TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monday, June 20, 1994
Bill C-30. Report stage 5554
Motion for concurrence 5554
Motion for third reading 5554
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5557
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 5563
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 5570
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 5573
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5574
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5574
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5574
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5575
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5575
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5576
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5576
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5577
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5577
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5578
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5578
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 5580
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5580
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5581
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5581
Bill C-261. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 5584
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5585
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 5586
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5586
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5586
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5586
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5587
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 5588
Bill C-32. Consideration of report stage 5590
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 5590
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5594
Division on motion deferred 5595
Bill C-30. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 5595
Division on motion deferred 5596
Bill C-40. Motion for second reading 5596
(Motion deemed agreed to, bill deemed read the second time and the House went into committee
thereon, Mr. Kilgour in the chair.) 5596
(Clauses 2 to 79 inclusive agreed to.) 5596
Motion for concurrence 5597
Bill C-40. Motion for third reading 5597
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 5597
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.28 p.m.) 5597
The House resumed at 6.30 p.m. 5597
Bill C-37. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and amendment. 5597
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 49; Nays, 179 5597
Bill C-28. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading. 5598
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 180; Nays, 49 5598
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 5599
Bill C-32. Consideration resumed of report stage 5599
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 49; Nays, 180 5600
Motion for concurrence 5600
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5600
Bill C-30. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 5601
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 188; Nays, 41. 5601
Bill C-37. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 5602
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5611
Division on motion deferred 5614
5545
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 20, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should officially
recognize the historical contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the
Reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible
democratic government in Canada and in Quebec, as did the government of
Quebec in 1982, by proclaiming by order a National Patriots' Day.
He said: Madam Speaker, in the Canadian history course I
took when I was in my fourth year at high school, we had to write
a paper on the theme, ``Louis-Joseph Papineau: Traitor or
Hero''? This provocative theme eloquently illustrated the
equivocal perception and the historical ambiguity that
surrounded, and still surround, Louis-Joseph Papineau and the
thousands of men and women who answered to the name of
``Patriote'' and ``Reformer''.
The dramatic events known as the Rebellion of 1837-38 have
often been depicted in textbooks and tourist pamphlets as the
feat of a band of criminals-what today we would call
terrorists-who challenged the established order.
The aim of the motion I have just respectfully submitted for
the consideration of this House today is to rectify this perception
and to achieve, at long last, recognition of the historic
contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the
Reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of truly
responsible and truly democratic government in Canada and in
Quebec.
It is important to make clear that the motion does not request a
pardon for the Patriotes: they were pardoned by Queen Victoria
in 1849. I think it is high time the federal government
recognized that the Rebellion was part of a historic current of
social and political unrest that affected not just the colonies but
their motherlands, starting in the 18th century and stretching
into the first half of the 19th.
The rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada were not the work
of a restricted segment of the population. Merchants,
manufacturers, professionals, farmers, colonists, all shared the
goal of freeing themselves economically and politically from
Great Britain's colonial grip.
(1105)
The Patriotes in Lower Canada and the Reformers in Upper
Canada were fighting essentially for civil and political rights,
for the establishment of truly democratic and responsible
institutions, and for a certain degree of national emancipation.
How can it be that the role of the Patriotes has been denigrated
for so long? Everyone knows that our perception of history
evolves according to the values and ideologies prevalent in a
particular society, and according to ambient social and political
interaction. The best example of this phenomenon is certainly
the French Revolution, whose main protagonists came to be
viewed over time as visionaries, then as pariahs, and finally as
heroes. The Revolution has been described as the best thing that
ever happened to France and even to mankind and as a bloody
period in history that should have been avoided.
I contend that the time has come for the federal government to
make up for lost time and recognize the undeniable contribution
to history made by the Patriotes and the Reformers. Previous
Canadian governments should be ashamed and embarrassed that
the Bloc Quebecois had to be elected before this issue was raised
in this House.
