I would like to speak in particular to that aspect of the
legislation that deals with the work of employees in federal
penitentiaries who have certain powers and protections to help
them do their work. The bill recognizes that peace officers who
are correctional officers in penitentiaries have a unique
situation relative to that of peace officers who are police officers
on the street.
Correctional officers are dealing with convicted offenders,
many of whom would present a serious danger to public safety if
they were to escape. Subsection 25(5) of the bill would permit
correctional officers to use deadly force in order to prevent an
escape from a penitentiary that houses such high risk offenders.
This would be only as a last resort when less violent means had
been tried and found not to work. Those other means include
warning shots and oral commands.
This reflects current policy and practice in the correctional
service which is responsible for the operation of the federal
penitentiary system. It is in accordance with the mandate of the
service to protect society. The Correctional Service of Canada's
current internal policies are currently consistent with proposed
subsection 25(5). This requires a correctional officer
intervening in an escape to attempt to first issue an oral warning
to stop and then to fire a warning shot unless circumstances do
not permit that to happen. In practice it has happened extremely
rarely that a warning shot has not deterred an escapee and that
lethal force has had to be applied.
(1355)
Only specifically trained and authorized correctional officers
in maximum and medium security institutions carry firearms.
They do so only in designated areas. These include the
observation towers and patrols around the institution perimeter.
Both maximum and medium security institutions contain
inmates considered to pose a significant risk of escape and
threat to the safety of the public. Consequently both maximum
and medium security institutions are equipped with strong
perimeter security such as high fences, walls, movement
detection systems, cameras, armed posts and patrols.
The Correctional Service of Canada currently has 13
maximum security facilities and 17 medium security facilities
in Canada. There are no armed posts in federal minimum
security institutions since these institutions house offenders
who are classified as being of low risk to the public.
As the Minister of Justice has already explained, the general
rule in subsection 25(4) requires the peace officer to have
reasonable grounds to believe that the particular individual
fleeing arrest represents a threat of death or grievous bodily
harm.
Subsection 25(5) qualifies that rule in the case of escapes
from a penitentiary. That is important. This is a special rule to be
used only for federal penitentiaries. The reason for this is that
when a correctional officer sees an inmate escaping it is
practically impossible for him or her to assess the degree of risk
that particular individual represents at that precise moment in
time. Physical circumstances such as darkness, distance, or a
disguise worn by the inmate may make it impossible for the
officer to identify the inmate.
Even if the identity were known the officer would not likely
be aware of the factors that have precipitated the escape attempt,
factors which could result in the inmate posing an increased risk
to public safety. Inmates attempting to escape are often
desperate to make good their escape attempt and are capable of
resorting to violent measures including the taking of civilian
hostages.
Therefore the test that is used in subsection 25(5) is that the
officer must believe on reasonable grounds that any of the
inmates in the penitentiary pose a threat of death or grievous
bodily harm to the officer or any other person, that is, any
inmate in that institution.
1301
Correctional officers are able to found their belief on a well
established system which assigns every federal institution a
security classification according to the inmate population it is
designed to accommodate. The new provision applies only to
federal penitentiaries. Provincial corrections authorities were
consulted in the drafting of this provision and they agreed there
was no need for this provision provincially.
I believe that this proposed new subsection maintains powers
of protection needed by front line staff in our penitentiaries and I
believe it strikes the appropriate balance with the interests of
public safety.
Lastly, in connection with the provision of the amendment
dealing with foreign fishing vessels, I want to note that the
vessels involved are foreign and not Canadian, an important
distinction, and that the amendment is aimed at disabling a
fishing vessel and not a person. Strictly speaking, the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms certainly does not have the
same application as it does in the fleeing felon rule amendment
we are discussing. However, there are implications for the safety
of persons on the fleeing vessel and for the fisheries officers on
the Canadian vessel who may be bound to use force.
(1400)
The section we hope the House will adopt contains a reference
to the making of regulations that would circumscribe or outline
the situations in which force might be used, how it would be
used and when it would be used.
This House frequently delegates this regulatory making
power. We do it in almost every statute we pass. In this
particular case we are delegating a scheme of regulatory making
power which will come very close to making laws which are
approximate to the issues of life and safety on a fleeing fishing
vessel.
It is my view that we are in waters, if I may use that term, that
require us to use very careful guidelines. In doing this I know
there is a committee of the House-
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member will of course take the
floor after Question Period.
It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the
House will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
1301
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
on June 3, 1993, the former Conservative government removed
the interest free provision of the Advance Payments for Crops
Act or APCA.
It is the belief of the Liberal Party of Canada that the removal
of the interest free aspect has had an adverse effect on the
advance payments program because farmers are already facing a
cash flow crunch and cannot afford the additional burden of
interest charges.
On behalf of the agricultural community of
Lambton-Middlesex and all other rural ridings, I call upon the
Minister of Agriculture to reinstate the interest free provisions
of the APCA by Order in Council for the 1993-94 program.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, my constituency is
named for the beautiful Elk Island National Park which is
enjoyed by many local residents as well as thousands of visitors
from nearby Edmonton and around the world.
I rise today to speak strongly against a bureaucratic proposal
to close the road within the park, thereby greatly reducing park
accessibility to many people, especially those who cannot hike
or cycle because of physical limitations or disabilities. Our
elderly people whose dedication and hard work opened up and
developed the area particularly enjoy the scenic drive through
the park.
This park is on the Yellowhead Highway, a very popular
tourist highway and the economic spin-offs due to the park are
significant.
We must all take an active part in preserving our environment
and our parks and that must certainly include preserving the use
and enjoyment of our parks for our most precious resource, our
people.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, we were
saddened to hear of the death last Saturday of Ms. Sue
Rodriguez. I want to pay tribute in the House to the courage and
determination demonstrated by this woman right to the end. Her
struggle to have our society accept the principle of human
dignity set an example for all of us.
Suffering from a debilitating terminal illness, she took her
battle for the right to die with dignity all the way to the Supreme
Court of Canada in May 1993. Despite the unfavourable ruling
by the Supreme Court judges, Sue Rodriguez never ceased to
voice her distress.
It is imperative that members of this House start thinking
about granting terminally ill people the right to die with dignity.
1302
Albert Camus wrote: ``A society is judged by the way its
members suffer, love and die''. These words should be the basis
of our reflection.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker,
southwestern Ontario is on the verge of becoming home to
Canada's first world class ethanol manufacturing facility.
Ethanol, blended with gasoline, reduces automobile pollutants
and is an extremely environmentally friendly product. Ethanol
production will boost our world economics by creating a market
for a million tonnes of grain and ensuring thousands of new jobs
in the construction, processing, trucking and agriculture
industries.
(1405)
We must support the consortium of industry and agricultural
representatives who are actively seeking a commitment of this
government. The economic, social and environmental benefits
of this project will develop in rural Canada and lead to a
prosperous future.
I ask all colleagues in this House to join with me in support of
this dynamic project.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, a new co-operative initiative between the Department
of National Defence and New Brunswick's Department of
Advanced Education and Labour will provide occupational and
life skills training to 30 unemployed New Brunswickers
between the ages of 17 and 24. This is just a beginning.
Today, in my riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury
participants from youth strategy, aboriginal peoples and social
assistance programs will begin a 20-week training project at
CFB Gagetown. This pilot project provides hands on learning to
develop practical employment skills. Students can develop their
self-discipline, confidence and determination, qualities
necessary when looking for work.
I am pleased that such training strategies to restore and ensure
dignity for young New Brunswickers has become the hallmark
of human resource initiatives. Our province is pleased to be
among the first to participate in this enterprise.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Mr.
Speaker, let me see if I can fit this in within my allotted time.
In 1974 the Liberal government of the day issued a lower
corporate income tax for businesses which fall under the small
business category. This rate was raised in subsequent years
under the Liberals to an upper level of $200,000 in 1982. It has
not been raised since that year despite a 55 per cent increase in
the consumer price index.
On behalf of the many small businesses in my riding which
have tremendous confidence in the Liberal plan for small
business, I would like to recommend to the minister that we
undertake a review of the $200,000 small business tax rate.
Let us ensure that the effectiveness of this measure has not
been significantly eroded by inflation since it was last
strengthened in 1982.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, at the
last finance ministers' conference, the Quebec minister stated
that he was somewhat satisfied with the equalization payments
granted to Quebec.
I would like to point out that, in 1994-95, Quebec will receive
only $540 per capita, compared to $1,655 for Newfoundland.
However, the poverty rate is higher in Quebec, at 16.2 per cent,
than in Newfoundland, at 15.8 per cent.
It is also important to mention that Quebec will only benefit
from a 2 per cent increase, while equalization payments will
increase on average by 5 per cent. There are inconsistencies in
the equalization system, and we would like Quebec to enjoy a
level-playing field, at least until Quebecers democratically
decide to become a sovereign nation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, I want to
pay tribute to all police officers across Canada who serve their
communities with a sense of pride and loyalty. I also want to pay
a very special tribute to all officers killed in the line of duty.
Today, in what can only be described as a growing Canadian
outrage, I bring to the attention of this House statements which
call for amendments to the Young Offenders Act. These appeals
have been sponsored by the Calgary Police Association and have
been filled out and signed by more than 10,000 residents of the
Calgary area.
In particular, I am bringing these petitions to the attention of
this House on behalf of the family of Officer Rick Sonnenberg.
Officer Sonnenberg met with an untimely death when he was
1303
struck down on a Calgary freeway by a young offender
attempting to avoid a police road-block.
On behalf of the family, friends and comrades of Officer
Sonnenberg, I offer these petitions to the House in the hope that
his legacy might be the fundamental overhaul of a failed policy.
The Speaker: I would take it that the hon. member will be
presenting the petition during petition time.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue should be
commended for getting tough with tax cheaters. The
underground economy in Canada is not composed of honest
people doing dishonest things, as they would have us believe.
Tax cheaters know they are frittering away Canada's future for
their personal gain.
(1410)
The warning issued by the Minister of National Revenue is
likely to deter people who might be tempted to cheat the
government. Hopefully the cheaters will clean up their own act.
Anyone who wishes to live in this country must be prepared to
pay for the privilege. Where there is no honour in the honour
system, perhaps the fear of being caught will instead fill
Canada's coffers.
* * *
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, today I would
like to congratulate the Dave Smith Rink of St. Vital which won
last weekend's Manitoba Tankard curling championships in
Thompson, Manitoba.
I also would like to commend the organizers of this major
provincial event. I am proud that Thompson was able to attract a
sports event of this size and make it a success.
In addition I welcome all members of this House to join me in
The Pas this weekend for the Northern Manitoba Trappers'
Festival.
The Trappers' Festival is one of Canada's oldest and most
authentic winter festivals. Visitors will enjoy the World
Championship Dog Race, the King and Queen Trapper contests,
the Fur Queen Pageant, and authentic northern food and
entertainment.
I join the people of The Pas in inviting you to come north for
the Trappers' Festival.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, the National
Youth Service Corps will each year provide 10,000 young
Canadians with the opportunity to do valuable community and
environmental work. It will bridge the gap between school and
workplace.
Through their work teams these young people will gain
friends from all parts of Canada. By working on projects in
different regions they will get to know Canada in all its
diversity.
While the work accomplished by the youth corps will amply
repay our investment in it, I believe that the raising of national
consciousness which will result from it and its contribution to
the creation of a mobile national work force will in themselves
make the corps worthwhile.
I congratulate the Secretary of State for Training and Youth
for her work in launching the youth corps and I urge the entire
cabinet to give this minister all possible support.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I visited my riding
this weekend and I must report to you and through you to the
finance minister that the message I received was clear. People
are prepared to see a fair and equitable cut in services but do not,
and I repeat do not, want to see taxes raised or the tax base
broadened.
I pride myself in being able to understand and work with
people and I must state today that my constituents feel that any
increase in taxation will sew the seeds for the financial ruin of
this great country.
I came here to try to save Canada. If taxes are raised this will
not be possible. Canadians are not going to take it any more.
* * *
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, the premier of Ontario refuses to co-operate with the
federal government to try to resolve the cigarette smuggling
problem. He states that the Prime Minister is catering to
Quebec.
I wish to remind him that 35 per cent of Ontario cigarettes are
contraband, that Cornwall residents who live in fear of being
shot at night are still part of Ontario, that according to the OPP
two Oka crisis veterans, Lasagna and Noriega, helped set up a
smuggling network in Sault Ste. Marie.
1304
The Canadian coast guard advised pleasure craft owners not
to navigate near Walpole Island at the Michigan border due to
violence caused by cigarette smuggling.
Has the premier looked at a map of Ontario lately? Wake up,
Bob, and smell the cancer-causing cigarette smoke, the Ontario
contraband kind.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in the House to make mention of one of my
constituents who is here in Ottawa participating in the
Encounter with Canada program.
I want to make particular mention of Michael Knight from
Decker, a community 72 miles south of my home in Grandview,
the southern part of my riding of Dauphin-Swan River.
These youths are the new leaders of Canada, the ones who will
take over after our generation has left public life. I hope that
each one of these young people will have a great learning
experience while they are here in Ottawa and that they will be
able to go back to their homes and tell the people where they live
that the Liberal government is working very hard to meet the
needs of all Canadians.
* * *
(1415 )
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, in his presentation to the House of Commons standing
committee last week the Minister of Human Resources
Development was asked what happened to the notorious but
unreleased Tory white paper on social policy reform. He
responded that when he took over the department the cupboard
was bare.
I think many Canadians will find that hard to swallow, given
that it was the federal government that changed on October 25
and not the civil service.
The minister should be clear to Canadians that he and his
colleagues when in opposition vigorously opposed the Tory
proposals, but now in government he and his party appear to be
supporting those very same proposals.
The minister should make the Tory white paper public so
everyone can ascertain whether the minister's social policy
reform proposals are something new or just rehashed Tory
policies uttered out of Liberal mouths.
1304
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In
today's editions of
Le Droit,
Le Soleil and
Le Quotidien,
journalist Michel Vastel reported on allegations of cocaine
trafficking in Kahnawake. These allegations, originating from
sources associated with the RCMP, are very serious because
according to them, warriors have been asked by organized crime
groups in Montreal to protect large convoys of cocaine which
are thus able to transit safely through the Kahnawake reserve.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Could he inform the
House whether the RCMP has told him about any involvement
of the warriors in cocaine trafficking?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
have asked the RCMP commissioner for a full report on the
article in question, and I expect to receive a report very shortly.
The Leader of the Opposition has asked me a question on a very
serious matter, and that is why I asked the commissioner for a
report as soon as possible.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, it is hard to imagine and almost inconceivable that the
Solicitor General and the Prime Minister are not aware of
information now circulating in the newspapers under the
by-line of a well-known journalist.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister or the Solicitor
General, if the former is not willing to reply, whether the
government can confirm that the following, as stated and
confirmed by Mr. Vastel, is true, namely that Montreal's
organized crime families have a number of warehouses on the
Kahnawake reserve which are being used for drug deliveries,
each cargo having a market value of up to $200 million.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot confirm Mr. Vastel's article, and that is why I asked the
RCMP commissioner to give me a full report as soon as
possible, because these are very serious allegations.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, for the past few weeks the government has told us on
various occasions: we are not taking any action because if we
have the facts and if you have anything to say, then say it. What
we read in the newspapers today is very serious indeed. I would
like to ask the Prime Minister why the RCMP is not acting. Is it
1305
by any chance because the government has given orders not to
take any action?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have told the RCMP to do its job everywhere in Canada, and
that is what it does. As for allegations in a newspaper article,
obviously any sensible person would consider it was
elementary, before stating what was written in an article-As
you know, there is always a slight possibility that what a
journalist writes may not be true.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, my question
is also for the Prime Minister. In the same article, we are told
that conversations taped by the RCMP reveal that organized
crime knows very well that supplies go through an Indian
reserve since, and I quote, one would have said: ``We have a
place there, where we know that nothing will happen''.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Will he not agree
that, contrary to what he told us in this House, there are places in
Canada where neither the RCMP, nor the army, nor even MPs
can go freely?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there is no place in Canada which is outside the mandate given to
the RCMP, which is to act according to the law and to uphold the
law.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, could the
Prime Minister tell us whether or not it is true that the RCMP has
been compiling evidence for months on people involved in
cocaine trafficking, and especially on an Indian chief?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
it is never wise to comment on investigations in progress or on
matters related to police operations. If the hon. member wants
an action leading to convictions in criminal court, he should be
careful in the way he formulates his questions. I do not suppose
he wants to create a situation which would prevent the police
from presenting enough incriminating evidence in court.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The government recently signed a credit agreement worth $60
million U.S. to help finance the construction of a new
aluminium smelter in South Africa. However, Canada has also
entered into an informal agreement to cut world-wide
aluminium production by about 10 per cent.
Will the minister explain to the House why his government is
trying to reduce the international aluminium glut on the one
hand and is helping to build a new smelter on the other?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, the contract in South Africa with SNC Lavalin is
for the design of an aluminium smelter. It will not come on
stream for a number of years, by which time the present excess
amounts of stockpile in Russia should have been absorbed by the
market.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): I have a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the government
thinks that some jobs are more important than others, but the
aluminum glut has already forced western producers and Alcan
Aluminum in Montreal to cut production by one half million
tonnes.
Can the minister explain to Canadian aluminum workers who
are in danger of losing their jobs because of falling aluminum
prices why their taxes are helping to finance a foreign
competitor?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, I thought I had just answered that question.
The situation with regard to Russia today is one of a present
glut of a stockpile. The agreement among the countries involved
is intended to look toward orderly marketing of that stockpile.
In the year 1996 and beyond when the South African
aluminium smelter comes on stream, there should be in place a
more standard, orthodox market for aluminium. We do not
anticipate at that time the sort of glut that is being encountered
today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
this morning we learned that the Minister of Finance had
informed the president as well as the vice-president of the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Mr. Pierre
Cléroux, that he would be slashing expenditures by roughly $5
billion while increasing taxes on the middle class by $2 billion.
This announcement came on the heels of a series of meetings
between the minister and this organization which is
well-viewed by the Canadian public.
