CONTENTS
Thursday, June 15, 1995
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 13879
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13880
(Motion agreed to.) 13881
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13882
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13882
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13882
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13882
Bill C-69. Consideration resumed of motion forconcurrence 13883
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 13883
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 13884
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 13888
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 13892
Amendment to amendment 13903
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13903
Division on motion deferred 13905
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 13905
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13905
Bill C-70. Report stage 13906
Motion for Concurrence 13906
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 127; Nays, 76 13906
Motion for third reading 13907
Bill C-69. Consideration resumed of motion forconcurrence 13908
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13908
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 13908
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 13911
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13912
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13912
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13912
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 13914
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 13914
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13915
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 13915
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 13918
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 13919
Bill C-41. Motion for third reading. 13921
Bill C-69. Consideration resumed of motion forconcurrence 13927
Bill C-41-Consideration resumed of motion 13928
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 13929
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 13929
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 13938
Bill C-317. Motion for second reading 13939
Bill C-41. Consideration of motion resumed 13947
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13955
(Motion agreed to.) 13973
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13975
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13975
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 168; Nays, 51. 13978
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 13979
Bill C-89. Report stage and second reading 13979
Motions Nos. 1 to 3 13980
(Motion No. 1 negatived.) 13983
Division on motion deferred 13984
(Motions Nos. 2 and 3 negatived.) 13984
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 13984
(Motion No. 5 negatived.) 13985
Motions Nos. 6 and 7. 13985
Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 13985
(Amendment agreed to.) 13991
(Motion No. 7, as amended, negatived.) 13991
(Motion No. 6 negatived.) 13991
Division on Motions 9, 10, and 11 deferred 13991
Division on Motion No. 11 deferred 13991
Motions Nos. 12 and 13 13991
Motions Nos. 14 and 15 13991
(Motion No. 12 negatived.) 13997
(Motion No. 13 negatived.) 13997
Division on Motion No. 14 deferred 13997
Division on Motion No. 15 deferred 13997
Division on Motion No. 17 deferred 13999
(Motion agreed to.) 13999
13879
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, June 15, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to nine petitions.
* * *
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Madam Speaker, because of the proceedings in
the House earlier this week I was unable to give the statement I am
giving today. Nonetheless, our government regards it as very
important.
Two years ago on June 12, 1993 Nigeria held a presidential
election. It was the largest vote ever in Africa and the first chance
for Nigerians to choose their president. It was also the climax of an
extended transition to democracy which had seen the adoption of a
constitution and local state and legislative elections over four
years. Most important, it was in the view of international observers
including Canada the fairest and most peaceful election in
Nigeria's history.
After preliminary results showed Chief Moshood Abiola
winning a convincing majority of both votes and states, the military
regime simply annulled the election. Protests at home and abroad
led to leadership changes and months of confusion which ended
with General Sani Abacha taking power in November 1993.
Since then his regime has disbanded all elected bodies, jailed
Abiola and many other democratic leaders, closed newspapers,
repressed labour unions and minorities, given itself absolute legal
power and immunity, ended the right of habeas corpus and carried
out public executions. The January 1996 date set by the regime's
own constitutional conference for return to democracy was
recently dropped, enabling General Abacha to stay on indefinitely.
What happens in Nigeria matters to Canada. Our countries have
had a broad relationship based on Commonwealth ties, human
contacts in both directions and a shared commitment to federalism.
Nigeria is our largest export market between South Africa and
Maghreb and our largest source of imports in all Africa. Its
population and resources should make it a natural leader on the
continent. Instead, its entrenched military regime has a chilling
influence on democratic neighbours and has been imitated in
Commonwealth west Africa and elsewhere. It remains a potentially
destabilizing factor in the region.
Canada has responded to the situation in Nigeria. We have
condemned abuses as they have occurred and at the United Nations.
We have ended high level visits, military training assistance and
military capable exports.
(1005 )
Our limited diplomatic relations have included many
representations on behalf of Chief Abiola, Ken Saro-Wiwa and
other repressed human rights leaders.
We have assisted the democratic movement with modest aid
funds and have invited several prominent Nigerians on visits to
give Canadians a firsthand impression of the situation.
Democracy delayed is democracy denied. Nigerians have been
under military rule for 12 years and have already demonstrated
their readiness and enthusiasm for the democratic process. General
Abacha's regime must now act decisively to restore democracy, the
rule of law and respect for human rights. In particular the release of
Chief Abiola and ex-president Obasanjo would be a step in the
right direction; so would debanning the media, freeing or charging
detainees or setting a firm date for the end of military rule.
In the absence of visible measurable progress toward these
objectives Nigeria's Commonwealth partners will be obliged to
draw their own conclusions. Today we recognize the efforts of
Nigerian democrats and ensure them they are not forgotten nor do
they work in vain.
Dr. Wole Soyinka, a democratic leader and Nigeria's only Nobel
prize winner, was recognized by the Speaker on Monday and met
with me. As in South Africa, the struggle may be long but there can
be no doubt about the outcome, Nigerians will enjoy the rights
South Africans do today.
13880
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Madam Speaker, on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased today to pay tribute to
all Nigerian democrats.
Barely two years ago, the people of Nigeria believed they had
acquired a democratic process worthy of the name. Their leader,
Moshood Abiola, had won a resounding, eminently democratic
victory. Unfortunately, as we know, the military regime did not
accept the outcome, cancelled the election and ultimately,
appointed General Sani Abacha as head of state.
In light of the special commercial and political ties between
Canada and Nigeria, the Canadian government has a duty to
condemn loud and clear the basic human rights violations that
many Nigerians have suffered.
In our opinion, the Canadian government is not doing everything
that it can to intervene. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs publicly
announced only a few weeks ago, Canada is preparing to promote
trade without taking into account the human rights record of certain
countries.
The Liberal government's new foreign policy is questionable.
When the Canadian section of Amnesty International gathered for
its annual meeting last week, the director of the English section
rightly stated that to remain silent on the human rights issue
constitutes a serious abdication of our responsibilities, bordering
on complicity.
As we have said, the Canadian government's policy on human
rights is based on double talk. The policy of the Liberal
government is to answer only to the economic imperatives of
Canada's relations with its major trading partners, such as China or
Mexico. However, it takes a hard line approach to small countries
with which we have few or non-existent trade relations.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that the Liberal government should
not hesitate to proclaim and publicly defend the fact that
democracy and human rights are the cornerstones of Canadian
foreign policy, and that all of our trading partners should be
expected to have a similar stand, regardless of how much trade
Canada does with them.
By taking such a position, the government will be sending a clear
message to the people and heads of state or government of
countries that have trade ties with or receive aid from Canada, as is
the case with Nigeria. Canada must not pass up this opportunity to
profess in a vigorous way its democratic faith in an international
community where the temptation to remain indifferent, detached or
self-interested is omnipresent. We must move quickly to prove
wrong the dictators who interpret the collusive silence of countries
that claim to embrace democratic ideals as support for their
actions.
Instead of turning a blind eye to anti-democratic regimes and
human rights violations, whether in China or elsewhere, instead of
discussing the issue of human rights only behind the scenes to
spare the feelings of countries with markets that are interesting to
Canada, the government must adopt a coherent, clearly worded
policy, one that is entrenched in legislative and regulatory texts and
that ensures that decisions are based on three established criteria,
namely human rights, development assistance and international
trade.
(1010)
Otherwise, the only clear message that the government will be
sending is that governments of the south need only become good
trading partners if they want to rule by dictatorship, free of any
pressure.
In closing, I want to express once again my support for all
Nigerian democrats. I know how difficult it can be to fight for
human rights and democracy. Sometimes people have the feeling
that their hard work produces only mediocre results. Yet, we are
hopeful that their efforts to achieve democracy will prove
successful. Until then, the official opposition will support their
actions and join with them in condemning the human rights
violations that many Nigerians have suffered.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I share the
sentiments of the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa
who spoke well on the need for the restoration of democracy in
Nigeria.
It is certainly true the people of that country deserve a far better
government than they currently have. When they went peacefully
to the polls two years ago they had a genuine hope that for the first
time they would be able to choose their own president, but their
hopes were dashed. Not only was their democratically elected
president Chief Moshood Abiola arrested in jail by the army, but
almost every personal freedom was taken away from the people of
Nigeria. This unfortunate set of circumstances was described in
detail by the secretary of state.
In response to this robbery of democracy the Canadian
government has been quite right to condemn the illegitimate
government which has taken over. It was similarly correct in taking
certain punitive actions against that government. In the future the
Reform Party hopes the Canadian government will vigorously
promote democracy and improve human rights in Nigeria and
throughout the world.
In general Reform supports positive measures to improve human
rights such as support for the strengthening of democratic and legal
institutions in the developing world through our international aid
program. Canadian aid should support human rights promotion,
democratic change and institution building. Reform also supports
working with non-governmental organizations and the private
sector to build up a civil society and middle class in developing
countries. As civil society expands and the middle class grows,
human rights issues will improve.
13881
In severe cases such as Nigeria where the government is
responsible for massive human rights abuses and with which
a co-operative approach is not likely to be successful, we would
support the multilateral use of certain penalties.
I pass on a message to the people of Nigeria that Canada does
care and we will continue in our commitment to assisting
democratization and human rights in that country and in others.
With hard work and persistence they can overcome tyranny and
Canadians look forward to the day when we will welcome their
democratically elected leaders to our country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present today to the House the 13th report of the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning the
Correctional Service of Canada.
At the conclusion of the report, the committee recommends that
the auditor general monitor the efforts of the Correctional Service
of Canada to improve its accommodation planning and supervision
of released offenders, and that he report his findings when he
considers it appropriate.
The committee believes that the recommendations contained in
this report should be actively implemented. It also recommends
that unless it is directed to do otherwise, the Correctional Service
of Canada report on the progress made in implementing the report's
recommendations by April 1996 at the latest.
Appended to this report is the official opposition's dissenting
opinion on the policy of double bunking. In closing, I would like to
quote two recommendations contained in this dissenting opinion:
one, that the Correctional Service of Canada assess the short,
medium and long term impact of the policy of double bunking on
inmates, particularly its effect on inmate rehabilitation and that the
results of the study be published by January 1996; and two, that the
Correctional Service of Canada await the results of this study
before making the double bunking policy part of its
accommodation standards.
(1015)
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response to this report.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee
on Industry relating to Bill C-91, an act to continue the Federal
Business Development Bank under the name the Business
Development Bank of Canada, with amendments.
The main change will be in the suggestion that the name of the
bank be changed to the Small Business Bank of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): A
point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the tremendous
co-operation of all members I wonder if there would not be
unanimous consent for this motion.
I seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That notwithstanding any special order, this House shall continue to sit after
ll.30 p.m. this day in order to consider Government Orders and it shall not
adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by the minister of the crown.
I seek unanimous consent for that motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent to accept the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
56.1, I move:
That notwithstanding any standing order or special order, this House shall
continue to sit after 11.30 p.m. this day in order to consider Government Orders
and it shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a minister of
the crown.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Those members who
object to the motion will please rise in their places.
And fewer than 25 members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 56.1(3) the motion is adopted.
(Motion agreed to.)
13882
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to present a petition
sent to me by Mrs. Margaret Wiens of Quesnel, British Columbia,
and signed by over 1,000 constituents from many areas of my
riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin.
The petitioners call for the government to enact immediate
legislation for freedom of choice in health care that is full
integration of alternate practitioners, homoeopathic, herbal,
naturopathic, et cetera, into the Canadian health care system with
full equal coverage of visits and necessary remedies.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I also present eight petitions signed by over 200
constituents from Quesnel, Williams Lake and Lillooet in the
riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin.
My constituents request that Parliament not amend the human
rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights
and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including
amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual
orientation.
(1020 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I wish
to present four petitions on behalf of the citizens of Simcoe Centre.
The first petition deals with the subject of state imposed
bilingualism.
Given that the large majority of Canadians are opposed to the
official languages policy imposed on them by the former Liberal
government, the petitioners request that a referendum be held to
either accept or reject this flawed policy.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is on the subject of the drunkenness defence. It concerns
the use of a legal defence that has become known as the
drunkenness defence.
The petitioners believe that in committing the act of choosing to
consume alcohol the individual must accept all responsibility for
his or her actions while under the influence.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the third
petition involves section 718.2 of Bill C-41. The petitioners are
concerned that naming some groups in legislation will exclude
other groups from protection and that sentencing based on the
concept of hatred is very subjective and will undermine our justice
system.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final
group of petitioners request that the Government of Canada not
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the phrase
sexual orientation. The petitioners are concerned about including
the undefined phrase sexual orientation in the Canadian Human
Rights Act. Refusing to define the statement leaves interpretation
open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.
Parliament has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that
legislation cannot be misinterpreted.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition on behalf of a
number of my constituents organized by Suzanne MacDonell.
The petitioners request that Parliament urge the government to
recognize the unborn fetus from fertilization onward as an
individual in its own right with access to article 15(1) of the charter
of rights.
Furthermore, the petitioners request that Parliament recognize
and exercise its right to define in law the meaning of the unborn
child as a judicial person and cause to cease by the most expedient
means available the public funding of and the practice of abortion,
thereby honouring Parliament's and the government's obligation
under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Not only am I pleased to present this petition but I endorse it as
well.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I believe the member is
well aware that we do not enter into debate when presenting
petitions.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the
following petition from constituents in my riding of
Comox-Alberni.
The petition containing 163 signatures calls on Parliament to
oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the
inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, today the following questions
will be answered: Nos. 186, 187 and 188.
13883
[Text]
Question No. 186-Mr. Duncan:
With regard to Indians making purchases on reserve or having purchases
delivered to the reserve, what was the amount of GST exemption for eligible
Indians for the fiscal years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Although Revenue Canada gathers information to administer the
Excise Tax Act on the goods and services tax return including the
amount of the GST collected and input tax credits claimed by each
registrant, information is not collected on exemptions for particular
groups. Consequently, it is not possible to provide the data
requested.
Question No. 187-Mr. Duncan:
With regard to Indians making purchases off reserve at designated remote
stores, (a) what was the amount of GST exemption for eligible Indians for the
fiscal years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94, and (b) what are the designated
remote stores off reserve by province?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Remote stores are not required to accumulate or report on the total
dollar value of their sales to Indians. There is no requirement in law
for reporting this information to Revenue Canada. Moreover,
accumulating such information would significantly increase the
vendor's reporting requirements.
Off reserve vendors qualifying as remote stores are entitled to
waive the delivery requirement on tax relieved sales to Indians.
The department does not maintain a comprehensive list of
qualifying remote store vendors. The individual vendors are
responsible for determining their eligibility as a remote store and
are accountable for the GST receivable if they did not meet the
requirements. Their eligibility is later verified by a deparmental
audit.
Question No. 188-Mr. Duncan:
What was the amount of GST credit paid to eligible on reserve status Indians
for the fiscal years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
The information requested is not available as Revenue Canada does
not keep statistics on the number of goods and services tax, GST,
credit payments issued to status Indians. In addition, the
department does not categorize individuals by status or residence
and is therefore unable to extrapolate the requested information
from its data banks.
[English]
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
13883
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 14 consideration of the motion in
relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-69, an act
to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries
commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries; and of
the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Prior to resuming debate,
due to the statement by the minister, Government Orders will be
extended by 12 minutes.
I would inform the hon. member for North Vancouver that he has
14 minutes left in the debate.
(1025 )
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
when my speech was interrupted last night, I was speaking on Bill
C-69. At the time when I began my speech I mentioned the
continuing growth of the debt and deficit.
I would like to mention that in the 11 hours since I have stopped
speaking and have started again, the debt has increased by
approximately $50 million. Overnight while we were out of this
place the government overspent by $50 million. That gets added on
with interest to the debt burden already being carried by our
children and our grandchildren.
I also mentioned earlier in my speech last night and I would like
to reiterate that the issue of constituency representation is a very
important aspect of many of the bills we are considering. Free
votes were never an issue in past Parliaments because the three
worn out, dictatorial, arrogant old line parties all played the same
game of agenda politics.
They never wanted to and still do not want to govern the country
according to the wishes of the Canadian voters. They are not
interested in conducting business in accordance with the wishes of
taxpayers. There was a very good example of that less than 15
minutes ago when the government created a situation where the
House has to stay open well after midnight, debating bills and
motions that could have been debated adequately many months ago
when there was plenty of time to have public input, to do these
things properly. Those bills and motions do not have to be rammed
through the way it is being done, all jammed into a few days at the
end of the session when the public and the media do not get an
adequate opportunity to look at things.
If the government had been truly interested in carrying out the
wishes of Canadian voters and taxpayers, it would not engage in
this type of activity. It would admit that many of its bills are badly
flawed and would simply allow them to die or withdraw them.
13884
At the moment, with the exception of the Reform MPs and
a few independently minded Liberals, most of the MPs are
nothing more than voting machines. All we do is keep busy
between votes. Apart from the group I just mentioned, MPs are
simply not interested in reflecting their constituents' wishes in
the House.
All of the debates, the questions, the committee meetings, the
hearings, the witness testimony and the travel junkets are nothing
more than make work projects to keep MPs busy between votes,
votes for which the outcome is already known because the Prime
Minister knows what he wants to happen before the first words of
debate are uttered.
As I finished last night, I mentioned that last year the
government introduced approximately 60 bills. By the end of the
year, approximately 60 bills had been passed. Members could have
come here for one day, for one hour last year, stacked the whole 60
bills this high on the Clerk's table, voted once and the outcome
would have been pretty much the same.
For all of the debates and discussions that went on, the outcome
would have been pretty much the same. That is because the
outcome is already known before debate begins. It makes a
mockery of attempts by people to properly represent the taxpayers,
the constituents of this country.
Instead of having a reasonable approach to the bill before us,
members end up debating a bill that resulted from partisan
interference in the non-partisan electoral boundaries redistribution
process.
When is the bill being debated? Right at the end of the session.
Members have to go through the process of speaking right into the
small hours of the morning. The government does not particularly
care about input or debate any more than it cares for input or debate
on any other bill.
The Liberals know it will pass because the Prime Minister has
already issued his instruction. It will pass. Yesterday maybe half a
dozen Liberal MPs were brave enough to defy the orders of the
Prime Minister and to vote against the gun control bill in order to
represent their constituents. Congratulations to those members who
felt strongly enough to stand up for the principles that were
important to them.
We heard that the Prime Minister gave a speech during the
Liberal caucus meeting yesterday morning in which he told Liberal
MPs that if they vote against a government bill twice, then they are
out. If that is true, then I hope the hon. ladies and gentlemen on the
government side think very carefully over the next few days about
whether they can tolerate such an ultimatum.
Can they maintain their dignity? Can they continue to claim to
have ethics? Can they look their families and their constituents in
the eye? And can they continue to support their party if they would
accept such a dictatorial ultimatum? Are they grown adult
Canadians with a sense of morality, or are they prepared to be
pawns in a giant political machine?
(1030)
Clearly, we have a little way to go before free and representative
votes are a normal part of the operations of this place, but I truly
believe we are on the verge of a revolution in the way Parliament
functions. If there are dinosaurs on the other side of the House who
refuse to accept the inevitable change, they will soon be sent into
retirement by the voters. Then there will be no more Bill C-18s and
no more Bill C-69s, because the people of Canada will be
represented here instead of the political parties of Canada being
represented here.
Mrs. Terrana: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am
disturbed to hear that our hon. colleague is saying that the Prime
Minister yesterday threatened the caucus that they would be out of
caucus if they did not vote for our legislation. That is not correct,
and I would like to say that I oppose it.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, but that is an
item for debate.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, as I was
saying, once we get to a point where the representatives in this
place are clearly representing their constituents, there will be no
more need for Bill C-18s or Bill C-69s, Bill C-41s, because the
people of Canada will be represented here rather than the political
parties of Canada being represented here. The legislation passed
will be meaningful because it will be legislation wanted by the
voters and taxpayers who are building the country and supplying
the funds we need to run this place. The debates will be real
debates. The committee meetings will actually mean something.
Questions during question period will actually be answered, and
members of Parliament will regain the respect of the people of
Canada.
In closing, I would like to mention two things. Our debt has
increased by almost a million dollars during the time it took me to
give the speech, the total time of the speech. The second point is
that the Deputy Prime Minister promised to resign if the GST had
not gone within a year of the election. She still has not done it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am astonished by our colleague's
comments. Perhaps he would care to tell the members of this House
how many of the votes taken by Reform Party members since they
were first elected to this House have in fact been free votes.
13885
[English]
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for her question.
I am astonished that she is astonished. Having had the
opportunity to be in this House for some time since the last
election, I would have hoped that the hon. member would have
noticed that every vote that has been taken in this House by Reform
has been a free vote.
We think very carefully about the details of the bills before us.
We all consult with our constituents on an ongoing basis. For the
most part we have been elected by voters who have similar beliefs
and feelings, so it is not uncommon for us to be able to vote the
same way on a bill. On routine bills, that is the way it happens. On
controversial issues or issues where there are regional differences,
it quite clearly can be witnessed that Reform has been able to
demonstrate that freedom of voting quite regularly. There is never
any punishment. There is never any animosity between the
members because that is the understanding. The constitution of the
Reform Party requires Reform MPs to reflect the wishes of their
constituencies whenever that desire can be clearly demonstrated,
and it is compulsory in the case of moral issues.
I do thank the hon. member for permitting me to elaborate on
that and to clarify that point.
(1035 )
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, with
respect to what the member refers to as new style politics and the
wishes of his constituents, could he explain the activities of the
Reform last evening, when for about three hours during the votes I
noticed the members were deliberately standing up and sitting
down very slowly? Instead of standing up so that the clerks could
do the count very quickly, they were standing up and sitting down
very slowly. With respect to this new style of politics, is this a new
tactic the Reform Party has developed? Was it requested by their
constituents?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, that is an
interesting question from the member. The member asked why
some of the members on the Reform side were getting up rather
slowly during the votes on C-41 last night. I would like to mention
that I think they were emulating and mimicking the member for
Burin-St. George's, who makes a habit of carrying on that
activity.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is very interesting that this bill would come back from
the Senate. They have already expressed displeasure with the kinds
of bills the Liberals put through and are expressing it once again.
Maybe this time the government will get the message.
One of the reasons we had this bill in the first place was the fact
that many Liberal members did not like the way the boundaries
were changed. This did not suit the demographics that they thought
were in their best interests, and without any thought to whether it
was in the best interests of their constituents or the taxpayers of this
country they set about to basically eradicate $8 million worth of
work by the boundary commissions.
In my riding and in all the ridings that are pretty well
interconnected with mine we went through the public hearing
process in British Columbia, as I am sure all the other provinces
did as well. The initial boundaries that were set were not liked
there. It is not important whether they were liked by the MPs or
not; they were not liked by the constituents of those ridings.
The public hearings were held, which is the process that is in
place, and they did their job. The boundary commission came out
to the various towns where these were advertised and were
absolutely deluged with letters, briefs, and with people coming
before the commission at the public hearings to testify. The people
who were not happy with those first boundaries explained in detail
what it was they did not like about them, what they thought the
alternatives were, why theirs were better and how things could
work with the new plan they had.
The people from the boundary commission who came out on
these public hearings accepted this information. They went to
subsequent hearings until they had heard from the entire area. They
then went back and considered all the information and input that
took place. That is the way the process is supposed to work. If there
is something wrong, it is up to the people it affects, not the MPs. It
is up to the constituents, the voters. It is up to them to tell the
people who have the authority to set these boundaries what is
wrong with this in the first place. That is the process that took
place. The people involved in setting the new boundaries took this
information and decided that obviously it was what the people
wanted. So they redrew the boundaries and changed the program
based on the input of the people of the affected ridings.
What they came out with for my riding and for those
interconnected with my riding was not absolute perfection as we
would like to see it, but it was something that was much better than
originally brought up. It was something that reflected the wishes of
the people in the various ridings and it was something we could all
live with. Unfortunately, it was not something, even at that point,
members of the Liberal government could live with. They decided
that they had to have changes. Well from time to time these things
do need to be upgraded and changed, but that does not mean you
should spend millions and millions of wasted dollars to make those
changes. There is a time and a place for everything.
(1040 )
Simple changes to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
can always be brought in, but they should not be brought in at the
eleventh hour, scrapping all the work that had been just about
completed before this started.
13886
One of the problems with what the government is doing is
that the cost of boundary examination and modification runs
about $8 million. As I said, most of that work had been
completed. There is only the final step left to take place. Yet
the government would have us scrap that so we can bring in
a change of rules and have this work done all over again.
The public has already had an opportunity to talk about the
boundaries and what was proposed. One of two things is going to
happen if this bill goes through and they scrap all the work that has
gone before and start back at square one: either the government is
going to listen to the people, the voters of Canada, and do what they
want, which has already been done; or it is going to ignore the
voters of Canada, which is often its style, and do whatever it wants
in order to get the boundary ridings that best reflects its members'
ability to be elected. The latter is unacceptable.
If we are going to change the act there are a lot of things that
should be in there. Some of those things have been addressed by the
Senate amendments and some have not. One thing we proposed
was a cap or even a reduction in the total number of MPs in this
House.
We see the kinds of high jinks and antics exhibited by one side
evoking a response from the other side and causing further
retaliation. Do we need more people to do that? It costs a lot of
money to have an MP here. Are people going to be better
represented because we stuff more people into this place, increase
the operating budget of Parliament, revamp this whole Chamber so
we can squeeze extra seats in, and not only that but leave it in a
formula that will see it continue to expand year after year? Is that in
the best interest of the Canadian public? I do not think so.
We need elected representatives who are going to listen to the
people. It does not matter if there are a thousand people in here, if
they do not listen to what the people say it will do absolutely no
good. That is what is happening in Bill C-69.
The government is not listening to the people who have already
had input to the boundary commissions and said this is what they
want. It is prepared to scrap that. There are not enough changes in
these amendments or in the legislation proposed by the
government, sent once already to the other place and returned to be
sent back again, to justify spending $6 million to $8 million all
over again. As I said, the end result is going to be the same thing or
the total ignoring of the wishes of the public.
I am here to represent my constituents. My constituents can best
be represented by the style of boundary changes we already have in
place. If this bill goes through, with or without the Senate
amendments as they have been proposed, then the wishes of my
constituents are going to be ignored. Consequently, I do not support
the government's legislation dealing with C-69 one way or another,
with or without the amendments from the other place. It is still an
unacceptable piece of legislation and I will never support it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I was interested to hear my colleague talk about the bill coming in
at this time.
I am interested in his experience in the transportation portfolio
he is working on. I wonder whether he has made any observations
in that area with respect to the kinds of representation people are
talking about. I know he has travelled quite a bit and he has talked
to a number of people who may be looking for the kind of
representation he is talking about. Is he basing his concept of
representation on the remarks and the comments he hears from
people as he travels? If so, what is he hearing?
(1045 )
Mr. Gouk: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
inquiry. I have travelled a great deal and I have talked with people
on a number of issues not only in the transportation area but in
many other areas as well, including representation and how that
would be affected by the make-up of a riding.
For example, one of the problems we will have if the bill passes
is that we will not know what the boundaries are. When we talk
about representation we have no idea whatsoever who will be
representing what area. The hon. member from Calgary could have
her boundaries changed substantially. In my own riding I could
look at the original model of boundary changes. It was changed
immensely from the initial proposal by the boundary commission
after listening to input from people who would be affected.
As I said, we either represent the will of the people or we ram
something down their throats. In this case we do not know which
way government members will go because once in a while they
listen. I do not know if it is because we are getting to them or the
people are getting to them but every now and then they listen. It
catches us off guard when it happens. More often they do not listen
to the people. We are seeing all kinds of legislation being rammed
through the House right now and they are certainly not listening to
the people on those matters.
That is one of the problems we have, and I am hearing about it as
I travel from riding to riding across Canada. I have had meetings in
places like Mississauga. The problem is that if the bill goes through
the way the government proposes it, with or without the
amendments now before us, we are looking at an unknown future
for all ridings and for all boundaries. We have absolutely no idea
who will be representing which portion of which riding.
13887
In the case of my riding of Kootenay West-Revelstoke, a
portion of the north would be cut off under the current proposal
and massive areas would be added to the west. On the previous
proposal I would go east all the way through the next member's
riding and lose a portion of the compact area of my own. It is
very important that we consider not only our own ridings but
those of all MPs across the country.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
noticed the hon. member was concerned about the cost of
Parliament and the cost of members of Parliament, and I think
rightly so. It is very important that taxpayers' money be well spent
and be seen to be well spent.
However I noticed last evening the member sitting down and
standing up very slowly during the votes. I have heard that one of
the costs of Parliament is the cost of running the House and I have
been told that it is roughly $48,000 an hour. It seems to me last
evening the standing up and sitting down very slowly perhaps cost
us an extra three hours, which would be roughly $150,000 or
roughly the salary and associated costs of an MP for a whole year.
I noticed the hon. member was standing up particularly slowly
and sitting down particularly slowly. I wonder what he thought
about spending the equivalent of the annual salary and benefits of
one member of Parliament in one wasted period of three hours last
evening.
Mr. Gouk: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased the hon. member
on the other side noticed anything at all.
With respect to the cost of running Parliament last night and
getting around his stopwatch timing of how fast or slow I do my
callisthenics from here, I would suggest to him that he should talk
to his party leaders. We inquired if they were interested in moving
things quickly last night. We were prepared to do that. We offered
to have the whole House close down and we could have been well
on our way long before he ever envisioned. However they chose not
to go that way.
If we want to talk about wasting money and wasting time, let us
examine why we were here last night in the first place. The reason
we were here is that all last spring and all last fall the government
had all kinds of opportunity to bring the bills forward that we are
now ramming through with time allocation and late night sittings.
Let us talk about things like Bill C-7, an absolute piece of garbage.
That legislation has sat for an entire year with absolutely nothing
being done, and the government is talking about bringing it forward
next week and ramming it through.
If there is waste in the House it is not on this side; it sits firmly
with the member and the Liberal Party on that side.
(1050 )
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have been travelling with my hon. colleague on the transport
committee so I know what his principles are. We shared a good
relationship on the committee.
The riding of Vancouver East that I represent includes a portion
of the former Vancouver-Kingsway riding that will be
re-established. In 1988 I made a presentation to the travelling
committee on the Kingsway riding. I remember at the time I
suggested that Vancouver-Kingsway should be kept where it was
because the population would grow and we would need it again.
Most of the constituents of the riding asked for Kingsway to
remain. As we can see seven years later we are trying to
re-establish Kingsway and at the time, as I said, the constituents
wanted Kingsway to remain.
Does my colleague think that we should have some kind of order
in a bill that helps us make better choices on the process of
redistribution?
By the way, the part of my riding that will go is one of the best
parts of my riding. However I am not speaking to that effect
because whatever will come will come. I am not trying to change
things. I am just thinking that there is a need for some order in the
redistribution of the electoral boundaries and we need a bill to that
effect.
Mr. Gouk: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question. She is right. We have had many good times on committee
together and I do appreciate her point of view from time to time.
However I find interesting one of the comments she made when
she said: ``that helps us make better choices''. I did not think we
were here to make choices. I thought we were here to represent the
choices made by our constituents.
In my riding what was proposed was a great problem. However
the people of my riding had input and as a result the riding
boundary was changed from the original proposal, not in a minor
manner but in a major way.
The consideration is not what we in Parliament will do but rather
making sure the people in the riding have the democratic input into
electoral boundary commissions. I know for sure it happened in the
B.C. interior. I can only assume the member and her riding, being I
am sure she would suggest well represented, would ensure that the
democratic process took place in the electoral boundary
commission.
As far as changes are concerned I said in my speech that changes
were needed. Changes should be brought in as a routine matter
between electoral boundary revisions, not at the eleventh hour
when it is all but completed, which would scrap the entire process
and we would start all over again at great cost and with great
uncertainty to the constituents of the various ridings.
13888
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I heard right, but I thought the hon.
member would come back with different comments and maybe
undo what he said in the first place. He said that the cost of
sending MPs here was very high, with which I agree, and that
we did not need to increase the cost and increase the number
of MPs in the House.
I am surprised because the thrust of the bill will permit western
Canadians to have adequate representation here as far as numbers
are concerned. I do not agree with the member from western
Canada who wants to eliminate the possibility of westerners having
more MPs and more representation in the House.
Mr. Gouk: Madam Speaker, I can see where this is a very
complicated matter for the hon. member, particularly when the
Minister of Justice says that he does not like mathematics. I guess
it has affected the whole party.
The answer is that we do not always have to adjust upward. We
can also adjust downward. We are not saying there should not be
regional balance. We are saying we should adjust the numbers from
province to province so that there is always equal representation,
but it does not have to be done by adding to the cost.
(1055)
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I begin
my speech today on Bill C-69 by issuing a challenge to Liberal
members opposite to go back to their ridings this weekend, grab a
piece of paper, a pen and a clipboard, and walk down the street
asking their constituents if they think we need more politicians in
Ottawa. They should not be surprised if they hear responses like are
you joking, absolutely not, no way, get real, and a few expletives
that I cannot say in the House.
The issue that we are debating today is quite simple: the need for
more politicians in the House of Commons or the lack of need for
more politicians in the House of Commons. The Liberal
government wants to increase the size of the House of Commons
from 295 members to 301 by the next election. Reformers would
like to see the House reduced from 295 members and the rate of
future growth reduced to 265 or less.
This is the direction Canadians want Ottawa to take: less
government, less regulation, less bureaucracy and fewer
politicians. We only have to look at how successful the Harris
campaign was in Ontario to prove our point. One of his campaign
promises was to reduce the number of members at Queen's Park by
25 per cent. The provincial Liberals were opposed to that, and we
all know what happened to them once the smoke had cleared.
The cost of six new members is a factor that I highlight for
Liberals. They constantly rise in the House in the name of
effectiveness, efficiency, lowering the cost of the MP pension plan,
and how they are keeping all their promises when they are really
breaking them all. I ask them to justify a contradiction. They will
increase the overhead of running the country by millions and
millions of dollars by adding more politicians full of hot air trying
to do their jobs, which they do not get done because that select
group over there, the cabinet, runs the country; the rest of us are
window dressing.
The current compensation or remuneration for one member of
Parliament-
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): They are like mayors.
Mr. Silye: Exactly. I refer to the cost or the overhead for six new
members. I am glad to see the President of the Treasury Board is
here because he has his favourite pet project, the Cadillac pension
plan.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sure the member is
well aware that we do not refer to the presence or absence of
anyone in the House.
Mr. Silye: I thought it might have been appreciated but I bow to
the Chair.
The current compensation or remuneration for one member of
Parliament is: a taxable salary of $64,400; a tax free expense
allowance of $21,300, which is equivalent to a pre-tax value of
$42,000; a tax free travel status allowance of $6,000; and tax free
benefits as follows: free VIA Rail pass, free personal long distance
telephone calls, free health and dental package, free parking at
office and airports, free air travel for families, free life insurance
policy which includes spouse and dependent children, free second
language lessons, a severance of $32,000 when defeated or retired,
a re-entry or reallocation payment of $9,000 when defeated or
retired, plus the lucrative double standard obscene MP pension
plan for a six-year member worth between $500,000 to $4.5
million depending upon the years of service and valued at $28,400
per year by the independent consulting group Sobeco, Ernst &
Young in February 1994. These benefits do not take into
consideration the cost of householders, ten percenters, stationery,
copying mail, and the list goes on.
It works out to at least $1 million a year for each member of the
House based on the overhead and everything else charged to the
taxpayers. Multiply this by six and we have a cost of $6 million.
We should not forget to kick in the cost of increased elections
and redistributing the ridings, which the Liberals have estimated at
$5.6 million. The bill is in the $12 million ballpark. It is a $12
billion bill and the MP pension plan is supposed to save the country
$3 million. Now they are going to blow $12 million. What is the net
difference? They will increase the overhead of the country by $9
million.
13889
(1100 )
We are $550 billion in debt and the government continues to
spend money like it grows on trees. How can the Liberal
government possibly defend the House of Commons' growing to
301 members? We all know we do not need more members in the
House. There is not enough room to put in six more chairs.
Was it not the greatest classic Liberal of all, Thomas Jefferson,
who said government governs best that governs least? It now
appears the principle has been lost by the Liberals.
Let me compare Canada with the state of California which has
roughly 30 million people. Canada has 29 million people.
California is run on a federal level by 52 congressmen, two
senators, one governor and one president; 56 federal officials to
govern that state.
In Canada we have 295 members and we want to go to 301. We
have 104 senators and it could go to 112. We have over 400 federal
elected officials running the country. Are American politicians
smarter than Canadian politicians? Do the Americans have a better
system than the Canadian system?
We each represent on average between 80,000 and 100,000
people. One American congressman represents 570,000 and yet the
Liberals cry and complain about the huge ridings they have when
they contain 120,000 people. I do not understand that. What is so
special about American politicians? I believe we are as competent.
I believe we can represent more people. I believe the key is
naturally we would have to hire more staff.
However, I will guarantee one thing, staff will cost the country
and the taxpayers a heck of a lot less money in salaries than an MP
costs and it would create more jobs at the $30,000, $40,000 and
$50,000 levels than the half a million dollar level for MPs.
Do we not have the intelligence to do what the Americans have
done? Do we not have the technology to have representation by
population with a higher population base?
In defence of his gun control registry system which he
introduced yesterday, the justice minister used the new technology
argument. Why can we not use the new technology argument for
democracy, for Parliament for the size and the number of
politicians?
If the United States used the same proportion of representation
as in Canada there would be 2,900 congressmen, 2,900 members of
Parliament. That is embarrassing. That is how disproportionate we
are. I believe we are ten times worse off politically than the United
States because we will not stick to the principle that a government
governs best that governs least.
The Liberal Party pretends to be fiscally conscientious but when
confronted with an opportunity to show leadership to lower the
overhead and the cost of running the country it chooses instead to
increase the size of government.
The finance minister has waxed eloquent numerous times, I
think his next career is that of a stand up comic, about downsizing
and reducing the cost of government. In Ottawa Canadians still
have a big, fat, high spending government. Why not downsize the
House of Commons?
The government talks out of one side of its mouth about laying
off over 40,000 civil servants in the name of restraint, in the name
of fiscal responsibility. Out of the other side of its mouth it talks
about the need to bring in six more MPs to help achieve that fiscal
restraint. Is that not a contradiction? Is that not an oxymoron? I
cannot believe it; increase the size of the Commons, make it big,
keep the backbenchers happy.
I hear some heckling from the other side. That person is so far
from the centre of power in his own party that last night while we
were voting he was told not to vote because they had enough people
to beat the Reform votes. That is democracy at its best. It shows we
need fewer people in the House. These backbenchers are willing to
let cabinet control things.
The Liberals refuse to consider more effective approaches
proposed by Reform to accommodate shifting, growing
populations. Should the House be downsized from 295 to 265
members we would have a reasonably sized House. We would have
members of Parliament who would represent larger groups of
people and therefore have some leverage. The backbencher who
keeps heckling me would have more power, more impact in the
House if there were only 200 people here, not 301. These members
would truly have some value and some input into what is
happening, some power to check and balance cabinet's dictating.
(1105)
Someone says why not quit. I would. I do not agree with career
politicians. I do not believe what these people do here. They come
back just to qualify for their gold plated fat cat pension plan instead
of governing the country. That is what is wrong with this place.
The reality in this fish bowl is all those red little fish swimming
around with the yellow little fish and the blue little fish, all these
people, except for the 20 people who sit around the Prime Minister,
are just biding their time. All they are doing is costing the country a
heck of a lot of money and they are just a mouthpiece for the centre
of power which is a freely elected dictatorship.
Reformers believe the time has come to reduce the House and set
a fixed number. If the size is continually expanded to match
population increases the House eventually will reach unmatchable
proportions with unsustainable overhead costs. We will have to cap
it eventually. Why not now? I do not mean cap in the sense of a
fixed number that has to be there because I understand the
Constitution and I know the commitments that have been made to
provinces vis-à-vis senators, the senator clause, the Senate clause.
We cannot have fewer MPs in a province than senators. Therefore
13890
we need a clause that allows us to expand. I understand and accept
that.
The answer to population growth is not to increase the numbers
of representatives in the House of Commons but to periodically
redraw the boundaries and redistribute seats according to the
population shifts, reapportionment.
That is representation by population and that is a very important
principle. The principle that one MP can represent only 100,000
people versus 150,000, 120,000 or 200,000 is the principle I am
asking the House to accept. I am challenging the House to accept
more people to represent and hire more staff. Overall that would be
less of a cost to the country than adding more MPs. That is
representation by population. We cannot have that because the
urban centres would control and rule the country. We need the
balance between urban and rural areas and 10 provinces across the
country with another body, with another House. It is called a
Senate.
The concentration and the thrust should be a triple E Senate, an
elected Senate so it has some empowerment, so it can be held
accountable; an equal Senate whether in terms of so many for each
province or we look at five regions, Atlantic Canada, Quebec,
Ontario, the prairies and British Columbia, and have an equal
number of senators on that basis. The country sadly and dearly
needs regional representation.
The gun control bill was born and bred and brought to the House
from the heart of Toronto by the justice minister, not reflecting the
true wishes of all of Canada and all Canadians. It was pitting the
rurals and urbans against each other. If we had an elected, equal and
effective Senate with some powers it could send it back and say it
might be good for the little heartland of Toronto and the Ontario
little area there but it is not what the rest of Canada wants. Fix this
bill, change it. It is not acceptable in this form.
It could not overturn money bills but on other bills in terms of
effectiveness it could improve things because it would be in touch
with its constituents. It would be paid to listen to those people.
Why would it be accountable? It would be elected by those people
and if it did not represent them its members would be kicked out.
That is why an elected Senate would be effective. That is why
giving the Senate some powers would be good for the country. That
is why equality is important so we are fair and treat each other with
respect across this land from sea to sea.
Only a triple E Senate can balance the interests of less populous
provinces with those of more populous provinces in Parliament.
Reformers believe the time has come to bring financial
responsibility to government, not to make government bigger.
(1110 )
I plead with my fellow colleagues in the House to apply their
common sense and represent the common sense of the common
people and do what is in their best interest.
If we had to go from 301 to 200 or if we reduced the size of the
House of Commons the people who would be here representing the
country would be more effective. They would have more power. It
would be more beneficial for Canadians.
Politicians have to be accountable to the people of Canada and
trusted to handle their money. More faces and more people in the
House sucking more money out of the purse strings will not
improve the system. It will detract from the system. It will cost the
country more and more money.
We all know what it is like in committees. We all know what it is
like when we want to make decisions. When we want to rule by
committee or draft a document by committee we all know how hard
it is. We all know how hard it is to build consensus. We all know
how hard it is even within our parties to get everybody to agree.
Why increase the number of people we want to include in that
decision making process when we know the number we have
already is hard enough? Why increase the problem? Why add to the
problem?
Why not fix the problem by having fewer people to make those
decisions? The decisions will be better. There would be more time
for debate instead of the silly games that have been played for this
past week and last night starting with the government's time
allocation on important bills that affect the country, basically
attacking the principles of democracy by limiting the freedom of
speech. We would not have to do the things we do to give ourselves
the opportunity to stand up on the floor of the House to talk to the
Canadian people whether they are physically here or watching on
television or reading it in the paper. It would give us the
opportunity to explain things. We would not have to play these
games.
We all know how the structure is in here. One has to be
government. Therefore the minority of the House is already
neutralized. If one is not in cabinet one gets a parliamentary
secretary position. If one does not get that then one gets a
chairmanship of a standing committee. After that everybody else is
just fill him in, do him in. The reward for attending committee
work is interparliamentary travel, one of those great eight
associations that will really help the country and really does the
country a lot of good because we are learning, giving and
establishing contacts. The people who go out there to make those
contacts, those backbenchers who are meeting these people in
Europe, Asia, China and France come back here and the cabinet
ministers do not even talk to them. They do not even ask them what
was said. There is no authority there.
13891
Why do we not smarten up in the House and get ourselves
doing things better and differently? This system has to change.
While the Liberals are politically selling a lean, mean
government, their rhetoric I guess, they are trying to increase
the size of the House of Commons, which will cost a lot of
money.
The cutbacks we are talking about do not affect the people in the
ivory towers. With Bill C-68 the ivory tower is still hiring. The
ivory tower is the government. The cabinet and the Prime Minister
have the opportunity to fix what is wrong in the country but party
discipline is the same old way.
There was a newspaper article today about what was said in
caucus. Whether it is true or not there has to be some smoke and
fire because these journalists received from one of the
backbenchers what was told to them by the Prime Minister. It is
pretty bad when a Prime Minister has been alleged to have said to
his caucus members that if they do not toe the party line their
nomination papers will not be renewed. If they do not toe the party
line they will not be back in the House. If they do not vote the party
line they will be kicked off the committees and will not be allowed
to travel. That is not leadership, that is dictatorship.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam Speaker
The comparison between California and Canada is really
unnecessary. It does not apply. Canada is a much larger country, the
second largest country in the world, whereas California is a state
and is not as large.
My riding is in an urban area and I represent a great diversity of
wants and needs of over 110,000 constituents. They want me to
speak on their behalf. I imagine that a member who comes from a
rural area has a much tougher time serving constituents because
they live far away from each other.
(1115)
I also find my colleague's tone offensive. We are not here doing
nothing. I work very hard and I hope he does too. I know that most
of my colleagues work very hard. Apart from the travelling which
we have to do from the west, there is a large amount of work to do
both here and in our ridings.
I am a backbencher. I have no post nor am I a parliamentary
secretary. I do not want to be any more than an effective, efficient
member representing the constituents of my riding. I have as much
voice in all of this as anyone else. The ministers are here for a
purpose and have the experience.
I have done a lot of volunteer work in the last 20 years. I have my
integrity and my reputation and I feel offended when I am told that
I am not doing anything in this job except keeping the seat warm. I
do much more than that, as do my colleagues.
I also want to comment on the gun bill. There are rural areas
where the bill is not acceptable but the majority of people live in
urban areas. There are two big boxes of letters in support of the
gun bill in my office. Those letters came from my constituents. I
received very few letters against the bill. I received letters in
support of the bill. We all know how much more vocal people are
when they are against something, but the surveys showed support
for the gun bill.
I also want to remind my hon. colleague that we have a
democratic system. Again, I say that the Prime Minister has been
misquoted, unfortunately. It is not what he said. It is not up to me to
tell my hon. colleague what to say. They are in caucus and know
that caucus is the place where we can discuss our differences and
our opinions. I want to set the record straight that the Prime
Minister never said that. The Prime Minister is a very credible
person and a great leader.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, it is too bad the hon. member feels
offended. I must have struck a nerve. I sense a lot of guilt, as if she
were trying to justify the fact that the way she works as an MP is
doing a lot of good in her constituency.
I know we all work hard. I do not question whether she works
hard. That is not the question. The question is: What are the results
she is achieving? What has she accomplished? That can be a matter
of opinion. She works hard. At what? What impact has she had in
her constituency? What has she done better than the person she
replaced or is she just doing the same old thing?
I know what I do in my riding. I know the job I have to do
administratively. I know what we have to do to help constituents
solve their problems. However, there must be other reasons for
being here.
She cannot understand my point about the fact that we freely
elected a dictatorship over there. She chooses to kowtow to it and
praise it and deny that the Prime Minister said something, when
everyone in Canada knows he did. Everyone in Canada knows that
the party discipline which is represented by a 30-year politician
like the Prime Minister is a habit that cannot be broken. The
situation is that they are trying to defend something which is not in
the best interests of the country.
If she had her ear to the ground in her constituency she would
know that there are differences of opinion between rural and urban
ridings. She knows that not everyone in this room, even if we are in
the same party, can vote the same way on every issue.
(1120 )
Also on a non-partisan basis she should be willing to discuss an
issue like free votes in the House of Commons. On what basis
could she vote against the so-called party line? That is not even
being considered by this government, whereas this party made that
an election campaign promise.
13892
I ran because the member of Parliament for Calgary Centre
while in government never once in any of his householders
asked me as a constituent what I thought about the GST, what
I thought about free trade, what I thought about any of the issues
being discussed. He never asked me once but he kept sending
me householders, photo opportunities: Have a nice Christmas;
we are doing a great job; this is what we are doing in Ottawa
for you; this is how things are going to get better for you; this
is why it is important to send me to Ottawa because this is all
the stuff I am doing for you.
I vowed to people door to door that I would represent Calgary in
Ottawa, not Ottawa to Calgary. Within this Reform Party I have
been able to do that. We have a mechanism where we do toe the
party line, where we do discuss in caucus all bills and motions and
what our position should be. We match it against our blue book
policy. We match it against our election platform, what we
promised the Canadian people in order to get elected. We stay true
to those two. For any bills and motions that come to our caucus that
are covered under those two areas, we then vote the way we
promised.
The Liberals promised gun control but they never ever promised
a national registration system. They brought it in. It was not in our
platform or blue book policy. Therefore, we were obligated to
make a decision for ourselves and to find out what our constituents
might want. We did that in various ways and forms. The position of
our caucus was to be against it. It is a bad bill. It is a terrible bill. I
am against it personally.
I distributed a householder in January in Calgary Centre telling
constituents about the good and bad aspects of this bill and about
my position. I did a poll in which 53 per cent said to vote in favour
of it, but the government poll said 70 per cent of Canadians wanted
it. I knew there was a difference of opinion.
I said on talk shows and working with constituents as I am sure
the member who asked me the question did as well that during that
time I received some more input and feedback. After we knew what
the amendments would be and what the justice minister was
prepared to change in this bill knowing there were some flaws I did
a scientific poll. The results were balanced with 50:50 male to
female, with 21 per cent gun owners in the urban heart of Calgary,
Calgary Centre with high density population.
I was able to do something members in that party could not.
There were quite a few who voted against the bill, nine of them,
and they are going to be disciplined. That is why the finger was
pointing at caucus on Wednesday by the Prime Minister. That is
why the lecture was given, notwithstanding whether the quotes are
right or wrong.
What is wrong is that the democratic system is not working when
a party muzzles its own duly, freely elected representatives that are
paid to be here to expressly represent their constituents and they are
told not to vote. They are not even allowed to get up to vote if
enough members have voted already to beat what is in the House.
That is shameful and unacceptable. That is what I am fighting
against. That may be offensive to the hon. member and she may
feel indignation at my comments but I firmly believe I am on the
right side of the issue.
Mr. Fewchuk: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I believe the
hon. member across the way is speaking about something that has
nothing to do with electoral boundaries.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am afraid the hon.
member's time has expired in any event.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to be participating in this debate today on Bill C-69.
Here we are talking about adding politicians to this place.
(1125 )
My colleague from Calgary Centre said it so well. If we went
down the street and asked 10 voters if they would support having
more politicians in this place, I am sure we would get 10 very
resounding noes with comments like what planet are we living on
or where have we been. Here we are and in fact we are debating
exactly that which flies in the face of everything we have been
hearing from the Canadian voter.
I wonder where our priorities are when we are spending time
talking about legislation that is so self-serving. This legislation is
all about: What are my chances of being re-elected? This is the
we-me syndrome, what is in it for me. That is what this is all about:
I want to protect my kingdom; how does it affect my riding; how
does it affect my chances of being re-elected?
It does not have the concern about what is best for the
hardpressed taxpayers of this country. It does not take into
consideration what the taxpayers of this country indeed want. It is
the we-me syndrome: I have got to look after myself, never mind
what the voters of Canada want.
We are ignoring the deficit and the debt which was the number
one issue when we campaigned. In the Ontario election the polls
indicated it is still the number one issue. Instead of that, here we
are debating adding more MPs. In fact, there is a good case to be
made for the fact that more is not better because the deficit and the
debt have been increasing. In the last year the debt has gone up by
$100 million. Here we are debating this issue and we are looking at
$550 billion of debt. We are going into the hole $1,036 per second
and we sit here fiddling about boundary lines and adding more
people which I suggest will add to this debt.
What about employment? What about creating jobs, the jobs
which are so desperately needed? What about the criminal justice
system, the system that is not working and a system which
Canadians are demanding to be overhauled? What about our social
13893
programs? The threat to those social programs is the deficit and
debt and the interest payments on that debt.
What never ceases to amaze me is that bill after bill, debate after
debate from the other side reinforces the fact that government
members are just not listening to the Canadian people. Whether
they are not listening or it is selective hearing, they are absolutely
not responding to what Canadians are asking for and in fact are
demanding. They do not understand the change which has taken
place over the years. The politics of 30 years ago, which
unfortunately is still directing the group across the aisle, do not
work any more.
Canadians are going to have no part of it any more. The
Canadian voters have said very loudly and very clearly: ``We want
politicians in Ottawa who are representing us. We want to have a
voice in Ottawa because obviously what you people have been
doing over the years has not worked. We are deeper in debt than we
have ever been and we are getting fewer services for more dollars
than ever before''. The old style politics of we know best, we know
what is best for the mindless masses just is not working any longer.
I want to congratulate those government members who have
stood up and represented the people in their ridings. That was
courageous. I was absolutely appalled when I heard what was
supposedly said by the Prime Minister. I do not know his exact
words. He complimented the ones who changed their position and
stayed with the party. He said that it took courage not to buck him.
What about the courage it took to buck the leader and vote with the
people who sent them here to Ottawa? That is where the real
courage was. Those people should have been complimented. They
should understand that.
That is the message from the voters. They want politicians to
represent them in Ottawa, not to listen to the party line. That is the
curse of this place: Do what you are told. We saw that last night. I
could not believe the display in this House. Members were being
told not to vote: Party over people, do not stand up and vote, we
have got the numbers. Those members are not going to be recorded
in some of those votes. They were here but they did not stand up to
vote yea or nay.
