CONTENTS
Friday, October 6, 1995
Bill C-64. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 15329
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 15336
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 15338
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 15339
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 15339
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15340
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15340
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15341
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15341
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15341
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15342
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 15342
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15342
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 15343
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15343
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15343
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15343
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15343
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15344
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 15345
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 15345
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 15345
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15345
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 15345
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15345
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15347
Bill C-106. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 15348
Motion for concurrence in 89th report 15349
(Motion agreed to.) 15349
Bill C-64. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 15349
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 15352
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 15354
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 15355
Bill C-242. Motion for second reading 15360
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 15366
15329
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 6, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 5 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, be read the
third time and passed.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing that
makes me most proud about being a parliamentarian is the
opportunity to be a part of the passage of legislation like Bill C-64.
When each one of us makes the decision to run for public office
it is because we have certain agendas, certain policies we want to
put forward. Seven years ago next week, when I was first
nominated to run for public office, I had an agenda and I still do.
That agenda has a great deal to do with human rights. It has a great
deal to do with regional disparity. It has a great deal to do with
feminism and it has a great deal to do with fairness. Bill C-64 is a
piece of legislation that certainly fits into my agenda. It fits into
one of the reasons that although I was born into the great Liberal
Party I chose it again as a student in university and later when I
decided to run.
There are frequently misunderstandings about the expression
employment equity. For example, there are people who confuse
employment equity and affirmative action. Employment equity and
affirmative action, while complementary, are not the same.
I used an analogy when I spoke at report stage and I will do it
again because it bears repeating. At report stage I talked about the
fact that we could use a medical metaphor. Employment equity is
preventive. It is a preventive measure. It ensures that we do the
right thing from the beginning. Affirmative action is curative. I
might add, for those people who through misunderstanding find
affirmative action repugnant, that affirmative action is enshrined in
the charter of rights and freedoms and as such is something
Canadians have taken to most strongly, not just Canadians of this
political stripe but the majority of Canadians.
Affirmative action would not be necessary if employment equity
were the rule rather than the exception.
(1005)
A couple of phrases and a couple of taglines have arisen
throughout the debate that need to be dealt with. The one I have to
talk about is the usage of two words together in the English
language whenever we talk about employment equity. Those two
words are competent and woman. When I hear my colleagues say a
competent woman should be allowed, another word I truly love, to
advance as far as anyone else, I sit here in vacant and in pensive
mood and wonder why we never use those words together about
competent men.
Why are we always so afraid that some woman might slip
through and might not be competent? With the greatest of
respect-and I have already said on several occasions in this debate
how fond of men I am in general-there are some incompetent
men. We have seen them and they have not suffered in the
employment equity wars as have perhaps legions of competent
women.
The hissy fit I just had was a little patronizing. I did it
deliberately. We can argue the merits of employment equity.
Certainly these expressions irritate a number of women on this side
of the House-and I look at my colleagues from Oakville-Milton,
Windsor-St. Clair and Etobicoke-Lakeshore-as much as they
irritate me. Perhaps it is not as much as they irritate me but they
certainly are irritating. Perhaps I have become more irritable in
these discussions. It may be because I have been having these
discussions in the Chamber longer than my three aforementioned
colleagues.
Whether we are patronizing, whether women or men are
competent or incompetent, whether there is a feminist agenda,
whether there is a Liberal agenda-and of course there is a Liberal
agenda called the red book-it is important that the bill continues
the legacy of fairness. It must continue the legacy of sound social
policies which have made this country the envy of the world, which
have made this country the country rated number one in the United
Nations survey. Everybody here knows that in their hearts, in their
minds and in all their lives. It has been a great blessing for all of us
either to choose to come here or to have been born here.
15330
We enjoy longer life expectancy, higher educational levels and
a greater real income than anyone else in the world. This is an
outstanding record of which anyone in Canada can and should be
proud. However, it is based on a history of fair legislation, human
rights legislation and employment equity legislation.
It began back in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It followed
through with Mackenzie King, to Louis St. Laurent, to Lester
Pearson, to Pierre Trudeau and now to the current Prime Minister.
It is a legacy we in the Liberal Party are justly proud of and it is one
that we will continue to further.
It would be dangerous, however, to sit back, to rest on our laurels
and say that because of this history Canada is somehow a perfect
place. It is not a perfect place. It is not a perfect place if one
belongs to a visible minority. It is not a perfect place if one is a
woman. It is not a perfect place if one has a disability. It is not a
perfect place if one falls under any of the prohibited heads in the
charter of rights and freedoms. We know that discrimination is still
a fact of life; every one of us knows it. The whole reason for
discrimination is fear of the unknown, fear of people unlike us, fear
that somehow people who are unlike us will take something away
from us or away from our children. However there is a Canadian
tradition that rises above fear.
(1010)
We are only now emerging from one of the worst recessionary
periods in our history. Most of us in the House of Commons belong
to that amorphous mass known as the post-war baby boom. This
recession was the first real attack on our very privileged lives.
Many of us were lucky enough to weather it without huge injury
but many of us were not.
I stood in the House on many occasions in opposition and talked
about the cost in human terms of the recession. I talked about the
rate of bankruptcies, the small business losses. I talked about the
number of young people, both men and women, who were not
getting jobs and did not have any hope.
We are recovering. We know it and we see it. It is not coming
perhaps as fast as we would like but it is coming. Consequently,
because Canada is coming back to its accustomed prosperity, the
time has come for legislation like Bill C-64 to shore up our
employment equity promises and to ensure that all Canadians have
fair opportunity.
There are times when it is important to deal with questions of
gender equality with a relatively light touch. Members of the
female gender remind male colleagues that life is better from
womb to tomb for the Lords of creation.
I said in the House the other day that in spite of the fears of some
of our colleagues in opposition, white males get 50 per cent of
federal government jobs. They get 60 per cent of the jobs
nationally in both the private and public sector combined. Even
more overwhelming, white males get 90 per cent of the
promotions. With figures like that I believe it would be safe to say,
and I do not think anyone would argue with me, probably the white
male is not exactly an endangered species in the economic climate.
An hon. member: It is if we keep drinking the water.
Ms. Clancy: That may well be. I have spoken frequently to the
hon. member for Edmonton Northwest about the amount of water
he consumes in the House of Commons. I will not make any
comments about the amount of air he deals with or the temperature.
However there are people in the country who suffer because the
federal employment equity act does not have teeth until we pass
this amendment. It cannot really be enforced. Bill C-64 brings in
needed enforcement measures.
I talked about the fact that in opposition I was the vice-chair of
the committee to review the employment equity legislation. We
heard witnesses from all over the country. I remember in particular
a group from the province of Saskatchewan that fell under federal
jurisdiction and had taken to heart most seriously the whole
question of employment equity.
(1015 )
These people very proudly showed us that their employee roster
reflected the demographics where they lived and effectively the
national demographics. There was probably a higher demographic
percentage of aboriginal people because it was the province of
Saskatchewan, but on a gender basis, disabled basis and so on, the
demographics were extremely reflective of the society where they
did their business. They also showed us the excellent quality of
their labour relations and profit margins.
I do not understand what it is people fear from legislation that is
clearly put on the books to ensure fairness for people who for
generations, for thousands of years since the dawn of time have
been systemically discriminated against because they are female,
they are black, they are aboriginal, they are disabled, or for
whatever reason under the blanket condemnation of discrimination
enshrined in the charter of rights and freedoms. Why do people fear
legislation that promotes fairness?
Why do people fear something which says if there are two
equally qualified people and one of them comes from a
disadvantaged group that it is time to give the benefit to the
member of the disadvantaged group? Why is that a frightening
thing? Is it because there is a lack of confidence in their own ability
to succeed? Is it because there is that fear of the unknown which I
spoke of earlier, the fear that someone with a different skin colour,
or a female of the species, or someone who needs extra help
because of a disability will surpass you and show you that in spite
of the perceived disability or the perceived discrimination that
person is possibly a finer or a more productive person than you are?
That kind of
15331
response is unworthy of Canadians. It is unworthy of a society that
is held up as an example to the world.
All of us have unworthy thoughts. All of us have fears. We all
have great trepidations about what the future will hold, not just for
ourselves but for our children and for the generations to come. All
of us here in the House have a particular responsibility which is to
somehow get over those fears and to deal with those fears. We have
to look at the larger picture of Canadian life and do our very best to
legislate in a way that will benefit the largest number of Canadians.
I said at the beginning that all of us came here with an agenda,
with things we wanted to see accomplished. I said that one of the
things I wanted to see accomplished as a member of Parliament
was a furtherance of human rights and fairness. Bill C-64 again is
one of the reasons I am proud to be a member of Parliament. I
support this bill and I will be delighted to see it pass.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the official
opposition has given its support to this most praiseworthy bill. We
have been listening to the comments of the third party since
yesterday, and I do appreciate what the members across the floor
have had to say, something the opposition can rarely state.
I would, however, like to ask the hon. member the following
question. Eloquent words are good, very eloquent words even
better, but better still are not words but concrete actions and
accomplishments.
(1020)
Let me give the example of the wage inequity that exists at this
time for women in the federal public service. It has been evaluated
at 72 per cent. How can that be remedied when Treasury Board has
undertaken to cut 45,000 positions?
How will the legislation be implemented so that, in the public
service for example, there can be a move beyond mere words to
concrete actions toward restoring the balance?
[English]
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. However, he may be confusing his apples with his
oranges.
The member first talked about the fact that 72 per cent of the
Public Service of Canada is female. That is true, but in talking
about the public service-and I do this in spite of my great respect
and affection for the President of the Treasury Board-we still
have a way to go in ensuring that women reach higher echelons in
the public service. They must be able to break through glass
ceilings. The federal government has a responsibility to be an
example to the private sector.
I believe that with the passage of Bill C-64 and the other projects
and policies of the government we will see the federal government
continuing its role as an example to the rest of the country. One of
the ways it has to be an example to the rest of the country is to put
its financial house in order.
I am not exactly sure where the hon. member's riding is in the
province of Quebec but I can tell him that I represent the third
largest public service town in Canada. The largest is of course
Ottawa. The second largest is Montreal. Halifax is the third largest.
I have shared with the hon. members for Dartmouth and Halifax
West in excess of 30,000 employees of the federal government.
With the greatest of respect to the hon. member, I do not need
anyone to tell me about the problems and concerns of public
servants.
With the downsizing which we all know has to be done the
public servants in Halifax who are going are taking retirement
packages and are finding that the federal government is dealing
with them in a fair and open way. This project is moving along at an
even faster rate than a number of people had thought. Thus far I
have received little or no complaints from my constituents who, I
can assure the hon. member, are extremely vociferous and quick to
get in touch with me if there is something they are unhappy about
or something they feel is not going their way.
If the hon. member is worried about public servants, perhaps he
would like to come to Halifax. They would tell him that they are
not quite so badly off as he might think.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the dissertation by the member
opposite representing Halifax, the bastion of public service in
Canada.
I remind the member opposite that Canada is not a perfect place
for the people she listed in her dissertation, all of the groups that
were designated. It is not a perfect place for men either. The world
is not a perfect place.
In my experience the drive to perfection is better achieved
through education rather than legislation. We cannot legislate
tolerance; we can educate tolerance. We cannot legislate wisdom;
we can educate wisdom. There are some things the government just
plain cannot do. I leave this aside and recognize that this legislation
will pass.
Why, if this legislation is so good and so necessary for the public
at large, are there two sets of rules? Why do we ask Canadians to do
one thing while we do another? Why do we ask Canadians to do
with less when we are prepared to accept our pensions the way they
are? If this legislation is so good, why does it not extend to the
House of Commons?
15332
(1025 )
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, there were several questions and I will
be delighted to deal with each one.
First and foremost, I have to disagree with my hon. friend from
Edmonton Southwest, one of my favourite members of the third
party. On the question of education for tolerance as opposed to
legislation, the point is that we have to do both. I think my hon.
friend from Edmonton knows that.
Sometimes we do have to legislate. That is why we have human
rights acts with which I am sure my hon. friend would not disagree.
That is why western democracies have frequently had to drag
portions of their populations kicking and screaming into the latter
part of the 20th century. Sadly but truly, part of that is in the area of
human rights law in all its ramifications. If we have to do that, we
have to do that.
On the question of pensions, I do not think we are debating
pensions, but yes, I opted into the pension. I am proud to do so and
I will continue to be proud to do so because, in the words of that
Clairol commercial, I am worth it.
With regard to the question of why the employment equity
legislation does not relate to the House of Commons, there is an
option for the House of Commons. I too agree with the hon.
member but with legislation, one of the things I have learned in my
seven years here is that sometimes we must crawl before we walk.
This is a great step forward from the old act. The improvements
and amendments will keep on coming in all areas of policy while
the Liberal government, our Prime Minister and the cabinet make
the policy for Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as my colleague from Lévis has already said we support
Bill C-64, on which I believe we have worked very hard in
committee. We heard a number of witnesses and tried in good faith
to improve the bill.
It is worthwhile keeping in mind, I think, that the bill before us
on employment equity goes back as a concept to 1983 and the
Abella commission. The Abella commission provided us with a
very clear understanding of the fact that, while individual
discrimination still exists, often in the form of prejudice or
negative attitudes toward certain social phenomena within our
society, a more systemic discrimination still exists as well, related
to the system and to certain practices, rules and usages which are
still sanctioned and upon which it is not easy, as an individual, to
make any impact to bring about change.
What Bill C-64 asks of us is to ensure that the composition of the
labour market reflects the composition of the Canadian population.
I do not see anything in such an objective that is unreasonable or
beyond our grasp as a society.
When it comes to systemic discrimination, discrimination within
the system, which is most certainly the hardest to get rid of, four
categories of individuals have the most difficulty claiming their
rightful place in the work force. First and foremost in the four
groups listed in the bill are women, and we shall come back to this,
since they make up more than half of the Canadian population and
still lag considerably behind in the workforce, particularly where
wage policies are concerned, as the member for Lévis mentioned.
(1030)
The second group is visible minorities. They say we live in an
increasingly cosmopolitan society. This implies there are more and
more people who do not belong to the majority, who are not white,
and these people also have specific problems such as getting
promoted and getting a job with managerial responsibilities in the
workplace.
And of course we have persons with disabilities. This has
become a fact of life. Our society can expect to have an increasing
number of people who are functionally challenged. There is
certainly a connection with the increase in people's life expectancy,
especially among women who seem to have a philosophy of life
and a knack for taking care of themselves from which men would
have a lot to learn.
The last group covered by this bill is aboriginal peoples.
Aboriginal peoples represent approximately 4 per cent of the
Canadian population but have managed to occupy only 1 per cent
of the jobs available.
In federally-regulated companies with more than 100 employees
and throughout the public service-more on that later-we are
being asked to find ways to ensure better representation of these
four groups in the labour market.
We asked ourselves two questions when considering this bill.
First, whether other groups or individuals in our society suffered
systemic discrimination.
It was pointed out that older workers may have been
discriminated against, since it is not easy when you are laid off and
lose your job, and you are 40, 50 or 55 years old, to find a job
somewhere else. I think we can safely say there is some hidden
discrimination against this group.
The question also arose whether in our society young people, the
under thirties, also have that problem. We tried to get some
statistics to have a better picture of the problems facing these
people. We concluded on the basis of the information we had in
committee that there was no specific indication that young people
and older workers had suffered systemic discrimination during the
past few years.
15333
Under the employment equity bill, it is also possible to invoke
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter is a
mixture of the best and the worst. The best being, of course, the
will to ensure that every citizen, irrespective of his income,
origins, or profession, has certain rights. I would say the worst
part is the provision which attempts rather awkwardly, without
reflecting much concern for the interests of Quebec, to support
multiculturalism. But that is another issue. In any case, section
15(2) of the charter allows for specific measures aimed at the same
designated groups we find in Bill C-64.
Why do I mention this? Because very often there is an
assumption that employment equity legislation, and this includes
federal as well as provincial legislation, may not be compatible
with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Upon closer
scrutiny that is clearly not the case, and as I said before, section
15(2) of the charter allows for measures to deal specifically with
designated groups.
The overall picture, before we get into the details, is the
following. There seems to be a pretty standard profile of economic
discrimination on the labour market against women, persons with
disabilities, aboriginal peoples and visible minorities, and the
situation is not improving. I would say there are four
characteristics that are a constant in access to employment for the
four designated groups.
(1035)
Generally speaking, the unemployment rate is higher for women,
aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities and persons with
disabilities. The level of unemployment of people in these groups
is often higher than the national average, despite the fact that we
have had employment equity legislation since 1986. This is the first
characteristic of a general economic profile.
Also, generally speaking, we can say that these people are in
poorer paying jobs, that is, again as compared with the national
average.
When we look at the employment profile and the type of jobs
these people hold, we realize that they often occupy lower level
positions, not executive or management ones. For certain groups,
and I am thinking particularly of women and aboriginal peoples-I
was very surprised to learn-the lower level positions are often
clerical jobs, junior positions. Here again, nothing has changed
since 1986.
The final characteristic of this general profile is that the people
in the four designated groups are employed in jobs with low growth
potential. This means that, in the course of the changes the job
market will undergo in the next few years, these are the jobs that
will be threatened, because of their low level of specialization.
I think it important to keep this profile in mind, because, once we
realize the situation, it is impossible to rise, like some of our
Reform colleagues have done, and state that everyone is equal in
the labour market. It is not true that everyone is equal, and it is not
true that everyone has an equal opportunity to occupy the same
jobs.
But that does not mean that progress has not been made. I think
we would be misinformed as parliamentarians if we did not
acknowledge what has been achieved since 1986.