Some citizens' groups, primarily from Quebec and Ontario,
have been working hard for a number of years to ensure that the
Patriotes in Lower Canada and the Reformers in Upper Canada
receive their due recognition and find their place in Canada's
history. The ultimately violent nature of this political movement
must never obscure the inestimable importance of the
democratic institutions and representatives that were
bequeathed to us.
What we must in fact remember are the basic ideas for which
the Patriotes fought. Basically, these people were fighting for
three goals. The first was the recognition of the people of Lower
and Upper Canada as nations capable of taking control of their
own future. Even then, the Patriotes showed their
openmindedness and that sense of nationalism that did not rest
on ethnicity but rather on their strong sense of belonging to the
area. I submit as evidence the wording of a Patriote resolution
adopted in Saint-Marc on May 15, 1837 and which reads as
follows: ``-(the delegates) adhere and will adhere under this
agreement
5546
to the following principles: equality of citizens, regardless of
origin, language or religion''.
The second goal was the establishment of truly democratic
institutions. Specifically, they demanded the establishment of
the principle of ministerial responsibility or, in other terms, the
creation of an executive formed primarily of representatives in
the House of Assembly and responsible to it-that is,
accountable to the people rather than to the British crown. At the
meeting mentioned earlier, one of the resolutions passed
required delegates to adhere to the principles of an elected
legislative council, an executive responsible to the people, and
finally legislative control over all public moneys from any
source.
The third goal concerned, to a large extent, the civil, political
and economic liberties that many peoples of the world were
beginning to adopt.
In addition to being clearly set out in the hundreds of
resolutions passed by the various Patriote assemblies, these
three main goals were also mentioned in assembly proceedings,
statements, newspaper articles, speeches in public and in the
House, petitions to the British Crown and throughout the
literature of the movement published at the time. For many long
years before they took up arms, the Patriotes peacefully
defended their civil rights. The pen and the word were the
Patriotes' main weapons, before they turned to pitchforks and
shotguns. When they saw that their speeches in parliament, their
demonstrations in the streets and the articles they published in
newspapers were powerless to reorient the governor's autocratic
and arbitrary power and that he preferred to further limit their
rights, some Patriotes finally decided that they had no choice but
to take up arms against Britain's authority.
Some people might wonder whether it is relevant to debate
and vote on such a motion today in this House. In answer to their
protests, I say that citizens who are interested in history and
justice, descendants and friends of Patriotes and Reformers,
have been striving for many years to ensure that parliaments
recognize, finally and officially, the very source of their
existence.
Besides these aspirations that have been held by certain
segments of the population, historical arguments can also be
raised to justify passing the motion before the House today.
The Patriotes and the Reformers, before some of them
decided that peaceful means would not be adequate to the task,
were what we would call today model citizens who were
involved in community life; they worked toward establishing a
government that was responsible for its acts, and promoted
self-determination and representative elections.
(1110)
But our interpretation of history is often quite unreliable; our
collective memory seems to retain only what suits it. It must be
remembered that some persons who are now described as
Canadian heroes were closely linked to the patriot movement.
We have only to think of George-Étienne Cartier, a lawyer but
also an active politician and later a father of the Canadian
Confederation and Prime Minister from 1857 to 1858. We can
also think of Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, an ardent supporter
of the Patriote cause, imprisoned without having taken part in
the violence and later Premier from 1848 to 1851.
We can also think of Louis-Joseph Papineau, an MP for 25
years, a politician and above all a free speaker, admired by his
peers and by the public; or of William Lyon Mackenzie, an MP
from Upper Canada, expelled from the Upper Canada Assembly
for libel and then re-elected five times, who chose arms as a last
resort. Finally, we can think of Robert Baldwin, who shared the
democratic ideals that Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine believed in,
so much so that these two men became the leaders of the reform
parties in Upper and Lower Canada respectively.
Paying tribute to these persons who ensured that we may live
in this democratic system of which we are so proud means,
among other things, not denying a part of their lives or the
strength of their convictions just because it suits us to do so. The
motion tabled today is part of a lengthy historic evolution. In
fact, it is one more step toward the recognition of the historic
contribution of the Patriotes, which has been laborious and full
of unexpected twists.