How can they justify that in their conscience? We are taking the
salary. We are sent here to do a job. Here we are ignoring the voters
and responding to one person, the whip. Do as you are told, fall into
line or else.
There is a double standard here that I am sure has not escaped
members on the other side. They are being disciplined and whipped
into shape for doing what is right, for representing their voters.
Then we have the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who violates this
trust. He invites a group to a dinner and there are political pay-offs,
but there is no reprimand, that is all right. It does not matter about
the appearance of a possible conflict here. It is okay.
(1130)
The double standard has to be very confusing to the other
members of the government, and it certainly is confusing to the
public and to the staff in the minister's department.
What we had here last night was a charade. As a member of the
Reform Party, I was appalled at what I saw. With 205 new members
elected to this place, the message was: ``We want change''. You can
look at it as either 205 new members were voted in or 205 old
members were thrown out. Either way, the message remains the
same: ``We want change''.
Perhaps part of the problem over there is that the government
thinks it won the election. Its members actually think they won the
election. I would suggest that they did not win the election; the
Conservatives lost the election. And the Canadian voters are still
looking for a party that will represent them. Day after day they are
not getting it. I suggest that the day of reckoning is coming in 1997,
because those members who are not listening will be replaced with
members who will.
What the voters have asked us to do is look at the old ways. ``We
do not care if that is the way you have been doing it for years. It has
not worked. We want some change. We want some fresh thinking in
this place. Do not kowtow to the party line. Listen to us. Listen to
the common sense of the common people. The message is we want
less government, we want more efficient government''. That is not
what this bill gives them, or even addresses.
The Reform Party on the other hand has a vision. We are looking
ahead. We are listening to voters. We are going to question the old
ways. I am very proud that we are. The windows and doors need to
be opened. Let us look at the way we have been doing things. There
has to be a better way because what we have been doing has not
worked. The country has never been further apart as a complete
country and we have never been deeper in debt. Very obviously,
something is wrong. It is broke. It needs to be fixed. Let us get that
message across.
There is a good argument to be made for quality, not quantity.
There is absolutely no basis or justification for increasing the size
of this House. Reform proposed a 10 per cent reduction in
members. We said we can do this job with fewer people, and there
is no doubt that we can. In our proposal, Ontario would lose some
seats. I would suggest that Ontario is prepared to accept that,
because the voters in Ontario know that we have too much
government. We are overgoverned. They are quite prepared for
less.
In going from 301 to 273 we could reduce the number of
members by 28. I heard a figure of approximately $1 million to
keep a member in this House. If that is right, we are looking at a
saving of $28 million a year, a significant amount of money. And it
works two ways: We will reduce the cost to the taxpayer, and I
would suggest we will do a better job in running the business here.
13894
More does not mean better. That has just been proved by the
statistics that came out from StatsCanada today. Those stats
have proved that more taxes mean fewer dollars in the pockets
of the average family. In 1989 the average family income was
$46,000, and because of this increased government and the
increased taxes that has now dropped to $43,000. So the average
family income has declined by $3,000. There is a very clear
example that more means less and does not improve the
situation. We are overgoverned.
You can look at Australia. It was mentioned earlier that Australia
would double the number of voters per member for Canada.
Germany has about two and a half times the voters per member,
and just south of the border the United States has five times the
voters per member. So you can certainly justify reducing the
number of members we have in this House.
(1135 )
We just had an Ontario election in which one item in the
common sense revolution was to reduce the size of the legislature.
They wanted to take a 25 per cent reduction. That common sense
revolution was overwhelmingly supported by the majority of
people in Ontario based on that: less government, more efficient
government. More does not mean better. We can do a better job.
In talking about the Ontario election, the common sense
revolution would do away with MP pensions and let members look
after their own pensions and get out of the taxpayers' pockets. We
have not got that message here in Ottawa. We just changed the gold
plated pension plan to a platinum. We did a little bit of scraping.
But I suggest it is not going to sit well with the Canadian voter and
it will be a major issue in the next federal election.
Reference was made to the gun control legislation that has been
rammed through. You have to vote the party line and never mind
what the people in your riding say. They say that in the red book
they said they would do this. There is nothing in the red book about
registration. The red book did talk about getting tough with the
criminal use of firearms, but there is nothing in there about
registration.
The voters in Ontario sent a very strong message, but it will be
missed. All others have. I am sure this one will go right over the
heads of the Liberals and they will continue to miss it. The voters
of Ontario said they want a government that will listen, they want
less government. But it has been ignored, and the Liberals will pay
dearly for it in the next election.
There are some members opposite who have been listening to the
voters. I would just like to quote some from the earlier debate. I
will go back to Bill C-18, the debate we had in March 1994. I
believe it was the solicitor general who said: ``Since Confederation
the number of seats in the House of Commons has increased
steadily, from 181 in 1867 to the current level of 295. If new rules
had not been adopted some years ago the number of members by
now would be more than 340. This is something we should be
considering''. Amen. I think that is right on.
There was the member for Halton-Peel, and I quote from the
debate: ``If one looks at Australia, for example, there are about
twice as many voters per member in that country. We are at the
point where we have to make some changes. Either that or we are
going to have to knock out one of the walls''. Right on. This House
is full. There is no more room.
The parliamentary secretary to the minister of public works: ``In
the 34th Parliament I had suggested that perhaps this Parliament
should look at the possibility of significantly reducing the number
of MPs. Would this not be an opportunity to see whether we could
do with one-quarter or perhaps one-third fewer MPs?'' What fresh
thinking. Right on. There is some hope over there. There is a germ
of common sense.
The Liberal member for Carleton-Gloucester, and I quote: ``Is
this room not getting a little crowded, and has our national and
public debt not grown so much that we should act to curb their
growth?'' Right on again. At a saving of possibly $28 million a
year, there could be substantial improvement in reducing our debt
and deficit and at the same time doing a better job for the Canadian
taxpayer.
Just to go back to the bill and looking at some of the amendments
that have been proposed by the Senate, there are some that we can
support, like the one that will reduce the allowable deviation from
the provincial electoral quota from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. We
proposed that and we can support it. It will help equalize the voting
power between constituencies within a province.
We can support the requirement that the two non-judicial
commission members be resident in the province for which the
commission is established. That makes good, common sense.
There are some amendments in there that have been proposed by
the Senate that we can support. However, in what we are debating
here today, unfortunately we are wasting a lot of time and failing to
deal with the real issues and the real problems the country is facing.
(1140 )
In closing, I heard the other day that the number of people who
are watching this parliamentary channel has tripled in this 35th
Parliament. I was really encouraged by that, because what it says is
that the Canadian people are watching what is going on here. They
are watching and they are listening. That is good news, because
they are not just taking what is necessarily recorded in the press as
being the gospel but they are watching what is being said and done
here. They are watching those votes. They are watching those
members who had the courage to stand up and represent the people
in their ridings. They know the ones who were told to sit down and
13895
do as they were told. I will tell you that is exactly not what the
Canadian voters want from their elected members at this time.
I am encouraged when I discover that the viewing audience has
tripled. I think the viewing audience is going to triple again as we
get closer to the election and the Canadian voters realize what has
been going on in this place.
The arrogance toward the voters perhaps can be partly explained
by this leading in the polls. That is pretty heady stuff: We can do no
wrong; look where we are in the polls.
I would suggest that is a very artificial number to base their
popularity on. They should look to Ontario, because it was a very
good indication of how wrong that can be. It was their own party
that was leading in the polls in that province, in Ontario. When the
rubber hit the road, when they got down to talking about the issues,
it was just blown away. That is what it is all about today: it is the
issues and who is best addressing those issues and who is listening
to the voters.
I suggest to you that day after day we are seeing that this
government is not listening. It is still the same old: ``We know best.
Listen to your leader. Do not worry about the voters''. That is the
tragedy for them. It is our salvation, because it is going to ensure a
government that will be elected in 1997 that is truly listening to the
people. I suggest that is going to be the Reform government.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I was in my office watching the TV and shouting at it and
decided I might as well come over here and ask the members
opposite the questions I was shouting at my television set.
I am rather amazed at their lack of knowledge of the bill, since
they are here to save the country money and they are here to be
representing the people and they are here to be efficient.
The old boundary system was cobbled together by a bunch of
dinosaurs called Tories, who are now sitting in the Senate trying to
block legislation. They have another set of dinosaurs who are
helping them in the process.
There are three things in this bill that I would like the hon.
member opposite to respond to on a very practical basis. When we
have these public meetings to look at the electoral boundary
drawings, people go to these meetings and they have absolutely no
knowledge of what happens when they change part of the boundary
in the current system.
I was on the committee that designed the new system. I come
from a riding with 250,000 people and it has not been changed in
10 years. Ten years ago it had 88,000 people. When these people go
in and they are supposed to give intelligent responses to the way the
boundaries are drawn, they have no idea what happens to the
population within those boundaries when they move them to take in
a community of interest.
This bill gives three alternatives with the numbers of people in
each of those three alternatives and it gives the rationale for
picking the one the riding commission picked. This is
representation in an intelligent way, rather than some sort of
chaotic magical way.
The other thing it does is that it says it will be redistributed every
five years instead of every ten. So you will not have a member
standing here who yells at television sets because she is
overworked with 250,000 people. And it will be 300,000 before the
next election. How do the members opposite respond to that?
In this bill, it says there will be no redistribution in provinces
that have not had a remarkable change in population. This is really
a cost saver, because the old system had a commission appointed, it
had all kinds of bureaucrats appointed, and they had all kinds of
wheels turning when it was not necessary.
I would like the member opposite to specifically respond to
those three questions and not give me great long speeches about the
way we are running the government.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Madam Speaker, I am really
pleased that the hon. member opposite stopped shouting at her TV
set and came down to face the real world. I wish more members
would face the real world and stop sitting there yelling at TV sets.
Those members are not listening and getting involved in the
process.
(1145)
The member's first question dealt with the ignorance of the
public, that the public came to the meetings and did not know
anything. That is a major mistake. The member is underestimating
just how smart the voters are. The member does them a disservice
when she makes remarks like that. She thinks that most people
came to those meetings without knowing anything; the voters are
mindless out there and need our direction, that we have to get into
the system and help explain life to them. I suggest to the member
opposite that they are a lot smarter than she ever gives them credit
for being.
The system was not changed because of any hue and cry from the
public. The system was changed because some self-serving
politicians on that side of the House said: ``It is going to hurt my
chances of getting re-elected''. That is what we are talking about
here. The voters did not ask for this. The backbenchers on the
government side did. Their kingdom was threatened. The member
may not have said this but many did say: ``This is a threat to my
kingdom and I have to do something about it. Let us scrap this $5
million that we have wasted of the taxpayers' money and let us
redo it all so that I can be looked after here and have a chance of
getting re-elected''.
13896
I suggest to the House that regardless of where the boundaries
are drawn, the member will not get re-elected because she is
not listening to the Canadian voter.
Members talk about the number of voters and how they can
represent only a certain number of voters. The boundaries can be
adjusted to reduce the members of Parliament. I am not saying we
have to stay with the same boundary lines. Changes can be made to
accommodate shifts in the population. I used the example of
Australia where it has double the voters. The United States has five
times what we have here and it is not having any real problems. The
argument for quantity just does not wash. Quality is what we need
here, not quantity. More is not better.
Mrs. Ablonczy: More people for the Prime Minister to threaten.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): More people for the Prime
Minister to whip into line, to do as they are told, to not represent
the people in their ridings.
Let us get away from this charade. We are talking about doing
something that is demanded by the voters and not something that is
going to ensure the re-election of the people on the other side.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will
give you a perfect example that backbenchers are still allowed to
speak in the House.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Simcoe Centre.
When I listen to the Reform Party I come to one conclusion: simple
solutions for complex problems. I too have some concern about
this bill. When I went back and studied it, I discovered that there
was an agreement with the provinces in 1985 which would have to
be broken to address the concerns of some, mine included. I had an
idea that we could freeze the numbers in the House.
However, it really requires addressing the constitutional
agreement that existed at that time. The member has not talked
about how he is going to address that problem, how he is going to
go to the provinces and get an agreement with the provinces to
reduce the numbers.
The formula would require major changes to address the concept
of representation by population. It would require major reductions
in both the province of Saskatchewan and the province of
Manitoba. If my memory serves me correctly, the province of
Saskatchewan would lose about four seats.
I do not hear members of the Reform Party from Saskatchewan
standing up saying they are prepared to sustain a loss of four seats
in the province of Saskatchewan. Let us be honest and clear about
these things. They should tell us how they are going to reduce those
numbers of seats and if they are prepared to lose four seats in the
province of Saskatchewan. They should also tell us the magic
solution they have to go back to the provinces and retrench that
agreement that existed in 1985.
(1150 )
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
questions from the member. I want to start out with his first
comment, simple solutions.
I suggest that the solutions are simple. What is lacking on the
part of the government is the guts to do what is right.
There is nothing complex about the problems in the country
today. What is desperately lacking is the courage and the guts it is
going to take to do what is right and bring some fiscal sanity to the
country.
I should take a moment to applaud the member. He is one of the
few who had the courage to stand up and buck the party line last
night. He had the courage to stand up and represent the people in
his riding and I applaud him for that.
I will take him to task though for not watching his TV set and
knowing that last night the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster
said he has no problem with the reduction in the seats in
Saskatchewan. It is not all about what is in it for me. He is looking
at what is good for the country as a whole. We did put our money
where our mouth is. Nobody hedged on that. The member stood up
in the House last night and said yes, we will have to share the hurt
right across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, as I
listen to the member for Simcoe Centre, I see that we are talking
about the electoral map as opposed to a reduction in the number of
seats. I see that the words or comments used approximate those of
the Bloc. There are too many members and too much government.
The country is over-governed and on the verge of bankruptcy.
Running the country has become too costly and the government
should be more efficient and less cumbersome. The number of
seats should be trimmed by 10 per cent.
For our part, we are merely offering to eliminate 75 seats in one
fell swoop. Could it be that they are finally beginning to understand
our position and that they will soon be supporting us?
13897
[English]
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Madam Speaker, the question
from the hon. member suggested there may be 75 here who want to
leave this place but I do not for a minute think that they represent
the majority of the voters of the province of Quebec.
I suggest the majority of the voters in that province do not want
to leave Canada. They want to be represented in this place by
politicians who are going to keep Canada together, not tear it apart
and that will be corrected in the next election.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, Bill C-69 is a very significant piece of legislation. It is an
honour for me to follow the member for Simcoe Centre. I am
enjoying the kind of debate that has been generated around this
particular topic.
I wish to look at this bill from three points of view. I want to look
at it from the point of view of democracy, the point of view of fiscal
responsibility and the point of view of leadership.
Let me first speak on the first point with regard to democracy.
The whole democratic system in Canada is represented through the
election of representatives on the basis of the particular party they
represent. It makes the representation a rather difficult one because
there are three things we have to look at when we are that kind of a
representative. We have the mandate that our party has given us. It
represents the policies and principles which that party has
developed in its election platform and its approach to government.
The Reform Party has a tripod that supports the representation
that we as Reformers will give to the House and to the people of our
constituencies. First, we will reform the democratic system in
Canada as it exists today. The first requirement is to represent the
people according to their wishes and represent them to this House,
not this House to the people.
The second principle is that Reformers will manage the affairs of
the country in a fiscally responsible manner. We will have a
balanced budget. We will not spend money that we do not have. We
will treat the money that is given to us by the taxpayers as money
kept in trust. It ought to be treated at least as well as any personal
money we would spend. In some cases we should treat it more
significantly and with greater respect than if it is our own.
(1155)
The third principle of the mandate the Reform Party has given us
is that we want our streets to be safe. We want the property and
lives of individuals to be secure. Men, women and children should
be able to walk down the streets with impugnity, not in fear of
being attacked. To that end, we want to reform the criminal justice
system.
That is the first duty of a Reform representative. It is the
mandate. We told the people that we would represent them, be
fiscally responsible and reform the justice system.
A second part in the representation is this. The people have
trusted us to represent the Reform Party because of certain talents,
abilities and their confidence in us. They expect us to exercise our
best judgment concerning the problems and issues that will face
this country at any given time. We will act in the best interests of
the people we represent as we understand them and not in our
personal interests. That is significant.
There is a third area in which we want to represent the people. It
is on certain moral issues such as capital punishment. We would
conduct a referendum in which we want them to cast their ballot on
an issue, yes or no.
There are three very distinct aspects to the business of
representation and Reformers want to be true to all three of them. It
does not make the task easy. It makes it a very responsible one, an
accountable one where we can stand before the people and say:
``This is what we stand for. This is the judgment we will apply and
we want you to have a voice on the issues that affect you directly
and significantly on a day to day basis''. In a democratic system it
is the first thing we will do.
It also means we listen to the people. The people told us one
thing about the size of the government. They told us it is too big. It
is too big in numbers of representatives and too big in the way it
intrudes into the lives of the people, whether in business, families,
our communities. No matter where it is, government is all
pervasive. The people told us they wanted less government.
The bill flies in the face of that observation. The bill says more
MPs, there should be 301 MPs, not 295. The hon. member across
the way suggests this is a sermon. This is the most accurate
position in terms of democracy. If the member does not understand
that, he had better learn to listen to the difference between fact and
simple statements.
That is the problem the Liberals have. They make all kinds of
statements but where is the action on those statements?
Mr. Forseth: What do the people want?
Mr. Schmidt: We only need one member on that side of the
House, the Prime Minister. All they do over there is listen to what
the Prime Minister says. He tells them what they will do, when they
will do it, how they will do it and sometimes he explains why they
should do it: ``Because I said so''. That is not democracy. On that
basis we could reduce the size of the House rather dramatically.
One other point has to be recognized. If the government is going
to start listening to the people and if it is going to demonstrate what
is said in the bill, that it is actually going to consult with the people,
I ask the government with whom will it consult?
13898
I want to read from the bill that is currently before us. It talks
about a community of interest.
Mr. Forseth: You are making the Liberals squirm now.
Mr. Schmidt: I quote clause 19(5) of the bill:
For the purposes of paragraph 2(b), ``community of interest'' includes such
factors as the economy, existing or traditional boundaries of electoral districts,
the urban or rural characteristics of a territory, the boundaries of municipalities
and Indian reserves, natural boundaries and access to means of communication
and transport.
(1200)
That is a good phrase. That is a good section. That means the
interests of the people should be paramount.
However, there are other provisions in the bill which make us
wonder whether they really mean that. When it gets into the
business of consulting with people there seems almost to be a
blockage. The boundaries commissions which are asked to do the
redrawing of the boundaries are required to hold at least one
hearing per province.
That is an insult to the large provinces like Quebec, Ontario and
British Columbia. One hearing will actually determine the
boundaries of the municipalities, look at the economic interests,
look at the differences between rural and urban ridings? Somebody
in downtown Vancouver will say what the characteristics are of
Vermilion in Alberta, in Kamloops or in Prince George? It is
ludicrous.
There have to be some real directions given to the commissions
which will mean they will actually consult with the people.
There are some interesting technicalities in the bill. In section
21(6) there is the provision as to how one goes about making a
presentation to the commission. This is for ordinary people, people
who apparently do not understand anything about boundaries,
people who do not know how they will be affected. That is an insult
of the first order.
There is a greater insult in here which says a commission shall,
before completing a report, hold at least one hearing in the
province for which the commission is established for
representation by interested persons. Notice of that commission
hearing must be given 60 days before the actual hearing is to take
place and the application to appear before the commission must be
in writing. The application must be not more than 57 days before
the hearing. Let us examine that. The notice must be given 60 days
before the hearing and the person may make application up to 57
days before that date.
Let us look at another section to see what happens. Section 22(6)
states:
No representation by an interested person shall be heard by a commission at a
hearing held under this section unless notice in writing is received by the
commission not later than seven days before the hearing is held,
Which section will apply? In one instance it can be three days
before the hearing but in the other it cannot happen unless it has
been at least seven days. That is an inconsistency.
We have a person who wants to make a representation and he
reads one of those sections of the bill. He has to read more than one
section to find out how he goes about actually notifying the
commission that he wants to make a presentation.
Another principle of democracy has been violated. There were
amendments to the bill presented by the Senate. The Senate is not
an elected body. It is an appointed body by none other than the
Prime Minister. The Senate in this case has stopped the legislation.
It has made some amendments to legislation which was created by
people who were elected to represent the people. This is wrong in
principle. It is a violation of what I have learned democracy should
be. Our tradition and our Constitution says the Senate has this kind
of power. Does that make it right? Does that make it just? I submit
it does not.
(1205)
The Reform Party wants to reform the democratic system. One
of those reformations is to have an elected Senate, to make sure
those persons in the second Chamber do represent the people.
There is a very valuable service and function for the second
Chamber to perform in this House, to provide sober second thought
which it did in this case. It did make some amendments that were
very useful and that we can support. That is good and shows the
upper house can be an important part of the democratic process but
it ought to be elected, just like the House of Commons. I certainly
hope it will be.
The upper house ought to balance the representation that exists
in this House. It ought to make sure the very highly and densely
populated centres of the country are balanced against those not as
well populated and therefore the interests of both parties can be
served in a balanced fashion. A major reformation needs to take
place here.
People have said they want smaller government and also less
intrusion in their lives. A bill will be coming before the House very
shortly, Bill C-88. It provides in section 9 for the cabinet to
suspend, modify or extend the application of a federal law or
provincial law. The House and provincial legislators have the right
to make laws. It is their responsibility. The people have elected
them to do that.
Within a bill coming before the House that power on certain
issues will be taken away from the House, and deposited with the
cabinet. That is a miscarriage of misrepresentation, a miscarriage
of responsibility, a miscarriage of anything that I believe and
understand about a democratic system.
13899
On the matter of fiscal responsibility, a point was made here
recently about tradition. It seems that practice has developed
a certain kind of tradition in the House over a number of years.
We have had an increase in the number of MPs in the House
and parallel with it has been an increase in the debt of the
country.
That kind of tradition must be broken. Other people have said we
are a lean and mean government. I suggest they understand what
most of those words mean. Lean, no; mean, yes but not fiscally.
What does it mean to have a balanced budget? I came here to
find out how we got into this deep debt. I want for the benefit of
everybody in the House to recognize the reason we are in debt is we
spend more than we take in. That is why we have a debt. Let us not
have any doubt that if we are to get our fiscal house in order we
have to get to the point of cutting and controlling our spending.
To increase the number of representatives in the House will not
reduce our costs. It will increase them. We can talk about the
physical things, the everyday things like salaries, personnel, office
space and so on but we need to look at MP pensions. This is in the
craw of virtually every Canadian.
We need to illustrate exactly what happens with the C twins,
Charest and Copps, the member for Sherbrooke and the Deputy
Prime Minister. Between these two alone-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sure the hon. member
is well aware we do not use members' names. Rather, we use their
title or district.
Mr. Schmidt: The C twins, the member for Sherbrooke and the
Deputy Prime Minister, between these two alone there will be a
payout of more than $6 million if they retire and live to age 75,
with an inflation rate of approximately 5 per cent.
There is nothing in this bill that will in any way come to grips
with these things. We have seen the opposite. We have seen debate
on certain bills stopped. There is another way this new bill negates
the work of fiscal responsibility. It will do away with the work that
has already been done if it is passed, and the $6 million already
spent will be gone.
(1210)
Fiscally the attitude seems to be to spend, don't worry, be happy.
We have seen how democracy works in the country with closure on
Bill C-41, closure on Bill C-85 concerning MP pensions, closure
on Bill C-68, the firearms legislation. In each case the government
has stopped the debate. In each case the government has ignored
the wishes of a large proportion of our country. Worst of all, MPs
are being warned that not toeing the line could put their opportunity
to stand for election on the line and it definitely puts into jeopardy
advancement in their political careers.
The people have told them what to stand for and they have been
told to stand for what the Prime Minister says. In my opinion that is
completely backward and is not the way it ought to go.
Probably the most difficult thing for me to stomach is the
message this is sending to our young people. The message that
seems to be coming from the House as exhibited by a bill like Bill
C-41 is families are old-fashioned. I know as do many members in
the House that families are the social institution best suited for the
transmission of values from one generation to another. They are
where we learn such things as accountability, that freedom has a
price and that we must be responsible for our actions, that there is
such a thing as common decency, that there is such a thing as
respect for another person without fear.
It is necessary to develop courage, to have the guts to stand up to
say what we believe and to be honest and true representatives of the
people who have elected us to stand in their stead in this place to
govern the affairs of the nation in a manner best suited to their
interests, to look after their interests and not our interests.
The government did-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, the hon.
member's time has expired. Questions and comments, the hon.
member for Waterloo.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I heard
the hon. member talk about deficit, pensions, an elected Senate, et
cetera. He spoke very little on the bill before us. I feel compelled to
make a few comments.
I will say this often because I feel voters have a right to be
reminded. Members of the third party mentioned they were to do
politics differently and instead of mindlessly opposing all
government legislation they would actually contribute to make it
better. We in the Liberal Party, both new and veteran members,
really appreciated those promises. Instead we have the sanctimony
of previous parties replaced by the Reform Party which reminds me
of the rise of the right wing parties in the United States.
We have a virtual attack on every institution in the country as
well as on every bill we put forth. I still recall the hypocrisy of the
leader of the third party who turns in a government car and then we
find out he has-
Mr. Morrison: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, has the
word hypocrisy when applied to an individual in the House become
parliamentary language when I was not looking?
(1215 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): This took place during the
debate. I agree the comment could be on the iffy side. I would
request that the member be a little more careful and that all
members be more careful in the future.
13900
Mr. Telegdi: Madam Speaker, I was not referring to a
member with that word. I was referring to an action.
Let me expand on it a bit. The Reform leader promises to do
things differently. He makes a great show by taking the keys to a
five-year government car and turning them back in. Then we find
out about the situation where that party is providing the individual
with a $30,000 suit allowance.
We are told that on this side we are ruled by a dictatorial Prime
Minister. Let us not forget the code of ethics the leader of the
Reform Party was going to impose upon members of the Reform
Party dealing with how many drinks they could have, whom they
could have dinner with-of course not with members of the
opposite sex-and on and on.
Let me say that the Reform has shown itself to be a warmed up
version of the social credit which has a long illustrious history. Let
the Reformers say, when they attack appointments by prime
ministers to the Senate, that the father of the present leader of the
third party was appointed to the Senate. I have not heard criticisms
on that.
Be that as it may, let us look at the policies. Gun registration was
mentioned. The fact of the matter is that this party supported gun
registration because the people of Canada wanted it and it was good
public policy. We are not captives of the religious right in the
country.
Mr. Morrison: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wonder if the hon. member would classify a non-believer as I am
as being part of the religious right.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry but that is a
matter for debate.
Mr. Telegdi: Madam Speaker, much was made about doing what
our constituents want us to do. Members of the third party repeat
that as their mantra. That is what they are going to do. They are
going to represent their constituents. They have 1-900 numbers
where they encourage the public to call in to voice their views so
they can be represented.
Then we had some members of the Reform Party standing during
the gun debate and saying that they did not believe in polls. The
leader of the Reform Party said that he would not take a poll on the
issue because it was too difficult for the public to understand. He
made references to how support was changing but he was not going
to listen to the constituents.
Another bill we dealt with mentioned by the member was Bill
C-41. It deals with trying to make sure that hate crimes are dealt
with harshly. Of course there was no support on that.
Let me just relate a very small incident regarding the present bill
before us.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member but the time for questions and comments has almost
expired. Perhaps he would like to give the member time to respond.
Mr. Telegdi: The hon. member of the Reform Party who took
my seat on Waterloo council moved a motion that the proposed
redistribution debate should not stand. Not only did that person do
it, the former Reform candidate, but every municipal councillor of
every political stripe in the regional municipality of Waterloo
unanimously said that. That community unanimously opposed the
proposal. That is what the bill is all about. I am glad it is addressing
that.
(1220)
How can the Reform argue against listening to communities
representing all political stripes and being unanimous in their
stance?
Mr. Schmidt: Madam Speaker, there are three responses. First,
it would be very beneficial for the member who has just spoken to
read the code of ethics of Reform Party MPs. He would be rather
severely chastised by the content of that ethics statement for the
words he used. He needs to examine very carefully his facts before
he makes statements such as the ones he made.
Second, with regard to representing the people of Okanagan
Centre, I stand here as I stand there to represent all of them whether
or not they voted for me. The issue is not one of representing
Reform Party members only. It never was. It is not now and it will
not be. I was elected by the community. The member ought to be
very careful about the kinds of statements he is making.
With regard to the third aspect of being captive of the religious
right, there has not been a more irresponsible statement than that
one in the House since I was elected as a member. No religious
right has the dominant power within or without or in support of the
Reform Party of Canada. It represents all people to the degree that
they identify with the principles the Reform Party stands for.
It is for virtue and truth that the House ought to stand. That is
what the Reform Party stands for and that is where we need to put
our mark.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
we are debating today the amendments that have been made by the
Senate to the boundaries redistribution bill.
Boundaries redistribution is a way of redrawing the federal
ridings or constituencies that we belong to as voters and in which
we vote. We elect representatives from these ridings to the
Canadian Parliament to represent our wishes, our interests and our
concerns and to be our liaison with what is happening in the federal
government. Because population shifts and growth take place from
time to time, the boundaries of our constituencies from which we
democratically elect representatives to govern us have to change.
13901
Politicians, especially those in government, seem to be very
nervous about the process. The previous government delayed
the process more than once because it did not want to put its
members at any disadvantage by having shifts in the
boundaries, different voters from time and time, and perhaps
even a loss of seats if the boundaries showed there should not
be as many seats in a province as there were. Governments have
shown themselves to be quite reluctant to let the process go
forward. The last redistribution was about 10 years ago, even
though populations had grown and shifted considerably during
that time.
What happened when this government was elected? There was a
process to redistribute the boundaries that had been ongoing for
some considerable period of time. It had reached the point where
the new boundaries had actually been pretty well drawn up by the
commissions in each province.
Lo and behold, government members found to their horror and
dismay that they were disadvantaged by this democratic process.
Their boundaries were to change. In some cases a lot of their
ridings would disappear. The support basis they had built up would
be interfered with. A nervous hue and cry arose from government
members about the process that had been put into place.
Even though the process had already consumed over five million
tax dollars, had been properly carried out, and had pretty well been
finished for public hearings on the recommendations, the
government decided to do it all over again. Therefore it introduced
Bill C-69 to start the process all over again. The process is not
substantially different from the one that it interfered with.
Independent commissions looked at various factors to redraw the
riding boundaries. They will have to do that all over again if the bill
passes. We are not quite sure why because the result will be about
the same.
(1225)
There are four problems with the bill that Canadians should
know about and they are the reasons we are not supporting the bill.
The first problem and the biggest problem is that the bill and the
process that it endorses would increase the number of members of
Parliament by six. Instead of the 295 members that we have today
there would be 301. The growth under the bill would continue so
that for every Parliament there would be more and more
parliamentarians. We will be putting people in the galleries who are
supposed to be representing constituents because there is not
enough room down here.
This is simply nonsense. It shows a shocking lack of sensible
leadership by the government. It had a perfect opportunity to cap or
diminish the number of members of Parliament. A number of my
colleagues have spoken at length about the fact that the country is
overgoverned and has far more representatives per capita than
almost any other democracy. Yet somehow the Liberals are telling
Canadian people, with straight faces, that they need more MPs.
For goodness' sake, why? Already government members have
been told by the Prime Minister how they are to vote on pain of
being expelled from the party and not being allowed to do their job
as a representative next time around. Why do we need more
members to be whipped into line and to stand like trained seals to
do as they are told? How will that benefit the people of the country?
The Reform Party put forward a very sensible proposal to
modestly reduce the number of MPs from 295 to 273. This would
be done on a very fair and equitable basis. I am willing to bet any
province that loses MPs will not have a great revolt and say: ``Give
us more MPs; we must have more MPs''. That simply will not
happen. The country is tired of being overgoverned. It is looking
for a little leadership, a little sensibility in the way we put together
the House of Commons.
As other members of my party have done, I point out that every
member of Parliament costs at least $500,000 and probably more
per year, not to mention the pension that is in place for these
individuals which they collect after only six years of service until
the date of their death.
When seniors' pensions are being cut back, when health care
services are being lost daily, and when unemployment insurance
benefits are being cut back by a minimum of 10 per cent in the last
budget, why on earth would we spend scarce dollars on more
representatives in the House, if the 295 members we have now
cannot get their act together and get the country into good shape?
It simply does not make sense. I am ashamed to be part of a
House of Commons-and I would certainly be ashamed to be part
of a government; thank goodness I am not-that cannot do better
than that for the people of Canada. On that basis alone this is a bad
bill.
The government lost a tremendous opportunity to get some sense
and some balance back into the number of representatives and to
spend money wisely. We need enough people to do the job but not
ever increasing or ever expanding numbers.
The second problem with the bill is the Liberal insistence that
there can be a variance between the number of people in each
riding of up to 25 per cent.
13902
(1230 )
Even the Senate was aghast at this kind of variance. That means
some ridings will have fewer people represented than other ridings,
up to 25 per cent. If there were twice as many people in one riding
as another, every voter in that riding would have twice the
democratic clout as people in the next riding which only had half
that number of members. Here we have it almost as bad. It can be
25 per cent more members.
The basic principle of democracy is representation by
population, a basic tenet of democracy.
I ask for unanimous consent to delete Standing Orders 56 and 78.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Question and comments.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I do not believe you were
listening to what I said.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I do not think it is
necessary to accuse the Chair. I was being consulted on another
issue.
Mrs. Ablonczy: I am very sorry, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Would you please repeat
what you said.
Mrs. Ablonczy: I asked for unanimous consent to delete
Standing Orders 56 and 78.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate.
Mrs. Ablonczy: The third reason this bill is not a good bill and
why we oppose it is the appointments on the commissions that
redraw the boundaries are now not being made accountable to
Parliament. Commissions are appointed in each province to draw
up new boundaries as population shifts happen in each of the
provinces. This is a very good process, one which has pretty well
stopped the old and odious practice of gerrymandering, a problem
in the past in a number of countries. This was even in the 1800s a
difficulty in our democracy.
In the 1960s the electoral boundaries redistribution commission
was set up. It is independent of government so that the
self-interested fingers of politicians cannot be making decisions
about how the boundaries of our ridings and constituencies are put
together. Since that time the political interference in the process
has been pretty well looked after.
The appointments to these commissions are made by the Speaker
of the House. They can be challenged by members of Parliament if
it is felt those appointments are not objective, if they include
people who lack independence from government. That is a healthy
check and balance.
There is a real difficulty in ensuring the process is fair and
objective and that it is seen to be fair and objective. We want to
keep that accountability to Parliament. We have every respect for
the Speaker of the House of Commons but there needs to be a
certainty the appointments can be scrutinized and challenged if
necessary. We would like the process to be totally above board and
accountable to Parliament. There is a move in the bill to diminish
and remove that accountability, which is the third reason we oppose
it.
The fourth reason Canadians should be concerned about the bill
is that if it goes forward the whole process of redrawing boundaries
will have to start all over again. Canadians will not know what
riding they are in until six months before the election. Many
Canadians who are becoming more involved in the democratic
process will have to get ready for an election and nominate
representatives they feel will do the job properly in the next
election, and they will be guessing. How are constituency
associations supposed to nominate candidates for an election when
they will not even know the area from which they might be drawing
voters? They will be trying to sell memberships and get people
involved in the democratic process but the people will not know
what street or what avenue the candidate will represent.
(1235)
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there does not
appear to be a quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I do not see a quorum in
the House. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung and the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There is a quorum.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to see so many
members opposite coming in to listen to the words of wisdom I am
adding to the debate.
We now have a bill before us which is very badly flawed, which
does not serve the interests of Canadians appropriately for four
reasons. It increases and will continue to increase the number of
members in every Parliament. It allows a very wide variance in the
number of voters in each riding, thereby violating the basic
democratic principle of representation by population since some
voters will have greater weight than others depending on how many
voters are in the riding.
The appointments of the commissions which will draw up the
boundaries of our ridings will have an important check and balance
to their objectivity removed. There will be real uncertainty,
unnecessary disruptive uncertainty, because new boundaries would
not be finalized until a few weeks before an election would take
place, very much interfering with the ability of Canadians to
participate properly and freely and effectively in the democratic
process.
13903
For those reasons which are substantial and very clear I urge
members of the House to reconsider support for the bill, which
is not serving the interests of Canadians as it ought to and has
not been put together with appropriate measures.
I move:
That the amendment be amended by deleting the numbers 1, 4(a), 6(a) and
6(b)(i) and substituting the following:
``1, 4(a) and 6(a)''.
(1240)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The amendment is in
order. Resuming debate.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I was
wondering whether there were questions and comments following
my presentation.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There were two minutes
remaining. That is why I did not call questions and comments.
Questions and comments.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, since the
reapportionment commission was holding hearings quite actively
at the time the government heavy handedly intervened, and since in
my riding there were no complaints about the way the
redistribution had been planned nobody went to a hearing,
including me.
I would like a little information. I would like to be informed as to
how these things work. I wonder if the hon. member did have
hearings in her riding and if she did if she would enlighten those of
us who were not involved in that.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, there was some confusion
about the hearings relating to the redistribution process that as I
said was nearly finished when the government interrupted it.
Because of the government's decision to introduce legislation to
start the process all over again, some of the commissions were not
sure whether they ought to hold hearings. Some held them and
some delayed them.
The notice of those hearings was in come cases very short. There
were hearings held in my area and there were representations made.
In some cases there were some recommendations for a better
redrawing or a less disruptive redrawing of the boundaries in
Calgary, where my riding is.
I also had feedback from other hearings that there was no
substantial concern with the way the commissions had been
proposing to redraw. It did vary across the country.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
certainly appreciated the comments from my colleague.
On this legislation, one of the major concerns I have, and I will
speak to it in a moment or two as the seconder of this amendment,
is that the government is behind in a time line. This legislation will
impose a lot of restrictions on the commission in terms of its
fulfilling its function in a very proper way. Would the member
comment on the government's ability to deal with this
circumstance under the current legislation?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, there will be a substantial
difficulty put in the way of all of the players in this new drama that
has been launched on us as far as redistribution is concerned.
(1245 )
All of the steps in this process need to be done thoughtfully and
with good administration, good recording, good consultation.
There is going to be tremendous pressure on all of the people
involved to get the documents together and make the studies and
findings. It is not going to be a process done with as much time and
thoughtfulness as could be done because there will be tremendous
stress on the process to get it done in time for the next election. It is
particularly unfortunate that is going to be done in light of the fact
that it had already been done at some length two years previously.
There was really no reason to have this thing started up again in a
hurry.
I do think the hon. member has pinpointed another difficulty
with this whole process.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
certainly my pleasure to second the amendment that was moved by
my colleague. We have done that for a very important reason.
The amendment that is before the House at the present time on
clause 6 indicates that the commission will only recommend
changes to the existing electoral district boundaries where the
factors set out are significant enough for changes. That clause put a
rather rigid parameter for the commission to follow. When one
examines the motives behind that kind of a directive to the
commission, what it really does is tell the commission not to touch
the existing boundaries unless they really have to. In a sense, it is a
partisan intervention that controls what the commission can and
cannot do. It does not allow for an objective look at the boundaries
as such, which is wrong. Therefore, the Reform Party has moved
this amendment to deal with that issue and try in every way
possible to allow the commission to have flexibility in boundary
determinations.
We have also added, in support of this, a substitute amendment,
clause 4.(a), which adds the requirement for the two non-judicial
commission members to be residents in the province for which the
commission is established.
13904
Mr. Morrison: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My hon. colleague for Lethbridge has some very important
remarks to make. Could we not have some Liberals in the House
to listen to them?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, the hon.
member is well aware that we never refer to the presence or
absence of anyone in the House. I am sure he will withdraw his
comments.
Mr. Morrison: Madam Speaker, I do withdraw my pejorative
comment. However, I would again request that we have quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The member has called for
a quorum. I do not see one.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We have quorum.
Resuming debate.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I would like to
speak to this amendment that is before us and as well to Bill C-69
and the recommendations that come from the Senate.
(1250 )
I want to say something about the process this bill has gone
through between the fall of 1993, when this Parliament began, and
today. One of the most disappointing things I have found about this
Liberal government is it came to this assembly ill-prepared. This
bill is another item that demonstrates the ill-prepared way in which
they took on the responsibilities.
The Liberal Party spent 10 years in opposition. One of the basic
functions and purposes of the loyal opposition is to be a
government in waiting. That is the basic purpose, to prepare itself
for government. The Liberals were to know what kind of a budget
they would bring to Canadians. They were to know what kind of a
social program they would bring to Canadians. They had to know
what kind of a redistribution bill would be brought before this
House of Commons in 1993.
When this government came here it was not prepared in any way.
We spent one year with nothing but procrastination, with studies,
with no answers to questions. It was not a government in waiting.
What did the Liberals do in opposition? What did they do on this
side of the House? They are doing about the same thing today.
Mr. Volpe: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize
we are all here to debate the truth so the public will be informed on
everything. But I think it is important that when a member stands
up he knows that of which he proposes to speak.
There is no way an opposition party under the old system could
possibly have intervened in the system; it is an arm's length
system-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Please
continue.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I appreciate your
ruling that is not a point of order but a sensitivity of the hon.
member to the irresponsibility that went on in this House for 10
years where the Liberal Party members sat on this side of the House
and did nothing but play politics and attempt to get into the
powerful position of being government. But they did not know why
they really wanted to get into government, other than getting the
perks, being ministers and having powers. Supposedly they were
going to run the country with those terms of reference. There was
no preparation at all.
Since coming to this House in the fall of 1993 I have observed
what has gone on over and over again, whether the budget, the
social policy, the health policy, which is delayed until this fall. The
government still does not know what kind of a health policy
Canadians are going to have or what kind of a-
Mrs. Terrana: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We
are here to discuss Bill C-69 and not the performance of one party
or another.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Resuming
debate.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I am discussing
the process relative to Bill C-69. I prefaced my remarks to that. My
preface was that Bill C-69 is in a process that was ill conceived,
that was based on a lack of preparation by this government, and
was basically incompetent.
At this time we are faced with trying to design the ground rules
by which a commission is going to establish the constituency
boundaries across this nation. We are going to put them under a
terrible time constraint to do a good, competent job.
There are a couple of other arguments with regard to Bill C-69.
My colleague from Calgary Centre outlined very clearly to us a
concern that we are going to expand the number of seats in this
House from the current 295 to 301. The Reform Party has taken a
very clear position, saying we are prepared to reduce the number of
seats in this House, which is responsible. It is a response to the
Canadian public at the present time, who recognize that we must be
frugal and respond to their direction at this time. The Reform Party
is prepared to do just that.
(1255)
We have to ask a question, which relates to my first comments:
Why does the government not do that? My colleagues have said
very clearly in their debate that the government does not listen and
has not listened to the Canadian people and what it is they want.
13905
Another point I want to make, which I feel is different, is
the reason the government is not doing it is because it does not
have the political will. It is playing the old political games of
the 1970s and the early 1980s, when government had more
money and was not afraid to go into debt and the public was
not holding it accountable. The object was to not get into any
political problems, not make any difficult decisions. Just
expand the House of Commons and no one will know the
difference. Just add on and play the old political game.
The Liberals have not changed. They do not realize that society
has changed, the political system has changed. The demand on the
public purse and the leadership of the country and the leadership in
the provinces is saying be more frugal and adjust your cloth
according to the budget of the country. That means we have to start
here.
I give the Minister of Finance some marks for bringing about
approximately an $8 billion expenditure reduction in the budget.
He has brought about reductions, which his Liberal friends resisted
for a long time. It took months before the cabinet could turn it
around and say they were going to support the Minister of Finance
in these expenditure reductions. They just said they would not do it.
Finally somebody told them the public wanted expenditure
reductions and it was done in the last budget. That took some
political will. As Liberals they are still afraid to make some major
decisions for the country, and that concerns me very much.
Mr. Volpe: We are making this one.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): In Bill C-69, again we see a lack of
political will to make a major important decision.
I think I should leave it at that, because the government wants to
defend its position, which is indefensible and unacceptable at this
time.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
amendment to the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1300)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(6), the division on the question now before the House
stands deferred, and I will get back to you after consulting the
parties to inform you of the time agreed upon.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would urge the Chair to consider scheduling the
vote for 1.30 p.m. for the following reason. If this bill is not passed
by the House of Commons later today in its final version, it may
well die as, under one of its provisions, the bill must be passed by
the other House and receive royal assent no later than the 20th day
of the current month. This means that if the bill with all its
provisions is not passed today at the latest, we will be unable to
deal with this matter, and the bill will die.
I suggest that, when considering the submissions of the two
political parties in this House allowed to present proposals to the
Chair regarding the timing of the vote, the Chair should keep in
mind that the bill must be voted on not only at the amendment stage
but also at final reading later today. Otherwise, this would be an
academic exercise.
This concludes my submission to the Chair. I hope that this bill,
which was drafted by a parliamentary committee after the
committee reached a consensus, will clear all stages. I think that
the loss of this bill would be very unfortunate and prejudicial to all.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Madam Speaker, our
Standing Orders are very clear on this issue, and I am going to take
the liberty of reading you an excerpt to refresh everyone's memory.
Our Standing Orders very clearly state that the Chief
Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip may approach the
Speaker, while the bells to call in the members are being sounded,
to request that the division be deferred. The Speaker can defer the
division until a specified time, but, in any case, no later than the
normal time of adjournment for the following day, etc.
But, it has been the custom and actually the practice in this
House, certainly since this Standing Order was put in place, that in
cases where the request to defer the vote is presented for the
following sitting day, only one request is made and it is made
immediately, the Speaker automatically grants the request. Even if,
subsequently, a second request is made by another political party,
never has it been decided to grant the second request.
13906
(1305)
The standing order is clear: the first request takes precedence.
Therefore, I ask you to grant my colleague's request.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
concur with the previous speaker. I support that decision. Those are
the rules of the House. They are well established. They are clear.
They are meant to benefit all the members of the House. I believe
whoever is first should be recognized.
Second, the government whip has put extra pressure on you to
consider it, a 30 second consideration. However, the extra pressure
that was placed on you by the government whip failed to outline
and acknowledge the fact that the other place has all of next week
to do its work as well. It is sufficient time for its members to get the
job done and, therefore, I would support the opposition's request.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I have already said that I
will take it under consideration. We will come back to the House
within a few moments.
In the meantime we will continue with Government Orders.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-70, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules and
related acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 298)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Reed
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood-127
13907
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Williams-76
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Brien
Calder
Canuel
Copps
Crawford
Deshaies
Dupuy
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Hickey
Knutson
Lalonde
Laurin
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mercier
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
(1345)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill
be read a third time? Now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the
bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again rise in support
of speedy passage of Bill C-70, an act to amend the Income Tax
Act.
As the House is aware, the bill will implement a number of
measures relating to taxation that were introduced in the 1994
budget, along with certain others announced by the government
over the last year.
In moving to third reading, it is again appropriate to remind
ourselves of the context of this legislation. The fiscal challenge
facing the country is familiar to us all. Few dispute the need for
tough action and that difficult choices face us all. Surely we will all
agree that fairness and effectiveness must be essential guiding
principles of the steps we have to overcome in our challenge in
dealing with the deficit.
These principles have guided the government as we have worked
to restrain spending. They have guided the minister in crafting the
budgets of 1994 and again in 1995. In both cases, spending cuts
alone could not deliver the deficit reductions that Canada needs.
Rigorous government restraint needed to be complemented with
some measures on the tax side.
Doing so for us was simply a question of fairness. It was our
vision of fairness that guided us as we looked at the tax system,
addressing unsustainable tax preferences instead of imposing
general tax hikes on Canadian taxpayers.
In looking at the corporate tax regime we sought to ensure that
corporations paid their fair share of the tax revenues needed to fund
government programs and to prevent certain businesses or sectors
from taking undue advantage of certain tax provisions.
With this in mind, the 1994 budget proposed a number of
measures to the rules governing the taxation of business income.
Our goal, and let me stress this, was not to penalize the business
sector or to impede the competitiveness of Canadian corporations.
In fact, we believe that it is essential to maintain a competitive tax
system in today's global economy.
I would like to now outline some of the specific measures from
the 1994 budget which have been reflected in Bill C-70.
One fairness issue this legislation addresses is the tax rules
dealing with debt forgiveness and foreclosures. Under the old
provisions of the Income Tax Act many transactions involving the
settlement of debt were not recognized in any meaningful way for
income tax purposes.
The new rules provide a comprehensive basis to deal with debt
settlement. In general, they provide that forgiven debt amounts will
be applied to a loss carried forward and expenses are partially
included in the debtor's income. I should point out, however, there
are special relieving rules to minimize undue hardship from these
new rules.
Let me now turn to the tax treatment of securities held by
financial institutions. Until now the Income Tax Act has not
provided specific rules regarding the tax treatment of such
securities. The measures under Bill C-70 seek to reduce
uncertainty in this regard and also to ensure that the income derived
from such securities is measured appropriately. The amendments
provide that certain securities will be marked to market, meaning
that the
13908
appreciation or depreciation in their value each year must be
recognized in that year.
In keeping with our goal of fairness, the amendments include a
transitional rule that allow increases in income resulting from the
new rules to be spread over five years. These new measures have
been generally effective after February 21, 1994.
(1355)
In addition, new rules are provided for debt securities that are
not required to be marked to market. These rules deal with the
measurement of income while the securities are-
The Speaker: The hon. member will have the floor when we
return to debate.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-69, an act to provide for
the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the
readjustment of electoral boundaries; and of the amendment.
The Speaker: Earlier today the Chair had a request for the
deferral on the division of the amendment to the amendment
relating to Bill C-69.
[Translation]
I would ask the whips to consult with each other and I hope they
manage to agree or at least produce a recommendation for the
Chair.
[English]
I hope the whips would consult with each other. If the whips
have not reached a decision, I will return to the House at 4 p.m. and
I will set a time for the vote at that time.
There was a request for a vote at 1.30 p.m. That is a moot point.
We are past 1.30 p.m. and now I would like the whips to discuss it
and if they cannot arrive at a decision I will decide at 4 p.m.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Roberval, on a point of order.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order which concerns the procedure in this House. When a
whip asks for a division to be deferred-and I looked up a number
of precedents-the Chair always defers the division at the request
of the whip who rises in the House, when there is just one.
Perhaps you could tell us why you are now asking the whips to
consult with each other, since there is only one valid request before
the Chair and, in our opinion, the Chair must consider that request?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I asked for a little more time, since question
period will start in a few minutes, to review what happened. I
would like some time to do that.
Furthermore, I would ask the whips to consult with each other. If
they are willing, perhaps it would be unnecessary to have a
decision from the Chair.
However, should it be necessary, I will announce my decision at
4 p.m.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect, Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii) clearly states:
During the sounding of the bells, either the Chief Government Whip or the
Chief Opposition Whip may ask the Speaker to defer the division.
That is what happened.
The Speaker then defers it to a specific time, which must be no later than the
ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the next sitting day that is not a Friday.
That occurred. The opposition whip asked for a deferral. Five
minutes later the government whip stood up and gave a speech
asking not to defer it. He asked for a time of 1.30. Two different
times were asked: deferral of the vote until the next sitting day
which would be tomorrow and subsequently would have to wait
until Monday or 1.30 p.m. today. The 1.30 p.m. today has expired
so there has been no valid request by the government whip. The
request of the opposition whip must be respected and accepted.
The Speaker: I thank the whip of the Reform Party for his
opinions. I will surely take them under advisement when I make
my decision at 4.00 p.m.
It being 2.00 p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
13908
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a group of co-op students from the University of New
Brunswick are visiting the capital today. They are here to
encourage development of new and exciting co-operative
education programs in Canada. These programs are made up of six
work terms for two years in total of valuable work experience for
every participant.
13909
Students, especially those who work away from school and
home, develop personal skills such as independence and time
management. Co-op students are also given the opportunity to
acquire vital contacts with employers. Out of 37 co-ops graduating
from UNB this year, only five are still searching for a job.
Most non co-op students only begin the job hunt on graduation.
The most immediate and tangible benefit from the co-op program
is financial. The program funds the students' educations with little
or no assistance required. The students of UNB ask our government
to encourage the development of co-op programs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals' insistence at the beginning of this session on amending
the legislation on patented drugs is hard to explain from an
economic point of view. In fact, the Patented Medicine Prices
Review Board announced this week that patented drug prices fell
by nearly 0.5 per cent in 1994.
Since 1987, when the legislation came into force, patented drug
prices have risen an average of only 2.1 per cent, below the rate of
inflation, while drug prices generally rose an average of 7.5 per
cent. In other words, generic drugs were the ones to increase
significantly in price.
In addition to containing their prices, manufacturers of patented
drugs invested $561 million in research and development last year,
which is more than they are committed to do. The Liberals should
stop harassing a major industry that has a considerable impact on
the economies of Quebec and Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after the 1993 election, my party asked if I would take on
the responsibility of dealing with the issue of parliamentary
reform. I quickly came to the conclusion that the main issue was
freer voting. It is not just the situation where the leaders of the
government side would declare a particular bill the subject of a free
vote, but the situation where parties allow dissent to occur, true
dissent on particular government bills, bills that form part of the
government program.
It was the opinion of those involved in the writing of the
McGrath report in 1985 and those who sat on the House
management committee in 1993 that dissent should be allowed to
be expressed without fear of retaliation by the leadership of the
political party concerned. Both groups believe the expression of
dissent would make the House a healthier place.