I would like to outline for you the percentage of jobs held by
each of the designated groups in relation to the jobs held by the
population as a whole.
Let us take members of visible minorities, for example. We are
told that, as of the last census, they represented 9.4 per cent of the
population. In 1987, one year after the Employment Equity Act
came into effect, they occupied 5 per cent of the jobs in the labour
market. Between 1987 and 1993, with the legislation still in effect,
progress was made, because members of visible minorities now
represented 8.9 per cent of the labour force.
Obviously, 8.9 per cent is lower than the absolute proportion of
the population they represent, which is 9.4 per cent.
Women, of whom the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration spoke so eloquently, represent 52 per
cent of the population of Canada. As we know, this is a widespread
phenomenon, there is no hiding it. Just think, in 1987, they
occupied 40 per cent of the jobs available on the labour market in
Canada. By 1993, things had improved and women held 45 per cent
of available jobs.
Nevertheless, when we analyze the figures a bit,-and this is
where we realize it-we see the need for employment equity
legislation. I wonder, in the case of the pages, whether we have
achieved a balance between men and women. I would guess from
what I have seen that, in this session, the women outnumber the
men. But we will get hold of the statistics on this.
The aboriginal peoples represent 4 per cent of the Canadian
population. In this case, things are really dramatic. In the case of
the aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities, progress has
been particularly pitiful and there is the greatest cause for concern
for us as lawmakers.
The aboriginal peoples represent 4 per cent of the Canadian
population. In 1987-hold on tight, Mr. Speaker, you are in for a
shock-they held .66 per cent, that is, not even 1 per cent, of jobs
on the labour market. In 1993, they occupied 1.4 per cent of the
jobs.
(1040)
This is a recovery. There is a pressing need to change course.
Handicapped people, who represent 15 per cent of the Canadian
population, were holding 1.59 per cent of jobs in the work place in
15334
1987 and 2.56 per cent in 1993. Even today in 1995, we see
discrimination, a gap, an imbalance between the importance of
some designated categories and their place in the labour market.
This is what Bill C-64 is designed to correct, and I do not
understand how a member of Parliament, a representative of the
people cannot subscribe to these principles.
One thing surprised me throughout our numerous committee
hearings. Of course, I do not deny that there is a cost and some
paperwork attached to employment equity, but I was pleasantly
surprised to note that what employers came to tell us is that an
employment equity strategy is now part of a sound staff
management policy.
Removing employment barriers against certain people is in
everyone's interest. In a context where businesses are asked to be
good corporate citizens, to maintain close links with their
communities, striking just the right balance between a business and
its environment is in everyone's interest. This is a provision of Bill
C-64 on employment equity.
Unlike in the first few years when it was enforced, the law is no
longer perceived strictly as an anti-discrimination device. It is seen
as an important component of sound management and enforcement
of a human resources management policy.
When we stop to think about it, there is a cost attached to
delaying employment equity. If it is true that handicapped people,
people with functional limitations who can hold a job are denied
this opportunity, if it is true that these people represent 15 per cent
of the Canadian population and that 60 to 80 per cent of them are
unemployed, we must realize that there is a cost attached to this
because the productivity they could contribute to Canadian society
is lost to us as a society.
Provisions like this one in the employment equity bill are to be
commended.
What pleased committee members the most-and this was also
one of the recommendations adopted by the previous committee in
the previous Parliament during the five year review-is that the
Employment Equity Act will now apply to the public service of
Canada as a whole.
The act previously applied to perhaps 5 per cent of employees
working for some 300 employers. This act will now apply to twice
as many workers, since the entire public service of Canada, which
employs close to 300,000 people, will now be subject to it.
Of course-and we agree with this-, provision has been made
for some organizations that will now be subject to Treasury Board
regulations because of certain strategic imperatives concerning
them. These organizations include the Communications Security
Establishment, the RCMP, the Canadian Forces and the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service.
All committee members expressed the wish to be subject to the
Employment Equity Act once the amendments have been made.
I heard on several occasions a fallacious, hypocritical, deceitful
and dishonest argument from our Reform colleagues, who told us
that employment equity meant hiring incompetent people.
(1045)
That is the basic argument that was used throughout our
deliberations by our colleagues from the Reform Party, who do not
support Bill C-64. This argument does not stand up to analysis
however, because the legislator provides in the bill, more exactly in
clause 56, that this is not employment equity.
It provides for three things. Employers to whom the legislation
will apply because they have 100 employees or more are told that
employment equity does not entail opening new jobs. We can
appreciate that, in the current economic conditions, not all
industrial sectors are experiencing growth.
In fact, you must admit that the government's financial plan is
rather shabby, despicable and mediocre. One cannot ask that new
jobs be created for the sake of implementing an employment equity
policy. Employment equity does not mean creating new jobs, no
more than it means setting quotas. There is no mention of this in
the bill and I think it is ill-advised to say otherwise.
How will all that work in everyday life? What employers are
asked to do is to prepare an annual employment equity plan and file
it by June 30 with the human resources directorate. This plan must
contain three things, more or less. It will have to set out how the
workforce composition will be assessed. Having assessed the
composition of the workforce within his business, where
underrepresentation has been identified, the employer will be
required to set out what measures he intends to take in order to
remedy the situation both qualitatively and quantitatively.
That is a major change introduced by the bill. Not only is the
employer required to assess quantitatively the composition of his
workforce, but he can also provide qualitative information, which
was not the case previously.
We are dissatisfied with certain aspects regarding the
employment equity plan. Personally, I would have liked this plan to
be prepared and implemented jointly by union and management, as
a requirement. We have presented amendments to make this a joint
responsibility, a mandatory and binding responsibility, because we
do not think that employment equity is possible unless it is
something that all parties want and agree to.
Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated and I think that the
government made a major mistake there because there was a
15335
consensus among the interested parties about this provision. In
addition, we would have liked that a copy of the employment
equity plan be distributed to each employee and the contents of the
plan to be posted in common display areas, as provided for in the
Canada Labour Code for instance, where the employer is required
to post his policy regarding sexual harassment.
We believe that the bill would have been greatly improved as a
result, had the government bowed to the opposition's arguments.
Unfortunately, this has not been the case and we were told, quite
wrongly I would say, that the employment equity plan would
contain strategic information, information which, by virtue of its
highly confidential nature, could put the businesses' competitive
position at risk. To this, the unions and our party naturally replied:
``But if all employers are subject to the same requirements and all
of them have the same plan and are willing to make it available
within the organization, it is hard to believe that some of them
could be penalized, since this standardized policy would be
implemented across the board''.
To conclude, let me say that it is with great pleasure that we
support a bill which, without being perfect, is a major step forward
as far as employment equity is concerned.
(1050)
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have worked with the hon. member for Hochelaga for
the last couple of years and I know him to be a very earnest, honest,
hard working and credible person. I know that when he speaks
about this employment equity legislation he is speaking from the
heart, that he really does think this will improve society in Canada
and prevent discrimination.
I want to ask the hon. member what he thinks will happen as a
direct result of this legislation when people who are just as
qualified, not more or not less qualified, are denied a job or
advancement because of the colour of their skin, because of their
race, because of their gender. Does the hon. member feel this will
contribute to hard feelings, contribute to discrimination and plant
seeds of dissension that would not otherwise be in our society?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
his good words. I think exactly the same of him. It was a pleasure to
work with him, because he seems to represent the progressive wing
of his caucus. That wing is not as important as it should be, but that
issue will not be solved at this level.
I want to give him an example. It goes without saying that if we
agree with employment equity, we support the objective of making
more room for designated groups. Let me give a concrete example
which is related to my personal life.
I have a twin brother who suffers from cerebral palsy, and I am
convinced that he wants to earn a living, just like I do. He is as
intelligent, hard working and willing as I am. Had it not been for
the fact that a number of organizations have specific policies
urging employers to hire persons with disabilities, my brother
would probably never have found work. We have to recognize that
it is not a natural tendency for an employer to hire handicapped
people. Nor is it a natural tendency to hire members of a visible
minority group. Employers are still very reluctant to hire women
who might give birth in the near future.
When my twin brother was hired, had he been chosen instead of
an able-bodied person, that person might have resented the fact and
that would have been understandable. However, we must go
beyond such considerations, which means that, in a number of
cases, preferential treatment should be given to the four designated
groups mentioned in the legislation. I agree with that principle.
The minor distinction which I would make is that, in order to
achieve genuine and real employment equity, it is necessary that
when people apply for a job, their application be reviewed based on
their ability to do that job. When my disabled brother was hired, he
had the basic skills required to perform the duties involved.
The bill includes a very explicit provision which provides that an
employer is not required to hire unqualified persons. It can be
assumed that, given personnel management policies, employers
conducting interviews to recruit staff will reject applicants who are
not deemed qualified. However, when a number of people have
equal skills, including persons with disabilities, then a collective
effort should be made to help these persons get the job.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member if this employment
equity legislation will address an issue of discrimination by using
discrimination itself.
(1055 )
Although the legislation as he interprets it may not be doing that,
we do have a situation in which those who are not covered by
employment equity legislation are being told not to even bother
applying for some of these positions that are open because they
happen to fall outside of the categories of this protection.
How fair is it to not even be considered for a job? I am referring
to the RCMP as a prime example. I have had a number of young
men complain because they have been turned away at the door
from even applying because they do not fit into this little category.
15336
How fair is it to those individuals to be denied even the
opportunity of applying to see if they are equally capable of doing
the job?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I will admit that
some people are being frustrated. Let me say this to her.
It seems to me that it would be a great deal easier as
parliamentarians to reach a consensus on the justification for an
employment equity act if we were in a context of job creation.
Surely, we must hope that there are enough jobs to go around. The
misfortune at this time, the reason there has been the heavy
backlash on employment equity, is that there are too few jobs
available and that the jobs available are not accessible to everyone.
I agree with the hon. member on this. Where our opinions
diverge is that over here in my seat for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve I
feel that a full employment policy is not possible in a country that
stretches across a whole continent, as Canada does. Those
countries that have adopted successful employment
policies-because trade is a worldwide affair, but unemployment is
not, and I would be delighted if we could have the 5 or 6 per cent
unemployment they have in Austria and other countries-are small
countries with populations of seven, eight or ten million and
countries with great cohesiveness. And Quebec possesses those
characteristics.
The Speaker: It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), we will now proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
15336
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I pay tribute to a program in my riding called the
Community Academic Services Program, CASP. It is a community
program dedicated to upgrading adults in English and math up to
the grade nine level by setting up classrooms in community
facilities such as church basements, Lion's clubs and schools. It is
province-wide and has been very successful in helping people gain
new skills.
CASP was recently awarded the UNESCO international award
for literacy at the Beijing world conference on women. The
importance of literacy cannot be overstated. It is an essential tool in
increasing employment opportunities and improving the quality of
life for people across the country.
I congratulate Maryanne Bourgeois and her staff from Literacy
New Brunswick in particular for their hard work and dedication. As
a member of the Fredericton Community Literacy Committee and
as someone who has been involved with CASP from the beginning,
I am encouraged to see the program is getting international
recognition.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this National AIDS awareness week has given us
members the opportunity to reflect on this significant problem for
society, as between 42,000 and 45,000 Canadians and Quebecers
are now infected with HIV.
It is our duty to step up our efforts to eradicate HIV transmission
and to ensure that infected individuals receive the support they
require. The battle against AIDS, however, also includes a battle
against homophobia, and that is precisely the theme of the 1995
awareness campaign.
Putting an end to homophobia requires a positive atmosphere, an
atmosphere of solidarity toward those who are seropositive, and a
positive representation of homosexuality. My closing wish is that
all members of this House will contribute to overcoming
homophobia and thus to winning the battle against AIDS.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on this
Thanksgiving weekend Reformers would like to thank a few
Liberal members who have really stood out in this session.
First, we would like to thank all of those unknown backbenchers
for filibustering the government's own pre-referendum stay asleep
``snooze bar'' legislation.
Second, we would like to thank the Minister of Finance for his
Walter Mitty, feel good, two-year revolving target approach to
fiscal forecasting which if nothing else will make weather
forecasters look good.
Third, we would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for
helping us put together a working definition of the term racist.
Thanks to her we now know that a racist is an individual who is
winning an argument against a Liberal.
Finally, thanks go to the minister of HRD whose job creation
initiatives have ensured that thousands of young Canadians will
utter the words ``do you want fries with that'' upon graduation from
university.
We would like to thank the Minister of Justice for his unwanted
gun control bill, the treasury board minister for his expensive
infrastructure program, and a special thanks to the Minister of
Health for her great impersonation of the hon. member for
Macleod.
15337
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
members of Vuntut Gwich'in first nation and various wildlife and
environmental groups will soon begin a cross-country tour of the
United States to gather support for the declaration of the Arctic
national wildlife refuge as a United States national monument and
for the protection of the area from exploitation.
The wildlife refuge is a primary calving ground of the Porcupine
caribou herd which migrates across the Yukon-Alaska border. This
herd is unique and constitutes an irreplaceable national treasure
while providing subsistence for First Nations people.
The Prime Minister and the American president have said they
support the protection of the herd. In recent statements the
president has said he supports the establishment of a national
monument. However the U.S. Congress wants to open the area to
oil and gas development.
I urge the Prime Minister to intervene personally by lending his
public support for the national monument declaration and by
reaffirming Canada's commitment to protect the herd.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I
gave a flu shot to Bob Marks, director of the Canadian Lung
Association. With that one shot Bob got protection for the whole
winter. However Bob alone does not benefit from that shot; all of
society does.
Over 2,000 Canadians a year die from pneumonia and influenza.
The number of work days lost due to flu and the cost to business
and the health care system are exorbitant. Yet only 33 per cent of at
risk Canadians take advantage of this protection.
During October, National Immunization Month, we are changing
that. We are asking Canadians to do themselves a favour by getting
a flu shot.
Polio used to paralyse our children. Not any more. Diphtheria
and whooping cough caused death among our young. Not any
more. National immunization programs put an end to those days.
Now we are on guard against influenza. In every province
thousands of at risk seniors, the chronically ill, children and HIV
positive patients can get free flu shots because it is good preventive
medicine.
As a physician I ask every member of the House to recognize
National Immunization Month by getting a flu shot. I will give it to
them personally. Let us all say no to the flu.
The Speaker: I am all for that and I will be happy to meet with
you right after question period.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I wear this red ribbon in remembrance of those who
have died of AIDS and for the approximately 16,000 Canadians
who have been diagnosed with the HIV-AIDS virus.
The AIDS virus has most seriously affected the homosexual
community. However the virus does not discriminate on the basis
of gender or sexual orientation as many women and children have
died of the virus in addition to the thousands of men.
While our views may vary one thing is very clear. Those who
suffer from AIDS are human beings. They deserve our support and
compassion.
I applaud Canadian researchers for their relentless search for a
cure. While progress is being made every effort must be made
through education and lifestyle change to stop the deadly
transmission of the disease.
As we take time this week to support AIDS awareness and
education programs, I encourage every member of the House to
inform themselves about the disease so as to eradicate prejudice
and homophobia and treat those suffering with AIDS with the
dignity and compassion they so rightly deserve.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the auditor general on his study on environmental
management systems and its recent release. The co-operative effort
of the many government departments involved in the project
should be acknowledged. It is a good example of the wide range of
initiatives in which all parts of the government are sharing
information and best practices to green government operations in
as rapid and cost effective a manner as possible.
The Government of Canada, through its greening government
operations initiative, has established guidelines for all federal
departments to follow in order to integrate environmental
considerations in their operations.
(1105 )
The auditor general has provided us with a useful study.
Implementing an environmental management system is a vital first
step to improving environmental performance in key areas such as
procurement, fleet and facilities management, and land use.
This is only one step the government is taking to meet its
commitment to Canadians to make sustainable development a
reality.
15338
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the secret document prepared for Operation Unity by
Industry Canada, that, in the event of Quebec sovereignty, because
the aerospace industry worldwide maintains close relations with
their respective governments, if the governments of Quebec and
Canada can maintain co-operative relations in this sector, the
aerospace industry will not be affected. The document also
indicates that partnership is more the rule than the exception in this
industry, throughout the world generally. It seems clear that, in the
country's national interest, Canada will try to negotiate a
partnership with Quebec in the aerospace sector.
The blackmail, intimidation and threat of reprisals have to stop.
It is time Quebecers were told the truth, and the truth is that a
partnership is not only possible but desirable for both Canada and
Quebec. Canada will negotiate a partnership agreement with
Quebec not out of charity for its former province, but because it is
in the national interest to do so.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, once again I
stand in the House to tell Canadians about the wasteful practices of
the Liberal government.
In particular I list some of the outrageous grants being handed
out by the Minister of Health. A group known as Positive Straight
Men received $10,000; the prisoners with HIV-AIDS support
action network, $63,000; the Committee on Seniors and Sexuality,
$117,000; and let us not forget that pauper of the financial industry,
the Royal Bank of Canada that received $55,000.
The only thing that Canadians are asking is that their tax dollars
be spent responsibly. This is a minute part of the $10 billion of
grants and contributions in 1994-95, much of which has been
poured down the proverbial drain.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on September 22, 1995, the office of The Women
Entrepreneurs of Saskatchewan was officially opened in Saskatoon
to serve businesswomen in rural and urban communities across the
province.
Women entrepreneurs enjoy an enviable success rate in business.
In spite of this they have historically faced obstacles which often
prevented them from getting started in the first place such as banks
demanding a husband's signature on a loan, high interest rates or
excessive collateral. We must factor in as well fear of the unknown
and isolation resulting from lack of business networks.