In February 1849, the Amnesty Act signed by Queen Victoria
granted royal pardon to those involved in the skirmishes of 1837
and 1838. That Act paved the way for reparation for losses borne
by the people of Lower Canada during looting by British troops.
We note that a similar act had been proclaimed in Upper Canada
four years earlier, in 1845. This royal pardon made waves in
loyalist circles, resulting in the fire in the Parliament buildings
at Montreal in April 1849.
A number of years were to pass before a monument to the
glory of the Patriotes was unveiled in 1926 by Lieutenant
Governor Narcisse Pérodeau, in front of the former Prison du
pied-du-courant in Montreal, where 12 Patriotes, including
Joseph Narcisse Cardinal, MP for La Prairie, had been hanged
nearly a century earlier.
One hundred years after the events, in 1938, the Government
of Canada seemed disposed to promote the cause of the
Patriotes. An imposing arch to their memory was built at
Niagara and unveiled by Prime Minister William Lyon
Mackenzie King. This arch bore a plaque on which were
engraved the names of the 32 martyrs of 1837-38, both French
speaking and English speaking. Unfortunately this arch was
destroyed in 1967, the year of the centennial of the Canadian
Confederation, and all
5547
indications are that the then Ontario government seemed to find
this weighty souvenir too much of a burden. It was only in 1984
that the ruins of this arch were displayed to the public.
In 1982, the Quebec government decided to move ahead with
the process of recognizing the historic contribution made by the
Patriotes. Referring to the ideal of liberty, Premier René
Lévesque paid tribute to the Patriotes in these terms: ``The
Patriotes of the 19th century expressed that ideal in their own
way, with the means they felt they had to use. No one can doubt
the honesty of their approach, whatever judgment one may pass
on what has been termed the Rebellion. And we must remember
that we owe them a debt for having laid the groundwork here for
the advent of responsible government, genuinely popular
government''. It is from this perspective that the National
Assembly voted for the introduction of a Journée nationale des
Patriotes, which since then has been marked each year on the
Sunday closest to November 23.
In 1987, the bishops of Quebec reacted as well, lifting the
previous religious sanctions against the Patriotes who had fallen
in battle during the uprisings of 1837 and 1838. At the same
time, the bishops recognized that the social and political
background of the time had influenced the decision that had
been made by the religious authorities. As a result, religious
burial of the rebels' remains was finally allowed.
At the federal level, unfortunately, there have been stumbling
blocks in the way of slow progress toward regaining
respectability for the Patriotes. In 1988, Canada Post, claiming
to have lost a file, categorically refused to issue a stamp paying
tribute to the Patriotes. This refusal was all the more surprising
and incomprehensible since in 1971 Canada Post had issued a
stamp to the memory of Patriote and reformer Louis-Joseph
Papineau.
I would also regret it if I did not stress one event, one of the
oddest and most indicative of the ambivalence of successive
federal governments.
(1115)
In 1970, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliot Trudeau, then Prime
Minister of Canada, took part in the unveiling, in Australia, of a
monument to the memory of the 58 Patriotes from Lower
Canada, exiled and imprisoned there for two years and then
freed conditionally before most of them decided to return home.
On this plaque can be read, in both of Canada's official
languages, the following words: ``-in commemoration of the
130th anniversary of the Canadian exiles' landing in Australia
and the sacrifices made by many Canadians and Australians for
the advent of independent, equal and free countries within the
Commonwealth''.
We also note that a monument in honour of the 92 Reformers
from Upper Canada, who had been exiled to Tasmania, was also
unveiled by a Canadian official that same year. It would seem
that the Australians have a keener sense of history that did the
governments of Canada of those times. This absence of official
recognition by successive governments and Parliaments of
Canada is all the more odd since we find numerous references to
the Patriotes enshrined in the very walls of the building in which
Canadian democracy is exercised.
Indeed, sculptures of George-Étienne Cartier,
Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine and Robert Baldwin can be found
at the entrance to the House. Cartier is also one of the persons in
the famous painting entitled ``The Fathers of Confederation''.