I am pleased to see that members on both sides of this House are
beginning to express themselves in dissent. However, in order for
freer voting to occur, the fear of reprisals by party leadership must
disappear. I hope the leadership on the government side will
respect the dissent that has been expressed as a healthy part of our
democratic system and that no reprisals will come to those
expressing dissent.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw the attention of the government to the fact that a
ruling from Revenue Canada is being sought with respect to the
deal that has been arranged to save the Winnipeg Jets.
What has been sought from Revenue Canada and which may not
have been received yet is a ruling which would have the effect of
making the millions of dollars that are being donated toward the
purchase and the saving of the team for Winnipeg as a charitable
donation.
It seems to me given all the other things that are happening in
this country that hockey, particularly professional NHL hockey, is
not a charity. I would like to see the team stay in Winnipeg, but I do
not want to see a precedent set whereby professional hockey is
regarded as a charity for tax purposes. I think that would be an
awful precedent and an awful injustice.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since its inception 50 years ago, the Federal Business Development
Bank has addressed the needs of Canada's small and medium sized
businesses. This institution has continually adapted its operations
to meet constantly changing political, social and economic
climates. However, once again the time for significant change has
come.
(1405)
That is why the business leaders of London-Middlesex are
applauding the business development bank of Canada act which
was recently tabled. The proposed act would not only allow the
present bank to change its name, it would also allow it to evolve
and to expand its programs and services to meet today's
requirements.
At present, we must adapt to the realities of the new global
economy, an economy which in large part sees entrepreneurs along
with small and medium sized businesses charged with the
responsibility of promoting economic growth and job creation.
13910
I believe that this initiative demonstrates yet again our
government's commitment to the people of Canada. I look forward
to its implementation.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on June 8 and 9, Acadia University, Chrysler Canada, the
Nova Scotia Department of Education and the Department of
Economic Development hosted ``Forging the Link'', an
international symposium on education and the economy. This
conference as a preamble to the Halifax summit brought business
leaders, educators and youth together to discuss new partnerships
between education and the economy.
For young Canadians the chances of finding that first job in a
chosen field are a lot better with relevant training and work
experience. Whether it is post-secondary education or an
internship that helps get a foot in the door, available jobs are going
more than ever before to people with more schooling and more
skills.
It is crucial therefore that we as a government forge closer links
between educators and business. Through important forums such as
this, more young Canadians will gain an understanding of the ties
between good education and good jobs.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 12th
annual Elders and Traditional Peoples Gathering was held at Trent
University in Peterborough. Three thousand aboriginal people and
others met to address the theme: family growth through our elders.
There were ceremonies, plays, concerts and workshops.
Workshop topics included oral traditions, immersion schools,
being Indian today, Inuit life, the spirit of healing, native women's
issues, traditional language and medicinal herbs. A highlight was
the play ``Earth Rhythms'' about young people creating change in
their own environment. This was performed by people from the
First Nations of Curve Lake and Hiawatha.
The annual elders conference is aboriginal Canadians helping
themselves and others to make Canada an even better place.
I am delighted to add that Trent University will be appointing a
new chancellor this fall. She will be Mary Simon, former president
of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and currently Canada's
ambassador for circumpolar affairs.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this morning's
Globe and Mail reported staff cuts at the
CBC which are the start of further major cuts that could well
change the role, nature and even the mandate of the corporation
entirely.
As a result of the latest budget, the SRC and the CBC will have
to cut 1,000 employees. However, Tony Manera, the former
president had indicated that between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs would
have to be cut in the next three years. In this context, it is therefore
surprising that the Minister of Cultural Heritage continues to refuse
to reveal the budget cuts he has imposed on the corporation.
We should not be surprised to discover more American
television programs in CBC programming in the near future or to
find ourselves witnessing the long slow demise of what was once
the jewel of Quebec and Canadian culture.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sad to say that the past few days have ended democracy for the
people of Canada.
It was not so long ago we had a Prime Minister promising fair
representation for all Canadians who elected Liberal members of
Parliament. Not only has it become blatantly obvious that he has
reneged on one of his iron clad red book promises, he has taken it a
step further by threatening his caucus members to toe the party line
or he will use the ultimate weapon of refusing to sign nomination
papers for those members prior to the next election. This in turn
could deny access to their beloved gold plated pension plan which
is the worst possible catastrophe for a Liberal to experience.
I want to inform members opposite that our constituents have
their wishes followed on a day to day basis. They have the power to
nominate their own representatives. As well, our leader will sign
nomination papers based on constituents' wishes. With these three
policies alone, our constituents know that we are the only truly
democratic party left in Canada.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian youth have a wealth of fresh insight, energy and intellect
13911
to offer our national institutions, our workplaces, our society. What
they require in return is opportunity. It is therefore laudable that
this government is helping young people who are both out of
school and out of work receive the training and experience they
need for future success.
Through Youth Service Canada 850 young people nationwide are
taking part in 63 projects which will help them gain invaluable
work experience while making significant contributions to their
communities.
In my riding of Winnipeg North the Maples Youth Justice
Committee will target as a project racism, gang violence and fraud
with crime awareness programs.
Indeed Canadians have much reason to take pride in Youth
Service Canada. We take pride in the renewal, the hope and the
vision our young Canadians offer our great nation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as chairman of the Quebec Liberal caucus, I want to join
with all Quebecers and Canadians in wishing good luck to Quebec
City, which might be chosen tomorrow as the host city for the 2002
Winter Games. The decision will in fact be made in a few hours,
and we will finally find out whether Quebec City is the lucky
winner.
It goes without saying that we are keen to hear the outcome of
the decision and that we will be delighted to have the 2002 Winter
Games here. Quebec has a worldwide reputation because of its
athletes, whose remarkable performances have made them
provincial ambassadors, and because of the warm welcome it
reserves for visitors.
The fact that Quebec City is among the top contenders is
confirmation that we are a strong candidate for the next Winter
Games. I offer my thanks to all those who have had a part in this
important bid, and I extend my best wishes for good luck to Quebec
City.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, Quebec's Minister Responsible for
Restructuring released the 8th report on Quebec's sovereignty. One
of the first conclusions drawn by the author is that the Outaouais
region would lose at least 3,500 jobs if Quebec declared its
independence. These 3,500 well paid jobs coupled with the 5,000
others the minister says will also disappear in the head offices of
big companies in Montreal already puts the separatist's balance
sheet for job creation in a debit position of 8,500.
Quebec's Minister Responsible for Restructuring should devote
his efforts without delay to putting an end to these reports and start
using the funds at his disposal to create jobs instead of to announce
they are going to disappear. This is what Quebecers want and this is
the goal towards which the Government of Canada is working.
* * *
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a study
done by Statistics Canada which was released yesterday revealed
that the after-tax income of families dropped 2.1 per cent in 1993.
Compared to 1989, Quebec and Canadian families have on the
average $3,025 less money to spend per year. All levels of society
have been hit by this drop which started in 1989 and which has
carried us back to income levels we have not been seeing since the
early 1970s. Even the poorest families have seen their after-tax
income drop since 1989.
Economists predict that this decline could very well continue
over the next few years, all the more so because the federal
government's unemployment insurance reforms are having a
negative impact on workers at the lower end of the pay scale. The
dignity of working is above all the dignity of being able to earn a
living at it. That is what the government should have realized
before it started blindly cutting its support to those in need.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, page 94 of
the Liberal red book states that if elected, Liberals would give more
power to individual MPs by providing more free votes. Yesterday
the Prime Minister broke this promise by warning his own MPs
that if any one of them vote against the party line more than once,
he will not sign their nomination papers for the next federal
election.
Breaking campaign promises to free voting backbenchers,
kicking them off committees, killing their travelling privileges,
threatening to pull their nomination papers and last night the
government whip ordering them not to vote is not leadership. It is
dictatorship, duly elected and duly followed by sheep like members
on the other side.
(1415 )
If it looks like a Mulroney caucus and baas like a Mulroney
caucus then I guess it is a Mulroney caucus and can be led to the
slaughter in the next election just like a Mulroney caucus.
13912
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, today at 4 p.m. the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada will be
holding a news conference on Parliament Hill to unveil Iliqqusivut,
the Inuit Spirit of the Arctic Pavilion which will be showcased at
this year's Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto.
For 18 days in August the Inuit will bring a piece of the Arctic to
Toronto's CNE. The pavilion will feature Inuit businesses, artists
and cultural performers. Visitors will be able to hear and see the
famous Inuit throat singers and drum dancers, participate in
traditional Inuit Arctic games, enjoy northern food of char and
caribou, and purchase Inuit carvings, prints, jewellery and clothing.
I encourage all members of Parliament, their staff and all other
Canadians to experience the Inuit way of life at the CNE this
summer and, for a foretaste, to join us on the front lawn of
Parliament Hill later this afternoon.
_____________________________________________
13912
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Group
of Seven summit opened this morning in Halifax, while 12
Canadian peacekeepers and observers are still being held hostage
by the Serb forces. They are literally being used as a shield, as
Bosnian government troops launch an offensive on the outskirts of
Sarajevo to break the Serb siege of the Bosnian capital.
Could the Minister of National Defence tell us what specific
steps have been taken to provide a safer environment for some 850
Canadian peacekeepers deployed in Visoko who are now caught
between the two sides in a confrontation between Bosnian
government troops and Serb troops north of Sarajevo?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the hon. member's question. I can inform him that at the base in
Visoko, because of the build-up of Muslim forces, certain
precautions have been taken to be ready in the event of an attack.
The situation is very disturbing but, so far, our troops are in good
shape and not in any immediate danger.
As for the 11 members of the Canadian forces in Ilijas, this is a
real problem because of the start of hostilities in this region. So far,
they are in good shape and are not in danger.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during a
previous question period, the Minister of National Defence said
they were in a very delicate situation.
I wish the Minister of National Defence would explain what he
meant by this very delicate situation and why these peacekeepers
still have not been released? Could he be a little more specific?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very
concerned that our people have not been released. Yesterday I
called in the chargé d'affaires of the Yugoslavian government to
lodge a formal protest with the authorities in Belgrade.
Although we appreciate very much the efforts of President
Milosevic and the Yugoslavian government in Belgrade so far in
getting the release of the hostages and working with the Bosnian
Serbs, we have demanded they intercede immediately to release the
11 Canadians at Ilijas and Captain Rechner who is still in Pale, the
Bosnian Serb headquarters.
There is no reason for these people to be detained other than the
fact that perhaps these forces are being held as some kind of a
shield to try to prevent the Bosnian Muslims who are amassing for
an attack apparently to liberate Sarajevo from Serb control in the
suburbs.
(1420)
It is totally unacceptable to have United Nations personnel,
especially Canadians, used as pawns in the middle of a conflict
between those two parties.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
Prime Minister is now at the G-7 summit, together with some very
important players in this unfortunate series of events, could the
Minister of National Defence tell us whether today, the Prime
Minister intended to make it clear to the G-7 heads of state that
quick action is urgently needed to save our troops, to save Canadian
soldiers who are now in the worst possible situation in that part of
the world?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure
our Prime Minister intends to raise the matter in Halifax with his
G-7 colleagues, because he knows perfectly well this is a bad
situation and everyone wants to see the liberation of all hostages
and prisoners.
[English]
I am sure the Prime Minister will be talking about this with his
colleagues in Halifax. All members of the G-7 are as concerned as
everyone about the deteriorating situation in the former
Yugoslavia.
13913
As to whether or not Canada will take part in the rapid reaction
force, again that will be the Prime Minister's decision. He will
announce that in due course.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
As the minister mentioned, the heads of state at the G-7 Summit
will be discussing the situation in Bosnia. However, yesterday in
Washington, French President Jacques Chirac expressed his regret
at the length of time it was taking to set up the rapid reaction force
in Bosnia. Here, on the other hand, we still do not know whether
Canada will be part of the force or not.
Would the Minister of National Defence tell us whether or not
Canada will participate directly in the establishment of the rapid
reaction force as France and Great Britain have proposed?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
already answered that question.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think either the minister or the Prime Minister have ever
answered this question. They have said they will discuss the matter
at the G-7 summit, and again we have the same response.
How can the government not commit to participating in the rapid
reaction force-because we have still not had an answer-and thus
abdicate its responsibility to further protect the safety of the
peacekeepers in Bosnia at a time when many members of the large
contingent of Canadian peacekeepers are in very precarious
situations?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
government is certainly not abdicating its responsibilities.
We have taken measures in the last number of months to ensure
that our forces take all necessary precautions, as I described in
reply to the earlier question, especially increased fortifications at
our base in Visoko, especially increased protection for our troops,
and a number of other things that will help them do their duties.
The question of the rapid reaction force was an initiative that we
support. It is an initiative that will largely be manned by British and
French forces. Certainly it is the desire of the NATO allies that
Canada participate. We want to make sure before we give our
concurrence that we are fully satisfied with the way the force will
be deployed. Those answers will be coming shortly.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the government House leader said that he did not accept
the premise of our questions about the heritage minister's violation
of the federal code of ethics. We are not dealing with assumptions,
conjectures and speculation here. We are dealing with the facts.
It is a fact that the heritage minister targeted departmental clients
for political donations. It is a fact that everyone who attended that
dinner received a government contract or appointment. It is a fact
that the minister blatantly broke section 23 of the government's
own code of conduct.
What does it take for the Prime Minister to remove a minister
guilty of unethical behaviour? A criminal conviction?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a fundamental flaw in the hon. member's question because
on the public face of information available it is not based on fact.
There is no information I am aware of to say that the minister
personally invited people to the dinner but rather that he simply
attended the dinner. It is quite proper for ministers and members of
all parties to attend fundraising dinners. It is part of the normal
political process in the country and I am informed that the
donations were properly recorded.
(1425)
I can ask the hon. member a question. Why is she asking
questions that do not appear to be based on facts?
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear the minister attended and he is personally responsible for the
contracts that go out under his signature.
The government's excuses and its carefully crafted damage
control lines are certainly wearing thin. The heritage minister was
clearly in the wrong. The government is making matters worse by
refusing to release the full list of all the people who were invited to
the minister's dinner, the full list of those who actually sent
contributions, and the full list of donors who have received heritage
contracts or appointments, not just giving donations. Trying to bury
this information in Elections Canada documents will not make it go
away.
I have a supplementary question. If the government does not
have anything to hide, why is it hiding behind these ludicrous
answers? When will it make all the list public?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is clear from public information that this dinner was not
organized by the government and the invitations were not sent by
the minister or the government. These are not materials within the
control of the government, except to the extent that they are
13914
recorded in the Elections Canada returns. To have information
disclosed in the Elections Canada returns is not hiding the matter.
It is carrying out the requirements of the law.
I again ask the hon. member why she is asking questions like this
rather than about matters of real concern to most Canadians.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
red book in the last campaign I thought integrity was a fairly major
issue in the country.
The Prime Minister has said that the heritage minister was not at
fault because receipts were issued for all donations. Selling access
to a minister of the crown cannot be justified by a handful of
receipts. The heritage minister has violated the federal code of
ethics by placing himself in a conflict of interest, but instead of
doing the honourable thing and demanding his resignation the
Prime Minister continues to stubbornly defend the indefensible.
The government has put politics ahead of principles and it is
making a mockery of the code of ethics. Enough is enough. Will the
heritage minister resign now?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has made what I consider to be a totally
unwarranted accusation by saying that access to the minister of
heritage was being sold. Ministers generally come in contact with
the public in a whole range of acceptable ways, including attending
fundraising dinners.
It is clear if anybody is putting politics ahead of principles it is
that member and her party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, only a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister stated that the
G-7 summit would be held in Halifax rather than Quebec City,
because the Canadian flag did not fly above the city hall occupied
by the separatist mayor of Quebec City. Now that the G-7 summit
has just opened in Halifax,
La Presse reports that, ``those who do
not speak English are lost''.
How can the Acting Prime Minister, whose government defends
a vision of Canada as a supposedly bilingual country ``from coast
to coast to coast'' not be embarrassed by the almost total lack of
French on the very site of the G-7 summit in Halifax?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since this summit is being attended by spokespersons for the G-7
countries, including France and Canada, it is obvious that both
official languages are represented at the summit site.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we see the faces of francophones, but the image being
projected is English. How can the federal government explain that
Canada continues as always to project a unilingual English image
at the G-7 summit, while federal representatives in Quebec seize
every opportunity to emphasize the merits of a bilingual Canada?
(1430)
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I totally reject the premise of the hon. member's question. The face
we are showing at the summit is that of a bilingual, proud and
united country. The hon. member's attempt to tarnish this image of
unity is regrettable.
An hon. member: Right.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
It has been revealed that both the director general and the
director of the public works contracting branch have doled out
contracts to close family members without competition. One
director hired his wife to do his office work. Mr. Hugues
Bureau-St. Pierre has received close to $50,000 from his generous
Aunt Lillian since September 1993.
Is the government investigating this matter? If so, will he punish
those responsible for unethical conduct?
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the last election the government made a commitment to govern
with integrity. We intend to honour this practice.
We are aware of the situation that the member has brought to our
attention. To this end, the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services has directed his deputy minister to give
instructions that guidelines should be respected.
It is not standard practice to hire family members. This
particular group that the member mentioned is now the subject of
an internal audit. If the allegations are substantiated as a result of
this audit we will direct the department to bring in corrective
measures.
13915
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am encouraged at the government's show of concern for ethics in
the public service, but is it not ironic that it will investigate the
public service for unethical conduct while the unethical conduct of
the heritage minister and the public works minister goes
uninvestigated altogether.
It is no wonder that the auditor general says there is confusion in
the public service about ethics. It is examples from the top that
prove the old adage that the fish is rotting from the head down in
this case.
My supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Since the federal code of conduct does not seem to apply to the
cabinet, how does the government expect to enforce ethical
standards in the public service?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
ethics are very important to the government. We show this in many
ways every day when it comes to the cabinet and when it comes to
the public service.
Dealing with the hon. member's rather tasteless metaphor about
fish, obviously things have stretched quite a way down to the
bottom of that party judging by his question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Health Canada officials revealed today that the synthetic
hormone somatotropin can legally be imported and used in Canada.
Yet, the Minister of Health has tried to reassure the public by
saying repeatedly in this House that the use of somatotropin is
illegal in Canada and that cheaters would be punished.
How could the Minister of Health let us believe in the House that
Health Canada had the situation under control when she knew that,
through a loophole in the Food and Drugs Act, synthetic
somatotropin could legally be used in Canada?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in our opinion, the current regulatory framework adequately blocks
the use of bovine somatotropin in Canada. The example mentioned
by the hon. member is a minor exception.
I am aware of the hon. member's concerns, but, up to now, they
have been unfounded. We will continue investigating and, if we
detect any problems, we will take the appropriate action.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to point out to the minister that all of the members of the Standing
Committee on Agriculture, which met this morning, share this
concern about this minor exception. If she talks to the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, she will
realize that he is of exactly the same opinion.
(1435)
How can the minister explain why, in the past year, she has taken
no steps to plug this important legal loophole, now that the
voluntary moratorium imposed by her agriculture colleague has
expired?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for the vast majority of people in Canada other than pharmacists or
veterinarians it is illegal to import, to sell, or to distribute rBST.
To date Health Canada has felt that the regulatory framework
that was put in place was effective in preventing the use of rBST in
the country. If that is not the case we will take appropriate action.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, every report from
Bosnia suggests that our peacekeepers can no longer do their job.
The Canadian commander says they are ``frozen in place''.
In response, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said this morning
that if our peacekeepers ``are no longer able to accomplish their
raison d'être then they will have to be evacuated''.
Given the minister's statement, is the government now preparing
the evacuation of Canadian troops from Bosnia?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): No.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we found out
today that the government will be joining the Bosnia strike force.
The presence of such a force is not in keeping with the
peacekeeping mandate and has only two purposes: one, to join an
escalating conflict as a combatant; or two, to facilitate the
withdrawal of UN troops from the region.
Since the government is contributing troops to the strike force,
does this mean it is abandoning its professed resolve for neutrality
or is it preparing for withdrawal as we have proposed for the last
six months?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member should know by reading reports from the NATO meeting a
couple of weeks ago that the establishment of the rapid reaction
force is a measure designed purely to assist UN personnel in
danger. That is why it is being put together.
13916
Whether a country is part of that or not does not lessen the fact
that the UN force is there not in a belligerent capacity but as one
leading the search of peace. That is Canada's position. We intend to
stay and finish the mandate unless it becomes absolutely
impossible for us to continue. The Prime Minister has made that
clear in the House many times.
While it is true that in the last few weeks there have been some
considerable difficulties in helping to discharge the mandate we
believe the situation can be resolved.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Seventy
five per cent of all consumers are against the hormone
somatotropin. The dairy industry is demanding that the moratorium
on its use be extended, and, this morning, the Standing Committee
on Health passed a resolution for the renewal of the moratorium for
at least two years. With 15 days left to go before the end of the
moratorium, the Minister of Agriculture is still undecided
regarding the issue.
Will the minister admit that we are talking about something
bigger than the minor exception that the Minister of Health would
have us believe, something which more closely resembles a gaping
legal loophole which permits somatotropin to be used in Canada,
and will he admit that, in the short term, the only thing that will
protect consumers who want to drink milk that was not produced
using somatotropin will be an extension of the moratorium?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has referred
to the provisions in the Food and Drugs Act and the regulations
promulgated under that act which is legislation under her
jurisdiction. She has indicated quite clearly what the provisions of
the law and the regulations provide. She is quite correct to indicate
that the possibilities of importation are exceedingly limited to
certain specific individuals and certain specific cases. The answer
given by the Minister of Health is completely accurate as to the
facts.
She has also indicated that on further review if the legal
framework appears in any way to be inadequate to properly deal
with the situation, then that legal framework can be strengthened.
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, let us stop beating around the bush. My question was very
clear.
Does the Minister of Agriculture acknowledge, yes or no, the
right of citizens to drink natural milk that was not produced using
hormones, and if so, what is he waiting for to announce that he will
extend the moratorium for as long as is needed to guarantee
consumers that they will be able to drink unadulterated milk, in
accordance with their wishes?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last year, on
the recommendation of the agriculture committee, we undertook in
co-operation with all of the interested stakeholders, including
many in the private sector, a task force investigation of a variety of
facts surrounding rBST. We did that following the advice of the
agriculture committee to provide more information, to get all of the
details on the table so that everyone could be fully informed on the
issue.
The one important piece of data which remains to be concluded
and provided is a critical piece, which is the scientific regulatory
review of the health aspects with respect to rBST. That is presently
being studied by the Department of Health. Until the Department of
Health is satisfied with all the health and safety issues, then
obviously no notice of compliance will be issued.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the Correctional Service of Canada
released its report on the September 5, 1993 murder of 25-year old
Dennis Fichenberg.
Fichenberg was murdered by Paul Butler, a federal inmate who
was on day parole at the time of the murder. At the time of
sentencing Butler was considered to be a psychopath and at the
time of his release he was described as a high risk offender with a
high potential for violence. Butler, however, was able to stay on
day parole despite committing numerous violations over the
six-month period he was on parole.
Is the Solicitor General satisfied with the way the correctional
service and the National Parole Board handled Butler's release?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the hon. member knows, the parole board is an independent
13917
quasi-judicial tribunal, operating at arm's length from the minister,
who has no right under the law to interfere in its decisions.
However, I want to say that the investigation report which was
released had recommendations for change and a correction in the
situation to help prevent it from taking place again. I want to ensure
that these changes are put in place because, like the hon. member, I
do not want to see this kind of thing happening again.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is some suggestion that Butler was able to
maintain his day parole status because he had previously been an
informant for the RCMP.
Was Butler's freedom due in part to the intervention of the
RCMP and is the minister satisfied that the RCMP acted in an
appropriate manner?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the report of the investigation into this matter says that the parole
board applied the criterion of the protection of the public as its
main guideline.
I am not in a position to comment on the RCMP's involvement
or non-involvement in the matter.
At the same time, this happened before the government took
office. I want to ensure, in so far as I am able to do so, that the
circumstances which led to this tragic occurrence do not happen
again. I am glad to have the hon. member's concurrence in this
concern of mine.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
As the minister knows, for more than a year now the whole farm
safety net program has been studied and reviewed. Can the minister
tell the House, the hundreds of farmers across Carleton-Charlotte
and the thousands of farmers across Canada what the status is of the
study and when we can expect to see its results?
(1445)
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, through most of 1994 we were
discussing the future shape of agricultural safety nets with farm
organizations and with provincial governments.
In December 1994 we achieved unanimous agreement among
the federal government and all of the provinces with respect to the
principles to underpin the future design of safety programming in
Canada.
At the moment our officials are working on the drafting of an
omnibus memorandum of understanding hopefully to be signed in
due course between the federal government and all of the provinces
outlining the basic components of the safety net structure for the
future, indicating the necessity for trade compatibility and
production and market neutrality.
We want to ensure interprovincial fairness and balance. We want
to achieve a cost sharing ratio of about 60 per cent federal, 40 per
cent provincial. We want to achieve national consistency across the
country with sufficient provincial flexibility to meet local and
regional objectives.
We think we will get there. The memorandum of understanding
is very well advanced.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Industry has consistently refused to set up
a genuine defence conversion program and has cut the few
resources remaining in the budget for the defence industry
productivity program, which has had serious consequences for
Montreal. In fact, Pratt & Whitney, a leader in Canada's aerospace
industry, is planning to move its research centre.
Does the Minister of Industry realize that by refusing to set up a
genuine defence conversion program, he is denying the Quebec
aerospace industry an opportunity to develop its technological
capability and thus undermining its ability to compete?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I want to commend the hon. member on the interest he
has shown in the broader issues of technological development here
in Canada. I am very much aware of the problem concerning Pratt
& Whitney, which has been discussed in the media.
I want to say to the hon. member that in the budget, which of
course reduced the funding available for this program, we
promised to review it. Cabinet intends to discuss the broader issues
of technological development, and I am looking forward to hearing
what the hon. member has to say about these programs.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, despite the almost British phrasing of his reply, the
minister did not answer my question.
My question is: Since Ottawa funded 18 per cent of Pratt &
Whitney's R and D investments over the past ten years, mainly for
military applications, why does the minister now refuse to support
civilian applications of the company's research? Why does the
minister refuse to help a Quebec company? That is the question.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): First of all,
Mr. Speaker, I may remind the hon. member that Pratt & Whitney
is not exactly a Quebec company. It is a multinational that also has
plants in Halifax and Lethbridge, Alberta. The issue is one that is
important to all regions in Canada.
13918
I would also like to point out that during the past decade, Pratt &
Whitney Canada received nearly $525 million from the federal
government, and we are committed to giving the company another
$91.2 million during the next four years. So we did not exactly
forget Pratt & Whitney.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the road blockade beside Adams Lake still remains in
place today.
Eighty-six days after it was started by the three native bands
involved there have been at least two episodes of violence
involving criminal charges. Last week a bridge into a provincial
park was burned.
Does the minister of Indian affairs still insist he must be
specifically invited by the parties involved before he will take
action?
(1450 )
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated in the
House on several occasions both by me and by the solicitor general,
policing in the province of B.C. is in the jurisdiction of the RCMP
under contract to the province of B.C.
On this specific road there are three scenarios. The best case
scenario is that it is a public road to the reserve. The second case is
that the owners on the other side have the right of way and then
they can sue. The worst case scenario which my hon. friend seems
to be moving toward is this land is owned totally by the First
Nations. If that is the scenario they are entitled to close off the road
on their land like any owner in Canada.
I am hoping we can work out an arrangement with them so
people can get to their premises. We are prepared to work with the
province of B.C. which fortunately we do in many situations. We
will help out in the facilitation. Those are the facts and all the
rhetoric in the House will not change those facts.
The problem was it was an archaeological dig. The person who
did it was supposed to comply with the mandate from the province.
That person did not. That person has been written to and still has
not complied.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the problem goes beyond that. The federal government
was supposed to have been involved a long time ago on the signing
of that road, as the minister knows.
He has also been contacted by the B.C. aboriginal affairs
minister, Mr. Cashore. He was informed on April 13 this should be
treated as a top priority by this minister. He has also had that
request from aboriginals and from the property owners.
I know nothing comes easy to this minister. Unfortunately that is
the only thing he is good at. When will he acknowledge his
responsibility under the Indian act and get involved?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all that happens is I get the same
question and I give the same response. I will respond again.
The province is negotiating with the band. Hopefully a deal will
be made but enforcement is a provincial responsibility. Does the
hon. member want us to take the RCMP back and go into B.C. and
enforce that?
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
This week has been designated as national public service week, a
time to recognize and celebrate the contribution federal public
service employees make to the country.
At the same time, however, the government is in the process of
cutting 45,000 jobs in the federal public service. How can the
government justify having a week to celebrate the accomplishment
of its employees while at the same time taking away their jobs?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
these are challenging times for the public service as we carry out a
downsizing brought about by the need to cut government spending
in order to meet our deficit reduction promises.
Our employees are dedicated, committed people and I think they
deserve recognition. They have carried out a great many
innovations. There are many examples of excellence in the work
they do and I do not think there is any better time to celebrate the
fine work done by the public service.
The public service of Canada is among the best in the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Labour.
Former employees of Singer in St. John say that the federal
government failed to meet its contractual obligations toward them
by paying the surplus that is part of their pension fund to the
employer rather than the workers.
13919
Further to the question by the Bloc on June 1, which has yet to be
answered, will the Minister of Labour once and for all correct the
federal government's error in connection with the Singer
employees?
(1455)
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will look into the matter and report to the hon. member as soon as
possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the question
was asked over three weeks ago.
My supplementary is also for the Minister of Labour, who was
elected to answer questions in this House. How can the Minister of
Labour, by refusing to intervene quickly in the matter, allow herself
to be an accomplice in this injustice to the former employees of
Singer, whose average age is 80 and who are hoping to finally
achieve justice after so many years of struggle?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think it is extremely irresponsible on the part of the hon. member
to use occasions like this to play cheap politics.
If the hon. member would review the responsibilities of the
Minister of Human Resources Development he would find it is the
responsibility of that minister. To attack the Minister of Labour,
and I know exactly where you are coming from on this issue-
The Speaker: I ask hon. members to please address the Chair.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian families are right; Statistics Canada has made it
official. Family incomes after taxes have fallen 6.5 per cent in real
terms since 1989; 2.1 per cent in the last year surveyed. Canadians
are fed up with the performance of the economy and rightly blame
the federal government.
Will the minister accept the blame for the decline in family
income and change the policies responsible?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question.
The statistics he refers to ended in 1993. There was an election
that year and since that time there have been some half million new
jobs created in the country. The statistics for 1994, the first year of
our mandate, will show a substantial rise in family incomes in
Canada.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, since 1981 tax freedom day, the day when people's annual
incomes go into their pockets, has advanced 73 days. The Fraser
Institute announced that this year it is on July 5. The tragedy is that
the ever higher taxes we all pay do not get us more services, they
pay interest on our staggering debt.
When will the government close the bottomless hole for our tax
dollars by cutting the debt and getting Canadian families once more
to enjoy increases in after tax incomes as they had for decades
before the deficit became out of control?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that
question because that is exactly what the government is doing. It is
reducing the deficit, bringing it to 3 per cent of GDP in the third
year of our mandate, on the way to a balanced budget. That means a
falling debtload and lower taxes will follow when the time comes.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the acting Prime Minister.
Canada has maintained broken diplomatic relations with Cuba
for 50 years and has established very important trade and
investment links. In contrast, the United States has maintained an
inhumane embargo that has had disastrous implications for the
people of Cuba.
Today American politicians are once again threatening Canadian
companies with trade links to Cuba with blacklisting. I ask the
acting Prime Minister if he can tell this House whether the Prime
Minister will be raising this issue at the G-7 meeting this week and
condemning the U.S. blockade of Cuba and condemning the
bullying of Canadians and Canadian business by the United States.
(1500)
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to this
question.
One part deals with the Helms bill. The minister and the
government are on the record as being opposed to this bill. We are
encouraged that the U.S. administration so far has clearly indicated
that they also have some concerns about that piece of legislation.
On the second part of the hon. member's question, which deals
with action that might be taken against Canadian companies doing
business in Cuba, we have not received anything officially on this
matter. As soon as we receive anything we will take appropriate
action in the interest of Canadians and Canadian businesses.
13920
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence, the minister
responsible for the Emergency Preparedness Canada agency.
Southern Alberta has recently suffered the most devastating
flood damage in decades. The cost of restoring this part of my
home province to a pre-disaster condition will be considerable.
Has the Province of Alberta asked the minister for assistance? If so,
has the minister directed Emergency Preparedness Canada to offer
its help as Alberta tries to recover from this disaster?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government does provide assistance through a program called
financial assistance arrangements. The province of Alberta this
morning did apply for assistance with respect to the very serious
problems it has had in that province in the last few days. That
application will be considered in the normal way according to the
normal formula. I do not anticipate any problems in complying
with the government's request.
The financial assistance is usually directed toward the cost of
replacing public infrastructure, but also does have application for
individuals, farms, and businesses for the essential parts of their
homes or businesses that have been destroyed by floods in this
particular case.
The Speaker: My colleagues, that would bring to a conclusion
the question period.
I have a question of privilege, which will be raised by the hon.
member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege dealing
with newspaper articles that affect my longtime good relations with
and my respect for all colleagues in this House of Commons.
In my nearly 30 years in Parliament I have never met with
anything as vicious and low as what I am about to quote to this
House from the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star.
These statements undermine my good relations with all members
of this Chamber.
In today's Toronto Star the following quote appeared: ``When
Hopkins sat down at lunch at the Liberal table in the parliamentary
restaurant yesterday following the caucus meeting, the other MPs
sitting there left within minutes''.
Secondly, from the Globe and Mail is the following quote: ``The
bitterness among Liberals could be seen even at the parliamentary
restaurant when Liberal MPs started moving away from a table
after gun-control dissident Leonard Hopkins sat among them''.
The truth is that I did not have lunch in the parliamentary
restaurant at all yesterday. I did not sit in a single chair in the
parliamentary restaurant yesterday morning, noon, or night.
Obviously the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail did not either.
These articles are completely inaccurate and are nothing but
fabricated stories with no truth or foundation whatsoever. Not even
Frank magazine has treated me like this. These kinds of fabricated
stories originating from whatever cheap source are obviously
designed for despicable undermining purposes.
I would respectfully request that you review these items, and if
you find that I do have a prima facie point of privilege I would be
prepared to move the appropriate motion.
(1505 )
I want to thank all members of the House for their attention
during my remarks.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, our colleague for
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has made his point. I do not know
that it needs any elaboration. His reputation in this House has been
impeccable for some 30 years. It has not been affected.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it being Thursday I would ask the government leader to
kindly give us an idea of the business of the House for the week to
come.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to provide the weekly business statement.
The first bill we will deal with this afternoon is Bill C-41, the
sentencing legislation. After six hours of debate, pursuant to an
order of this House we will vote on the motion for third reading of
this bill.
Our next priorities are completion of the consideration of the
Senate amendments to Bill C-69, concerning redistribution;
completion of report stage of Bill C-85, the pension legislation;
and the report stage of Bill C-89, the CNR bill.
13921
We are also eager to make progress on Bill C-87, regarding
chemical weapons; Bill C-86, concerning the Canadian Dairy
Commission; Bill C-82, regarding the mint; Bill C-91, concerning
business development loans; Bill C-88, regarding internal trade;
and a number of other bills that have been placed on the public
record several times over the past week.
I hope this will help hon. members to plan their time between
now and tomorrow. Actually I should say between now and June
23. We will be happy to continue our consultations with the
opposition parties on the arrangement of House business and the
making of progress on legislation in a way the public expects from
us.
_____________________________________________
13921
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have the honour to inform the
House that a communication has been received, which is as
follows:
Government House
Ottawa
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable John Sopinka, Puisne
Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor
General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 15th day of June, 1995 at
5.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have the honour to inform the
House that a message has been received from the Senate informing
this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-81, an act to amend an
act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company.
* * *
(1510 )
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for being a little slow in getting to my feet
after the question was asked of the government House leader.
I wonder if the House leader might expand on the government's
intentions as to how many bills it plans to deal with tonight before
the adjournment of the House.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think that a motion for extended hours was approved by the
House. Therefore, we intend to use the time as fully and as
fruitfully as possible to achieve as much progress as possible on
important legislation in the public interest.
If my hon. friend would like to discuss this further, I am sure I or
the deputy House leader or the chief government whip would be
happy to carry on consultations behind the curtains.
_____________________________________________
13921
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-41, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof,
be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41, which we debate today at third
reading, represents a culmination of 14 years of effort to achieve
comprehensive reform in the sentencing process as part of
Canadian criminal law.
Since 1983 we have had recommendations for substantial reform
in the area of sentencing from a royal commission, from the Law
Reform Commission of Canada, from the Canadian Sentencing
Commission, and from an all party committee of this House, which
as long ago as 1988 unanimously recommended many of the
measures that are reflected in the bill that is before Parliament
today.
At long last, in Bill C-41 we have action to implement practical
changes to reflect the recommendations of such long standing from
broad areas of Canadian society, meaningful reform, meaningful
improvement in the process of sentencing in the criminal law.
[Translation]
The bill states, for the first time, the purpose and principles of
sentencing to be used by the courts in sentencing an offender.
Its statement includes the fundamental purposes of sentencing
and the principles the courts are to apply in setting the sentence of
adult offenders.
The bill provides for a number of changes to procedure and
evidence at the time of sentencing. These changes will make it
possible to include in the Criminal Code the practices sought by
courts of appeal, proposals set out in previous legislation and the
suggestions by the Law Reform Commission.
13922
The bill includes provisions that allow the provinces to establish
programs of alternative measures for individuals charged with an
offence. Included in the bill at the express request of the provinces,
these provisions are based on similar provisions in the Young
Offenders Act and are intended to draw on the provinces'
experience in developing and administering programs of this type.
[English]
Among the fundamental purposes of this bill is to codify and
legislate for the first time in Canadian law a statement of the
purposes and principles of sentencing.
(1515 )
Until now, as hon. members know, the sentencing process has
been guided and determined by principles developed only by the
courts. While the common law system has produced cogent
statements of those principles by judges across the country, the
commissions, the committees and the authorities to which I
referred at the outset have all recommended for years that those
purposes be legislated by Parliament for the purpose of uniformity.
In this bill Parliament is given the opportunity to declare the key
purposes of sentencing, to put before judges a list of factors to be
taken into account, to provide direction to encourage uniformity so
that the purpose of the process can be properly understood and so
that it might be rendered more predictable than it is at present.
What are those purposes and principles? They are spelled out
clearly and in plain language in the statute. The sentence would
reflect the seriousness of the offence. There would be similar
sentences for comparable crimes. Those who contravene the
criminal law must face punishment. They should be separated from
society where appropriate. Rehabilitation should be one of the
objectives to be achieved. Similarly in passing sentence the court
should take into account factors that either aggravate or mitigate
the sentence such that they are fairly considered in the process.
Let me touch briefly on some of the main elements of Bill C-41
as I believe it improves the sentencing process in place at present.
First of all, let me touch upon the perspective of the victims of
crime. In relation to victims, I refer to the changes to section 745 of
the code, a section which has achieved some fame in this Chamber
as a result of challenges to its continued existence.
That section provides that where someone is serving a sentence
with a period of parole ineligibility longer than 15 years, after that
period they can ask a court to permit them to apply for parole
notwithstanding the extended parole ineligibility. The change in
that section contemplated by C-41 would obligate the court on
such an application to hear from the family of the victim so that
they have an opportunity to have an impact on that process.
Bill C-41 also broadens considerably the rights to restitution in
the criminal law so that victims and the rights of victims to
compensation become a regular part of the sentencing process.
Compensation for victims will now be dealt with as part of the
normal process of sentencing rather than requiring special
application.
The restitution provisions in Bill C-41 would allow the
enforcement of a restitution order for the benefit of the victim in
the regular civil courts. The making of a restitution order would in
no way limit the right of the victim to sue for damages.
Bill C-41 also improves the present process with respect to the
payment of fines when fines are imposed as a penalty in the
criminal process. The fact is that today there are too many people
taking up space in jails and prisons because of the non-payment of
fines. It simply does not make sense to spend more to keep them
there than the state would have gained upon the payment of the fine
imposed.
This bill ensures that the court will determine in advance of
imposing a fine the ability of the offender to pay. It provides that if
the person cannot pay, alternatives such as requirements to perform
community service will be considered and imposed. It also
provides for the use by the provinces of their own mechanisms,
since each of them have them in place, to collect fines that the court
assesses. It provides that instead of jailing someone for not paying
a fine. Provinces may exercise powers to withhold licences or
privileges to encourage or require the person to pay what the court
has ordered. As a result of all of the measures which I have just
summarized, prison will be a last resort for the non-payment of a
fine.
(1520)
Another of the areas in which Bill C-41 achieves improvement
has to do with probation as a sentence, a very common sentence in
Canadian criminal law. Bill C-41 lays out a process to ensure that
the courts have access to more and better information at the time
when they are imposing that sentence, information by way of
pre-sentence reports which will tell the judges and the courts more
about the offender.
Bill C-41 provides for an increase in the penalties for breach of a
probation order. It provides for greater clarity and cogency in the
conditions which apply to probation.
Another innovation in the bill is the introduction for the first
time in the context of adult sentencing of alternative measures. By
providing for this instrument, the federal government is responding
to requests made by the provinces themselves. Each province will
have the right to set up and administer its own process of
alternative measures.
For offenders who are before the court for the first time, never
before having committed an offence and are facing charges of a
13923
less serious, non-violent nature, the system will provide for taking
that person out of the court stream. As long as they acknowledge
their wrongdoing, alternative ways of ensuring that they learn the
lesson will be established. These measures will free up scarce and
valuable court time for the more serious offences where the need is
greater.
A separate and different innovation which Bill C-41 introduces
is the concept of the conditional sentence. It is a new form of
sanction available where the court imposes a jail term of less than
two years. It permits the jail term in effect to be served in the
community rather than in a prison. This would be done under strict
conditions which the court can impose and under close supervision
if necessary. In a manner which is less costly to the state and more
likely to result in a positive outcome, the court can impose strict
conditions. Breach of these will require the offender to show cause
and effect why the offender should not then be brought to prison to
serve the balance of the sentence in custody.
Finally, Bill C-41 provides for a comprehensive and cogent
statement of the rules of evidence and procedure for the sentencing
hearing itself. It collects for the first time in one place in a readable
and usable fashion, the rules of the sentencing hearing: the burden
of proof; the powers of the court to obtain additional information
pertinent to the sentencing process; a requirement that judges give
reasons for their sentence. In every case society will know what
logic or rationale lay behind the penalty imposed. There is also a
provision so that we know plainly and clearly what the rules are
governing the sentencing process to add greater fairness and
greater consistency in the way courts go about doing their business.
Bill C-41 is a broad and comprehensive measure to introduce
progressive, sensible and sound changes to the criminal law, to act
upon longstanding recommendations made for many years by
independent bodies and by a committee of the House, effecting real
improvement to this vital part of the criminal justice system.
I commend the House committee for its careful work on the bill.
The committee heard from many witnesses. It worked very hard
clause by clause examining the bill and all of its measures. I
believe the bill was improved considerably as a result of the effort
and the care which was taken by the committee.
(1525 )
Just as was the case when I appeared before the committee and
as was the case when I spoke in the House at second reading, there
is one feature of the bill which dwarfs the others in terms of the
attention it has received and the controversy it has created. It is
section 718.2 of the bill which deals with aggravating
circumstances that the court should take into account in
determining the appropriate sentence.
Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code as contemplated by Bill
C-41 would provide that one of the principles that govern the
sentencing process in the criminal courts should be that a court that
imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the principle
that the sentence should be increased or reduced to account for
relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Those
circumstances may relate to the offence or to the offender. For
example, if someone was a first time offender or if someone was a
repeat offender, those circumstances would respectively either
mitigate or aggravate the sentence the court gives.
The section goes on from that general statement upon which I
just elaborated to provide more specifically. It says, without
limiting the generality of the statement to which I have just
referred, that certain factors shall be deemed to be aggravating
circumstances and the court therefore shall take them into
consideration. The section provides that evidence that the offence
was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based upon the race,
national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age,
mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other
similar factor shall be deemed to be an aggravating circumstance.
Of course this is the section that has attracted the attention of
those who criticize the approach. It is important for us first of all to
bear in mind just what the section does and how it operates. This
has nothing to do with policing or punishing the way people think
or the views they hold. It has nothing to do with the freedom of
thought or the creation of thought police to govern the attitudes of
individuals.
The section is part of a sentencing bill in the Criminal Code to
assist the court in determining what the punishment should be
when it has already been established in the court that a crime has
been committed. All it says is that after it has been proven that a
crime has been committed the court should consider aggravating
and mitigating circumstances. Where it is proven that the person
was motivated in committing the crime by hatred, bias or
prejudice, then that shall be taken into account as an aggravating
factor.
Among other things the inclusion of this provision in the bill
complies with a commitment made by the Liberal Party during the
1993 election campaign. On page 84 of the red book, in a promise
that was elaborated upon in specific statements made by the Prime
Minister to equality seeking groups, the Liberal Party undertook to
amend the criminal law to provide this kind of protection to
vulnerable groups who are typically the victims of hate motivated
crime.
Beyond that, if one needs further justification for the statement
of what one would have thought was simply a sensible proposition,
one need only look to the increased incidents of crimes of this type.
Every major group among identifiable minorities reports in recent
years a troubling and significant increase in hate motivated crime,
among them B'nai Brith which has told the Department of Justice
that there are now over 40 organized hate groups in Canada.
Religious groups and minorities are clearly worried, as well they
13924
might be, that the existence and the activities of these hate groups
are undermining the social fabric of Canadian society.
(1530 )
There is further evidence of the rise in such crimes. Police
departments across the country have established hate crime units
devoted exclusively to investigating and acting on crimes of this
nature.
In testimony before the Quebec Human Rights Commission one
group referred to the American experience where one in five gay
men and one in ten lesbians reported being the victim of aggression
and one-third of all respondents said that they had received threats
of violence.
Police forces in Toronto and in Ottawa have recently reported
that hate crimes based on sexual orientation represent the third
largest category of hate related offences.
I suggest to the House that the need for this legislative
intervention is clear. We have drafted the section to provide for
specific reference to characteristics that are commonly targeted in
crimes of this type, specifically referring to race, national or ethnic
origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical
disability, and sexual orientation.
Why do we include the list? It has been alleged by some that we
have selected certain groups or certain characteristics in order to
give special treatment or special protection, that we are conferring
special status upon specific groups. It is not the government that
has selected these groups for special status. It is not this Minister of
Justice who has identified these groups for special treatment. It is
the hoodlums and the thugs who have identified them for special
treatment. It is the criminals and the punks who go out to find them
to beat them up who have selected them for special treatment. It is
this Parliament that has the opportunity today to respond to those
hoodlums and those thugs by showing maturity and by showing a
preparedness to be logical and to do what is required.
The rigour of logic leads us to this approach. The evidence in
front of us compels us to act. Common decency requires that we
furnish through the criminal law a means of dealing with this
thuggery.
If we are speaking of special status perhaps we should remember
that if gays and lesbians, for example, have a special status they
have a special status to be targeted, to be beaten up. If there are
members who care to share that special status I am sure it could be
discussed. The only special status that is on that list is
vulnerability. The only special rights we are talking about here are
the rights to be targeted. The very purpose of this legalisation is to
redress that unfairness.
As long ago as 1977 in the Ingram case in the Ontario Court of
Appeal the senior appellant courts of the country recognized that
targeting someone, attacking them, victimizing them in crime
based on a characteristic such as sexual orientation was an
aggravating factor to be taken into account in the determination of
sentence. This provision merely codifies that altogether sensible
rationale and introduces it into the Criminal Code that we might
achieve uniformity across the country.
When criminals target another and commit a crime against a
person or a person's property based upon race, national or ethnic
origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical
disability, or sexual orientation, they have committed a crime not
only against the individual. They have committed a crime that has
an effect on the entire group.
(1535 )
American laws in states of the United States where such laws
exist are commonly called laws against crimes of intimidation
because the offender knows that the effect of the act is not only to
harm, to frighten or to affect the person who is at the end of the
punch or the kick. It is to intimidate every member of that group
who is intended to feel more vulnerable the next time they walk
down the street. That feature of such a crime distinguishes it and
justifies the approach contained in Bill C-41.
We have referred to sexual orientation. We have not found it
necessary to define the term because its meaning is clear. Since
1977 the term has been included in human rights legislation in
eight provinces and territories in Canada. There has never been any
difficulty in interpreting or defining or applying that term as it is
found in those provincial and territorial statutes. No question has
ever been raised about what it means.
In the gay bashing crimes about which we have heard too much
in recent years, the offenders, the thugs and the hoodlums who
target people because of their sexual orientation, have no difficulty
knowing what they are looking for when they drive downtown on
Saturday night hunting for someone to beat up because they think
they are gay or they are lesbian.
It should be stressed that the responsibility of parliamentarians
in dealing with legislation is to use logic and reason in assessing
the legislation's merit. I earnestly hope that we will be spared the
observations that Bill C-41 is a gay rights bill, that Bill C-41 has to
do with traditional family values in Canada, and that Bill C-41
confers special status for purposes of benefits or any other purpose.
Bill C-41 is a criminal law bill which amends the Criminal
Code. It deals not at all with human rights, access to benefits, the
right to marry or adopt. It has to do with the sentencing of people
who have been proven to have committed crimes. It has to do with
determining the nature and extent of the sentence having regard to
the societal value of discouraging hate motivated attacks. It
13925
provides an opportunity for Parliament to make a statement that
that kind of attack will not be tolerated and that we stand together
in condemning hate motivated crime.
I commend the bill to my colleagues and ask them to support it.
In the last several days we have received expressions of support for
this exact provision from the United Church of Canada, B'nai Brith
Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities, the chief of the Ottawa police force, the chair of the
Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board, the Centre for
Research Action on Race Relations, the Urban Alliance on Race
Relations, the chief of the metropolitan Toronto police force, the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the mayor of the city of
Toronto, and on and on.
These responsible participants in Canadian society perceive the
problem that the bill is intended to address and agree on the
efficacy of the approach taken in section 718.2. I urge my
colleagues to see past the smoke and the disguise of false
characterizations, to look at what the bill does and at what the
section achieves, and to support the government in these
meaningful and important measures to deal with a rising social
problem in the country.
As we approach third reading let reason prevail. I ask members
of the House in all parties to join with the government in doing
something to improve the criminal law in general and in particular
to demonstrate a resolve no longer to tolerate hate motivated crime
in the country.
(1540)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, talk
about sentencing reform is nothing new. The consultation process
that started 10 years ago has finally led to today's third reading
debate on Bill C-41, which deals with sentencing. This outcome
was preceded by acrimonious debate.
The statement of principle underlying the bill is a step in the
right direction. The maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society
by imposing just sanctions, together with other crime prevention
and law enforcement initiatives, fully deserves my support. In
addition, innovative measures aimed at decriminalizing some
minor infractions, alternatives to incarceration, and suspended
conditional sentences will reduce prison overcrowding and focus
sentencing on rehabilitation rather than incarceration.
That said, I think it is essential to stress that the bill will have a
major impact not only on the accused before the court but also on
the general public.
Sentencing is one of the most important steps in the criminal
justice process. Contrary to what many people believe, most people
charged with crimes do not go on trial. The vast majority of them
plead guilty as charged. Their only experience of our criminal
system is often limited to a brief appearance before the court for
sentencing. Most charges laid are settled out of court as a result of
plea bargaining. Without this process, the judicial system would
clog up to such an extent that, the way things currently stand, it
would cease to function to all practical purposes.
As a result, the accused pleads guilty, hoping that his lawyer will
negotiate a reasonable sentence with the Crown. Any agreement
reached between both parties is submitted to the judge. The judge is
then free to approve or reject the suggestion made jointly by the
defence and the Crown. The defense may also ask for a presentence
report that the judge will take into consideration before handing
down his sentence.
The public pays attention to two things: the verdict and the
sentence. The majority are not concerned about the technical side
of what lawyers do. They want to know whether or not an
individual is guilty, and what the sentence is. The sentence does not
just involve the accused, but the public in general. The appearance
of justice, the setting of an example, clemency and the dissuasive
effect of the sentence are all important aspects in the determination
of the sentence.
Despite the importance of sentencing, the Criminal Code has
never given any exhaustive direction to judges. They exercise
complete discretion and have full powers as to the nature and the
severity of a sentence. The applicable law in sentencing is written
by judges and not by the legislator. This is the classic example of
the judge-made law that is part of our Anglo-Saxon heritage.
Through their interpretation of the law and the moral authority
they wield, judges help to shape and develop the fundamental
values underpinning society. Unfortunately, and I will go on
condemning it, women are chronically under-represented in the
judiciary. Lynn Smith, the dean of the University of British
Columbia's faculty of law laid out the problem clearly in an article
entitled ``A system that is changing''.
(1545)
It contains the following eloquent passage, and I quote: ``The
roots of the legal system were put down by men. They were
developed in an era when women were not allowed to vote, to stand
for office, to be lawyers or to sit on juries. The law was there to
protect interests that men held important, that were consistent with
the realities of their lives as men. Although the law may be said to
take the situation of women into account, nonetheless an entirely
masculine perspective underlies our legislation''.
The majority of the approximately 1,400 judges handing out
sentences are men. The overwhelming majority of federally
appointed judges, those sitting in the provincial higher courts or in
the Federal Court, are men. Of a total of 950 federal judges, only
134 are women. All come from a privileged socio-economic
background. The accused appearing before them are rarely as well
connected: they are not always men.