The women entrepreneurs office, funded by western economic
diversification, will go a long way to breaking down the barriers by
providing loans at market interest rates, advisory services,
mentoring and seminars related to entrepreneurship and business
skills.
Congratulations to Jeanne Martinson, Pamela Warden, Marie
Jensen, Donna Dixson-Bernard and Ann Chatfield, the board of
directors, for making this dream a reality. Finally, well done,
Andrea Scott.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
invite my Liberal, Bloc and Reform colleagues and all the other
members present today to join with me in congratulating
Franco-Ontarians on the 20th anniversary of their flag.
On September 25, I had the honour of participating in a
ceremony at the University of Sudbury, in my riding, to honour the
Franco-Ontarian flag and to celebrate the contribution made by
Franco-Ontarians to Canada and to our shared heritage.
Since September 25, 1975, the date of its birth, the
Franco-Ontarian flag has become an important symbol of our
accomplishments, our culture and our language. Today,
Franco-Ontarians continue to grow and develop within a strong and
united Canada.
Franco-Ontarians, all proud Canadians, first and foremost, owe a
large debt to their predecessors, to those who created the flag and to
the University of Sudbury.
* * *
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker the PQ premier once again raised the
spectre that an independent Quebec might not assume its fair share
of the Canadian debt.
In a speech delivered in Matane yesterday evening, the separatist
leader said: ``But if you do not want to sit down and negotiate, stay
up and the cheques will disappear later on''.
Once again, the separatist leader used that threat to make people
believe that he will be able to force Canada to negotiate a
partnership agreement if Quebec separates.
15339
(1110)
Quebecers are reasonable and responsible people. They know
that a partnership project based on threats and blackmail will not
work, and this is another reason why they will vote no on October
30.
* * *
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Châteauguay was absolutely right when he said that
Canada would negotiate a partnership agreement with Quebec.
Indeed, even Industry Canada recognizes, in a secret document
prepared for Operation Unity, that: ``Should Quebec separate, and
should there be a breakdown in the co-operation between federal
research institutions based in Quebec and those located in the rest
of Canada, the scientific and technological efforts of the two states
would suffer a real prejudice''.
If there is a partnership, there would be no such breakdown.
Forget the gloomy speeches; it is obvious that the interests of
Canada and Quebec call for a partnership treaty. This is particularly
true for the space industry, as well as the science and technology
sector.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of the Environment forgets that she is not the
only minister of the environment in the country. There are 12
others and they make up the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment, a forum for co-operation and joint action.
The federal minister thinks that environmental policy revolves
around her. In contrast, the CCME is committed to developing the
environmental management framework agreement which would
reduce duplication and overlap.
Is the minister in support? Not a chance. Now harmonization has
been put on hold.
The environment minister has pushed the provinces around too
much. She has also cancelled any provincial negotiations on
financial support to Habitat Canada which the provinces said they
would assume by increasing waterfowl hunting fees.
The minister does not care for a program that would save the
government money; she is only scared of devolving her assumed
power.
Are her feelings hurt? Co-operation is a two-way street. It is time
the minister got off her pedestal and listened to what the provinces
have to say. She may even learn something about political
sustainable development.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, Quebecers are not going to be
represented at an important economic and trade meeting with
Chinese officials because the PQ premier decided not to attend that
event. Just like he did when Team Canada conducted its very
important and successful Asian tour, the PQ leader prefers to stick
to his separatist creed, rather than co-operate with our partners
from the business world, to promote economic recovery and job
creation.
Quebecers are primarily concerned with economic issues and job
creation. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be a priority for the
PQ premier. On October 30, Quebecers will say no to the separatist
project, a project which does nothing to promote economic
recovery and create jobs for them.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, at a meeting with UQUAM students in management
studies, the PQ finance and revenue minister said: ``It seems that
business people are not overly grateful when it is the Parti
Quebecois which does something''. Are we to understand from the
minister's comments that he is trying to enlist business people in
the Yes camp?
The PQ minister must stop using provincial subsidies and other
benefits to force Quebec businesses to support the Yes side. Earlier
this week, his colleague, the Bloc Quebecois leader, said that
enlisting business people was undemocratic and unacceptable.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, land mines and anti-personnel devices are a humanitarian
disaster. There are over 100 million of them seeded in over 60
countries of the world. From Mozambique to Chechnya, from
Cambodia to Angola they lie silently in wait for their next victim.
They cost between $30 and $70 to make and are made by such
countries as the United States, Italy and even Canada. Most are
designed to maim and not kill, and some are even designed to look
like toys so that children will pick them up and get their arms
blown off. This is a perverted logic if ever there was one.
The majority of the victims are innocent women and children.
15340
(1115 )
In developing countries wracked by civil war, it costs between
$300 and $700 to remove them. Last year we removed 85,000 but
seeded two million at the same time.
I put a private members' bill forward on September 21 asking
the House to ban land mines and anti-personnel devices. I hope for
the sake of the most impoverished people in the world the House
joins hands to do just that.
_____________________________________________
15340
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the past
few days it has become increasingly clear that this government is
trying to hide the devastating impact that a number of reforms
planned by Ottawa will have, especially in the case of social
programs.
The government keeps postponing the release of the details of
these reforms until after the referendum. Furthermore, the last
budget announced cuts totalling seven billion dollars in transfers to
the provinces for the financing of social programs.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that cuts in payments to
the provinces for social programs, irrespective of the criteria the
federal government will use, will cause a major shortfall in funding
for spending on health care, post-secondary education and social
assistance in Quebec, a shortfall that, depending on the criteria
applied, is estimated at between $1.9 and $2.5 billion over the next
two years, and this is only in Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member for Roberval says, we
are not hiding a thing. We announced our schedule for transfers to
the provinces at the beginning of our mandate. We gave them three
years. We told them from the outset: we will continue to increase a
little bit next year, and that was 1994, and then in 1995 we will go
on increasing, and the cuts will come in 1996 and 1997.
However, next year the subsidies we pay will still be higher than
they were at the time we formed the government. The Minister of
Finance explained to the provinces that he would give them time to
adjust and that he would even continue to increase payments during
the first two years. However, they were told to expect adjustments.
The provinces were aware of this and initiated their own cuts.
For instance, last year in December, Quebec's health minister
announced cuts totalling $500 million. We still gave slightly more
than the previous year, but he made cuts. Obviously, everyone has
to make adjustments. Provincial governments across Canada are
making adjustments. The Government of Quebec has started to do
so as well, and it will have to make more adjustments after the
referendum.
We told all provincial governments ahead of time what to expect.
I think this is all very fair and very open and shows a government
that has absolutely nothing to hide before, during or even after the
referendum.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): In fact, Mr. Speaker, it
is the future we want to talk about. The Prime Minister seems to
appreciate talking about that.
We know that in the future, the federal government is planning
cuts in unemployment insurance and old age pensions. We found
that out last week here in the House, but the bad news will not come
until after the referendum.
Would the Prime Minister agree that by attacking the most
vulnerable members of our society with cuts in his own programs
that are targeted to the needy, he is hitting them twice with cuts in
payments to Quebec that will total between $1.9 and $2.5 billion in
two years' time, which will force the Quebec government to add to
the cuts made by the federal government? Does he not realize he is
hitting the neediest in our society from both sides?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, the unemployment insurance program was
explained in the budget, and we are preparing legislation that will
be tabled very shortly.
Just this morning I received a call from a provincial premier who
wanted to see me to discuss the legislation, and who begged me not
to go ahead immediately because he had a number of
representations to make.
(1120)
I told him: ``Fine. As soon as I have time, we will have a
meeting, and we will table the bill as soon as possible, because we
want people to have time to discuss it''.
The hon. member referred to senior citizens. I made it clear here
in the House that we have no intention of affecting senior citizens. I
made that quite clear. But I also said that we will have to make sure
we can still pay the old age pensions of the people who will retire in
2005 and 2010. Good government means planning for the future.
And people who are retired now do not have to worry.
15341
We want to be able to pay old age pensions in 2005, 2010 and
2015 because many of us will still be here, although there may not
be that many on the other side, and we have to consider the future.
As far as pensioners are concerned, they do not have to worry, I
made that clear, and old age pensioners will not be affected, not in
November and not in the finance minister's next budget.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
Prime Minister admit that at the rate the federal government says it
will cut transfers to the provinces, in other words, money used by
the provinces for social programs and education, at the rate the
federal government plans to cut these expenditures, according to
our most accurate estimates-although the criteria have not yet
been released, but we tried a series of criteria that seemed
likely-we can say that in four years time, if Quebecers say no in
the referendum and decide to stay in the federal system, in four
years time the federal government will no longer pay a cent in
transfer payments for social programs, education and social
assistance, and on top of that, under the tax points system,
Quebecers would again have to send part of the province's tax
revenues to Ottawa to help fund social programs in the other
provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the present
system, there is a decline in the amounts to be spent on transfers to
the provinces.
That being said, one of the reasons we decided to proceed with
these reforms, and this was explained by the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Health, and I said it myself here in this House, was
to reverse this trend while maintaining a certain level of money in
these transfers. In other words, we intend to freeze these amounts
to stop this decline, for reasons we discussed with the provinces, in
other words, the federal government firmly intends to remain
involved in improving social programs in Canada.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the documents attached to the last federal budget mention
that transfers to the provinces will be cut by $2.5 billion in 1996-97
and $4.5 billion in 1997-98. In 1997-98, if the federal government
distributes the Canada social transfer on the basis of population, as
suggested on page 40 of the federal budget speech, Quebec alone
will absorb over 40 per cent of the $4.5 billion in cuts.
Does the Prime Minister not agree that, on the eve of the
referendum, he has a duty to stop hiding his intentions from
Quebecers by disclosing publicly how the federal government
intends to distribute among the provinces the $4.5 billion in cuts
planned for 1997-98, so that Quebecers will know the real impact
of federal policies?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Human Resources Development and I intend to sit down with
provincial officials to determine how the country and the provinces
can restructure their finances.
That said, the hon. member has just quoted figures that have
been used by other separatists. As I said before in this House, they
are basing their arguments on something that is quite preposterous.
(1125)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this is a revelation. I did not know that the Minister of
Finance was a separatist, as these are his figures.
Does the Prime Minister confirm that, whatever the distribution
criteria adopted, in 1997-98 alone, Quebec will be deprived of
between $1.2 billion and $1.9 billion for the funding of its social
programs? The PQ government was not the only one to predict
these cuts. His friends in the Liberal Party in Quebec, including his
colleague, the current Minister of Labour, said the same thing when
they were in power.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the
hon. member's analysis is quite preposterous. It is quite clear that
no decision has been made on distribution. Second, I think that the
hon. member should also consider equalization, which is a very
important factor.
The hon. member seems unwilling to talk about it, but let me tell
you that, in 1996-97 for example, equalization payments to Quebec
will amount to $4 billion or 42 per cent of federal equalization
payments to the provinces.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The government's record on Somalia is not terribly open, but
openly terrible.
This week we have seen evidence that national defence
headquarters altered documents. The punishment, it gets to
investigate itself. We have evidence that Lieutenant-Colonel
Kenward destroyed evidence and obstructed justice. The
punishment, he got promoted. We have evidence that Colonel
Labbé uttered unlawful commands. His punishment, he has been
put in charge of the army staff college to teach leadership.
The minister must have had files on these events. Why did he
wait so long before he acted?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member had a distinguished career in the
Canadian forces before he entered politics. I am quite surprised and
disappointed that he would ask that sort of a question. He talks
about openness. The government has no axe to grind. We want the
commission into the deployment of the Canadian forces in Somalia
to get to the bottom of whatever happened. He talks about being
terribly open. If he wants to know what I mean by terribly open I
15342
can tell him. It means opaque, transparent, unfettered and above
board.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has gone kicking and screaming into
the Somalia commission. We in the Reform Party are the ones who
demanded a commission of inquiry.
The Somalia commission, which the minister called only after
pressure from this party, is headed by top-notch people and will
come to its conclusions in due course. There is a complete
abdication of leadership within the Department of National
Defence. The Prime Minister's expression of confidence in the
minister and the chief of defence staff cannot change that fact.
Officers are named in police reports. They are implicated in
criminal activities, falsifying documents and offering incentives to
subordinates to commit murder. Does the minister consider these to
be examples of good leadership?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised, disappointed and somewhat disillusioned
not only by the tenor of the question but by some of the
implications of the question.
The members of the third party talk about calling for this inquiry.
I happen to have personal knowledge and I will inform the House
of it. Other members will remember when we were in
opposition-I want the hon. member to check the records-I asked
for this inquiry in April 1993.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it took two years for the government to act. Originally
it wanted an internal investigation. It was only under our pressure
that the government opened up the investigation.
The Prime Minister said that these troubles occurred under the
previous government. Yet after two years nothing has been done to
fix the problems. If the minister knew previously of the evidence
that has been revealed this week, he has complicity in covering it
up. If he did not know, he is guilty of contempt in the highest order.
The minister's management of national defence over the-
(1130)
The Speaker: In our questions we are making giant leaps. I
would ask the hon. member to please put his question.
Mr. Hart: My question: The minister's management of national
defence over the past two years has only compounded-
An hon. member: Order.
The Speaker: Please, my colleague, the question now.
Mr. Hart: Will the minister resign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a little problem today. From watching the hon.
member I realize not many of them will be re-elected when they act
like that.
The member talks like that about the Canadian Armed Forces
which have been an honour to all Canadians. Those Canadians have
been doing a great job in Yugoslavia for the past three and one-half
years, yet a former member of the armed forces is using those kinds
of words about his colleagues who were with him in the army, who
have always been a great part of the Canadian strength. We have
the best soldiers in the world.
Not long ago I was talking with the President of Croatia and the
President and Prime Minister of Bosnia. They told me the best
soldiers in the former Yugoslavia were the Canadian soldiers.
When I see a former soldier acting like the hon. member, I know
those members will not be back in great numbers after the next
election.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The federal government reallocates to the Quebec government,
in the form of transfer payments, a portion of the taxes collected
from Quebecers. As a result of the numerous cuts made by the
federal government, the amounts handed back to Quebec are
constantly being reduced, and transfer payments have become an
unstable and inadequate source of funds for Quebec.
Does the Minister of Finance confirm that, since 1980, the
proportion of Quebec's revenues coming from federal transfer
payments, including equalization, has dropped by 28 per cent and
that the situation will get progressively worse as a result of the last
federal budget given that, by 1997-98, transfer payments from
Ottawa will account for only 12.7 per cent of Quebec's revenues?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again-and this is
unfortunate-separatists do not have a firm grasp of figures.
At present, while receiving approximately $29 billion from
Quebec, we give that province approximately $41 billion, which
means a net gain of $11 billion for Quebec. What we must ask
ourselves is this: Should Quebec ever achieve independence, what
will the separatist movement do to bridge that gap?
15343
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): It
is a pity, Mr. Speaker, that I will have to put my question in writing
because I was unable to get an answer.
Since it is becoming increasingly obvious that, within four years,
Quebec will no longer receive any money from Ottawa for social
program funding-I repeat, social program funding-how can the
minister justify his plans to set up new structures and implement
new manpower training initiatives that will increase duplication,
when these structures and initiatives are to be funded from
surpluses in the UI fund, to which Ottawa will no longer contribute
as much as a penny?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Again, Mr. Speaker, I can only
repeat the same thing. The government, the Prime Minister, the
Minister of Health and myself have all stated in this House that one
of the goals of the current reform is to reverse the trend, stop our
reserves from shrinking and maintain a level that will allow us to
set the amount to be transferred to the provinces, including Quebec.
* * *
(1135)
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development on behalf of all
Canadians.
A new poll shows that only 19 per cent of Canadians under age
50 expect to get anything out of the Canada pension plan when they
retire. Their confidence in the plan has gone down since the
Liberals replaced the Tories in 1993.
Does the government have any plans at all to correct the Canada
pension plan problem? What will it do to assure Canadian workers
and employers that the money they are contributing to this plan is
not just going down the tubes?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a curious question about
money in the Canada pension plan going down the tube. The money
goes to provide for retirement security for senior citizens. It goes to
provide for a basic income benefit for disabled Canadians. It goes
to provide a basic benefit for widows and their children.
The Reform Party's proposals as it puts them forward would
mean a substantial reduction for disabled Canadians, a substantial
reduction for widows, and a substantial reduction for 1.8 million
pensioners. How can the hon. member stand up and tell us to do
something to protect the system when his own party is proposing a
way of slashing the program?
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the difference
between the Liberals and the Reformers is that we would have a
plan that would be actuarially sound. This one has never been
sound. The Liberals were informed of that when they first brought
in this plan. They fired the adviser who gave them that advice 30
years ago.
I ask again: What will the government do specifically to make
the Canada pension plan actuarially and mathematically sound and
sustainable? That is what Canadians demand.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well
knows, we announced in the last budget that we would be
presenting a paper containing a series of proposals as to how we
can deal with the sustainability of the Canada pension plan. The
Minister of Finance will be meeting with his counterparts later this
year to talk about this. As the hon. member should know, this is not
just a federal government plan but one we share with the provinces.
It is a joint plan and therefore we have to make those kinds of
arrangements.
Let me give the member one very quick example of the kind of
measures we are taking. On July 1, I announced a series of changes
to the Canada pension plan that will allow those with disabilities to
go back to work so that they can have a bigger incentive to be
employed and not simply draw the benefit. It once again goes to the
very heart and soul of what we are trying to do in our reform which
is to provide for economic security by giving people a good chance
at a job.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Human Resources Development. Despite a slight
dip in unemployment after ten months of zero net employment
growth in Canada, we find that the unemployment rate among
those under the age of 25 has again increased. Even those who
manage to find work are often in an extremely precarious position.