What is more, in the northeast corner of the grounds of the
Parliament Buildings is a statute of Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine
and Robert Baldwin. We note in passing that coins stuck in
honour of the Patriotes were legal tender in this country in the
19th century.
While it is very disappointing to see that, until now,
successive governments of Canada have not deigned to
recognize the historic role played by the Patriotes and
Reformers, we can still be glad that they have shown more
diligence in other cases. One particularly interesting precedent
reminds us to challenge the implacable verdicts of history. I
refer, of course, to the resolution of May 29, 1992, passed
unanimously in this House, recognizing Louis Riel as one of the
founders of Manitoba and of the Canadian Confederation.
From that point on, no one could challenge Riel's contribution
to the historic development of Canada. Although Riel
participated in violent uprisings and was hanged in 1885 for
high treason, the House recognized the value and the historic
role played by that former MP, who had reached the conclusion
that change could only come by force of arms. Joe Clark said,
referring to Riel: ``We must rely on the positive aspects of our
experience rather than the negative ones''.
The historic vacuum or, more precisely, the historic
ambiguity that has persisted since pardon was extended to the
Patriotes in 1849 and the Reformers in 1844 must be remedied.
Until now, federal governments and Parliaments have been
particularly silent on this issue. The vote that will end the debate
beginning now on this motion will clarify formally the position
of Canada's Parliament on this issue. By means of this vote, the
House will have an opportunity to say whether it prefers
unctuous endorsement of the decision made over 160 years ago
or whether it is time, in light of the findings of the Durham
report, the creation of the Canadian federation, and the
introduction of responsible government, to take a fresh look at
this period in our history.
5548
For me, and for the people of the constituency of Verchères,
this motion is especially meaningful. Indeed, I have the honour
of representing the constituency that was, in large part, the
theatre of the events we are discussing today.
According to popular history, first of all, most of the 92
resolutions adopted by the House in 1834 were written during
meetings held in the LeNoblet-Duplessis house in Contrecoeur,
and probably at Mr. Masse's inn in Saint-Denis, now the Maison
nationale des Patriotes.
In 1837, several assemblies to protest the Russells resolutions
took place in Saint-Charles, Verchères, Saint-Marc,
Boucherville and Varennes. The famous assembly of the six
constituencies, in which Papineau participated, took place in
Saint-Charles on October 23 and 24, 1837, bringing together
6,000 persons, including 12 MPs and one legislative advisor.
On the eve of the wave of arrests decided on by Governor
Gosford, Papineau and 30 other Patriote leaders decided to take
refuge in Saint-Denis.
That is also the reason the first battles between the Patriotes
and British troops took place there. On the morning of
November 23, the British army, 500 strong, was stopped by 250
Patriotes at Saint-Denis. In the afternoon, 200 more Patriotes
arrived from the west bank of the Richelieu-from
Saint-Antoine, Verchères and Contrecoeur-led by none other
than George-Étienne Cartier, future father of the Canadian
Confederation. Twelve Patriotes died during the encounter,
including the member for Vaudreuil, Ovide Perreault. The
British troops retreated, conceding victory.
(1120)
Two days later, following a series of mistakes, the Patriotes
were brutally squashed in Saint-Charles and lost 35 men. The
village itself was looted and burned down. More than 30
Patriotes were taken back to Montreal as prisoners.
That same year, on December 4, a huge meeting of delegates
from all constituencies was due to be held in Saint-Charles to
form an «assembly», such as the one held in Philadelphia in
1776, to solemnly proclaim Lower Canada's independence. As
the story goes, on December 2 or 3, the British troops were back
in the area and plundered and set fire once more to the town of
Saint-Denis.
Each year, Saint-Denis and Saint-Charles host the most
important event held in honour of the Patriotes. That is also
where the Quebec government has established a national
Patriotes museum, in Mr. Masse's old inn. Finally, it is where
the greatest number of monuments honouring the Patriotes are
to be found.
Route 133 between Sorel and Iberville, along the eastern
shore of the Richelieu River, has also been known, since 1979,
as Patriotes Road.