13926
The majority of women who find themselves before the bench
are unemployed, on welfare, or possibly working part time. Most
judges are unfamiliar with the conditions in which the women
appearing before them live. Ninety per cent of women serving a
prison sentence have been found guilty of minor property offences,
such as shoplifting. They are also sent to jail for non-payment of
fines.
It is clear that women in the prison system are a particular
clientele. They are not usually there for violent crimes, which
brings me to one of the great weaknesses in this bill. Clause 718
identifies one of the main purposes of sentencing as the
maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. This is a very
worthy goal but may be difficult to achieve. And in order to achieve
it, we will have to get rid of the gender and class bias of some of
our judges. Our magistrates will need some very clear guidelines.
It is surprising that those who drafted the bill did not bother to
consider the characteristics of the accused at the time of
sentencing. In fact, except in the case of aggravating circumstances
associated with crimes motivated by hate or involving abuse of
trust, nowhere does Bill C-41 oblige the judge to consider the
degree of indigence or the gender of the accused.
Women who come before the courts tend to be different as a
group from male offenders, one factor being the type of offences
women commit. Their behaviour is not the same and their goals are
different as well.
If, at the time of sentencing, the judge makes no allowance for
these differences, his decision will inevitably be unfair. Equity
does not mean equal treatment. Two identical sentences for the
same offences do not carry the same stigma for men and women.
Many women who have been in trouble with the police have
already experienced very serious problems as a result of poverty,
spousal abuse, family breakup and the fact that in most cases,
women end up with the responsibility for a family.
Judges must be made aware of these factors. This problem will
be solved when we have as many women as men on the benches of
our courts of justice. It is up to the Minister of Justice to administer
the remedy.
(1550)
One of the cornerstones of the bill is the alternative measures for
adult offenders. If the province provides for a system of alternative
measures, instead of being prosecuted, the adult offender would be
ordered to participate in a training program or authorized
community services. The conditions and restrictions that apply to
the alternative measures program proposed in the bill are almost
identical to those in section 4 of the Young Offenders Act.
For instance, offenders will have to accept responsibility for the
act or omission and fully and freely consent to participate in such a
program. The Crown has full discretion to proceed with
prosecution of the offence if it feels there is sufficient evidence and
the interests of society so justify.
However, and as usual in the case of federal legislation, it will be
up to the provinces to implement these alternative measures. In
fact, it will be up to the attorney general of the province to set up a
system of alternative measures. Provincial legislation from coast to
coast does not necessarily guarantee uniform implementation
across the country.
There is no provision for implementation in this bill. Because the
federal government conveniently chooses to ignore the need for
mechanisms to implement its own legislation, the onus will be on
the provinces to implement the system, and they will have to deal
with all the start up problems.
This kind of implementation will create provincial and territorial
disparities which may cause other provisions of the bill as well as
the bill's philosophy to be ignored. In fact, how can we expect to
have sentencing parity across the country, if some regions have no
alternative sentencing system or are unable to put one in place?
Someone who commits an offence in a region where there is no
alternative sentencing will not be able to use it, and this part of the
bill then becomes ineffective.
Offenders who happen to be in the wrong province will have
different sentences. For similar offences committed in similar
circumstances, some people will get different sentences, which
goes against the principle set forth in clause 718.2.
The range of sentencing available to the judge includes the
suspended sentence. Under this system, it is possible to grant
individuals a stay of sentence and to allow them to do their time
within the community, provided they respect the conditions
imposed by the court. Such a stay will only be available to
individuals declared guilty of a crime for which no minimum
prison sentence is set and sentenced to less than two years.
Suspended sentences only confuse matters more. Judges already
have the discretion to suspend the passing of a sentence and to put
someone on probation for a specific period. A suspended sentence
will have the same effect as suspending the passing of a sentence
and putting someone on probation. Same difference. The Minister
of Justice would have been better advised not to waste his time
reinventing the wheel.
13927
Bill C-41 does, however, innovate in the area of victims' rights.
Under clause 722, the judge is obligated to take into account the
victim impact statement at the sentencing hearing stage. Hearsay
will be acceptable under oath, and, if the victim is deceased or is
unable to make a declaration, his or her spouse, relative or anyone
who has taken responsibility for the person, may make a statement
for the victim.
This important development has made up for all the times that I
denounced the minor role that the victim played in legal
proceedings until I was blue in the face. But, this should only be the
beginning.
(1555)
Victims must take their rightful place in the courts and not just
be regarded as crown witnesses. The Daviault case is a sad example
of the foibles of our system. Henri Daviault was recently acquitted,
for lack of evidence. The case made quite a stir and prompted the
Minister of Justice to table his bill on drunk defence. But the victim
died in 1993. Despite the order for a retrial, the crown no longer
had a witness and the judge was obliged to acquit Daviault.
Was justice served? The victim cannot give testimony from the
grave and the victim's statement cannot be used as evidence now.
Daviault is now a free man and we will never know what really
happened. The victims of criminal acts must be included in the
criminal court proceedings. They should no longer simply be
crown witnesses. They should be entitled to representation by
counsel and be able to cross-examine the accused, if the individual
decides to testify. Victims should be able to call their own
witnesses.
The rules on hearsay evidence in a trial should be relaxed in
favour of the victim. In short, the system should not further
traumatize the victim, who has already been subjected to the
violence. Twenty years after the first shelters were opened in
Quebec, violence continues to be perpetrated against women. Our
society's biggest challenge is to put an end to this scourge.
This violence is not only physical; it can be psychological,
emotional, economic and social as well. Spousal abuse is another
scourge that must absolutely be stopped. Although the reason is
obvious, the problem remains. Most of the members of this House
continue to turn a deaf ear, unfortunately. They simply reflect the
attitude of a society that indulges spousal violence.
Obviously, most say they are sensitive to violence and do not
approve of deviant behaviour. A number also say that spousal
violence is reprehensible, but look for an excuse for the disturbing
attitude of the aggressor. He was drunk, for example. This approach
fosters social acceptance of spousal violence. There are always two
sides to the coin in our mind. We try to understand the aggressor
and we blame the victim. The implication is, generally, that a man
has reasons for abusing his wife, and that the victim's reaction does
not meet our expectations.
In criminal law, when the courts have to deal with spousal
violence, the sentence is too often lenient when the aggressor is
found guilty. And for good reason. The pre-sentence report, which
significantly affects the judge's decision, contains a distorted
analysis of the problem. The report is limited primarily to
analyzing the personality or the history of the aggressor. With this
sort of analysis, the system is playing the aggressor's game.
The individual is relieved of responsibility, and the sentences
such behaviour deserves are avoided. I contend, therefore, that, in
all cases of spousal violence, however serious, the fact that the
victim is a spouse or a former spouse should be considered an
aggravating circumstance thus requiring a stiffer sentence. Former
spouses are all too often the victim of both physical and
psychological aggression.
Mr. Speaker, I realize you must intervene at 4.00 p.m. I will
therefore turn the floor over to you and perhaps continue afterward.
* * *
(1600 )
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-69, an act to provide for
the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the
readjustment of electoral boundaries; and of the amendment.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I asked a little earlier if the whips
would confer on the deferral of this vote. The Chair would always
prefer that these decisions be made in harmony after consultation.
To my knowledge no decision has been made by the whips of any
of the parties.
I saw the video tapes earlier today of exactly what took place. I
have satisfied myself that the acting whip of the Bloc Quebecois
proceeded in the normal and accepted fashion. I have reviewed
what the government whip had to say with regard to this point and I
have taken into consideration what the whip of the Reform Party
said in the House.
I want to make one thing clear to all hon. members. It is the
purview of the Speaker to make this decision. I will tell you how I
am not making it. I am not making it on first past the post. It would
be unseemly, in my view, to have the whips running up to the table
and knocking each other down. This is, after all, the House of
Commons and we should have some decorum. Because the
decision has been placed on my plate, I have decided and I order
that the vote on this particular amendment take place at 11.30 p.m.,
Monday, June 19.
13928
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-41,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts, be
read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
saying that the former spouse is too often the victim of both
physical and psychological abuse. When couples break up, the
built-up tension too often degenerates into violence. The former
spouse is a special case, because the abuser often blames his victim
for the failure of the relationship.
With respect to spousal homicide, which is an extreme form of
violence, the probability that a woman will be killed by her
husband is nine times higher than the probability that she will be
killed by a stranger. Separated spouses, however, are much more at
risk.
In the case of couples living together at the time of the murder,
four times more women than men are killed. This 4:1 ratio goes up
to more than 10:1 for separated couples. These statistics are
inescapable and alarming: for every man killed by his ex-wife, 10
times as many women are killed by their ex-husbands.
The results of this Canada-wide survey on spousal abuse, in
which over 12,300 women participated, were published in March
1994. This survey gives a picture of spousal violence that is
troubling, to say the least. Because violence against current or
former wives is disturbing, we prefer to ignore it instead of facing
reality. It is high time that this House sent a clear message to
violent spouses, the vast majority of whom are men. The message
to the judges looking at the circumstances surrounding violent
crimes against spouses must be just as clear.
I am talking not only about physical abuse but also about
psychological abuse, which produces lasting, detrimental effects.
Put-downs and insults are as devastating a weapon as slaps and
punches. They inflict deep wounds that never completely heal.
(1605)
The national survey published last year was aimed at testing
theories on the links between physical and psychological abuse.
About a third of the women who were or had been married at the
time of the survey said that their spouses or former spouses had
been psychologically abusive. Fifty-nine per cent of former
partners were considered psychologically abusive, compared with
17 per cent of current partners.
Although physical abuse does not necessarily go hand in hand
with psychological abuse, both types were used in most cases.
Three quarters of the women who described themselves as victims
of physical or sexual abuse said that they were also victims of
psychological abuse. Eighteen per cent of women not experiencing
physical violence at the hands of their spouses said they were the
victims of psychological violence.
The principle forms of violence described by the women
surveyed were pushing, grabbing, shoving, followed by threats to
hit, slapping, having objects thrown at them, being kicked, bitten
and punched. A good number of women were also battered,
sexually assaulted, strangled, hit with an object and threatened with
a gun or a knife. Rarely was only one form of violence reported.
The Bloc Quebecois proposed an amendment that covered all
these forms of violence. In fact, by defining assault as it is defined
in section 265 of the Criminal Code, we have included the
application of force against a spouse, the attempt and the threat to
apply force. The definition applies to all forms of assault, including
sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third
party, causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.
Unfortunately, our amendment was not accepted.
Almost half of women victims of violence have been injured.
The most frequent injuries were bruises, in 90 per cent of cases,
followed by cuts, scratches, burns, and various degrees of fracture.
Almost 10 per cent of injured women said they had suffered
internal injuries and miscarried.
I would like to quote Mr. Justice Jean-Guy Boilard of the
Superior Court of Quebec. When sentencing the accused Fouad
Ghazal last Thursday in the district of Hull, the judge, speaking to
the accused who had murdered his wife, said the following, and I
quote: ``Spousal violence is a repugnant crime that has become one
of the major concerns of our society. It would be utopian to think
we can eradicate it. However, the sentence must reflect society's
reprobation of this crime''.
I hope all members of the bench agree with Mr. Justice Boilard.
To get back to the sentencing bill, the debate, as I pointed out the
day before yesterday, was distorted from the outset. Most speakers
zeroed in on the expression ``sexual orientation'' which appears in
clause 718.2 of the bill. This clause deals only with the
circumstances the judge should consider at the time of sentencing.
As I said before, this is not a new charter of rights.
There is no justification for the concern expressed by some
members that an individual will be punished more severely. All
forms of violence must be punished. If the victim is attacked as a
member of an easily identifiable group or as an apparent member
of such a group, this is clearly an aggravating circumstance and the
punishment should be severe.
13929
(1610)
At the insistence of the Bloc Quebecois, clause 718.2 now
contains two additional factors, so that national or ethnic origin as
well as language are now part of the list.
We felt it was imperative to send a clear message to the courts to
punish crimes motivated by prejudice based on language. A person
has no right to abuse a francophone because he speaks French, and
this applies to all language minorities in Canada. I hate violence in
any form, and I particularly hate violence motivated by prejudice,
the most damaging of all.
Violence against women is the most obvious example. I
therefore support unreservedly a bill that identifies the
gender-based bias of the aggressor as an extreme example of a
morally reprehensible attitude. We have every right to disagree
with some of the provisions of the bill, and we have the right to
express our opinions. However, some opinions make me fear the
worst.
Not so long ago, the debate centred on discrimination against
Blacks and visible minorities in general. Bill C-41 is an indication
that our society is moving in the right direction, towards civic
responsibility and tolerance. Violence in any form must be
condemned. The consequences of crimes motivated by hate are
profound. There is not just one victim. There are many. Every
member of these groups becomes a victim.
This is a situation that cannot be tolerated. We each have to
choose the kind of society we want. And I have chosen to live in a
society that condemns violence.
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate, I
have the honour to inform the House that a message has been
received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has
passed Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Immigration Act and the
Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to the
Customs Act.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-41,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts, be
read the third time and passed.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr Speaker, I am glad to
speak for the last time on this bill in the House. No doubt I will be
speaking about it in many places across the country as people
contact me by phone, letter and fax to express their concerns and
ask questions about the form it has taken as it leaves the House on
its way to the Senate for final approval or amendment.
I would like to touch on three areas in Bill C-41. I want to look
at the alternative measures. I want to look at that part which deals
with section 745. And of course I want to touch briefly on section
718.2. Perhaps I could start there.
The justice minister took considerable time to dwell on what has
been known as the hate category. It is unfortunate that many parts
of the bill have been overshadowed by concern for what is in this
particular part. We have to examine the bill from the viewpoint of
whether it is a good bill or whether it is a bad bill, whether it is
good legislation or whether it is bad legislation.
I submit with respect that this is not a good bill and that it is bad
legislation. I will attempt to justify my concerns in my address and
intervention this afternoon.
(1615)
The bill does not deal with the cause of hatred. It does not deal
with the cause of prejudice or with the cause of bias. It does not
deal with those issues which give rise to frustration, anger, stress
and fear which I submit humbly is the mother of hatred.
We see the government passing legislation that creates anger,
fear and frustration. All we have to do is read the letters we receive
on Bill C-68, on Bill C-41 and on the MP pension bill. That is all
we have to do to see what the government is doing to contribute to
the degree of anger and frustration across the country.
The bill is not attacking the cause. It is not alleviating those
fundamental feelings that result in bias, prejudice, hatred which
eventually express themselves in human acts, one human against
another.
When I was growing up and going to school in Saskatchewan in
our community there were people from all ethnic groups. There
were ethnic jokes, Ukrainian jokes and jokes against the English
and the Scottish and the French. Almost every one of those jokes
was a putdown. Although they were humourous they were still
putdowns and yet they did not bother any of us because we all knew
we stood equal before the law.
After all was said and done we all stood equal before the law and
that is what is being destroyed. At least the sense of that is being
destroyed; that the government is introducing legislation creating
special rights for special status for some citizens. That is what will
create a bias. If one grants special rights and special privileges to
individuals, one will see other individuals resenting that. They will
see the bias and the prejudice occur.
13930
I go back to the example that comes out of the United States
where a school teacher went into her classroom Monday morning
and said to her students that all the brown eyed children in her class
are special, they have a higher IQ and they are smarter. She saw the
result. She saw the friendships drop off between the blue eyed
children, the brown eyed children and the others. A week later she
came in and said she made a mistake. It is not the brown eyed
children who are the smart ones, it is the blue eyed children. She sat
back and watched what happened.
She saw the prejudice. She saw feelings that produce bias,
prejudice, anger and frustration develop within that classroom. I
am saying this bill is not eliminating those feelings. It is aiding and
abetting those feelings.
If it is creating the impression in the minds of people across the
country that people are being granted a special category or a special
right, we must all feel we stand equal before the law regardless of
our race, our colour, our language and regardless of our chosen
style. We must all feel we have the protection of the law and we
stand equal before that law, that those who administer the law, and
the political forces will recognize that and never deviate from that
principle.
When we look at the alternative measures, what do we have?
What do they mean? Alternative measures in the bill suggest we
will segregate violent offenders and non-violent offenders from the
court system and from the penal system. That gives me great
concern. There are many cases which ought to be handled outside
the criminal justice industry, as I refer to it, and the penal system. I
was a peace officer for 14 years and most of the minor incidents
which I came in contact with never reached the courtroom because
I considered the court to be the last resort.
(1620)
I am not unmindful of the principle contained here and the power
and the strength of it which is expressed in what we call alternative
measures. However, it should be directed. There should be a
division between non-violent and violent offenders.
The bill does not create that division. One of our hon. colleagues
from across the way discussed during report stage that this will
allow violent offenders to receive the treatment provided for under
the alternative measures. We will see the state, those who
administer the law, given the right to allow violent offenders, those
who have attacked others, not to be subjected to the court system or
to the penal system.
When it comes to non-violent offences such as theft of property
or wilful damage of private property or public property where there
is no threat to the life or safety of individuals, I can understand
looking at the possibility of dealing with that individual,
particularly a youth, in a manner as outlined under alternative
measures.
When we entered an amendment at committee stage to segregate
violent offenders from this alternative, of course there was no
consideration given to our amendment and it was defeated by the
Liberal side. That is wrong.
This is a bad bill, poorly drafted. I do not think it will achieve the
results and provide for a safer society. To me, with respect, it is
more of a political statement, a politically correct statement, than
an effective piece of legislation.
When the Canadian Police Association appeared before the
standing committee this is what it said about the bill:
Bill C-41, with few exceptions, is unwieldy, complicated, internally
self-contradictory, duplicitous and, what is worse, in almost all of it completely
unnecessary for anyone with any knowledge of it or use for the common law
heritage of Canada.
While it would attempt to codify basic sentencing principles, eliminating this
most basic judicial discretion, at the same time it would bestow huge new
discretionary powers to a whole range of persons within the justice system. The
common thread in those new powers is that all are to the benefit of the offender in
the sense of non-custodial consequence for criminal actions.
While sentencing reform calls for protection, this bill offers platitudes.
Where it calls for clarity it offers confusion and outright hypocrisy. It will
almost certainly cause the already skyrocketing criminal justice budget to
expand further still.
To continue with this theme, I received a letter from the
executive director of the Canadian Police Association, Mr.
Newark, dated June 13, 1995. In part, Mr. Newark wrote:
I have taken the liberty of writing to you in the last hope that practicality
might intrude on what appears to be a predetermined decision to see this
legislation passed. I should add, at the outset as some of you may know, that the
perspective of this letter comes from rank and file police officers who work in
our nation's courtrooms on a daily basis, and my own personal experience as a
trial prosecutor for 12 years.
This bill attempts to codify some, and I emphasize only some, of the basic
principles of sentencing which evolved in our courts over the last hundred years
or so. It is a classic example of bureaucratic arrogance which assumes that using
a particular phrase or sentence will somehow make everything constant and in
accordance with ``principles'' determined as valid within the federal
Department of Justice.
When I first saw this bill, which was in 1992 as Bill C-90 from the Tory
regime, I was convinced that it must have been drafted by people who had never
seen the inside of a court room other than as an academic observer. My
subsequent investigation has proved that to be correct which is far from
comforting. No matter what one's view of how sentencing should occur, this
bill's approach of attempting to redefine principles will result in endless
litigation which will add millions of wasted dollars of expense to a system that is
now struggling to make more efficient use of existing resources.
Even the much publicized sexual orientation clause is an example of how
unnecessary this bill is. Section 718.2 merely directs that an offence motivated by any
of the listed factors, including sexual orientation, shall be viewed as an aggravating
factor by the sentencing court. Has anyone, ever, cited a case where a court said it was
not an aggravating factor? Any such judicial position would be an error of law and it is
so obvious that in my time in court I never encountered or heard of such a suggestion
13931
and indeed, to the contrary, all sentencing texts or digests dealing with current
practice recognize such motivation as an aggravating factor.
In short this controversial section is completely unnecessary. It has always
been my observation that while unnecessary legislation is generally unwise, it is
especially so when dealing in criminal law-I would ask that you keep in mind
that both our association and the chiefs of police (and, by the way, every crown
attorney I've spoken with) opposed the passage of this bill.
Bill C-41 is a badly drafted, inconsistent, self-contradictory bill which is truly
the creation of a bureaucracy which unlike elected representatives has no
constituency or ultimate accountability.
(1625)
This letter was written by the executive director of the Canadian
Police Association and those are his comments and opinions about
the bill.
Also within the letter he indicates this viewpoint is shared by the
chiefs of police and the crown attorneys he knows and has talked to
and also the peace officers. I find it very strange the justice minister
embraces the opinion of the chiefs of police and the Canadian
Police Association with regard to Bill C-68, the gun control bill.
The minister has regularly and repeatedly used them as support
for pushing through the gun control legislation. However, when it
comes to Bill C-41 their opinion is no good. Why is their opinion
fine and sound and wise on support of Bill C-68 or portions of it
and unwise and unacceptable on Bill C-41? There is an
inconsistency here that escapes me. It simply escapes me that the
justice minister would use these organizations, their opinions and
their support to justify one bill but would completely ignore their
scathing denunciation of Bill C-41. I would like to place that on the
record.
(1630)
This bill also relates to section 745 of the Criminal Code.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code allows first degree murderers or
those who have been sentenced to over 15 years imprisonment the
opportunity for early parole or at least to apply for a reduction of
their parole ineligibility after serving 15 years. Of course it applies
mostly to first degree murderers.
I ask: What is a human life worth? What is a fair and just penalty
for someone who has premeditated and deliberately taken the life
of an innocent person? What is a fair and just penalty for that?
When the government removed the death penalty from the
Criminal Code we received the assurance that society would be
protected by a term of life imprisonment for those convicted of first
degree murder and that they would have no eligibility for parole for
25 years. However, at the time I suggest 99 per cent of Canadians
were unaware that section 745 was created and placed in the
Criminal Code.
Yes, hon. members can say that it was debated here in the House
but it was debated before the proceedings were televised. I suggest
that very few people were aware that section 745 was placed in the
Criminal Code and what it meant. I suggest it was a betrayal if not
a deception on the part of the government of the day against the
people of this country. My office has received calls and letters from
people indicating clearly they were not aware of what the
government intended when it introduced section 745 into the
Criminal Code.
We introduced an amendment to this bill that would strike
section 745 from the Criminal Code entirely so that a life sentence
would mean a life sentence. At least that would place a greater
sense of worth on a human life and when someone deliberately
with premeditation and intent took a human life there would be a
penalty to pay. Regardless of whether there is rehabilitation,
regardless of whether there is remorse of any sort, the penalty must
be paid. We are saying it ought to be exactly what the government
promised in the seventies when this change was being considered.
We moved to strike that. I oppose Bill C-41 on that basis as well.
In summing up I would like to go back to the business of
violence in society which has led to a categorizing of individuals.
This bill would have the courts impose a greater penalty for certain
crimes. If I am assaulted because someone hates me and if I fit
within the categorization in this bill, my attacker will receive a
greater penalty. If I do not fit within that category, then my attacker
may not receive a greater penalty. That is the crux of this whole
concern as far as I am concerned. It is creating status by
categorizing groups of people. I think it is wrong.
(1635)
As I said before, what will create bias and prejudice quicker than
anything else is for example by my telling you, Mr. Speaker, that
because you have brown eyes you are not as good as I am because I
have blue eyes and I do have blue eyes. We must avoid that at all
cost. This bill does not avoid that. We are moving to the edge of a
slippery slope when we begin by statute to create special rights for
groups of people.
If we want to reduce the degree of hate crimes within our
country, this bill does not contain the power to do it. How do we
eliminate those emotions that give rise to hate and to hate crimes?
In all of my lifetime the only way I have found to do that is by
understanding and love. Only one thing will replace hate in the
mind and heart of an individual from my experience.
I grew up in my family of seven brothers, my mother and my
father. I have raised a family of four with my wife. We have gone
through the gamut of feelings and emotions, including frustration,
anger, bitterness, all of those negative feelings every human being
is subjected to. I know that if I do not sit by a warm heater when I
am cold I am not going to get warm. If I do not open my mind and
heart to the feelings of love from my family, my neighbours and
my colleagues, the bitterness even of this place that comes to me
from time to time will get the better of me. I see traces of this.
13932
The hon. member from the Bloc spoke about psychological
violence. I hope I am not out of place, but I have to ask what kind of
psychological violence occurred in the Liberal caucus when their
leader, the Prime Minister of this country, used words to say: ``You
must do as I say and if you do not this is what is going to happen to
you''. This was said to grown men and women who were freely
elected in a democratic election by the people of this country. What
happens?
There are two types of violence. There is the physical violence,
which this bill attempts to address and I think fails miserably, and
there is the mental violence. I often think the mental violence is far
worse because it precedes the physical violence. Unless we look as
a Parliament at the causative factors that lead to bias, prejudice and
hatred, we as elected officials are not going to be successful in
dealing with the problem. If we begin to create those things that
will frustrate me and frustrate my children by saying that they are
not equal in the law with all other Canadians, we are on a slippery
slope.
I go back to my childhood days when yes, the ethnic jokes were
there and the put downs were there, but we did not mind. Why?
Because we knew we stood equal before the law. As soon as that
changes-and we can look at countries that do not have laws which
allow people to stand equal before the law, where there is special
status and special rights and privileges-we will see the anger, the
frustration and the hate.
With respect this bill does not address those factors. If the justice
minister feels that by introducing a category of groups of people
who will receive special treatment at the hands of the court over
people who are not categorized within those groups, I think it is
wrong. I am also absolutely amazed that the justice minister, who
portrays a great degree of intelligence, could bring forward this
kind of a document. I cannot support it.
(1640)
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am
wondering, with unanimous consent, whether I could put a question
to the hon. member with respect to his speech. I know that for his
speech there is no provision for questions, but I am wondering if
we could have unanimous agreement to put a question to him.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
request from the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the hon. member who worked very
hard in the committee. In his speech he suggested that there were
provisions in the bill that would give priority to people with brown
eyes and blue eyes. He said that the bill might favour people with
blue eyes as opposed to those with brown eyes or brown eyes as
opposed to blue eyes, that one would be in a more favoured
position than the other. That is not correct. I would ask the member
to look at this once again.
The bill states, for example, hate based on race. It does not state
that any one race would have precedence over another. They are all
equal. In other words, if the violence was committed against whites
it would be subject to the provisions of this bill, as would violence
committed against blacks or against people with yellow skin. No
group is given priority over the other.
With respect to nationalities, it states nationality. It does not
state English over French or English over Polish. It states religion.
It does not state Jewish before Catholics or Catholics before
Presbyterians. In other words, there is no prioritizing of any of the
groups. They are all equal.
All races, all nationalities, all colours, all religions, all sexes, all
ages, all mental or physical disabilities are equal and all sexual
orientations are equal. If people were to attack heterosexuals they
would be protected by the provisions of this bill as would gays and
lesbians.
The member was in the committee when the Canadian Bar
Association and the Barreau du Québec, very eminent lawyers,
made that very exact submission. How can he say that the bill
favours one group over another when it obviously does not? It is in
very general terms and no one group is favoured over another. That
was the evidence presented to us by the eminent lawyers who
appeared before the committee.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the intervention from the hon.
member is appreciated but he misses the point.
My point is that there are categories. He has mentioned the
categories. Inasmuch as I fit into that category, then I am protected.
What happens if I do not fit into that category and I am assaulted?
The member for Wild Rose asked that if he is attacked by someone
who hates fat people, what category does he fit into? That category
is not there. If I am attacked and assaulted because I am a member
of a particular political party, which I am, where in the bill am I
protected? I am not because that is an excluded category.
I understand what the hon. member is saying but that was not the
point I was making. The point I am making is that as soon as we
start to make categories we had better not stop because there is an
unlimited number of reasons that people are angry and hate other
people. Whether they are fat, or ugly or just simply irritable for
some reason or another-
An hon. member: Or rich.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, rich or poor perhaps. That is the point I am
making. I thought my point was clear, but if it was not then I hope
that the intervention made by my hon. colleague will help clarify it.
13933
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On this
important debate, I just wanted to ask the Speaker to check and
determine whether quorum is present in the House.
(1645 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I see a quorum. We will
resume debate. We will go to the next stage of debate where
members will have 20 minutes for their interventions subject to 10
minutes of questions or comments.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time. I am glad of
the opportunity to speak to this bill. I am excited about what Bill
C-41 means and seeks to accomplish for all Canadians.
This follows years of law reform commissions that have spoken
clearly on the need to find a purpose and principle for sentencing.
This justice minister and this government is finally doing
something about it.
I do not understand why it is that third party members of the
House oppose the bill with such vitriol and emotion. What do they
disagree with? That is what I would like to know. Do they disagree
that sentences should denounce unlawful conduct and deter others?
Do they disagree that sentencing where appropriate should separate
the offender and safeguard society? Do they disagree with
rehabilitation and accepting responsibility for one's crime?
Surely they must agree that reparation to the victim as a first
priority is important. What is there to disagree with? Is it that the
punishment must be proportional to the severity of the crime and to
the degree of responsibility of the offender? Would the third party
have us give generic sentencing regardless of age of offender or
gravity of crime?
Should a nine-year old be as culpable as a 25-year old? Should
traffic violations be punished in the same way as second degree
murder?
Excuse me if I wax sarcastic here but the purpose and principle
of sentencing in the bill are so logical, so common sense, that I
have a hard time understanding what the opposition is about.
There are three other provisions of the bill that I would like to
address today: first, the section of the bill which provides for
measures that are alternative to incarceration; second, those aspects
that address victim's rights in the sentencing process; and third and
most important, I will speak to section 718 of the bill that lists
among other things aggravating factors that would lead to an
increase in the severity of the sentence.
Alternative to incarceration is logical. It is sensible and it says in
a nutshell in language that even I, who am not a lawyer, can
understand that one ties sentencing to the severity of the crime.
It simply says that people who present no threat to society should
not be incarcerated and should be offered an option for conditional
sentencing, that they should pay their dues within the community
with due supervision, to do community and victim restitution.
If a fine is involved-one-third of people in provincial jails are
there purely because they could not afford to pay their fines-and
they cannot pay, the provinces can revoke licences or permits or
they can set up a formula for repaying the fine in hours of
restitution to the community.
If third party members do not believe in the common sense and
fairness of this, surely they must agree with the economic logic. It
saves the taxpayer the expense of incarceration.
The second part of the bill that I want to talk about, section 745,
deals with the victim and sentencing. The impact of crime on the
victim, the family and the caregiver is going to be important and it
is going to be held and taken into consideration in sentencing.
It helps the offender to see the real effects that the impact of the
crime had on real people. Surely that fulfils the principle of
responsibility of the offender because it makes an offender directly
responsible to the victim, to pay restitution to the victim or family.
It places this as a priority above all else.
I do not understand what it is that a third party whose members
sit in the House and tout themselves as the advocates of the victim
over and over could disagree with this part of the bill.
Finally, I want to speak to section 718.2 of the bill. It is the most
controversial part and the third party members really oppose it if
we want to get down to brass tacks. It takes into account the
aggravating factors in sentencing. These are simple and clear. They
are: crimes of abuse, of position, of trust or authority. These would
be seen as an aggravating factor. I will read this. ``Evidence of the
offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race,
national ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental
or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar
factor''.
(1650)
I want to pick up on two terms: evidence, and any other similar
factor. I have heard it said in the House by third party members that
we are on a witch hunt. We are paranoid. We are going to charge
anyone who beats up on anyone because we are going to think it is
done because of hate. However there has to be evidence after the
person has been found guilty that it was done because of hate. That
is clear.
We just heard the previous speaker mention the fact that he felt
we were setting up separate lists of people and giving certain
people special status over others. He mentioned fat people. There is
a part of section 718.2 which says similar factor. Similar factor
takes into consideration anything which is missing from the list.
The hon. member should really wonder about the whole thing. I
wonder if he has read the complete bill.
13934
I want to talk about why the members of the third party are
concerned about this. If we want to take away the red herring of
whether we include everybody or whether we do not include
everybody, the clear fact is that what hon. members opposite
oppose is the inclusion of sexual orientation. That is what they
oppose. I want them to know that I applaud the inclusion of that
term.
When I was a physician I saw many young men come into the
emergency room with injuries from beatings inflicted because they
were gay. Gay bashing in my riding is a favourite Friday and
Saturday night sport when brave, macho males drive into town and
identify men who are gay, or even worse, who they think are gay,
and in bullying, frightened, drunken bravado afflict brutal harm on
these people.
My son, when he was 17 years old, was coming home one night
with a friend. He was waiting at a bus stop. Because he was with a
male colleague who was in his class they were beaten badly. They
were called faggots. Were it not for the fact that six people came
down the street and stopped it, my son and his friend would have
probably been brought into the emergency room dead. That is what
I talk about when I talk about crimes inflicted on people because of
hate. When a person commits a crime on another because of who
they think they are, they inflict it on all the people who fit into that
group.
I am sorry if I am getting a little emotional. This stuff happens. It
is real. We can talk in the House about what the law says, about the
fine points, about dotting the i's and crossing the t's and fiddling
around with every word. But in real life, in the real world, that is
happening every single day.
It is not limited to men in my riding. Lesbians have been the
target of these night time cruises purely because of their sexual
orientation, purely for that reason and for no other.
Have we learned nothing from history? In the very beginning the
crusades were religious wars. More recently in Nazi Germany
people were targeted and beaten because they were Jews. Those
acts of violence, which were sanctioned by governments, did not
begin as a war; they began as individual acts of violence, which
escalated to group violence, which finally reached genocide.
Have we learned absolutely nothing from the past? Do we sit
here in these seats in the House of Commons confident that because
we are living in a diverse and tolerant society, because we have
people in the House who are of different colours and religions, that
we have progressed?
I sat here and I listened to the member who spoke very piously
about setting up special status for people and giving them special
rights. The gays, the lesbians and the bisexuals in my riding and in
Canada have special rights all right. They have the right to be
beaten up every Friday and Saturday night, to be denied the right to
work, the right to live, the right to walk down a street, to go to a
movie and to enjoy the things which members in the House take for
granted.
(1655 )
What does the member who spoke so glibly know about hate and
prejudice? The member is one person of a majority group in the
House. He has status. He does not ever have to know what it is like
to be vilified or discriminated against. I know what it is like. Just
because my group is now accepted does not mean that I cannot
speak for the groups that are not accepted.
Every day members of the third party get up in the House and
bleat about how they are advocates for victims across Canada and
how they speak for the rights of victims. Well shame on them for
not supporting the bill. In doing so, they have abandoned the gays
and lesbians of the country who are the daily victims of violence.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I come from a city in central British Columbia where we
have a tremendous problem right now. Some young people that
hang around together think it is fun to walk down the street and
beat people. They do not take time to discriminate and find out
what colour the person is. They do not take time to determine if the
person happens to be a homosexual or take the time to check out
the religion of their victim. They just beat people up.
Members of the Reform Party have been trying to say that the
assaults they are committing are of no less severity than if they take
the time to find out what religion their victims are, whether it is a
homosexual or some other little group the government wants to put
people into.
The member is trying to tell us that indiscriminate beating on
someone just for the sake of beating, because they happen to like
beating someone up, is not as severe an action if it had been
someone who fits conveniently into some Liberal category. This is
absolute nonsense.
I am led to believe that the member is apparently an intelligent
person. How on earth can the member stand and tell us because a
victim fits into some category the Liberal government wants to
dream up because special interest groups got to it, that an assault in
that category can be any more severe than an assault on any other
category?
The problem is, when the Liberals were on their so-called fact
finding mission, they took the time to invite every special interest
group they could possibly think of to come and talk to them about
the criminal justice system. They forgot one thing. They forgot to
talk about Canadians as a whole. I use the word Canadian proudly.
Everyone who lives in this country is a Canadian and is entitled to
equal justice under the law no matter what colour or religion,
whether they are homosexual, a Protestant or a Catholic.
13935
For the government to suggest that because of a person's
preference or religion or whatever, that a crime committed against
them should be more severe than a crime committed against
someone who is an ordinary Canadian is absolutely ludicrous and
serves only to garner favour with special interest groups that put
the government in power. Average Canadians are going to throw
the government out in the next election.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, I would like to
take a moment to make an observation at this point. We are very
early in a debate that has a maximum six hour limit. Usually there
is an indication to the Chair when members are going to split their
time. I do not have any indication yet of what the other parties
might be doing, only that a large number of members want to
participate in the debate.
(1700)
When members are splitting their time they only get five
minutes for questions or comments. To facilitate the participation
of as many members as possible the Chair will try to maintain those
time slots. If a member takes four minutes, ultimately the answer
will be very brief. It is certainly up to each and every member. If he
or she wishes to use the entire five minutes for questions or
comments, so be it.
In this instance regrettably I will set the tone. I will ask the
parliamentary secretary to use no more than one minute in her
response because ultimately I should go on to the next speaker.
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, I wondered for a while whether it was a
question or a speech. The member asked how would I know it was
an indiscriminate beating. My son has gone with girlfriends down
those same streets at that same time in the city of Vancouver and
has never been touched. He was called a faggot. That was the word
used. That is a term used by the people who cruise. Its called going
into town to gay bash. That is hate directed at a group.
I do not know if the member knows what he means by special
interest groups. The bill deals with women, children, elders and
victims. Now we are being told by members of the third party that
women are a special interest group. Actually they have said that
already. Now children are special interests and victims are special
interests. Everyone is a special interest as far as members of the
third party are concerned. They do not speak for Canadians. I do
not know who they speak for.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
privilege to speak on the important piece of legislation before the
House today.
We have heard a lot about the legislation. I asked myself three
questions when I looked at the nature of the legislation. First, what
does the legislation do? Second, is it necessary? Third, are there
any unintended or unfortunate consequences arising out of the
legislation? We have heard a lot of talk about some unfortunate
things that might arise out of the legislation.
What does the legislation do? It is a comprehensive revision of
the nature of sentencing, something that has been advocated by law
reform commissions, jurists and criminologists for the last 20
years. We have called out for a comprehensive, important revision
of the standard under which sentencing will be conducted. This is
an omnibus bill that addresses those issues. It is an extremely
important bill that results from studies to grasp the nature of
punishment that will prevent crime and at the same time
rehabilitate. The bill is directed to that.
It is most unfortunate that discussion in the House has turned
around section 718.2 which requires the court to take into
consideration whether a crime was motivated by bias, prejudice or
hate based on national origin, language, colour, race, religion,
physical disabilities, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.
Since third party members have spent their whole time talking
about nothing but this and accenting it, let me turn to that question
and deal with it.
Is there a need for this provision? Yes, there is. We have heard
the parliamentary secretary speak. We live in the century of World
War II and of the Holocaust. We can look at the former Yugoslavia
about which we have debated in the House. What is taking place in
Bosnia today is based on years of hatred brought on by sectarian
strife, by people hating one another and holding one another in
contempt. In the foreign affairs committee we heard from the B'nai
Brith that knows something about this matter. You might listen to
this, over there in the third party.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I caution members
that this debate has a great deal of sensitivity. It is a debate where
there are some very strongly held views, and I know we want to
conduct it in a respectful fashion. All interventions must be made
through the Chair, through the Speaker, and not directly from one
member across the floor to another.
(1705)
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, our committee received a report
from the B'nai Brith called ``The Extreme Right: International
Peace and Security at Risk''. The report of some 350 pages shows
that there are still virulent strains of anti-Semitism and racism
present in the world which need attention. The report also draws a
link between racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia. They are in
accordance with the report one and the same thing. The report
makes clear that they are the same voices that call for the
elimination of people who are different.
13936
When speaking of extremism in respect of the United States, the
report indicated:
A major focus of extremism is on homosexuality. Believers have every right to
maintain that homosexuality is inconsistent with their theology, but when
anti-homosexual campaigns move outside the church and in the public arena
characterize gays as sick, disease ridden, perverted by choice, and unfit comrades
for clean living solider boys then this is clear extremism. Gay Americans have
become the major new scapegoat in their country, perhaps to an extent unknown
in other democratic nations, and just as surely as Julius Steicher's Der Sturmer
was a direct contributor to Nazi anti-Semitism with all that it led to, so arguably
the homophobic outpouring from religious extremists leads to gay bashing and
murder.
When I hear comments from members of the House about
relativism and about characterizing one group as being outside the
bounds of protection afforded by civilized society and refer to
natural law, I think of that quote and I shudder. My natural law is
found in the Supreme Court of Canada in Egan v. Nesbitt which
holds that discrimination is outlawed in the country.
When members on the other side of the House talk about
extremism and the problem of violent incidents, I could cite dozens
of violent incidents in urban ridings in the country. In my own
riding of Rosedale, like the member for Vancouver Centre, I know
of people walking down Church Street and having had cars pull up
and people jump out who have beaten them up, crying that they
were gay.
In August 1989 Alain Brosseau, a young man who was perceived
to be gay, was thrown to his death from the Interprovincial Bridge
between Ottawa and Hull, which we can see from this building. His
attackers testified in court that they were just out to roll a queer.
One of the attackers stated that he had put an imitation gun ``to the
gay's head and he freaked out-I started laughing''. Another of the
youths dangled him upside down from the bridge, said: ``Oh, I like
your shoes'', and then let go.
In this same city two strangers approached a man returning to
Ottawa from Hull and asked him where he had been. When he gave
the name of a local gay bar they remarked: ``Oh, you are a fag'' and
beat him so badly that he was in the hospital for two days.
I heard cries from across the House as the former speaker was
saying: ``Give me a break''. Nobody gave those people a break.
One of the reasons they did not get a break was the sense that they
were fair game as put out in speeches such as we have heard here
that allow people to be attacked for their comportment, their
religion or their race because they fall outside a tolerated group by
certain groups in our society.
This is no longer tolerable conduct in a civilized society. We
must not allow it to continue. We must address it in the criminal
law. We must frame a criminal law that has as its source a notion of
what civilized behaviour is about, which tells our citizens that if
they go down this road they will be going into the dark hole that
led Nazi Germany into the wars of the past that have ruined Europe.
We live in a tolerant society. We live in a pluralistic society. Let us
not be fooled by the suggestions put forward that the bill will
somehow lead to unintended consequences like condoning
pedophilia and other crimes.
The minister has agreed to an amendment which was legally not
necessary but one which addressed the issue by saying that it would
not make lawful any previously unlawful conduct. This was never a
real suggestion. How could it conceivably be said when a judge is
considering the appropriate sentence to hand down on a given case,
the weight to be given to the surrounding circumstances to prevent
further like crimes, that it is relevant? We must not forget that the
bill deals with sentencing and how to prevent anti-social conduct.
The judge takes these circumstances into account.
(1710 )
How could that conceivably ever lead to an increase in
pedophilia, which is a criminal offence known to every judge? It is
a total red herring. It has been raised by those who want to discredit
the notion of a modern, compassionate, intelligent criminal law
that seeks to root out or extirpate evils in society: hatred, racism,
homophobia and other forms of intolerable civil behaviour.
We live in a land in which we have had the privilege of peaceful
enjoyment as citizens of the country. We are fortunate. We can
walk down every street generally free from fear. That is not to say,
as members opposite have said, that if we walk around in the
middle of the night we too might never be the subject of an attack. I
do not deny that. It is a possibility.
However, I am asking members opposite and other members of
the House to think of what the bill is doing for people who walk,
every day of their lives, down the city streets and are targets of
attacks that go to the nature of their humanity and the nature of
their being. It is not because they happen to be a haphazard article
of attack. The member for Wild Rose said he might be attacked
because he was fat.
The member is quite right. I have been accused of looking too
English and might one day be attacked for that. However that is not
a risk that the member for Wild Rose or I take every day of our
waking lives, knowing that we could be the specific targets of
people's abuse just because of our human nature, our race or our
religion.
This comprehensive sentencing bill was the result of years of
study. Sociologists, criminologists and the most learned jurists of
the country are trying to come to grips with how we can have a
modern Criminal Code that will ensure that all Canadians will be
able to live in this blessed land and be able to move into the 21st
century in a pluralistic and tolerant society, one in which all of us
can be proud to live with as much ease and security as possible in
the modern, civilized society of today.
13937
That is the reason I am proud to speak on the bill and I am proud
to be a member of the government that has introduced it.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two questions I should like to put to the hon.
member who is known to be an eminent lawyer.
Members of the Reform Party have suggested that in section
718.2 certain groups are favoured over others. For example, if
people are attacked or a crime is committed against them because
of their race, national ethnic origin, language, et cetera, they are
favoured in sentencing over people who do not belong to the groups
listed. In committee we amended that section to add the words ``or
any other similar factor'' so that there would now be no limitation
on the groups to be considered under the hate crime provisions.
Now, with that amendment made in committee, if people were
attacked because they were bald, fat, Liberals, or Reformers, they
would be taken up in the new wording added in committee ``or any
other similar factor''. I would ask the hon. member to comment on
that.
Second, it has been suggested that even if we were to include all
other groups, why should we have a harsher sentence for a hate
crime against a group than for a hate crime against an individual. Is
it not true that if in the Criminal Code the maximum penalty for a
crime is 10 years, 15 years or life-and I give the example of the
Reform Party member of people in his town going down the street
and beating up people because they are hateful, not because they
are hateful against the group-the judge can give the maximum
sentence? If it is 10 years he can give 10 years.
This clause states that if he was to give five years rather than the
maximum he might give two more years; he might give seven
years. If it is a crime against an individual, could the judge not give
the full maximum sentence even though no hate under this section
was allowed?
I will put those two questions to the hon. member.
(1715 )
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, I think those are two very good
questions from the learned chairman of the justice committee.
We are struggling here trying to understand our role as
parliamentarians with respect to giving instructions to courts and
judges on how to review these cases. The hypothetical case the
member has put illustrates clearly that what the judge is being
called upon to do is weigh this in his or her mind to determine the
social evil there and be able to add to the sentence that would
otherwise be handed down. There is no question that if the assault
is particularly vicious and if the assault calls for the maximum
penalty, the judge is perfectly at liberty to give that penalty to
anyone who commits an assault.
We are seeking to give our judiciary the opportunity to send a
signal to society. The purpose of sentencing is to send signals to
society; it is not just retributive justice. The purpose of sentencing
is to send signals to society as to what conduct is tolerable in a
civilized society and to enable the court to give extra time for such
behaviour to indicate to people that this type of behaviour will not
be tolerated. That is precisely what the member's question
illustrates, that we have here an opportunity that will enable our
courts to speak to the issues and deal with them. In that sense, it is a
very intelligent addition to the rest of the sentencing bill.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
connection I cannot get from the hon. member is when he says that
when they do these things we are going to get tough and we are
going to do this, and that will deter it. Well, for two years I have
been saying that we have to get tough on people who murder or
sexually assault people.
My friends from the Bloc say I want to throw everybody in jail,
lock them up and throw away the key. My friends from the Liberal
Party say no, that is not the answer. And now all of a sudden it is?
What has changed? Why is it not applied to everybody when these
laws are being made? Why say that this particular situation was
motivated by that, therefore we are going to sock it to them, and
this situation was motivated by nothing, so we are going to take it
easy? One is just as dead as the other. The whole thing has to stop.
When are we going to address the whole picture and quit picking
on little areas?
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy with the
member's position. There is no question that we do not want to
tolerate the type of anti-social behaviour he referred to. But the
member is totally ignoring the incredible importance in this of
being able to deal with other social causes.
Mr. Thompson: They do it now. They already do it.
Mr. Graham: We have provisions in our Criminal Code that
make it illegal, for example, to preach hatred against others. These
are issues that go to the root causes in society.
Earlier I referred the member to the problems in the former
Yugoslavia. We are looking at problems in the world today that he
and I lived through as we watched a world war evolve and watched
the hatreds in sectarian areas around the globe evolve. This bill is
seeking to deal in an intelligent and I would suggest a very well
thought out way the root causes of those evils, which extend
beyond the consideration of the mere issue of violence to which the
member is referring.
13938
Criminal acts can be differentiated as one type of criminal act or
another in terms of their anti-social consequences. This bill is
telling our judges that is what they should look to. In that sense, I
support it. It is intelligent and it is needed in the country at this
time. The police in my riding are telling us that these types of
crimes are on the rise and that this bill is needed.
Mr. Thompson: The police are telling you this bill is no good.
Mr. Graham: Believe me, the police in Toronto are telling us it
is needed. The member is fooling himself if he does not understand
that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that, because of what is yet to come, I will
not be able to talk for 20 minutes consecutively and that you are
going to interrupt me to allow those who so desire to go to the
Senate for Royal Assent.
(1720)
Allow me to begin by saying that no party line or differences in
parties could prevent me from thanking the minister in all sincerity
today for his show of courage, firstly for having persevered,
because we all know that if any bill raised controversy or stirred up
heated debate, the bill that is now before us did.
I am very aware that the minister showed great courage, great
compassion. Allow me to thank him, despite the fact that we
belong to different parties. I thank him on three levels. First, as a
parliamentarian, second, as a citizen, and third, as a homosexual.
I believe, and I hope that all of the terms I will use are
parliamentary, yes, I believe that one would really have to be
obtuse, stubborn or live on another planet to not realize that some
people in our society are the victims of violence. Some people in
our society are the victims of violence because they are
homosexuals.
Some people may turn a blind eye to this fact, but that does not
take away from our duty as parliamentarians not to do as they do.
Therefore, I simply reiterate my thanks to the Minister of Justice.
My sincere thanks for his courage. Obviously, I will not make a
habit of it, but this is a case where sincere thanks are due.
I would also like to say, for the benefit of our Reform friends,
that-we all must admit that they are actually quite clumsy in their
efforts to understand this reality-it would be interesting for them
to come spend a day with the gay community. I would also be
tempted to say, if it is parliamentary, that they have actually been
rather abrasive in their attempts to remodel Quebec's and Canada's
democratic institutions.
It would be quite informative for our Reform colleagues to come
and spend a day in the company of a number of spokespersons of
the gay community, to cross their white picket fences and come to
the gay part of town. I am giving them an open invitation.
I am the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, but just
beside it, there is the riding of our Bloc Quebecois whip, a nice guy.
His riding includes Montreal's gay neighbourhood. I invite them to
drop in, if any of them wish to do the utterly logical thing, which is
to try to really understand what it is all about.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will continue this debate
after our visit to the Senate.
_____________________________________________
13938
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black
Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the
immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable
the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to inform
the House that when the House did attend His Honour the Deputy to
his Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His
Honour was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal
assent to certain bills:
Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related
amendments to other acts-Chapter No. 12.
Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and
to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act-Chapter No. 15.
Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to
amend and repeal certain other acts-Chapter No. 11
Bill C-75, an act to amend the Farm Improvement and Marketing
Co-Operatives Loans Act-Chapter No. 13.
Bill C-81, an act to amend an act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public
Bridge Company-Chapter No. 14.
Bill C-97, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the
public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31,
1996-Chapter No. 16.
[
Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed in today's Order Paper.
13939
I would just like to add that, before going to the Senate, the hon.
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve had the floor in the debate
on Bill C-41 at third reading, and we will return to this debate
following Private Members' Business.
_____________________________________________
13939
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-317, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public
Service Staff Relations Act (scabs and essential services), be read a second time
and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise in this
House today to speak on Bill C-317, anti-scab legislation. This
bill, which will amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public
Service Staff Relations Act is aimed at preventing the hiring of
scabs to replace employees on strike against or locked out by an
employer covered by the Canada Labour Code and employees on
strike in the federal public service.
(1740)
The bill is also aimed at maintaining essential services during a
strike or lockout at a crown corporation or in the public service.
As you know, the workers' cause is very important to me. That is
why I tabled this bill in this House on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois.
This bill would provide adequate protection to workers currently
victimized by their employers' disloyal practices.
In Canada, more than 10 per cent of the labour force is subject to
the provisions of the Canada Labour Code. This amounts to
217,600 workers in Quebec and over 1,083,000 in Canada.
The debate on the adoption by the federal Parliament of
anti-scab legislation that would apply to organizations under its
jurisdiction is nothing new. In 1980, the hon. Ed Broadbent, then
leader of the NDP, tabled a private member's bill aimed at banning
replacement workers. From 1981 to 1992, several unions called
one after the other on the federal government to introduce an
anti-scab bill.
Finally, in 1990, the Bloc Quebecois tabled, through my
colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu, a bill aimed at
prohibiting the hiring of persons to replace Crown corporation
employees who are on strike or locked out. Unfortunately, this bill
was defeated at second reading by only 18 votes.
In 1977, Quebec legislators passed what is commonly referred to
as the Quebec anti-scab bill, which went into effect on February 1,
1978.
To understand the reasons behind this bill, we must go back to
the early 1960s. In that era of great reforms, relations between the
federal government and unions made possible a review of labour
laws that led to a sharp rise in union membership. Unions gradually
hardened their positions. In the early 1970s, in reaction to the
Liberals' election and the imposition of their War Measures
Act-as you will recall-, unions openly dissociated themselves
from government actions. A strike by the coalition of public sector
workers gave rise to a new union solidarity. Within a very short
time, this solidarity moved into the private sector.
Afterwards, around the mid-seventies, there were some
extremely turbulent strikes. I would point out the Firestone strike,
the Canadian Gypsum strike and, particularly, the infamous United
Aircraft strike.
It is the Parti Quebecois which introduced the concept of
prohibiting the use of scabs.
A significant event happened a week before the bill was passed.
During a strike at Robin Hood, a federally regulated company in
Montreal, security guards opened fire on strikers and injured eight
of them. The person who gave the order to fire was Robert
Grynszpan. I am giving his name because, later, he suddenly
reappears in the news.