In fact, this is the lowest level of youth activity in the labour market
in 20 years.
What concrete actions does the government plan to take to help
young people, since the youth unemployment rate has again risen
in September, from 15.7 per cent to 16.4 per cent?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the hon.
member raised that question. It does give me the opportunity to tell
members of the House in case they have not heard that this morning
the unemploy-
15344
ment rate fell to 9.2 per cent which is the lowest rate since 1990.
The hon. member will be particularly interested to know that in the
last two months in the province of Quebec 16,000 new jobs have
been created which is the highest job growth in any region of
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is not
answering my questions. I was asking about youth employment.
Does the minister acknowledge that the youth employment
situation has deteriorated since the Liberals came to office, with
27,000 fewer jobs for young people since November 1993. Is he
prepared to acknowledge this?
(1140)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's figures are
not correct. The unemployment rate has gone down for young
people but not sufficiently so. Looking at the figures, one of the
reasons is that still far too many young people are dropping out of
school far too early and therefore do not have the required skills to
get a job.
That is the reason the government introduced the youth
internship program. It is a partnership with the private sector to
create opportunities enabling young people to move from school to
work with a full transition in a partnership way. This year over
24,000 young people will be enrolled in that program.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the average
Canadian cannot afford to travel in expensive limousines and yet
the Department of Citizenship and Immigration gave over $20,000
to a Toronto limousine service to ferry immigrants around town.
My question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is
why?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration promotes open government and
release of information to the greatest extent possible. I am certain
the information the member has come up with probably came to
him through this or other measures.
We are glad to promote open government and I am happy he has
this information. I will pass it on to the minister to give the member
a fuller answer at a later time.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thought
my question was why we are ferrying immigrants around town in
limousines, not about open government.
To continue in the same vein, the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration spent $200,000 at Big Bill's Furniture and Mattress
Warehouse in Kitchener. It gave $152,000 to Zellers to buy
furniture for some immigrants. Again I ask the parliamentary
secretary why?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I again
compliment the hon. member on his question.
With regard to taxi services which he clearly wants to call
limousines, a car is a car. On the other hand if he wants to look at
settlement services and what we do for immigrants coming to
Canada, it is a program of which we are very proud. It is a program
we are determined to preserve because on this side of the House we
believe in the importance of immigrants in that they help build this
country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. While the
federal government has cut CN's debt by $900 million in order to
make it more attractive to investors, CN has signed a $300 million
contract with GM to purchase new Ontario-built locomotives.
How can the minister justify the decision to renew CN's
locomotive fleet at the taxpayers' expense, when this ought to have
been left for the new shareholders to pay for after privatization?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is no doubt aware that locomotives are
not kept on a lot somewhere like cars are at a Ford or GM
dealership. Let me assure the hon. member that the locomotives in
question will be delivered to CN long after privatization.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I take it that the minister prefers this huge order from
Ontario to be made by a crown corporation. How can the minister
allow CN to add $300 million to its debt load by purchasing new
locomotives at our expense when he has just injected close to one
billion dollars of Canadians' tax money to reduce that same debt
and to make CN more attractive to investors?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member does not understand.
The restructuring of the debt for Canadian National has to do
with the IPO that will be made available to the investment
community in November of this year.
15345
(1145 )
As to the order for locomotives for CN's operations in the years
to come, those locomotives have not been built yet. They have not
been paid for yet. They will not be delivered nor will they become a
liability for CN until a number of years down the road.
As to how CN is to run its operations, obviously it needs new
rolling stock. Locomotives built in London, Ontario are sold not
only to CN but to CP and all around the world. Only last week we
had representatives in from the Congo looking to purchase
locomotives from the GM shops in London because they are the
best in the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Many Canadians are worried about the economy stagnating in
recent months. We have even heard some members of the official
opposition talking about no net job creation since January.
Would the minister once again set the record straight on
Canada's employment situation?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we all know that the job
market is going through some very major changes. That is one
reason it is so important we modernize our structures to enable
Canadians to make the adjustments, to get new employment tools
to respond and particularly to provide new choices.
Within those very positive figures we had this morning of the
unemployment rate coming down, 70,000 of the jobs created were
manufacturing jobs. They are well paying, full time jobs.
This shows that the fear of the jobless recovery is not quite
accurate. The reality of the Canadian economy, through the kind of
stimulus that has been provided by the Minister of Finance in his
budgets and in other areas, is that manufacturing and exports are
leading job recovery in this country. That is why we have to
continue to provide that enormous support and confidence. That is
the most important key to creating jobs.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier in question period I think that most Canadians would have
been appalled to see the Prime Minister defending some of the
things going on at DND by wrapping himself in the name of the
peacekeepers and the job they are doing, putting their lives in
danger, trying to defend the country.
Does the Prime Minister really think that when we read about the
stonewalling of police investigations, about the cover-up of
criminal activity, and about the falsifying of documents this in any
way does any service to the men on the ground who are defending
Canada and trying to keep peace in foreign countries?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have said to the House many times that we initiated the
public inquiry into the matter. Now I see the Reform Party is taking
credit for that.
I was in opposition when the parliamentary secretary was on his
feet asking for an inquiry. We are having a public inquiry and all
the documents are available.
Of course there are problems in the army. In any department
there are problems. We are working to solve them. We will accept
the recommendations if they are valid and we will change what has
to be changed.
To try to create the impression that we have a terrible army in
Canada when it is lauded by everybody around the world I think is
going the wrong way.
The young member has a lot of personal ambition. He should tell
his colleagues to slow down, because there will not be much of a
Reform Party very soon.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all
Canadians know it is not the army that is terrible, it is the Minister
of National Defence's running of that portfolio.
We have been pursuing this inquiry. The opposition Liberals, as
he knows, called for this two years ago. We had to call for it for
nearly two years before we got it.
My question to the Prime Minister is the Minister of National
Defence has been sitting on this material, which has been under his
nose for two years. Was there complicity in this? Did he know this
was happening, or was he simply incompetent and did not provide
this material in the first two years of this administration?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence got up many times in the
House and explained that under the laws of this land when there
were cases in front of the military courts we could not proceed with
an inquiry because it could have invalidated trials that were going
on. It is the way we operate. There were some charges against some
military people and we could not have a public inquiry on the same
element of proof because it would have been used by the different
lawyers or the prosecution to destroy the case.
15346
(1150)
We have to respect the law of the land. After the judgments were
rendered we had a public inquiry. We could not have both together.
With time, when he gains experience, he will know the law of the
land a bit better and perhaps one day he will be ready to take over
what will be left, if anything, of the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. In Quebec, there are 25 federal
research facilities employing 3,000 workers, which represents 13.4
per cent of the jobs in federal facilities of this type in Canada,
whereas, in Ontario, the Chalk River nuclear research centre alone
employs 2,227 people. Overall, federal centres employ 11,000
researchers and technicians in Ontario.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the federal
government has consistently penalized Quebec in the area of
research and development, undermining its scientific and
economic development? Would he also explain why, under such
conditions, he is cutting funding for research in the DIPP program,
which is crucial to the aerospace industry located primarily in
Quebec.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as regards the DIPP, the hon. member should be aware
that, in recent years, nearly 50 per cent of funding has gone to
Quebec, to business in Quebec.
We have to be realistic when we talk about the DIPP, because we
have long known the size of the defence industry in Quebec. When
the transition was made with the DIPP funds, almost 50 per cent of
these funds were in fact paid to businesses in Quebec.
As far as research and development is concerned, we
acknowledge that the proportion spent in Quebec is approximately
25 per cent, which is still very close to the proportion of the
population.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
Quebec we receive only 17 per cent of funds intended for research
and development. According to the Minister of Finance, the figure
is 13 per cent.
How does the Prime Minister justify this imbalance between
Quebec and Ontario in the distribution of federal research
facilities, whereas Hull, Gatineau and Aylmer are within the
National Capital Region and could have received a greater
proportion of these facilities?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has
repeatedly explained, there are a whole lot of people in the greater
metropolitan area of Ottawa-Hull working at research and
development centres. Let us leave this aside.
The hon. member should note that, even though the Bloc
Quebecois and the Government of Quebec claim 17 per cent of
federal funding for research and development goes to Quebec, we
contend and are prepared to show proof that approximately 25 per
cent of the Government of Canada's funding for research and
development goes to Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
November the Alberta government will ask grain farmers whether
they are in favour of having the freedom to sell their wheat and
barley to any buyer, including the Canadian Wheat Board, into
domestic and export markets-yes or no?
In response, the federal minister of agriculture states the Alberta
plebiscite will not be the last word on this issue. When will the
minister of agriculture give farmers the last word on this issue and
have a plebiscite across the whole Canadian Wheat Board area to
settle this issue?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister of
agriculture has made it very clear for a number of months that
farmers will be involved in the future of the Canadian Wheat Board
in Canada.
To emphasize that, he has recently put in place a very expert
panel to go right across western Canada to talk to farmers, chat
with farmers, and consult with farmers in all of the industry about
their views on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.
We will continue to deal with everyone and consult with
everyone in the industry in order to talk about and deal with the
future of that great wheat board.
(1155 )
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, panels,
studies, commissions and reports, and it has been two years and
nothing has been done.
Alberta farmers are being asked for their opinion on the issue
because the Alberta government believes that farmers have the
right to make this decision. Who will have the last word on whether
farmers should have the freedom to sell their wheat and barley into
all markets? Will it be the farmers or will it be this father knows
best minister of agriculture?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon.
member that farmers will be consulted. I also remind the hon.
member of the disappointment of all of us when the third party in
Parliament recommends to farmers to break Canadian law and
supports them in this.
15347
We will follow the tradition of our party and consult. However,
with regard to the wheat board, the Reform Party thinks it knows
best and is requesting and supporting farmers to go against the
rules and laws of the land with reference to the wheat board.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Although I recognize that there has been a substantial increase in
exploration expenditures in the mining industry in the last few
years, there are still some serious impediments to investment.
What does the government intend to do to help Canada's
investment climate in mining?
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question. First, it gives me an opportunity to express our
condolences to the families and friends of those nine people who
lost their lives in the helicopter crash in Kyrgyzstan. Our thoughts
and prayers are with them at this very difficult time.
Second, it gives me an opportunity give some good news to the
House. We are having excellent results as far as mining is
concerned in Canada, with exploration expenditure up 32 per cent
in 1994 and it looks like it will go to $675 million this year. Twenty
mines are opening and only two closing permanently, and there are
2,000 to 3,000 new employees in the mining industry.
This is all due to the excellent financial position the Minister of
Finance has set out for the country, the Whitehorse mining
initiative, and the efforts of the government to build a more
innovative society and remove the overlap and duplication in our
regulatory regimes. Science and technology is leading the way in
this industry.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since the inception of the Canadian nuclear program,
the federal government has spent over $12 billion on nuclear
research and development, mostly in favour of the Ontario nuclear
industry, of course. Through its subsidies worth $175 million a
year, the federal government has created an industry that now
employs, directly or indirectly, 60,000 people in Ontario.
My question is for the Prime Minister. How does the Prime
Minister explain the fact that the federal government has provided
such large subsidies for electricity generation in Ontario, when
Quebec has never received anything from the federal government
to generate its own electricity?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the development of a nuclear industry in Ontario came
about because that province had fewer hydroelectric resources than
Quebec. Canada's development is based on potential, resources and
population. I am sure that some provinces did not receive anything
for nuclear energy development because they do not have the
necessary resources.
Quebec received federal assistance. Hydro-Quebec has nuclear
facilities in Gentilly. Quebec got its share, but the fact is that it did
not need as much nuclear energy as Ontario. That is the way it is in
Canada. This is a diversified country. Although we are trying to
distribute everything among the various parts of Canada, some
things cannot be distributed solely on the basis of population, as I
was saying the other day. We are not about to start digging rivers in
Saskatchewan so we can give that province its share of the national
ports budget.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health on behalf of all
Canadians.
The Krever commission is investigating the state of our national
blood supply. Recent reports have revealed deep organizational
breakdowns within the system.
Canadians want action now. Their health continues to be
threatened by leaks in the blood supply system. Last week here in
Ottawa about 1,800 units had to be recalled because of a
breakdown in that system after it was learned that some units had
not been tested for hepatitis B.
(1200 )
Now Canadians are outraged to hear through the Krever inquiry
that a U.S. drug company was allowed to distribute AIDS tainted
blood products in Canada that affected six British Columbians
including five children.
Could the minister tell the House and Canadians what plans if
any she has to reform the system and implement the commission's
recommendations in order to restore confidence in our national
blood supply system?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member will know that we have not waited for the Krever
commission to begin to do some work within the blood supply
system. We are nevertheless funding the Krever inquiry.
Since I have been Minister of Health we have doubled our
resources in the Bureau of Biologics. We have increased the
15348
inspections of blood collection centres; we now inspect them once
a year. We have made it possible for the results of these inspections
to be made public. We have set up an advisory committee on blood
issues so we can keep ourselves informed.
We continue to do everything possible to monitor all new
technologies that are emerging in order that we can have them in
Canada and that we can have the best and the safest blood supply
system in the world.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Victor Chernomyrdin,
Prime Minister of the Russian Federation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also wish to draw to your attention the presence
in the gallery of a delegation from the People's Republic of China
led by Liu Fusheng, Chairman of the standing committee of the
People's Congress of Hunan Province.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture in his
response to my question earlier stated that Reform MPs were
counselling farmers to break the law regarding some of the
oppressive actions of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is totally
untrue.
Reform MPs have never counselled farmers to break the law and
I think it is important I set the record straight on that.
The Speaker: May I once again caution members on the use of
language which seems to be getting more and more aggressive as
we go along.
It is true that in the House of Commons we are used to strong
language, but at times we get carried away with ourselves, one side
saying one thing about the other and the other side retaliating by
saying that someone else breaks the law.
We are entitled here to free speech, of course, but sometimes
when it comes close to transgressing our parliamentary rules I will
intervene. I would once again ask all hon. members to be very
prudent in the language they use as it is offensive not only to
individuals but it could be offensive to the House.
15348
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1205)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the
1994 annual report of the Lower Churchill Development
Corporation.
* * *
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the
Standing Committee on Finance concerning Bill C-90, the Excise
Tax Act and Excise Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table the 89th report of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs, which deals with the list of
associate committee members.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this
89th report later this day.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-106, an act
respecting the Law Commission of Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
15349
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the House gives its consent, I move that the 89th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present three petitions.
In the first petition the petitioners are asking that Parliament take
steps to keep BGH out of Canada by legislating a moratorium or
stoppage on BGH use and sale until the year 2000 and by
examining the outstanding health and economic questions through
an independent and transparent review.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners pray and
request that Parliament rescind mandatory release legislation
where violent offenders are involved; that Parliament ensure all
information on violent offenders, including prior offences and
refusal to enroll in treatment programs, is provided to those making
decisions on release or parole; and that Parliament ensure all
violent offenders will be separated from society until it can be
proven that they will not reoffend.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners are
requesting that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the
Criminal Code in any way and upholds the Supreme Court of
Canada decision on September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted
suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I present a petition which calls on Parliament
to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
I am pleased to present the petition on behalf of these
constituents.
(1210 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
15349
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-64,
an act respecting employment equity, be read the third time and
passed.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
my comments today on Bill C-64 I want to focus on one important
point. This employment equity legislation is a Canadian answer to
a Canadian reality.
[Translation]
That Canadian reality is that persons in designated groups are
not doing as well as they should in our labour force, given their
qualifications.
That Canadian reality is that many instances of systemic
discrimination can still be found.
[English]
I refer to a study released only last week by Simon Fraser
University which states very clearly that male immigrants who are
members of a visible minority earn 15 per cent less than white
males born in Canada with the same education, in the same
industry and in the same city.
We have heard a lot of debate on Bill C-64 that seems to deny
that there is a problem, that action is necessary and that leadership
by the Government of Canada is necessary. While it is a lot less
nasty, to quote the same study, white immigrants still earn 2 per
cent less than native born Canadians.
The figures become quite substantial. Let me quote: ``Mean
earnings of immigrant male members of visible minorities were
down 22.6 per cent from those of Canadian born white males''.
We could talk about each of the designated groups and make it
clear that in the private and public sectors being well qualified is
not enough if a person happens to be a member of a visible
15350
minority, a woman, an aboriginal or a person with a disability.
Those things work against them. They seem to cloud perception of
their ability to do the job and to take on more senior
responsibilities. It happens throughout every sector of the
economy.
Let me come back to the Canadian reality. The Canadian reality
is that our citizens want and deserve a country that breaks down
these barriers to success. Two years ago that is what our country
offered to Canadians and ever since we have been living up to our
commitment.
Let me go back to the red book. It offered a vision of Canada
with the economic strength it deserves and the social strength that
draws us together as a community. At the beginning of the red
book, the man whom Canadians chose as their Prime Minister and
whom they continue to support wrote:
The result is a Liberal plan for Canada firmly anchored in the principle that
governing is about people, and that government must be judged by its
effectiveness in promoting human dignity, justice, fairness, and opportunity.
This is our approach, and this election is about presenting that choice to
Canadians.
Our platform was based on jobs and growth that would enrich
everyone. We understood that people have expectations for their
society, not just for their own wallets. That was why one of our
commitments was a stronger employment equity act. We were
determined that the federal government should do what it could to
ensure that Canadians have a fair opportunity to get ahead in life. It
draws on the willingness of employers to take a hard look at old
practices and to move to a workplace that welcomes the talents of
all our citizens.