But beyond monuments and with historical hindsight, the
goals of the Patriotes and the Reformers are easier to discern. It
cannot be concluded from these events that they simply rebelled
against the Establishment. The Patriote movement was far from
a spontaneous blaze ignited by a handful of individuals. It was
indeed the logical outcome of a long process characterized by a
strong rallying of the people.
The Canadian Parliament must look at this period of our
history with new eyes. It must put into perspective, according to
our society's present values, the significance of the 1837 and
1838 events. Thanks to these rebellions, we have inherited a
system of responsible government and democratic institutions
and traditions admired the world over.
If the national liberation movement started by the Patriotes
and inherited by the present sovereignty movement has not yet
come to its logical conclusion, the same cannot be said of our
civil and political rights and of our democratic and
representative institutions. Yet, democracy is a fragile treasure
to be cherished and protected, namely by honouring the memory
of these heroes and promoters.
This House is the heir to and the embodiment of the ideals
fought for by the Patriotes and the Reformers. It is therefore up
to this House to give them, today, the legitimate recognition
history has always denied them.
[English]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for presenting this
motion and welcome the opportunity to give my views on the
question of establishing a new national holiday.
[Translation]
Since the early seventies, this House has been asked several
times to consider proposals for the creation of a new national
holiday. The date most often suggested is the third Monday in
February since there is a long period without a national holiday
between New Year's Day and Easter Sunday. It is argued that a
holiday in this long winter period would do a great deal of good
to Canadians.
[English]
Proposals for the name of the new day have been wide
ranging. Some have suggested the celebration of common
elements of our heritage. Examples include proposals for a
heritage day, a communities day or a multicultural day. Others,
like my hon. friend, have proposed that the contributions of
specific Canadians be celebrated. Examples here include
Macdonald-Cartier day, Baldwin-LaFontaine day, prime
minister day and national heroes day.
5549
[Translation]
The proposal to create a Baldwin-Lafontaine Day is surely of
great interest to my learned friend since it would mark the
contribution of Robert Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine to the
establishment of responsible government.
My colleague will surely not want to overlook the richness
and originality of the contribution made by the first champion of
responsible government in Canada, the great Nova Scotian
Joseph Howe. Howe was the one who established the first form
of responsible government in the colonies which were to
become the great country that is Canada.
[English]
While I agree that Canadians should celebrate the
achievements of those who contributed to the establishment of a
system of responsible government, I have two difficulties with
the proposals of my hon. friend. First, I do not believe that we
should narrowly focus on the contributions of individuals he
refers to as patriots. Second, I do not believe we need a formal
national holiday to celebrate responsible government.
(1125)
On the first point, I have already pointed out that the proposal
of the hon. member for Verchères ignores the contribution of the
father of responsible government in Canada, Joseph Howe. It
was his courage in facing the executive branch of government in
Nova Scotia that led the executive branch for the first time in
Canada to be fully responsible to the elected members of the
House in 1848.
As Howe stated: ``This achievement came without a blow
struck or a pane of glass broken''. Many Nova Scotians already
celebrate his achievement each year. All Canadians should take
pride in his critical contributions''.
[Translation]
In fact, thousands of Canadians have played a role in the
process which led to the establishment of responsible
government. They came from all regions of Canada and they
contributed in various ways to the establishment of a more
genuine democracy.
Real responsible government was not achieved merely by
adopting a model in which the executive branch is accountable
to the legislative branch. Women did not have the right to vote in
Canada until relatively recently. The efforts of Nellie McClung
and others resulted in Manitoba being the first province which
gave the franchise to women in 1916. Only on May 24 1918 did
all the women in Canada acquire the right to vote in a federal
election.
Thérèse Casgrain played a major role in the fight to obtain for
women the right to vote in provincial elections in Quebec, which
was granted to them only in 1940.
If we want to celebrate the establishment of democracy and
responsible government, we must also recognize the
contribution of great Canadians like Nellie McClung and
Thérèse Casgrain.
[English]
Our First Nations people were denied the right to participate
until much more recently. For example, status Indians were not
granted the right to vote in federal elections until 1960. I suggest
that if we were to celebrate responsible government we should
celebrate the breadth of contributions by the many Canadians
who made true responsible government possible.