In Quebec, since the anti-scab provisions were adopted, studies
have revealed that disputes have indeed been shorter.
It is obvious that the Quebec legislation was not well received by
employers. The Conseil du patronat, which was vehemently
opposed to this legislation, received in 1991 permission to
challenge it before the Supreme Court. However, it later decided to
drop proceedings, considering that the climate of labour relations
had changed since the provisions of the legislation had been
applied. And this last part should really dictate the conduct of the
present federal government.
The aim of this bill is not to impose on the rest of Canada
legislation that is essentially Quebec's.
(1745)
In Canada, the tendency seems to be to integrate the principle of
prohibition of strikebreakers in labour relations practices.
Recent laws in Ontario, British-Columbia and at the federal
level confirm that tendency. These two provinces and Quebec total
more de 75 per cent of the population of Canada. Therefore, the
majority of workers and employers are regulated by laws which
prohibit the use of strikebreakers. Of course, the level of
prohibition can vary but the principle remains the same and seems
to be accepted by management as well as by labour unions.
13940
In Quebec, a number of unions and employers agree that anti
strikebreaker legislation has significantly reduced the number and
length of labour disputes. They also recognize it has contributed to
lowering the risks of violence on picket lines, which is good for
both parties.
Conversely, the use of strikebreakers in recent years has only
contributed to extending the duration of labour disputes. Statistics
show that the more important labour disputes in terms of the
number of workers involved are generally those where
strike-breakers are used. It was also noticed that the longer a
dispute lasts the higher the proportion of strikebreakers tends to
get.
The strike of the Ogilvie flour mill in Montreal, which is still not
resolved, is a good example. If I may, I would like to briefly remind
my colleagues of a labour dispute that has dragged on and on for
over a year now, and which could still last a rather long time if we
do not act soon.
In January 1992, the collective agreement between the workers
of Ogilvie Mills of Montreal and their employer, Labatt, came to an
end.
In June of the same year, the Labatt's Brewery, then the owner of
the mill, sold it to ADM Archers-Daniels-Midland Co., a U.S.
multinational corporation.
From 1992 to 1993, negotiations to renew the collective
agreement were unsuccessful, since the employer was presenting
demands based on the working conditions that are common
practice in the United States. Can you imagine?
From October 1993 to February 1994, the employer unilaterally
imposed working conditions as established in its own proposal.
In February 1994, the union filed a complaint with the Canada
Labour Relations Board on grounds that the employer was
negotiating in bad faith. In fact, it was simply refusing to negotiate.
On June 6, 1994, a general strike broke out, involving 116
workers-I should add 116 families.
Only four days later, the employer hired scabs to replace these
workers. Members should note that it did so through a federal
employment centre. Can you imagine that?
I have here in my hands a copy of the ad that was posted in the
Employment Centre of Verdun. I will take the time to briefly read
some details that were given. It is really unusual.
Date: December 5, 1994, 2.18 p.m., Verdun employment centre.
Job offer: forklift operator; $10 an hour; temporary; 40 hours a
week, possible overtime. Where? Ogilvie flour mill. They even
have the gall to request three to five years experience. But it does
not mention whether its is three to five years experience as a fork
lift operator or as a scab. There is a hidden anachronism. Further
down, it reads: Attention, ongoing labour dispute. One cannot
claim ignorance. Then comes the employer's address:
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. (Ogilvie Montreal), 950 Mills,
Montreal, Quebec, H3C 1Y4. I will even give a phone number:
514-847-8522, and a contact: Francine Farmer. Attention,
company on strike.
Mr. Speaker, this takes the cake. This is blatant proof that the
government was in cahoots with a company which was hiring scabs
during a labour dispute.
(1750)
The Ogilvie flour mill is still operating, thanks to scabs, since
this is not prohibited under the Canadian Labour Code. It continues
to post profits and is using unusual security devices, including
surveillance cameras, fences, security guards, to monitor strikers
and bring scabs inside the plant.
What is at stake in the negotiations can be summed up as
follows: the union's demands are quite simple-there are none.
They are not trying to obtain additional jobs, to enhance job
security in any way or to obtain any salary increases. The union's
demand can be summed up in one sentence: to keep jobs the way
they are and salaries at current levels, period.
We could not ask for a better employee attitude in today's
climate. They have been very, very understanding. However, here
are but a few of management's demands: first, the right to
unilaterally modify hours. To put it in simple terms, this means: we
will make you work when we want, how we want, how long we
want, where we want. Second, the abolition of seniority as a consideration in promotions and layoffs. In plain and simple language, the better you are at sucking up, the better your job advancement possibilities. I know no other term for it.
Loss of job security still means the same thing, so I will not
repeat it. Elimination of notice prior to layoff. That means that
when you leave for work in the morning, give your wife and
children a big kiss, because when you come home that night, you
may no longer be working for the same company and you will have
nothing to say about it.
More contracting out: this means that you should not forget to
tell your wife that it is possible that some guy from out of the blue
will get hired to do the same job as you.
More term employees: this means that the possibility that some
guy from out of the blue will come in to do your job is even more
likely.
13941
Fewer union rights: go back to my first scenario, which was the
more you suck up, the better the chances of keeping your job.
Lastly, the meetings with a conciliator were fruitless. Just to
make the discussion even more interesting, I would like to add that
the famous name that I mentioned earlier, the current manager of
the Ogilvie mill, is none other than Robert Grynszpan, the one who
gave the order to shoot in the 1977 conflict in which eight strikers
were wounded in Montreal. In 1977, in a democratic country which
was not in a state of war, one man gave the order to shoot. Today,
that same man is the manager of one of Ogilvie's factories in
Montreal. He is free to walk the streets, like you and me.
Because they work in an industry which is covered by the
Canada Labour Code, the unionized workers of the mill have been
made to pay for the failure to prohibit the use of strikebreakers
during a labour conflict under that same code. The mill's
employees have often demanded that an anti-strikebreaker law be
brought in for companies falling under the federal government's
jurisdiction. Despite the promise he made in October 1994, the
Minister of Human Resources Development put off tabling such a
law in the House of Commons, as you will recall, until spring 1995.
Also, the Minister of Labour, when she first took office, stated she
would make it a priority.
(1755)
This must have been left out of the red book. In other words, it is
high time the government took steps to stop the kind of labour
dispute where workers on the picket lines watch strikebreakers get
their wages because the federal government is doing nothing to
stop this blatant injustice.
Everyone has a right to be respected, and this applies to workers
as well. They are entitled to a decent standard of living and to be
respected as individuals who have certain rights. When an
employer uses pressure tactics like hiring scabs during a legal
strike, this puts an undue stress on the employees, increases the
likelihood of violence and undermines the bargaining process.
The use of scabs merely leads to dictatorial and disloyal
practices, collective bargaining unworthy of the name and poor
labour relations that will have the effect of reducing the quality of
service, while probably also adding to the ranks of the unemployed.
The use of scabs during a labour dispute automatically gives the
employer an advantage. No wonder that employers who resort to
this practice are in no hurry to sit down and bargain in good faith.
The case for introducing anti-scab provisions very similar to
those in the Quebec Labour Code is quite straightforward. In
Quebec, these provisions, introduced in 1978, have stood the test of
time. After 17 years, they still hold true. Legislation in Ontario and
British Columbia is in fact based on the provisions in effect in
Quebec.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce a number of democratic
principles that are now accepted in many countries, including ours,
principles that we apply every day and which have repeatedly
proved beneficial to the settlement of labour disputes.
The statistics show that since anti-scab legislation was passed in
Quebec, the duration of labour disputes has decreased by 35 per
cent, on average. That is something to consider.
The Canada Labour Code is certainly not perfectly equipped to
settle disputes under its jurisdiction. One only has to remember the
1986-87 Voyageur bus strike; the postal strike a few years ago; the
strike at the Port of Montreal, which is still fresh in our minds; the
three month strike at QNS&L in Sept-îles last year; and, must I
remind you, the infamous strike that has been going on for a year at
Ogilvie Mills in Montreal.
Today, we are at the second reading stage. The members
participating in the debate, who will have to vote later, must tell us
whether or not they agree in principle with making social relations,
labour relations in Canada more civilized. Then, if they want to
make amendments, they can appear before the legislative
committee and suggest all kinds of amendments they deem
relevant or necessary. But, for the time being, we must look at the
principle-I repeat, principle-of the bill.
We must wonder if Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia were
justified in introducing a civilized labour relations system, which
restored the real balance of power in negotiations resulting from
labour disputes.
A strike broken by scabs is no strike but a right to strike
hypocritically denied. Either we are for the right to strike, a basic
right won by workers after many years of fighting, or we are
against. If we are in favour, we will not undermine, either directly
or indirectly, the workers' sacred right to strike, with which
Canadian employers have learned to live.
Employers learned a long time ago about strikes, lockouts and
the bargaining process. In Quebec, we have lived for 17 years with
anti-scab provisions, and I submit to you that it would be a shame
if this House refused to move with the times and bring its labour
legislation into the 20th century, on the eve of the third millennium.
The Canada Labour Code must be updated and improved to meet
today's needs and realities.
(1800)
And the reality today is that there still are honest workers out
there who, after having worked 15, 20 or more years for the same
company, find themselves hitting the pavement on the strike lines
simply to protect the benefits they have acquired over the years for
themselves, it goes without saying, and for their families, or quite
simply to protect their jobs. Every day, they see strikebreakers,
scabs, take their place and take home their pay. This is
unacceptable.
13942
I would like to conclude by saying that this problem has already
been resolved in three provinces which together represent 70 per
cent of Canada's population. As this bill targets a small portion of
this country's labour force, it is obvious, in my opinion, that the
federal legislation must take into consideration provincial
legislation and fill in the gaps between the existing laws. It is high
time, in my opinion, that federal legislation take a step forward and
restore pride in work and dignity to workers.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to join the debate on Bill C-317, a bill to amend the
Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act
which, if enacted, would prohibit the hiring of replacement workers
by employers during a legal strike. The bill also contains
provisions which are intended to ensure that essential services are
maintained in the event of a strike or a lockout in a crown
corporation and in the public service.
While this bill proposes changes to both the Canada Labour
Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, my comments on
this bill are confined to those changes which would affect the
Canada Labour Code.
The two specific proposals advanced by the hon. member pertain
to the institution of collective bargaining. If I may, I would like to
spend a few moments outlining my views on this institution. In a
nutshell, I believe in collective bargaining because it works and
because it is an institution that promotes democratic decision
making.
If one were to go through a copy of the Canada Labour Code, one
would find at the beginning a preamble to part I, the section that
deals with labour management relations. In my view, this preamble
articulates in a very eloquent way why we need and why we have a
system of free collective bargaining in this country.
The preamble refers to the promotion of the common well-being
through the encouragement of free collective bargaining. It speaks
of the freedom of association and of free collective bargaining as
constituting the way to determine good working conditions and to
promote sound labour management relations. It expresses the
desire of the Parliament of Canada to extend its support to labour
and management in their efforts to develop constructive collective
bargaining practices. In other words, the preamble to part I of the
Canada Labour Code conveys in no uncertain terms the federal
government's commitment to the preservation and encouragement
of collective bargaining.
Political parties of all stripes adhere to this belief in collective
bargaining. Not surprisingly, labour unions also support free
collective bargaining. Indeed, over the years they have resisted
with all the resources at their command any effort to restrict worker
access to free collective bargaining or to replace it with
government regulations or other mechanisms.
Maintaining that integrity of the collective bargaining process is
probably the most important concern of the majority of trade
unionists. For many employers collective bargaining provides an
efficient way of promoting stability in the workplace, for securing
the consent of the workforce and for obtaining innovative solutions
to a variety of workplace issues. Employers who value partnerships
with labour realize that they can lead to a competitive advantage.
Paul Weiler, distinguished Canadian labour lawyer, author and
Harvard professor, describes it best. He states that collective
bargaining is a mode of employee representation which serves two
vital social functions. First, it obtains for workers a measure of
protection from the employer and the vicissitudes of the labour
market, protection from substandard wages and benefits and from
arbitrary and unfair treatment on the job. Second, it affords workers
a degree of participation in an organization's decision making. It
requires employees to take responsibility for defining, asserting
and if necessary, compromising their concerns.
(1805)
As Professor Weiler has written: ``Collective bargaining is as
intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government. If one
believes as I do that self-determination and self-discipline are
inherently worthwhile, indeed, that they are the mark of a truly
human community, then it is difficult to see how the law can be
neutral about whether that type of economic democracy is to
emerge in the workplace''.
As I mentioned, I support our system of collective bargaining not
only because of its democratic nature, but also because of its
effectiveness. Something like 95 per cent of all collective
bargaining disputes in federal jurisdiction governed by the Canada
Labour Code are resolved without resort to a work stoppage.
When a third party is needed and the mediation and conciliation
service provides assistance, about 90 per cent of disputes are
settled without work stoppage. Time lost due to strikes and
lockouts is but a fraction of a per cent, far less than the time lost
due to workplace accidents.
The system works because it places the responsibility for the
settlement of workplace conflict on the shoulders of those directly
involved. It acknowledges that labour and management know best
what their needs are and it calls upon them to take ownership of the
terms and conditions that govern their employment setting.
13943
By looking south of the border we can get some idea as to what
would happen in this country if our system of collective bargaining
were allowed to deteriorate. In the U.S. trade unions and collective
bargaining are on the ropes and the consequences are starting to be
noticed. According to the Commission on the Future of
Worker-Management Relations, the decline of unions has
contributed to the rise in inequality.
The commission reported among other things that the U.S.
earnings distribution among workers is the most unequal among
developed countries. Lower paid workers in the U.S. earn markedly
less than comparable workers in western Europe. U.S. workers
work about 200 hours more during the year than workers in Europe.
While occupational accident rates in the U.S. showed little
improvement over the past decade, they declined significantly in
Canada over the same period. So distressed were the
commissioners by what they found that they were moved to
declare: ``A healthy society cannot long continue along the path the
U.S. is moving with rising bifurcation of the labour market''.
Of course, our industrial relations system is not noiseless. Work
stoppages do occur and people are inconvenienced. But in the vast
majority of cases, both labour unions and employers recognize that
a work stoppage is far more costly than a peaceful settlement. It is
in the interests of both parties to resolve their differences through
negotiation rather than through the display of raw power.
It should be emphasized that collective bargaining works for
business as well as labour. The majority of respondents in a survey
of large employers reported that they are successful in reaching
their bargaining goals, that they are able to work together with the
union during the life of a collective agreement and that they have
the ability to adjust to changes in technology.
It seems to me that what employers and managers value above
all else is stability. Generally speaking, stability is what they get
through the collective bargaining process.
(1810)
The private member's bill the hon. member has put forward for
discussion would significantly change collective bargaining for
enterprises regulated by the Canada Labour Code. It seems to me
therefore that such reforms ought to be considered within the
context of a comprehensive review of part I of the Canada Labour
Code.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate today on the bill sponsored by
the hon. member for Manicouagan.
The summary of the bill found on page 1a states that the purpose
of the bill is to prohibit hiring of persons to replace employees of
an employer under the Canada Labour Code or of the public service
who are on strike or locked out.
In fact this bill goes much further than just prohibiting hiring of
new workers. Modelled after labour legislation in Quebec, this bill
proposes that government prohibit anyone from performing the
work of a person who is on strike or locked out by companies
falling under federal jurisdiction, crown corporations and the
public service. It also includes provisions for the maintenance of
essential services in the event of a strike or lockout in the public
service or a crown corporation if public health and safety are at risk
and it gives increased powers to the Governor in Council.
The Public Service Staff Relations Act contains a mechanism for
providing essential services in strike situations. To replace the
designated employee category of the act with these provisions
cannot be viewed as a progressive step.
We know that one of the reasons the member is sponsoring this
bill is that he is concerned over the effects of the year long labour
dispute at the Ogilvie flour mills in Montreal. Members from all
sides of this House have expressed concern over the Ogilvie
situation and we are all anxious to see a speedy resolution. I was
pleased to hear that progress was made at the mediation meetings
held on May 25 and 26. There was an agreement to reconvene the
talks on June 20 and 21.
If the hon. member for Manicouagan really wanted to help settle
that dispute, he should have supported Bill C-262 authored by my
colleague, the member for Lethbridge. If the government and the
hon. member and his colleagues were really concerned about the
workers at Ogilvie Mills and other workers under federal
jurisdiction, they could have got on the ball and voted for Bill
C-262 on March 20 and supported the hon. member for Lethbridge
on his final offer arbitration bill.
If the hon. member and his colleagues wanted to protect both
sides of labour disputes they would advocate final offer arbitration
as a sure fire solution to settling labour strife.
When workers at the west coast ports were legislated back to
work last year, the Minister of Human Resources Development
endorsed the use of final offer arbitration as the settlement
mechanism. The transport committee in its recently released
national marine strategy recommended a final offer selection
mechanism for settlement of all disputes between pilots and their
customers.
As I stated in this House on previous occasions there seems to be
a growing popularity for final offer arbitration. The transport
committee also recommended that the new Marine Transportation
Act would provide for final offer selection for the settlement of all
disputes between the new not for profit seaway corporation and its
employees.
13944
I would like to confirm once again that the Reform Party
believes in the bargaining process and we do not want to interfere
in the course of two parties coming to an agreement. We see final
offer arbitration as a tool that is useful to both sides, labour and
management.
There are three provinces in Canada that ban the use of
replacement workers in strike or lockout situations: Quebec,
British Columbia and Ontario. Just last week voters elected a
Progressive Conservative government whose leader promised to
repeal Bill 40, the NDP's labour legislation and put an end to the
ban on replacement workers in Ontario. Perhaps my hon. colleague
would do well to find out if there is public support for anti-worker
legislation.
(1815 )
We in the Reform Party are concerned about the impact that
strikes and lockouts have on workers, employers, and Canadians,
who most often have to bear the brunt of the cost and
inconvenience of services withdrawn by monopolistic industries.
The recent strikes in the railway emphasize the weakness in the
Canada Labour Code for preventing a shutdown of essential
services. I commend the member for attempting to deal with the
contentious issue of maintaining essential services. However, this
bill does not contain any provision for the continuation of essential
services in the private sector.
We would all agree the federal government has a responsibility
to act in the best interest of Canadians, but I am surprised the hon.
member would increase the powers of the governor in council.
In an interdependent world, economic security is threatened by
major strikes involving services that provide linkage on an
interprovincial and an international basis. Transportation and
communication services, for example, are essential to the daily
movement of people, goods, and services. A shutdown for any
duration always has significant economic impacts.
Canada's competitive advantage is determined by the efficiency
and reliability of the transportation and communication network it
relies upon. We simply cannot afford any major shutdowns in the
networks that link the country together.
The Canadian economy was hard hit by the $3 billion railway
strike in March. The effects of this strike are now seen as
contributing factors in the lower than predicted gross domestic
product and the fall of the leading economic indicators. This was a
hit the Canadian economy could not afford to take.
I believe that if final offer arbitration had been in place it could
have defused the problems that faced the parties in this dispute. It is
by far the most effective and impartial means of obtaining a
solution to the concerns of labour and management where an
impasse occurs that inflicts significant damage on Canadians.
There is nothing to prevent both sides from achieving a deal,
providing they are being fair and open with each other. In fact, the
presence of an arbitrator who is in a position to adopt either side's
proposal in entirety exerts a tremendous pressure on both sides to
reach an agreement. I believe this would preserve and strengthen
the process by which the parties negotiate a contract.
In cases where fundamental issues are at stake, such as
employment security, an agreement might never occur through
collective bargaining, and a strike or lockout may only make
matters worse. The best solution is for someone respected by both
sides to make a decision on the fairness of one proposal and for the
process to be viewed as legitimate by both sides. Section 57 of the
Canada Labour Code which contains provisions for final offer
settlement by an arbitrator for disputes that occur during the life of
a collective agreement should be amended to include final offer
selection in disputes where collective agreements have expired.
I want to assure the House that I believe in the collective
agreement process, but in the area of essential services the
Canadian people should be protected from costly and disruptive
work stoppages. Part I of the Canada Labour Code is under review
at the moment. I urge the Minister of Labour to bring the code into
line with today's economic realities by expanding the definition of
essential services and by providing for final offer arbitration in
work stoppages in essential services when the agreements expire.
The end result of a strike or lockout is that the side that is able to
withstand the damage longest is considered to be the winner. In
reality, we know that neither side wins. Both parties sustain
significant losses in relationships and dollars. In the long run, no
one benefits from a strike, not the workers, not the employers, and
not the Canadian people. I believe this legislation would inflame
already strained relations and drive a deeper wedge between labour
and management.
(1820)
The Canada Labour Code is out of date. As legislators, we must
find and implement solutions that will best serve the needs of all
involved.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to speak to Bill C-317 whose purpose is to add
13945
anti-scab provisions to the Canada Labour Code and the Public
Service Staff Relations Act.
I want to commend my Bloc Quebecois colleague, the hon.
member for Manicouagan, on his worthy initiative which I support
with vigour and enthusiasm, and especially on the excellent speech
he just made.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure there is no undue advantage
to either party during negotiations, in order to reduce the duration
of strikes and lockouts. Its objective is also to prevent violence
during labour disputes.
The gist of this bill is as follows: To prohibit the hiring of
persons to replace the employees of a federally-regulated
employer who are on strike or locked out and employees of the
Public Service who are on strike; and to ensure that essential
services are maintained in the event of a strike or lockout in a
Crown corporation and in the Public Service.
This bill takes its cue from similar provisions introduced in 1977
by the Parti Quebecois government at the time to amend the
Quebec Labour Code. Since then, Ontario and British Columbia
have also passed anti-scab legislation. Today, 75 per cent of
Canadian workers are covered by these provisions.
The legislation passed by the Quebec National Assembly on
December 22, 1977, prohibiting the use of strike breakers during a
labour dispute, was the first legislation of its kind in Canada. It was
passed following some very violent strikes in the seventies,
including the strike at Firestone and Canadian Gypsum and
especially the long and difficult dispute at United Aircraft, now
Pratt & Whitney. The strikers were members of my former union,
the CAW, the Canadian Auto Workers.
Strikes are based on the principle that a work stoppage should be
an incentive for the employer to agree to and offer better working
conditions. If the employer can hire replacements for the strikers,
the strike becomes useless, a costly burden to those who exercise
this right recognized by the Canada Labour Code, the International
Labour Organization and all democratic countries.
When workers involved in a labour dispute see they are replaced
by other people who are often escorted by security guards, they
become exasperated, frustrated and may even resort to violence.
They are reacting to provocation, and the consequences are
disastrous.
Quebec's adoption of anti-scab legislation was in response to
strong pressure from the labour movement, and in particular from
the FTQ. However, the unions criticized the weakness of the
measures approved in 1977 and demanded the use of personnel to
replace an employee locked out or on strike be absolutely
prohibited.
In fact, the text of the legislation contained errors, which moved
the Government of Quebec to propose new amendments to the
Labour Code in 1983 in order to correct the discrepancies that
appeared through its use and legal interpretation by the labour
court, the superior court and the court of appeal.
Approximately 114,000 Quebec bank, federal public service,
federal ports, telecommunications and transportation workers
come under the Canada Labour Code.
(1825)
This number includes the 116 employees of the Ogilvie-ADM
mills in Montreal, who are members of the CNTU and for whom
June 6 marked the anniversary of their first year on strike. This
dispute has gone on for over a year because of this American
employer's use of scabs. These workers along with the entire
labour movement in Quebec and Canada have long called for
anti-scab legislation federally.
This afternoon, I met a group of strikers on Parliament Hill, who
are currently in the gallery. I would like to salute them and all the
workers of Ogilvie-ADM, show them my support and express the
hope that a reasonable solution may be found quickly.
I understand their frustrations, because I worked for 19 years at
the FTQ, where I witnessed and experienced similar disputes. This
dispute is deteriorating because of a skewed balance of power. I
also support the campaign waged by the CNTU and the FTQ for the
inclusion of anti-scab provisions in the Canada Labour Code.
On September 18, 1992, an explosion at the Giant Gold mine in
Yellowknife killed nine miners during a strike in which the
employer had hired scabs. This tragedy could have been avoided
with anti-scab legislation. This conflict lasted 18 months, ending
only in December 1993. Last January, an individual was convicted
of causing that explosion.
An anti-scab law would, of course, significantly reduce the risks
of violence on picket lines. Under the previous, Tory government,
the Liberals supported such legislation. Since they came to power
in 1993, they have moved to the right and changed their position.
The Minister of Human Resources Development had promised to
table an anti-scab bill in December 1994. He did not keep his word.
The new Minister of Labour now uses the excuse that she intends
to propose a more extensive reform of the Canada Labour Code,
arguing that this legislation has not been amended in 20 years. The
Minister of Labour, who is the hon. member for the wealthy riding
of Westmount, is even more insensitive than her predecessor in this
regard.
She is probably afraid of hurting the interests of her wealthy
constituents. Yet, the Ogilvie workers, whose plant is located at the
boundary of the minister's riding, are still waiting for her to help
resolve this dispute as she promised.
Once again, I ask the government to be consistent with the
positions defended by its members when they were in opposition
and to table an anti-scab bill to prevent labour disputes from
deteriorating and dragging on needlessly. We already know that the
13946
bill tabled by my colleague from Manicouagan will probably not
pass without government support, but we will not give up.
The government must share the three largest provinces' positive
experiences and realize that anti-scab measures are needed to
reduce the risks of sometimes violent confrontation during a strike
or lockout.
In Quebec, as my colleague from Manicouagan said, studies
point to a significant reduction in the duration of labour disputes
since these provisions went into effect. The same phenomenon
occurred in Ontario and British Columbia.
We must correct the inequities suffered by the 680,000 workers
subject to Part I of the Canada Labour Code. Sometimes, a strike is
the workers' only recourse. Adopting legislation in this area would
eliminate the inequities suffered by unionized federal workers as
opposed to their provincial colleagues, who are protected by an
anti-scab law.
(1830)
In conclusion, I call on the Minister of Labour not to hide behind
the comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code and to
immediately table a bill to this effect. I am asking her to act as
quickly as she did last March to trample the rights of workers by
tabling a special back-to-work bill aimed at rail workers.
For all these reasons, I strongly support Bill C-317.
[English]
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to address the House on an issue of concern to the
government, essential services.
There has been much debate on this topic in other jurisdictions
as it applies to their labour environment. I am sure that everyone
here appreciates that the federal government is a unique employer,
one which has a trusted mandate to ensure that Canadians can be
confident in the delivery of government services.
The Public Service Staff Relations Act is a balanced piece of
legislation, one which has assisted the parties involved in complex
labour disputes for over one-quarter of a century. It should be
remembered that it was due to the leadership of a Liberal
government that federal workers gained the right to collective
bargaining.
However, it was also recognized at that time, and still holds true
today, that the right to collective bargaining in the federal public
service cannot be to the detriment of the health, safety and security
of the Canadian public.
Over the years most labour disputes have been resolved
satisfactorily without the need for back to work legislation. It
should be noted that the government, as a matter of practice,
discourages the hiring of outside workers to do the work of striking
employees. In fact, the current policy of the employer on this
matter is to rely on managers and staff excluded from the
bargaining unit.
It is also important to recognize that the government has never
denied the right of individual employees to voluntarily come to
work during a strike.
As I have already indicated, the federal government cannot be
compared to employers in other sectors. The business of providing
government services to Canadian citizens can never be considered
in a similar context to the private sector company, one which
provides shoes or soap or flour.
There are many services provided by the federal government for
which there is no viable alternative. There is a wide range of
services which many of us take for granted until that moment when
they become delayed or are not forthcoming. For example, we
depend on and have confidence in our meat inspectors and officers
involved in numerous other federally inspected consumer goods.
Moreover, we rely on the transportation systems, the patrolling of
offshore and coastal fisheries and the vigilance of officers at border
crossings. Individuals on fixed incomes, the unemployed and
senior citizens depend on the uninterrupted delivery of social
programs.
Without the careful analysis of the effects of new drugs and
medications being produced for human and animal use, the health
of Canadians could be at risk. I am sure that each of you here could
add other areas that I have not mentioned.
As members can see, government services are vital to the health
and security of the public. The present language of the Public
Service Staff Relations Act ensures that areas essential to the health
and safety of Canadians are safeguarded by designating positions
which by law cannot strike before any legal strike activity begins.
What this means is that the employer must identify the positions
that are essential to the health and safety of the public three months
prior to the notice to bargain and three months prior to the
expiration of the collective agreement. Therefore, there is at least a
six month advance notice as to the positions that are to be
designated.
The current process has worked since 1967. As recently as 1993,
when reviewing proposed changes to the Public Service Staff
Relations Act, the House in its wisdom saw fit to allow this process
to continue.
All of this reinforces the fact that the federal government
requires a unique legislated labour framework that is different from
13947
other employers in order to ensure delivery of services regardless
of labour difficulties that must eventually be overcome.
In addition, it should be realized by all concerned members of
the House that the legislation must be reviewed in its totality. It is
not advisable to tinker piecemeal with individual sections of an act.
Many portions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act were
drafted for a specific purpose and for special reasons and must be
viewed in balance with each other.
(1835)
The designation of essential services, for example, which is at
issue here, was specifically developed to permit the notion of the
right for federal government employees to strike. It also served to
allow the government as the employer to cede the right to lock out
employees.
In closing, I must caution my colleagues on the wisdom of
proceeding with the bill as it relates to the Public Service Staff
Relations Act without fully appreciating the history and the
experience behind this important existing legislation.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
13947
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-41,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts, be
read the third time and passed.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my apologies. I was in committee and I thank you for your
patience. Before being interrupted to go up to the other Chamber, I
was extending a friendly invitation to members of the Reform Party
that would help them understand how terribly important this bill is
for the gay community.
With courage and conviction, I am going to be daring and stand
by the invitation. Therefore, I turn to the Reform Party, with your
permission, and I say to them that if, as parliamentarians, they are
interested in expanding on their knowledge of the reality of the gay
experience and the potential ill treatment to which gays are
exposed, I am available to introduce them to spokespersons and
leaders of these groups, because if their positions and statements
are any indication, I venture to think that although the members of
the Reform Party are very knowledgeable in certain areas, they are
somewhat less so in this particular area.
I think that, here as elsewhere, a closer look at reality would
undoubtedly help them to modify their behaviour and certainly to
improve their understanding. I therefore cordially extend to each
member of the Reform Party an invitation to come and spend a day
with me in the gay village, so that they can meet with the
spokespersons and be in-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I remind my
colleagues that they must always address the Chair, particularly
when rather diverging views are being expressed. We are dealing
with very emotional and sensitive issues. Consequently, we must
show a great deal of respect in order to carry on the debate in the
usual parliamentary fashion. Again, I remind hon. members that
they must address the Chair, and not each other directly.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I always try to abide by that
principle, but I thank you for this reminder. So, through the good
offices of the Chair, I reiterate my invitation to Reform members.
It may be in order to remind the House of a number of facts. On
several occasions during the debate, some members claimed that it
might be detrimental to the public interest to recognize, in clause
718.2, the principle and the concept of sexual orientation. What is
rather surprising with this position is that it implies that the concept
of sexual orientation is something new and that it sets a precedent.
Yet, if you look at the Canadian case law, you will see that the
administrative courts, as well as the ordinary courts of law, have
had to deal with the concept of sexual orientation on a number of
instances. In fact, the whole issue started exactly 18 years ago, with
the Quebec charter of rights. Quebec, ever the leader in the social
sector, was the first province to legislate and provide, in its human
rights code, specific protection based on sexual orientation.
(1845)
If you were to ask every opponent of the legislation to mention
one case where an ordinary court of law, or an administrative
tribunal, established a link between the concept of sexual
orientation, which the legislator seeks to protect by including it as a
ground for illicit discrimination, and any of the perversions to
which some members of this House referred, you would not find
any such example. This is why such an attitude is so deplorable.
Let it not be forgotten that what the Minister of Justice and his
government wish to offer is very explicit protection, so that when
the courts are faced with the situation where a person has been the
victim of violence because of sexual orientation, whether
homosexual or heterosexual, they shall, in determining the
sentence for homicide, cruelty or assault, take into consideration
any aggravating circumstances, based on legislative principles that
are very, very clear.
13948
In other words, a person found guilty of such offences will
receive a stiffer sentence. That is the main focus of Bill C-41.
This has led to all sorts of comments which, out of respect for
you, I will not dignify with a response. People said, yes, but there is
a problem. There is a problem of a legal nature. Members of the
Reform Party in particular kept saying that sexual orientation had
not been defined. They said that there was a danger that the courts
would not be able to properly enforce the law without a definition
of sexual orientation.
And yet, none of the detractors of the bill has stopped to wonder
why it also does not define freedom of worship or religious
freedom. And what about national origin? Somehow we have
managed. After all, we live in a society where, in the past, people
have set themselves ablaze in the name of religious freedom, in the
name of freedom of conscience. There are also people who have
committed acts of cruelty, as well you know, in the name of
religious freedom.
If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, there are even colleagues who have
made remarks that, in my opinion, are certainly pushing the limits
of politeness, as well as the limits of democracy, in this House, in
the name of religious freedom. None of the bill's detractors rose
and asked that religious freedom, or national origin be defined.
Why this unhealthy obsession with one of the explicit motives of
discrimination, as if it could open the door to recognition of what is
obviously in the realm of perversion? Some not so great minds
even went so far as to make a connection with paedophilia. You
really have to be pretty ignorant and pretty far removed from any
understanding of the term sexual orientation to make that kind of
connection.
Anyone who has some concept of psychology or psychiatry
knows perfectly well that homosexuality has no connection with
paedophilia. Homosexuality has no connection at all with
paedophilia, and it is comparisons like these that tarnish
reputations and they are also most unfortunate from a legislative
point of view.
Let me quote a few facts that truly demonstrate that the decision
of the Minister of Justice to introduce this legislation was, without
a doubt, a most fortunate, responsible and democratic decision.
(1850)
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in the United States
says that according to a study they carried out three years ago, so
this is a relatively recent study, one gay out of five-one gay out of
five, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I may glance briefly towards the
other side, one gay out of five, and one lesbian out of ten were
physically assaulted. We are not talking about empirical research.
This is a study conducted by an authorized group in the United
States, often used as a point of reference by our Reform Party
colleagues, and they have information that has helped us
understand statements made by people belonging to the gay
community.
We are told that one gay out of five, so this means we are talking
about 20 per cent, one gay out of five, and one lesbian out of ten say
they were physically assaulted.
We also have information on the situation in Canada. The study
was made in New Brunswick, and if I am not mistaken, New
Brunswick is not very far from Nova Scotia, and in Nova Scotia
there are a number of parliamentarians who are very concerned
about the gay community. I will not name names.
In any case, in this study, which was carried in New Brunswick,
which is not very far from Nova Scotia, we read the following: 82
per cent of gays and lesbians who responded to this study were at
some time in their lives victims of physical violence.
At 82 per cent, we should start to be alarmed. There is absolutely
no way anyone could call that a fringe movement or an isolated
incident. I do not know whether our Reform colleagues are aware
of this study. I do know that it would behoove them to take a gander
at it. Then maybe they would even understand why there is a need
for this legislation. Once again I ask what is the basic principle?
The basic principle is that we are still living in a society that does
not accept these realities, in Quebec and in Canada, but I must say
more so in English Canada. Permit me to demonstrate how we, in
Quebec, have a real head start on the rest of Canada when it comes
to this issue.
The crux of the matter-and I would have hoped that my Reform
colleagues would have been more concerned with this issue-the
crux of the matter is that the very fact of being gay or recognized as
such by a certain number of people in society makes people the
targets of violence. If one makes the effort to read the studies which
have been done, it is obvious that this is not a mere coincidence; it
is not a figment of imagination; it is not an oddball occurrence.
You all know as well as I do that there is no doubt that this law
will be passed; the official opposition is going to help it along. I
would even say that we are going to contribute to its passage-I am
choosing my words carefully-, I believe every last one of us will
be behind it. However I do not want to go too far.
It still remains that a lawmaker is sending a very clear message
to the Canadian public with such a law. What it is saying to the
Canadian and Quebec public is that we will not tolerate that any
people in our society are molested or attacked, because we are a
democratic society, a society which believes in the equality of
individuals. Our belief in the equality of individuals goes so far that
we even accept that this equality encompasses the expression of
different sexual orientations. We believe in this so strongly as a
society that we will not tolerate that some people are attacked or
molested because of this difference.
13949
Whenever this happens, we will take deterrent measures. To
deter people from doing this, the lawmakers must demand that the
courts impose much more severe sanctions against those who do
promote repression. Do you have to be a genius to understand that?
Is this beyond comprehension? Does one need a Ph.D. to
understand this kind of thing? I do not think so, but it takes two
things some members of this House may lack. The first is an open
mind, a simple and solid openness to difference. Unfortunately, this
is too much to ask of some parliamentarians.
The second is tolerance, tolerance permitting the understanding
that there are people, who-for all sorts of reasons, something
innate or something in their personality- nevertheless differ in the
way they experience their sexuality. We are asking
parliamentarians, who are legislators and who must set the tone, to
be open to this. Unfortunately, it is asking too much of certain
colleagues, and, I imagine, that they would have to justify their
position to their electors.
(1855)
I said earlier that I thought there was an openmindedness in
Quebec that is not always found elsewhere. If I had to explain it, I
would say there are two reasons for it. The first is that, on the
whole, as a society, we condemn violence. I think that, on the
whole, as a society in Quebec, we recognize that there are gays and
that they continue to be victims of violence. There is no attempt to
beat about the bush or to hide behind this reality, which means
acknowledging the facts.
Why then can Quebec claim, take pride in, a certain
openmindedness not to be found throughout English Canada,
although I know very well that parts of the country are very open to
this. The reasons are twofold. The first is that members from
Quebec, in dealing with this issue, do not ask their electors to take a
moral stand. When Quebecers deal with these questions, they see
that violence is committed against members of a certain group,
known among other things as gays, they take a stand on rights.
They take a civic stand.
They do not ask a majority or a minority to impose morals. As
you know, the foul-ups that occurred during debate on this issue in
this House came from members who, in my opinion, rose in this
House to talk about moral values, as though there was only one set
of universal moral values that must be instilled in everyone.
We as parliamentarians know, from travelling a little here and
abroad, reading a little, watching television and taking the trouble
of talking with people, that there is no single set of moral values, no
single religion. There are numerous sets of moral and ethical values
guiding individuals. This is a good thing, and not only in Quebec
and Canada.
If we as parliamentarians want to successfully navigate this
debate without questioning anyone's motives and with a minimum
of good faith, we must stay away from moral judgments. We must
restrict ourselves to legal matters, because our first duty is to make
laws, to legislate. Mr. Speaker, since you are indicating to me that
my time is up, I will conclude by asking all members to make a
highly democratic and tolerant gesture by supporting this
government and the Minister of Justice, whose courage I
commend, and voting unanimously in favour of Bill C-41.
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for very clearly stating that we are not
debating morality in the House. We are debating criminal law and
how we want our sentencing bills to be now and for the future.
He has clearly expressed the views that have been a consensus
across the country. It is not just the gay, lesbian and bisexual groups
that are in favour of this legislation. It is the United Church of
Canada, B'nai Brith, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities,
the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Centre for Research-Action on
Race Relations and the Urban Alliance on Race Relations.
I know the member is from Quebec so I will rely on some of the
material that has been forwarded by Quebec. I specifically rely on
the Quebec human rights commission, November 1993, which
convened the first public inquiry into discrimination on violence
against gays and lesbians. The hearings received a fair profile in
that province and across the country. They acquired that profile
because 15 homosexual men in Montreal between 1989 and 1993
were murdered. That was the trigger which started the debate in
that province.
Other debates went on in Vancouver, Toronto and across the
country with the police forces.
(1900 )
We have the Ottawa police chief saying he is in favour of this
legislation, we have the metropolitan police force. We need this
legislation everywhere. What I want to know from this member is
what other experiences does he know about that go on every day in
the lives of gays and lesbians for the hate motivated section of this
bill to be necessary for all of Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
her question and, more importantly, for actively supporting this
bill. I know that she sits on the committee which reviewed this
legislation. The hon. member very appropriately mentioned that,
two years ago, the Quebec government appointed, through the
Quebec human rights commission, a travelling commission of
inquiry which came to the following conclusions.
13950
First, it found that some 20 people had been killed because of
their sexual orientation. Moreover, about one hundred of those
people who testified before the commission had been victims of
physical abuse.
The hon. member is also right when she says that, ultimately, all
this takes place in everyday life. As a member of Parliament, I
often meet people who are homosexuals and who tell me that they
were intimidated.
These cases do not all involved physical abuse or death, but the
hon. member is quite right when she says that there is still this
widespread idea that you can bash people who are gay, because
they may look effeminate, or because they openly show their
orientation.
The only reasonable way to change that attitude is to provide
some deterrent, through bills such as this one.
Again, as parliamentarians, we should ask ourselves this
question, which I direct in particular to our Reform Party friends,
through the good offices of the Chair, of course: What is so
upsetting about our Canadian society saying that it will not tolerate
reprisals against homosexuals, against the expression of one
difference, among others?
Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree with me that when a person is
comfortable with his or her own identity, with his or her own
sexuality, that person will accept the fact that there may be
differences. With all due respect, I think that we must question the
well-being-and I choose my words carefully-of some members
of this House who show no tolerance toward the expression of that
difference.
If I were in the shoes of some Reform members, I would ask
myself some questions.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
begin in my comments to the member by simply stating that as an
individual person, as a member of Parliament, as a member of the
population of Quebec, and as a Canadian, I have more than ample
respect for him. I wish him no ill. I honestly do.
I am going to make a statement that is going to sound as though
it is very ridiculous. I am going to say-and I am with my friend
from Wild Rose on this-that I want to have fat people included in
that list. I really do. I could tell members experiences of how when
I was a youngster I was attacked and beat up because I was fat. I
have been like this all my life. So I want to be on that list. I want to
make sure that people cannot attack me because they have this
prejudice against fat people.
Of course members are going to say no, that is not necessary.
Then I am going to ask why they hate me so and why they are so
fatophobic. Now I have just said something that everyone in this
House recognizes as being quite a ludicrous statement simply
because it is not based on fact.
Number one, yes, I did get beat up. That does not mean that my
being beat up was any more important than another kid who was
beat up because he had an even funnier face than mine.
(1905)
I remember another time being quite vilified because I was a
farm kid and I attended a city school. We have differences, and
sometimes kids can be cruel. That does not mean that we now have
to start specifying this person, this group; that person, that group.
What we need to do in order to reduce those differences is to start
treating everyone the same.
When I say to my hon. colleague opposite that I have respect for
him as an individual, I certainly have no intention of checking out
what he does after he leaves this place. That is his choice. I neither
fear him nor do I wish him any harm. However, I want to say that
not one member of the Reform Party in the country will say that
because of the choice he made he is now fair game for being beaten
up. I am totally opposed to that. When I hear of individuals being
beaten up because they are homosexuals I decry that as loudly and
as vigorously as I would when anyone else is beaten up, for
whatever reason.
It is time that we as Canadians started applying the rules of
justice and the protection of law equally to everyone across the
board. I want to assure the hon. member that I do not dislike him. I
am not picking on him. I am simply saying that he stands together
with all of us on an equal ground.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague
that among all of my Reform colleagues, he is by far my favourite.
However, I do not know whether I should be jumping for joy or
crying after what he just said because, with all due respect, my
colleague rose in this House and said: ``I do not dislike the hon.
member'', all the better. However, he also said: ``What we need to
do is to start treating everyone the same''.
You will understand that at face value, such a statement betrays a
lack of sensitivity, because, if we acknowledge that in Canadian
and Quebec society people are being molested solely on the basis
of their sexual orientation, there is no way we can agree with our
colleague's conclusion that we have to treat everyone the same.
This is like the kind of reasoning that used to be widespread a
few years back, and I am choosing my words carefully. You will
nonetheless understand to what point this example, regardless of
how absurd it was, is worth calling to mind. I remember very
clearly the debate that was raging in our society a few years back in
which some people used to say: ``Whenever a person, in general a
woman, is raped, we must take into consideration whether she
provoked the attack''. And they said, some very sensible people
included, even men of law, that the punishment for raping a woman
13951
should vary, depending on how provocative she was, for example,
if she was wearing a short skirt.
I never subscribed to this point of view. What our colleague is
saying, is: ``I am ready to accept homosexuality only if these
people are treated the same as everybody else and only if we do not
acknowledge, at this moment in time, that they are being
systematically discriminated against and are being targeted for
violence''. This is contradictory, this is a paradox, this is illogical
and cannot be. That is why we have a bill before us like the one that
is before us today.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon.
member for St. Catharines.
(1910 )
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the
debate at third reading of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal
Code, sentencing, and other acts in consequence thereof. It is a
criminal law bill directed at hate motivated crime.
First, I want to commend the work of the Minister of Justice,
who has responded to the call of Canadians for the need to reform
our sentencing process by establishing a clear framework of
provisions to guide the courts in our country.
We have before us a criminal law bill directed at hate motivated
crime. We have before us comprehensive legislation that for the
very first time gives Canadians a say in the purpose and principles
of criminal sentencing.
In these very challenging times, it is now necessary to provide
clear guidelines for the courts to protect society to assist in
rehabilitating offenders, to promote their sense of responsibility,
and to provide reparation for sometimes irreparable damage, both
physical and emotional, done to victims and the community.
Rules of evidence and procedure have now been set out in this
bill, along with alternative measures to prisons and conditional
sentences to be served in the community under strict compliance
with conditions ordered by the court.
This bill works in partnership with the community to rehabilitate
offenders while at the same time protecting the public from those
criminals who have committed serious and violent crimes.
The strength of this bill is clearly evident from the support it has
garnered across the country, despite what we might hear in the
House.
I represent an urban riding in the greater Toronto area where
people want only to live in peace and safety. In
Etobicoke-Lakeshore we are firm believers in crime prevention
measures as a method of improving safety in our community. As a
community we are working very hard to eliminate crime. I give as
an example the hard work of the Etobicoke Crime Prevention
Association, which has succeeded in making our community more
aware of crime prevention. I would like to read to the House the tip
of the month published in its May 1995 newsletter. It reads: ``A key
element in preventing crime is public education through a variety
of means. Let the public know that prevention is possible. They are
capable and it is worth their while''.
The sentencing reforms contained within Bill C-41 will indeed
make the efforts of all Canadian communities worth their while.
Our government is committed to restoring safety to our homes, our
streets, and our communities. Bill C-41 is a clear indication of this
commitment. We want to give Canadians back their sense of
security by working hard to implement policies that will reduce and
help to prevent crime in Canadian communities.
Canadians have asked for changes to the criminal justice system
and we have responded with reforms that enhance the rights of
victims and encourage respect for the law.
When we talk about public education we want to make sure that
people have all the facts. What has been happening across the way
today has not been all the facts.
I will now proceed to give what I perceive to be the clear facts in
this legislation and emphasize the benefits these reforms will mean
to the protection of all Canadians.
With the passage of this bill judges will henceforth be required to
give clear reasons for sentencing in all cases. This clarity will
benefit the public and will assist later in potential appeals trials.
The bill also gives consideration to offences committed in
breach of trust, usually against children and increasingly in cases of
violence against women. These vulnerable individuals who lost
this essential and assumed protection in society will now find it in
the courts.
This legislation will also benefit and consider the victims of
crime, whose suffering and anxieties for so long have been pushed
aside.
(1915 )
The statement of purpose and principles will allow for reparation
to the victim or the community while at the same time forcing the
offenders to take responsibility for their actions.
This means first of all that financial restitution can now be
audited to compensate for loss of property or damage inflicted on
an individual. I know that many seniors in my community who
have been victimized by theft will be very pleased with the
introduction of this provision.
13952
Financial compensation by the offender in the case of less
serious crimes often encourages rehabilitation of the offender. In
the legislation, amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code
will give victims of violence the chance to voice the effects the
offender's crime has had on their lives during their hearing for
early parole.
It is about time the victim's experience is given greater
emphasis. The statement will play a key role in the determination
of the release of violent offenders back into society. Fines will now
be officially recognized as part of the sentencing process. The fact
is that many offenders are in prison for non-violent crimes simply
because they are not able to pay the fine levelled on them.
Consideration will now be given to these individuals and fines
will be imposed based on the offender's ability to pay. Inability to
repay will result in other penalties such as probation or community
service.
For those who have the ability to pay, fines will be strictly
enforced. The system of fines will result in decreased costs of
running our institutions. The community plays an important role in
this bill, especially under the provision that allows for alternative
incarceration.
Under strict supervision, a less serious non-violent offender who
has been determined to pose no danger to society could serve the
sentence within the community in some way. Counselling,
probation, fines and community service will be part of a more
effective rehabilitative approach to minor and first time offenders.
Limited funds could be spent protecting the public from more
serious and violent offenders. Prison will be reserved for their
rehabilitation. This legislation will prove beneficial to
communities because it contains measures that will ensure the
culture of hate is not permitted to flourish in this country.
Hate crimes are an unfortunate and insufferable reality in our
society. The fact that people are specifically targeted because of
their race, their religion, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation
cannot be ignored or purposely be swept under the carpet.
Police bias crime units have reported that crimes motivated by
hate are on the increase. We must also keep in mind that this
probably does not include the many hate crimes that go unreported
because of an individual's fear or historic mistrust of authorities.
Have you ever stopped to think, Mr. Speaker, about how
traumatizing it is to victims, knowing that they have been
specifically attacked because of who they are and what they look
like? This is a very personal attack because you cannot change
these aspects of yourself.
Canadians have expressed their alarm at the intolerable increase
in this type of violence. The government has responded by
introducing these amendments that will allow judges to impose
stiffer sentences on those who have been convicted of a crime
motivated by hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex,
mental or physical disability or sexual orientation.
Working with the community to improve education in
combination with stiffer sentencing measures will result in a better
co-ordinating response to hate. Section 718 which got much
discussion across the way specifically comes into play after a
person is convicted of a crime motivated by hate toward a specific
group.
The government recognizes the need to replace the vagueness
that currently exists in the sentencing process to protect the groups
that are being senselessly and violently targeted.
History has taught us that we will only suffer as a society if
violence, intimidation and fearmongering toward any group is
tolerated. Ours is a society of equality and Bill C-41 will offer a
solid deterrence to all people who threaten human life.
Sentencing practices should be a reflection of Canadian values
and this legislation mirrors the values of equality and democracy
quite clearly.
(1920 )
There is great support for this bill because the people of Canada
know that in combination with other elements of our crime
prevention package, change will come and the risk toward safety
will lessen.
Sentencing reform, amendments to the Young Offenders Act,
parole and corrections reform, the creation of a crime prevention
council, greater control of firearms will go a long way toward
making our communities safer places to live.
In addition to all this we will continue our efforts to reform the
social programs, implementing more effective measures to combat
poverty, lack of education, unemployment, illiteracy. We are
making progress toward a safer, less violent and more progressive
society.
Bill C-41 will guide us in that direction. Let us show tolerance
and support this bill.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I was pleased that the hon. parliamentary secretary had a wide
ranging look at this bill in her speech.
There are some comparisons that I might make to the comments
she has made. I have in my hand a report from the Canadian Police
Association, a group that was lauded by the justice minister for its
support of Bill C-68.
In the introduction to the report, the association says this:
Bill C-41 with a few exceptions is unwieldly, complicated, internally
self-contradictory, duplicitous and what is worse, almost all of it completely
unnecessary for anyone with any knowledge of or use for the common law
heritage of Canada. While it would attempt to codify basic sentencing
principles, eliminating this most basic judicial discretion, at the same time it
would bestow huge new discretionary powers to a whole range of persons
within the justice system.
13953
The common thread in these new powers is that all are to the benefit of the
offender in the sense of non-custodial consequence for criminal actions.
Where sentencing reform calls for protection, this bill offers platitudes. Where
it calls for clarity, it offers confusion and outright hypocrisy. Given its previous
life as Bill C-90, [from the Tory administration] it is in no way a creature of this
government yet if passed, it will certainly be identified as just that. It will almost
certainly cause the already skyrocketing criminal justice budget to expand
further still, in particular, the fastest growing component of that, namely legal
aid.
When all is said and done and when one considers the truly great challenges the
justice system faces in real crime prevention and protection of the public, it is
tragic that this bill occupies debate while other legitimate issues are ignored.
This, too, will be the legacy for the government should this bill be passed into law.
In concluding this report, the Canadian Police Association says
that:
Bill C-41 is confused, contradictory and in large part wholly unnecessary. It is
a blatant example of what a former Liberal member of the justice committee
described as smoke and mirrors legislation. It is put forward as meaningful
sentence reform but it is only that in the sense that it will generate endless
litigation with huge attendant costs for little or no purpose. It is a blatant example
of our worst tendencies in criminal law amendment in that it is impractical, badly
drafted and will produce results wholly inconsistent with the overwhelming
majority of Canadian sense of what needs to be done.
It is a bill that was not created or refined in any sense by the political response
of elected members of the government who will be responsible to their
constituents once its results are made clear as they will be.
In these days when so much needs to be done to prevent crime from occurring
in the first place and to provide protection to society from those chronic violent
offenders, Bill C-41 is and will be an embarrassment.
As I think about why the government is putting forward Bill
C-41, I am compelled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Prime Minister what is the justification for this bill. I can only
assume that it is to assuage the interests and the demands of the
politically correct movement that you so capably represent.
(1925 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Once again I remind
the House not to refer to one another as you. Interventions should
be made through the Chair.
I also remind the House that the hon. parliamentary secretary has
only one minute left to respond.