(1215)
Quite simply, this bill is about identifying and knocking over
barriers that keep some people on the outside looking in or on the
bottom looking up. It rests in the best tradition of opening the doors
to full participation in Canadian society for all our citizens with all
their diversity.
That puts the members of the Reform Party in a bit of a bind as
they debate Bill C-64.
[Translation]
They know that incompetent members of designated groups will
not take over the workplace. They know that no arbitrary quotas
will be imposed. They know that this bill takes into account the
concerns voiced by small business. And they know that the bill is
fair and reasonable.
[English]
They are reduced to appealing to the worst in people instead of to
the best. They are reduced to philosophical musings that are
irrelevant to the case before the House and worst case, individual
stories pulled from the murky depths of the American right wing.
They cannot even get the name of this process right in their efforts
to score political points. They seem to believe that if they use the
term affirmative action they can polarize the debate.
One of the most destructive things that can be done in a society
or in a Parliament is to polarize the debate, to pit one group against
another, rather than to build ties and mutual respect among us.
If they want to talk about the American system, let us look at the
record there and then let us compare it to what the government
wants to do in this bill so that Canadians, despite the Reform Party
members, will know the difference between the American system
and ours.
Some 30 years ago the United States began to come to grips with
the impact of centuries of racial discrimination. By 1970 Richard
Nixon brought in the first affirmative action policies for the U.S.
government. Let me remind my hon. friends that Richard Nixon
would never be called a bleeding heart, but he did what he knew
was right at the time and what his society needed. Other
governments, public and private institutions took similar steps.
[Translation]
As the New York Times noted recently, this process has yielded
results. ``In the past 20 years, it said, a substantial number of black
families have been able to climb the social and professional ladder.
While positive action is not the only reason for this, it certainly
played a major role''.
[English]
Has the American process been perfect? Has it been what we
want to model ourselves on? Absolutely not. In some cases
arbitrary approaches were imposed. There were decisions that
struck those of us at a distance as odd and unfair. In response that
American system too has evolved but they too know there is still
much to do.
Ask anyone who watched the public reaction to the Simpson trial
and to the ultimate verdict. Race is still an issue in American life.
The right wing there and their junior auxiliary in the Reform Party
here cannot wish it away.
I believe that Canada begins from a better starting point than the
United States. We do not have a clean history when it comes to
racism and discrimination but we do not have the same burden of
history that the Americans do.
Nonetheless there are barriers still to the full participation of
members of designated groups in the economy and therefore to
their full participation in society. Creating opportunity through
ensuring fairness is the point of Bill C-64. We have chosen a
Canadian approach. We have been guided by what works.
I had to go back to the dictionary. After listening to the debate
for several days, I was starting to question whether I really
understood what the word equity means. This is the Employment
Equity Act, not the employment special preference act, as the
Reform would have us believe, not the employment discrimination
15351
act, as Reform would have us believe. It is the Employment Equity
Act.
(1220)
Let me quote from the dictionary: equity; fairness. If one goes to
the second definition, it says the application of the principles of
justice. Equity; justice. Those are Canadian words. Those are
words that Canadians have taken to their hearts and have identified
now for decades as a fundamental of what this country is all about.
Let me go to the word equality: the state of being equal. It is not
one better than the other, but equal. That too is a term that our
society and our country has stood for not only at home but around
this globe.
Our approach in the bill is founded on a human resources
planning approach to workplace issues. It is founded on creating a
climate that encourages diversity through real action, not empty
rhetoric. It is founded on a compliance process that has been based
on those best Canadian values of negotiation and co-operation.
It is founded on giving employers the tools, the information and
the incentive to recognize the ability in everybody who comes
forward and applies for employment, in everybody who is in their
employ and is looking for opportunities to advance and to improve.
My colleagues on this side of the House have talked about how
this system will work. We do not have to rely on speculation. This
is not new legislation. With some minor changes in applying it to
the public service, it is the same employment equity legislation that
has been in place in Canada since 1987.
My colleagues have talked about employers who see the value in
this legislation to do the right thing. These employers have spoken
of the flexibility and realism that is the foundation of our approach.
I sat through weeks of hearings of the human rights committee
where numerous employers' organizations came before us in
support of the legislation. They were not in support of every detail
of it. They asked for some changes and most have been made. Not
every equity group approved of every detail in the legislation. They
asked for some changes and some of those have been made.
In true Canadian spirit, we are trying to achieve a progressive
goal for all Canadians, a goal that is good for our economy, good
for our society and good for individuals within our Canadian
society.
We have not, as always, done what everybody would have liked
but we have reached the best accommodation possible of the many
different interests involved.
[Translation]
We have taken a made in Canada approach to employment
equity. Admittedly, there are problems, but we can find effective,
sensible and user friendly ways of dealing with these problems.
This means no quotas, no reverse discrimination and no arbitrary
preferential treatment. This means creating a fair and rational
workplace for all.
[English]
I ask the hon. members opposite to quit falling back on the tired
slogans of American politics, to quit pretending that the Canadian
way is the American way. It is not. Look to this country. Look to
our reality. Look to a better future and more opportunity for all
Canadians, not just the select few. Look to a solution that makes
sense. That solution, I believe, is found in Bill C-64 and the
continuation of employment equity in Canada.
(1225)
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member who just made her presentation spent some time talking
about discrimination in Canada, saying that members of the
Reform Party deny that there is discrimination. I do not think one
Reform member of Parliament could be found who would deny that
there is discrimination and that it is not a problem. I do not deny it
and I do not think any of my colleagues would deny it.
If discrimination finds its way into the workplace, as members of
the Reform Party have said, it should be dealt with in a tough
manner. We do not tolerate it and we must not tolerate it.
The member also gave statistics to show that legislation is
needed. I present a few statistics and ask the member to respond to
them. These are from the 1994 employment equity report. The
report said that 570,000 people are currently regulated by the
present Employment Equity Act. The member spoke about this not
being new legislation, that there is an Employment Equity Act in
place. Of this number 45.6 per cent are women. In the Canadian
workforce about 45.9 per cent are female. The difference between
those in the employment equity program and those outside is .3 per
cent.
In total, women occupy 47 per cent of government jobs, while
47.3 per cent are available for work. Again, a .3 per cent difference.
The civilian staff of the RCMP is 82.6 per cent female; Citizenship
Canada, 74 per cent female; Transport Canada, 75 per cent male.
What are we going to do in these departments? Are we going to
make sure we get the right quotas, get rid of women in one
department and get rid of men in the other? What are we going to
do?
The overall statistics in government and outside government
show the employment equity program has very little effect.
15352
Before the member responds to these statistics, the polls
consistently show that Canadians are against employment equity.
Approximately 70 per cent to 80 per cent of Canadians are against
employment equity programs, such as this Liberal program.
I want to ask the hon. member how the Liberals can totally
disregard the will of a large majority of Canadians and ignore these
polls on the issue when they are so willing to accept the results of
their own polls on other issues?
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that the Reform
Party obviously needs to educate itself. The member for Vegreville
just said ``if discrimination finds its way into the workplace''. It is
impossible to look at any statistics from the workplace and not
accept that discrimination finds its way into the workplace.
I will quote some additional statistics from a recent report by
Simon Fraser University. Canadian born Greek males earned 16.2
per cent less than Canadian born males of British background.
Even those earnings paled beside the ones for black and Filipino
immigrant males who posted earnings that were respectively 21 per
cent and 20.2 per cent lower than those for Canadian men of British
background. Double jeopardy operates for women. Visible
minority immigrant females earned 7.2 per cent less than white
Canadian females. I therefore ask the hon. member to please take
the if out of his statements about discrimination in the workplace.
(1230)
Employment equity is not about being able to get a job; it is
about having an equal opportunity to get as good a job if the person
is as good. It is true that over 80 per cent of employees in the
clerical category in the Government of Canada are women. Those
happen to be the lowest paid jobs. That may be why there is such a
high representation of women. Employment equity is about giving
all groups the opportunity to earn the same as anybody of similar
competence. Within that group of clerks the top levels are more
likely to be occupied by men. Even within that group of clerks
women are not allowed to progress.
The member referred to the fact that equity has been achieved. It
has not. Notwithstanding the qualifications, we must look at the
quality and the rate of pay, rather than simply being able to access
the lowest paid jobs.
I sat through a couple of months of committee hearings on this
bill. There was only one poll which came forward which said that
Canadians were not in favour of equality in employment and it was
a flawed poll. If the Reform Party had more polls with more
validity to bring forward at any time during those hearings, it had
every opportunity to do so, but it did not.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
country is managed by statistics. The hon. member pulled out
statistic after statistic about who is where in our society. I wish
government members would go to their ridings and talk to the
people one at a time. Maybe then they would understand more
about what is going on in the country.
I am very happy to speak to Bill C-64, the legislation of a Liberal
perfect world. It was interesting to hear the debate over the last two
days, but it is somewhat disheartening. Let me go back to an issue
which is somewhat related to this. Let us look at what the Liberals
know about the workplace.
Today in Halifax we learned of how the minister of patronage in
Atlantic Canada is meddling in the job market. Surprise, surprise.
Once again the friends of the minister have mismanaged millions
of taxpayers' dollars at Cornwallis Park Development Agency in
what has been called potentially the biggest boondoggle in the last
two decades.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. What does it mean to the Liberal minister for
Atlantic Canada, the minister of public works? Once again we see
that the minister of public works has his own version of job equity.
A person has to belong to one of two categories in this country:
either donate to the Liberals or become friends with one. That is the
only way to have an equal shot at a job in Atlantic Canada.
I do not think the government has any idea of what job equity is.
Who a person knows and whom they donate to are what really
count.
The seeds of dissension are here among our young. They are not
there for lack of a job equity bill; they are there because many of
them see themselves as not being able to get jobs because of
quotas. Government will deny the use of the word quota. I will
explain exactly where I get this terminology: right out of the bill.
(1235)
This is social engineering at its worst. Ontario has just elected to
do away with it. We are not talking about America, as one of our
Liberal colleagues over there said. This is Ontario. Apparently
there is a mismatch now. The Ontario government says it will do
away with it while the Liberal government in Ottawa is about to
impose it on the rest of Canada.
It is also interesting that the last speaker from the Liberal Party
said that we in the Reform Party talk about affirmative action
which is all wrong. However, the Liberal member for Halifax in a
partial quote said this morning, ``affirmative action would not be
necessary if employment equity were in existence'' or something to
that effect.
Mr. Forseth: What is the difference?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): That is exactly what she was
talking about and the other one said: ``You are talking about it over
here''.
What is the answer? The answer is: ``We will fix it. We will fix it
for everybody in Canada. We Liberals have the answer''. Let me
show what their answer is. Goals versus quotas, are they the same
thing? Under the Employment Equity Act, section 6, an employer
15353
is not required ``to hire or promote unqualified persons'' which is
good, nor ``to create new positions in its workforce'', which is very
good.
Also under the Employment Equity Act, section 33, the
Canadian Human Rights Commission cannot impose a quota on the
employer where quota is defined as ``a requirement to hire or
promote a fixed and arbitrary number of persons during a given
period''. This is very good. People say: ``That makes a bit of sense
to us. We could probably buy into this legislation''.
What is not talked about by the Liberals is section 10. In
circumstances where under-representation of designated groups
has been identified the employer is required to prepare a plan in
which short term numerical goals for hiring and promotion of the
designated groups are established. We will be getting employers to
look at short term numerical goals, but these are not quotas. Also
longer term goals for increasing the representation of persons in
designated groups are also established.
If in the opinion of a Canadian Human Rights Commission
investigator-there is an investigator; hire him like the ethics
counsellor who is not used either-an employer has not made all
reasonable efforts to implement the employment equity plan,
including the goals, the employer may, if negotiations fail,
ultimately be subject to an action by an employment equity review
tribunal for contempt of process similar in nature to contempt of
court leading to imprisonment until the directive is complied with.
This is from sections 25 and 31, mark it down.
An employer, believe it or not, can also be fined up to $50,000 by
the responsible minister, who is yet to be determined, for failure to
file an employment equity report, for failure to include required
information in the employment equity report, or for providing false
or misleading information in the employment equity report. This is
from section 36, write it down.
Tell me the Liberal government does not have quotas. Tell me
this is all voluntary, completely voluntary. Then tell me what it
means to have an investigator on staff checking them out.
(1240 )
Tell me what it means to force organizations to have short term
numerical goals for hiring and promotion of designated groups and
long term goals. If they tell the investigator they cannot make it or
they cannot do this or that then they negotiate. If that does not
work, there will be a tribunal. If that does not work, they will be put
behind bars.
Listen up. What is the government doing? This is not a fun
exercise we are going through to get votes and spend money. What
this government is legislating here is serious. It has nothing to do
with racism but has everything to do with rights and privileges in
this country.
Who will the government fine up to $50,000? Why will it fine
someone up to $50,000?
What will the government do when it has a quota in a town
where perhaps there are not the right number of people? Is will get
its investigator to find somebody to take to a tribunal? What if
someone is found who is absolutely not suitable for the job? Will
that person be placed in the job anyway? That is a great way to get
Canada competitive in the global market. The brilliance of social
engineering.
Let us look at a couple of application forms. One of these forms
was given to me by a backbench Liberal who is not very happy with
what is going on here. Among the things asked on this application
form is to self-identify. Look in the mirror or perhaps determine
what kind of person you really are. Let us self-identify: cultural,
racial or linguistic minority person. Explain that and define it.
Lesbian, gay man or bisexual. What the heck does that have to do
with employment? That is where social engineering hit. That is just
one application.
Here is the government's application. The longest thing on the
application is the group with which one has to self-identify: Black,
Chinese, Filipino, South Asian, Indonesian, Pakistani, Japanese,
Korean, Southeast Asian, Burmese, Cambodian, Laotian, Thai,
Vietnamese, visible minority west Asian, North African, visible
minority Latin American, Oceanic, Polynesian, Micronesian,
Melanesian. What is the government doing to this country?
These are application forms. The government is intent on social
engineering quota systems. If something is found wrong then it will
get its investigator out. He will chase it down, much like the
investigator it has under the Official Languages Act. He makes his
report.
Mr. McClelland: That might answer the census question.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Perhaps.
This is the politically correct Liberal government days in our
Canadian society. Government members will impose on the rest of
us those things we do not necessarily want. Do they really think in a
community like mine that many visible minorities do not get jobs?
In fact they are the majority of employees in many businesses in
my community. Do they think other people say that is not fair? We
have to try to employ everyone in society regardless of race, colour,
creed, religion or sex.
(1245)
We cannot engineer society through legislation, but the Liberals
will do it because they have a majority government. The mess will
be there, which they will leave behind when they are turfed out of
office.
15354
Let us talk about SMIP. Probably not one of them knows what
SMIP is. Do they know? What is SMIP? They have no idea what
SMIP is. That is special measures initiatives program, a new
program just introduced by the Liberal government. What is it all
about?
It retains the successful elements of previous special measures
programs. It has new initiatives to support the development and
retention of designated group members. There is a recruitment
component in SMIP that is similar to old programs but is directed
at other groups such as aboriginals, visible minorities and so on.
What does SMIP do? It spends money. It spends $768,000 on
aboriginals; $508,000 on all employees; $992,000 on all
employment equity groups; $838,000 on more than one but not all
employment equity groups; $382,000 on women; and $225,000 on
visible minority groups. The list goes on and on.
There is not a person in the House today on that side who even
knows what SMIP does. A lot of it buys votes; it enables the
government under yet another program to go around the country
handing out money.
The Liberal government is involved in quotas. I have explained
how and why. If someone would like to stand on the other side and
explain what I said, if I were wrong about my discussion on goals
and quotas, I would love to hear it. Am I wrong about sections 25
and 31? Am I wrong about section 36? If I am, let us talk about it.
How is it right to ensure fairness in an employment system while
at the same time telling some people they need not apply because
they do not fit into a category? The government will say that is not
really so and they will get another portion of the workplace.
Young people are saying to politicians all the time, not just
Reformers but Liberals as well, that they cannot get in there, that
they need not apply, that they need not submit an application form
to the RCMP. I have had them in my office and I asked why not.
They say that they do not fit, that they are excluded from the
category. How does it make right on the one hand to exclude people
and on the other hand say it is fair and equitable?
(1250)
An hon. member: That is baloney.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): One member says that is
baloney.
An hon. member: It is.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): It is absolutely accurate. I
need not say much more about it. It is extremely frustrating to
listen to Liberals on the other side giving their version of the
Liberal world out there without a reality check with the rest of the
country.
When they refer to ``those bad Reformers'' it must be a racial
thing with them. If they took a good look at who we are and what
we represent in our communities-people of all races, colours,
creeds, religion and sex-they would be a little disappointed in
themselves. They should look in the mirror and wonder what they
said in the House of Commons about Reformers. That is probably
the lowest we can get in debates like this one. It is fine if they wish
to use it but they will not get it from over here.
If the goal system is not a system of quotas, exactly what is it?
What is it when we need an investigator to ensure these things are
being done? What is it when people can be fined and become a
criminal for not living up to a quota established by government?
What is that?
It is a frustrating exercise to try to get the debate on a level that
the government will understand. Its members are intent on pushing
this through. They are intent on having it their way. They are intent
on giving average Canadians what they think is best for them even
if average Canadians do not think it is.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be very brief.
The Reform Party was born of a sense of feeling excluded from
the power and the decisions made in the country. If I am wrong in
that regard I would certainly want it be pointed out. However, it is
my understanding that essentially the Reform Party was born of the
notion that the west was feeling left out and did not feel it was part
of it.