After having shown a lack of judgment last week with his
statements on interests rates, can the Minister of Finance tell us,
yes or no, whether he disclosed these details about the budget to
Mr. Pierre Cléroux?
1306
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
(1425)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): That answer
is brief and to the point. Mr. Speaker, does this means that the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business and its
representatives are not credible?
In response to all our questions, the Minister of Finance keeps
repeating: Wait for the budget. Given that the minister made
these statements to the Canadian Federation, will he not
acknowledge that it is totally unacceptable for him to reveal this
kind of information to lobbyists outside this House, not to
mention that it shows contempt for members of Parliament and
for the people of Quebec and Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
(Quebec)): Mr. Speaker, I think that this goes to show why one
should not prepare his supplementary question before knowing
what the answer to the main question will be.
Since I never made such a statement, I cannot, therefore,
answer the second question which is nonsensical.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
An audit of the International Centre for Human Rights and
Democratic Development in Montreal reports a waste of
millions of taxpayer dollars. Will the government commit to
acting on the recommendations of the audit?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, I believe the centre has already set up a committee
to look further into the questions the hon. member has raised. I
believe in the first instance they will be dealt with in that way.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, the
audit reports that the staff at the centre is overpaid an average of
$10,000 and that the senior staff is rarely in the office.
Given that similar work is already being done by other public
agencies this entire project appears to be an expensive
retirement plan for the former leader of the NDP, complete with
a $150,000 yearly salary. Will the government terminate this
centre and save taxpayers more than $4 million a year?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the centre itself, in devising its
salary policies, attempted to follow guidelines similar to those
of the public service in job identification and remuneration.
That process may be under evaluation by the board of the
centre. I hope my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
will have the opportunity to respond more fully to the question
at a later date.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance. With a view to increasing
government revenues, the Minister of Finance is considering
broadening the tax base in the next budget, and specifically,
lowering the ceiling on RRSPs, which primarily benefit the
middle class.
Is the Minister of Finance prepared to promise that the
measures contained in his upcoming budget will not increase the
tax burden of the middle class?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
(Quebec)): Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly to members
opposite, they will know what is in the budget when I table it.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Of course, Mr. Speaker, I was
expecting this answer. Nevertheless, does the Minister of
Finance not realize that in all fairness, lowering the ceiling on
RRSPs will deal a direct blow to self-employed workers who,
unlike other workers, do not have an employer-sponsored
pension plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
(Quebec)): Mr. Speaker, if the answer is known, why ask the
question? Clearly, we will examine the ramifications of all the
measures we intend to put forward in the budget.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Recently the minister criticized the report of the C. D. Howe
Institute which recommended that 150,000 immigrants per year
be accepted into Canada.
What empirical evidence does the minister have to refute the
conclusions of this report?
(1430 )
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I criticized no such report. I simply
said that the report, often quoted by that gentleman and his
1307
party, did not tell Canadians that it was found in the very worst
case scenario that immigration was neutral on the economy.
That is what I said and that is what I stand by.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, a
supplemental. In the same address the minister spoke positively
about an Economic Council of Canada report. It recommends an
immigration level of about 180,000, fully 70,000 fewer than the
minister's plan.
Why has the minister chosen to ignore not only the C.D. Howe
Institute but also the Economic Council of Canada which he
previously cited in support of his immigration policy?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is wrong
with respect to drawing that conclusion from the Economic
Council of Canada.
The Economic Council of Canada agreed with the
approximate 1 per cent figure. It also made the additional
recommendation that governments should pursue that 1 per cent
gradually and that is exactly what we did. We honoured the
commitment of approximately 1 per cent which was a red book
commitment and we are doing it gradually which is in keeping
with the Economic Council report recommendations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. In an interview with the
Toronto Star, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs again
suggested a 20 per cent cut in health care expenditures.
Does the minister agree with her colleague's statement and
can she also tell us if the 20 per cent cut in health care
expenditures is an official objective of the government?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, first I must say that this very interesting article
includes several government policy reviews, but I do not think
that its author, Ed Stewart, states that I said the government's
policy was to reduce health care expenditures. This was not his
intention and this is not what I said. I want to reassure the hon.
member and tell her that I am not aware of any plan to reduce
health care expenditures in Canada by 20 per cent.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary. Will the Minister of Health tell us that, in its
upcoming budget, the government will not reduce transfer
payments related to health care?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as
you know, and as the hon. member knows, Canada's health care
system is one of the best programs ever set up by the federal
government for Canadians.
Therefore, it goes without saying that, in the discussions
which we had with the Minister of Finance, we emphasized the
value of our health care system.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
The importation and sale of serial killer cards and serial killer
board games is harming the fabric of our society. This offensive
material is particularly harmful to young people and children.
The Minister of Justice has indicated he will take steps to
modernize Canadian laws. This harmful material is already in
Canada with more on the way. When will the minister introduce
measures to ensure that this harmful material is kept out of
Canadian society.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I understand and share the
revulsion and concern among Canadians that persons would
disseminate and seek to profit from serial killer cards or serial
killer board games. I can assure the hon. member that the
Department of Justice is examining a number of options by
which we might meet the concerns that have been expressed.
I might point out that the exact way in which we respond
through legislation is affected by section 2(b) of the charter and
the right of freedom of expression of which we must be mindful.
We are designing approaches having regard to that freedom.
I can assure the hon. member we will soon be putting before
Parliament means by which we can deal with this insidious
prospect.
* * *
(1435 )
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
It has been reported in the Toronto Sun that a Mr. Henry James
Halm, a convicted five time pedophile and member of the North
American Man Boy Love Association has fled the U.S. to
Canada. Mr. Halm has claimed refugee status in Canada and now
must be put through our refugee determination process.
1308
Will the minister promise today to exercise his ministerial
authority and call a halt to this criminal's fraudulent refugee
hearing? Will he immediately order the deportation of this sex
offender?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the member knows that this side,
this minister and this government do not look favourably on
those who wish to subvert our immigration and refugee laws.
The member also knows that privacy laws prevent us from
getting into the specifics of the case.
Suffice to say, I wish to reassure the hon. member and the
House that I have asked my officials to put representations
accordingly on this particular file. I can assure the hon. member
we are standing up to the very letter of the law for those who
legitimately seek assistance under our refugee and immigration
laws.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, not only in this case but in other cases we have seen a
system problem. Canada's refugee system should act as a haven
for genuine refugees, for people whose lives have been torn
apart by war, famine and persecution.
Will the minister commit to proceed to overhaul the
immigration and refugee system that seems to protect and
harbour criminals at the expense of legitimate claimants?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the member raises a certain
frustration many Canadians feel.
Speaking generally, Canadians face and favour a system
which is tolerant to those who legitimately wish to put their
claims before the Immigration and Refugee Board. On the other
hand they want a sense of balance for those who are convicted of
heinous crimes or those who wish to clearly subvert the law.
They do not want that tolerance abused.
As the minister I certainly share that frustration. I will be
working at trying to come to grips with that balance by trying to
keep out those who clearly do not require assistance, without
closing the door under the Geneva international convention to
those who legitimately seek it.
I would also like to point out to the member that those
criminal cases are very few, in the minority in comparison to the
general number. I am saying one is too many, but I am also
cautioning the member in her leaving the impression that the
IRB process is riddled, if I can use that word, with all sorts of
criminal elements. It is not. We have to deal competently and
quickly with those minority of cases.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The Quebec minister of employment is reported in La Presse
as saying last evening that manpower clearly comes under
Quebec's jurisdiction as an extension of education.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell this House
whether he agrees with the Quebec minister of employment that
manpower is an extension of education and therefore, that
Quebec's jurisdiction is clear?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, there is no question that, under the Constitution,
education is an area of provincial jurisdiction.
Under the Constitution, manpower issues come under a
shared jurisdiction because the responsibility for workers who
cross the various borders is a federal one, while the
responsibility for courses provided as part of the training
process is a provincial one. That is why, for years now, this has
been an area of shared federal and provincial responsibility.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to start by saying that the answer I was just given had never been
provided until now and could prove to be interesting in the
future. As far as the province of Quebec and myself are
concerned, this is another example of the skilful sidestepping
that has not prevented the federal government from actually
refusing flatly to recognize Quebec's full powers in the area of
manpower. My question is this: does the minister recognize that
this has adversely affected Quebec and still does?
(1440)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, who initiated manpower training courses paid with UI
funds, unemployment insurance being an exclusive federal
jurisdiction, if not the federal government? It has over one
hundred employment offices in Quebec, approximately 120 I
believe, compared to only 30 or so provincial employment
offices.
Obviously, when we want to develop manpower skills in a
modern country, the plumber or electrician, as the case may be,
must have abilities and skills that are equally usable in all
provinces, not just in one. So, the standards applied to these
skills are national ones. That is why this has been an area of
shared jurisdiction for years.
1309
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
As was suggested to me after my speech on justice I did
review the hon. justice minister's address to the House on
January 27. In that address, as reported on page 514 of Hansard,
the hon. minister stated that the justice agenda included
modernizing our laws so they reflect current values.
According to all polls, current values include stopping
automatic parole, deporting non-citizens committing serious
crimes and the return of the death penalty for first degree
murder.
Will the minister assure the House that the current values of
Canadians will be included in the government's agenda for
justice?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, sometimes the perception of
current values is in the eyes of the beholder. There are those of
us who would contend that the position of Canadians generally
on the subjects to which the hon. member has referred are not
exactly as perceived by the hon. member for Wild Rose.
I can tell the hon. member that so far as the Ministry of Justice
is concerned and as evidenced by the speech I gave in the House
to which the hon. member has referred, we are very much
concerned with ensuring that all of our laws, criminal and
otherwise, conform with current values. With the agenda we
have put before the House I believe we have done exactly that.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, I refer to
several polls. If one were to talk to Canadians on any street
anywhere in Canada I am sure one would find these are the
things they want. One does not have to have the brains of a
professor to understand what Canadians want.
The biggest fear that Canadians and I have is that the voice of
special interests which does not represent the majority of
Canadians will be heard while the majority's wishes will go
unheard as they have in the past.
Can the minister state to this House that this will not be the
case, yes or no?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the platform upon which this
party gained office in October last contained at length
recommendations, proposals and initiatives we intend to take
with respect to Canada's justice system. Among others are
important reforms to the young offenders legislation and as the
Solicitor General can tell the House, changes in respect of
parole in order to conform with needed changes we see in the
system.
I can assure the hon. member this is not a reaction to special
interests. This is prescribing a Liberal view of what is good for
Canada and in the public interest. That is exactly what we are
going to do.
* * *
(1445)
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Canadians have expressed a very strong interest in public
service renewal, as have most members. It is normal that a
report be given to the House once a year, yet I am shocked to
discover that it is a year and a half since a report has been
presented to the House.
Could the minister please tell me what are his plans to present
a report to the House of Commons?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
First let me underline how important it is to have such a
competent and devoted public service as we have. Good
government would not be possible without a public service of
that quality. The annual report to the Prime Minister on the
public service is still in the process of being drafted.
It has been somewhat delayed by the events of the summer. It
is intended it will be sent to the Prime Minister after the tabling
of the budget.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development. A while ago, the
Minister of the Environment announced that a consulting firm
had been hired to advise her on the choice of the Canadian city
that will host NAFTA's commission on environmental
co-operation. During the last election campaign, the current
Minister of Finance promised to make every effort to bring the
headquarters of international organizations to Montreal and to
turn Quebec's largest city into a world environment centre.
My question to the finance minister is this: Will the minister
keep the promise he made to Montrealers during the election
campaign?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, of course, the Liberal
government's promise is the same one we made in the red book.
Our government is transparent and open to the public. And I am
very happy to inform all members that the applications to host
1310
NAFTA's environmental centre were filed on February 4. Three
of the 22 applications came from Quebec cities. The process,
that will be conducted in a very open manner, will close on
February 30. We will pick the Canadian city which is the most
open with respect to the environment and all other
infrastructures.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that there may be some problems with the
report if it is expected by February 30.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Duceppe: I also understand that this promise was made
not only in Montreal during the last election campaign but that it
may have been made by chance in Hamilton as well. I am
therefore asking the minister responsible for the federal office
of regional development whether he fears that the manoeuvres
of his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, will deprive
Montreal of this environmental centre.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, obviously, even the Liberal
government cannot change the calendar; it is true that the results
are expected not by February 30 but by the end of February.
That being said, I do not know if the hon. member knows that
three Quebec cities have applied, namely Montreal, Kirkland
and Hull. I am sure that members of the Bloc Quebecois do not
want to deny a process open to all Canadian cities interested in
applying, including the three Quebec cities wanting to be
considered in an open and transparent manner to become, in
effect, a centre for Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
Recently myself and other members of the Reform Party have
been contacted by constituents of an Ontario riding seeking our
help in resolving the problem of their representation in the
House. They have come to us requesting action, knowing the
Reform Party's clear position on recall of members of
Parliament.
In light of the fact that constituents and the Liberal, Reform,
Conservative and NDP constituency associations in this riding
are organizing in an attempt to force a byelection, when will the
Prime Minister recognize and support the merits of recall?
(1450 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
this process has not worked in Canada in the past and will not
work. It was tried once by the Socreds in Alberta. A member of
the cabinet at that time is the father of the leader of the Reform
Party. A year and a half later there was a recall of the leader of
the party and the party decided to recall the recall so it would not
lose its leader.
It is not something that is a high priority for this government.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister is well aware, the hon.
member for Vancouver Quadra, a recognized parliamentary
expert, declared in a recent interview with CBC Prime Time
News that he does not oppose the notion of recall.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the hon. member's expert
opinion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the people decided that every one of us was to be elected, for one
party or another.
The leader of the opposition was elected as a Conservative
and eventually with nine other members of the Tories he decided
to move. There was no recall. If we were to have recall, I would
have been one of the first at that time to call for it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We have seen people in this
Chamber moving from one side to the other. Some are welcome
to come to this side.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Prime Minister. The government is now reviewing all
income support programs. On February 12,
The Globe and Mail
informed us that the government was about to negotiate an
agreement with the Premier of Newfoundland in order to test the
province's proposed pilot project for fishermen's income
support, even though it seems fishermen are not unanimously in
favour of that program.
Has the government already decided to follow-up on the
Premier's request for the pilot project aimed at a complete
reform of all income security programs for fishermen?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): No, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Did you hear the answer?
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): No, she speaks too quickly sometimes.
The Speaker: When people talk fast, you must listen fast!
1311
An hon. member: She said no.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, there are various
games of musical chairs in the House I still have to get used to.
Given the answer I just received, is the Prime Minister aware
that his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans promised a new
program to replace the one ending on May 15? If he is aware of
that fact, can he tell us if fishermen will have the opportunity to
give their opinion on the implementation of that new system
and, if so, how will the consultation be done, given the very
short time left?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the program
ends in May. We are already working on a few possibilities.
Today, the Minister for Human Resources is meeting with his
provincial counterparts in order to determine what direction the
renewal of social programs will take. It is also a fact that the
minister is working in co-operation with his colleague the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans so that fishermen of the
Magdalen Islands and Newfoundland are consulted before the
program's expiration on May 15.
The member should know that the implementation plan is not
for Newfoundland alone; it concerns fishermen of the Magdalen
Islands, Newfoundland and other parts of the Maritimes. We are
trying to have adequate consultation before any decision is
made.
* * *
(1455)
[English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
The death of Sue Rodriguez has once again raised the ethical
issue of euthanasia. I believe the time has come for a full public
discussion of this issue. As members of Parliament, we should
facilitate this discussion. Once all sides are heard, the final say
on this deeply personal issue should go to the people of Canada.
Will the Minister of Justice agree that on the date of the next
federal election a binding national referendum on euthanasia be
put to the Canadian people?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, Sue Rodriguez was a
courageous person whose death we mourn, and whose life in its
last stages served to put in sharp focus the difficult and
contentious issues arising from the subject of euthanasia.
I remain with the belief which I have expressed in the past that
this is a subject that Parliament should consider and determine.
Judges in the course of the Rodriguez litigation observed that it
is the job of Parliament, and not the courts, to grapple with
societal questions such as these. The House of Lords in England
has embarked on an examination of the principles so it can be
determined legislatively in that jurisdiction.
I remain of the view that we should provide through
Parliament a forum for informed discussion, drawing
distinctions among the various concepts that are involved, from
cessation of treatment to actively assisting suicide, and let
parliamentarians make up their minds.
It has not yet been determined the forum in which that will
come forward from this government. But I assure the hon.
member it is a matter of continuing concern for me that it occur.
I do not agree that a referendum is the answer but I do think it
should be discussed in Parliament. I will keep the hon. member
advised as we make progress in the process of bringing the
question forward for consideration in this Chamber.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health.
The image of milk as a clean, pure food has great credibility
among Canadian consumers. However, the recent approval by
the American government to allow the injection of BST, bovine
somatltropin, to stimulate milk production in dairy cows has
caused great concern among consumers in Canada.
Consumers are concerned they will be denied the right to
clean, pure milk. As well, they will not be able to tell if BST has
been used in blended products such as cheese, butter, yogurt and
ice cream.
Will the minister assure all Canadians that the government
will not approve the use of BST until the experiment in the
United States proves conclusively that milk and milk blended
products are safe?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
BST is a technically produced product, equivalent to a naturally
occurring hormone in cows. Officials in my department have not
concluded their review of BST. I am aware that BST is approved
in the United States, after having undergone extensive review.
My department will only issue a notice of compliance for this
veterinary drug if it is safe for humans to consume milk or milk
products from treated animals, and also after adequate data is
supplied to support the efficacy and safety of dairy cows.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. According to
the latest reports from Environment Canada, there are only 500
belugas left in the St. Lawrence River. The World Wildlife Fund
1312
indicated that more that 250,000 tonnes of chemical waste a year
are dumped into the St. Lawrence, from the Great Lakes on.
In order to avoid the extinction of belugas, is the minister
willing to set up a committee composed of federal and Quebec
officials, as well as Canadian and U.S. experts, whose terms of
reference would be to re-establish belugas in the St. Lawrence
River?