Mr. Mayfield: I do apologize.
Ms. Augustine: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I accept his apology
because that is the kind of person I am and this is the kind of debate
that brings out the worst in members as we address those issues that
face society.
We are talking about the kind of society where there is respect
for diversity, where there is respect for the individual. We are
talking about measures that have within them preventive,
rehabilitative and other measures.
The bill before us would ensure the function of our communities,
as I said in my remarks, and would ensure the safety of every
individual within society regardless of race, colour, creed,
nationality, age, sex or sexual orientation.
I think the member has difficulty with this. I can quote from
other sources that speak in very positive terms to the bill.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-41, first because I believe this bill is
very important in protecting and promoting the rights of victims
and second, because there are many misconceptions about this bill.
Yes, the inclusion of the term sexual orientation in the bill has
caused some people concern. Some of my constituents are
concerned. They fear this may somehow promote a homosexual
lifestyle or it may result in restrictions on religious speech or
change the Criminal Code to make things such as pedophelia
acceptable.
First I would like to address those questions. Bill C-41 is a
sentencing bill. Its aim is to deal harshly with offenders who
commit serious crimes and to provide educational or community
service programs for non-violent offenders.
Section 718 of the bill proposes that aggravating circumstances
should be taken into account in sentencing. The bill outlines that if
the crime is committed because of hatred or where an offender
abuses a position of trust, this hate or abuse of power shall be
considered an aggravating circumstance and therefore will be dealt
with more harshly.
The bill outlines that hate crimes can be committed based on
hatred for someone's race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age,
mental or physical disability or sexual orientation.
I want to state clearly that I believe hate crime is intolerable in
any form and we must take proactive measures to remove hate
from our society. I strongly support measures which will send a
clear message that crimes based on hatred will not be tolerated but
will be punished harshly.
However I am a strong believer in the family and I am also
concerned about the potential erosion of family values through the
use of the term of sexual orientation. Based on these concerns and
those of some of my constituents I wrote to the Minister of Justice
and asked these questions very clearly: Does the bill have any
effect on the issue of same sex benefits or adoptions? Could the
courts interpret sexual orientation to include pedophelia or other
deviant forms of sexuality? In regard to same sex benefits and
adoption the minister has clearly stated the bill is not relevant to
those items. Cases have recently been before the courts on these
issues but Bill C-41 has no affect on same sex benefits.
13954
There is also concern over setting a precedent by using the term
sexual orientation in legislation and opening the door to future
extension of many other items, those promoted by some of the
members opposite.
I want to reassure my constituents that the use of the term of
sexual orientation is not new in our justice system. In fact it has
been around since 1977 and presently is included in the human
rights legislation of eight provinces.
(1930 )
The second question I addressed to the minister was whether
pedophilia and other sexual behaviour could be defined as sexual
orientation. Again the minister replied in the negative. The
Criminal Code clearly describes and provides for offenders.
The minister pointed out this is not new legislation; it is not
ambiguous and does not include criminal acts such as pedophilia. I
heard some of my church congregations in St. Catharines
expressing some fear that freedom of speech might be removed.
Again I was assured by the minister, quoting from his letter: ``The
provisions of the bill do not and cannot prohibit people from
holding beliefs or from talking about them within their churches,
congregations or communities. The bill deals with people who act
on certain bias or hatred to commit crimes. It will not affect
freedom of expression''.
Recently one of the congregations wrote to the minister to
express its concern and support concerning Bill C-41. I am
reminded the church believes it is obligated to struggle against
injustice. Its letter to the minister:
Our mandate is to support the church in God's mission of bringing about an
inclusive and participatory church and society, striving to protect the rights and
meet the needs of all, including those who are marginalized on grounds of race,
culture, sex, family and economic status, age, belief, sexual orientation, and
disability.
The focus of Bill C-41 is to improve our sentencing laws and
define their purpose. The bill deals with victims, crimes motivated
by hate, other rehabilitative provisions for some offenders like
community service, and probation, fines and updating the rules of
evidence and procedure.
Bill C-41 is particularly important to me because it deals with
the rights of victims of violence. It is unfortunate but our justice
system often seems to protect the offender while ignoring the
victim. The bill takes important steps to outline the importance of
respecting and protecting victims, one small step forward.
The bill deals with the protection and promotion of the rights of
victims. The bill contains a statement of sentencing purposes. The
present Criminal Code does not contain a statement outlining the
purpose and principles behind sentencing. The new bill would fill
this void by including a statement providing direction to the courts
on the fundamental purpose of sentencing.
The statement would include as part of the objectives of
sentencing providing restitution to victims or the community. In
addition, sentences should promote a sense of responsibility for
offenders and include encouraging acknowledgement by offenders
of the harm done to victims or to the community. The statement
would outline the importance of maintaining a peaceful, safe
society.
The second way the bill provides for the victims of violence is
through victim impact statements. The bill allows victims the
opportunity to speak of the harm done to them or the loss they have
suffered because of the offender. These statements will impact the
sentencing of offenders and in deciding whether an offender should
be discharged in a section 745 parole hearing.
In the past the parole board has refused to allow victims to put
forward information. This is important to me because as I am sure
all will agree the information on harm done to a victim by the
offender is relevant to the offender's parole. The victim's
experience will be taken into account and they will have a chance
to speak, which will have an important impact.
The third way the bill deals with the protection and promotion of
the rights of victims is in the area of restitution. The bill helps to
provide compensation in cases where there is family abuse. Costs
for moving, temporary housing or child support may be awarded
when the victim is a wife or family which must move from their
place, for example when the father is the offender.
(1935 )
I would be remiss if I did not speak on this bill today. I
understand and have experience with hate and discrimination and
what it can do to an individual. It is a devastating, destructive force
that must be dealt with very harshly. I have seen and lived through
periods when a name like mine was something excluded,
something different and dealt with differently. I understand what
can happen in society as a result of having a name like mine.
We must start making the rights of victims a priority. I hope in
the future the justice minister brings additional bills to the House to
improve the consequences of what victims have to suffer in society
as a result of violence taken.
I have noted that the chief of police in Ottawa-Carleton, this
area, strongly supports it. The Federation of Canadian
Municipalities have written in support of the bill.
13955
A vote for this bill is a vote against discrimination and hate
toward individuals and groups. Expressions of hate should have no
place in Canadian society and the bill sets out a commitment to
fighting hate motivated crimes.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is very simple. If a woman is sexually
assaulted that is a terrible crime. If she is violated because she is a
lesbian why should that crime be treated more seriously? That is
the key question here which we have not had answered by any of
the debate from that side of the House. That has to be answered. If
that is not answered this legislation should not be put in place.
Mr. Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, the bill talks about sex and the
various areas the judges can rule on. Too often I have seen in court
cases in which the law is not defined. There is a wide discrepancy
from one coast to the other in Canada.
The bill puts more into the system so judges can make the
decisions. When there is a sentence they will be guided as to
whether it was hate motivated, yes or no. That is what is important.
We are trying to get the message out to people that the government
will put in stiffer laws whenever there is hate motivated crime.
That should be pretty clear.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect, he has not answered my question. Why is the one crime
more serious than the other?
What I can see happening in our court cases is that this will
simply be another make work program for lawyers. It will add a
dimension to trials. They will be able to argue a crime was
motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. Rather than focusing on the
facts of the case, that a crime was committed and that the behaviour
was not acceptable, they will have another dimension added to all
of these court cases. What drives this legislation? Was it possibly
designed by lawyers? Was it designed by people like that who may
benefit?
(1940)
Our court trials are already expensive enough. We do not need
another dimension added which this legislation will add.
The question that needs to be answered is if a woman is sexually
assaulted is that not as serious as if she is violated because she
belongs to some category?
Mr. Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, anywhere there is discrimination or
motivated or planned hatred it does not underscore what the
member opposite has put in as an example. If it is a motivated hate
crime, sentencing should be dealt accordingly.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, once again I find myself debating a bill
restricted by time allocation brought in by the government and its
cohorts in the Bloc Quebecois.
When time allocation was introduced for Bill C-41, Bill C-68
and Bill C-85, the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs said
the government was forced to do so because the Reform Party had
introduced hundreds of amendments aimed solely at stalling the
passage of the bill.
When we look at the amendments introduced at report stage on
Bill C-41, we see there are a total of 25. Of those 25 amendments
only five were Reform Party amendments. How can the secretary
of state possibly claim that by submitting five of the 25
amendments the Reform Party was trying to stall Bill C-41?
How can the government possibly claim time allocation was
necessary to get the bill passed when it was tabled at report stage on
March 22? The government has had almost three months to get the
legislation passed.
It is not the Reform Party causing problems for the government
on the bill, it is a few Liberal backbenchers causing the government
so much anxiety it had to invoke time allocation to get the bill
passed with as little debate as possible.
On the quality of debate, I raise some comments made by the
member for Vancouver Centre. I am glad to see she has rejoined us
so she can hear me. I am bothered that the member for Vancouver
Centre had the audacity to question the member for Crowfoot
whether he had read the entire bill. I do not recall seeing the
member for Vancouver Centre sitting in the justice committee for
months and months listening to witnesses or going through the bill
clause by clause, trying to make it into something better.
The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore said this bill is a law of
hate motivated crime and that was the sole intent and purpose of it.
Maybe these individuals should take a few minutes off and actually
read the bill and find out it is about a lot more than hate motivated
crime. The member from the Bloc who spoke should do so as well.
This bill is about sentencing. It is about alternative measures. It is
about breach of trust by public officials and section 745, so much
more than hate motivated crime. Having sat through months of
testimony on Bill C-41 in the justice committee, it is a shame that
many of the aspects of the bill about which I have spoken have been
overlooked because of the words sexual orientation being brought
into section 718.2 of the Criminal Code and of having an
enumerated list of qualifiers.
(1945)
The hon. member for Rosedale and the hon. member for
Vancouver Centre raised the fact that the police were fully behind
the bill. As other members have said, the police association is not
behind the bill. When the justice minister was promoting his
infamous Bill C-68, the gun control legislation, he held up the
chiefs of police and the Canadian Police Association as institutions
that supported the gun legislation and asked how Canadians could
not support it. I will tell government members that the chiefs of
police and the Canadian Police Association do not support Bill
C-41. I quote the Canadian Police Association which stated:
13956
Our criminal justice system is based on both a defining statute (the Criminal
Code) and the case law which has been built up over years in its interpretation and
application. Both aspects are cornerstones of our system.
This bill attempts to codify some, and I emphasize only some, of the basic
principles of sentencing which evolved in our courts over the last hundred years
or so-This bill's approach of attempting to redefine principles will result in
endless litigation which will add millions of wasted dollars of expense to a system
that is now struggling to make more efficient use of existing resources.
The Canadian Police Association represents police across the
country, not just in Ottawa. It went on to say that it was compelled
to articulate just how ill advised the bill was and to say:
The sentencing is far too important to be saddled with as poor an effort as this
and it should be sent back to the drafting table with instructions to start again. At
this late date we urge you to do the same thing and do whatever is necessary to not
proceed any further on this bill.
Those are pretty strong statements from the police community
that was so important to the government's support of Bill C-68 but
is being totally ignored on Bill C-41. Why is its support so
important on one bill and totally ignored on the other?
When Parliament passes amendments to current legislation it is
usually done because it wishes to change the direction of the
legislation or to make up for some deficiency in law. As was
pointed out by the Canadian Police Association, the bill falls far
short of that.
The amendment about which everyone has been talking this
evening with respect to section 718.2 does not do it either. The
amendment calls for crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate to
be deemed aggravating circumstances. Therefore a greater
sentence would be applied. We have heard impassioned speeches
from the government benches about the personal injustices and
experiences they have had with respect to discrimination. I do not
doubt that. I do not doubt there are many Canadians who have been
faced with that.
The justice committee heard extensive evidence about what the
courts have been doing for years. Before passing sentence the
courts take into consideration all the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances. The courts are already giving stronger sentences
when they are based on hate or prejudice.
The motivation of the offender has always been an issue. Courts
today frequently hand out more severe penalties for crimes
committed on the basis of hate, prejudice or bias. If that is already
the case, why do we need this section in Bill C-41? Are we in effect
telling the courts that we are passing new legislation because we
want them to maintain the status quo? There is one difference,
which is that section 718.2 lists nine issues to be considered.
The justice committee attempted to determine if the list was
exclusionary, that is if the basis for hate crime is not listed in the
section can the court consider it to be an aggravating factor?
(1950 )
The hon. member across the way brought forward the fact that an
amendment was made to it. Yes, there was an amendment made to
it that added the similar factor. As is usual, in cases where lawyers
appeared as witnesses some said that the list would not be
exclusionary and others said that the list would be considered
exclusionary. If it was not meant to be exclusive why would the
government include a list?
It is obvious that people charged under this section will be
arguing as to whether or not the list is exclusive. It is equally likely
that in leaving the section as it is we as parliamentarians are
leaving it up to the courts to decide whether something belongs to
the similar factor. That is why the section should be deleted in its
entirety. I have not heard one individual state that the courts as a
whole have not been effective in taking aggravating factors into
consideration for crimes based on hate, prejudice or bias.
As I said earlier, section 718.2 received the most attention but
other areas deserve further scrutiny. One such issue is alternative
measures. The concept of alternative measures is valid. I do not
think there is anyone in the Reform Party who does not support the
concept of alternative measures.
However the bill has left far too many unanswered questions.
What is an alternative measure? We cannot answer that question
because there is no definition. There are not even guidelines on
what the provinces can decide is an alternative measure. Who
qualifies for alternative measures? That is another question that we
cannot answer. The bill just states that the person who makes the
decision must consider it appropriate. Who is this person who is to
decide if the penalty is appropriate or not? Again we do not have an
answer. The bill does not stipulate who should be making these
decisions. In fact the bill does not even state what type of crimes
are appropriate for alternative measures.
One would think that the alternative measures would not be
available to people who have previously been dealt with by
alternative measures. The bill does not say that. It may be
extremely difficult to determine if an offender was previously dealt
with by way of alternative measures because there is no need for
mandatory reporting of alternative measures. Nor is there a central
repository to determine if alternative measures have been
previously used. The sections dealing with alternative measures are
just too vague to support.
13957
Another serious issue that Bill C-41 fails to address is that of
individuals in public positions losing their positions if convicted
and sentenced to a term of incarceration. Previously a member of
Parliament who was convicted of a criminal offence could only
lose his or her position if sentenced to a term in excess of five
years.
The justice committee accepted a Liberal amendment to this
clause that reduces the necessary term of incarceration from five
years to two years. However the committee rejected a Reform
amendment that elected officials should be removed from their
positions if they are sentenced to any period of incarceration.
Perhaps it was a little too severe for the Liberals' liking but the zero
tolerance was based on reality. Members of the RCMP who are
convicted of a criminal offence lose their jobs if they spend even
one day in jail. How could Parliament permit such a double
standard?
We expect members of the national police force to have such a
high standard of conduct that any incarceration would
automatically result in the loss of their jobs. Yet when it comes to
the standard of conduct of our own, the lawmakers of the country,
we say that only incarceration in a federal institution for two years
or more will disqualify an elected official. How can the
government justify this contradiction?
However the biggest problem with Bill C-41 is not necessarily
what is there but rather what is not there. Bill C-41 is tinkering
when what is really needed is a major overhaul.
(1955)
I go back to the CPA letter which says that it should be sent back
to the drafting table with instructions to start again. It is not just
Reformers who feel that it needs to be scrapped; that is also
supported by the CPA.
We need a sentencing bill that will lock up violent high risk
offenders and keep them incarcerated until they are no longer a
threat to the public. We need a sentencing bill that will provide
offenders with a sentence that is a specific deterrent to them and a
general deterrent to others. We need a sentencing bill that provides
sentences that are commensurate with the severity of the crime,
sentences that are applied consistently and with a high degree of
certainty.
The justice system is suffering from a major lack of public
support. If we are ever to regain the public's faith in the justice
system, we must provide Canadians with laws that will really keep
our streets and communities safe.
Bill C-41 is not the answer. I ask my colleagues on the
opposition side and on the government side how they could
possibly support such a poorly written document that will infringe
on justice in Canada.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since
the hon. member personally addressed me in her speech I think I
should not only respond but ask her a question.
The hon. member said that I was not present at all the hours and
hours of committee meetings and I did not listen to the witnesses.
One does not have to be there to comprehend, to be able to read the
bill from cover to cover. That is very simple to do. It is also quite
easy to get transcripts of the committees and understand them.
I did not only deal with them to get my knowledge. As a family
practitioner for 23 years I have knowledge of what hate crimes do
to people. I worked in emergency rooms and know about people
who had come in beaten up because of their sexual orientation or
because of their race in the city of Vancouver. I have a very valid
reason for speaking the way I did.
If you discuss the abstracts of the bill, look at the fine points of
clause by clause consideration and dot the i's and cross the t's but
fail to understand the principles behind the bill or the very real part
of the bill that will affect Canadians where they live, that will affect
their lives in a very real and meaningful way, you have missed the
whole issue completely.
Does the member understand the principles?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I go to the next
member, by and large debate has been conducted in a very
parliamentary way, but I remind members that because it is an issue
about which there are some very strong feelings it is important for
the interventions to be made through the Chair.
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.
Does she fully understand why hate crimes should have
aggravating factors? Hate crimes do not only hurt physically. Nor
do they only hurt psychologically. Hate crimes leave a lasting
effect on the individual. Hate crimes cause the continuing erosion
of the self-esteem of a group that feels rejected by society.
Members of that group have no sense of self-worth. It haunts them
throughout the rest of their lives.
Does the hon. member fully understand that aspect of hate
crime?
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that I fully
understand the intent of the bill and the impact that hate crime can
have on an individual. That is why I am pleased that the courts
already take that into consideration.
(2000 )
I appreciate the fact that the hon. member is a medical doctor
and not a lawyer, but perhaps if she looked through transcripts of
trials and sentencing she would find that the courts now take that
into consideration in sentencing. They already take into
consideration that a beating might have been because a person was
homosexual or because they were of another race. They already
give more severe sentences based on that aggravating factor.
13958
I appreciate that, but I recognize that this is already happening
now and we do not need to codify it so there is more debate as to
whether or not another group should belong to that list, that
enumeration. And that will happen.
We had a case in Vancouver, which she is very much aware of,
where it was the profession of an individual that caused him to be
the victim of a shooting. He may or may not fall into this list. We
will have lawyers debating back and forth and wasting court time
when right now the courts would take that into consideration
because there is not an exclusionary list.
I would suggest to the hon. member that already the courts take it
into consideration, the judges take it into consideration. There is
absolutely no need to put a law together to specify a list. I repeat
that it is only one part of this legislation.
In case the hon. members in this House missed the point, this is
also about alternative measures that are not defined, that are not
specified as to who makes decisions, that are not specified on what
crimes or what offenders qualify or whether they get alternative
measures one, two, three, ten, or fifteen times. I think those things
have to be addressed. We cannot pass a law for one clause; we have
to look at the entirety. If the entirety of it is bad, we as legislators
have a moral obligation to see it does not become law.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley
complained in her opening remarks about time allocation, saying
that it is not her party that is stalling and delaying.
I believe the hon. member was here yesterday when Canadians
saw the Reform Party members wasting time deliberately with the
way they were voting in slow motion and making a mockery of this
Parliament. I call that a contempt of this Parliament. This is why
we have to bring in time allocation. We have not brought in closure.
They can complain about closure.
When we are dealing with members like this, I call time
allocation good time management.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, in response to the allegations from
across the floor, it is interesting that an individual on the
government side could comment about needing time allocation
when this particular legislation has been at report stage since
March 22. If the government moves so slowly that it takes it over
three months to get something from report stage to dealing with it,
from introduction to dealing with it, I do not take any responsibility
for that.
What we went through last night was giving every single
individual in this House the opportunity to make their recorded
vote, which is the parliamentary right of every member in this
House. I will not apologize to the House or to anybody else for
forcing the situation last night so that every member had the ability
to be registered as voting for or against the amendments on this
important legislation.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that in the statement of the hon.
member she did point out that right now the criminal law is
composed of the Criminal Code and the common law. All that is
sought to be done by this amendment is to simply codify the
existing common law-it is not changing the law-so the judges
and lawyers will all be aware of exactly what the law is in a very
succinct form so that-
The Deputy Speaker: The member has the same amount of time
to reply.
(2005 )
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I will be very quick.
They already have the flexibility, not looking just at a list but
looking at all factors, whether they fall under a list of enumeration
or not. The list of six or seven items is not just bias, hate, and
prejudice. There are far more areas. This is an exclusionary list that
is being put into law that will give lawyers more and more
opportunities to suck money out of the economy.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-41. In
particular, I would like to address the proposed change to section
718.2 of the revised Criminal Code, which deals with crimes that
are motivated by hate, hate being deemed an aggravating factor for
the purpose of sentencing.
More specifically, this section of the Criminal Code looks to
criminalize those who commit an offence that was motivated by
bias, prejudice, or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin,
language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability,
or sexual orientation.
This section takes into consideration that there are crimes
against individuals and then there are crimes against a group. The
latter crimes have the potential to hurt and hurt deeply and injure a
collective group of people. Hate crimes put a group at
psychological unease, deteriorating their psychological quality of
life and inducing mental injury. As we all know, mental injuries
and traumas can lead to physical illnesses, commonly referred to as
psychosomatic illnesses. However, everyone within the designated
group will be affected to some degree, some more than others.
Above all, practically every single one will feel a deterioration of
self-concept and eventually feel themselves second class citizens.
13959
It is important to take note of the fact that all of the groups
specified in the proposed legislation are afforded equal protection.
I reiterate: equal protection. For example, hate crimes against
males are treated in the same manner as hate crimes against
females. Caucasians are afforded the same protection as Orientals;
Christians the same as Muslims; anglophones the same as
francophones; heterosexuals the same as homosexuals; and
Ukrainian Canadians the same as Iranian Canadians and native
Canadians.
Each of these mentioned groups at some time or other can be
potential victims of hate crimes. All of them have been singled out
for excessive negative treatment by someone for some reason.
Why? It is ignorance, pure and simple. Ignorance is the foundation
of this negative form of behaviour. It is nurtured by someone for
someone's advantage, whether it is for control of a group, greed, or
to keep people in a state of ignorance so that they will never know
there is something better around the corner.
Fear is another controlling factor. This points out to me and to
everyone else that there is a desperate need for education,
education that will enhance the image of every single Canadian to
the point where they will feel secure in the decision making and the
choices they make and someone else who is trying to manipulate
them for some unknown reason will not degrade them, debase
them, and humiliate them to the point where their self-concept is
practically destroyed.
Remember that most people who attack other people and hate
other people have very poor self-concepts. Because of the poor
self-concept they have, they are trying their very best to knock
someone else down to a much lower level of esteem.
(2010 )
Given the above realities, one is astounded as to how opponents
of the bill can possibly come to the conclusion that any particular
group is being granted special protection. The above clearly
indicates that in fact everyone is treated equally. Yes, every hate
crime as well is treated equally.
Bill C-41 does not give special rights to anyone. It protects all
Canadians. Every Canadian has a nationality, a race, an age, a
gender, a sexual orientation, and a religious belief. If there is a
member in the House who believes he or she is an exception to this
rule, please let them stand and be counted.
Since no one has risen, I will assume I was correct in my
assumption.
Another misguided criticism regards that claim that inclusion of
the term sexual orientation would somehow serve to promote
homosexuality. This allegation hardly deserves a response. I cannot
for one moment think of a way in which this bill would serve to
promote a certain sexual orientation, or any other group protected
by Bill C-41 for that matter.
Some opponents of this bill have been misled into believing that
Bill C-41 involves changes that would include the recognition of
same sex marriages and even same sex benefits. This is absolutely
ludicrous. This bill deals with crimes in the Criminal Code, not
with same sex issues.
The civil and political rights of gays and lesbians will be debated
in a completely different context, that being within the context of
national and international human rights. Those civil and political
rights are completely unrelated to the bill that is being discussed
today. Some members in the House have been able to make the
distinction. In fact, judging from the debate I heard today and
yesterday in the House, some members have been having a terribly
difficult time in doing so.
Furthermore, I fear that some have utilized this debate as an
opportunity to voice their dislike for certain lifestyles. Although I
do agree that they are privy to their own opinions in this respect, I
most certainly believe that today's debate is not the forum for them
to voice these opinions. We must deal with this area of concern in a
rational manner and not emotionally.
Today's debate is concerned with the pressing need to prevent
offences of hate motivated violence in Canada. This distinction we
must keep in mind.
It is quite apparent that the allegations and criticisms aimed at
Bill C-41 are entirely unfounded and misleading. These criticisms
are based upon half-truths and misconceptions as well as
misperceptions.
For those who are opposed to the listing of the various
characteristics of the individual in this clause, please remember
that the hate crime section is meaningless without the list. In
several rulings the Supreme Court of Canada has warned that any
hate related legislation must be very, very precise and identify
target groups it intends to protect.
I urge all members in the House to objectively analyse the debate
surrounding this bill and make a decision based upon the principles
of justice, equity, and fairness.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan for lowering the
tensions in the room and debating on a somewhat lighter level than
we have been getting. Of course I think that is only just, because we
are dealing with a very frivolous bill.
All the members opposite who have spoken seemed to zero in on
one section of the bill. No one remembers that the bill is thick and
includes a great number of clauses many of which are as equally
bad as the one all of them seem to want to debate.
13960
(2015)
However, the gauntlet has been thrown down on that one issue
which lists and categorizes people and says that only they and no
others are entitled to protection against hate. It was a bit frivolous
when he started saying everybody has a race, a religion and so on.
The hon. member knows it goes much deeper than that. In any
event I will play on his turf and by his rules.
This is not a very hypothetical question, but if a man who
happens to be Jewish goes into the bad section of town and is
beaten half to death by somebody who wants to take his wallet,
does that man suffer any less than he would have suffered had his
assailant known he was Jewish when he was beating him? I would
like a straight answer to that question.
Mr. Dromisky: Mr. Speaker, the victim in this case has been
robbed and in the process has received a physical form of abuse
that could be very devastating. In both cases we have laws to cover
them. I do not think the attack was perpetrated by the attacker
knowing the gentleman was a Jew. Therefore I think the law covers
it and states very clearly exactly what type of treatment the
criminal must receive in this case.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
police commission has written a letter. It opposes this bill very
strongly. If the hon. member has not seen the letter, I suggest he get
a copy. It is stated loud and clear in the letter that in the courts
today there are numerous texts, illustrations and periodicals and
case law. All of that has been put together and they have been using
it for a number of years to address hate crimes. They have been
doing it very effectively I might add.
If the Liberal government thinks this is not being done, then
someone should talk to one of the Liberal members on the justice
committee who stated statistics from court trials where it was
shown that the homosexual community is third on the list behind
racial and possibly religious hate crimes. There are records of all
these things that are happening. It is presently being done. That is
why the police commission opposes this section. It is simple
duplication and is unnecessary. They know what they are doing and
they are doing a good job.
What is the real reason for section 718.2 if it is already being
done?
Mr. Dromisky: Mr. Speaker, the arguments and challenge being
presented right now are the very kind of questions that were
probably asked in the 1930s in this Chamber. In the 1930s the very
same principles were being advocated by opponents to changes in
our laws.
We have identified various groups in our society in the history of
this country who have been victimized by hate. Various individuals
have been attacking specific groups. The need arose. The need was
identified and a responsible Parliament of the day made a change in
the Criminal Code to make sure that we could protect that segment
of Canadian society from various ignorant people, as I would like
to call them.
We have reached a point in the history of this country where for
some reason or other a group of individuals is being attacked,
hatred being the main motivating factor. As a result we are taking
into consideration the need to protect this segment of our society.
That is why a change has taken place in that section.
(2020 )
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member
seems so convinced that logically the bill is defensible. Why then is
it necessary to tell all of the members on the government side how
to vote on it? Why can they not figure it out for themselves if it is
so convincingly logical?
Mr. Dromisky: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to convince
anybody on the government side as to how they should vote on this
bill. I know that members of the government are extremely rational
individuals who are very very concerned about the safety of their
compatriots, their constituents and the citizens of this country.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. The hon. member for
York-Simcoe. Perhaps it could be put on the record that by an
understanding the hon. member for York-Simcoe is sharing the
slot with the hon. member who just spoke on debate.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a privilege to rise in the House to debate an issue that is of
importance to all Canadians. I would like to take this opportunity to
express my strong support for Bill C-41.
In particular, I would like to address the sentencing provisions of
crimes motivated by hate. There has been an incredible amount of
misinformation surrounding these amendments. I appreciate this
opportunity to relay the facts and clarify any misconceptions that
may have arisen over the course of this debate.
Bill C-41 is a general bill that proposes amendments to the
sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code. One of these
amendments proposes harsher sentences for those already
convicted of crimes motivated by hate on a number of grounds,
including race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or
physical disability, or sexual orientation of the victim.
Currently there are certain hate crimes that are not covered by
Canada's anti-hate laws. These include Criminal Code offences
motivated by hatred against a targeted group which do not involve
hate propaganda such as physical attacks or murder. In the past the
law has viewed synagogue desecration as simple mischief without
acknowledging the intense pain and fear suffered by members of
the entire targeted community. Therefore, it is imperative that hate
motivated crimes be included in this bill.
13961
Unfortunately hate crimes have become alarmingly prevalent in
our society. Expressions of hate are numerous and range from
attacks by skinheads on gays to the desecration of synagogues to
the killing of a native Cree. These attacks target virtually all
minority groups and most of the time are violent and malicious.
This can no longer be tolerated.
Statistics have made it apparent that hate motivated crimes are
drastically increasing in our country. B'nai Brith has identified
over 40 hate groups in Canada. Crimes targeting specific
populations are on the rise. Hate crimes make many Canadians feel
vulnerable and afraid. We must not tolerate this any longer in
Canadian society. It is time that Canada recognized hate crimes as a
particularly serious category of crime which attacks our diverse
society. Bill C-41 sends a clear message that these hate motivated
offences will not be acceptable.
This rise in hate motivated crimes has also been recognized
across the country by police. As a result hate crime units have been
established to address the changing nature of crime. The
Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police bias crime unit has already had
an effect on hate motivated crimes in the national capital region. It
has been credited with contributing to a significant decrease in all
hate motivated crimes in Ottawa. As a first of its kind it will act as
a model for other cities seeking to address this problem.
Canadian authorities have had their hands full trying to monitor
and contain the hate movement. Bill C-41 is an important measure
to help them protect innocent Canadians from persecution and
harm. Section 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of Bill C-41 reform the
sentencing provisions for hate crimes. These amendments are
welcomed and endorsed by police units across the country.
In the past, court rulings have recognized the underlying
principle that hate motivation should be taken into consideration in
sentencing. These sections will ensure through legislative means
this principle is applied uniformly across the country.
I firmly believe that specific legislation is required to address
hate motivated crimes in Canada. These crimes are more serious
than those committed against individuals and therefore should be
treated more harshly under the Criminal Code.
(2025)
For example, it is horrible that a young man walking home
would be attacked because he was targeted as a member and
therefore a representative of a specific group. This indicates that
the crime is premeditated and committed with the specific
intention of bringing deliberate harm and persecution to a targeted
group.
Not only do hate motivated crimes make all members of a
targeted group feel vulnerable or afraid, but unfortunately by their
very nature they are often repeated crimes. Therefore, it is
imperative that we punish these crimes more harshly.
Those committing the crimes must realize that their prejudice
and hatred must not be tolerated by Canadian society and their
sentence must reflect Canadians' collective condemnation of the
crime. Only by recognizing the seriousness of these acts of
aggression and punishing them accordingly under the Criminal
Code can Canada combat this wave of hate propaganda.
Many of us assume that Canada is an open, tolerant and inclusive
society. We must not take that for granted any longer. Canada has
been changing over the past few decades. Unfortunately, some
people do not like the changes and stubbornly resist them. That in
turn creates more problems. People begin to scapegoat certain
groups as instigating the problem. This is not right.
We must not blame groups for our problems in society. It is
much easier to blame others than to seek solutions for our complex
problems. We must not fall prey to this. We must work together to
build consensus and effectively manage changes occurring in our
society. However, we must also feel that it is crucial to protect
individuals and groups from hate motivated crimes.
Hate crimes are almost invariably based upon these
characteristics: race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental
or physical disability or sexual orientation. Therefore, it is
necessary to spell out these characteristics in order to ensure
sentencing provisions in the legislation are upheld in court.
I have received letters from constituents regarding Bill C-41. In
particular, they are concerned with the inclusion of the term sexual
orientation. First, the bill does not confer any special rights, but
rather protects all Canadians. Every Canadian has a nationality, a
race, an age, a gender and a sexual orientation.
The bill will not grant special rights to homosexuals, nor will it
in any way affect the traditional family. I have assured my
constituents of these facts, but I will also take advantage of the
chance to reiterate that this is a sentencing and crime bill which
will protect all victims of hate crimes. It has absolutely nothing to
do with the recognition of same sex marriages, nor will it destroy
the traditional family.
I firmly believe that all Canadians should be protected from
vicious, targeted acts of aggression. I certainly support the
inclusion of sexual orientation as a ground for hate motivation in
the legislation. The inclusion of sexual orientation as a ground for
hate motivation recognizes the fact that criminal acts which are
intended to terrorize the gay and lesbian community are on the rise
and unfortunately have become a problem in Canadian society.
13962
The term sexual orientation has been adequately defined. In fact,
it has been used in a number of statutes in Canada, including the
human rights legislation of eight Canadian provinces. This term
has been consistently interpreted by the courts to include
heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. It does not include
pedophilia. As a matter of fact, pedophilia is an offence under the
Criminal Code of Canada.
I have also heard concerns from constituents that Bill C-41 will
endanger freedom of speech. This legislation is applicable to
offences indictable only under the Criminal Code. Bill C-41 is a
sentencing bill and will be applicable once a person is found guilty
of a crime. Church sermons are not crimes, nor is moral opposition
to homosexuality. However, gay bashing is a crime. No one,
regardless of their beliefs, will be affected by the legislation unless
they commit and are convicted of an offence which is indictable
under the Criminal Code. In addition, freedom of religious
expression is guaranteed in the charter of rights.
We cannot ignore the fact that hate crimes are on the rise. We
must not tolerate hate crimes in our society any longer. The Liberal
commitment has been very clear from the beginning. Bill C-41
merely fulfils yet another of our promises outlined in the red book.
I have always been opposed to hate crimes of any kind. I
campaigned on this election promise and I fully support the bill at
final reading.
I firmly believe that Bill C-41 is a crucial measure to send the
strong message that hate crimes will not be tolerated in Canadian
society. I strongly urge all parliamentarians to support the bill so
that we may work together to protect all Canadians.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly
noticed the strong emotion of the previous speaker. She is
committed to ensuring that hate crimes, as she talked about them,
are vigorously punished by the courts.
(2030 )
You and I, Mr. Speaker, both represent ridings in Edmonton.
There is a problem in Edmonton and other cities with the
Vietnamese gangs who have assaulted other people, white people,
because they are of a different origin. If white people were to set
upon the Vietnamese section 718.2 would certainly suggest
because of their national ethnic origin the court should look on that
quite seriously.
However, when the shoe is on the other foot and the Vietnamese
gangs are pillaging and terrorizing the neighbourhoods I wonder if
the member can explain how the bill will show the same respect
and have the courts apply the same type of punishment.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians we come
into the House and operate under certain parliamentary rules and
procedures. One of the rules of the House is that we leave bigotry
and narrow mindedness at the door before we come in.
I suggest to you that your-
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members should address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: To Canadians watching tonight, this is
another example of bogus, reverse discrimination consistently used
by members of the third party.
This legislation refers to sentencing based on race and ethnicity.
It does not specify the race of the ethnicity of the individual. If an
individual is convicted of a crime motivated by hate based on race
or ethnicity it has nothing to do with whether they are black, white,
red, yellow, green or purple.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member who just spoke pointed out one of the problems with this
legislation.
When my colleague asked about different treatments that might
be in place when Vietnamese committed crimes against whites
because of race and when whites committed crimes against
Vietnamese, she did not consider both to be discrimination. She
considered one to be reverse discrimination.
I ask the member why that is. If one is discrimination, why is the
other one not pure and simple discrimination?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, what I said was this is a typical
example members on the other side use to illustrate what they refer
to as reverse discrimination. I do not refer to reverse
discrimination. I refer only to discrimination. I am referring to the
things members opposite have used particularly in debates on
employment equity when they are constantly screaming about
reverse discrimination.
What I said, if the member opposite had been listening, was if a
person is convicted of a hate crime based on race or ethnicity it
does not matter about skin colour.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
York-Simcoe seems to suffer from the same misapprehension as
her colleagues in that she believes Bill C-41 is a bill with only one
clause. We hear nothing except the so-called hate clause over and
over again.
(2035 )
The member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan wants to play on that
field. I will join her there.
My mythical Jewish gentleman wanders into a bad section of
town and is beaten half to death by someone who does not know he
is Jewish in order to steal his wallet. On another occasion he suffers
the same type of treatment from someone who knows he is Jewish
and decides that for his daily kicks he will beat up on Jews. As an
afterthought he steals the wallet. The gentleman in both
circumstances is equally damaged and ends up in the hospital. Why
in the name of justice and common sense should one thug get a
stiffer sentence than the other one?
13963
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues on this
side spoke about different aspects, about victim impact and other
aspects of the legislation. Other members on this side have spoken
about many different aspects of the legislation. However, some of
us have been choosing to speak to the hate crime aspect of it simply
because members opposite are not getting the point. We thought we
would like to do it again and again until perhaps-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate with the
hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the things that becomes abundantly clear in this
whole debate is the Liberal Party appears to be very uncomfortable
with section 718.2.
We on this side know the bill is some 75 pages long. Some of the
Liberal members have pointed out the bill is some 75 pages long.
However, invariably every one of the Liberal speakers tonight has
zeroed in on 718.2. Why is that? The reason is they are
uncomfortable with it. They are finding themselves being put into a
position of having to defend it over and over again and their case is
getting weaker and weaker.
Now we find in this debate, which has been happening since the
bill was first introduced, the speakers becoming proactive in
jumping into 718.2 in order to fend off some questions from the
other side. If I were not comfortable with 718.2 had I presented it
as part of the government I would probably be doing the same
thing.
Tens of thousands of letters, cards and names on petitions have
come into Parliament, to members, by people who have taken the
time to read Bill C-41. They have taken the time to get an
understanding of what section 718.2 really means, what kind of
precedent it can set and what it may lead to in the future when we
come to defining some of the categories mentioned in it.
Let us not forget if this legislation passes, the term sexual
orientation will appear for the first time in any Canadian legislation
ever passed in the House. People are very concerned about that.
I understand the Liberals' current proactiveness in zeroing in on
718.2 because they want to deflect some of the questions over here.
(2040)
They are uncomfortable with it. They know it is flawed. They
know there has been a huge uprising of concern from the Canadian
people, not from the special interest groups they have been talking
to, but from rank and file Canadians across the country concerned
about this clause in the bill as well.
They all have the letters. They have the cards. They have seen
the petitions. Our Criminal Code tries to demonstrate the things we
hold dear and what penalties should be dealt should these things be
violated.
The government of the day and parliamentarians have an
obligation to listen to the Canadian people, to a broad range of
Canadian people to get the feel of the average person so when
amendments are made to the Criminal Code they will best
represent society's perception or views on what direction we
should be going in when we deal with changes to the Criminal
Code.
Bill C-41 does not reflect the views of the average Canadian
because the Liberals did not pursue a broad sampling of the views
of average Canadians. That is not their style. Instead they selected
people to attend the committees, to submit briefs from groups and
organizations, not individual views, so they could mould them into
the real Liberal agenda in the bill, something politically expedient
for that party.
This is one of the many bills the Liberals have introduced this
session that do not address the real views of the Canadian people. I
want to talk about criminal justice for a moment and tell members
about a survey so there is no mistake on some of the things I may
say tonight as to whether I am representing the views of my
constituents. Above all, unlike the views of the leader of the
Liberal Party, I am here to represent the constituents who voted and
sent me here to represent them.
I did a survey on criminal justice and I wanted to get a broad
range of views from right across my constituency. I asked 30,000
households about their views on the death penalty. Eighty-eight per
cent of the people who returned the questionnaire said they wanted
to have the death penalty returned for first degree murder. Of those
88 per cent affirming the return of the death penalty, 58 per cent
suggested it should be extended to child molesters. Fifty-four per
cent said it should be extended to rapists. Forty-five per cent said it
should be extended to drug dealers. I think members are getting an
idea of the views of the people I represent. They are my views as
well.
The point is we have a Criminal Code which our courts are
obligated to operate under. In the sentencing provisions judges are
given sentencing latitudes. The penalties, quite frankly, with the
exception of capital punishment which is not in there, thanks to the
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce a few years ago, are in the
criminal justice system already. It is not the problem of the
penalties. It is a problem with the administration of the penalties by
the judges. It is the sentencing that is the problem. The judges have
latitude and they are not giving out the penalties.
(2045)
An assault is an assault is an assault, whether it is against one
person or another person, regardless of what people's differences
may be. A physical assault is a vicious crime. A sexual assault is a
more vicious crime. An assault that causes a lifetime injury, a
disability, is a very vicious crime. There are penalties on the books
to deal with these crimes. But a government like this one does not
have the guts to encourage the judges to deal with them in a manner
that rationalizes the sentences they should be giving. That is the
13964
problem. We do not need changes to sentencing provisions. They
are already there but they are not being used. This is frustrating
Canadians all across the country.
A section in the bill deals with the treatment of offenders of
aboriginal descent. About two weeks ago a native Indian was
convicted of sexual assault. At the same time he issued a death
threat against his victim. The fellow went to court and was found
guilty. That is a very serious crime in my book and would be
considered so by most Canadians.
Even some of the bleeding heart Liberals across the way would
agree with me that sexual assault is a very serious crime. Saying:
``If you do not co-operate, I am going to kill you'', is a very serious
offence as well.
The person was found guilty. The evidence in court showed that
the person had prior arrest and convictions for armed robbery.
However, the judge with his creative thinking or because of
political pressure or the influencing forces to make politically
correct decisions, decided that instead of dealing with the crime as
one that has a specified punishment in the Criminal Code, to have a
sentencing circle. That is something new that is coming into the
country when dealing with aboriginals.
The sentencing circle of elders determined that this man who
was convicted of sexual assault and while assaulting his victim
said: ``If you do not co-operate with me, I will kill you'', who had
previous sentences for armed robberies which is a serious crime,
whether your gun is registered or not, was given a sentence of one
year banishment.
Mr. Thompson: Shame. Shame.
Mr. Harris: He was given one year banishment. He was to go
out into a remote area for a year and be counselled by some elders.
I saw an article on that in a Halifax newspaper while going
home. By the time I reached Prince George, B.C. it had hit the
Prince George Citizen the next day. My phone started ringing off
the hook and people were asking me: ``Is everyone crazy out
there?'' I said to them: ``No, just the Liberals''.
(2050)
This is the type of justice that Liberals seem to embrace. An
individual is responsible for a crime which he or she commits. But
Liberals do not believe in placing the responsibility on the
individual who commits the crime. No. The Liberal philosophy
says that it is society which is to blame. Let us penalize society.
Society turned this person that way. They are not to blame.
The fact is there are provisions in the Criminal Code to deal with
serious crimes, even the hate crimes which are pointed out in
section 718.2. We have penalties on the books now.
I want to get back to sentencing. Section 718.2(c) states:
where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not
be unduly long or harsh;
When I read that I see Pierre Elliott Trudeau and I see his former
justice minister, the one responsible for section 745. It is the
rallying cry of bleeding heart liberalism personified in the bill. Far
be it for the courts to suggest that criminals should be punished for
a crime.
Many Canadians are wondering about the existence of
concurrent sentences. Why should a criminal convicted of several
crimes serve his sentences concurrently so that he ends up serving a
sentence for only one of the crimes?
This fashion of sentencing, consecutive and concurrent, is the
number one contributor to plea bargaining, to deal making outside
the courts. The lawyers get together, have a cup of coffee and say:
``If you want to play golf this afternoon let's cop a plea and we will
get this thing over with''.
People read in the paper about someone who has been convicted
of a serious crime and got a slap on the wrist. Most times the judge
takes a bad rap for that because the lawyers had made the deal
outside the courtroom before it even got to the judge. I have a
decent enough regard for lawyers. They have to make a living too.
We took the bounty off them in our party, Mr. Speaker.
The Liberals have it all wrong in Bill C-41. They are simply
reacting to pressure from the interest groups which supported them
during the election. The Liberals are famous for that. Mr. Trudeau
probably did the best job at gathering together people from
different categories and from different groups so that when the
election came along they did not have to start talking to people
individually, they just talked to the leaders and the rest of the
people followed behind.
Our country is on a dangerous path. We would be negligent as
parliamentarians if we dared to forget that the people of Canada
have a right to decide what kind of society they want to live in. As
long as the government refuses to listen to a broad spectrum of the
Canadian people to hear their ideas and concerns, then anything it
attempts to do with the criminal justice system is going to serve
only the people who support it.
(2055 )
This is the underlying purpose of the bill. It is not to try to
address crime in a meaningful way, but rather to placate the special
interest groups that are giving the government a lot of problems
right now.
13965
I cannot in any way support a bill like this. I have had probably
in excess of 15,000 pieces of mail from my riding all saying: ``You
are our member of Parliament for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
We implore you to vote against Bill C-41 particularly against
section 718.2'' which attempts to categorize certain types of crime
based on the categories that the Liberal Party wants there.
In response to the people who sent me here to represent them I
will most assuredly vote against Bill C-41 and comply with the
wishes of my constituents, something that the party opposite is not
able to do.
Let me rephrase that. In all fairness there are members of the
party opposite, and I apologize to them publicly now, who have had
the guts to stand up and say, I am going to represent my
constituency. That is what I was sent here to do. That is what I am
going to do. I congratulate them and I condemn the whip. I
condemn the Prime Minister for the things he has said about the
people who have had the guts to stand up and vote in a democratic
fashion representing their constituents.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
a lawyer. They may have taken the bounty off lawyers in the
Reform Party but I have to rise to debate the comments that my
hon. friend has made. I want to make three or four comments. I ask
my friend to have a pen and paper handy to copy down some
sections. Then perhaps he would make a comment or two.
I have a great interest in this bill, having studied it in the justice
committee. I have been watching the debate. I note that the debate
is going back and forth. Where is Her Majesty's loyal opposition in
this debate?
The last person I saw speak was from the Reform Party, then
back to my own party, then back over to the Reform Party and back
to my own party. I do not see the Bloc Quebecois members
standing up and talking about what they think is right, whether they
are supporting this bill or whether they are not.
The justice critic stood up and said a few words. One Bloc
member addressed one of the many sections of this bill. I say
shame on a party that does not take its responsibility seriously as
Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
I want to say something about the witnesses that appeared before
the justice committee. I was a member of the justice committee that
studied this bill. It is very true that what we would call the ordinary
citizen, in other words, the person who might live on Grenoble
Street in my riding did not have an opportunity to come.
The groups that appeared before the justice committee and gave
evidence were in my view representative of all of the interests that
were concerned with this bill and in my judgment at least put
forward the arguments for and against various sections of the bill.
I do not think the Canadian people were deprived because each
and every one of the members on that committee of all the parties
took a certain approach at the justice committee and were able to
ask the questions they felt were required based on how they want
to represent their constituents.
(2100 )
I know a lot of the debate has centred on section 718.2. However,
this bill has a lot of interesting principles in it and it deals with a
number of things. We have had history lessons about Prime
Minister Trudeau and who was the justice minister here and there.
Let us find out a little bit about the Reform Party.
Section 730 deals with absolute and conditional discharges,
which may be granted by the courts in certain circumstances. Does
the Reform Party support absolute and conditional discharges, yes
or no?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Wappel: Section 731 deals with probation. Does the
Reform Party support section 731 and the concept of probation?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Wappel: Section 734 deals with fines. Does the Reform
Party support the concept of fines as outlined in section 734?
What about section 738, dealing with restitution to victims of
crime and in particular a proposal made that people who abuse their
spouses should be ordered to make restitution?
I would like to know what the Reform Party's policies are in
response to the very things that are in this bill on these points.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the hon.
member. The answer to his last questions are yes, yes, yes, and yes.
However, here we have a bill that has a lot of similarities to Bill
C-68 where it has some perfectly good legislation in it. At the same
time, because of the way the Liberals operate, it has some terribly
bad legislation in it.
This is just like Bill C-68, when we said: ``Listen, why do you
not split the bill. We will be glad to support you on the part dealing
with stiffer penalties, but we cannot support you on the
registration''. We made amendments to this bill to try to delete
some of the bad legislation that we thought was going to cause a lot
of problems. It is interesting that so did some of the members over
here. The government whip and the justice minister said no, it has
to go through.
What is happening is that we are permitted to try to take out bad
legislation here, which we have done. The member for Crowfoot
made a ton of amendments to try to get this thing so it was
acceptable by leaving the good parts and getting rid of the bad
parts. I know the hon. member made a lot of amendments himself
trying to do exactly the same thing.
13966
However, the fact is that the justice minister, cheered on by the
Prime Minister, had an agenda and just tried to ram this thing
through and God help anyone in this party who votes against it,
because they are going to answer to the whip over the summer.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when I
hear Reform members call the bill frivolous and say we are giving
people with a different sexual orientation unnecessary powers
when there is already flexibility, I say yes, judges have some
flexibility, but they are under no obligation to consider the sexual
orientation, race or gender of the victim. This flexibility applies to
all human beings. There is no obligation.
In Quebec, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we
have been using it for 17 years. We never had a problem. People
never said we were giving more power to some people on the basis
of their sexual orientation, race or gender. On the contrary. I
believe this is a very democratic exercise.
Reform members today are trying to appear holier than thou.
Today they are calling for the death sentence, and maybe tomorrow
they will call for corporal punishment for children to make them
more obedient. I think this bill is nothing out of the ordinary. It is a
good bill. I think it should be supported, and we will do that. In
Quebec, we have operated this way for a long time.
(2105)
I would ask Reform members to stop playing holier than thou in
this House. I would ask them to be logical and look at the bill as it
is, and especially to read it, because they did not read it. I have a
feeling they do not understand it very well. Maybe we should
translate it for them. I would also ask them to try to understand and
further the cause of democracy.
[English]
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of talk there.
I want to address the first thing the member said. She said that
the judges do not have an obligation. Judges are put in a position to
preside over criminal cases. They are in fact entrusted with the
responsibility and with the obligation to deal in the sentencing of
people who are found guilty of committing crimes in this country.
They do have the obligation. They clearly have an obligation. The
problem is when we get politicians who do not allow them to do
their job and want to try to influence them for politically correct
reasons or for politically expedient reasons. They interfere with the
justice system.
If judges were left alone to do their job without the outside
influence from politicians and political parties who believe that
people who commit crimes should not be convicted, we would have
a safer society.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
very brief.
I have to say that I do not think this debate is good for the
Canadian public. This is the highest court in the land. Quite
frankly, I am fed up with members of the Reform Party getting up
and either intentionally or unintentionally in their debates on their
points-they have every right to debate points here, but it seems
that each and every time they use an example about what is wrong
they use the example of a native Canadian, an Indian, as he just
said, to show that the whole sentencing structure in Canada is
wrong.
Did he use the example of an adult white male from Alberta? No.
He used the example of a native. It is the same thing when there is a
crisis in the fisheries on the west coast: they get up and talk about
native poaching.
Every single thing I have heard from this bunch opposite since
they got elected smacks of racism. It smacks of the very type of
thing I fought most of my adult life to stamp out. To hear it
repeated over and over again in the highest court in the land I think
is condemnable.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not know, was that a question?
I would like to make a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This hon.
member appears to be under the understanding that I created this
story. I did not. It happened. I read it in the newspaper. I read the
report. I did not create the idea that-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Dartmouth
very clearly called the other member stupid. I do not think it
contributes to the demeanour of this House one bit to have one
member calling another in a loud voice stupid.
There are very few of us who were in the last Parliament here,
and I can assure colleagues that the Canadian people thought we
behaved abominably in the last Parliament.
I would ask the hon. member for Dartmouth whether he wishes
to reconsider that comment.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was a member in the last
Parliament, and I do not often use language that strong. I am sorry,
but the member's comments incited me to strong language. If it is
the wish of the Chair, I will withdraw it.
I will speak later in this debate and I will clarify my comments
so that anybody who is listening will fully understand the intent of
what I just said to the hon. member.
The Deputy Speaker: I would thank the hon. member for
Dartmouth very much for that. Resuming debate, the hon. member
for Wild Rose.
13967
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), our members are to be dividing
their time from this time on.
When I go to a store and buy a box of apples, if they are half
rotten I am not going to buy the whole box. That is why I cannot
buy this bill. There are some good points in it, but it is too bad that
the merits are plumb spoiled by a number of items that are
absolutely wrong.
(2110)
I want to quickly mention alternative measures. Maybe it will
help my lawyer friend across the way to know that I agree with the
lawyers in their issue of the Law Times when they ask a question I
asked. An editorial in the Law Times asks the question: Is the
minister dispensing justice, or are his attempts at change another
failed attempt at social engineering? I could not agree more with
that law book. The minister has spent two years here trying to be a
social engineer, not a Minister of Justice. I think he needs to
straighten up his act.