That sentiment should cause the member to understand exactly
the principles behind the bill. The desire to allow all people to feel
a part of the system of government and so on is very important.
Members representing that party opposite should be the first people
to understand that notion, given where they were born.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, the member's
first presumption is inaccurate. Not only the west wants in. He has
it all wrong. The east wants in. Central Canada wants in. The
difficulty is that people across the nation are alienated by the
traditional tactics of that party.
It was not just politics, for instance, that had us opt out of the MP
pension plan. That traditional party at the trough will take the
money and run, which alienates people across the country. It has
alienated us here. The traditional approach to the Senate of that
party and the other party that is gone is wrong. It has alienated most
people in the country yet the Prime Minister continually appoints
Liberals to the other place.
(1255)
It is not some Reformer coming out of Abbotsford, Langley or
Aldergrove, British Columbia, saying that he is angry. We do a fair
bit of travelling ourselves and we hear it across the country.
15355
That presumption the member just made will sink the Liberal
ship. It truly will because they are basing the dissatisfaction of
people on something they feel is western alienation and that is
wrong.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I attentively listened to the hon. member's speech. I was somewhat
puzzled by some of the conclusions he drew from the bill we are
debating.
I should like to ask a question of the hon. member. Does he
believe aboriginal Canadians, women and visible minorities choose
to work in low paying jobs, choose alienation from the Canadian
economic system and choose their lifestyle?
We have lived for decades without employment equity and
thanks to employment equity we are now seeing progress. We are
seeing, for example, that women's salaries have gone up. Not
enough. They are still not equal to men's salaries. The gender gap
still exists.
Since the hon. member seems to have all the answers, I will go
back to the original question. Does he think that women choose to
be ghettoized in certain sectors? Do visible minorities choose low
incomes because they like low income jobs? Or, is it because there
are systemic barriers in society that do not allow these individuals
to achieve their full potential?
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, no
one in this country or any other country chooses to make less
money than anyone else. Males do not choose that. Females do not
choose that.
Everybody in this country has an equal opportunity. It is not
necessary to legislate it. It is not necessary to imprison people or to
fine people that do not abide by the rules.
It is a lot like any other distribution within society. I stand beside
the member from Coquitlam who is female. I do not think she
makes less than I do. I do not think she has any particular
advantage over me or I have any particular advantage over her. She
got where she is today the same way I did; she worked hard for it.
The presumption being made is that any inequity in the country
can be legislated. They cannot legislate morality, although I am
sure they will try hard enough. They cannot engineer a society.
Have they not stopped to think about what has happened in Ontario
and why? Is it just because the Ontario government is Conservative
and they are not? Is that the reason they put it away?
Ms. Catterall: Yes, exactly.
Mr. Stinson: How many female leaders have they ever had and
in how many years?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): It is interesting to note the
number of female leaders the Prime Minister's Liberals have had.
Mr. Stinson: Yes, and after how many years?
(1300 )
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I think this is a
government of double standards. A few minutes ago I described
what happened with the minister of public works in Atlantic
Canada. Talk about double standards. Hiring friends. Does this guy
look at employment equity? Only if you know a Liberal and donate
to the party. That is employment equity to those people over there.
An hon. member: Most people call it patronage.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): This is a party of double
standards. Fortunately for Canada we only get their double
standards once every few elections and then we throw them out.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the member. He accuses others of
having double standards. Yet he is against equity, the purpose of
which is to ensure as much as possible that the double standards
that exist are rectified.
The member is beginning to understand a little. In another 120
years, to use an expression he used, his party should have it down
pat.
The member said in previous remarks as well that he and his
colleagues have travelled around the country and know very well
what is going on. Is he aware of an article on today's Cornwall
Standard Freeholder in which the Grand Chief of the Akwasasne
community in my riding talked about the extensive travel of the
member across the way: ``Three Reform Party MPs who toured
Akwasasne Wednesday to check out smugglers alley should be
arrested for trespassing, says the furious Grand Chief Russell
Roundpoint''. He identifies the members for Calgary Northeast,
Wild Rose and Fraser Valley West.
I wonder if the member is familiar with that and what some
people think of his travel plans. Does he not think that when he
does those kinds of activities he just bragged about that the least he
could do is have the courtesy of informing the local elected
officials, and I am thinking here of the Grand Chief of Akwasasne?
There is a perception of insulting the community by the failure
of members to do so, and showing disrespect for the minority and
also to stereotyping them as all being part of an illegal activity. If
he does not want to give that perception, will he at least tell us now
that the failure on his part and that of his colleagues to show that
kind of respect was wrong and will he apologize to my constituents
who live in Akwasasne?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, if this member
were doing his job we would not have to travel to his riding.
15356
If that member realizes what is going on down there and the
problems they are having and the people we talked about, he
would not be in the House whining about it.
He is trying to do exactly what is going on in the House. He is
trying to turn a situation where we were looking at some real
problems of crime in his riding into a racial issue. That is what is
wrong.
We have been talking to the solicitor general about the crime
problem in this area and we have been getting very poor answers.
There has been no recognition from the government, no real action
to curb it. We have been down in the member's riding because we
were asked to go. If he does not like the way we travel, that is really
just too bad.
I belong to a party that goes out and talks to the people rather
than these pompous Liberals who complain that Reformers are in
their ridings dealing with issues. They turn a crime issue into a
racial issue. That is exactly what is wrong. He has a crime issue in
his riding.
(1305 )
They do not have the courage to deal with the crime because they
are so sensitive about something they call a racial issue.
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time with the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
[Translation]
I am pleased to discuss this bill, which seeks to make the
workplace fairer for all Canadians, particularly those who have
traditionally been disadvantaged.
This is also an opportunity to reply to some very severe criticism
made by Reform Party members in terms of this bill's probable
impact on the Canadian business world.
[English]
I wish they would stay with us long enough to hear some of these
responses so they do not come back uneducated. They asked a lot
of questions. They want responses. I am going to reply to some of
their concerns and it would be great if they were here to hear them.
[Translation]
This criticism has dire consequences, because it seeks to
undermine the efforts made to ensure fair treatment of Canadian
workers.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note
that it is customary and appropriate that we do not make reference
to the absence or the attendance of other hon. members.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member for
raising the point. His interpretation is correct. If that assessment is
correct I would ask the hon. member for St. Paul's to deal with it.
We should all be mindful, as the hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest has raised the issue, that we are not at any time to make
reference to the absence of members from the Chamber.
Mr. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to speak
to this bill and to have the attention of all members of Parliament.
[Translation]
So, I want to take a few minutes to discuss the provisions of this
bill and explain how they will not only benefit disadvantaged
people in the workplace, but also employers.
This legislation reflects two basic values which Canadians really
care about: fairness and equality. It also takes into account the need
to promote business development, in order to create jobs and
opportunities which will ensure a good future for all Canadians,
whoever they are and whatever their situation.
[English]
This bill seeks to achieve a critical balance between
competitiveness and compassion which is so vital for assuring
opportunities for Canadians.
While we in government are seeking to enhance fairness and
opportunities for Canadians, some opposition members either do
not see the need for such measures or feel that no improvements are
required to existing legislation. In my opinion they simply do not
get it.
They have never had the experience. They do not understand
what it is to apply for a job, to have all of the qualifications and to
somehow suspect that their colour, their gender, their disability or
their orientation precludes them from a fair chance at that job.
I do not necessarily ascribe malevolence to interviewers or
people who do the hiring. It is human nature. We have all felt it
ourselves. When we face candidates before us we tend to like those
who are just like us better than we like everybody else. We feel
more comfortable. We feel more at home. We can see ourselves
working with them.
We have only to look at the membership of the third party to see
that they have the same problem and perhaps need a plan to deal
with it within their own ranks.
An interesting study was done recently with respect to hiring.
Employers were asked to consider applicants on the basis of their
applications only. There were no personal interviews. It was
interesting to see employers hire people without regard to colour,
gender or disability and only find out later their colour, gender or
disability and then say: ``I do not care. I will make whatever
arrangements are necessary. Whether it is a ramp for a wheelchair,
or whatever it is, I want that candidate''.
15357
When faced with a person in front of them, by human nature
or otherwise, the tendency is, after years and years of good
intentions, for employers not to move fast enough. They need
some assistance in seeing a way through to doing what they know
is in the interests of their businesses which is to have a diversified
workforce.
(1310)
Much progress has been made under current employment
legislation and the current act but much more remains to be done.
Women are still concentrated in lower paid clerical, sales and
service jobs. Maybe that is the place where some hon. members
want to see them stay but that is not where this member or this
party wishes to them stay.
In the case of aboriginal people, the percentage in the workforce
under the act currently is 1.4 per cent compared to 3 per cent in the
Canadian population. It is roughly the case with respect to persons
with disabilities. They are roughly 6.5 per cent of the overall
population but a far lower percentage in the workforce. That is
wrong. It denies Canadian businesses the work and dedication of
devoted and capable people who can be accommodated and should
be received and welcomed as should people who are otherwise
among the designated groups.
However, those people still find themselves on the bottom rung
of the economic and social ladder. It is not just their problem,
which is I what I suspect hon. members from the third party think.
It is a problem for all of us since restricting the participation of
such individuals in the economic life of our country damages the
competitiveness of Canadian businesses. Businesses themselves
understand that. They endorse many of these proposals. They have
been doing a number of things on their own. They have been
working with us to develop programs to give effect to the guiding
principles encompassed in this legislation. It is good for business
and it is good for Canada.
Those businesses realize that recruiting, promoting and retaining
people who are representative of the Canadian population helps
them provide better and more responsive service since diverse
experience and perspectives are a bonus not a burden.
It is useful to note that many business representatives, not
usually identified as left wing radicals, appeared before the
standing committee in support of the bill. They told us the bill
would help them develop a more diverse workforce and give them
a competitive edge over less diversified competitors.
Diversification in business just is not about one's product line. It is
about one's employees as well.
Contrary to the accusations of some members, this bill is not
some piece of wild-eyed radicalism, totally divorced from the
realities of economic life and experience. Rather, it is a moderate
document which seeks to promote equal opportunity in the
workplace without imposing an onerous regulatory environment on
business which we recognize is already hard pressed in an
increasingly global, competitive marketplace.
For instance, while the act seeks to encourage employers to
address under-representation by members of designated groups, it
does not require them to hire unqualified people, to create new
positions, to create undue hardship or to contradict the merit
principle. What we are anxious to see is people hired on their
merits regardless of their gender, their colour and other
characteristics which have gotten in the way of people with equal
merit getting an equal opportunity.
The impact of the bill will be limited since it will only involve
those public and private sector organizations and enterprises
covered by the Canada Labour Code; about 10 per cent of the
workforce. It does not impose quotas or some draconian regime
directed from Ottawa as some have suggested. Rather it seeks to
help organizations and enterprises develop their own targets for
themselves which will allow them to develop a more representative
workforce.
To do this, the act will rely on self-identification by employees
rather than forcing people to be singled out. There is every
indication that such a system should be successful since employees
have shown themselves increasingly willing to identify themselves
for the purpose of this since the first act was passed in 1986.
In addition, enforcement of the act will not be a reign of terror as
conjured up by members of the third party. There is no intention of
hounding companies which, not yet fully in compliance with the
targets they set, are sincerely trying to reach their goals. Our
approach in such situations will be of helping, not harassing. We
hope to encourage co-management of this program within
enterprises. This means getting workers and management to work
together in partnership to ensure the success of the program. While
management will bear responsibility since it has the ultimate say in
how it manages its affairs, there will be considerable opportunity
for both sides to work together on the setting of targets, timetables
and implementation strategies.
(1315 )
Success in the area of labour-management co-operation could
well prove so rewarding that both parties might then decide to
extend this collaboration to other areas of common concern, which
would in turn benefit the enterprise as a whole.
Canadians are justly proud of the progress they have made in
ensuring fairness and equal opportunity. While the Employment
Equity Act of 1986 has led to a number of successes, much remains
to be done. We in this party will not cease in our efforts to improve
upon what we have done in the past. History does not stop. We gain
15358
new experiences every day and we see ways in which we can
implement our policies more effectively as time goes on.
We realize though that progress must not hinder the success of
Canadian business, which is so vital for creating jobs and
opportunities Canadians need. This act seeks to provide this vital
balance and contains provisions that will benefit not only
employees, particularly those traditionally disadvantaged, but
employers as well. As such, it represents a win-win situation where
everyone gains.
For this reason I will be supporting this legislation before the
House and would encourage all members to do so.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before giving the floor to
the hon. member for Lévis, I simply wish to remind the House that
the period for questions and comments lasts five minutes.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say
that the official opposition supports the legislation, even though we
feel it does not go far enough-
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dubé: -in spite of the protests made by the third party. At
the same time, a member of that party alluded earlier to the
government's double standards. In a sense I agree with him, but
obviously not for the same reasons.
There are the following points. First, the government introduces
legislation like this one, which is in general very praiseworthy and,
at the same time, it passes other legislation, including one piece of
legislation last year, suspending job security in the public service
for three years. Administratively, they will cut 45,000 jobs over
this period, and yet, when it comes to employment equity for
women, for example, in the public service, it seems to me that a
government should first set the example itself, before it asks
business to do something.
It should be beyond reproach in this regard. In fact, we can see,
and all the statistics indicate, that no progress has been made in the
federal public service; nothing has changed. Pay equity is in the
order of 72 per cent. Even for jobs requiring the same
qualifications, women were paid less than men. Women are in
lower paying jobs, because these jobs are lower down the ladder.
With the cuts and the legislation ending job security, there was
the phenomenon of voluntary departures, buy-outs. In cutting other
positions, a discretionary formula was used, by whom, by the
managers of the various government services. The vast majority of
the positions involved are held by men, very few by women.
Can we call this a fair practice? This is what I mean when I talk
about a double standard, it may be alright for the third party to
support it. It is all very well to make speeches in the House, to pass
fine laws, but I know, coming from Quebec, that some people
expected a lot from the official languages act, for example, in
promoting employment equity for francophones, those from
Quebec, and even those from outside Quebec, and still nothing has
happened.
Last year, a minister was obliged to issue directives to enforce a
20-year old law, and nothing has improved.
We will support this bill, but I have a question for the hon.
member. In his opinion, since he is closer to the minister, are there
any indications of a reversal of the double standard trend, that is,
the trend of passing fine laws, but changing nothing? On the
contrary, revisionist measures have been taken leading to
regression and a return to the past by, for example, suspending job
security in the public service.
What is preventing the government from passing antiscab
legislation?
(1320)
So, this is my question to the hon. member, who seems to have
progressive ideas. I want him to reassure me as to the value of what
he is saying, in terms of its impact on the government and on
cabinet.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remind the hon. member
for St. Paul's that while he indicated to the Chair he would be
splitting his time, if he wants to give his colleague the opportunity
to conclude her intervention before the end of government orders
his response should be brief.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I do want to allow my
colleague that opportunity.
I thank the hon. member for his intervention and for reminding
the House that the official opposition does support the bill. We
appreciate that support. Obviously they recognize, as we do, that
there are improvements that can be made in the way in which we do
business in this country.
He raises some good points to the effect that the public service
should be mindful of the laudable merits of this statute as it begins
to apply to them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member for
his co-operation and I regret the period of question or comment is
terminated.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to join
with my colleagues on this side of the House in support of this
important piece of legislation, which many disadvantaged
Canadians have long dreamed of.
15359
Yes, I use the word ``dream''. I am proud to be a member of a
team that dares to dream, one that has such faith in our capacity as
individuals and our capacity as a nation.
In the Liberal Party the vision was set out in what we called
``Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada ''. In that
document the government reinforced and spoke about the social
fabric of the country. We promised to strengthen our employment
equity legislation to ensure that we meet a very simple but
profound commitment. That commitment springs from the belief
that everyone in Canada is entitled to equality.
I remind members that the red book speaks of a future where all
Canadians, regardless of gender, race, or physical and intellectual
attributes, enjoy a standard of living and quality of life equal to
those of other Canadians. With this legislation we are moving
forward and ensuring that that future will become a reality.
I want to talk about Bill C-64 in terms of the strength we hope
this will build in our society, in our communities, and among us. It
is capitalizing on the diversity. It is about creating jobs and growth.
It is about removing barriers to full employment. The
modifications of the act are designed to streamline and strengthen
its existing provisions to ensure that the philosophy behind
employment equity becomes the everyday practice in the federally
regulated workplace.
This constructive piece of legislation builds on the significant
progress we have achieved since the Employment Equity Act was
introduced in 1986. I remind the House that Canadian banks,
airlines, broadcasters, some of the largest and most visible
companies in the country, have been implementing employment
equity programs for a decade. They have recognized that without
such plans their businesses would become less and less
representative of the clients they serve, a point which must not be
lost on us as government.
As a result of the federal policy and the dedication of business to
implement it, the numbers of designated groups have risen, without
backlash but with plenty of benefits to our society. Bill C-64 is a
continuation of our efforts to create real equality of opportunity in
the federally regulated workplace. It goes further than our existing
legislation by expanding the act's coverage and clarifying what
employment equity will and will not do.
This legislation will help explode the many myths we hear
coming from across the way in this House. These folks have
circulated many of those myths: employment equity challenges
workplace norms that reinforce existing patterns of power. This can
be threatening to people who are satisfied with the status quo. They
do not understand the need to accommodate differences because
they are satisfied with the way things are.
(1325)
The so-called playing field is already tipped in favour of those
for whom it was constructed, so it is not surprising that there are
attempts to find reasons to justify resistance to more inclusive
employment policies and practices.
We have heard the myths coming from the other side of the
House. We want to affirm that employment equity, with its
emphasis on fairness toward all Canadians, shatters all those
unfounded assumptions.