(1500)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question.
I think that what he is pointing at are the relations existing
between Ontario and Quebec and among various provinces in
this country, which should be reflected in our environmental
standards. It is very important. That is why I am hoping that we
will soon reach a second agreement with Quebec regarding the
St. Lawrence River. It is also why anyone interested in the
environment should understand that what is dumped into Lake
Ontario may affect fishermen downstream, even as far as the St.
Lawrence.
This being said, belugas come under the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. We are working with this department to
make sure that the belugas have a better chance to survive than
they have had so far.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The Vancouver Province newspaper on Friday, February 4,
1994, asked the question: ``Does Canada accept too many
refugees and immigrants?'' Ninety-seven per cent of those who
responded said yes; only three per cent said no. Obviously the
immigration section of the red book is not very popular.
The government has regularly stated that it wants
consultation-
The Speaker: Order. Would the member put his question,
please.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell the House, without getting upset and
emotional, why he will not reduce immigration levels in line
with the wishes of the majority of Canadians even if he
personally feels it is the wrong decision?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): I thought I was a nice guy, Mr. Speaker.
I do not want to have the issue emotionalized one way or the
other. We have had a decision made on immigration levels in
keeping with the red book, which the member suggests was not
very popular. However, the last time we checked the red book
enabled us to have a strong majority government, a mandate for
this Prime Minister.
Second, we have announced unprecedented consultations to
discuss with Canadians where our country goes from here, how
immigration can plug in, and to ensure that the country reaches
those dreams and those aspirations.
I also wish to add that Vancouver has had the greatest
economic output in the last number of years. It received the most
immigrants in any region across the country so the correlation
between immigration and employment has worked for
Vancouver.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the European Parliament's
Delegation for Relations with Canada, and its chairman, Mr.
Jean-Thomas Nordmann.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
1312
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
provisions of Standing Order 83(1), I would like to lay upon the
Table a Notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise
Tax Act.
[English]
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration
of the motion.
* * *
(1505 )
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to introduce on behalf of constituents of Calgary North
a petition bearing over 1,000 signatures, requesting that the
government ban in Canada the sales of a serial killer board
game.
The object of the game is that the person killing the most
babies wins. This game is repugnant to Canadians. The
petitioners pray that the government will ban the importation of
the game.
1313
We commend our colleague, the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who introduced a private
member's bill aimed at banning the importation of this terrible
game.
I submit the petition on behalf of my constituents. I support
them wholeheartedly in their request of the government.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege
of presenting to Parliament a petition signed by some 1,900
people in my constituency.
In this petition my constituents state their concerns regarding
the relocation of the RCMP training centre from a location near
Bowden, Alberta.
The police dog service has been in central Alberta since 1965.
The centre is open for public tours and trains police dogs for
service across Canada. The services resulting from the training
centre are a very important part of our local economy as well as
the surrounding area. In addition their role as goodwill
ambassadors is much appreciated in our community and we do
not want to lose them.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and I support their call
on Parliament to urge the government not to move the RCMP
dog training centre.
* * *
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 Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
1313
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River has nine minutes left in his address.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
I certainly will not need that amount of time. When we recessed
for question period I was near the end of an intervention dealing
with amendments to the Criminal Code and the amount of force
police officers may be permitted to use in apprehending
individuals fleeing arrest.
The amendment also deals with changes to the Criminal Code,
specifically the circumstances of penitentiary guards. Their
circumstances are a little different. Now the code will recognize
the ability of penitentiary guards and corrections officers to
have access more quickly to the use of force than would
otherwise be the case for police officers and peace officers.
At the end of that amendment there is a section dealing with
the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. I had made note of the
reference in the amendment to an authority to be given by the
House to the Governor in Council, that is cabinet, in prescribing
regulations establishing the procedures in accordance with
which and the extent to which a fisheries protection officer is
permitted to use the force referred to in the subsection.
For the record I wanted to impress upon the House what we
are doing here without saying it is right or wrong. At the end of
the day it is probably the most expedient procedure. We are
giving over to the Governor in Council, to cabinet, the ability to
prescribe and define the precise definition between times when
the force may be used and when the force may not be used. In
essence, we are giving them the right to define what is an
offence and what is not an offence. Over time this is not
something a parliament would ordinarily do. It is our job in the
House to define clearly and consistent with the charter what is
and what is not an offence.
(1510)
As we delegate this regulatory power in the statute I want the
House to know I am confident the joint Standing Committee on
Scrutiny of Regulations will take a little closer look at the
regulations passed, if any, under this section. I want the House to
be aware that as a rule we should not get into the habit of
delegating to cabinet regulatory making powers whenever we
find it difficult on our part to do it with precision.
I regard this as a bit of an exception for use on the high seas or
within our territorial waters when a vessel is fleeing our
territorial waters. That would complete my remarks.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the House for the opportunity to discuss
this bill. Being a lawyer by trade, it is quite the experience to see
the other side of the coin and it is also very enlightening.
Bill C-8 proposes to amend two acts, one of which is the
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. My colleague from the Bloc
discussed this aspect. I will comment on the amendments which
concern the Criminal Code. Since I am the Official Opposition
1314
critic on matters regarding the Solicitor General of Canada, I
will only discuss clause 1 of Bill C-8.
At first glance, this clause seems to meet most of the
stakeholders' expectations regarding the use of force by peace
officers against fleeing suspects and prisoners trying to escape.
However, to appreciate the proposed amendments and assess
the implications of delegating such power to officers, i.e.
persons in authority, and also to be able to make constructive
criticisms, it is useful to remember that section 25 is part of the
general provisions of the Criminal Code, more specifically in
the chapter dealing with the protection of people responsible for
implementing and enforcing the law.
The general provisions of the Code are certainly the best
known, and perhaps the most used, provisions of this act, and
that is true even for policemen who do not necessarily often go
to court.
Consequently, it is essential that these general provisions be
very clear, understandable and defined.
Based on past experience, we can assume that police officers
will use that new section. Fortunately, in the vast majority of
cases, they will do so to protect themselves. However,
experience also tells us that we must be very careful when it
comes to granting increased power to persons in authority.
These powers and their use must be defined in a very clear and
specific way to avoid any gap between the objective of such
delegation of power and its routine use by the persons in
authority.
For at least ten years, the federal legislator has been
pondering the issue, and that illustrates the importance of
amendments such as the ones contained in Bill C-8.
In recent years, the review of this issue intensified and, in
September 1991, the federal government proposed, at a meeting
of ministers of justice, to amend subsection 25(4) of the
Criminal Code, in order to better circumscribe the use of force
by peace officers and prison guards.
(1515)
The objective was therefore to better circumscribe the use of
force by the police, while protecting the public and the police
itself.
The Minister of Justice of the time, the very transient Kim
Campbell, presented in August 1992 a discussion paper on the
question of fleeing suspects.
The study was progressing when, in April 1993, the Douglas
Lines case, already mentioned, brought to the fore this question
of necessary force. I will give a short synopsis of the case,
because I think it will help us understand what is involved in
amending section 25.
In the Douglas Lines case, a young white police officer in
Toronto was chasing a black 19-year-old suspected of having
tried to snatch the purse of a woman some time before.
The police officer ordered the suspect to stop, which of course
he did not do, so the police officer shot six bullets in the
direction of the suspect who was hit twice. The police officer
said that he believed that the suspect was armed.
In fact, upon searching the suspect, they only found a knife
which was probably the weapon used in the attempted theft.
The police officer was charged with dangerous use of a
firearm.
However, as was said before, he was acquitted by a Toronto
judge, and the ratio decidendi tended to suggest that subsection
25(4) of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional.
I have already mentioned that amending subsection 25(4) has
been under consideration for about 10 years.
The judge also said-and maybe that was to force the
government into action-that he suspended for six months the
application of the judgment to give the federal government time
to review the clause in question. The ball was in the government
court, so to speak, and something had to be done.
Let us study clause 1 of Bill C-8 to see how it amends the
various subsections of section 25 of the Criminal Code.
Bill C-8 proposes changes which deserve an in-depth
analysis, because of their implications for the various police
forces and the area of law enforcement in general.
Let us take the section we are looking at. We can see that
subsection 25(3) confirms the possibility for anyone to use force
intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm if that
person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the
purpose of preserving himself or herself or any one under his or
her protection from death or grievous bodily harm.
Therefore, according to this subsection, the use of force is not
unwarranted; it is clearly justifiable and well-defined legally.
Subsection 25(4) as rewritten in Bill C-8, and that is the point
I want to comment, leaves me puzzled. I do not question the
necessity of such a subsection-I think the Toronto judge did not
leave the legislator any choice-but the wording of it. It allows a
peace officer to use force that is intended or is likely to cause
death or grievous bodily harm in order to arrest a person taking
flight provided he-the peace officer-respects certain
conditions.
However, we must admit, and give credit where credit is due,
that these conditions are spelled out clearly and in full detail in
1315
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the subsection; that
certainly does credit to the legislator who wrote it.
Paragraph (a) reads: ``the peace officer is proceeding lawfully
to arrest with or without warrant''. It creates no problem.
Neither does paragraph (b) which reads: ``the offence for which
the person is to be arrested is one for which that person may be
arrested without warrant''. Paragraph (c) reads: ``the person to
be arrested takes flight to avoid arrest''. That is the very purpose
of the law. Paragraph (d) reads: ``the peace officer or other
person using the force believes on reasonable grounds that the
force is necessary for the purpose of protecting the peace officer,
the person lawfully assisting the peace officer or any other
person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm''.
This is the one paragraph I would like to comment; I will come
back to it later on. Finally, paragraph (e) reads: ``the flight
cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent
manner''. That is self-evident.
(1520)
We see that the legislator added the words ``imminent or
future'' in paragraph (d) of this new section, contrary to the
previous section which did not provide for any timeframe. It
said that the provisions applied under given circumstances, but
with no mention of the words ``imminent or future'', as in the
proposed section.
By adding these, the legislator introduces a time difference
between subsections (3) and (4) of the same section. Given the
two interpretation tenets known by any lawyer, to the effect that
first, any piece of legislation is to be interpreted as a whole, and
second, everything in the law has a meaning, the words
``imminent or future'' could lead to a very loose interpretation
on the part of peace officers. We should not create a new
problem while attempting to solve one.
If the noble objective was to restrict the use of force on the
part of peace officers and prison guards, such force should not
be allowed to be used on a continuous basis, without any time
limit.
I humbly submit that the words ``imminent or future'' can
lead to abuses. Sometimes, in a piece of legislation, a single
term, a word, an expression have a definite purpose, but in the
present case the expression ``imminent or future'' makes an
already complete text cumbersome.
The legislator did not see fit to add the words ``imminent or
future'' to subsection 25(3) while it is doing so in paragraph
25(4)(d), under similar circumstances. Why? Is it that he wants
to provide greater protection to peace officers than to citizens?
Does he believe that one would be more prone than the other to
abuse such a wider use of force? The answer is anybody's guess.
Unfortunately in both cases there are and always will be
excessive people who will abuse a given provision.
Why then open the door to such a broad use of force over
time? Good judgment and the appraisal of the situation at a
given time, on the part of the peace officer, his or her assistant,
or a citizen, must prevail, as stated in subsection 25(3).
Therefore, I will suggest to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs, on which I sit, to remove the words
``imminent or future'' from the last part of paragraph 25 (4)(d)
and thus prevent any possible ambiguity.
Moving on to section 25(5) of the Criminal Code, I think that
in this case, the legislator was well advised to take into
consideration the special situation faced by peace officers in a
penitentiaries. I believe that circumstances warranted such a
provision and I approve of it.
The fact of the matter is that in penitentiaries, it is practically
impossible for the correctional personnel reacting to an
attempted escape to tell whether the inmate in question will pose
a threat to society if his attempt is successful. Not only is it
unlikely in such a situation that the peace officer would know
the inmate attempting to escape but chances are he would not
know what enabled the inmate to make such an attempt at a
given time on a given day. It was therefore important-and the
legislator understood it well-to give this power to the peace
officer in case of escape, and section 25(5) does just that.
However, we will have to make sure that the use of force that
is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm
would be authorized only as a last resort, when every other
means that could be used under the circumstances to tell the
inmate to stop his escape attempt, such as a warning shot, had
failed.
Of course, these section of the Criminal Code will be
supervised, that is to say that control will be exercised by
superior court judges in Canada to determine whether or not the
person, peace officer or citizen, used excessive force under
section 25(4)-25(5) in the case of peace officers-and over
time, through jurisprudence, through the decisions made by the
judges, we will be able to determine if these provisions go far
enough or not, or whatever.
(1525)
First of all, I think we can say here in the House that,
concerning Bill C-8, and clause 1 in particular, the government
is on the right track. After ten years and many consultations, as
the minister said this morning, subsections 25(4) and 25(5) meet
the expectations of Canadians as well as those of peace officers.
Two words in the bill are important. They are ``imminent or
future''. Why add these words if they are meaningless, if they
are not intended to give more time, if they are not meant to give
1316
officers permission to use force much later on? We could
consider making some changes to these provisions later on in
committee. We will make these observations then.
You have understood, Mr. Speaker, that as my colleague said a
moment ago, we will support this bill, but we will move
amendments before the appropriate committee.
[English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice has outlined to the House what this bill is all
about. He has done so with the clarity, directness and
forcefulness that comes naturally to the minister. Before his
appointment he was one of Canada's leading trial lawyers. In his
speech the minister dealt principally with the amendments to the
Criminal Code. He dealt briefly with the amendments to the
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
I will seek to provide the House with more detail on this latter
topic.
The amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
provide authority to use disabling force against a foreign fishing
vessel that is fleeing so as to arrest the person commanding the
vessel. This legislation relates to foreign fishing vessels, it does
not relate to Canadian vessels.
The reason is simple. Canadian vessels operate from
Canadian ports, thus the person in command of a Canadian
fishing vessel can be arrested when he returns to port. This is not
true, of course, for foreign vessels.
No new powers would be granted by this legislation. The
amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act is necessary
to avoid any uncertainty that may be created by the proposed
amendment to subsection 25(4) of the Criminal Code.
Let me outline when disabling force could be used. The
legislation sets out three conditions. A duly authorized
Canadian official referred to as a protection officer is
proceeding lawfully to arrest the person in command of a
foreign fishing vessel. The vessel takes flight to avoid the arrest
and the protection officer believes on reasonable grounds that
force is necessary to make the arrest. Thus, Parliament would
define in the legislation when disabling force could be used.
The government would decide how disabling force would be
used. This would be done in regulations, the authority for which
is granted in the legislation. As the Minister of Justice indicated,
these regulations would be consistent with the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
Disabling force would only be used following ample warning.
This would give a fleeing vessel the opportunity to stop. It
would also allow the crew of the fleeing vessel to leave the part
of the vessel to be fired upon. Disabling force should be a last
resort. Every opportunity should be provided to avoid its use.
When it is used, every effort should be made to avoid
casualties. Yet, a credible threat of disabling force is necessary
to act as a deterrent.
(1530 )
In general terms the regulations would provide for the use of
disabling force at sea in compliance with international practice.
A foreign vessel has fished contrary to Canadian laws. Various
methods of warning the vessel are used. Internationally
accepted flags are hoisted to request communication with the
vessels and to order the vessel to heave to. Flashing lights and
whistles are used to order the master to stop his vessel.
Internationally accepted codes are used to signal the vessel to
heave to. Repeated orders to stop are also made via radio
communication. Only if these are unsuccessful-I repeat,
unsuccessful-are warning shots fired.
If all of those attempts to get the vessel to stop are failed,
those aboard the vessels are told that disabling force will be
used. They are told the part of the vessel that will be fired upon
and they are told to leave that part of the vessel. Additional
opportunity is given for the vessel to stop or for the crew to leave
that part of the vessel. Only then would disabling force be used
and only as much force as would be necessary to stop the vessel
and make the arrest. This follows international practice in the
use of disabling force at sea.
It has always been important for Canada to protect its fish
resources. This is critical today off our Atlantic coast where cod
and flounder stocks face possible commercial extinction. We
must take all measures necessary, domestic and international, to
protect them.
The greatest threat to stocks of cod and flounder that straddle
the 200-mile limit is from the vessels fishing in international
waters and flying flags of convenience. These are flags of
countries like Panama, Honduras, Belize and Sierra Leone.
These vessels continue to harvest fish stocks that are at
dangerously low levels. They fish without quotas. They harvest
whatever they can catch. They use small mesh gear. They target
undersized fish. In short, they break every conservation rule in
the book. For the owners of these vessels, profit comes first and
conservation is never considered. They simply do not care.
The Government of Canada will no longer stand by and watch
this happen. These vessels will not be allowed to take the last of
the breeding stock of cod or flounder before moving on to
overfish somewhere else in the world. For too long these vessels
have hidden behind obscure technicalities in international law.
For too long they have claimed the protection of countries that
neither the vessels nor their crews have ever seen. We will not
1317
let the technical niceties shield them any more. Their time is
almost up. Canada is going to stop their overfishing.
Canada has never used disabling force against a foreign
fishing vessel. We hope we will never have to, but we must be
prepared to do so where circumstances warrant.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully
to what the member opposite had to say, but I am not sure I
understand his point of view. So, I would like to give him the
opportunity to go over it again, just to make sure I understand
what he is saying. From what I gathered, the strengthening
measures proposed in this bill would be, as far as the hon.
member is concerned, one way to put an end to what he called
foreign overfishing outside the 200-mile limit, on the nose and
tail of the Grand Banks east of Newfoundland. However, I must
remind him that the nose and tail of the Grand Banks in
Newfoundland are outside the 200-mile limit and consequently
not under Canadian jurisdiction. The strengthening or
controlling measures put forward in this bill will not help to
solve the issue.
(1535)
I would now like to address another issue. According to the
hon. member, foreign fishermen use smaller mesh gear than the
Canadian industry and harvest smaller fish. I would like to point
out that the Canadian groundfish industry, the cod industry, is
very different from the European industry. The two industries
are very different because fish consumption in Europe differs
from our own. Whereas here, in Canada, when we eat cod, we
usually want at least an eight-ounce filet as a main course, the
smaller cod harvested by foreigners-what they call cabillaud
for fresh cod in France-is usually served as a first course.