I object to the alternative measures for the reasons I have
mentioned. I object to the idea that we have come up with C-37,
the tough legislation that is supposed to deal with young offenders,
and then turn around and come out with a sentencing bill that puts
in a clause that says 16 and 17 year olds who go to adult court are
still going to be treated at sentencing as if they were juveniles. If
they are going into adult court, they should be prepared to take
adult sentencing. Even children in schools have told me that is the
way it ought to be.
I want to make another quick comment with regard to something
I read in Hansard. The hon. government whip dared to say that I am
painting all teenagers with the same brush because I mentioned 16
and 17 year old hooligans. I did mention that, but I resent that
comment. Thirty years of working in a school certainly ought to
command a little respect for what I have done and how I treated
students.
I can assure the government that 95 per cent of the time I spent
with about 5 per cent of the youth, about 4 per cent of them were
disciplined and about 1 per cent were serious problems. I do not
paint them with the same brush. I reject that kind of thing.
I swear to goodness that if I were walking down the street and
there were two people beating up on another person, had him down
and were really working him over, I for one guarantee that I would
make an effort to stop it. I would not stop to ask if the victim was
gay or see if he was black or what. It would not make any
difference. I would stop it, because that is the way it ought to be.
You do not allow it to go on.
To hear these people talk, you would think I would lift him up
and say: ``Oh, you are gay, well then carry on''. How stupid can
you get? I resent those kinds of remarks and the implications.
I would like to say that I have a brother-in-law who is black. I
love that man just as much as I do any brother-in-law. His
children are also very black. I love every one of them, my nieces
and nephews. I do. I happen to know a little bit about what it is to
be involved with prejudice, because I have seen it happen to them. I
know it can happen, and it should not happen. If we think for one
moment that this kind of legislation is going to deal with it, we
have to think again. It is not.
I want to talk about one other thing that really amazes me. I
would like to find out how many employers throughout the country
hire their staff and tell them: ``You work for me, and if you go out
and break the law make sure you do not go to jail for more than two
years and I will keep you on the payroll''. That sounds pretty stupid
to me. Good grief, we are telling the taxpayers of the country that it
is okay if we go out and break the law as long as it does not cost
more than two years incarceration and they have to keep paying us
and keep us on the payroll, so we had better make sure that if we
get sentenced it is for only 18 months. Good heavens. We are pretty
good, though; we got it changed from five years to two years.
The last thing I want to talk about is section 718.2. I did not even
really want to address it. I firmly believe the courts are doing an
excellent job of handling hate crimes now. I have seen numerous
reports coming from the courts that verify that they are dealing
with it effectively. They are doing a great job in that respect.
I only wish they would do that much for every crime, so we
would not have to have caveat and other groups joining up all over
the nation crying for justice and not getting it.
(2115 )
In the nearly two years I have been in the House I have not seen
one piece of legislation that will make one person in the country
any safer, not one.
Ms. Augustine: Bill C-68.
Mr. Thompson: That one most of all. Let me consider section
718.2. If they are doing their job then why are we including sexual
orientation? That is a good question.
My, my. I heard my colleague say a minute ago that if we
included it in this legislation it would be the first time it has ever
been included. I have heard comments from the commissioner of
human rights who says that if this is put into legislation it will get
into the human rights act; it will get into the charter; and it will get
into many more things.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Thompson: That is what they want and they are making it
very clear. That is why they are cheering. That is what they want.
I am speaking for myself; I am not speaking Reform policy. I
want the whole world to know that I do not condone homosexuals. I
do not condone their activity. I do not condemn homosexuals. I do
not like what they do. I think it is wrong. I think it is unnatural and I
13968
think it is totally immoral. I think that is the opinion of 85 per cent
to 90 per cent of Canadians.
Members of the House should take the time to find out how their
people feel, wherever they are. They should read the petitions with
the table with the names of people who are against that kind of
legislation. They should read the letters they get in their offices
about the legislation. Then they would have no choice but to stand
up for the people of Canada and say: ``No, it is not going to be part
of any legislation in the country as it condones immorality''. That
is what it does.
I will object to it forever whenever they attack the good,
traditional Canadian family unit that built the country. I do not
want any changes to that family unit, including this kind of
legislation.
I am very certain the reason that section 718.2 has been included
is so that they can do it in the future. I know for a fact, having
talked to a number of Liberal backbenchers, that they feel the same
way. I know they do. I have talked to them personally.
An hon. member: They do?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, they do. I encourage them to stand for
morality and not stand for immorality when the vote comes tonight.
Listen to what the people have told you, read your mail and look at
those petitions, one to ten or better. You must vote against this kind
of legislation. Do not allow it to happen in this country. I beg of
you, do not let it happen. Stand up for your convictions. Stand up
for Canadians. I ask you to do that.
An hon. member: I have never seen a bigger bigot in my life.
Mr. Thompson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would
like the gentleman who just called me a bigot to come back in here
and withdraw. Hamilton West, the member for Hamilton West.
The Deputy Speaker: Did the hon. member for Hamilton West
call the hon. member a bigot?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Deputy Speaker: I would like to hear the hon. member for
Hamilton West if he will have the decency to come back in the
House.
The member for Hamilton West heard the point of order. Perhaps
the member for Hamilton West would wish to reply.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I will have something to say if the hon.
Speaker withdraws the remark that I do not have any decency.
(2120)
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, I realize this is a very, very
controversial matter but there are rules, there are words that are
unparliamentary. When one member calls another member a bigot
and the member gets up and expresses offence at it, I would think
that the member who has done it would be kind enough to
withdraw the term. I would ask the hon. member for Hamilton West
to withdraw the term.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat. If Mr. Speaker rises and
says will the member for Hamilton West have the decency to come
back and apologize, then I have to question the Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Secretary of State for
Parliamentary Affairs wish to speak to the point of order?
Mr. Gagliano: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think as the Chair you have
the right to keep order here, but the way you addressed the issue
was as if you agreed and made your judgment but did not give a
chance to the member to express himself on whether or not he
made that statement. I think as a Speaker of this House you have to
hear both sides before you make any judgments.
The Deputy Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to
the point of order? The hon. House leader of the Reform Party on
the point of order.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the hon. member
who made the comments has returned. Mr. Speaker, you did say, if
I understood correctly, that you thought it would be the decent
thing for the member to come back and state his case.
I agree with the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs that
the hon. member for Hamilton West should be allowed to state
whether or not he in fact used the word. He has been decent and has
come back to the House. I would ask that he state whether he would
withdraw the remarks he made to my hon. colleague from Wild
Rose.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Beauchesne's
Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citations 488, 489, 490 and 492.
In none of them is the word bigot listed as a word that is
unparliamentary.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do not know
about the member for Hamilton West, but I did call the member
opposite a big bigot and I withdraw it as being unparliamentary.
The Deputy Speaker: I would thank the hon. member for
Peterborough for the courtesy to other members in the House. Does
anyone else wish to speak to the point of order? I will call on the
member for Hamilton West one further time.
13969
Mr. Keyes: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, one further time for what? I
am not too clear on what you are asking.
The Deputy Speaker: Whether the member would be kind
enough to withdraw the word bigot that was used earlier, I
understand.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, in the interests I have of having a
respect for this House-is Mr. Speaker paying attention?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Keyes: In the interests I have for the respect of this House
and the respect I have for a colleague of this House, I will withdraw
the term bigot on the member because I too was in a heated state
with the member in debate.
But, Mr. Speaker, to ask for me to have the decency to come into
the House, I had a lot of difficulty with your remark, Sir.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for doing that.
Mr. Keyes: Thank you very much for your courtesy.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs on questions or comments.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise so that I can
compliment the hon. member for Wild Rose who is a former
educator like myself. He told the House what he would do if he saw
a fight on the street regardless of the colour of the people, the
religion, et cetera. I compliment him for it.
He like other speakers from the Reform Party complained that
the only section the Liberals were addressing was section 718.2.
The reason this side is addressing it is that-
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would
like to clarify whether the hon. member is on debate or on
questions or comments.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is on questions or
comments.
(2125 )
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, the reason we were hung up on section
718.2 is that it was all the Reform Party was addressing and we
were trying to educate the Reform Party to the fact that it was not
the only issue in the bill.
I draw the hon. member's attention to section 718. I had trouble
with some sections but I welcomed section 718 when I looked at
the purpose and the principles of the bill because I also have a
constituency where a lot of crime has crept in. Section 718 states:
The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime
prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just,
peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of
the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
Unfortunately there are some Canadians who stoop to unlawful
conduct. It continues:
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
In question period the Reform Party has been pressing this point.
Sections 718(e) and (f) are specifically important. They state:
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community;
The judges in the past have had no direction and now the bill is
giving them direction. If there is damage done to a community,
hopefully in the sentencing the judge will take that into
consideration. The criminal might be able to help the community
more by restoring the damage rather than by sitting for two or five
years behind bars.
They continue:
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of
the harm done to victims and to the community.
There is an organization called Parkdale Focus Community
Watch in my constituency. That is exactly what it is focusing on. It
wants to protect the safety of the streets and the homes of the
community.
Would the hon. member agree with what is stated in the purpose
and principles in section 718?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I too sat on the justice committee
for a number of hours going through the bill. Like I said, there are a
number of things which I really liked about it. There are some
things in section 718 that I appreciate about the bill. I think there
was some good intent.
What I cannot understand is why we had to have an all-inclusive
list. When we start making a list regarding hate we are going to
leave somebody off of it. I do not see how we can help that. At the
same time we did research on this and my hon. colleague provided
statistics which said that homosexuals were third on the list of
groups being targeted. The first was racism and I forget what the
second one was. There are statistics showing that the courts today
are dealing very effectively with those issues.
The Minister of Justice has received a letter from the police
commissions indicating that is the case. They objected to the entire
section 718.2 based on the fact that they have been doing this for
years, have built case law and have plenty of literature. They were
very effectively doing the job.
13970
If they are doing it effectively, why does the minister not listen
to the police commissions as he did on the gun bill and take that
section out? I have to assume it is because of the inclusion of
sexual orientation. I cannot figure any reason why they would
include that if it is not to extend it much more. It bothers me when
we get into legalizing adoption and spousal benefits. That is what
bothers Canadians.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have one very simple question for the hon.
member for Wild Rose. If a crime such as murder is committed
against a person who is a homosexual, or a person is discriminated
against because of their homosexuality, does the member condone
that?
(2130)
Mr. Thompson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not condone that. I
thought I had made that perfectly clear. I do not believe that any
human being in Canada should be treated in that fashion regardless
of anything. I object when people say that a particular crime
affected more people than another one.
We have a number of crimes before the court right now. I am
thinking of the Mahaffy family and the Fisher family which
affected the entire nation, affected every province. Every human
being in this country who knows has been affected.
Whether people over there like to believe it or not, any time that
happens to any human being, regardless of anything, it affects me. I
do not want it to happen in Canada. I do not want my grandchildren
to live with that threat. I am here because I want laws that will
address those problems. It is not going to be done with Bill C-41
regardless of what the clown from Kingston tries to tell us.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-41, an act to amend the
Criminal Code with regard to sentencing and other acts in
consequence thereof.
There are a number of positive aspects of this bill that I
personally find encouraging. For example, it is good to see that
victim impact statements will be allowed as testimony, though
Reform members have voiced concerns over the decision that only
written testimonies will be accepted.
One of the principle concerns I hold though lies in this bill's
further entrenching of the divisions between Canadians as outlined
in section 718.2. This entrenching does nothing to pull Canadians
together and reinforce the principles of fundamental justice. If
anything, it stigmatizes Canadians, classifies Canadians, divides
Canadians and raises suspicions between Canadians.
In the last century, one of the most controversial thinkers ever
proposed a radical view of history and society. Whether or not one
agrees with these views and opinions, most people will agree that
Karl Marx was one of the great philosophers of his age. The
theories he put forward on society's changes and conflicts rested on
one basic foundation, that our society is divided into identifiable
groups. Changes came in Marx's model when groups polarized and
fought against each other, landowners versus peasants, the
proletariat versus the bourgeoisie, or the capitalists versus the
communists. These groups would clash and fight and in the end,
society would undergo dramatic changes, he proposed.
Most Canadians today rightly refuse to have anything to do with
Marx's principles of division and conflict. The people of this
country want Canada to be a land of opportunity where anyone,
rich or poor, man or woman, can reach for their dreams and strive
for whatever goals their hearts desire. We strive for a country free
of racism and discrimination so that when we look at each other we
see nothing but fellow Canadians. Ironically, it is our governments,
not the Canadian people, which are striving to retrench and
reinforce these very divisions that Canadians are trying to erase.
It was in 1982 that the government of Pierre Trudeau brought
forward its controversial charter of rights and freedoms. This
charter did not simply declare all individuals as equal under and
before the law, it outlined the specific grounds under which people
could not be discriminated. In other words, it spelled out the
specific grounds under which Canadians could be considered equal
or unequal.
In section 15(2), much to the surprise of many Canadians, the
charter gives our governments the power and the authority to
discriminate. This charter by its language and intentions purposely
divided Canadians into identifiable groups both before the courts
and before their fellow Canadians.
Since the passage of the charter, Canadians from coast to coast
have fought against the entrenchment of these divisions in the quest
to simply become Canadians above all else, not hyphenated
Canadians, not divided Canadians. For example, Statistics Canada
became extremely frustrated during the last census because many
Canadians refused to identify their ethnic origin. They saw
themselves only as Canadians and told StatsCan this by writing
``Canadian'' on the form.
(2135)
The message they were sending is: ``We are Canadians, not
members of some identifiable group''. Despite this opposition
StatsCan is continuing to compile these figures. Without a doubt
even more questions on ethnic origins will be asked in future
censuses.
13971
It is odd that my colleague from Calgary Centre presented a
petition just last Monday calling on Statistics Canada to consider
adding Canadian to its list of backgrounds and ethnicities. There is
a message here. Canadians are tired of the divisions, tired of the
classifications. They are seeking parity. They want equality.
This brings me to Bill C-41 and the amendments to the Criminal
Code under debate today. A great deal of debate has surrounded
section 718.2 of the bill. No doubt each member of the House has
received numerous letters asking that we, as members of
Parliament, vote against this entire bill because of the section and
particularly because of the inclusion of the words sexual
orientation.
Last week my counterpart from Port Moody-Coquitlam tried to
give the justice minister over 10,000 letters from Canadians who
oppose this inclusion. As well, over 70,000 Canadians have signed
their names to over 600 petitions against this aspect of the bill.
Reports have placed the number of letters to the minister opposing
section 718.2 at over 70,000.
The reasons for opposing this section are wide ranging. For some
the reasons are based on their religious beliefs or ethical
convictions. For others the opposition stems from legal concerns.
For me the key concern is that this section once again enhances the
notion that there are no real Canadians in this country, just
identifiable groups that happen to share a plot of land on the
northern part of the continent.
I agree with the basic principle of this section, that those
committing a violent act based on hatred or bias should be more
severely punished. In Canada, after all, we oppose all forms of
violence. We look south of the border and we are shocked at the
rampant crime and brutality in many United States cities. Is it not
ironic that the capital of the United States of America, Washington,
D.C., also has the highest homicide rate in North America? It is a
tragedy none of us want to see repeated north of the 49th parallel.
More important though we are a people who from day one of our
existence have opposed discrimination. Even before Confederation
we willingly became the final stop along the underground railroad.
We provided new homes and new opportunities to hundreds of
American slaves who wanted nothing more than a taste of freedom.
Since then we have welcomed people from every corner of the
globe to taste and savour that same freedom enjoyed so many years
ago. Many have come not only for our freedom but also to
contribute to our society.
My constituents oppose and I oppose how the government is
setting aside these principles and using the bill to further entrench
these legislated divisions. The bill outlines to Canadians what
discrimination is from the federal government's point of view.
Included in the list are a person's race, national origin or ethnic
origin, someone's language, an individual's colour, sex or age, a
person's mental or physical disability, someone's sexual
orientation or finally some other similar factor.
As I noted earlier a great deal of debate has surrounded the
inclusion of the term sexual orientation. As the Canadian Bar
Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Quebec
Bar Association have noted, the lack of a definition of this term
could open the door to the legal acceptance of such practices as
pedophelia. These groups, I would like to add, are seeking a clear
definition limiting the term sexual orientation to heterosexuality,
homosexuality or bisexuality. It is a concern that has not been
directly addressed by the government.
I find it ironic that the government refuses to define the term
sexual orientation yet insists on defining and limiting the term
discrimination. Some characteristics it would appear are more
worthy of protection than others. Those singled out for attack based
on some characteristic outside of these grounds have no assurance
that they will be protected by the full force of the law.
(2140 )
For example, would this section apply to the Canadian
counterpart to the so-called unibomber, an individual well known
throughout the United States for attacking academics with letter
bombs? Would it apply in the case of people singled out for attack
because of their size or lack of strength, their accent or any number
of characteristics in this legal and legislative grey area? The fact is
we do not know.
I am encouraged that a number of members in this Chamber have
seen this shortfall. Proposals have been brought forward to
simplify this section and make additional measures apply to any
instance where bias, prejudice or hate are involved. Sadly though,
it appears that the justice minister is fully committed to appeasing
the special interests and keeping his list of characteristics in place.
To conclude, Canadians for many years have been trying to
move beyond government defined categories in the hope of
becoming one people. This bill defies this vision and tries to further
entrench these categories to appease special interests.
Canadians have clearly spoken out against these categories and
want equal protection under the law. It is my intention therefore to
oppose this bill when it comes up for final vote and I encourage
other hon. members to do the same.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
comment about what has been said in this debate tonight. I want to
compare that with a debate and question and answer session I had
which I found extremely informative in two ways. It occurred in
my riding and it concerned this bill. It occurred on a Sunday
afternoon from four o'clock until around six o'clock at the London
Salvation Army Citadel. It was about section 718.2.
13972
What was so interesting was all the misinformation that came
into that room that day with those people who came to have a
fellowship and information session. They were very concerned
about the moral fibre and changing laws in Canada.
The minister of that congregation came to see me in my
constituency office. He was very concerned. He said: ``I think I
cannot go to my pulpit any more and preach what I want to preach
in my church and this disturbs me''. I asked whether his sermon
was a criminal offence to which he replied: ``Of course not''. I told
him not to be concerned because there is no offence created in this
bill.
When I asked him what else concerned him, he said: `` There is a
slippery slope. If you do this we are going to end up over here and
all of my beliefs I feel very strongly about will be gone''. I said: ``If
that concerns you and if it concerns other constituents why don't I
come to you in your forum?''
That is what I did. We walked through this section step by step
telling them what the bill said, outlining the abuses of positions of
trust in this section that we are concerned about and the crimes that
are going on in our communities across this country. It was a long
discussion. I went through the section as it stood before the
amendments which in my opinion have actually added to it and
have made it even a better section. At the end of the day they were
very satisfied that their concerns were addressed.
I have offered that to other churches in my community. They
have not accepted my invitation to go to them and explain this
section. That concerns me. I think a lot of people think this section
does something that it does not do.
I want to comment on one other thing. When I practised law, part
of my job was with the psychiatric Criminal Code review board in
Ontario. In that part time position on many occasions I had to deal
with situations where pedophiles were involved. I want to say very
clearly it is my honest belief that pedophilia is not covered in this
bill at all. I have had to deal with pedophiles. I have been there.
(2145 )
This is not a bill that sanctions pedophilia. Pedophilia is a crime
in Canada, as I explained to the Salvation Army people that day in
the church. Pedophilia is actually a mental disorder under
DMS-IV. It was III when I was doing that type of work.
Heterosexuals often commit the crime of pedophilia. It is more
prevalent with heterosexuals.
Mr. Benoit: How do you know that?
Mrs. Barnes: Because the psychiatric evidence tells us that.
Because it is common psychiatric evidence.
Mr. Speaker, I will speak through you because it is difficult to
educate some members on the other side. It is not so difficult to go
to people when they are concerned about the real issue of this bill
and explain to them in a calm manner when the decibel levels are
not so high and say: ``This is what is really happening. We have a
Criminal Code statute. We are not addressing morality in this bill''.
It is easy to joke. I came here as a lawyer to become a politician.
I guess in some people's books I have two strikes against me. I do
not know what the third one is. Maybe it is becoming a Reformer.
I think my comments have probably used up five minutes. There
is no question to the member of the third party.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned the Canadian Bar
Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Quebec Bar
Association. They speak of their concern for opening the door to
legal acceptance of such practices as pedophilia.
While it may not be explicitly included in the legislation it
certainly gives an indication, a hint, a clue, a direction to the courts
that are already pushing well beyond the legislators. This has been
indicated in Ontario where the legislators voted it down and the
courts brought it back in. It has opened the door to question in
Alberta.
I believe we are setting precedents here that really take away the
significance of Parliament being the high court of the land.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am listening with distress as I see
this debate drift farther and farther away from what is really
relevant. The members opposite are talking about creating
divisions, conferring special rights, saying that government is
singling people out for special status.
It is not the government or the minister that is singling people
out for special status. As I said this afternoon in the House, it is the
hoods, it is the thugs, it is the criminals that are out there on the
streets singling out gays and lesbians for special status. They are
providing them with special status by hunting them down and
beating them up. This legislation is an attempt to get the Parliament
of Canada to do something about it.
My hon. friends opposite tend to forget this is a bill which has to
do with sentencing in the criminal law. The hon. member for Wild
Rose would tell us that we are condoning immorality, we are
breaking up the family unit. He does not approve of homosexuality.
We are not inviting him to approve of homosexuality.
Religion is on the list too. We are not inviting him to approve all
the religions held by Canadians from coast to coast. This has
nothing to do with social engineering, it is about the criminal law.
This is about punishing criminals which is what I thought the
Reform liked to do.
13973
The Deputy Speaker: I am reminded by the table the time has
expired but I will give the member a chance to very briefly reply.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply because the
hon. minister raises a valid point that what we are debating here is
the legislation. As was said before, a thug is a thug and should be
treated the same in every instance.
I want to remind the minister of what the Canadian Police
Association has said. It is an organization he lauded in the Bill
C-68 debate:
Bill C-41 is confused, contradictory and in large part wholly unnecessary. It is
a blatant example of what a former Liberal member of the justice committee
described as smoke and mirrors legislation. It is put forward as meaningful
sentencing reform but it is only that in the sense that it will generate endless
litigation with huge attendant costs for little or no purpose.
(2150 )
That is the statement of the Canadian Police Association about
the legislation without regard to the categories that have been
defined in this legislation.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. There have been
consultations among members of the House to the effect that a
word in the French text of the bill could be improved.
This word has to do with the restitution provisions of the bill
under clause 738. Therefore given that consultation, I would like to
move:
[Translation]
That Clause 138 of Bill C-41 be amended, in the French version, by replacing
lines 40 and 41, on page 33, with the following:
``garde d'enfants, qu'une telle personne a réellement engagé pour demeurer
ailleurs-''
I ask the unanimous consent of the House to make this change in
the French text, and I want to thank my colleagues from the Bloc,
who mentioned the need to improve the text, for proposing this
amendment. I welcome this opportunity to present it to the House.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the request of the
government whip. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to
address the House on Bill C-41. I would like to extend my thanks
to the Minister of Justice for bringing it to the House.
I should also congratulate all members of the justice committee
who reviewed the bill with a great deal of public attention focused
on them. I would also like to extend congratulations to my
colleague from Brant who has made a significant contribution to
the bill through an amendment providing restitution to the victims
of domestic violence. This amendment will make a good bill a
better bill.
My office has received many letters about this bill both for and
against. Unfortunately the majority of letters are centred around
two words found within one clause. Very few correspondents talk
of the need for sentencing reform or the need to include a statement
of the purpose and principles of sentencing.
We have heard very few voices acknowledging the broad
acceptance the bill has received from the legal community. It is
very easy to get caught up in the emotion of an argument. We have
seen that several times tonight. To argue fact and common sense
takes more skill than courage. I support this bill for many reasons
but the best of all is that our justice system and Canada as a whole
will be better for it.
Bill C-41 is very similar to Bill C-90 which was introduced
during the last Parliament. Bill C-90 died on the Order Paper when
then Prime Minister Campbell called the last federal election.
In fact, the entire issue of sentencing reform has been the topic
of study for both Liberal and Conservative governments for many
years. The bill before us can trace its beginnings to a white paper
on sentencing that was published in 1984.
Perhaps what we should do is extend our apologies to our
colleagues of the past, our proponents of sentencing reform for
allowing it to wait this long.
The Liberal version of sentencing reform contains an important
difference from the previous version. This difference which I will
discuss in detail later was in the Liberal Party red book during the
last federal election and Liberal candidates across the country,
myself included, were prepared to defend this policy throughout
the election.
I wonder why opposition members who are so vehemently
opposed to this now did not lobby their party to make an issue of it
during the election campaign.
There are three specific areas of this bill that I would like to
address. The first area deals with adding a statement of purpose and
principles within the sentencing portion of the Criminal Code. Our
role in regard to sentencing has been largely based on setting
maximum penalties for offences rather than in dealing with the
policy objectives of the sentencing process.
It would seem that we have been putting the cart before the
horse. When we create the sentencing procedure, it is right and just
for us to put forward principles that represent Parliament's
rationale behind sentencing. The statement of purpose and
principles put forward in this bill describes the objectives of
sentencing as: helping in the rehabilitation of offenders as
law-abiding persons; separating offenders from society where
necessary; providing restitution to individual victims or the
community; promoting a sense of responsibility by offenders,
including encouraging acknowledgement by offenders of the harm
done to victims or to the
13974
community; denouncing unlawful conduct; and deterring the
offender and other people from committing offences.
(2155)
In the future when the government or a private member for that
matter proposes a bill that involves a criminal sentence we will be
able to compare it to the guiding principles that have been set out in
Bill C-41. As well, criminal courts across Canada will have the
same principles to follow rather than a patchwork of sentencing
practices and principles that differ from province to province as is
prevalent now.
The second section of the bill I want to discuss deals with
changes to early parole or section 745 hearings. Currently the
Criminal Code allows victim impact statements to be read only at
sentencing hearings. The bill would allow the victim's impact
statement to be read at section 745 hearings, ensuring that a victim
has the opportunity to outline the harm done by the offender.
I should preface my remarks by saying that I was proud to
support Bill C-226 proposed by the member for York
South-Weston when it came to the House at second reading. It
will be interesting to see the recommendations made by the justice
committee when the bill comes back to the House in the near
future.
I would prefer to see section 745 repealed. If this cannot be
accomplished, the amendments within the bill are the next best
alternative. Victims should have a say in how the crime has
affected and changed their lives. Early parole, if it remains within
our criminal justice system, should be a rarity given only to
prisoners who show little likelihood of offending again and who
have served adequate retribution for their crimes.
I do not want to see a Clifford Olsen walking the streets because
of a 745 hearing. I think he would be even more unlikely to be
released if the families of those killed were able to give evidence at
the hearing. We often speak eloquently about the need to recognize
victim's rights. This bill addresses that concern. All members
should applaud the government for taking this necessary step.
The third issue I want to address relates to sentencing in crimes
motivated by hate. I worry when hatred causes people to commit a
crime. Far too often people commit crimes motivated by prejudice
and hate. In our country we have seen hatemongers spreading their
untruths at our schools, on our streets and in our workplaces. Less
than two years ago, white supremacists marched on Parliament Hill
to tell the world about the hate they felt for those who were
different from them based on race, religion, physical handicap or
sexual orientation.
After passage of this bill, a sentencing judge can use the
aggravating circumstance of hate to decide what sentence should
be handed down. This will only apply after a conviction has already
been delivered. It will allow the sentencing judge to provide for a
punishment that will make it very clear to groups that propagate
hatred and to people who follow a philosophy of hate that their
actions will not be tolerated in Canadian society. I applaud the
government for including this section. If we can keep those who
commit crimes motivated by hate in prison longer then we are all
better for it.
Unfortunately discrimination has been a constant throughout
Canadian history. We only need to reflect on the inhuman way our
native people have been treated or the citizens of Japanese ancestry
or origin during the second world war. Only 80 years ago, women
in Canada did not have the democratic right to vote because they
were not considered persons.
I took the time to look at the suffrage debate that took place in
1918. Members argued that it was against natural law for women to
have the right to vote. In this very institution members of
Parliament declared that women did not want the vote. Now we
know that view was wrong. We all realize the important role
women play in our society and the invaluable role they play within
this House. For someone to say it was against natural law to allow
them to vote seems ludicrous to us today.
(2200 )
There are people who believe it is against natural law to give a
segment of our society protection in this bill. It is quite possible
that there are members within the House who feel this group should
be denied protection. Respectfully, I have to disagree. When it can
be proven that a group in our society is facing discrimination the
law should move to protect that group. Can any of us say there are
no incidents of gay bashing in Canada?
I have heard the argument that one cannot identify someone's
sexual orientation just by looking at them. I agree. Are we then to
ask people to deny who they are? We could also say you cannot
identify a person's religion just by looking at them. We have
consistently seen religious groups persecuted throughout history. It
would be humiliating and wrong to advise citizens to deny their
differences in order to escape persecution. Instead the government
should move to assure that all such groups-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member,
but I believe he is sharing his time with the hon. member for
Burlington. If that is correct, it is questions and comments at this
point.
13975
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, justice delayed is justice denied. This legislation will
result in longer, more complex and more costly trials.
Friends of mine in the RCMP are frustrated because they work
very hard yet the courts do not mete out justice, often for some
procedural technicality. Why not bring forth legislation that would
close some of those loopholes rather than open up more of them, as
this legislation does?
The same Liberals that brought us the Young Offenders Act are
now bringing us justice in another form. I wonder if we will have
rallies about Bill C-41 in a few years.
Does dividing people into groups enhance prejudice or decrease
it? If I do not belong to an identifiable group, what if somebody
hates my guts for some reason other than the physical, mental or
behavioural characteristic that makes me part of a group? Why
does hate have to fall into a certain category as defined by a Liberal
in order for it to be more serious than some other kind of hate?
Mr. Finlay: Mr. Speaker, I think people divide themselves into
groups in a very natural way. They have been doing it for several
thousand years. I do not think we will stop it.
The society I want to live in and the society I want my
grandchildren to live in is one based on love and understanding and
acceptance of people for who and what they are. I want people who
extend their hate to crime to be punished severely.
I think all members of the House need to vote in favour of the
bill. It is long overdue.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
House it has been said Liberals want this law so there is an
obligation on the courts or the judges to sentence in a certain way.
We on this side of the House have said judges now have flexibility
to apply and sentence. This tells me there is a lack of trust and
confidence in judges. Why?
Mr. Finlay: Mr. Speaker, in light of everything I have heard in
the House today, the member's question is obviously backward. We
do trust the judges but we have heard nothing but how they do not
do this or that, or they let people out too soon or do not give
sufficient sentences for this, that and the other thing.
(2205 )
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak on Bill C-41. This bill is important. It takes the
necessary leadership role to set standards of fairness and equality
for all Canadians in our criminal justice system.
Perhaps because of the campaign or the crusade by the member
for Central Nova we have missed some of the other principles of
the bill. We have forgotten that it codifies the principles of
sentencing, that it formalizes victim impact statements and that it
brings about changes which help to restore the balance in domestic
disputes.
Last summer I met with lawyers from my community and over
the past year I have met with many people in Burlington about the
bill. Their conclusion is that with the increased attention to the law
by lay people we need to spell out clearly the goals in sentencing.
The bill clearly codifies those principles.
Sentencing should denounce unlawful conduct. It should deter
offenders from committing crimes. It should work for
rehabilitation. It should promote a sense of responsibility in
offenders and it should make reparation to individual victims and
families and acknowledge the harm done.
This bill will work to make sure fewer Canadians will be
imprisoned for non-payment of fines, fines which in many cases
were assessed at a level prohibited to the individual.
Section 718 formalizes the victim impact statement process.
Victims groups such as CAVEAT have long supported this section.
An exciting initiative out of the backbench of the government
and from a member of the Liberal women's caucus is the change to
section 738, the restitution section. I am pleased the amendment
moved by the member of Parliament for Brant, which was accepted
by the government, will allow for much broader consideration of
the impact of domestic disputes when making restitution orders. In
tabling her amendment my colleague stated that victims of
domestic violence should not have to deal with economic hardship
in addition to the obvious physical and emotional trauma that is the
result of a violent situation.
The amended section 738 of Bill C-41 will empower judges to
order compensation to battered spouses forced to move out of their
homes. This would cover costs such as temporary housing, food,
child care and transportation as a result of the crime.
On section 718.2, the hatred section, the debate on this has
exposed some of the depths of hatred in Canada and I find that
unfortunate. I think the support the bill has received from many
church organizations and from many individual Canadians says
something about the real value of Canadians. Although we like to
believe we are a tolerant and moderate society, it is harrowing to
find out that in Canada we have active groups whose philosophies
are based on hatred of others.
Names of groups which are recognizable to all of us, Aryan
Nation, the Heritage Front, Church of the Creator and the Aryan
Resistance Movement are actively recruiting today in Canada and
they are particularly targeting young Canadians. There are over 40
organized hate groups in Canada. They are using techniques they
perfected in the United States and they are accessing Internet in the
most evil way.
13976
In 1993 youths were charged in Montreal for beating up a man.
They admitted they were engaging in an activity called the game,
seeking out homosexuals with the intent of beating them up.
Police across the country are setting up crime units to deal
specifically with hate crimes, responding to a concrete reality and
need to end this violence. They adopt these units not because they
approve of the gay lifestyle or they want to promote homosexuality
but because in the exercise of their police functions they recognize
there is violence and it is their job to protect and provide security
for all in our community, particularly those who are members of
groups most vulnerable to hatred.
From B'nai Brith we learned that in 1993, 256 reported incidents
of anti-Semitic harassment and vandalism occurred. That
represents a 31 per cent increase since 1992, the most incidents
ever reported by the league in the 12 years since it has kept
statistics.
In Ottawa-Carleton in the last two years there were 387 cases of
hate based crime. There were 105 charges laid; 215 of the cases
were based on race, 110 on religion and 45 on sexual orientation.
We must use education, community action, intercultural coalitions.
We must use all of these techniques, where hate crimes need to be
addressed and where we can make a difference as well is in our
legislation.
(2210)
This bill has two goals: first, to send a strong message to
persecuted communities that violence against any person or group
is unacceptable and that our laws will take action in that regard;
second, it encourages victims to come forward, allowing the police
to get a true handle on the extent of the problem, work on educating
people and work against this hatred.
Committee members who were listening learned from B'nai
Brith that at its base a hate crime is not like a robbery for the
purpose of obtaining goods. Hate crimes target not only the
physical victim but the entire group of persons who share the same
skin colour, the same language or the same religion. These acts are
intended to violate, intimidate or isolate. They are intended not
against just the victims but against the entire group.
When a rock comes crashing through someone's house in the
middle of the night with a bomb threat simply because that person
is a Muslim, other Muslims in the neighbourhood are terrorized.
That is the goal of the hate monger, to terrorize whole
communities. When survivors of the Holocaust see a swastika
painted on a synagogue, and they thought they were safe in their
Canadian community, suddenly those community members are
fearful.
Reform members need to remember that when hate groups target
what they perceive to be minorities their intention is to divide those
minorities and separate them from the rest of the community. They
isolate them in order to make them easier targets for attack. Once
they have targeted one group they never stop with that group. They
keep adding to them, to their targets. They never stop with Jews.
They never stop with gays. They enlarge their sphere of activity.
To allow hate motivated violence and hate propaganda to go
unpunished or uncontrolled through personal or collective
indifference on the part of community leaders or public officials is
simply to allow hate discrimination and violence to become
acceptable norms of behaviour and standards of contact. On page
86 of the red book the Liberals campaigned on equality for all
Canadians, including freedom from hatred and harassment.
The list of characteristics in section 718.2 identifies those
groups, those people most frequently targeted for hatred as per the
information from the justice department. It does not confer special
rights to any one group because every person in Canada is covered
in this list.
We all have a sex, we all have a race, we all have a nationality,
we all have a religion and yes, we all have a sexual orientation. To
say including sexual orientation in Bill C-41, particularly in this
section, is encouraging a lifestyle is like saying that because we
have included religion we are encouraging people to become
Catholic or that including gender is to encourage members in the
House to become women instead of men.
Remember, Bill C-41 takes effect when a crime has been
committed. The proposed section comes into full force only after a
criminal conviction has been registered. The bill does not create
new crimes. It only requires judges to consider it as an aggravating
factor if the crime was motivated by hatred.
I quote from Martin Niemöller, the German theologian: ``When
Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew and therefore I was not
concerned. When Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a
Catholic and therefore I was not concerned. When Hitler attacked
the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions
and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the
Protestant church, and there was nobody left to be concerned''.
For the sake of all Canadians, for the sake of all children in
Canada, based on the values of fairness, equity and justice taught to
me and my family and in my church I encourage colleagues to
enact Bill C-41 as soon as possible.
(2215 )
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I find this a very disturbing discussion. It is implied by the
hon. members who were speaking-I heard the last three
speakers-that somehow by opposing this bill one is in favour of
crime, hate crimes, crimes of passion, whatever. We are not.
Reform is not.
13977
The problem we face is that so much of what is being asked of us
involves a curtailment of one of the most fundamental rights in a
democracy. Some countries have established in their constitutions
limits on government to pass legislation that restricts the freedom
of speech. It is about the freedom of speech for people to say
whatever they want to say. It is not possible to suppress this without
going down a very slippery slope in the destruction of democracy.
The problem is that when anyone takes words and transfers them
into violent action, that is when we should come down on them
with a ton of bricks, not when they are saying what they believe.
Where does one draw the line?
There have been Parliaments, there have been legislatures
around the world, people with even greater indignity and
self-righteousness than the speakers we have heard tonight, who
say they have the solution to all the problems of mankind: all we
have to do is shut down the ability of that person to speak.
The founding fathers of the United States have said that this is
one of the greatest dangers to democracy. Nobody is in favour of
those crimes. But what we are talking about and what I have heard
being said here is that we must go to thought control, to speech
control, and that means the end of our freedom. That is why I will
vote against this bill.
Ms. Torsney: Mr. Speaker, it is troubling when we have sat in
the House and debated a bill for many hours to find out that my
colleagues do not even know what bill we are debating.
Bill C-41 is a sentencing bill. The actions that are in here only
come into effect when someone has committed a crime. First you
have to assault somebody, and then the judge has to consider a
sentence. This is what this bill uses.
This bill specifically targets anti-hate. It is one of many tools we
as leaders in our community can use. I call on the member not to be
indifferent on hate crimes, to use every tool in his power and to
vote for this bill. It is important to all Canadians, who do want
freedom of speech. It is not about freedom of speech. It is about
when people take action based on their hatred. When they assault
somebody, then we look at this.
I am sickened to hear that we have had this much debate and he
has just figured out that it is a sentencing bill. Perhaps all of us
need to go back to the books and do some reading.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to applaud my hon. colleague who just spoke on her
commitment to fairness, equity, and justice.
In a recent issue of the student newspaper in Ottawa's Carleton
University there was a cartoon depicting a smiling female carrying
a large hunting knife and asking women whether their lives would
be helped by the total elimination of penises. Another cartoon
showed her holding a dripping axe over the heading ``No guilt''.
I would like to ask my colleague why she can support a bill that
would consider hatred against some groups more serious than
hatred against others. The group that was the object of these
cartoons is not listed in Bill C-41.
Ms. Torsney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is the most important
reason why there are not definitions on gender, on sexual
orientation, on race and on religion, because men have a gender.
They are male.
(2220 )
If one of those women attacked a man on the basis that he was a
man, they could use this bill in considering that an aggravating
factor.
If a group of homosexuals attacked somebody on the basis they
were heterosexual, that person could use this section of the bill to
get a tougher sentence against those people.
If you are attacked on the basis you are a Jehovah's
Witness-and unfortunately that has happened in Canada on many
occasions-if it is perceived you are a Jehovah's Witness because
you happen to be wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase, as many
of us were during the campaign, the person could use that and the
prosecutor could seek a tougher sentence and ask the judge for a
tougher sentence because all people with those characteristics are
at risk when people commit hate crimes in Canada.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to participate in this debate as well.
Most of the debate has focused on the sexual orientation aspect
of section 718.2. I too have received a strong response from my
riding and from various Canadians across the country on this. Their
main concern seems to be that the term is not defined and that the
consequences of it being in the bill remain unknown.
Arguments against including the phrase have been presented at
great length. I would like to focus more on the effect of having
greater sentences for some crimes versus others. In this bill it is
based on hate, which is an emotional or human response.
Another concern I have is the categorizing of conditions. I do not
really think I have to be anything as far as religion or whatever is
concerned. If someone assaults me I should have the right under
law to extract a sentence on that.
13978
I would also like to look at the reason we are having such
difficulty with crime in this country. We all agree that we have a
crime problem and that we have various groups that are making life
very difficult for us. I would like to try to figure out what has
happened. What happened to our justice system that has turned
things around?
This brings me to a philosophical concept. Over the past 30-odd
years we have seen a gradual erosion of the concept of law. In
moral philosophy there are two opposing ways of looking at a
situation. One school of thought is represented by the German
philosopher Immanuel Kant in his Grounding for the Metaphysics
of Morals. Kant argued that actions should be based on the intent of
a person doing the action and not the consequences of the action.
Kant himself said: ``An action done from duty has as its moral
worth of that action not in the purpose that is to be attained by it but
in the maxim according to which the action is determined''. Again
that is an implication of intent. He is basically saying that it does
not really matter what the result is of what you do; what matters is
why you wanted to do it in the first place.
The opposing view is presented by the British philosopher John
Stuart Mill in his work Utilitarianism, where he argued that actions
of individuals should be based on the consequences of the action.
He was more concerned with the consequences of an individual's
action than he was with the intent behind the action.
(2225 )
An easy way to get a better understanding of that concept would
be the example of one person striking another one. Kant would
want to know why that person struck another, what motivated him
to take that action, whereas Mill would come up with the fact that
the person was indeed struck and that in itself is the offence.
One might ask what all this has to do with the bill today. I firmly
believe that the intent of the Canadian justice system has changed
from addressing the action involved and the result of the action to
now trying to address intent and be psychologists and psychiatrists
in the court system.
We also have come into other problems that could very well
relate to this switch in the philosophical approach to how we view
our justice system. We talk about criminals getting more rights
than victims, for example. Well that follows my argument that if
we are looking at why somebody does something we are not
looking at the person who is dead, the victim.
There are a number of things that have happened in our system
that bring me to think there has been a definite switch in
philosophical views or actions in our society and we have switched
from the Mill concept to the Kant concept and are stressing more
and more the intent aspect.
This first started to erode when we looked at the state of mind
component from the point of view of mental illness and people
who were involved in some sort of crime who were mentally ill. We
tended to forgive their crime to a certain degree because they knew
not what they did. From there it gradually evolved to where we
even got into debates involving drug abuse, for example: I take
drugs or I drink and because I am in that state from the inducement
of drugs I am not responsible for what I do.
I see this intent business getting totally out of hand. The point is
that it does not really matter what your emotional state of mind is,
when you kill somebody they are dead and that is the end of it.
We have to try to create situations where people who need help
and who can be harmful to others or themselves can be treated
before they end up in our courts so we do not have those kinds of
situations.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 299)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Daviault
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
13979
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-168
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McTeague
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wappel
Wayne
Williams-51
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bethel
Brien
Calder
Canuel
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Copps
Crawford
Debien
Deshaies
Dupuy
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Hickey
Knutson
Lalonde
Laurin
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mercier
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Venne
(2250 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-89, an act to
provide for the continuance of the Canadian National Railway
Company under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the
issuance and sale of shares of the company to the public, as
reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Speaker: Order. I want to make a ruling for the groupings
on report stage of Bill C-89.
There are 16 motions in amendment standing on the Notice
Paper for the report stage of Bill C-89, an act to provide for the
continuance of the Canadian National Railway Company under the
Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of
shares of the company to the public.
13980
[Translation]
Motion No. 16 is identical to a motion we considered and
rejected in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order
76(5), it will not be selected.
[English]
The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows: Group
No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 4.
Group No. 2, Motion No. 5.
[Translation]
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 6 to 11.
[English]
Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 12 and 13.
[Translation]
Group No. 5, Motion No. 14.
Group No. 6, Motion No. 15.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 4 to the House.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-89 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-89, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 23, on page 6,
the following:
``(8) This section ceases to be in effect five years after the coming into force
of this Act.''
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-89, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 23, on page 6,
the following:
``(8) Paragraph (1)(c) ceases to be in effect five years after the coming into
force of this Act.''
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-89, in Clause 9, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 27, on page 6, with the following: ``jurisdiction''; and
(b) by replacing line 31, on page 6, with the following: ``section 8(1); or (c) sell
any subsidiary or part of the operations of CN unless CN and the purchaser have
given the Minister written undertakings, in terms satisfactory to the Minister,
that all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that it will continue for a
reasonable period as a viable operation and that the interests of the employees
affected by the sale will, so far as is practicable, be maintained after the sale.
9.1 The Minister shall, in respect of every sale mentioned in paragraph 9(c),
cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament the undertakings given
pursuant to that paragraph.''
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will say a few words with regard to the amendments I
have submitted and then I will defer to my colleagues for debate.
The first two motions deal with the restrictions the government
has placed on the sale of CN shares dealing with the requirement
for the head office to remain in a particular location. I would like to
point out to my colleagues from the Bloc that this is not a Quebec
issue. I do not care if it is Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver
or some obscure place no one has ever heard of, a company should
not be tied down to any location. It should be free to choose.
With regard to the 15 per cent shares, I feel that places
restrictions. We heard in committee that it did not solve any
problems but it could create some in the long term. Consequently,
we have to view this as an unwarranted restriction.
The third motion deals with if the government does not see fit to
remove these then perhaps it would at least see fit to put a time
limit on how long it requires the company to comply with this. It is
an attempt to put in a five year sunset clause.
The only comment I would make with regard to Motion No. 4 by
the Bloc is that I understand why the Bloc is doing it but it is a bit
overrestrictive in terms of creating more obstructions in the way of
the sale. We believe this can be dealt with in other more appropriate
ways. Beyond this, I defer to my colleagues for debate on this
grouping.
(2300)
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak to Motions Nos. 1 to 4 in Group No. 1 on
Bill C-89.
Motion No. 1 calls for the deletion of the head office clause
which stipulates that CN's headquarters must reside permanently in
Montreal and calls for the deletion of the 15 per cent ownership
restriction.
In today's marketplace the stipulation of the permanent location
of a head office is absurd and makes a mockery of a bill of serious
intent. This whole question of permanence reminds me of a story of
a fellow who applied for a job with a previous employer. When he
was offered the job he asked whether it would be temporary or
permanent. The response was in that company there were no
permanent jobs. This stipulation would not occur in a free market
and no private sector companies face these same restrictions. This
is purely for political reasons and should be expunged from the bill.
13981
As well, restricting the percentage of shares any one individual,
corporation or association may own is not sound. Where is the
incentive for new investors to bring in a new management style to
revitalize this dinosaur? To which latest investor advice fad is the
government listening?
This clause also restricts the best price CN could fetch in the
marketplace. As one investor put it, the 15 per cent restriction
circumscribes the deal. This restriction dampens investor
confidence and freezes out the type of investor who looks for
troubled, debt ridden companies that can be restructured and made
profitable, generating dividends and capital gains. I support Motion
No. 1.
Under Motions Nos. 2 and 3 of Group No. 1, I support the
introduction of a sunset clause of a five year time limit on the
headquarters and ownership restrictions should Motion No. 1 not
carry.
Motion No. 4 calls for parliamentary approval on each offer
made by the private sector for CN assets. This is redundant. If Bill
C-89 passes Parliament has already given its approval for the sale
of CN. I will not support Motion No. 4.
If the government cannot attract a good offer it will have to
answer for that later.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, despite the late hour, on our
fourth amendment, which reads as follows:
That Bill C-89, in Clause 9, be amended;
(b) by replacing line 31, on page 6, with the following: ``section 8(1); or (c) sell
any subsidiary or part of the operations of CN unless CN and the purchaser have
given the Minister written undertakings, in terms satisfactory to the Minister,
that all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that it will continue for a
reasonable period as a viable operation and that the interests of the employees
affected by the sale will, so far as is practicable, be maintained after the sale.
9.1 The Minister shall, in respect of every sale mentioned in paragraph 9(c),
cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament the undertakings given
pursuant to that paragraph.
(2305)
You will have noted with the reading of the amendment that our
party's principal aim was, despite the Liberal government's
decision to privatize CN, to maintain and keep jobs, because
behind privatization or the end of business, although economic
aspects are certainly sometimes given consideration, the human
element, the experiences of the people affected by changes in their
working conditions or even the cutting of their position, must be
considered.
You will note that the aim of this amendment is to give this
House a certain right over the selling of CN assets, not directly
related to rail transportation.
Our decision, in the Bloc Quebecois, to table this amendment
was based on the statement made several times by the Minister of
Transport that he intended to sell off individually the assets of CN
not directly related to rail transportation. Being familiar with CN
operations, we know that one of the largest CN subsidiaries to be
sold is AMF Techno Transport, located in Pointe-St-Charles, in
Montreal. We are talking here about 1,300 jobs, 1,300 workers
who, unfortunately, saw their company lose some $35 million last
year.
When the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on
Transport, he told us that, in his opinion, AMF had a very
precarious future and he refused, despite our questions, to
guarantee its survival. As you can understand, the loss of this
company would have disastrous consequences for the greater
Montreal area.
One European company, however, showed interest. Alsthom is a
French company that can brag about its major contribution to the
high speed train in France, in partnership with none other than the
pride of the Quebec business community, Bombardier.
Alsthom has no North American subsidiary that makes railway
equipment. AMF Techno Transport, which is located in
Pointe-St-Charles, could thus easily become its bridgehead in
North America, which would have a very positive impact on AMF
and the greater Montreal area.
Before closing, I wish to add that perhaps if we gave Alsthom the
possibility or the incentive to take over AMF-this is the purpose
of our amendment- I am confident that Quebec would be in a very
good position when the decision is finally made to build a high
speed railway corridor between Quebec City and Windsor.
Let us not forget that Alsthom Bombardier holds an exclusive
licence for building a high speed train or HST in North America.
(2310)
Let us not forget that about seven or eight HST projects are
planned for the next 12 years, which would put the new Alsthom
AMF consortium in an excellent position to bid on contracts to
make railway equipment for future HST projects in the U.S. Or that
economic benefits in the order of $200 billion are being mentioned.
Again, a Quebec manufacturer could very well succeed on the
international market.
In closing, I will say to you that the purpose of the amendment is
to ensure that, whoever the buyer is, precautions will be taken to
keep AMF viable and to protect the jobs of the Montreal men and
women who work there as well as those of the people in the greater
Montreal area.
13982
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the issue
we are discussing today is the privatization of Canadian National
rail.
Although Reform supports the government in this endeavour
there are still some problems with this legislation that must be
addressed. The bill requires the headquarters of CN to be located in
Montreal permanently. It includes the restriction that limits the
percentage of shares any one individual can own to 15 per cent.
CN Rail currently owes about $2.5 billion. Industry
representatives say the debt must be reduced to $1.5 billion to
achieve a BBB bond rating and sell. The minister has the power to
reduce CN's debt to any amount he chooses, which could mean an
amount well below the amount for which taxpayers would see a
return.
Let us take a look at crown corporations. In the auditor general's
report of 1982 this is what was written: ``Crown corporations are
like an enormous iceberg floating lazily in the foggy Atlantic,
silent, majestic, awesome. The public tends to see only the upper
portions consisting of giants like Petro-Canada, the CBC, the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The great bulk of the
iceberg below the surface is less spectacular, less likely to attract
public interest, less likely to receive the attention of Parliament, yet
costly to taxpayers''.
That was 12 years ago and nothing has changed. In his 1994
annual report to Parliament the president of the Treasury Board
gave us a view of this iceberg below the water line when he listed
the Government of Canada's holdings: 48 parent crown
corporations, 64 wholly owned subsidiaries, 5 mixed enterprises, 3
joint enterprises, 51 other entities, 8 corporations under the terms
of the Bankruptcy Act.
Reform Party policy on privatization and corporations indicates
we support placing the ownership and control of corporations in the
sector that can perform their function most cost effectively with the
greatest accountability to owners and the least likelihood of
incurring public debt. We believe this would be in most cases the
private sector but not necessarily in all cases.
The Liberal position which I had to try hard to read in the red
book says that for the past decade the small and medium size
business sector has been the engine of the Canadian economy. It
says the Liberal government will focus on its growth. While
debating Bill C-89 on May 2 the Minister of Transport stated:
``This legislation is part of our government's intention to have the
private sector operate in areas where it can do the job best''.
The Minister of Finance said in the budget last February: ``Our
view is straightforward. If government does not need to run
something it should not and in the future will not''.
Let us get to an analysis of what the government's role should be
when it comes to privatization and/or crown corporations, some
general points. The role of government should be to do what only
the government can do, which is to keep peace, order and good
government. It should regulate, administer, pass laws and defend
borders but it should not enter the marketplace to create jobs. With
regional development funds, grants, subsidies and crown
corporations, governments distort the private sector, create
temporary jobs and promote unfair competition within industry
sectors. Governments are, in fact, part of the problem and not the
solution.
(2315)
There is a big difference between the spending of debt capital
that is borrowed money and equity capital that does not have to be
repaid. The private sector understands the difference and it is time
politicians did too. At risk money motivates; government money
wastes.
In some concluding comments I would like to state that the
government's role in today's world should be to develop an
economic atmosphere, an environment and infrastructure that
facilitates investment, not make the investment itself directly. The
private sector will do that. The Reform Party believes in the
principle of Bill C-89 and the privatization of CN Rail.