My second point is that I do not believe that Canada should
declare a new national holiday at this time. There are a number
of reasons for my position.
First, the federal government only has about 10 per cent of the
Canadian workforce under its legislative control. Thus the
creation of a national holiday would only directly affect the
employees of the civil service, the banks and the crown
corporations. I ask hon. members if most Canadians would not
be annoyed rather than celebratory if they had to work while our
banks, government offices and post offices were closed.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. Liberal
member is straying from the debate since he is not speaking to
the motion for the creation of a national holiday.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): That is a matter for
debate. Resuming debate.
Mr. Bertrand: Madam Speaker, if we want the new holiday to
have a truly national dimension, all provinces and territories
should adopt it.
Moreover, considering our economic difficulties, I believe it
is important for members to think of the cost of creating a new
holiday.
[English]
To shut down the Canadian economy for one more day out of
the current working year would according to some
commentators cost the economy-
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Madam Speaker, as mover of this motion, I
must remind the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle
that the motion is not at all aimed at-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry but this is
again a matter for debate. Resuming debate.
5550
[English]
Mr. Bertrand: -approximately .4 per cent of the gross
national product. This represents close to $3 billion. Is the hon.
member for Verchères prepared to accept that magnitude of
burden on the economy?
(1130)
As our economy has started to emerge from the depths of a
devastating recession, can we afford to introduce a measure that
risks reducing overall productivity and GNP while increasing
the need for overtime work?
In our increasingly globalized economy can we afford to
introduce another statutory holiday when our competitors are
not doing the same? Surely the hon. member for Verchères
recognizes that Canadian industry must strive to remain
competitive and that the addition of a new national holiday
would add a significant cost to doing business.
[Translation]
Thirdly, if we create a new national holiday, will the hon.
member from Verchères not want the government to create
programs to celebrate it? Where will we find the additional
funds for that purpose?
I am not opposed to the idea of underlining the contribution of
historical figures to the establishment of responsible
government. Quite the contrary. Canada Day already gives all
Canadians the opportunity to stop a minute and think about the
greatness of their country and the contribution made by every
citizen.
[English]
Further, Canadian citizens have privately organized
celebrations of a number of aspects of their heritage. Many
Canadians have been celebrating Heritage Day for years on the
third Monday in February. While not benefiting from a full day
off, they have used the occasion to reflect on the cultural,
architectural and social heritage as well as the political
contributions of our citizens. May I suggest that those members
interested in the celebration of responsible government use their
position to organize private celebrations of our democratic
heritage.
Our Canada Day programs provide Canadians with the focus
for a national celebration each year. Should Canadians wish to
additionally celebrate our democratic heritage on another day, I
would suggest that this be organized at the local level providing
considerable flexibility for Canadians to tailor their
celebrations to their particular community.
[Translation]
Schools could also organize historical re-creations of the
debates which surrounded the advent of responsible
government. They could ask local historical societies or
heritage conservation groups to help them. None of these
activities would require the creation of a new national holiday.
The initiative would come from citizens wanting to promote and
celebrate the tradition of democracy which they have inherited
as they do for the celebrations surrounding Heritage Day.
Mr. Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I bring to your attention citation 459 in Beauchesne's
parliamentary Rules concerning the relevance of the arguments
brought forward by my colleague from
Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle. Obviously, my colleague has
completely misread the motion before this House since the
reference to Quebec's National Patriots' Day serves only to
indicate that the government of Quebec has already formally
recognized the historical contribution of the Patriotes and the
Reformers to the establishment of responsible government in
Canada and in Quebec.
Our aim is simply to give the Canadian government the
opportunity of choosing the way it wants to recognize this
historical contribution. The aim of this motion is merely to get
the Canadian government to recognize this contribution.
I think this debate has been seriously sidetracked.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I merely wished to
remind the Member that, first, the motion is entitled National
Patriots' Day.
Second, citation 459 of Beauchesne which he mentioned says:
Relevance is not easy to define. In borderline cases, the Member should be
given the benefit of the doubt, although the Speaker has frequently admonished
Members who have strayed in debate.