I just want to call your attention to the various customs and
ways of eating fish throughout the world. Some people may
think they are right while their opponents are wrong, but what
they believe should not contribute to an escalation of violence.
To make sure that what we believe is true does not clash with
what our opponents think is true, I came up with a draft
amendment this morning. I urge the hon. member to reflect on
this and to reconsider his position.
[English]
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for bringing those questions forward. I would like to
inform him that the minister of fisheries will be in Brussels from
the 15th to the 17th to discuss overfishing beyond the 200-mile
limit with the NAFO organization. This law does not deal with
beyond the 200-mile limit.
As the minister has repeatedly stated in the House we are very
concerned but we want to work within the international laws,
both through the UN and NAFO to ensure conservation beyond
the 200-mile radius on the high seas. We have to comply with
the international laws on the high seas but we will work very
hard to change that. The minister has indicated in the House
many times that he has serious concerns about overfishing
beyond the 200-mile radius but we must work within the
international laws.
We are very confident that through NAFO and the United
Nations we can get greater conservation. Right now the minister
is informing NAFO to take the same action that Canada has. We
have a moratorium on the cod in 3NO. The same type of
conservation we have inshore can be had offshore as well as on
the high seas.
In terms smaller mesh nets it is not a question of values or
truths, it is a question of conservation. We want to ensure we
have good conservation practices and that is the reason it is
mentioned.
The hon. member understands the serious problem of fishing
beyond the 200-mile radius and that we have to work within the
international law. If we are not able to do that, then we have to
take tougher decisions. This government is willing to do that the
same as was done on the Pacific treaty commission on the west
coast. We have told the Americans that equity must be on the
table and that we are not willing to discuss management of the
salmon until we discuss equity which has not been discussed and
put forward each time it is brought forward.
I thank the hon. member very much for the question.
(1540 )
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): I do not have much difficulty
with the disabling force. It is necessary and we have to take
strong action to protect our fisheries. However I am concerned
about the provision dealing with the use of force against fleeing
suspects.
Fisheries officers are peace officers and they do carry
weapons and have occasion to use them. On the west coast, and I
am sure on the east coast of this country we do at times have
problems with poaching. Poaching is an exercise which takes
place at night and as a rule in secluded areas. Fisheries officers
quite often can get into predicaments where weapons may have
to be produced.
The difficulty with this legislation as I see it is that in such a
circumstance if a weapon is produced and shots are fired and
someone engaging in illegal activity is shot, the fisheries officer
not only will have to deal with the trauma and horror of having
shot someone, but he will also have to deal with the horror of
interrogation by the system he represents.
I would like my friend the parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to comment on that please.
1318
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that
question. I would like to bring to his attention that this deals
with foreign vessels and the use of force against foreign vessels.
This does not in any way talk about Canadian vessels. We can
arrest Canadian vessels when they come into port. We do not
need to use force against them. This deals with foreign vessels.
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I should have prefaced my
remarks and probably forewarned the parliamentary secretary
that my question was to be directed to him, but as I stated I do
agree with the disabling force portions of the legislation. I do
not have any difficulty with that and I understand that this
disabling force will be used only against foreign vessels.
My concern is with the provisions for use of firearms with
suspects fleeing from arrest. As I indicated fisheries officers are
police officers. They do carry weapons. In instances in which
poaching is going on it occurs at night as a rule and in secluded
areas. Weapons have been produced and people have been shot.
Sooner or later by the law of averages someone could end up
dead.
The problem as I see it is that these are very trying times when
these sorts of things happen. These police officers or fisheries
officers are working alone or with a very small group of people
in very isolated areas. Things happen quickly in the dark of
night. Yet if someone is killed these people not only will have to
live with their actions but they will also have to deal with an
interrogation and possible court appearance. They will be taken
to task by the very people who are supposed to be their bosses
for enforcing the law of the land. I find that rather curious.
Could the parliamentary secretary please comment on that
particular aspect of the law.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for his question.
This legislation creates a number of restrictions which outline
in detail when force can be used. If anything this legislation will
deter the use of weapons. With respect to the situation the hon.
member talks about in which someone might be shot, this
legislation reduces the times where firearms can be used by the
police and enforcement officers. This is very good legislation
and will reduce incidents such as the hon. member has brought
forward.
(1545 )
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, the
government has tabled a very important and in my opinion a
somewhat problematic piece of legislation. I am thankful for the
opportunity to speak to this legislation from the point of view of
a police officer with 22 years experience on the force. As a
policeman I have experienced what it means to have to make that
judgment, the judgment that all police officers fear, whether or
not to use deadly force. I also believe that attention must be paid
to public opinion as it relates to criminal justice matters.
Before I speak to this bill I would like to interject a few
appropriate words for what is in effect my maiden speech in the
House. I would like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his
appointment and the election of the Speaker of the House. I have
not taken the time to offer my thanks to those people who made
my presence in this House possible nor introduced the
community of Calgary Northeast. I hope the House will permit
me a few moments for this purpose.
I am indebted to all those people who played a vital role in my
election. The first are my campaign volunteers who sacrificed so
much time, gave so much effort and demonstrated such a civic
commitment. They deserve the highest praise and I thank them
all.
I would also like to express my sincerest appreciation to my
wife Margaret and my three children, Laura, Mitch and Jason.
Their love and support have provided a source of strength that is
unfailing and which I depend on from day to day. I would like to
extend my thanks and appreciation to all the good people in my
riding of Calgary Northeast.
Calgary Northeast is a riding as diverse as any in Canada. It is
made up of people from all ethnic groups, religions, educational
and work backgrounds. During my campaign I was fortunate
enough to have spoken to and received valuable input from a
great many constituents. I am proud to claim the support of
many new Canadians, first and second generation immigrants
who have contributed so much to my riding.
Calgary Northeast is an economically diverse riding. Jobs
come from service industries as well as oil and gas. Because the
riding is so diverse both demographically and economically it is
especially noteworthy that the people of Calgary Northeast are
united in their desire for real, fundamental and lasting reform.
They expressed to me their disillusionment with politics,
politicians and business as usual in Ottawa and they urged me to
communicate in Ottawa the need for political, economic and
judicial reform.
Crime is a constant and growing concern in my riding as it is
in many other communities across Canada. I am pleased to see
the government is addressing the issue of judicial reform.
However, in Bill C-8, the bill to amend the Criminal Code
provision dealing with the use of deadly force, I am concerned
that the government has its priorities backwards. I have some
real misgivings regarding this bill and I shall now turn to those
reservations.
As I previously mentioned the criminal justice system is an
area in which my constituents have expressed passionate
opinions. Communities all over Canada have become concerned
and
1319
alarmed at growing crime and the apparent inability of the
judicial system to adequately respond to and prevent crime.
Canadians are concerned about the safety of their families and
they have reason to be concerned. Rates of violence across the
country increase yearly and are reported daily. Confrontations
between police officers and law breakers, many of whom are
increasingly well armed and aggressive, are becoming more and
more frequent.
Historically, the public has felt secure and satisfied with
Canada's police forces and their handling of crime and
criminals. However, in response to a charter case heard before
an Ontario court, a case prompted by an incident that was more
of a political problem than a procedural one, the government is
tabling a bill that seeks not so much to address a problem with
police as an artificial problem created by charter arguments.
In an Ontario court case in which a suspect was shot, a charter
argument called into question the breadth of the current law
regarding the use of deadly force. The court found that the law
was too broad, since in theory-and this is a part of the Ontario
decision-doughnut thieves could be shot by police if they fled
from the scene of a crime. A brief to the Canadian Association of
Chiefs of Police stated that the current law was out of date and
noted that a literal reading of the rule could justify a use of force
which could cause death or grievous injury against a shoplifter.
(1550)
In a news release earlier this month the government
announced it intended to introduce more restrictions on the use
of deadly force by police officers attempting to capture fleeing
suspects. The release said that deadly force should only be the
last resort.
While I agree, along with everyone in this House, I am sure,
that police officers must be held accountable for their actions,
especially when those actions include the use of deadly force,
we must bear in mind that there is ample case law already on the
books dealing with this issue. Stare decisis has long functioned
as a mechanism by which the use of deadly force is judged.
Common law has held that in order to use deadly force a
police officer must have reasonable and probable grounds. Of
course, in some instances there have been errors in judgment
made on the part of individual police officers but the law has
provided a basis for consideration of whether or not those
judgments were proper ones. The current law lets police officers
who are forced to make instant life and death decisions rely on
their thorough training, their knowledge of the situation and
their assessment of danger.
Upon examining the proposed new sections of the Criminal
Code contained in Bill C-8 I have to ask the following question.
Will an officer who has felt the necessity to use deadly force still
be given the same consideration, and will the same precedent
apply during an examination of an incident? Or will this revised
law open up the door for consideration of external issues
surrounding each incident, issues that do not bear directly on the
decision to use deadly force?
The court case that caused the present law to come into
question was precisely that sort of occurrence. As a police
officer I dread any law that might have the effect of forcing
officers to weigh political implications of the use of force in
situations in which officers feel that either they or the innocent
public are in imminent danger. Will this new law force such
detailed examination by police officers? Will it place the onus of
defence, not unlike criminal defence, directly on our police
officers?
I believe the Canadian people want the police to have greater
authority in dealing with crime and criminals, and less legal
charter based restrictions upon their ability to defend the public.
Will this law force a police officer who would already be
suffering enormous trauma after having been forced to use
deadly force to undergo an equally traumatic political defence
of his actions?
Instead of giving police the authority and freedom that they
need to properly defend our communities, are we ironically
constraining them with the very charter which is supposed to
protect law-abiding Canadians and their families?
If the law does not give a degree of latitude to officers, if the
law constrains the freedom of police officers to make instant
decisions backed up by training, dedication and common sense,
then that law actually puts the lives of police and innocent
bystanders at risk for the sake of protecting fleeing dangerous
criminals.
Do Canadians want their police officers to have the freedom
and authority to perform their duties even if that means having,
in some tragic situations, to use deadly force?
I believe the answer to that question is a resounding yes. Does
the public feel the need for a law that would restrict police
officers, put more onus on the police and less on criminals? The
answer to that would be a resounding no.
I understand that a court has issued a challenge to the current
law, and I realize that some laws deserve to be challenged. But I
am not sure this is one of those situations. Canadians have had
enough of special interests groups that come up with
government funded challenges to good, tested, working law
simply because our charter gives them an opportunity for 15
minutes of fame. Laws should come from people, not from the
courts, whose only role should be interpretation. Our police are
finding themselves increasingly unable to perform their duty to
serve and protect the public. Is the House aware that in some
jurisdictions police officers are issued firearms but must keep
them locked in the trunks of their cars?
1320
(1555)
Similarly, federal fisheries protection officers, although
armed, are prohibited from making arrests. They are instructed
to observe, record and report a crime but may not take action to
stop it.
The public is enraged every time a police officer is killed in
the line of duty. The public is enraged every time an innocent
child is killed or molested. The public is enraged when the
courts grant asylum to the likes of Charles Ng.
These are clear messages and the government is not heeding
them. Instead it introduces a bill which casts doubt on legitimate
use of force by police. This reflects very misplaced priorities
indeed.
In closing, this bill is court inspired rather than people
inspired. The court decision it stems from has no basis in
common sense. When was the last time anyone heard of a
doughnut thief or shoplifter being summarily executed by
police? What nonsense. The cliche holds true: hard cases make
bad law.
Further, as my hon. colleagues will point out, there has not
been adequate bottom up consultation with those whose lives
will be directly affected by this bill.
Last, why has the government chosen to make its first priority
in criminal reform a restriction on police and not on criminals?
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member on his speech. It was clear and
certainly put his point across.
I would like to ask him two question with respect to points he
raised. He is concerned that police may not be protected
sufficiently by the proposed legislation and made a reference to
consultation not being adequate or at all. My first question of
two is whether the member is aware that there has been
considerable consultation with the provinces and with different
police groups within the last year with respect to this
legislation?
Second, the hon. member criticized the proposed legislation
and commented that there should be a requirement for an
increased degree of latitude for police officers, et cetera, but he
made no concrete suggestion as to what changes should be made
in the proposed legislation. What changes would the hon.
member make to the legislation that is being proposed?
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
It is important to point out that historically there has been case
law, founded in common law, supporting police officers in these
situations. I believe there have been several cases in Canada
where police officers have shot individuals and have been
exonerated through the courts for their actions.
The concern is that now every time a situation occurs in which
a police officer has to use deadly force he will be evaluated
totally on a charter basis. What other issues could be brought
into such situations? Are there going to be political
ramifications if a community says: ``We feel that he erred in his
judgment prior to the incident'' or ``Police in general have not
been handling themselves properly in the community and as a
result certain individuals feel they are being picked on?'' Are
these points going to be brought up in the hearings of police
officers? That is my question.
I would like to have these matters specifically addressed by
the minister. That has not happened thus far.
(1600 )
I am aware that the Canadian Police Association has been
addressed and two submissions have been forwarded over the
last two years. I realize that this legislation is part of what the
Conservatives started. Again, let us be realistic. The Canadian
Police Association and its representatives are rather on the
political side themselves. Many of their arguments have been
presented on that basis.
I think if we go into the practical evaluation of this piece of
legislation that we will find that many police forces have not
discussed this matter and have never heard of it. This is news to
them even to the point of reading about it in the news. An honest
evaluation and practical discussion about how this will affect
policing has not been done.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, it is my
understanding that the police services in general, and certainly
the Edmonton police services, are in favour of this particular
amendment because it clarifies the situation for police officers
and thereby makes it easier.
I am wondering if the hon. member has any comment. I would
be interested to know how his Calgary police services feel about
this particular bill.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question.
I would like to inform the hon. member that certainly the
chiefs of police of all the police departments in the country
undoubtedly have been consulted. At least there has been a brief
presented to them. I have not seen the replies that came back
from all those departments or from the chiefs for that matter.
Often these matters are just discussed at an association level.
I did consult members of the Calgary police department. Let
me state that I am not a police officer. I would like to correct the
statement that I made earlier. I am a former police officer. Yes,
the matter has been discussed but only after seeing it in the
news.
The use of deadly force again is an issue that should be
thoroughly discussed not only at police association levels-I
think we should move away from that-but on the level of public
debate. The whole matter should be presented for the people to
1321
really analyse and then tell Parliament what they would like to
see as a piece of legislation that would make police officers most
effective in defending their rights in society.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Calgary Northeast
on his maiden speech.
I point out to him that this legislation was not undertaken
without consultation with police forces. I would seek to correct
what I think is simply an error in his address when he indicated
that front line police officers were not consulted. It is indeed the
purpose of the Canadian Police Association to represent
front-line officers and not to represent chiefs of police. In fact
those officers have been consulted through that association and
support has been given.
I would also like to comment that the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms is in place for the benefit and for the
protection of all citizens of this country. The fact that the charter
does not produce results with which members opposite may
from time to time agree or disagree does not make it any less a
valuable tool.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her
question and for her congratulatory remarks.
It is interesting when we talk about the charter and its effects
on law. Certainly there has been an analysis done by many
people. I believe there is one that is presently in circulation that
was completed by an RCMP officer and chief superintendent.
He clearly points out the shortfalls that have occurred over the
last 10 years to allow police to effectively police.
(1605 )
In fact in his opening statement his analysis was that the
charter has literally forgotten about truth and in effect has
directed the investigations police do on the basis of how well the
investigation is done. The courts have analysed it in this way.
They are more concerned about how well the investigation was
done as to whether or not it violated the rights of an accused
rather than seeking the truth. I think this is where the breakdown
has occurred.
As we get more into the discussion of this particular piece of
legislation we are going to see exactly what the charter has done
to policing across the country because we are talking about that
very thing. It is how police handle themselves and the law in
protecting the people. The reflection I am getting from the
community is that they realize the hands of police are tied, they
cannot do anything about it and want something changed in that
area.
As for the consultation process with front line officers
through the Canadian Police Association, I will rise to that
particular challenge and say that we should talk to individual
officers on the street. If it comes out of the association per se,
then that is a politicized statement of the police associations and
not rank and file officers in this country. I think police should be
consulted on a rank and file level and not through some
association.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville indicated earlier that he
wished to rise on a question of privilege. Is that correct?
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will make my statement
tomorrow morning.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure I will get the questions, which I have just asked, in
reverse.
Bill C-8 poses a very interesting question to all of us.
Generally in drafting such legislation and granting powers to
whatever body, whether it is a police force or any other force, we
must be very vigilant in making sure that the intent we wish to be
carried out does not go to far. The Minister of Justice must be
complimented for bringing forward legislation with restrictions
so that it does not go too far and the intent of the legislation is
carried out.
As we know, the intent of this legislation is to provide for the
legal protection of police officers. It is not there for any other
purpose. It is to provide for the protection of police officers,
persons lawfully assisting police officers and those who use
force that is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily
harm to fleeing suspects who pose a threat of imminent or future
death or grievous bodily harm. That is the purpose.
In drafting such legislation we have to look at the values in
our society and what we need in our society. What we do need in
this society is a prevention of crime and the control of criminals
but it has to be within certain prescribed rules. Unless those
rules are in place we will end up with a situation in which
different members of society can run a little footloose and fancy
free if the rules are not in place. For this reason we do require
rules.
What should these rules do? They are laws that have to be fair.
Fair is a very loose word to use. Then we go on to say that it must
strike a balance. What is a balance? It has to be a balance
between the rights of the fleeing suspect and the ability of police
officers to protect themselves and the public.
(1610 )
This is what has to be dealt with in the legislation that is
proposed. It is very important that this be drafted carefully
because we are not dealing with just a minor matter. We are not
dealing with some minor legislation. We are dealing with giving
the right to kill. That is what we are doing. We are dealing with
1322
the most serious of force. We are dealing with the granting in
certain circumstances a right to cause the death of an individual.
We cannot allow such a right to be put in place without
restriction which describe the conditions under which that right
can be utilized. In drafting such rules we cannot avoid common
sense because common sense obviously is required. We must
rely on it in the drafting of the legislation.