The legislation requires only that employers consider all
qualified candidates, I underline qualified, when seeking new
employees or choosing among workers for promotions. The act
does not allow quotas, and it certainly has no mandatory
preferences when employers choose new workers or consider their
existing employees for promotions. Somehow those two concepts,
the qualified candidates and no mandatory preferences, seem to be
lost on the opposition.
This bill is not about preferential treatment; it is about equal
treatment. If it is given a chance to work, everybody will benefit.
The legislation is meant as an unobtrusive human resource
management tool that would educate and assist employers as they
create more equitable workforces. Would that we could do this in
the House.
The whole point of this bill is to enhance this country's
economic performance through the removal of barriers that prevent
members of the designated groups from contributing to the
workplace. It is as much about economics as it is about justice.
Clearly it is about both. We want to achieve a better balance, one
that assures fairness and dignity for disadvantaged Canadians and
works to our country's social and economic advantage.
We are not interested in compiling statistics. The act is not about
counting numbers or instituting reams of new regulations. We are
talking about Canadian people, work ready individuals anxious to
demonstrate their abilities in a fair and welcoming environment,
who must be given that choice.
We need to rethink how we relate to one another as groups of
people. That is exactly what our improved employment equity
legislation asks us to do.
Bill C-64 asks Canadians to open their hearts and open their
minds to the many advantages of workplace diversity. It asks that
we put into practice the democratic principles we profess to believe
in: fairness, access and equity for all, regardless of gender, race,
disability, orientation. It insists that we live up to our moral and
legal obligations by upholding the rights and freedoms enshrined in
our Constitution.
Clearly employment equity is not an impediment to business or
an infringement on anyone's right. It is a catalyst for improvement
to the workplace and progress in our country. It is the foundation of
Canada's future. More than just the stuff dreams are made of, this
legislation can dramatically impact the standard of living and
quality of life of disadvantaged Canadians, the millions of women,
15360
visible minorities, persons living with disabilities, aboriginal
people, et cetera, who are an important part of our great nation.
I remind my hon. colleagues that these people are counting on us
to do the right thing. They are counting on us to endorse this crucial
legislation. There can be no debate. Bill C-64 is the right thing for
Canada. It is the right thing for us to do. It is the right thing for us to
do right now.
Let us get on with the job. Maybe the myth carriers and those
who would stand in this House and continue to have those myths
circulate will begin to understand that Canadians are counting on
us to ensure that fairness and equity exist in this country.
Let us get on with the job. Let us support this legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I see members seeking the
floor on questions and comments. I remind colleagues it is 1.30
p.m. I can only proceed by unanimous consent.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 1.30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
15360
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-242, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act, the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act
(improvement to public safety), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this private
member's bill reach the floor of the House of Commons. As
members know it is not an item of Private Members' Business
which will be voted on. We all know and believe, because we have
to, that our Private Members' Business arrangements sometimes
shine a light, point the way and give direction in the field of
statutory and policy reform. If it does not happen here it is not
going to happen anywhere.
My bill-perhaps I should not call it my bill because a lot of
people, events and persons contributed to the bill-reflects six or
seven years of experience in this House as a member of Parliament,
regionally and nationally and more particularly the seven years I
spent on the House of Commons justice committee. Some of the
things in the bill actually evolve directly from that experience on
the justice committee.
To be sure there continues to be flaws in Canada's criminal
justice system. We all recognize that. The challenge is to find
solutions and make corrections.
I am not one of those who would say that the whole system is in
disrepute. I have a great deal of respect for the Canadian criminal
justice system, notwithstanding some of the flaws that it has. Let us
be honest, there is not a criminal justice system in the world which
will not over time develop flaws and show need for change.
In the past year and half the government that I sit with proudly
has made a number of changes in the criminal justice area. I will
mention the Young Offenders Act, the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act, the new sentencing act, amendments to the Criminal
Code to deal with DNA testing and other areas and last but not least
the institution of a new national crime prevention council.
The council recognizes that we have a long way to go, maybe
forever. The business of reducing the potential for crime will go on
forever. The business of addressing society's needs in a way that
will reduce the propensity of our citizens to resort to crime will
always be there and will go on.
Last night, by coincidence I guess, I had the opportunity of
watching on one of our Canadian networks an interview with the
French and Mahaffy families following the conviction of the
accused Paul Bernardo for the murder and other crimes in relation
to their daughters. Thanks to television and to those families, we
were able to enter into the homes of these two Canadian families. I
could not help but sense that the families were hoping for a
reconciliation with Canadians to meet the challenges in their
personal lives. I cannot imagine that had anything to do with why
they agreed to do the interview.
(1335)
I want to thank them for doing the interview and I hope that
Canadians have been made aware of several things. It shows how
vulnerable we all are in terms of public safety. We share our
vulnerability to a psychopath or any criminal intimately with every
one of our fellow citizens.
Last night's interview permitted Canadians to understand how
important this area of law and policy is to all of us. I hope those
families will forgive me for even attempting to suggest what they
wanted to convey. I believe one area where we still have some
reform ahead of us is the criminal justice area. I hope they would
agree.
There are still reforms that we must address. The bill before us
today is a short list. It is not comprehensive. It contains six areas of
reform. I am going to walk through it now. I believe it is fair to say
that not every element of the six areas will have universal support.
That is rarely the case when one tries to make a change in the
criminal justice system. However, I would like to think that there
15361
is a sizeable consensus that this list is just part of the reforms still
out there for us to accomplish.
The first item is the denial of statutory release for serious, repeat
offenders. A serious repeat offender in this case is a person who
while on any form of early release, has been convicted of an
offence for which that person has been sentenced to five years or
more. The subsequent second offence which would result in the
denial of early release is certainly a serious offence. It would have
drawn a sentence of five years or more.
I am not being particularly aggressive in this. In April 1993 the
standing committee on justice reported through its 14th report and
recommended that the sentence for the subsequent offence be set at
two years. It is the same recommendation of denial of parole and
early release but the threshold was two years. In my bill I have
selected five years.
I hope I will not be accused by anyone of wimping out. The
Liberal Party of Canada in May and August of the same year
adopted the report of the justice committee as part of its criminal
justice policy package. The House of Commons justice committee
unanimously endorsed the provision and referred it to the House.
The Liberal Party of Canada adopted the entire justice committee
report. At the moment that recommended reform has not yet been
adopted.
(1340)
One of the most glaring examples of why reform is necessary is
the case of the conviction of Albert Foulston in Edmonton for the
murder of a police officer in 1990. This person has had 48 separate
convictions so it is fair to call him a convict. This convict was in
prison serving a sentence of approximately 10 years. I do not know
whether anybody really knew exactly how the 10 years was
composed because the sentencing mathematics contained in the
Criminal Code and in the CCRA are very complex. In any event, he
was released.
On several occasions while he was on early release he committed
other offences. I will not go through the list. It is part of the public
record elsewhere. While on early release for the umpteenth time he
participated in the killing of an Edmonton police officer for which
he was fairly promptly sentenced to 20 years.
The sentence calculation resulted in his total sentence looking
like 30 years because it was consecutive. However, because of the
way we calculate sentences, he was eligible for parole one year and
five months after he was convicted of the murder. With his life
sentence he was eligible for parole one year and five months after
he was convicted of murder. That is absurd. The absurdity has been
recorded in public journals.
One is moved to say that the system is obviously in some
disarray. I will leave that as an example of why the existing
provision must be changed.
My bill says that if a person is on early release and is convicted
of a crime and sentenced to two years or more that person loses the
right to early release.
I accept that there must be at the end of the consecutive
sentences a period when the offender will be integrated. That has to
be in the statutory release portion because I do not want that guy
being released at the end of 30 years and sitting on the Bay Street
bus the next day beside my kids. I want a period of integration.
The bill would close a loophole which allows offenders to avoid
serving time for new offences if those new offences occur while
they are on early release or even while they are in prison. If a
person is sentenced to seven years for a particularly bad crime and
during the fifth year that person gets out, beats somebody up and
steals his money, that would normally draw a sentence of a couple
of years. The way the law is currently written it requires that person
to start the two years back at the beginning of the seven year
sentence.
I am not going to take time to read that section of the Criminal
Code. It is a public statute and anybody can read it. They can read
the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the appropriate
section of the Criminal Code.
(1345 )
Basically the second offence is what I had call a freebie. There is
no sanction. You can steal a car, steal a purse, commit an assault,
and provided of course that the sentence for the second offence
does not exceed the length of the sentence you were first on, you do
not have to serve any additional time. This needs to be corrected.
We tried in the House in the last Parliament, I know we tried in
this one, and we are getting closer. We have made amendments, but
officials seem to be reluctant to alter the system too much, because
every time you change a sentence calculation it costs money, and
they do not have the money in their budgets. They are very cautious
about making changes to the way we sentence people and keep
people in our correctional institutions. I accept that.
In any event, I am still on the case and many of our colleagues in
this House are still on the case and we are slowly getting to those
reforms.
The third area is the lowering of the age of criminal
responsibility from age 12, where it is now, to age 10. That has
been misinterpreted in a lot of quarters. People ask how you can
throw the Criminal Code at a little 11-year-old. That is not the
objective, any more than it is the objective to throw the book at the
13-year-old or the 14-year old. What we have done in this country
is arrange for intervention into the life of a young offender when
they are under 18 years of age. What this does is allow the
appropriate intervention for a 10-year-old or 11-year-old. At
present there is no intervention.
15362
I remember in the last Parliament, the day before I introduced
a similar provision in private members' business was the day of
that unfortunate killing in Great Britain where the two 11-year-old
boys were involved. If that had happened here in Canada there
would have been no intervention. In some provinces there would
have been a social worker, but no Young Offenders Act. The social
worker procedures vary from province to province. This would
allow intervention at an early age, the same way we intervene for
all young offenders.
The fourth area is a provision that deals with the community
scourge of crack houses. Municipalities are crying out for some
way to deal with this. I suggest the solution is to redefine what we
call a disorderly house or a bawdy house in the Criminal Code and
allow the same procedures that communities use to deal with
bawdy houses and disorderly houses, where there are procedures to
deal with what we call found-ins and procedures to deal with
landlords. There is nothing else out there. It is a simple
amendment, and many communities I know would want to take
advantage of it to deal with crack houses.
Fifth is stiffer bail provisions for two categories of cases, where
you have people out on bail or on peace bonds committing other
offences. This proposal deals with being on bail or on a peace bond
and committing an offence on the peace bond or committing
another driving offence while on bail for a driving offence. There
are very serious implications for the public to have a drunk out
driving again when he or she is on bail on a driving offence. To
reverse the onus in the bail does not mean they do not get bail; it
means that it is up to them to show the judge why they should be
released. The onus or the burden of proof changes in terms of
entitlement to bail.
Last is a matter that has been discussed publicly. It would allow
victims of sexual assault to have the blood of the accused tested
only under a judge's order and in such a way that the evidence of
the blood test would not be used against them in the trial. This
provides something for the victim to make sure that he or she has
not been infected with many of the sexually transmitted diseases
that are out now. There are half a dozen of them. Some of them are
lethal. We have to have some compassion for victims where you
make a prima facie case in front of a judge and the judge says there
will be a blood test. In this way the victim can be assured, as best
we can using the medical testing we have, that he or she has not
been infected with one of these STDs.
(1350 )
Those are the six parts. I have had a lot of help preparing this,
first from my constituents, who have given me a lot of latitude here
in Parliament to deal with a lot of issues. I hope the bill reflects
their concerns. I received a lot of help from Canadians. I will
mention some of the people with whom I have had contact over the
last few years: Margot Blackburn, who has gone public, Priscilla de
Villiers, who has gone public, Mrs. Mahaffy, the Rosenfeldts, and
others. These people have all been direct or indirect victims who
want to see change. I have also spoken to public interest groups,
Victims of Violence, CAVEAT, the Canadian Centre for Victims of
Crime, financed by the Canadian Police Association.
I am grateful to my colleagues in this House for their continuing
support. Sooner or later, I hope these initiatives will bear fruit.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be
able to speak on private member's Bill C-242 tabled by the hon.
member for Scarborough-Rouge River. I shall be addressing in
particular clauses 3 and 8 on lowering the minimum age of criminal
responsibility.
Before I begin, I would like to stress that I find it a bit strange
that we are today debating a private member's bill from a member
of the government party. He himself began his speech by stating
that he was on the House of Commons justice committee for six
years, nearly two of those while his own party formed the
government. I find it somewhat strange that he is proposing this
again today. I wonder, is it because he has not managed to influence
his own minister of justice? Yet, as a member of the justice
committee he has studied these specific aspects.
I am a bit surprised therefore to see a former member of the
justice committee proposing such a bill. Perhaps this means-and I
think some of the hon. members opposite might have something to
say on this-that the matter was looked at somewhere and the hon.
member for Scarborough-Rouge River was no doubt told that his
bill was not in line with the government's intentions.
I am therefore prepared to debate it, but it is my impression-not
that I want to say we are wasting our time-but that the energy
expended by the hon. member, his good intentions
notwithstanding, could have been better expended if he had worked
on the office of the Minister of Justice, particularly the minister
himself. But, there you are.
The members of the opposition, who have no real power, can see
that the backbenchers of the government party do not have much
power or influence over their cabinet colleagues either.
As I have stated, my speech will be on clauses 3 and 8, because
they are aimed at dropping the minimum age of criminal
responsibility from 12 to 10 years.
I recall being present here in the House when the Young
Offenders Act was being discussed. That debate succeeded in
lowering the age by two years. At that rate, and considering the
number of debates there have been over time-you may think I am
laying it on a bit thick-but if we keep dropping the age down
every two years, in ten years they will be saying that the Criminal
Code applies to babies. This is not logical, but there you have it. In
Canada, government members, with the backing of the third party,
are going along with a trend that is really reinforcing the ideas of
15363
the right, ideas that our young people really need measures to
control them better.
I cannot get over this. Before coming out with such things, did
anyone think about the message we are giving to our young people
at the present time? Ten to twelve year olds are still just children, or
adolescents at most.
The hon. member is suggesting a change in the definition of a
child and an adolescent by lowering the age. At 10 they would be
recognized as adolescents.
(1355)
True, our children are bigger than they used to be because they
are healthier and better fed. It was recently reported that their IQs
might be 10 per cent higher as well, for a variety of reasons, than
what they were 20 years ago. I am willing to agree that these
conditions are improving, but I still feel ten years is too young.
I am sure that this has not succeeded in influencing the Minister
of Justice and therefore is not likely to be implemented. I trust that
this debate will not influence others. One never knows if, after
Quebec becomes sovereign, another party, the Reform Party for
instance, were to come to power in Canada, well then it would be-
Mr. Gagnon: It would be dreadful.
Mr. Dubé: Although I did not put words in the mouth of the hon.
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, for once I agree
with him. It would be dreadful to see such measures made more
stringent.
We in Quebec have a tradition. Although we apply the Canadian
Criminal Code to those under the age of 18 years. there is a
provision for rehabilitation. When a crime has been committed by a
young person, it must be interpreted as a sign to the parents and to
society that something must be done for this young person.
I recall the words of a member of this House, whom I shall not
name as he is not present. You would have cautioned me,Mr. Speaker, that we must not speak of the absent, but once warned,
twice shy.
Who among us can boast that we did nothing bad as children. It
is true that there are some extremely isolated cases, for instance the
two young boys aged between 10 and 12 who committed a murder
in England. This is unacceptable, but these are isolated cases. Let
us have a look at the statistics.
What is the real state of affairs? According to statistics issued by
the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse du Québec, in 1992-1993, 35
per cent of violent crimes in Canada were committed by
individuals aged 25 to 34. On the other hand, the 12 to 17 year old
group was responsible for less than 15 per cent of these crimes. I
repeat, less that 15 per cent.
Excluding the elderly, the very old-I am sorry to say the very
old, but I will soon be joining them, since in 12 years I will be
60-statistics issued by Statistics Canada show that young people
are less violent than any other age group in terms of serious violent
crimes. Let us keep this in mind.
I do not want to impute motives to the member, but he is jumping
on the bandwagon in favour of harsher measures to better control
our young people. Was increased funding for prevention and better
education ever considered? Were increased resources in these areas
ever considered?
I did not see anything to that effect coming from this
government. Unfortunately, some provincial governments want to
cut this sort of services. A case in point is what is going on in
Ontario. I have not closely checked it out but I understand that
Alberta has made drastic cuts in these areas. This is a dangerous
trend.
We all have kids and we know how firm we have to be with
them. We cannot be naive. We have to be firm with them, and, as
adults, give them good advice. We must not always think in terms
of punishment. We must give ourselves better means to help those
who tell us that society leaves to be desired, that they have
problems and need our help. I think we should debate those things.
One last point. Time flies and I have only one minute left.
I have kids living at home and friends who do also and I am
always amazed to see how easy it is for them to view violent
movies. Why can we not take adequate measures in that area?
(1400)
I cannot give you specific statistics today, but I am sure that the
many murders and attempts at violent acts that a young person can
see depicted on film in one evening have a negative influence on
our youth.
Why are we not conducting serious studies to limit the influence
of such programs on our youth? I would be an interesting approach.
We could at least try.
After all, we did bring these kids into the world. There is a song
which says: ``We gave them birth, maybe we could listen to them''.
So maybe we could listen to what they have to say and try to find
out why these violent individuals acting the way they do, even
though they are only a minority.