We would like to see some of the roadblocks removed from the
legislation and we hope the government will accept our
suggestions.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
support motion No. 4 amending Bill C-89. That motion, tabled by
the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, seeks to
give the House a say in the sale of CN's assets which are not
directly related to railway transport.
The minister said on several occasions that he intends to sell off
one by one those assets which are not directly related to railway
transport. One of CN's major subsidiaries, AMF Technotransport,
located in Montreal's Pointe-Saint-Charles, will be sold in that
fashion. Last year, that company, which employs over 1,300
workers, suffered losses of some $35 million.
When he appeared before the committee, the minister said that
AMF's future was precarious, but he refused to pledge to ensure the
company's survival. Yet, should AMF close its doors, the
consequences would be disastrous for the Montreal region. CN
workers fear that privatization may deprive them of their job
security and pensions. In fact, the process has already started.
Today, the media announced that the arbitrator just imposed a
new collective agreement which, among other setbacks, provides
less job security. The CAW union, which represents some 12,500
CN workers, made representations concerning the privatization
13983
process. The workers have already had bad experiences with the
privatization of two sections of CN: Route Canada and AMF.
In the case of Route Canada, the new owners bought the
company and then shut it down, thus putting over 2,000 workers on
the street. AMF, which is now a CN subsidiary, did not recognize
the collective agreement. It took the courts over a year to restore
the workers' rights. Several unions represent CN workers,
particularly, as I just mentioned, the CAW. Overall, the unions are
in favour of maintaining CN's Crown corporation status, but they
want to be represented on the board of directors.
It should be pointed out that these workers are very productive.
Following very tough negotiations and sometimes long strikes,
they managed to get acceptable and reasonable salaries and
working conditions. However, CN's management obtained, and
continues to demand, concessions from the unions, including on
the issue of job security. However, job security, which is only one
element, was gained in exchange for other concessions.
(2320)
Therefore, unions are concerned about the future since there
have been massive layoffs over the past few years. Moreover,
management positions have not been affected to the same degree.
I believe it to be urgent to improve labour relations at CN, a task
which should be mainly the responsibility of the company's
management. Unions, and the workers they represent, are worried
about their jobs. This amendment seeks to maintain some degree of
job protection for workers.
The bill contains no provision protecting the CN workers' vested
rights or maintaining the present level of employment. This is a
very important issue for workers. They do not want to find
themselves without a job in the new company. As I said, the
problem is the same for the employees of the sister companies such
as AMF Technotransport, in Montreal. The vast majority of CN
employees have more than 20 years seniority.
I will monitor the new company to make sure it abides
scrupulously by the collective agreements in effect in this Crown
corporation. I intend to monitor closely the transfer to the new
employer of the rights and obligations under these agreements.
[English]
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the first grouping.
I must apologize, I was told by the opposition that they had more
than one speaker on the motion. If I could, I would like to deal with
Motions Nos. 1 through 4, specifically on clause 8.
Motions Nos. 1 to 3 propose either the removal or sunsetting
after five years of the 15 per cent individual ownership restriction
and the stipulation that CN's headquarters remain in Montreal.
The government chose to include a 15 per cent individual
ownership restriction in the bill for a very specific purpose. Since
the public share issue of CN will be the largest in Canadian history
and likely could not be absorbed wholly by Canadian investors,
access to foreign markets will be essential for the success of this
deal. Any form of foreign ownership restriction would be viewed
negatively by foreign investors and could result in a significantly
reduced demand for CN shares, even jeopardizing the
government's ability to sell 100 per cent of the crown corporation.
However, in order to ensure that no individual, Canadian or
otherwise, would be able to attain control of CN, the government
decided to include a 15 per cent individual ownership restriction.
This is a balanced approach which would allow investors to buy a
substantial piece of the company and have some influence over its
future direction without enabling them to take it over. Since this is
not expected to impact on the value of the CN shares, there is no
call for either removing or sunsetting the stipulation.
With respect to CN's headquarters, it has always been located in
Montreal and there is no reason to expect that to change. Indicating
that it will remain there sends a message of stability and
consistency with past practice to the workforce and investors. It has
absolutely nothing to do with politics but everything to do with
good business.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 1 negatived.)
(2325 )
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is the
House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
13984
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded
division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Because Motion No. 1 was defeated, we now have to put the
question on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, we have just voted on Motion No. 1
which is appropriate. Motions Nos. 2 and 3 could be voted on
together. That would work.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Then I will put the question on Motions Nos. 2
and 3. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: I take it that the House wants to vote on both
motions together. Is that correct?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motions will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motions Nos. 2 and 3 negatived.)
The Speaker: My colleagues, we will now proceed to Group No.
2 which is Motion No. 5.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.):
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-89 be amended by adding after line 13, on page 7, the following:
``11.1 (1) On continuation day and during the initial period following
continuation day, neither the Minister nor CN shall sell or otherwise dispose of
shares to persons who are not Canadian persons.
(2) In subsection (1)
``initial period'' means ninety days or such longer period as is set by order of the
Governor in Council;
``Canadian person'' means
(a) an individual who is a Canadian citizen or who has the right of permanent
residence in Canada, or
(b) a corporation registered in Canada the majority of the voting shares of
which are held by
(i) individuals mentioned in paragraph (
a), or
(ii) corporations, the majority of the voting shares of which are held by
individuals mentioned in paragraph (a).''
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain why I have put
forward this motion. It addresses the very point that the
parliamentary secretary addressed when giving his explanation of
the 15 per cent under the former grouping.
This will protect and give an opportunity to Canadians to buy
shares and address the concerns that could only be dealt with by
putting in another restriction. I would defer to my hon. colleague
from Lethbridge for debate on this motion.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to make a few remarks. First of all, I would like to express my
support for the privatization of CN. This is the proper move at this
time.
To put it in economic terms, for example, the Government of
Canada at the present time has a $550 billion debt. That is of major
concern to Canadians. Canadian National has an accumulated debt
of $2.5 billion which is an encumbrance on the people of Canada. It
is time to privatize and bring an operation like this one into the
private sector so that it works under the rules of the private sector
in terms of its financing and its efficiencies.
(2330)
The amendment we are speaking on tonight, which puts the
shares out to Canadians in the first 90 days, is a good one. If the
capital is in Canada for individuals or corporations in order to buy
Canadian National and to operate it as a Canadian entity, that
would be a good thing. It would be divided among Canadians in a
variety of ways.
Let us give Canadians the first opportunity. After the 90 days we
could open it up so those international people who wish to invest
can do so and in a very proper and positive way participate in the
economy of Canada.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 5 proposes that the
shares of CN be sold only to Canadian individuals and corporations
for the first 90 days that the shares are sold on the stock market. It
would negatively affect both the value the government would
receive for its shares in CN and its ability to sell 100 per cent of its
shares.
13985
Given the size of the CN initial public offering it is unlikely that
the Canadian equity markets could absorb the issue alone.
Therefore, in order to sell 100 per cent of CN for a value which
maximizes the return to Canadian taxpayers, foreign investors will
need to participate in the share offering.
Changing this clause, as suggested by the Reform Party in
Motion No. 5, would be viewed as foreign ownership restriction.
Any restriction on the ability of foreigners to participate in the sale
of CN would affect value and the shares would have to be sold at a
significant discount in order to sell them all exclusively to
Canadians.
Given the likely size of the share issue, all Canadians who so
desire will have an opportunity to purchase CN shares, resulting in
broad Canadian ownership of CN stock. An amendment such as
suggested in Motion No. 5 is therefore unnecessary.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 5 negatived.)
The Speaker: We will now deal with Group No. 3 which
contains a number of motions.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-89 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-89, in Clause 12, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 14, on page 7, with the following:
``12. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister, with the approval of the'';
and
(b) adding after line 30, on page 7, the following:
``(2) The aggregate amount of all debts of CN owed to Her Majesty in right of
Canada may be reduced only by application of the proceeds of sales referred to
in paragraph (1)(c), unless the amount to which it is so reduced exceeds a level
that an accredited bond rating agency has certified to the Minister in writing as a
level that would ensure for CN a bond rating no lower than BBB, in which case
the Minister may make such further payment referred to in paragraph (1)(c)
only to the extent necessary to reduce the aggregate amount to the level so
certified.''
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-89, in Clause 12, be amended:
(a) by replacing line 14, on page 7, with the following:
``12. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister, with the approval of the''; and
(b) by adding after line 30, on page 7, the following:
``(2) No agreement or arrangement under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) or payment
under paragraph (c), may be entered into or made until
(a) the Minister has laid before the House of Commons a proposal that the
agreement or arrangement be entered into or the payment be made,
(b) the proposal has been referred to such committee as the House may
determine,
(c) the committee has reported that it approves of the proposal, and
(d) the House has concurred in the report.''
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-89 be amended by adding after line 36, on page 7, the following
new Clause:
``13.1 No transaction that is made by the Minister or CN at any time before
the first day that more than fifty percent of the shares in CN are owned by parties
other than Her Majesty in right of Canada
(a) that would transfer to Her Majesty in right of Canada any part, subsidiary,
operation or property of CN with a value exceeding one million dollars, or
(b) that would transfer to a party other than Her Majesty in right of Canada any
part, subsidiary, operation or property of CN with a value exceeding ten million
dollars,
shall be entered into until
(c) the Minister has laid before the House of Commons a proposal that the
transaction be entered into,
(d) the proposal has been referred to such committee as the House may
determine,
(e) the committee has reported that it approves of the proposal, and
(f) the House has concurred in the report of the committee.''
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-89 be amended by adding after line 36, on page 7, the following
new Clause:
13986
``13.1 (1) No transaction that is made by the Minister or CN at any time before
the first day that more than fifty percent of the shares in CN are owned by parties
other than Her Majesty in right of Canada
(a) that would transfer to Her Majesty in right of Canada any part, subsidiary,
operation or property of CN with a value exceeding one million dollars, or
(b) that would transfer to a party other than Her Majesty in right of Canada any
part, subsidiary, operation or property of CN with a value exceeding ten
million dollars, shall be entered into unless
(c) the Minister has referred the matter to the Auditor General of Canada, and
(d) the Auditor General has reviewed the transaction and prepared and caused
to be laid before the House of Commons, a report stating that, in the opinion of
the Auditor General, the transaction is in the interest of CN and of Canada.
(2) The Auditor General shall cause the report to be laid before the House of
Commons within fifteen days after the date of referral by the Minister.''
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ) moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-89 be amended by adding after line 36, on page 7, the following
new Clause:
``13.1 (1) The pension plan for employees of CN known as the CN Pension
Plan shall continue to exist and be funded and be administered by the CN
Pension Board in accordance with the rules in existence immediately prior to the
coming into force of this Act.
(2) The CN Pension Plan shall not be amended without the agreement of the
CN Pension Board.''
(2335)
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, again I would like to say a few words in explanation of my
amendments.
During the course of committee investigation the minister came
before the committee and stated that it was his intention only to pay
off enough debt after taking off the assets and resources of the
company to allow the company to reach a BBB credit rating.
I have accepted this but wish to restrict the minister to ensure
that he will do no more than what he said. Given that he has made
this statement, it is very reasonable to ask him to make that
commitment by way of amendment to the legislation. However, if
he is not prepared to do this, then I would suggest that we should
take away the power for him to arbitrarily pay off any amount of
debt he chooses.
With regard to Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 I have looked at them
but I have not been able to find my way clear to recommend that we
support them. However I think Motion No. 11 by the Bloc
Quebecois is a good motion. It deals with a sensitive subject. A lot
of people will be reassured without causing any problems, and I
recommend we support that motion.
Beyond this I would defer to my colleague from North
Island-Powell River on debate.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will not speak to Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10. I am going to
listen to the Bloc.
However I rise to support Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 11. Motion No.
6 deletes the possibility of government bailout of any CN debt.
Current CN debt stands at $2.5 billion. Financial and industry
experts agree that it will never reasonably sell with that debt level
and must be reduced to an amount that would achieve an
investment grade bond rating of BBB. A $1.5 billion debt would
achieve this bond rating. The House should not give the minister
the power to reduce CN's debt to any amount he chooses. This is
risky and is not prudent.
First, it allows the minister to reduce the debtload well below the
amount for which taxpayers can get a return upon sale. This could
cause higher share prices which would appear to be a better deal
but return a lower yield for taxpayers. I am quite certain this is not
the intent of the minister, but this is no excuse for putting it into the
legislation or allowing that kind of free board.
Second, excessive reduction of CN's debt would put CP Rail at a
disadvantage similar to the disadvantage when Air Canada was
privatized. It is not a simple matter of balancing the debt of two
companies. CN has purchased many deluxe assets without normal
private sector concerns for debt financing. The most recent
example is the expensive buyout package for employees to help
reduce CN's workforce. If CN is allowed this strategic advantage
without any economic costs, it would have a tremendous and unfair
market advantage.
Motion No. 7 would limit the government's ability to reduce CN
debt to only the amount necessary to achieve BBB bond rating
status after first reducing it by utilizing company funds available
and from the disposal of real estate assets; in other words utilize
cash and start selling off some of the assets. If members agree to
this reasonable motion we will not need Motion No. 6 which
deletes all authority for government bailout.
I also support Motion No. 11 which would provide for the
continued existence of the CN pension plan to be administered by
the CN pension board under current government rules. This is
prudent and fair.
All too often employees with little control over the situation end
up on the short end of the stick just because of a change in
ownership. In many respects this is the most important and
considered motion of all to pass through the House. If we all dig
deeply in our collective memories we can think of living examples
of people who have been treated unfairly by the system.
13987
(2340)
At this time I should like to move an amendment to Motion No.
7. The amendment is to one small section of Motion No. 7 which I
believe was in error. We want the motion to read that it should
apply to all CN debt, not just the debt owed to the Government of
Canada. Therefore I move:
That Motion No. 7 be amended by deleting the words ``owed to Her Majesty in
right of Canada''.
The Speaker: An amendment to Motion No. 7 has been moved.
Now I will recognize the hon. member for
Blainville-Deux-Montagnes on debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my comments will deal with Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle underlying Bill C-89
which provides for the transfer of the CN railway system to private
interests, and the purchase of the company's remaining assets to
dispose of them at a later date.
However, we vigorously oppose the outrageous powers the
Minister of Transport wants to assume, under this bill, to carry out
these operations. The amendments I am defending here are aimed
instead at giving these powers to the House of Commons or the
auditor general.
First, under clause 12, the Minister of Transport is assuming
nothing less than the power to pay off the CN debts, not only from
the proceeds of the sale of shares, but also out of the Consolidated
Revenue Fund. This operation aimed at making the product more
attractive to buyers actually amounts to giving taxpayers' money to
buyers, potentially foreigners.
This is untenable. It is strange, to use parliamentary language,
that a government could be cynical enough to suggest to the
people's representatives giving a minister the power to carry out
such an operation.
My amendment is aimed at seeking the approval of the House for
any agreement with CN by having the minister lay the proposed
agreement before the House which will then refer it to a committee
of its choice. It seems to me that it would be totally irresponsible
for the government to reject this amendment and accept clause 12
as it is.
Secondly, the transport minister's obsession with power is not
limited to asking the House to pay CN's debts with the taxpayers'
money. Under clause 6, he goes ahead and gives himself the power
to have any CN asset which he would like transferred to him or to a
third party in exchange for a consideration in an amount he will
determine himself.
(2345)
In opposition to this outrageous requirement, we offer motions 9
or 10, at the discretion of the House. In Motion No. 9, we propose
that no transaction be made by the Minister which would transfer to
him a CN asset worth one million dollars or more, or transfer to a
third party a CN asset worth ten million or more, before fifty
percent of the CN shares are sold and unless the minister tables the
plan for such an operation in the House and the House approves of
such a plan, upon favourable recommendation from the committee
designated by the House.
In Motion No. 10, since I said the House could pick No. 9 or No.
10 at its discretion, we propose instead that the House approval be
replaced by the obligation, for the minister, to refer the project to
the auditor general, who must report within 15 days. His opinion
must be favourable in order for the transaction to be made. Again,
it seems unthinkable that members would not accept one or the
other of these guarantees.
Finally, the amendments I propose are aimed at preventing the
Minister of Transport from acting as if CN were his own personal
property and disposing of it the way he wants, buying the
company's assets or paying its debts with our money. CN is a
public asset, an asset that belongs to the people. We cannot, as the
people's representatives, abdicate our responsibilities by
conferring to a minister the power to dispose of it as he pleases.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will speak for a few minutes on Motion No. 11
which deals with the pension plan. If we recall the history of
Canada, railroads were supposed to be the catalyst for economic
development throughout Canada. However, the problem over the
years is that we had a company which was a crown corporation, to
be privatized shortly.
The problem is that if CN is privatized, as it will be, it will serve
the interests of shareholders rather than those of Canadian
communities. Canada is currently going through a difficult period,
while some regions are fighting to recover from the recession and
to adjust to free trade. We are somewhat concerned that this
privatization could add to instability at the very moment where
Canada needs a reliable transportation network.
If CN were to be sold for an amount less than its book value, it
has been estimated that the loss could be one billion dollars or
more. We should ask ourselves if the liberal government across the
way will forgive CN's debts or not. On the one hand, a privatized
CN will need to be profitable to guarantee its long term growth. On
the other hand, considering current fiscal restraints and the fact that
this government constantly repeats that Canadians must accept cuts
in social programs, one can hardly justify the decision to increase
at public expense the value of shares which will be held by private
interests.
The privatization of CN will also be costly for another reason. It
is almost certain that some workers will lose their jobs in the
process. Besides the cost of severance pay, we will also have to
take into account the cost of unemployment insurance benefits and
various retraining programs. After having made this preamble, I
13988
would like to say that this is the reason why I moved Motion No.
11, which reads as follows:
13.1 (1) The pension plan for employees of CN known as the CN Pension Plan
shall continue to exist and be funded and be administered by the CN Pension
Board in accordance with the rules in existence immediately prior to the coming
into force of this Act.
(2) The CN Pension Plan shall not be amended without the agreement of the CN
Pension Board.
(2350)
You will understand, and I think it is clear, that the aim of this
amendment is to protect the pension plan of CN employees.
I would like to digress a little. I have never questioned the
Translation and interpretation services of the House, I believe that
we have excellent professionals, but I would like the service to look
at the French version of my amendment. It seems to me that,
instead of saying ``régime de pension''-I have already been in
contact with linguists from the Office de la langue française, and
apparently, ``régime de pension'' is a literal translation of ``pension
plan''-we should say ``régime de retraite''. Not being one of those
who know everything, I would like our interpretation services to
tell me if my amendment is correctly written in French, as it refers
repeatedly to ``régime de pension''.
I have said it before, but the purpose of this amendment is to
protect the CN employees' pension plan. Bill C-89 does not
include any measure ensuring that no change will be made to the
CN pension plan, after privatization.
Finally, as has become clear to all Canadian workers, not only in
railway companies, but all workers in Canada and Quebec, in spite
of the NDP's traditional policy of fighting for Canadian workers'
rights, the Bloc Quebecois has been the only party in this House
speaking for Canadian workers' interests. For someone like me
who has always worked on the side of employers, I am particularly
proud to propose this amendment.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like my
colleague for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, I want to
support Motion No. 11.
This motion seeks to preserve the CN employees' pension plan.
You will have noticed that Bill C-89 says nothing about the
pension plan. I think it is important that provisions be made in the
act itself so that the CN employees' pension plan can be preserved.
Why? Because of the recent and also not quite so recent history
of Canadian National. We have noticed, over these past few years,
that CN has had a certain propensity for shifting the costs for the
transformation and modernization of the system to its employees.
It has streamlined its operations under the pretext of improving
productivity, but it has nevertheless changed the working
conditions of its employees.
Especially during the last strike, which was a combination of
strike and lockout, we saw that CN developed a strategy to
completely change the working conditions of its employees and to
urge the Canadian Parliament to pass a special bill under which
these conditions would be legislated.
Yesterday, in the report released by the mediation-arbitration
board, we saw that the worst concerns we, in the Bloc Quebecois,
expressed during the debate on the legislation ordering CN and CP
employees back to work, came true and the working conditions
were unilaterally changed in favour of the employer.
I think it is vitally important that the Canadian Parliament
protect the interests of the CN employees in terms of their pension
plan. The motion put forward by my colleague from
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans should be agreed on, because
it would be very reasonable to ensure that, after the sale of CN, it
would be impossible to change the CN pension plan without the
consent of the CN Pension Board.
(2355)
You know that the rules of the CN Pension Board are such that
the employees can have some influence and some input on the way
the funds are administered.
I think that if such a motion is adopted-and I noted that my
Reform colleague said something similar-, it would be entirely
appropriate for the Parliament of Canada to ensure that justice is
done for the workers who have given so much of themselves to this
company and who, at the age of retirement, are entitled to enjoy the
benefits they worked so long for, because people who worked for
CN made a career there and were, in a way, employed by the
government of Canada, by a crown corporation. I think that the
House of Commons should not use privatization as an excuse for
shirking its responsibilities.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in
support of Motion No. 11, which is a very important motion.
The workers and the union are very concerned about the future of
their pension fund to which they have been contributing for many
years. Unfortunately, Bill C-89 does not contain any provision to
protect the pension fund after the company is privatized. It is a
serious omission.
This amendment is in response to a request by the unions, who
do not trust either the employer or the government in this regard.
There have been bad experiences there also. The employer has not
always contributed to the fund in the way that was provided for in
the agreements. This fund should not be used to buy shares. The
risk is too great in a market that is too volatile.
13989
The pension plan is the only source of income for most
pensioners. I think workers should have more control over their
pension fund since it belongs to them.
No change should be made to the pension plan without the
consent of the CN Pension Board and the consent of both the
workers and their unions. Workers have contributed a lot to the CN
pension plan. For example, in 1989, employees traded a 1 per cent
salary increase for a partial indexation of their pension plan. That
goes to show the importance of this amendment, which I fully
support.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in view of the late
hour, I will be brief.
Given the fact that, in my riding, there are 500 CN workers
affected by this, I would like to support the proponent of the
motion, our critic for transport, the member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans. I know, for having spoken
with these workers, that people who have worked for CN have
worked hard for that company. We are reminded of those who work
there now, but that is a long story; for them, this is an historic
moment. I think the least I can do is to support this motion.
[English]
The Speaker: We are on group No. 3.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation, with
regard to the amendment proposed by the Reform Party to its
Motion No. 7, I do not believe we have any objection to that
technical amendment but we are opposed to its Motion No. 7 and I
will deal with that now.
Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 each propose amendments to clause 12
which provides the minister with the ability to deal with CN's
capital structure. In order for CN's share issue to be attractive to
investors and for CN to affordably finance its operations into the
future, CN's debt needs to achieve an investment grade bond rating
prior to the sale. In order to achieve such a rating CN's debt will
need to be reduced. The exact magnitude of the debt reduction will
not be known until the bond rating agencies begin to familiarize
themselves with CN and discourse between the agencies, the
government, and CN addresses the issue.
(2400)
Any debt reduction will have three parts. First, in order to reduce
its debt CN has already undertaken to sell several of its non-rail
assets, such as CN Exploration. The proceeds from such
divestitures will go to debt reduction. Second, in the spirit of
selling CN as a core rail operation the government has proposed
that CN transfer its non-core real estate assets to the government
for fairconsideration prior to the share offering. This will also help
to reduce CN's debt.
Any further debt reduction will be carefully considered by the
government, taking into account the need to put CN on a level
playing field with its competitors and ensure that it will remain
viable in the future. However, the minister needs to retain
maximum flexibility in making these decisions in consultation
with the Minister of Finance. Any requirements to have such
actions reviewed and approved by the House of Commons, a
committee of the House, or the auditor general would limit the
minister's flexibility and could therefore impede the transaction
from proceeding in a timely and efficient manner, consequently
affecting the value.
Therefore, these motions cannot be supported.
Motions Nos. 9 and 10 and the new clause 13.1 the opposition is
proposing would remove from the Minister of Transport the
flexibility he requires in dealing with the transfer of assets in the
context of CN commercialization.
The commercial nature of the transaction dictates that any
transfer be efficient and timely. The requirement to report to the
House or have the auditor general review any such transaction
before the transfer can proceed would seriously impair the
minister's ability to direct that such transfers be undertaken in a
timely manner. By impairing the efficiency of the transfer process
the value of the transaction may be affected.
Moreover, to the extent that such assets are transferred to another
crown corporation, they would be recorded in the crown
corporation's corporate plan, a summary of which would be tabled
in Parliament on an annual basis. This would allow all members to
review the value of the assets in that crown corporation on a regular
basis. In addition, the auditor general would have the opportunity
to review such transfers in the normal course of events.
In addition, the commercial nature of these assets in some cases
calls for confidentiality, which could be jeopardized should the
minister be required to report any such transaction to the House.
Therefore, because of the need of timeliness, efficiency, and
confidentiality, these amendments cannot be accepted.
I want to take a little more time with respect to Motion No. 11,
which deals with the CN employees and pensioners. We also agree
that these men and women who have worked and continue to work
for a great corporation need to understand and know how they are
going to be treated with regard to their CN pension.
The pensions of all CN employees and pensioners are protected
in a number of ways, but first under the Pension Benefits Standards
Act, 1985. They will continue to be protected following the
commercialization of CN. The Pension Benefits Standards Act,
1985, sets out the rules for pensions of all federally regulated
companies. It therefore is a means by which to treat all those who
are members of such pensions equally, including employees and
pensioners of CN.
13990
Following the sale of Canadian National to private investors all
the pension promises made under the CN pension plan will
continue to be honoured. The CN pension plan will not participate
in the share offering. The CN pension plan is a defined benefit,
which means that regardless of the vagaries of the marketplace an
employee is promised a pension. That pension is calculated
according to a fixed formula and the only variables in the formula
are average earnings and years of service. The plan is federally
registered under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, as I
mentioned before, which is administered by the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and under the Income Tax
Act, which is overseen by Revenue Canada.
Pension promises are documented in the text of the CN pension
plan, which describes the entitlements of the 50,000 pensioners and
surviving spouses as well as the approximately 25,000 active
members. These pension promises are supported by the assets of
the CN pension trust fund, which do not form part of the assets and
revenues of CN. Legal title to the assets of the fund is held by the
trustee of the fund, the Montreal Trust Company of Canada.
(2405 )
The CN pension plan and fund, in addition to being regulated by
the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and
Revenue Canada, are audited by the company's internal auditors as
well as by external auditors. The financial, actuarial, and
administrative aspects of the CN pension plan are also reviewed by
the CN pension board, which is composed of five company
representatives, five union representatives, five pensioners, and
one representative of CN non-scheduled employees. As well, the
CN pension plan and fund are subject to periodic actuarial
evaluations by the external actuary, whose reports are presented to
the CN pension board, submitted to the board of directors, and filed
with the regulatory authorities.
The foregoing processes exist to safeguard the accrued pension
entitlements of all members of the CN pension plan, pensioners,
surviving spouses, and active members. A condensed version of
this information was printed out on the April pension statement of
all pensioners in answer to their most commonly asked question
about the security of CN pensions. The April 1995 issue of
``Keeping Track'', a monthly newsletter sent out to all active
employees and pensioners, featured the chart.
The government is committed to protecting the pensions of CN
employees and the new corporation. This is our commitment. The
amendments as proposed by the opposition would open it to
employees of federally incorporated companies coming forward
and seeking their own additional protection. This could potentially
lead to a mixed bag of statutes protecting different players with
different benefits for each group, rather than the consistent and
clear protection currently found in the single piece of legislation.
This inconsistency would not serve Canadians as efficiently as
keeping all provisions under a single act.
Therefore, since CN employees and pensioners already have
protection under the law, which would not be affected by
commercialization of CN, the government does not support this
amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to talk about the pension plans.
I believe it must be pointed out that the CN workers and rail
workers everywhere in the country know perfectly well whom they
can trust the most in this House.
[English]
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment to Motion No.
7. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the members
on the other side of the House. I think we had made the
commitment that the amendment to Motion No. 7 was acceptable
to us. If you could return to that particular vote, I am sure we would
want to correct that in the spirit of cooperation.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it is a little bit late. Is it agreed
that we return?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(2410 )
The Speaker: We are going to deal again with the amendment to
Motion No. 7. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
13991
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to.)
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion as amended will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 7, as amended, negatived.)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 6 negatived.)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 8.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, could we consider a vote on
Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11?
[English]
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, we would agree to voting on Motions
Nos. 8, 9, and 10 together but would like Motion No. 11 voted on
separately.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: We are going to vote on Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motions will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded
division on the motions stands deferred.
(2415 )
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-89 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-89, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3, on page 8,
with the following:
``15.(1) The Official Languages Act continues to apply to CN as if it continued
to be a federal institution within the meaning of that Act.
(2) Subsection (1) ceases to be in effect five years after the coming into force of
this Act.''
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be consent
for the purpose of debate to putting Groups Nos. 4, 5 and 6
together.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: I agree, Mr. Speaker, provided that we will be
able to vote on each of the four motions individually.
[English]
The Speaker: Is it agreed that we are going to put Groups Nos.
4, 5, and 6 together for debate and we will vote on the motions
separately?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ) moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-89 be amended by adding after line 3, on page 8, the following
new Clause:
``15.1 The Minister shall, no later than January 1, 1996 conclude an
agreement with CN providing for CN to repair, renovate and maintain the Pont
de Québec in Quebec City and to commence work under the agreement no later
than May 1, 1996.''
13992
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-89, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 15, on page 8, the
following:
``(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) any activity of CN within a province that operates under an agreement that
subjects the activity to the jurisdiction of that province, or
(b) any work, subsidiary or corporation owned by CN that is situated or
operates only within one province.''
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will touch on my own motions by way of introduction.
My colleague will deal further with those.
I would just like to point out two things. First of all the Official
Languages Act is not the subject of the motion. The subject is a
restriction to a private company contrary to what the parliamentary
secretary, the hon. member for London East said earlier with regard
to the headquarters. He suggested that because it is in Montreal and
it has always been in Montreal it probably always will be. That may
be. If the company follows the official languages policy of the
federal government and it works for it, I am sure it will continue to
but if it does not work for the company, then it should not have a
gun held to its head.
I guess I should not use that expression. That would offend the
Minister of Justice who is taking all those away. Instead I would
say that we should not twist the company's arm and require it to
remain there subject to this policy. Of course even twisting its arm
now is a little dangerous because the thought police will first have
to determine whether we are twisting its arm because we want it to
use a particular language or because of race, religion or sexual
orientation. I guess I will have to start to be more careful in the
House.
I would like to speak just briefly to Groups Nos. 5 and 6. Group
No. 5 deals with the Bloc motion with the Pont de Québec. I
listened to the group which came to committee on this matter. They
were a very passionate and dedicated group. They obviously feel
very strongly about their project to preserve the bridge and have a
lot of commitment to this. I am sympathetic to their case. It was
their explanation that there is a legal obligation on the part of CN.
If that is true, and I have no reason to believe that they would be
incorrect given how conscientious they seem to be about this, then
it will not matter whether CN is still held by the government or
privatized.
(2420)
That legal obligation, if it exists, will go with the company and
should be dealt with and enforced. I have suggested to them that I,
among others I am sure, because I know the Bloc is very concerned
about this, would be prepared to take this up if they are prepared to
bring forward the evidence that this is a legal obligation.
With regard to Group No. 6, in principle I have some support for
what the Bloc is talking of. However, this is the wrong forum in
which to do this. The government has already put me on notice that
it will be introducing legislation next week dealing with regulatory
reform for the entire rail industry. It would be inappropriate to take
a small segment of that and try to deal with it under privatization
when we have the regulatory legislation coming forward that will
deal with all of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, since I am not familiar with the
procedure, I would like to ask a question. I would like to know
whether I will have more than ten minutes to speak to each group.
Since the motions have been grouped, I know I will need more than
ten minutes. How does this work?
Mr. Boudria: You ask for unanimous consent.
Mr. Guimond: I should ask for unanimous consent? Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
[English]
The Speaker: There is a request to speak for a little bit longer
than the usual amount because we are putting three groups together.
Is there unanimous consent to give each other a little bit more
time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize. I hope
you will not take the fact that I thanked the Government Chief
Whip for agreeing to extend my speaking time as a lack of respect
on my part for the Chair.
I would like to start by speaking to Motion No. 12 standing in the
name of the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, which
proposes to delete clause 15 which reads as follows: ``The Official
Languages Act continues to apply to CN as if it continued to be a
federal institution within the meaning of that Act''.
I think it is too bad that my Reform Party colleague, who is an
ardent Canadian and wants to maintain Canadian unity, does not
behave like one and is indulging what is referred to in English
Canada as Quebec bashing. That is really too bad, and the Reform
Party will suffer the consequences when one day it decides to field
candidates in a federal election in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, in Quebec
our motto is: ``Je me souviens'', I remember. And we certainly will
remember, provided Quebec is still part of Canada, which is
unlikely once we have won the referendum.
13993
We will take every opportunity to remind Quebecers that the
Reform Party proposed amendments to remove the privatized
company from the application of the Official Languages Act. And
this is not the first time, as the hon. member for Bourassa pointed
out. This party makes a habit of presenting petitions in the House of
Commons to complain about the Official Languages Act. I would
like to point out that the government acted responsibly by including
Clause 15 in Bill C-89, under which the Official Languages Act
will continue to apply to CN when it is privatized.
The government's actions reflect those of the previous
government in 1988 when it proceeded to privatize Air Canada. I
could also mention another amendment by the hon. member which
proposed to reverse the present government's commitment to keep
the company's headquarters in the Montreal Urban Community.
(2425)
I would now like to touch briefly on amendment no. 14, which
would provide for the federal government, therefore the Minister of
Transport, to remain responsible for the maintenance of the Pont de
Québec, despite the privatization of CN.
The Pont de Québec is a jewel in our world heritage. This is no
bridge over some backwater creek at the end of some concession.
This is the structure that Sir Wilfrid Laurier called an architectural
masterpiece when it was inaugurated, a source of pride not only for
the Province of Quebec and Quebec City, but for all of Canada.
I publicly denounce here in the House the attitude of my
colleagues on the Standing Committee on Transport. Both the
chairman, the hon. member for Hamilton West and the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the member
for London East were impolite to the people from the Coalition
pour la sauvegarde du Pont de Québec when they presented their
brief to the committee last week. And that is putting it mildly.
The chairman of our committee and the parliamentary secretary
are both unilingual anglophones. With their earphones off, our
committee's chairman and the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Transport chatted away throughout the unilingual
French presentation by the representatives of the coalition, taking
in absolutely nothing at all.
After it was over, they went so far as to ask me why the coalition
had not applied under the infrastructure program. That is utterly
unacceptable. Canadian National, and not the City of Quebec, is the
owner of the bridge. And why should the City of Quebec have
applied under the infrastructure program to renovate the bridge?
This shows how ignorant they are of the whole issue and, to top it
off, how impolite they were to the unilingual francophones who
came before the Standing Committee on Transport to present their
brief.
I would like to remind you that the coalition to save the Pont de
Québec is not a partisan organization, on the contrary, it is
non-partisan. And I can assure you that I have never personally
met any of the members of this coalition and they have never been
associated with me or affiliated with my party. Their work falls
squarely outside of the political arena. The people of the region of
Quebec were very disappointed by the reception this coalition
received in Ottawa.
The bridge is in a pitiful state. According to the coalition, the
required work is estimated at between $41 million and $45 million.
What will happen if the new privatized CN refuses to honour its
commitments with regard to the bridge? What will happen? Will it
be left to deteriorate? It is a world heritage jewel.
Here again, I deplore, I forgot to mention it earlier, I deplore the
fact that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport
downplayed the Pont de Québec, saying that the new privatized CN
would never save any old bridge crossing a stream at the end of a
concession or any bit of rail line in some village in Canada or some
old station in Canada.
This was how the bridge was described, and it is crazy. Perhaps it
was to convince himself that those watching us would think the
Bloc member was fantasizing and making it up. I suggest they read
the minutes of the Standing Committee on Transport; they will see
where the truth lies.
In closing, I would like to talk briefly about Motion No. 15. The
aim of this amendment is to avoid short line railways CN might
have an interest in being put under federal jurisdiction.
(2430)
At the moment, all intraprovincial transport comes under
provincial jurisdiction. We are concerned about the wording of
clause 16 of the bill and so we have proposed an amendment to
ensure that SLRs remain within provincial jurisdiction and do not
become federal.
Obviously, by stating that interprovincial transportation
structures-check the wording in the bill-are ``for the general
advantage of Canada'', we avoid having SLRs in which CN has an
interest being automatically placed under federal jurisdiction, and
this is the aim of our amendment.
CN could thus become a partner and share in the creation of
SLRs. I think that our party has shown great openness towards
SLRs; it may be the way of the future, an instrument that will give
us more flexibility to satisfy the clients' needs, etc. But what is
important is that, to prevent abandonment, it isimportant that many
lines be taken over by SLRs. Some of them may even belong to
CN. I think that instead of eliminating regional services, it
isimportant, and I will conclude with this, to consider rail transport
in the same way as air or water transport. A mode of transport is
above all an instrument for regional economic development.
13994
It is obvious that when a rail line is abandoned, it can make
regional economic development much more difficult.
To conclude, I will give you an example. A cement factory is
planned in Port-Daniel, in the Gaspé. Unfortunately, the member
for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine has not intervened and
never made any inquiry regarding this planned cement factory,
although it is in his riding, probably because he is not interested.
Anyway, there is a plan for a cement factory in Port-Daniel, in the
Gaspé, a beautiful village with a 25 per cent unemployment rate.
The developers have two requirements. First, they require a sea
port; Port-Daniel is located in Chaleur Bay; I believe that having a
deep water sea port will not be a problem. Second, to move cement
to Canadian and American markets, they require a railway since, as
we know, Gaspé roads cannot take heavy trucking.
Therefore, if they close the railway in Gaspé, how will it be
possible to attract companies and develop Quebec? This is what I
wanted to say to conclude my remarks.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask you
for any extra time or for anything over 10 minutes. As a matter of
fact I may not even speak for five minutes.
I have noticed a certain ambivalence on the benches opposite
toward this privatization bill. Clearly privatization is not
something you do just to do it. It is done for a reason. The reason is
to try to put a crown corporation in a position where it becomes an
efficient money making organization.
The hon. member for London East has spoken on several
occasions about the fact we must not apply constraints to the
company after it is privatized. If we do that we defeat our purpose.
One of the constraints the government is proposing to apply is to
maintain the Official Languages Act for this private corporation.
The Official Languages Act is intended for government
organizations.
If CN has to maintain the extra cost and the extra inefficiencies
of having the hand of the official languages commissioner on the
throttle of every locomotive, it is not going to be as competitive as
it needs to be. It is unnecessary. Most of CN's operations are west
of the lakehead. There is very little French spoken by either the
employees or by the customers.
There will certainly be circumstances in any company working
in Canada where it will want to maintain the use of two languages
voluntarily.
(2435)
[Translation]
I worked from time to time in mines or other work sites where
workers spoke two or even three different languages. We had to use
these languages correctly for the sake of efficiency or safety, but
never for political reasons. That is sensible bilingualism. It is not
always necessary to impose rules for everything.
[English]
I would like to speak even more briefly on Motion No. 14.
Again, we have an example of an attempt by government to
maintain control over the corporation after it is privatized. No one
but the management of a company should be in a position to decide
what bridges it is going to maintain, what tracks it is going to
maintain.
This is something that is not done if the government really
means what it says about making the thing run properly. It does not
allow bureaucrats or politicians to stick their cotton pickin' hands
into the operations of a private company. If it does that, it may as
well forget about privatizing the company, just keep on dictating to
it. Government cannot have it both ways.
Either the company is going to be private or it is going to
continue to be a semi-crown. I strongly agree with the proposal to
privatize it.
On the last motion, the question proposed by the hon. members
of the Bloc to simplify the regulatory regime, to give the provinces
more regulatory powers and the federal government less, in
principle I agree with that but this is neither the time nor the place
to debate that question.
It certainly should not be written into the bill. With that, I have
had my five minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be
brief. I will confirm what my colleague from
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans has said.
The Pont de Québec is indeed a heritage jewel. However, it is in
very poor condition due to the irresponsible behaviour of Transport
Canada as well as of CN. The reason why it is necessary to propose
this amendment is that both entities, Transport Canada and CN,
never fulfilled their responsibilities. Therefore, by adding this
element to the bill we might have a chance to see the Pont de
Québec become once again what it used to be, a source of pride for
the Quebec region.
Just as the Eiffel Tower is the symbol of Paris or the Statue of
Liberty the symbol of New York, the Pont de Québec is something
which symbolizes the Quebec region.
13995
The amendment is necessary because, in 1993, CN and Transport
Canada signed an agreement that they never fulfilled. Why should
we believe that a privatized CN, in the hands of private
shareholders, would all of a sudden tell its shareholders: We must
now ensure that the Pont de Québec be kept in good repair. We do
not believe it would.
The agreement signed in 1993 was very clear, it said in section 4:
``Canada transfers the Pont de Québec to CN. CN undertakes to
finance a major maintenance program on this bridge, including
installation and maintenance of architectural lighting, to restore
this structure to a condition which guarantees its long-term
viability and maintain it in this condition. Without limiting the
specified obligations of CN, the company will try to conclude an
agreement with the Province of Quebec.'' I should say that
Transport Quebec was never against such an agreement.
(2440)
Section 13 of the same agreement reads: ``This agreement comes
under Canadian legislation, is interpreted in accordance with that
legislation and binds parties and their successors and assignees''.
Therefore if an agreement signed by the Transport minister and the
CN has remained totally inoperative, how can we believe that
private shareholders would fare better? This is why we believe it is
essential to pass amendment no. 14 in order to make sure that the
Pont de Québec will be maintained by those who have the
responsibility to do so.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are
inviting me to justify my presence in this debate. If the hon.
member for Louis-Hébert can justify his presence because one of
the bridge pillars is located in his riding, I must add that there is
another one in my riding.
This bridge was built in 1917 and, in the beginning, it was used
to allow trains to cross the St. Lawrence River. It is a river, I say to
the whip of the Liberal Party. It is not a brook, as my colleague for
Beauport was saying. If ever this bridge were to collapse through
lack of maintenance-I do not want to make people feel uneasy
about this-if ever it were to collapse and CN trains could not go
over it, imagine the detour we would have to make in order to ship
our goods. We would have to go from Quebec City to Montreal,
and then to the Maritimes.
This does not make sense. This is unacceptable. Of course, the
bridge may not collapse in the next 20 years, but its physical
appearance is deteriorating to such an extent that people in the
Quebec City region tell us that this bridge belongs to the federal
government and has become a symbol of the decrepit state of
federalism in Quebec.
This is getting a reaction from some of the people here. If
members of the current Liberal federal government wanted to
enhance their visibility before the referendum, they should do as
the coalition suggests because every day, every person who comes
to see me-not only people from the Quebec City region but also
foreign visitors-note the state of disrepair of this symbol. I think
it would be to the Liberal Party's advantage-I am giving them
some valuable advice-to ensure that the bridge is being
maintained, to give it a new image.
Coalition members should also remind them that this would
create 200 jobs over six years. Is this not right, my dear colleague?
Over six years. This would allow the bridge to be renovated and
create jobs, in addition to the purchase of materials. There would
be an economic impact. We are looking for ways to put people back
to work, for useful projects, and the Pont de Québec would fit the
bill.
This would cost $40 million but we must spend it. Strangely
enough, an engineer told me this week that CN asked a U.S. firm to
study the whole matter. The Americans recognize the value of this
bridge. They took an interest in it and even gave it an architecture
and engineering award. It has been described as one of the eight
wonders of the world. That is quite something.
But the wonder does not impress anyone any more. On the
contrary, it has become an object of shame. Something must be
done, but it does not make sense to leave this in the hands of a
company that will be privatized.
(2445)
No privatized company will want to invest $40 million to repair
this bridge, unless it is forced into it. Nobody will do it. So, we are
asking the federal government to act as the owner, not as a tenant,
because it really is the owner, and it is responsible for these repairs.
Finally, the amendment proposed by our colleague, the hon.
member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, is valid, as the
federal government saw fit to remove the CN Tower from CN's
assets. If it is good for Toronto, it should be good for Quebec City. I
will end here, as it is quite late.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
be brief. No one will wonder why I rise on the issue of the Pont de
Québec.
An hon. member: We want to know.
Mr. Langlois: It is first for historical reasons. When the bridge
collapsed for the second time, my grandfather was there.
Consequently, that event was the topic of many stories when I was
young. I often cross that bridge. The hon. member for Lévis
referred to the CN Tower, in Toronto. It would be more appropriate
to compare the Pont de Québec to the Tower of Pisa, considering
that both structures are more or less in the same condition.
13996
There is also a more personal and even religious reason. Indeed,
every time I cross the bridge on a train, I cannot help but feel a need
to say my prayers, because I always wonder if we will make it to
the other side.
If you have been in Quebec City on more than one occasion, you
should go at least once to have a look at the bridge from the lovely
city of Saint-Romuald. You will realize what an eye-sore it is, not
to say anything about the risk it represents for those who have to
use it.
If it remains a federal crown asset, we will see what will happen
later on. We will at least get an assurance that that bridge will be
repaired. Everything that needs to be done has already been
identified. In the notes my colleague from
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans was kind enough to give to
me, I notice that as late as 1994, that is last year, an American
company called Mojeski and Masters was paid $700,000 U.S. for a
visual inspection of the substructure and superstructure of the
bridge. Surely, we must have qualified people in Canada to do that
kind of work, but the contract was awarded to an American
company anyway.
When the railway service was dismantled, in Bellechasse, the
entire Monk line, from Charny to Edmunston, New Brunswick, was
dismantled. Even the rails were torn up. The right of way has not
been given back to the original owners yet, but the rails have
disappeared.
The dismantling of the railroad is a real disaster, since the
railway has always been a symbol and a reality for Canada ever
since 1867, which is why I will be pleased to support the
amendment put forward by the hon. member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and to vote in favour of the
Pont de Québec remaining a public asset.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure everyone in
attendance I will not be quite as long as the Bloc was with all its
members. I will be about the same time as it took the hon. member
for Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
With regard to Motions Nos. 12 and 13 which affect clause 15 in
the bill, CN currently operates under the Official Languages Act in
both official languages. In its continuing capacity as a national
railway CN will continue to serve both anglophone and
francophone clients across the country.
Continued application of the Official Languages Act will not
require any change to its operations. In addition, CN management
has indicated it makes good business sense to operate a bilingual
railway.
(2450 )
Moreover, CN's intention to continue operating as a bilingual
railway will also have no effect on the value of the company's
shares when they are sold.
With regard to Motion No. 14 and the Quebec bridge, Motion
No. 14 deals with the renovation and maintenance of the Pont de
Québec in Quebec City. Although the government understands the
desire to ensure the Pont de Québec is maintained in good
condition, Bill C-89 is not the proper venue for such assurances.
Putting such a clause in the bill would draw negative attention
from investors as an operating cost imposed on CN. CN has stated
its willingness to increase its contribution for maintenance to $1.5
million but needs matching funds from the province of Quebec,
keeping in mind the province has an interest in the bridge because
it is a highway structure, an area of provincial jurisdiction.
I hope members of the Bloc would impose upon their friends in
Quebec City that they have an equal responsibility to maintain that
bridge, as 70 per cent of the traffic on it is vehicular, which is under
provincial jurisdiction.
Let me assure everyone this bridge is in safe condition. It is in
need of repair. CN is obligated to maintain it and it has promised to
do so. I encourage everyone to have the province put in its fair
share as well as those people who want to keep it for historical
purposes.
Therefore we cannot support Motion No. 14.
On Motion No. 15, which impacts on clause 16, Bill C-89 will
have no effect on the jurisdiction under which either an
interprovincial or an intraprovincial railway operates. Currently
interprovincial railways come under federal jurisdiction and must
comply with federal safety regulations. Intraprovincial railways
may choose to incorporate either under the provincial jurisdiction
of the province in which they operate or under federal jurisdiction.
Currently most intraprovincial shortlines choose provincial
jurisdiction. Internal shortlines, whether they be intraprovincial or
interprovincial remain part of the class one railway and therefore
operate under federal jurisdiction.
An example of this is the internal shortline in northern Quebec
recently established by CN and its employees. Again, none of the
foregoing would be affected by Bill C-89, and the proposal to
amend clause 16 is therefore unnecessary.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
13997
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 12 negatived.)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 13 negatived.)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 14.
(2455)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
We are now proceeding to Group No. 6, Motion No. 15. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, although I will not use quite the same wording
in French as the chief government whip, I think you will find
unanimous consent to put forward an additional motion. Do I have
to read it?
Some hon. members: We would like to understand it.
Mr. Guimond: You would like to understand it? Okay. At this
hour, I tend to be solitary.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup:
That Clause 8 be amended by adding after line 19, on page 5, the following:
``(5.1) Paragraphs 5(a), (b) and (c) shall apply only:
(a) to persons who are Canadian citizens or are permanent residents of Canada;
(b) to corporations established in Canada that are not controlled by individuals
who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents of Canada or by
corporate bodies established abroad''.
[
English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the member to
propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I will try to proceed as quickly as
possible.
You will know that the firms Scotia McLeod, Nesbitt Burns and
Goldman Sachs have been hired to co-ordinate the sale of CN
shares at the international level. The purpose of this amendment is
to ensure that CN remains under Canadian control, since it is
Canadian taxpayers' money that was used to build it. That is what
our amendment is all about.
I can tell you that, in the transport committee, I was very
disappointed that the syndicate of the three companies responsible
for launching the issue of shares refused to answer my questions,
and in particular a very legitimate question asking what their fee
for this operation would be. I think the taxpayers of Quebec and
Canada have the right to know how much Scotia McLeod, Nesbitt
Burns and the U.S. firm Goldman Sachs will be paid to launch the
new issue of CN's shares.
The question was perfectly legitimate, but I was told this was
confidential information that could not be divulged. I want to say
that the answer is unsatisfactory.
13998
I had other very pertinent questions for which I did not get any
answers either. I will read a few to the House. I had 21 of them. For
instance, I asked:
[English]
What are the prospective financial statistics for CN upon which
the sale price will have to be based? I am interested in the
following for the years 1990-95 through 2000. I wanted to know
the operating cash flow, the free cash flow after capital spending
but before dividends, operating income and the net income.
(2500)
[Translation]
I had all kinds of questions to which I received no answer. I
asked them, for example:
[English]
What is your estimation of the value of land and other real estate
property?
[Translation]
I received no answer. That is why I am very concerned about the
fact that the new privatized CN could fall under foreign
management when taxpayers in Quebec and Canada have made
such a major contribution to the development of this company.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will also be very brief. I just want to explain to hon.
members what the consequences are of adopting or defeating this
amendment.
I would like to provide some historical background. Certain
choices were made in the course of Canada's history and one was
that the railroad would go from New Brunswick through Eastern
Quebec and then to Ontario. These decisions also led to the
introduction of transportation subsidies to compensate for the fact
that the distance was greater than it would be through the United
States.
If we do not adopt the amendment before the House today, we
might easily land in a situation where American interests would be
able to buy or get a controlling interest in CN and thus be able to
close down certain parts of the line for the benefit of American
lines, in other words, the routes through the United States.
This is true in Eastern Canada and also in Western Canada. I
think that if we do not watch out, 25, 30 or 35 years from now we
will realize we made a strategic mistake that will cost Quebec and
Canada dearly. In the past, we saw that Quebec was adversely
affected as a result of certain choices made with respect to railway
routes. The amendment before the House today would prevent this
kind of situation.
Incidentally, a Canadian group would not be prohibited from
owning more than 15 per cent of CN shares. This might give
Quebec interests a chance to ensure that in the future, the entire
railway network in Quebec is harmonized with the road network.
That is why this amendment should be passed.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even though
it is late, I would like to say just a few words, because I think this is
a very important subject.
I support this motion and it is important, because when the
Liberals were in the opposition, they were more nationalist and
Canadian in their outlook than they are today. I think they defended
the interests of Canadians better than they are doing now. Today,
that is history. I think some people in this country are apprehensive
about the foreign interests that might control CN.
The very fact of selecting Goldman Sachs in New York does not
augur well, as far as I am concerned, and that is why I want to
support this motion which I think is very important.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to take a couple of minutes
to address the amendment and a very fundamental question here.
First, let me indicate there is no evidence in other countries
where privatization has taken place of foreign takeovers. In fact, to
protect against any individual gaining control of CN, as has been
indicated, a 15 per cent individual ownership restriction has been
imposed.
Moreover section 8 of the enabling legislation protects against
investors colluding to control the company by combining the
voting power of their shares. To insert such an amendment into the
bill would negatively impact on both the value of the shares as well
as what the government would receive and hence the Canadian
taxpayer.
I do not believe we need to take any lessons from the Bloc
Quebecois in protecting Canadian interests. The government wants
to maximize the return for Canadians in this national railroad and
does not need any lessons from them on how to build good national
railways.
Let me also take this opportunity to assure my friend in regard to
the question he asked about fees. Obviously they will be made in
due course. I believe he also heard of this global team that will
offer these shares across North America and beyond, that is why
this team was put together.
(2505)
He also heard that our Minister of Transport has negotiated the
best deal with regard to fees and they have complimented the hard
bargain he drove. I assure members we will be getting good value
for the fees from our global underwriters.
The Speaker: We are now dealing with Group No. 7, Motion
No. 17. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
13999
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the divisions are
further deferred to Monday, June 19 at 11.30 p.m.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That the House do now adjourn.
(Motion agreed to.)
(The House adjourned at 1.09 a.m.)