It is quite important in drafting such legislation that we look
at what we want to do. Of course, we do not want to cause agony
for police officers and we do not want to cause them to have
undue concerns. We do not want police officers to feel that they
are restricted in their enforcement of laws. We understand that
police officers have to make split second decisions. Sometimes
they do not even have that much time to make a decision.
However the rules still have to be there so that police officers
can, after having thought through this legislation, be able to
make that automatic decision as to what to do in the
circumstances. They have to know in that split second or less
what they are doing because in training they know what their
parameters are.
That is what is so important about this legislation as well. It
has clarified to a large extent what police officers or peace
officers can do. If it clarifies it for them then they know what
they can do and where they can go.
It is so important in such legislation to have certain
restrictions so that a police officer can understand what can be
done and what cannot be done. Perhaps the legislation is not
perfect, perhaps it needs some modifying and perhaps we can
foresee certain problems that arise with this legislation but that
can perhaps be cleared up in committee with a few alterations.
However, the general intent of the legislation is good. The
intent is one of protecting the law enforcement people. We must
go through it. It has been gone through by a number of members
in the House already. However, there are certain aspects that
have to be looked at.
Of course there are restrictions because the law as it is
proposed in subsection 4 says that the police officer or peace
officer is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to
cause death or grievous bodily harm. As I have already
indicated, the most serious of matters is taking a person's life or
causing grievous bodily harm. That is not just bodily harm. It is
grievous bodily harm in many cases causing permanent
disability, et cetera.
Under what circumstances can a peace officer do this? It has
already been enunciated that such a peace officer must be
proceeding lawfully to arrest. That is not an undue hindrance on
a peace officer because peace officers know when they can arrest
and they know when they cannot. They know under which
offences they can arrest. They know under which offences they
can arrest without a warrant. They know where they require a
warrant, et cetera. That should not be a problem to a peace
officer.
Second, the offence for which the person is to be arrested is
one for which that person may be arrested without warrant.
Again that should not be a problem for a trained police officer to
determine.
Third, consider when the person to be arrested takes flight to
avoid arrest. That is a fairly obvious one where the police officer
is trying to arrest the individual and he turns and starts running
or the police officer announces that the person is under arrest
and the person all of a sudden turns 180 degrees and is literally
in full flight.
One has to question this situation. What if the person does not
know the police officer is trying to arrest him? We get into these
special exceptions depending on the facts of each individual
situation as it arises. Again, that is a matter that can be dealt with
in our court system. The courts have generally and very
reasonably set out additional rules if they are necessary. The
legislation is not sufficient.
(1615)
The fourth aspect is with regard to the peace officer or other
person using the force who believes on reasonable grounds that
the force is necessary for the purpose of protecting the peace
officer, the person lawfully assisting the peace officer, or any
other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily
harm.
I must admit I have some sympathy with the hon. member
from the Bloc who spoke previously indicating concerns with
the wording of future. There has to be a concern. What does
future mean? What does future death mean or future grievous
bodily harm? Does it mean tomorrow? Does it mean 10 minutes
from now? Does it mean six months from now? Does it mean a
year from now? How imminent does that have to be? It does
distinguish between imminent and future death.
That is a matter that perhaps can be looked at in committee. Of
course the flight cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a
less violent manner.
That is reasonable too because through experience I am sure
that all know that police officers do not want to cause deaths of
individuals. They will use precautions. They will take whatever
steps are necessary. They will fire in the air. They will yell at the
person. They will radio ahead for someone to get the person who
is headed in a particular direction.
Generally the flight cannot be prevented if such drastic action
is taken but a provision like this is important in case there is one
police officer who decides otherwise.
I suggest there are concerns once we get into the other
subsection dealing with the penitentiary provision for the peace
officers in the jails. I will raise these simply as food for thought
for some members.
1323
The subsection deals with peace officers being justified in
using force that is intended or likely to cause death or grievous
bodily harm against an inmate who is escaping from a
penitentiary. Then it says if the peace officer believes on
reasonable grounds that any of the inmates of the penitentiaries
pose a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the peace
officer or any other person.
That is a strange section. When a guard comes to work in the
morning in a penitentiary he has to think who is being held in
custody. Is there any person in custody who poses a threat of
death or grievous bodily harm to anybody? If that person is even
sitting in the special handling unit or in secure custody, if that
person is within the penitentiary, that allows that guard to shoot
a person who is escaping from the prison even though that
person may not be an immediate threat.
That is a matter that has to be looked at. That section appears
to give a right of stopping an escaping inmate simply on the
basis of who is in the prison population, even though the person
in the prison population may not be doing anything.
That is something that has to be looked at and that is why we
look at this legislation. It would be quite unfair if the guard
decides there is a person who would pose a problem, who may
cause bodily harm, and he decides he can fire at that person who
is escaping and then finds out that that person was released
during the day and is no longer in the jail. All of a sudden the
provision does not apply to him. It could be just as unfair the
other way.
If the intent of that subsection is to allow a peace officer to
cause death or grievous bodily harm through an escaping inmate
when no other reasonable means that are less violent are
possible then it should be said in that clause rather than having
the cumbersome procedure that is available.
(1620 )
I support the legislation because it is so important to peace
officers. The clearer the legislation, the better the legislation.
The amendments to the section before the House clarify to a
large extent what peace officers may wish. It certainly places
restrictions on them, but at least they know where they stand
with the legislation. If there is something that is not clear and
can be clarified, that can be dealt with further in committee.
I would suggest that for once we have legislation that police
officers can look to. They can read it and say here are the
circumstances in which we can do something and here are the
circumstances where we cannot. Once they have that, it will help
them react much quicker and much better in emergency
situations. When that is the case we will have much better police
officers.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker I have a
question for the hon. member, recognizing that the hon. member
is steeped in the traditions of law and is familiar with many
charter cases that he undoubtedly has handled.
Several times in his presentation he mentioned ``if the
intent''. That is my point in questioning this law, the fact that the
charter will come into play. If the intent is unknown then we will
be subject to all kinds of wrangling. The police officer will not
have the traditional support of the common law principles in
case law. He will be subject to the introduction of other
questionable material and the case may go in another direction.
Will the hon. member please comment on exactly what he
means when he tells this House that now police officers can be
satisfied that they have some definite rules to follow. That is not
the case if we do not have any case law to fall back on.
Mr. Bodnar: That is true. Until we have some case law to
clarify particular matters, at times we will have to rely simply
on the legislation so that we can interpret the legislation.
Let us not forget that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did
not change the common law. To commit an offence one still has
to commit a particular act and a person must have a particular
intent. That has never been changed by the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. If a police officer runs into problems under this
section and at any time is charged with a criminal offence, the
police officer has the same protection of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms as any other individual.
I can advise the hon. member that police officers are just as
insistent on having the protection of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms as any other member of society.
Mr. Hanger: Taking it one step further, if we are going to be
looking at a piece of legislation such as this, it must answer the
concerns of Canadians. Are Canadians happy to see more
restrictions placed on police officers?
I do not believe they are. They have made that clear right
across this country. We are going to be answering as
parliamentarians many, many questions relating to crime and
the way things are going with regard to criminal offences in this
country. I do not see this legislation fitting the bill.
How will this member address those particular concerns of
the Canadian people when in fact it is not going to serve them in
a more efficient manner?
Mr. Bodnar: That is an interesting comment made by the hon.
member, that this may not fulfil the wishes of the public. One
has to question what the public wants.
The public wants efficient police enforcement. It wants
people brought to justice when they should be and it wants
individual rights protected. The public does not want police
officers brandishing firearms and firing in every direction for
any reason under the guise of protection. That would not happen.
I am not saying police officers would do it, but individuals may.
That would not happen. We want good enforcement. That is why
we need a balancing. That balancing is between the protection
of individuals and police enforcement and bringing people to
1324
justice. That is what the Canadian public wants. The Canadian
public will get it with this legislation.
(1625)
It will get it within this legislation which I suggest to the hon.
member police officers will support once it goes through the
House.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, the member for
Saskatoon-Dundurn mentioned that police have the same
protection as any other member of society under this law. I
would suggest to him that the police may have the same
protection, but they have more responsibility when it comes to
enforcing the law.
I can recall as a youngster that if a policeman said stop, we
stopped. That was the rule of the day. Nowadays it seems that if
the policeman says stop, the criminal element says catch me if
you can. The law will defend them if they say that.
I would suggest to the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn that
if the government was interested in justice on this matter that it
would increase the penalty for fleeing. In other words, it would
try to make it very unattractive for people to flee from the law
when they are caught red-handed in crime rather than penalizing
police officers and making the police officers jump through a
series of hoops to defend themselves if they happen to be
attempting to enforce the law.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, the laws are there dealing with
escaping from lawful custody. The penalties are in place. The
penalties are certainly not light. It is a matter of those laws being
enforced and enforced in the sense of having the appropriate
sentences. If the sentences do not appear appropriate, they are
taken through the proper legal channels so that the courts can
deal with it at an upper level to deal with the penalty fitting the
offence. If that is not appropriate then Parliament can deal with
it.
The laws are in place now to deal with that particular aspect
and to deal with it very adequately with respect to sentence so
long as the judiciary deals with it appropriately in the
circumstances.
We cannot overlook that each situation is different. When
judges look at situations they look at them differently. They will
look at one situation, look at the extenuating circumstances if
there are any, and impose what they believe is the appropriate
penalty. It may be quite different from another situation in
which near the maximum penalty is the appropriate sentence.
That is where the judges vary in sentences and that is where
prosecutors decide or decide not to proceed through the
appellate routes in appealing sentences.
Mr. Cummins: I would like some clarification from the
member for Saskatoon-Dundurn. He suggests that there is a
penalty for fleeing. I would suggest that there is also a penalty
for using firearms in the commission of crimes.
I may be wrong and I ask him for clarification, but it seems to
me that rather than these laws being enforced rigorously or
definitely, quite often these matters are dealt away with in the
judicial process: ``If you'll do this, I'll do that'' so the law in
fact has no force in its effect.
I wonder if the member could perhaps clarify that.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, with respect to dealing these
matters away, I am not familiar with that. I can tell him that I
have worked as an assistant for 21 years. The way it is dealt
away with is usually with a consecutive jail sentence. It is a
question of how long.
(1630 )
On the question of using firearms in the commission of an
offence, for the information of the hon. member there is a
minimum jail sentence prescribed in the Criminal Code. It is a
one-year minimum and it must be consecutive to any other
sentence, not concurrent.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-8, an Act to amend
the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
(force), tabled for first reading on February 4, 1994.
I would like to start by emphasizing the need for providing a
framework for the use of force, as indicated in the Criminal
Code. There are two concepts in clause 1 of this bill that seem
rather ambiguous.
The first concept with which we have a problem is that of
reasonable grounds. What are reasonable grounds? Do they
depend on an individual's personal judgment? Good question.
Two recent incidences are a good illustration of what I mean,
and I am thinking of the Richard Barnabé case, where the police
may have acted on what it felt were reasonable grounds, in a
situation that did not necessarily warrant such action, and the
case of three residents of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon who were
accused of illegal fishing in Canadian waters, a case which
fortunately had no serious consequences. The interpretation of
reasonable grounds is therefore rather puzzling.
The second concept we would like to see clarified, as it
applies to the fisheries situation, is the interpretation of
necessary force. Again, the individual's personal judgment is
supposed to guide him in the use of force to the extent that he
judges necessary. However, a stressful situation may affect
one's judgment.
1325
As Hegel wrote when considering the principles of the
philosophy of law, what is reasonable is real and what is real is
reasonable. Hence this request for clarification of the concepts
of reasonable grounds and necessary force.
We in the Bloc Quebecois would also appreciate some
explanation of the use of the term ``désemparé'' in the bill itself.
The Petit Larousse illustré 1994 gives the following definition
of the term, as it applies to the fisheries: ``Qui ne peut plus
manoeuvrer, par suite d'avaries''. [``The state of being disabled,
of being unable to manoeuvre, as a result of damage.''] This
definition of the term as used in Bill C-8 would seem
incomplete in the case of human lives.
The importance of the precision takes a whole new meaning
when you consider that the same clause says: ``-intended or...
likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm-'' In the Bloc
Quebecois we believe that human lives should never be
endangered by the decision of a single individual responsible for
enforcing the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. We accept the
principle of the use of force, but we must adapt it to the field of
fisheries.
Our amendment is intended to limit the use of force, in order
to avoid any dangerous situation that could lead to an escalation
of violence.
The wording of our amendment bears some resemblance with
a recommendation of a report from the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veteran Affairs, chaired by the Hon.
Arnold Malone, and tabled in November 1990.
The recommendation said, and I quote, ``-that research be
conducted as a high priority into methods of stopping
unco-operative boats on the high seas without endangering
human life''. What happened to that recommendation already
four years old?
Second, I would like to stress the importance of attacking at
the source the problem of poaching. But we must face the fact
that we will not be able to do it alone, without the help of other
countries. Negotiation efforts must be pursued with the
international community.
(1635)
If fishing outside the 200-mile limit hinders reproduction of
fish stocks, the amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection
Act will not solve the problem. Canada cannot legislate over
international areas. Accordingly, negotiation remains the only
possible avenue, hence the necessity of involving the
Department of External Affairs.
Therefore, the Bloc considers that the solution is to be found
primarily in negotiated multilateral agreements providing for
compliance measures by various interested parties. The
Concordia incident proves that that kind of situation cannot be
solved by the use of force but by precise and clear agreements
between various interested parties.
It should be recalled that in that precise case, there was no
agreement in force between two sovereign countries, namely
Canada and the United States. The ridiculously timid penalty
given the master and owner of the Concordia shows the
regulations' flaws. The fact is that Canada has to show clearly
that it is determined to defend vigorously its sovereignty over
Canadian waters. Now, as far as the concept of sovereignty is
concerned, members from the Bloc Quebecois could most likely
advise the Canadian government on the definition of that
concept, even if it deals with Canadian waters, because we have
some experience in that area.
Still, if only multilateral agreements had to be negotiated, we
could possibly find a solution to the problem in a very short
period of time. But no, once more we are confronted with a
problem of overlapping-we are sorry if we always seem to
come back to that issue but that is part of the problem-not
federal-provincial overlapping but, as I mentioned in my first
speech on environment, overlapping within the federal
government itself. As a matter of fact, three departments could
not agree on a single solution regarding the environment.
As for fisheries, and in particular in the present bill, four
departments are trying to find a solution to a single problem
which is, I admit, a big one.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of
National Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and, in this
instance, the Department of Justice are all working to find a
solution to the problem.
This conflict between the various federal bodies goes back a
long way. In fact, the same aforementioned report about
maritime sovereignty, drafted under the chairmanship of the
Hon. Arnold Malone and tabled in 1990, made this
recommendation: ``The Committee recommends that the
government institute a program of regularly exercising
interdepartmental coordination procedures, particularly for
emergency situations, with a view to identifying problems and
reducing necessary consultation time. Such exercises should
include all responsible individuals and their alternates''. This
way, there would be no seven and a half hour delay before an
emergency decision could be taken, as was the case in the
Concordia incident.
Any amendment would be useless if the various federal
departments are not even able to co-ordinate their action, so this
is a critical factor.
In conclusion, we concur with the bill provided the
amendment suggested by the Bloc is agreed to. I say again that I
believe in a strict control regarding the use of force, as
prescribed in the Criminal Code.
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
comments of the member for Terrebonne. Although he spoke
mostly about the coastal aspects of the bill, I will direct a
1326
question to him on the broader question of the situation faced by
our enforcement officers in moments of crisis.
(1640)
Unfortunately I was a victim of a gun crime many years ago. I
would like the member to consider my question from the point
of view of a victim or a potential victim and the relationship of
the police officer at that point in time to the potential victim. If
we put faith in our officers we have to accept that they face a
very difficult decision in a crisis.
Even though the questions of the hon. member for Terrebonne
are very good, does he not feel it is better to start with something
like this? As has been raised before, we have to build some
history, some common law, as a result of this legislation. Are we
not better to start from this point and build from here rather than
leave our enforcement officers in what is now a very difficult
situation?
We have to stand behind them. We have to recognize that
crime and violence are out of hand in some areas of our country
in particular. Does the hon. member still feel this is a step
forward even though he may not agree with every provision in
the bill?
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, as stated by my colleague, my
remarks were not directly linked to that part of the Bill that
amends the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection
Act and deals with necessary force.
My comments were aimed at coastal fisheries protection, as
he pointed out, and I took that opportunity to highlight our
amendment stating that at no time should human lives be
jeopardized when disabling or boarding a vessel. If indeed there
is illegal fishing, we must find a way to disable the vessel, make
the necessary arrest and bring it to port, without ever putting any
lives in danger.
My colleague, the Solicitor General critic, spoke earlier on
the part of the bill dealing with the Criminal Code, and I will add
that I am in total agreement with what he said. I will therefore
refrain from making any comments on the Criminal Code,
having chosen to address instead the issue of coastal fisheries
protection.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, the bill we are discussing does indeed have two parts
but I will comment only on the second part, that is the Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act.
The bill seeks to give fisheries protection officers the right to
disable a foreign fishing vessel or to attempt to do so, within the
limits of the regulations. As my colleague said before, the
expression ``to disable'' a vessel is what is creating a problem
here because definitions vary from one dictionary to another.
I checked the Robert dictionary and it says that to disable is to
``make unable, unfit, ineffective''; hence, to disable a ship
means to cause damage that will prevent it from manoeuvering,
for example cause damage to the helm, the motor or other
essential instruments. The purpose therefore is not to sink the
ship but to keep it from causing harm or sailing away. So that we
may be sure of the meaning of the term, the bill should include a
definition of the word ``disable''; that way, there could be no
confusion in the interpretation of the act.
A foreign vessel under arrest could then be disabled if it were
in flight. If, while inspecting the vessel or interrogating its crew,
the protection officer discovered illegal actions, the owners and
the captain of the ship could then be forced to face Canadian
justice.