We must, as a community, be it Quebec or Canada, take the
necessary steps to help these young people. If I am still here later
on- which is doubtful, although I may do so somewhere else--
15364
someday I will suggest ways to help young people avoid the
negative influence of such television programming.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to speak
on Bill C-242. It is a very rare occasion to see anything concrete
coming from the government side of the House that makes any
sense and actually deals with the real issues. I guess it is because it
is coming from the back benches and not from the government that
I can appreciate we are dealing with the real issues here.
Having had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee of
Justice and Legal Affairs with the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River, I can appreciate his approach to
legislative changes. During his tenure on the committee the
member for Scarborough-Rouge River has been able to identify
problems with the current laws, propose legislative changes before
the committee and try to promote them. Unfortunately he has had
very little support from members of his own caucus.
He is attempting with Bill C-242 to deal with the real issues, the
real concerns, and to suggest legislative changes. There is nothing
earth shattering about the changes he is recommending. Serious
repeat offenders should be denied statutory release. Loopholes
should be removed from the calculation of parole eligibility which
allow repeat offenders not to serve their full new sentences.
Victims of sexual assaults should be allowed to request that their
assailants provide blood samples to check for infectious diseases.
Bail procedures should be toughened up. Crack houses should be
outlawed and the age of criminal responsibility for young offenders
should be reduced from 12 to 10 years old.
The member for Scarborough-Rouge River has identified a
number of flaws in the justice system and has offered workable
solutions to these flaws. Either that, or I would suggest he has been
reading the Reform Party's policy book again. Bill C-242 reads like
it came directly out of the criminal justice reform section of our
policy book. In either event the Reform Party certainly supports
each and every one of the amendments in Bill C-242.
It is a shame that these issues will only receive one hour of
debate this afternoon and then will die. All these amendments have
the support of the Reform Party. I am certain they also have the
support of an overwhelming majority of Canadians. Canadians are
demanding justice reform. There are just too many cases where the
law is not protecting the average citizen.
Canada's justice system needs to adopt one underlying principle:
when the rights of a convicted offender are in conflict with the
rights of the victim or the rights of society as a whole, the rights of
the victim or of society shall take precedence every time. A prime
example of the need for this principle is contained in clause 7 of
Bill C-242.
The need for legislation sprung out of a case in Quebec a few
years ago when a mother was sexually assaulted by an inmate on
parole. The inmate had previously been incarcerated in an
institution with a very high number of AIDS cases. Since her
assailant had been an intravenous drug user the victim was
naturally concerned that her assailant may also have carried HIV.
When her assailant refused to voluntarily give a blood sample the
victim went to court to have one given. Her request was rejected
because conducting a blood test against the offender's will was
deemed to be a violation of his rights under the charter.
(1405)
This is a prime example of what is wrong with the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This offender who committed a
serious crime of sexual assault should have lost some of his rights.
One of the rights he should have lost was the right to refuse to take
a blood test.
On the day of the sexual assault the victim's life was irrevocably
changed. Sexual assault leaves emotional scars that never leave the
victim. One additional burden should not have been her daily
concern about whether or not she had been infected by HIV or any
other sexually transmitted disease.
Clause 7 would have addressed that issue. Unfortunately Clause
7 like the rest of Bill C-242 will never be enacted.
In the last days of June we finally got the government to move on
the question of taking DNA samples. Why could blood samples not
be given the same consideration where there is justifiable cause?
Another aspect of Bill C-242 I should like to address is the
amendments the member for Scarborough-Rouge River wishes to
make to the Young Offenders Act. He felt it was necessary to lower
the minimum age from 12 years to 10 years. The member for
Scarborough-Rouge River cites the example of the murder case in
Great Britain where two 10-year old boys murdered a 3-year-old.
The member correctly pointed out that had the offence occurred in
Canada the police would have had little recourse but to simply
accompany the boys back to their parents, and that would have
been the end of it.
It is interesting this example was used because I have used it
myself on many occasions. I have been criticized because such a
horrendous event has not occurred in Canada and therefore it is
inappropriate to use it.
Then I switched to my Mikey Smith story. Mikey Smith is an
11-year old boy from Surrey who has for the past couple of years
been one of the most active car thieves in the lower mainland area.
While I am not sure what his current total is, it is probably well
over 100 cars. Mikey Smith publicly admitted that he would
15365
continue to steal cars until he was 12 years old because there was
nothing anybody could do about it.
Mikey's mother asked that he be charged before he either killed
himself or somebody else, before he reached a point where he
could not turn his life around. The Surrey RCMP would have been
more than happy to have accommodated the mother but the law did
not allow it. The Surrey crown counsel would have loved to have
been able to have accommodated Mikey's mother, but as the Young
Offenders Act currently stands there was nothing they could do.
I questioned the Minister of Justice about it in the House and in
committee. He expressed concern about the issue. He basically said
that while they can do something about it they are not prepared to
do so.
In the meantime one of my constituents was going home one
afternoon, going through an intersection on a green light, and was
sideswiped by a car stolen and driven by Mikey Smith. Fortunately
no one was seriously injured, but it is incomprehensible that this
kind of situation can continue to be allowed and that Mikey Smith
should be allowed to continue the mayhem.
One response I received from the federal government was that it
was a case in which the provincial social services should have
intervened. Just for the government's information, they did. They
sent Mikey on a wilderness program so that he could develop a
better attitude. The program helped so much that on the day Mikey
returned to Surrey he stole a car to celebrate his return.
Unfortunately Mikey is not the only youngster under 12 to be
engaged in crime. Youth gangs are recruiting 10-year-olds and
11-year-olds to carry out some of their crimes because they know
that they cannot be charged. Still there is no hint from the
government that it will support this kind of change. In fact when
the Reform Party put forward a votable motion last year not one
Liberal voted in favour of it.
In conclusion, Bill C-242 is a good example of how some Liberal
backbenchers have proposed good legislation but how the
government is not prepared to let the legislation be enacted. It is
apparent to me that the only way these criminal justice reforms will
ever be enacted is if there is a more Reform minded government in
place. I assure the member for Scarborough-Rouge River that
such a government would be much more sympathetic to supporting
these initiatives.
(1410 )
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting
to listen to the debate.
I have looked at some aspects of the bill and think it would make
good law. However when I hear the position of the Reform Party
then I think I must be wrong.
I have studied the proposals that have been put forward. Some I
agree with and some I do not. When trying to come up with
criminal law we must always look for a balance. The protection of
society is always a primary concern. That has to be balanced with
the rights of the accused. In recent years the interests of the victim
have also come to the fore.
I believe that the bill put forward by the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River tries to strike that balance, particularly
in the area of someone who continues with the commission of
crimes while he or she is out on early release. The proposal for
change so that the person will no longer be eligible for statutory
release is a good one.
The threshold for statutory release is also good because it is not
at the two-year level but at the five-year level, which indicates that
a rather severe crime has been committed. Therefore, more
sanctions for the protection of society require that we have this type
of an amendment. The example used by the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River of a person who commits a murder and
would only have to serve roughly a year and half before being
eligible for parole is something that needs to be amended. I support
those two aspects of the proposed changes in Bill C-242.
I share the concerns of members from the Bloc about changing
the age for people who have committed a crime. It seems to me that
lowering the age is really not the proper direction to proceed.
Perhaps what we have to do is what has been done in some
jurisdictions, which is introduce more flexibility. Rather than
trying to come up with age limits, we should allow the court in
specific circumstances to determine whether the child has the
capability of understanding the crime he or she has committed and
whether the process would be better served either inside or outside
the criminal justice system, rather than come up with some magic
line drawn in the sand.
In that sense I cannot support the part of the bill calling for
change to a 10-year age limit. Although it is very convenient when
we hear the stories put forward by the Reform Party for Mikey
Smith or the stories that come forward from the situation in Great
Britain.
Most often we hear of the extremes but we have to come up with
laws that deal with the norms. Therefore, I see no real benefit in
that aspect of the proposed bill. There is some benefit in looking at
stiffer bail procedures, crack houses and those types of things to see
whether we can grapple with those issues and come up with a
system that works.
15366
On the face of it these seem to be good. It is too bad the bill will
not get the opportunity for committee study and input. Maybe there
are other approaches, other ways to fine tune the bill. However, to
me it looks very positive.
I talked earlier about balancing one aspect against another. I
cannot not think of anything worse than a person who has been the
victim of a sexual assault being doubly victimized by not knowing
what possible diseases may have been transmitted as a result of that
sexual assault. When I try to balance the rights of the individual
who committed the crime and the rights of the victim, from my
own point of view I come down on the side of the person who has
been victimized. If a blood test would give any comfort to that
person after enduring that situation, then I think society would
require that we do something.
(1415)
In that sense this bill proposes a methodology which would
allow the court to review the circumstances to decide whether or
not an order should be granted. Therefore the rights of the
individuals in that balancing act we have to go through are
protected to a degree, but the rights of the victim are also protected.
In conclusion and as a general comment, the main thrust of the
bill deals with the issues of the people who commit a crime once
they are out on statutory release, the eligibility for bail and the
calculation of sentences. Those issues are well aimed. We need
some changes in the law in that area.
I do not support the member in his position with respect to the
change of age. The member for Scarborough-Rouge River and I
have discussed this issue over some period of time.
I do support the general direction. I would be interested in
hearing from experts but I think the bill requires the right balance
between the accused and the victim in dealing with blood tests. It is
unfortunate this bill is not going before committee where we would
have the input of others as to how we can make our criminal justice
system better.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on
Bill C-242, an Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act, the Criminal Code, and the Young Offenders Act. I
know that the hon. member from Scarborough-Rouge River has
invested a great deal of time and energy in bringing this piece of
legislation before the House.
The thrust of the hon. member's proposals is to deal more
stringently with repeat offenders, particularly those who commit
crimes while on day parole, full parole or statutory release.
In particular, these proposals address anomalies in the current
legislation which have been of concern to various interest groups,
particularly the police and justice system officials.
Under that legislation, many offenders who commit multiple
crimes or who re-offend during their sentence may remain eligible
for release and may even avoid custody altogether.
On June 21, 1994, the Solicitor General introduced Bill C-45, an
Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and
related statutes.
The bill received third reading and is now before the Senate.
The amendments contained in Bill C-45 will ensure that
offenders who get new sentences will feel the effect of those
sentences. This will help restore confidence in the sentence
calculation process in the following way.
Under the government's proposals, any offender who receives a
new custodial sentence while on conditional release would be
automatically returned to custody.
In the case of a consecutive sentence, the offender would have to
serve the parole ineligibility portion of the new sentence before
becoming eligible again for parole.
This means a third of the new sentence, or one-half of the
sentence in cases where the court has made an order that this would
have to be served. The net effect is proportionate to the new
sentence and respects the decision of the court to serve an
additional period of time in custody.
[English]
These proposals were developed on the basis of extensive
consultations with a broad range of groups and individuals
including judges, lawyers, police, provincial corrections and
justice officials, as well as representatives of various voluntary
service organizations.
Last March the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
conducted a review of Bill C-45. During that process, the
committee heard from over 60 witnesses who represented 32
different organizations, including victims groups, police
organizations, professional groups, women's groups, aboriginal
organizations, as well as a range of organizations from the
voluntary sector.
(1420)
During its clause by clause review, the committee debated a
number of motions to amend the sentence calculation provisions of
Bill C-45 and endorsed them in their entirety. These provisions
were also recently passed by the House of Commons.
[Translation]
While I believe that the hon. member's bill is well-intentioned, I
am also concerned that it falls short of the impact intended by Bill
C-45 for the following reasons. First, the changes proposed in Bill
C-242 do not take into account the inter-relation of the various
15367
sentence calculation provisions in the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act.
By changing two aspects of the law, we will create an imbalance
with other aspects of the legislation. This would necessitate
significant re-drafting of the law as it now stands. Bill C-242 also
deals with the complex issue of sentence calculation in a limited
manner. Implicit in these proposals is the assumption that an
offender under sentence will receive only one new sentence.
In such cases, sentence calculation is simple and
straightforward. The offender would lose any eligibilities for
conditional release on the original sentence, and would have to wait
out the parole ineligibility period of the new sentence before
becoming eligible again for conditional release.
But how would a sentence be calculated if the offender receives
four or five new sentences of varying durations, some consecutive
and some concurrent, at different points in the original sentence?
The bill fails to address this complex and very realistic matter.
The law must be equipped to deal with multiple sentences and all
possible combinations of sentences in an equitable manner
consistent with the court's intent. And while this government
supports the principle that repeat criminal behaviour should be
dealt with more stringently, particularly when it occurs during
conditional release, I also believe that the courts can take this into
consideration when imposing a new sentence.
Bill C-45 will address the shortcomings of the current sentence
calculation provisions I mentioned earlier. In doing so, the bill does
not lose sight of the purpose of statutory release which is to provide
offenders released from prison with a gradual controlled transition
period back to the community to assist them with their
reintegration and minimize public safety risk.
I would like to assure the members of this House that where any
offender is at high risk of committing a violent or serious drug
offence before sentence expiry, the National Parole Board has the
authority to detain the offender until warrant expiry. All the
measures I have mentioned aim to ensure that offenders are not
arbitrarily held in prison longer than necessary, and that due
consideration is given to their individual cases and level of risk to
the community.
We must take heed that discretion is fundamental for ensuring
that all cases are dealt with fairly. I believe that an individualized
approach based on risk assessment is preferable to blanket removal
of statutory release for a category of offenders.
[English]
During witness hearings on Bills C-45 and C-41 regarding
sentencing reforms, it was frequently heard that imprisonment
should be used as a last resort for the most serious offences. Many
witnesses who appeared before the justice and legal affairs
committee also stressed the merit of providing offenders with
gradual, structured release programs combined with ongoing
treatment and support to ensure long term community protection. It
is well known that simply locking them up for longer periods of
time will not achieve the goal shared by all Canadians for improved
public safety.
(1425)
[Translation]
The proposals set out in Bill C-45 are a thoughtful reflection of
the collaboration with many groups and individuals, including
members of the opposition.
I look forward to seeing effective and balanced reform-such as
that presented by the government in Bill C-45-move forward, and
anticipate that Parliament will deal fairly in addressing the
anomalies which the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River
has brought to our attention.
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak in favour of Bill C-242, the public safety
improvement act, introduced by my distinguished colleague from
Scarborough-Rouge River. Before I address the specifics of the
bill I believe it is important for members to understand the history
of our colleague's complex initiative.
As many members know, since his election to Parliament in
1988, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River has been a
strong advocate for criminal justice reform. He first introduced this
bill in the late stages of the last Parliament. At that time the bill
received a great deal of attention for three main reasons.
First it was and still is a thoughtful, well drafted and complex
piece of legislation which attempts to fill numerous cracks in the
criminal justice system. Second, national police and victims groups
rallied around the bill because it addressed many of their concerns.
Third and perhaps most significant of all, the bill was co-sponsored
by the former member for Red Deer who at the time was a
government member who shared his opposition colleague's
concerns for the issues which the bill aimed to address. Today,
more than two years later, we are still debating those same issues in
the House.
As previous speakers have noted, this is an omnibus bill which
deals with six key areas of the criminal justice system. They
include statutory release, sentencing, young offenders, crack and
bawdy houses, bail provisions and the rights of victims. To a degree
some of us are asking why the government has not already
addressed these issues. To a degree it has.
We have had the DNA legislation, amendments to the Young
Offenders Act, a new child registry for sex offenders, tougher
immigration and deportation provisions, and the list goes on and
on. The government has done a good job. We have done a lot more
15368
to improve public safety than any government before us and that is
not just Liberal rhetoric.
The deputy bureau chief for the Sun news recently reported:
``This Liberal government has actually done more to toughen up
the system in two years than the previous Tory government did in
nine''. Although we have accomplished a great deal, there is still
more to be done and this bill addresses some of those problems.
The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River has proposed
that an offender who commits a crime while on early release and
who is sentenced for five or more years for that crime would no
longer be eligible for statutory release. That proposal makes a lot of
sense. The purpose of statutory release and for that matter all forms
of early release is to prepare the offender for his or her ultimate
reintegration into society. If an offender commits a crime during
the trial freedom period, they obviously do not appreciate their
freedom and therefore should not be trusted again.
In 1988 had Joseph Fredericks, a convicted pedophile with a
long criminal record, not been entitled to statutory release, or
mandatory supervision as it was known then, Christopher
Stevenson, an innocent 11-year old Brampton boy, might not have
been brutally murdered. It is for this reason that serious
consideration should be given to this proposal by my colleague
from Scarborough.
The issue of an offender committing a crime while on early
release for a previous crime brings us to another section of the bill
which deals with an area referred to as corrections math. Currently,
if an offender commits a new crime while still serving a sentence
for a previous crime, the new sentence begins on the start date of
the original sentence. I am certain that anyone listening to this is
confused, as I was when I first learned about sentence calculation
many years ago when I was in Millbrook on the other side of the
table doing parole hearings.
It still makes me angry. An offender serving a sentence of seven
years for armed robbery commits another crime while on early
release in year five of his or her sentence. Although the offender is
sentenced to an additional three years in prison for the crime that
was committed while on early release, they will not serve
additional time in jail because the new sentence will be merged
with the original one. Basically they are allowed to commit a free
crime.
It is Friday afternoon, 2.30, and everyone wants to leave. It is the
end of the time. I am sorry I was not able to finish my speech, but I
want to tell members that I support Bill C-242 and the amendments
to it. I hope the justice minister is listening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member for
Victoria-Haliburton for his co-operation.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order
is dropped from the Order Paper.
Before adjourning, I wish all of you and yours a very happy
Thanksgiving.
[Translation]
I would like to wish you all a wonderful Thanksgiving Day.
It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday,
October 16 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and 24.
(The House adjourned at 2.31 p.m.)