We must admit straight off that foreign fishing vessels have
been sailing for a long time in what are recognized today as
Canadian territorial waters; they did so even before the
discovery of Canada.
(1645)
Therefore, they acquired historic rights which enabled them
to obtain a permit to fish within Canada's 200-mile zone,
provided they complied with the attendant regulations. Among
other things, the regulations spell out the species that can be
caught, the allowable size of the catch, where parties can fish,
the need to keep a log, and so forth.
Some foreign vessels are occasionally suspected of fishing
illegally. The Concordia affair which occurred on December 11,
1989, comes to mind. A US vessel, the Concordia, was fishing
illegally in Canada's exclusive economic zone, on George Bank
off the shores of Nova Scotia. Detected and photographed by a
Canadian Forces Tracker aircraft, the Concordia did not respond
to the Tracker's radio transmissions. It also ignored the
Canadian Forces destroyer Saguenay, which it even rammed
before retreating toward US waters.
Back in Ottawa, as my colleague mentioned, External Affairs,
Fisheries and Oceans, DND and the Privy Council needed seven
and one half hours to consult with one another before giving the
Saguenay permission to use force to stop the Concordia. In the
meantime, the Concordia had plenty of time to take refuge
outside Canadian waters. The owner and captain of the vessel
were fined $9,000, considerably less than what they took in as a
result of the illegal fishing activities.
It is important for a country to protect its territorial waters.
The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act now before Parliament
gives fisheries protection officers the right to disable a foreign
fishing vessel suspected of carrying out illegal fishing
activities.
In speaking to this debate, I want to draw the government's
attention to the importance of having regulations that spell out
clearly when and how force is to be used to disable a vessel. I
realize that regulations to this effect are being drafted, but
regulations are not voted on. In my view, it is important that
these regulations be tabled in the House prior to the adoption of
1327
this bill on third reading. If this is not possible, then the
restrictions that go along with this power should be spelled out
clearly in the act.
Fisheries protection officers are being given this new power
in an effort to halt illegal fishing by foreign vessels in Canadian
waters. In the absence of any extradition provision with regard
to fisheries, it is all too easy for a foreign vessel that has
committed an offence in Canadian waters to escape scot-free by
sailing out of the economic zone, keep its cargo and cash in the
profits.
As we have just seen, it is difficult to disable a vessel. So,
notwithstanding the necessity to amend the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act, the government must continue to explore new
ways of resolving the problem.
For instance, it could negotiate bilateral arrangements with
other countries to arrest on arrival at their home port the
captains of vessels suspected of illicit fishing in Canadian
waters. It could insist that deterrent penalties be imposed on the
owners and captains of vessels contravening the regulations
governing their fishing licences. In that regard, it should be
pointed out that since 1991, the fine imposed on nationals guilty
of illicit fishing is $100,000 in the United States, while in
Canada it can be as high as $750,000.
Finally, illegal fishing is not the prerogative of foreign fishing
vessels. While pursuing ongoing efforts in the UN to ensure
better protection for our resources through arrangements, it
would be important that the Canadian government initiate a
project to develop a national, if not international, code of ethics,
the primary purpose of which would be to make everyone
accountable and responsible for the conservation of our fishery
resource.
Fisheries management must be decentralized. The industry
must assume responsibility for itself and regulate itself in terms
of the enforcement measures or penalties to be applied to those
who contravene the code of ethics. For example, the fisherman
who exceeds his fishing quota one year could see his quota
reduced the next year. For illegal fishing, his fishing licence
could be withdrawn or suspended for some time.
(1650)
The Bloc Quebecois supports this bill from the Minister of
Justice. Nevertheless, this bill should include an amendment
forbidding the use of force if the lives of the crew of the fleeing
vessel are in danger. The door to the use of force which we are
opening today must in no case be used to excuse blunders which
could be committed by protection officers using the right given
to them today.
Canada must show its political will to enforce its 200-mile
jurisdiction over its territorial waters. This alone justifies the
bill today, although it is regrettable in some respects for moral
and social reasons. Unfortunately, it seems that force is still the
only language which some people understand, although it is not
the most effective way to end illegal fishing practices. The aim
of showing the international community that our country is
determined to end these practices is quite laudable. However,
the use of force is always risky. That is why the Bloc
Quebecois's amendment is meant to limit the use of force so as
to avoid unfortunate incidents.
I hope that the government will consider this amendment,
especially since there is no causal relationship between illegal
fishing and the Atlantic fisheries crisis. The government must
restructure the fishing industry and develop new commercial
practices to promote underused species.
Finally, we cannot stop illegal fishing practices without the
other countries' co-operation. Negotiations with the
international community should continue because today's
amendment to the Fisheries Protection Act in no way solves the
real problems of fishermen in Eastern Canada.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to participate this afternoon because I have
spent some time on the ocean off the west coast of Canada and
have participated in the fisheries in the early 1970s. I would like
to share some of these things, especially with members of the
Bloc, this afternoon.
Serving in the Canadian navy we had a very important role in
protecting the 200-mile limit. It is important we understand that
fish are a natural resource of Canada. We must protect our
natural resources. As a matter of fact it is our sovereign right to
do so.
I get a bit upset when I hear people say: ``You have to be
careful; you don't want to disarm or disable a boat because you
might hurt the crew''. I have some problems with that. First, the
person responsible for the crew is the captain of the ship. It is not
the responsibility of the people trying to enforce the law of the
country; it is the responsibility of the captain of the vessel to
ensure the protection of the crew.
I will use the analogy of a drunk driver for a minute. A man
may sit in a bar and drink too much alcohol so that he is over the
.08 level. Then he gets in his car and obviously is in
contravention of the laws of Canada. Because he does not know
the law does not make him not guilty; he is guilty under the laws
of Canada.
I would agree with the section of the amendment as far as
disabling force is concerned. I have looked at all the things here.
There is adequate warning. There are flags and flashing lights.
All these things are very typical to communication on the high
1328
seas. It is very much the responsibility of the captain of the
vessel to ensure the crew remains safe. If they are breaking the
laws of Canada then they must pay the consequences.
(1655)
The last point I would like to state is that in our national
anthem we sing: ``we stand on guard for thee''. It is our
sovereign right to protect our resources and this must be done.
This is a good example of things we should be undertaking.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the comment made by the hon. member
who used to be in the Canadian navy and had the responsibility
of protecting Canadian territorial waters. It is imperative that
the government protect its territorial waters. There is no doubt
in my mind; however, we must not think that if we give the right
to cripple a vessel, this responsibility will exclusively be
assumed by the captain.
Competition is very stiff; fishermen must earn a living; they
must catch as many fish as possible in the shortest possible time,
and then they must move on. But these people have permits after
all. In my opinion-correct me if I am wrong-illegal fishing in
itself is not an act of piracy. However, I think it is important that
these measures be taken with a maximum of guarantee as
regards the protection of human lives. In my opinion, it will
never be worth risking a person's life to arrest someone who is
fishing illegally.
The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for the debate is now
expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 38, I must now inform the House
that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: The hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Court Challenges Program; the hon.
member for Provencher-Small business; the hon. member for
Wild Rose-The Environment; the hon. member for
Kamloops-Small Business.
I understand there are no speakers left from the Bloc
Quebecois, the Official Opposition, on this bill, nor from the
government, except the hon. parliamentary secretary, who will
conclude the debate. Consequently, two members from the
Reform Party may speak on this bill. I have no objection. The
hon. member for Wild Rose.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today with mixed feelings in respect of Bill C-8. Although at the
present moment I am leaning toward supporting the bill, I do so
with some reservation.
I am concerned that no police official in my riding has been
consulted with regard to this change to the Criminal Code.
Further, having contacted the superintendent of K Division in
Red Deer, Alberta, to his knowledge neither he nor any other
official representing the RCMP in Alberta has been contacted
for input into this bill. This strikes me as rather strange when the
news release with this document states that it was derived from
consultation with police officials all across Canada.
I am also having difficulty deciding in my own mind that this
change will strengthen the ability of the police officer in making
the necessary apprehension of criminals. In fact I am looking for
assurances that the legislation will do exactly that. However, my
gut feeling tells me that this could possibly reduce the ability of
the officer to do his job, primarily due to the loss of precedents
over the past few years.
In a nutshell, is the legislation for the good of the police or for
the good of the criminal? I really cannot make up my mind what
is the answer to that question. What was the motivation to bring
in this legislation? Was it to make Canada a safer place for its
citizens or was it brought about by pressure from special interest
groups? They seem to have had a major impact on governments
of the past and apparently are having an impact on the
government of today.
(1700)
If we were to talk to Canadians across the country, I am quite
certain their feelings would be to strengthen the power of law
enforcement. I am almost certain in their minds this legislation
would not do that.
My colleague from B.C. and fellow Reformers brought the
attention of this House to three deaths which have occurred at
the hands of killers who had their charges reduced to
manslaughter because they were drunk and did not know what
they were doing. Research proves these types of offences are
quite high. Does this legislation address these types of
problems? I am quite sure the answer is no.
I am certain Canadians want to know when legislation is
going to be put into place to stop or at the very minimum attempt
to stop the killing of Canadians at the hands of first degree
murderers out on day pass or early parole from this country's
prisons. I have stated in this House I know of 23 killers who fit
this category and have murdered 32 additional people and these
are only the ones I know of. Over the last five years I wonder
how many criminals have been killed during the process of
arrest. I would guess the number would be significantly lower
than 32. If that is the case, then where are our priorities? Are
they truly for the victims and their families, or are they for the
criminals?
If this legislation is brought about to protect criminals, then
let us wake up and do what the red book says. Let us concentrate
on the victims for a change and truly make this country safer for
its citizens. Taking away authority from the police is not the way
to achieve this goal. If this legislation is going to do that then I
would have to oppose the bill.
1329
In conclusion I want answers to the following questions. How
many police officers have died in this country in the line of duty
as compared to the lives of criminals lost? If more police have
died then I would suggest this legislation must be geared toward
protecting them. Is that the case? If not, then why are we doing
something that may jeopardize our law enforcers even further
while at the same time fattening the wallets of lawyers? I
certainly hope that is not one of the motives for this kind of
legislation.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to voice my
concerns regarding Bill C-8. I will listen carefully to the debate
to hear the answers from my colleagues to my many questions
and concerns.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I will be quite
brief. I raised the points I wanted to mention while questioning
other members.
In preparing for this afternoon's debate I did talk to fisheries
officers on the west coast who I thought probably should have
been aware of any consultation which had taken place with the
government before this bill was brought forward. My questions
to them were the first ones they had heard on any change of this
nature. Not only did I talk to fisheries officers in the field, I also
talked to people with some authority in the department who
should have been aware of the changes being talked about.
The question raised by the member for Wild Rose is one which
we must keep asking-what is the motivation for this bill? Is the
bill there to make law enforcement more effective? Is it there to
make the streets safer? Is it there to protect our police officers?
Will it make them feel more confident when they go about their
duties knowing that the force of law is on their side and that the
authorities and their supervisors will back them up when they
make the tough decisions they have to? That is where this bill
falls down. The bill does not offer police officers, whether they
are fisheries officers, city police or the RCMP, the confidence
they need.
(1705)
Police officers in this country are not like members of the
Gestapo. They are our neighbours. They are our sons. They are
our friends. They are not authoritarian figures by far. They are
people committed to public service. Yet they are people who put
their lives on the line more often than not. They are people who
put themselves into very dangerous situations making sure that
Canada is a better country in which to live. That is where this
whole bill falls apart. It does not offer these people the
protection they should get. It does not offer them the kind of
encouragement they need to continue their duties. I find it very
disappointing.
It is difficult for us to imagine what it would be like pursuing
someone down the dark alleys of one of our major cities or
pursuing poachers in the dark of night along the banks of the
Fraser River or in some isolated inlet on either the coast of
British Columbia or Nova Scotia. It takes a particular kind of
courage to do that work day after day. These people need our
support and encouragement.
As I suggested earlier, if the government were truly interested
in making the streets safer in this country, if it were truly
interested in enabling law enforcement people to do the job
Canadians expect and want them to do, we would be putting the
onus on the criminal to stop. We would make it very difficult for
a criminal to say: ``I am going to try to get away from this
thing''. The penalties should be severe for those who do not
obey the orders of police officers, whether they are guilty or
innocent.
The onus is on us to expect that other members of our society
will stop when a police officer asks them to and leave the
determination of their guilt or innocence to the courts. That is
what it is all about. We as Canadian citizens must recognize the
very basic fact of life that the onus is on us to obey authority
figures and leave the determination of guilt or innocence to the
judicial system which I have a great deal of confidence in.
In conclusion I would like to say again that this law needs
some work. We should be offering our police officers the
encouragement they need. We should be coming down heavy on
the criminal element that wants to escape the lawful requests
and demands of the police authorities in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, the two
previous speakers talked about law and order, and I am in favour
of law and order. However, in the last few years, we have seen a
number of police mistakes, like the incidents that happened in
Montreal and Toronto. I am aware that, under most
circumstances, the majority of police officers do their job in a
manner that is beyond reproach and deserves respect.
Nonetheless, in the events I am referring to, as an ordinary
citizen-even if I am a member of Parliament today, I remain at
heart an ordinary citizen-I still have this feeling, this
aftertaste, that things were not done right.
(1710)
Of course, to better understand a given situation, I must have a
number of criteria, of limits. What should a police officer do
under the circumstances that led to these mistakes? Did the
police act correctly? Without limits or criteria, it would be
difficult for me to appreciate the consequences of their actions
and that worries me.
On the contrary, if the limits are clear, if there is a definite rule
to follow and if I am comfortable with this rule, like I am with
the rule proposed in this bill, I will be in a better position to
appreciate the behaviour of the police under these extreme
circumstances. The police themselves may be in a better
position to know clearly what society expects from them.
1330
As a result, I do not agree with the comments made by the last
two speakers, but they could perhaps help me to better
understand their position now that I have explained mine.
[English]
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member. I hold him in high regard and appreciate the sincerity
of his comments.
To answer specifically from my point of view, the limits are
quite clear. Referring to the events in Montreal and Toronto as I
recall them the people involved were ordered by the police to
stop and chose not to. That is where the problem lies.
Somewhere society has the idea that when the police order
someone to do something, it is all right to try to play cops and
robbers and try to get away. That is where the problem lies. I do
not know whether it is too much TV or too much publicity for
those people trying to get away.
I do not know what the answer is but that is the root of the
problem. It is the people who flee. It is not the police officers
ordering them to stop. We have to direct our efforts at
encouraging people to have more confidence in this country's
legal system. Maybe they are fleeing because they have too
much confidence in it and know where they are going to end up.
That may very well be, but that has to be where our efforts are
directed.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
listening to my hon. colleague speak relative to Bill C-8, I am
wondering whether he has read it and studied it carefully.
My impression is that it very clearly gives those parameters
he has mentioned. It sets the parameters for our policing
agencies to go about their duties in a very responsible fashion. It
leaves no question. It refers to reasonable.
We have to interpret the word ``reasonable''. If one looks at
the bill it follows through in trying to give the best explanation
possible of what reasonable is which is, in using force that is
intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm
unless that person believes on reasonable grounds that it is
necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the
preservation of anyone under that person's protection from
death or grievous bodily harm. It is pretty straight forward.
I would ask my hon. colleague across the way if he feels that
improves the situation we are in right now in which that police
officer has that question in his mind. Now he has some
jurisdiction to look at it to see if in his opinion at that given time,
and it has to be opinionated because he is the only person who is
going to be in that particular situation, it provides reasonable
grounds.
(1715)
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, as I said before I am not a
lawyer. My understanding from listening to people here this
afternoon who are is that this law will be put in place and
somehow or other the courts will interpret the law as it is read
here today.
The difficulty I have with this law is that it does not address
the problem it purports to address, the problem of people fleeing
from police officers when ordered to stop. I do not think it
addresses that problem. I think it simply makes it much more
difficult for the policeman who has to take action. If that action
involves bodily harm or involves the death of an individual, it
makes it much more difficult for the police to justify their
action.
It is very easy for us to sit here in this very safe environment,
read the bill and say that it covers this and that problem and
addresses this and that shortcoming. However, that is not where
the action is played out. The action is going to be played out in
some back alley in the city of Toronto or Montreal or, as I said
earlier, in some dark corner of the Fraser River canyon or some
place like that. This is where the whole bill falls apart.
We should be offering our police officers more
encouragement than this bill currently does.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank all hon. members who agreed to
partake in the debate today on Bill C-8. I would like to deal with
some of the concerns as I understand the bill and to express my
opinions as they relate to the legislation.
First of all I would like to discuss some of the questions that
were brought forward regarding the fleeing felon legislation, in
particular police officers and criminals.
[Translation]
After that, I would like to talk about fishing off the coasts of
our country.
[English]
The member for Delta said that we really have to be concerned
more with the safety of the police officers. This legislation is not
meant to do everything in the criminal field to deal with all of
our concerns.
The member for Wild Rose said it is unfortunate that the first
piece of legislation the justice department brings forward deals
with reducing the power of the police.
First, it does not reduce the power of the police. Second, the
reason this legislation is coming forward now is because of the
negotiation and consultation that has taken place over the past
two years by this government and the preceding government.
There was a lot of dialogue, going back to 1992. The
consideration of this subject matter has gone on. The
Department of
1331
Justice now feels that the time has come to put this legislation
before the House of Commons. I think to delay it further would
be totally unnecessary.
It does not take away from the powers of the police. What we
have is legislation that is overly broad in the Criminal Code. The
current provision does not direct police officers to consider the
danger posed by the escape of the suspect before using deadly
force to attempt to prevent the escape.
(1720)
It appears from the literal reading of subsection 25(4) that
deadly force can be used to stop a suspect from avoiding arrest
even though the suspect poses no risk of physical harm to
anyone, including the police officer, provided of course that the
escape cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less
violent matter.
What we are saying here is that we are not risking the life of
the police officer. We are not going to risk the life of anybody for
whom the police officer has the role of protection. If it is felt that
anyone's life or safety is threatened or grievous harm could
come to that person, deadly force would be used. There are
certain crimes which by their very nature would not pose a threat
to the police officer or to the public if that suspect escaped.
There would be other means of arresting that suspect.
We are not letting anyone go. We are not endangering
anyone's life. We are saying that the law as it is now is so broad
that the police can use deadly force for any offence that they
wish. That is not in the interest of society and, from the
discussions I have had with the police, it is not in the interest of
the police. Every time somebody who is suspected of a crime is
shot, people automatically say: ``Ah ha, the police are gun
happy. They just shot somebody for no reason at all''. That is
often not the case at all. Maybe now and then, in a very isolated
incident, a policeman or policewoman uses his or her firearm
unnecessarily. Very seldom will a police officer even draw his or
her firearm unnecessarily.
I would be the last one to say that we are changing this
legislation because police officers are using this section in the
Criminal Code unnecessarily. They are not. They are being very
responsible about the use of their firearms. There is no question
about that.
This law has been in the Criminal Code in this fashion for a
long time and we feel the time has come to change it. We are not
in any way trying to reduce the effect and the force of the police.
The situation is that we have consulted with police officers in
this regard. They feel that this provision in the Criminal Code
should be changed. We also say that any doubt whatsoever is
going to be given to the police officer. This is very clear in the
provision as it relates to penitentiaries.
It was stated by the member for Scarborough earlier today that
only certain guards in penitentiaries are armed. The fact is they
are armed for a reason. If there is an escape from a federal
institution-not a provincial or municipal institution because it
is not felt that escapees from there are going to pose the same
threat as from a federal institution-the guard cannot by the
very nature of the institution take the time to find out if this is
one of the more hardened criminals or one of the less dangerous
criminals. Because there are hardened criminals in that
institution, the guard has the right to use his or her firearm.
We have to look at this legislation. We have to look at it not
from the point of view of changing it because the law has already
been changed by the court decision. On April 26, 1993, the
current subsection 25(4) of the code was ruled to be an
unconstitutional violation of a suspect's section 7 charter right
to life and security of the person. This was decided by the
Ontario court in the case of R. versus Lines.
(1725)
We have a charter decision in which the court said that if
somebody has committed a crime and is fleeing, they can be
shot. This very provision puts the life and the rights of the
criminal in danger. I do not think anyone in this House would say
that even suspects do not have rights under the charter. Every
Canadian has rights under the charter.
We do not want to see criminals escape. I agree with the
member for Delta that it seems to be more involved now to test
the determination of the police to make the arrest, and more and
more people are thumbing their noses at the authority of the
police. That in itself does not warrant the person being shot. We
have to keep that in mind. We have to look first of all to the fact
that public safety is our most important consideration. We have
to look too at the role of the police officer. As I see by this
legislation, the police officer is not having his or her role
interfered with or handicapped in any way.
I agree with members opposite that if that were the case then I
too would have to look at this legislation in another light
altogether. Because this is not the case, we have to make this
change.
What happens if, although it has not gone to the Supreme
Court of Canada, this provision of the Criminal Code is
designated as being unconstitutional in accordance with section
7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Once that happens,
effectively the provision is null and void.
What we will have here is a provision which is ineffective if
we do not make a change. By not making the change we are
hindering the operation of the police because they do not have
any guideline now. The existing guidelines have been
determined to be contrary to the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. We have an obligation now to make this change, to
take away the
1332
grey area, and to explicitly say in constitutionally acceptable
terms what it is the police can do. That is all we are doing here.
I think we owe it to the police and to society to do this.
[Translation]
Something else is really important here too. The member for
Gaspé, for example, says that he wants to move an amendment
to the bill. It is a good idea because the standing committee will
sit soon, maybe next week. It will be appropriate to present
amendments in committee, and I would like to assure the hon.
member here that his amendment will be considered and I thank
him for his interest.
I do not promise that his amendment will be adopted, but it
will receive our consideration.
It is a really serious situation, as the last speaker for the Bloc
Quebecois said. We have a serious situation with the fisheries
off Canada's Atlantic coast.
(1730)
In Atlantic Canada now, we have more than 45,000
unemployed people. It is really serious and it is bad for the
people of Atlantic Canada as well as for Quebecers, because
there is really no more fishing now. We have a feeling that
fishermen off the coast of other countries have the same
problem. It is really necessary to have something, so that we can
tell fishermen in Quebec and Atlantic Canada that there will be
laws and regulations which will be applied in their interest.
[English]
We have to do something to tell the people we know there is a
problem with foreign overfishing. We are not changing the laws
here. We are not bringing forward something that does not exist
right now. We are putting this into what we are considering in
Bill C-8.
We are saying that we are not going to bring forward
confrontation with foreign vessels. That is not the intention. The
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
outlined in detail the process we go through in confronting a
foreign vessel. It is very detailed. Every chance is given for the
master of the vessel to bring the vessel to a stop or to turn it
around. Sufficient time is given for the crew to vacate a certain
part of the vessel so that what has to be done will be done
without endangering the lives of the crew of the vessel.
If something is not done then we are telling the foreign fishing
vessels to come in and overfish and make a clean getaway. That
is not the message we want to send. It is getting far too serious
for that right now.
We do not want confrontation and it has not been done to date
but we have to do something to enforce the fishing rules in our
jurisdiction.
The last speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of National Defence, has a great deal of experience and he was
an admiral in the Canadian navy. He will give us some indication
of how this can be done and how the Canadian government and
the authorities would confront a foreign vessel.
I want to thank the members of the House for their
participation. We welcome all their considerations in
committee. We welcome any suggestions they may have. We
want to have a good hearing on this. We want to call some
witnesses. We are not going to call an unlimited number of
witnesses but we want to get good witnesses who can make a
contribution. The minister will appear to answer some questions
that members of the committee may have. We want to take this
to committee so we can begin this study.
I feel that there is a good reason for this legislation and we are
going to aid the enforcement of our fisheries laws and
regulations. We are going to give to the police officers a good
provision that is constitutionally correct under which they can
act. We are going to do this without hurting or inhibiting the
security of the Canadian people.
I think what we are doing with this legislation is in the interest
of all Canadians.
(1735)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice for a very interesting speech, to which I
listened very carefully. However, there was no mention of
regulations. Could the parliamentary secretary tell us how we
will deal with the regulations? Could he describe how we are
going to proceed, just for my information? How does it work?
The hon. member told us we would be able to table amendments,
which would be considered in committee, but what about the
regulations?
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, there are under consideration
right now by the minister of fisheries quite comprehensive
provisions relating to the fishery on the Atlantic coast and in the
Gulf of St. Lawrence which is going to have quite a sufficient
effect on the fishery, its future and how we are going to deal with
its problems.
We are trying to deal with the foreign vessels fleeing the
jurisdiction without getting into actual protection in other areas
of the fishery.
Because of the nature and the complicated aspect of the
fishery considerations that the minister is now pondering and
the time it is going to take to put the final package together, that
will come a little later.
I hope the hon. member can understand that we do not want to
take a part of this away from the minister of fisheries because it
is going to be a part of the whole package we expect.
1333
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, we
appreciate the openmindedness shown by the hon. member, who
said he would carefully consider the amendments put forward by
the Bloc Quebecois, when the bill is referred to the Standing
Committee.
However, I would like to cast some new light on an issue
which is important, considering the amendments we will be
moving. Even though we want to protect our territorial waters
from overfishing, we cannot prevent our stocks from leaving our
territorial waters. If we were to legislate on that, we would soon
run out of aquariums to detain the fish which would have
ignored our legislation and our territorial limits.
Moreover, outside of our territorial waters, we have no
authority whatsoever to stop foreign vessels from fishing. And
God knows those vessels come from all over the world! Since we
cannot legislate on fish migration, all countries should agree to
legislate globally on fishery resource management, because the
fish stocks do not belong to one particular country. They do not
belong to Canada nor to Quebec. They belong to the sea. And the
sea, outside our territorial waters, belongs to everyone. This is
why it is so important to pay special attention to the amendments
we will put forward in the hope of seeing Canada and Quebec
show some leadership in bringing the countries together to
develop a better management strategy for this resource which
belongs to everyone.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. We
cannot at this point deal with problems outside the Canadian
jurisdiction.
I would like to make one point that I think is very important.
When Canada extended its boundaries to the 200 mile limit we
were able to take in all of the Grand Banks off the east coast of
Canada, particularly the east coast of Newfoundland, except for
two little parts which we call the nose and tail of the Grand
Banks.
However, because of the nature of the terrain of the Grand
Banks the fish conjugate on the Grand Banks. Once one goes
past the Grand Banks into deeper water it is a different situation
altogether.
(1740)
We would like to assure that when fish leave the major part of
the Grand Banks, which is in Canadian waters, and go to the nose
and tail of the Grand Banks, some of them will gradually come
back.
What is happening is that foreign vessels are on the nose and
tail outside Canadian waters in great numbers. Very few of the
fish that go out there are coming back. The fish that go out there
do not come back into Canadian waters. We feel we are losing a
great deal of our fisheries resource.
The member for Gaspé said that we should not tell other
countries what kind of fish they should catch. If France wants to
catch a small cod then it should be able to do that. However, it is
not that simple. The fact is that if one catches a small cod then
that cod does not grow up to be a big cod.
Where does one stop on small cod? If one can catch small cod
then why can one not catch all the small cod that go outside the
Canadian jurisdiction? It really is a very serious question. There
have to be rules and regulations on the catching of small and
juvenile fish.
We have to try to negotiate.
[Translation]
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is in Brussels right now,
negotiating with other countries to try to reach an agreement on
the section concerning the fisheries.
[English]
If the minister is not successful then he will be developing
other means of discussing this. He has stated to the House and to
the country that this is a very serious question and he wants to
find a resolution to it one way or the other. Negotiation is the
preference.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and the other members who
have engaged in this discussion.
The discussion has been certainly not totally one sided but I
sense a predisposition to move in favour of Bill C-8. I want to
speak on the bill generally and really amplify an aspect of this
which is of great interest to me personally and to the area of
Canada that I represent.
To begin with, I appreciate and understand the excellent point
that was made by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Justice, that this bill in no way precludes or tries
to restrict the use of force by a peace officer.
As I understand it, it is merely attempting to clarify the
position of peace officers following the judgment in the Ontario
Supreme Court decision which basically declared that the
current subsection of the relevant Criminal Code violated the
right to life in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is one thing for us to stand in this House and talk about this
subject. It is another thing to imagine oneself being on the scene
either as a peace officer or as the master of a vessel in a situation
that requires the person to do something for which very few rule
books are written.
I am not coming down on one side or the other but I want to
bring to members' attention and to remind the House that it is
very necessary and important to these people who are pursuing
their difficult duties in a time of crisis to have a framework in
which they can operate that not only provides protection in the
situation for them but as well for the other party involved. In the
case of the proposed legislation for a police officer, I have read it
very carefully and I understand this is a modernized version of
1334
the Criminal Code which dictates the clear national standard on
the use of force which is proportionate. I can assure members
that as a philosophy my byword is co-operation instead of
confrontation. However, when confrontation does occur then
use that force which is proportional to the force required to
achieve what it is one wants to achieve.
(1745)
I suppose it is the antithesis of trying to kill a flea with a
sledge hammer. One does not want to use too much force,
otherwise one really prostitutes that force. One makes use of
force that is not appropriate. In our society today with the crime
rates the way they are and with the sometimes apparent
disregard for our justice system, it is very important that these
measures be discussed in the highest court in the land, the House
of Commons.
This bill does allow the use of deadly force by a peace officer
or anybody lawfully assisting the officer. The situations are
clear. The first is when the suspect poses a threat of serious harm
or death and the suspect flees in order to escape arrest and when
no other less violent means exist to prevent escape. If a peace
office could chase a fleeing criminal and could wrestle him to
the ground with a football tackle or would be able to use some
other kind of appropriately lesser force than deadly force, then
the police officer or the person assisting the police officer would
be expected to do precisely that. This is the intent of the
legislation as it is amended and clarified.
The bill also does something else of personal and political
interest to me. It includes an amendment to the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act to provide the authority for masters of vessels
acting in their capacity to use disabling force against a fleeing
foreign fishing vessel in order to arrest the master or other
person in command of that vessel. My clarification right off the
bat is that this is for a foreign fishing vessel and it will not be
used against Canadian vessels.
I have heard three speakers talk about the necessity for
Canada, which is a great trading nation with the largest coastline
in the world to have some pretty clear legislation on how we go
about protecting the coast literal, or those resources that are
available to those Canadians who depend on the sea and the
coastline for their living.
The act has not been as clear perhaps as those of us who have
used it in the past and for those who would want to use it in the
future would like it to be. At the outset I want to say that this rule
applies in the case of a foreign fishing vessel that is to be
arrested. I will say peripherally that the requirement on the high
seas is not as clear as I have heard it discussed in the House.
International maritime law is not determined in the way that
civil or criminal law is. It is determined by precedent. Certainly
there are precedents for arresting foreign vessels on the high
seas.
I do not have the exact wording with me right now but I do
know that recently at a United Nations conference the right of a
literal country, or the country that has the coastline adjacent to
the high seas, was discussed. It has a right, a duty and a
responsibility on the high seas with respect to a straddling stock.
The recognition of a straddling stock would certainly apply to
the nose and tail of the Grand Banks as described by my hon.
colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice, and does apply in this case. It is not as cut and dried as
other members would have us believe. I do not want to get into a
debate concerning the nose and tail of the bank at this time but
clearly this could be a follow-up discussion at a later date.
(1750)
I want to discuss that aspect of the legislation which permits
the master of a vessel under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
the action that hopefully will be legislated. The legislation says
what can be done and when and under which circumstances it
can be done. The government will, at a later date, following the
passage of the bill, determine and put together regulations that
will decide how it can be done.
In the case of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the
amendment that is being proposed at second reading of this bill,
the protection officer is justified in using disabling force under
three circumstances. The first one is if the protection officer is
proceeding lawfully to arrest a vessel, including the person in
command of that vessel, if that circumstance also involves the
master or the other persons involved taking flight to avoid
arrest. Taking flight on the sea does not mean sprouting wings
and flying, it means cranking up the engine room to maximum
revolutions and trying to escape the chasing vessel. The third
condition is that the protection officer has reasonable grounds to
believe that force is necessary for the purpose of arresting the
master or other persons.
When I talk about the use of force among certain groups, they
immediately think that we are going to bring out all the
warships, mount a broadside and sink everything in sight. That
is anything but the intention. Force is not used that way. I talked
earlier about protecting force and to use only the minimum that
is necessary.
I recall in July 1985 when the Canadian navy arrested two
Spanish fishing vessels. We did not go around shooting them up
and Ramboing them, basically we used a loud speaker system
and said: ``You are under arrest and if you don't stop we are
going to have to consider escalatory measures''. Without going
into the details, the finale of the exercise was that the two
Spanish vessels had armed boarding parties put aboard them
from the warship involved, HMCS Athabaskan I believe it was.
These ships relented, succumbed to the arrest and were towed
back to a Canadian port. The masters were subsequently
1335
charged. This is an example where the use of force involved a
loud hailer, a few threatening manoeuvres I suppose is a good
way to put it, the stopping of the vessel and the sending across by
boat of two armed boarding parties.
All kinds of things are done to show force, but force that is
proportionate to get the vessel to stop and arrested and taken
back to port so it can be properly charged. I agree on the high
seas it is going to be much more difficult and I would not expect
people to go and do that tomorrow.
I want to tell the House that when this government was elected
on October 25, 103 vessels were on the nose and tail of the Grand
Banks, and 72 of them were fishing. Today there are 39 that are
engaged in any sort of credible fishing endeavour. There may be
70-odd, I did not get the count for the day. But the point I am
making-and please do not hold me to numbers-is that the
numbers have decreased significantly. That has, in my opinion
and in the opinion of others, been the direct result of the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Prime Minister making
it very clear that we do not intend to stand for foreign
overfishing, where foreign fishing vessels from other nations
plunder our stocks, either by using small mesh size, by
disregarding quotas, giving themselves great quotas, literally
vacuuming up the ocean of a stock that Newfoundlanders and
Atlantic Canadians and Quebecers cannot catch because of the
rules that we have imposed on ourselves, to say nothing of the
fact that there are no fish to catch anyway. If we have to stand on
guard quietly and watch our fish disappear under some rubric
that we are not really allowed to go outside the 200-mile limit,
this government is not going to stand for it.
(1755)
The rules we are discussing are intended to apply within our
jurisdiction. The parliamentary secretary has made that clear.
However, these are rules that can be developed. After all, in my
lifetime we have gone from a 3-mile territorial sea because that
was the range of a cannon-ball. We went out to 12 miles because
that was the range of high definition radar for an average size
vessel in an average sea state. We are now out to 200 miles
because that is where the resources are and we have technical
detection devices and aircraft that can tell us what is in the 200
miles. I do not expect to live the rest of my life with a 200-mile
limit. I have gone from 3 miles to 200 miles so I can assume, in
the interest of avant-garde international law, we may well go
beyond the 200-mile limit.
I want tell members how we can use this kind of force. We
have our ship at sea and we are involved with a foreign fishing
vessel that is fishing in an area where it is not supposed to be. We
are told that this vessel is to be arrested. The first thing we do is
make it clear to the vessel that it is under arrest. We go through
all kinds of pain. We hoist international codes. We use our radio,
flashing lights and, if we have speed advantage over that
particular vessel, we do circles around it. We basically stand on
our nautical head to do everything we can to make sure that
vessel understands it is under arrest.
If the vessel proceeds and ignores the order, we have to make
it clear to the vessel that we must now ratchet up our force.
Without going through all the measures, I suppose at some point
a shot would be fired in the general direction of the vessel and
eventually across the bow of the vessel. In an ultra necessary
step, where force is absolutely necessary and where hours and
hours have elapsed, at some point the captain of the arresting
vessel has to make it clear to the vessel on which force now has
to be used, a disabling force after hours of negotiation: ``We are
now going to disable your rudder so get your people out of the
stern of the vessel and we will give you an hour. Let me know
when they are out''. The captain may not hear from the vessel.
At some point we may have to fire a shot into the stern of the
vessel to disable it. It is terrible stuff but necessary, that force
which is necessary to disable the vessel to allow the arrest to be
carried out. Hopefully that should be enough under regular
circumstances to allow an armed party to be put aboard that
vessel, a tow to be put together and the vessel to be towed back
to a Canadian port where the master would be charged and duly
put through the process.
The importance of this legislation in allowing regulations to
be developed by the government, to make it more clear and to
buttress the determination of the government to take charge of
foreign overfishing I cannot reinforce enough. I believe it is safe
to say that this kind of legislation not only clarifies section 7 of
the charter and responds to the Ontario court ruling which made
some form of legislation necessary-and I am delighted to see it
is already in our mandate-but it makes the change to the
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act in such a manner that the rules
and the intent of the government to masters of vessels involved
in arresting foreign vessels that are overfishing are very clear,
unequivocal and concise.
(1800 )
I commend the Minister of Justice and his parliamentary
secretary for putting forward this legislation at such an early
date. I commend all members of the House because the
presentations I heard seem to indicate an understanding of the
intent of the regulation. I was delighted there were indications
on both sides of a good understanding of what was involved in
the necessity to improve the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
Certainly I saw a general predisposition on the part of all
members to move forward with second reading to get the bill
into committee so that we could have a good look at it there.
1336
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the House for the
attention accorded me.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might seek
unanimous consent of the House at this stage to revert to
presentation of reports by committees. I have a very brief report
from the procedure and House affairs committee that I would
like to present to the House and have it concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the suggestion of
the member. Is there unanimous consent to revert to the earlier
period?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
1336
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The Committee recommends that the name of Mr. Hopkins be
substituted for the name of Mr. Gagliano on the list of members
of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. That
completes the report and I will move for its concurrence in a few
minutes.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I move that the fifth report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the
House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
1336
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his speech which I found to be quite
entertaining. At one point he was talking about following the
offending vessel for hours and hours. I had the vision of being a
third of the way across the Atlantic before the negotiations were
finally over and we were going to get tough on this vessel that
had broken the rules. Then I had the vision in which we said to
the people: ``Everybody out of the stern because we are going to
shoot you in the rudder''.
I wondered what happens if the ship turns the other way? Do
we then tell them: ``We are going to shoot you in the bow so
everybody run to the stern?'' What if the people on board do not
obey the rules that we ask them to obey? Does the member really
think he is making practical suggestions?
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I could be flippant and say yes, I
do; otherwise I would not have said that. I give the hon. member
the dignity of a reply. I think he is trying to be funny as well. I
want to tell him that deadly force is defined as a force that is
intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
I do not know the background of the hon. member. I would
suspect it is as colourful as he would indicate. However, I am
sure he would understand that basically at any time or at any
place, humanity being what it is, most reasonable people would
try to avoid the use of deadly force of one organization or one
person against the other, particularly in the unwritten law of the
sea, the unwritten law of mariners. It is the same law that
basically requires a ship to go to the distress of another ship lost
at sea or has lost a man overboard or something of that nature.
We have seen many examples in recent days where this has
happened.
(1805)
Certainly as a mariner in my previous incarnation the use of
force would be avoided as much as possible. One would not want
to use deadly force. One may want to and have to harm a ship.
One may want to destroy a rudder or the main engine of a vessel
at sea, but the last thing in the world one would want to do is to
be put in a position as a fisheries protection officer or the master
of a vessel so engaged that would be to cause bodily harm.
I am not sure what the hon. member meant when he said
moving people from the stern to the forecastle or the forecastle
back to the stern. The name of the game would be basically to
vacate that area to which we would cause damage so that there
would not be bodily harm to any people involved. Clearly that
was the intent of that.
With respect to carrying on for hours and hours I merely use
that as an indication to try to convey to the House the situation
that one would do almost anything to avoid this. One would
make sure that the language was understood. One would make
sure that the captain of the vessel understood it. Whether the
time was as he said across the ocean, certainly that was not
intended. It could take anywhere from one hour to ten hours and
the vessel could be dead in the water while all this is going on.
The technical aspects of that were purely intended as an
illusory manner to indicate the difficulty one has in actually
using deadly force at sea.
1337
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): I would like to add a brief
comment to what was said by the two previous speakers. Since I
am not a lawyer, I have to admit that the parliamentary
secretary's remarks helped me understand a little better the
amendments proposed by the government.
I also appreciate the fact that the government has taken note of
the amendment I tried to propose today. I hope it will consider
our position that the use of excessive force does not seem
appropriate for the type of offense that could be committed by
illegal fishermen.
I am a bit concerned about the remarks of the last speaker who
talked about the impact of overfishing outside the 200 mile
limit, on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. It scares me a
little because I had said in my speech this morning that I wanted
to be sure that the government would not use this legislation to
lay the blame for the collapse of the Canadian fishing industry
on foreign countries.
I said it in my speech and I will repeat it, Canadians must
examine their own fishing habits, they have to recognize the fact
that they are part of the problem. As I mentioned this morning, I
would like to remind hon. members that according to NAFO, the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, and its member
states, including Canada as well as France, Denmark and the
USSR, only 3 to 5 per cent of the Canadian biomass, of the
Northern cod, flows through the nose and tail of the Grand
Banks, that is through international waters.
In this regard, I would like to be sure that we will not provoke
foreigners because we have a difference of opinion with them,
and that is what I fear. The last time someone believed he was
right, he triggered off a series of actions he might have regretted
afterwards. This example might be far-fetched, but this is to tell
you how much I fear that we will attack foreigners because we
believe we are right. I am, of course, referring to Saddam
Hussein. When he indicated that he wanted to enter into Kuwait
to do what he did, I did not agree, but he had a belief.
I would not like us to take reprisals against foreigners because
we thought we were right. We can get our message across
without resorting to that kind of force. I understand from the
remarks made by the parliamentary secretary that we are going
in the right direction.
[English]
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point the hon.
member has made. I am a little worried about the comparison
that he made. I presume it was for the purpose of illustration. I
appreciate the point he is making. I am not going to try to make
any political hay out of it.
(1810)
I would say in all seriousness that if there is a point we reach
as a nation at which the livelihood of a large section of the nation
is decimated by action over which we have control, I would
certainly not have respect for a nation that would allow its
people to be plundered and to take no action other than to give
speeches at diplomatic tables. I for one do not intend to stand for
that and neither does my government.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I will give a short answer.
If ever there is an escalation in the use of force in this
matter-and that is not how I understood the parliamentary
secretary's remarks-I hope that at that time we can investigate
or hold an emergency debate if required. But I would really like
to hear Canadian biologists come and tell us what the actual
impact of the so-called overfishing is. Certain candidates have
based their electoral campaign on this, but I have never heard a
biologist prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
[English]
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I tell the hon. member that we have
had three emergency debates in the House on the subject. He
would be aware that before any such action was contemplated
there would be yet a further review of what all the biologists
have told us already.
As a member from an area that is interested in and very
concerned about the same issue I am sure he too is following the
activities of such organizations as the Fisheries Resource
Conservation Council. It has been fairly clear in the advice it has
given to the department, the government and other organizations
so constructed and so intentioned.
The point the hon. member is making is a valid one that I am
sure would be taken into consideration. This is not an
irresponsible government but a government concerned about its
people.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The period provided for questions and
comments has now expired.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
1338
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The late show will have to wait for 10
or 15 minutes, until 6.30 p.m. Is there unanimous consent to
suspend the House until 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.12 p.m.)
The House resumed at 6.30 p.m.
_____________________________________________
1338
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, in the recent speech from the throne the new Liberal
government promised to restore the court challenges program
which had been cancelled by the previous Conservative
government in 1992.
The court challenges program was originally established by
the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau in 1978 and it was
expanded in 1982. Its purpose was to assure that Canadians
could enforce their constitutional rights before the courts.
In 1981 we established a Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms which guaranteed certain basic rights to all
Canadians, rights such as fundamental freedoms, equality
rights, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights and
language rights.
It is one thing to have these rights guaranteed in the
Constitution, but it is another thing to enforce these rights in
court, especially against big government or big business. One
needs the funds to hire lawyers over a long period of time, very
often in appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Without the
funds to enforce your rights in court, these rights become
meaningless. That is why a Liberal government established the
court challenges program: to provide funds to individuals and
groups who had important constitutional rights to enforce,
especially where a precedent was involved.
During the life of the program the most important cases dealt
with language rights and equality rights. In my constituency in
particular there is great concern over the erosion of language
rights. On several occasions there were important court actions
taken against Quebec Bills 101 and 178 which were successful
in knocking out repressive sections of those laws. There were
similar actions in other provinces by francophones. The battle
has not ended. There are still sections of those and other laws
which must be challenged and citizens need help from the
government to do that.
I would like to know today when the government will bring
back the court challenges program as promised in the speech
from the throne. I want a clear commitment that it will cover
court challenges to legislation which restricts or rescinds
language rights.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): On behalf of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage I am pleased to have the opportunity to
clarify the scope of the court challenges program for my
colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
As the hon. member mentioned, this government initially
indicated its intention to reinstate the court challenges program
in the red book and recently reinforced the commitment in the
speech from the throne.
(1835 )
In fact the government is committed to not only the
reinstatement but also the expansion of the court challenges
program. In addition to language and equality rights the new
program will fund test cases of national significance involving
challenges to fundamental freedoms as outlined under section 2
of the charter.
[Translation]
I am pleased to reassure my colleague that the reinstated
program will continue to support national test cases concerning
federal and provincial statutes that come under sections 93 and
133 of the Constitutional Act of 1867, section 23 of the
Manitoba Act, 1870, and sections 16 to 23 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The program will also financially support challenges to
federal statutes, practices and policies under sections 15 and 38
of the Charter or when an argument based on section 27 of the
Charter confirms arguments based on section 15.
[English]
The minister hopes to have the new program operational early
in the new fiscal year as he indicated to my colleague
previously. As a result of the broad range of interests,
experience and expertise that will be taken into account by the
government, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is confident the
program will be implemented as quickly as possible in a manner
accountable to the government and the people of Canada.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
continue with some comments and questions I raised in the
House a couple of weeks ago having to do with small business in
Canada.
We know that in 1993 small business bankruptcies reaped a
heavy toll on the Canadian economy. Nonetheless, of one
million businesses registered in Canada 97 per cent have 50
1339
employees or less, employing 40 per cent of the Canadian
workforce. Of those, 35 per cent are located in western Canada.
Certainly for my constituents in Provencher small business is
an important aspect of the local economy.
In 1990 despite the difficult operating environment of small
business, small firms with less than 20 employees filled the
employment gap left by large businesses as they restructured or
closed. In fact, smaller expanding and newly established firms
accounted for virtually all of the net job creation during the
recession of 1990.
One of the principal obstacles to the growth of small business
in Canada has been what is described as the credit crunch.
Expansion into new global markets by utilizing new technology
and advanced equipment occurs all too infrequently in Canada
particularly in western Canada. Yet outside of its leading role in
job creation and economic growth the significant contribution
of small business to the economy is its ability to be
self-financing.
Long term debt of small business accounts for 25 per cent of
business financing with government grants and loans less than
one-third of 1 per cent. The credit applications of micro
businesses or those with even a smaller number of employees,
20 or less, I regret to report are rejected very frequently.
However we know that in 1993 in particular most of the job
growth occurred in this area.
Outside of that obstacle one of the other things we face is the
difficulty in providing the human resource capabilities and
capacities to staff those young and emerging new firms which
create jobs in Canada. We know that in Japan 96 per cent of the
students graduate from grade 12 with at least one year of
calculus while comparatively in Canada 30 per cent of our
young people do not even finish high school. We are told by
Statistics Canada that 36 per cent of our people have difficulty
even with basic numerical and reading material.
As employers in Canada not only is there a credit crunch and a
deficit in terms of financing for small business but the young
people and the human resources we need to staff those firms are
lacking as well. I think we can compete successfully in Canada.
We have the capabilities, the human resources and the
infrastructure resources. I point particularly to my riding of
Provencher and Atomic Energy of Canada that has been
successful in applying its scientific research applications into
world markets and really is second to none in the world.
(1840)
My question, and I want to continue on this theme, is what is
the government prepared to do to work with the Canadian banks
in Canada to ensure that small business and people who are
putting their lives, their resources, their homes and what they
have on the line to run these small business, have access to
capital and to increase the training in Canada for young people
and in western Canada in particular?
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for an excellent question.
Let me just say, as the hon. member said, that small
businesses create 85 per cent of the new employment in Canada.
If the government can create the right environment, small
business will take the lead in promoting more stable economic
growth in western Canada.
In the past too much reliance has been placed on using public
funds to attract large corporations. This has encouraged a
culture of granterpreneurship when we want to encourage
entrepreneurship. We need to encourage co-operation among
jurisdictions rather than competition.
In a period of fiscal restraint, the government must work more
effectively with the limited dollars available. This can be done
by relying on the entrepreneurial talent of westerners and by
working on the entrepreneurial talent and strategic partnerships
with provincial governments and the private sector.
To encourage small business that generate new jobs, the
Minister of Western Economic Diversification directed on
November 26 that the western diversification program focus its
repayable assistance on independent small businesses, usually
with less than 50 employees.
Projects are now being assessed on the basis of their
contribution to the strategic diversification of the western
Canadian economy.
To create the right climate for business, governments must
work co-operatively and pool their efforts in implementing
strategic economic initiatives. By working together and not
duplicating efforts, we can save tax dollars and create new jobs.
A recent report by the Calgary based Canada West Foundation
estimated that the removal of interprovincial barriers could
result in the creation of 28,000 new jobs across the four western
provinces.
As well, economic and administrative co-operation-I know
my time is up, Mr. Speaker, but let me just conclude that there
are a number of areas-
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. It was an
excellent conclusion.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
pleasure to talk about this issue again under Standing Order
37(3) regarding Sunshine Development in Banff National Park.
Calling a FEARO panel to assess development of the Goat's
Eye ski run in the government approved leaseholding area of
1340
Sunshine Village Corporation costing a loss of hope for jobless
Albertans is a waste of taxpayers' dollars. Every step necessary
for discovering the environmental impact of Goat's Eye ski run
has already been studied and restudied since 1978. This project
received environmental assessment review panel approval.
The formal notice of the Goat's Eye screening decision sent to
Sunshine stated:
Environmental impacts predicted to result from the proposed development of
Goat's Eye for skiing at Sunshine are either insignificant or mitigable with known
technology as defined in section 12(c) for environmental assessment and review
process guideline order 1984.
The minister should be aware that section 12(c) means the proposal may
proceed or proceed with mitigation with no referral for panel review and under
section 12(c) there is no need for a FEARO panel.
The hon. minister stated that Goat's Eye was virgin territory.
How can that be when this is one of the five areas in our national
parks the government has allowed access for public skiing
recreation?
The hon. minister stated that Goat's Eye deserves an
environmental assessment. May I suggest that she review the
history of the project. She will find that an environmental
impact assessment was completed by Gail Harrison, Canadian
Parks Service, western region. Ms. Harrison found no evidence
why this development should not be allowed to proceed. A
regional screening committee concluded this development has
minimal impact or mitigable impact consistent with EARP
requirements in section 12(c).
A three day conference including environmental
non-government organizations studied the long range plan and
initial agreement on the plan including the parking lot and the
study was presented to the Minister of the Environment.
In terms of the parking lot Bruce F. Leeson, chief,
Environmental Assessment Sciences Division, Canadian Park
Services, western region stated the parking lot could be
developed without extraordinary environmental and
engineering difficulties. We have successful experience with
this kind of project.
In July 1992 Canadian Park Services stated the project was
mitigable under EARP guidelines order. A preliminary
screening indicated the long range plan was doable within
environmental constraints. In August 1992 the Minister of the
Environment approved the project.
Sunshine held an open house for the public to scrutinize the
development. A majority of those present agreed with the
proposal. The Federal Court in Vancouver upheld Sunshine's
legal right to proceed with this development against special
interest groups' intervention.
Did special interest groups pressure government to change the
legal procedure and rules Sunshine followed with success? Will
special interests again overrule the legal process and have the
government order a FEARO panel for every project special
interests do not agree with?
When will this government follow the wishes of the majority
of Canadians?
May I remind the minister that two out of three notices
received when the government called for the redundant public
notice favoured completion of Goat's Eye. May I again remind
the minister that a redundant FEARO review wastes taxpayers'
dollars and prevents unemployed Albertans from having jobs on
construction which could get going immediately. Then there
would be ongoing operations that would create long term jobs
which fits right down the alley of the red book.
Why would this minister continue to put a stop to this
particular item? Calling a FEARO panel on this issue is a
contradiction of 12(c) of the guidelines the minister states the
government wants to uphold.
[Translation]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, I am pleased to give additional
information concerning the question of the hon. member for
Wild Rose on the development of Sunshine Village.
[English]
As the guardian of our national parks and historic sites system
Canadian Heritage is committed to the continued protection of
our national heritage. Protection of heritage resources is
fundamental to their continued use and enjoyment by present
and future generations. As Canadians we must do all we can to
ensure that any development within a national park is respectful
of our natural heritage.
The Sunshine lease covers 918 hectares of federal crown land
in Banff National Park. Parts of the ski area are located in a
highly environmentally sensitive alpine meadow.
Following public review of the application for the Goat's Eye
permit phase II we have found that there is significant concern
about the impact of the Goat's Eye project on the environment
and that the Goat's Eye development and the 1992 plan are
indeed closely related. As a consequence the Minister of
Canadian Heritage referred both development proposals to the
Minister of the Environment to establish an environmental
review panel.
The review of Sunshine's proposal is following the legislated
environmental assessment and review process. There are legal
requirements to respond to scientific deficiencies and public
concern with the present proposal.
1341
Environmental assessment has been key to the development
that has already occurred at the ski hill. In fact much of the data
collected earlier can be used in the current evaluation. We will
continue to be mindful of our responsibilities as managers of
Canada's precious natural treasures.
The Deputy Speaker: No one is here to speak on the final
item so we will adjourn.
Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5) the motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to be adopted. The House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)