(1135)
I would also like to remind the member that, were the rule of
relevance strictly applied, this House would have serious
problems.
Mr. Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to your
attention-and I think it is important to do so now-that I did
not suggest the title National Patriots' Day. It was made up by
the people working on Hansard, I think, or by the private
members' business office, who interpreted the motion to have
this meaning. I insist on repeating in the House, if I may, that
this is-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. If he finds the title given to his motion
unacceptable, he can go to the Clerk of the House of Commons
who will help him change it, if necessary.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate very much the opportunity to speak to this motion. It
is very important that Canadians remember their history and that
from time to time there be occasions for considering what has
gone before.
5551
The motion the hon. member for Verchères has put forward is
a controversial one. He is talking about issues which have never
really been settled in history. Canadians will have to make
individual judgments about the appropriateness of recognizing
that some people are considered to be great patriots and others
are considered to be traitors, as he himself mentioned. That is
one of the major reasons I cannot support this particular motion.
Although I think it is entirely appropriate for the Government
of Quebec or local municipalities to make a decision about this,
it is wrong for Parliament as a whole to make a judgment about
an event in history that is still controversial in the minds of
many Canadians.
I also want to echo the remarks of the member from across the
way who talked about the narrowness in scope of this motion and
how it does not recognize that a lot of people have made
significant contributions to responsible government in this
country. I will talk about that in just a moment.
Finally, I speak against it because we do have a day when we
can consider what has gone on in the past and the people who
have made great contributions to this country. That is Canada
Day. The different efforts made over the years to bring
responsible government about culminated in Confederation on
July 1, 1867. Each year on July 1 we can pay tribute in our own
ways and remember these people.
It was just about a year ago to the day when Reformers came
to Ottawa. At that point it was as candidates because we knew an
election was coming. Our leader took a bunch of us around,
about 100 or 150 of us. We were here to check out the House of
Commons, choose our seats and that kind of thing. We talked
about the big job ahead of us.
I remember extremely well how our leader, the hon. member
for Calgary Southwest, showed us the statues of Baldwin and
Lafontaine. He pointed out the tremendous contributions these
gentlemen had made in bringing about responsible government
in Canada. I for one appreciate very much the efforts of those
gentlemen.
Even the constitution of the Reform Party pays tribute to
many great reformers who have contributed and have helped
develop the government and the system throughout Canada's
history to where it is today. However it would be a mistake to set
aside a specific day devoted to the memory of particular people
who have made contributions, particularly ones whose legacies
are controversial.
(1140 )
It is accurate to say the patriots had some legitimate concerns,
there is no question of that. However, we would be doing a
disservice to the idea that we can have free debate and achieve
things through peaceful means by implying that we give
credibility to the idea that the end justifies the means, that
somehow we are giving our tacit approval for the violence which
took place during the revolts of 1837 and 1838. Many people
were killed during those uprisings. We would certainly not want
to suggest that is the proper way to bring about change.
As the member across the way pointed out, in the 1840s and
1850s Joseph Howe fought for responsible government in Nova
Scotia. He was one of the people responsible for bringing about
responsible government. He did that without having to resort to
violence. That is a good lesson.
This motion is too narrow in scope. It does not recognize the
contributions of gentlemen like Joseph Howe and others who
came after Confederation. I want to talk about them for a
moment. I mentioned Joseph Howe. I mentioned Robert
Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine. There are others who came after
them. There are some of the populist movements which took
place during the 1920s.
The Progressives came into this place in 1921, 64 of them. In
fact the first Progressive ever elected to the House of Commons
was from my constituency of Medicine Hat in a byelection, a
coincidence I am sure. In 1921 it was that group of Progressives
which brought with them the first woman ever elected to the
House of Commons, Agnes Macphail. Those Progressives
deserve to be recognized as well.
In the 1930s a couple of groups sprang up. The CCF sprang up
in 1932. The founding convention was actually held in Calgary.
For years it had been preceded by labour groups. However it was
a populist movement. Populism has become an important
movement in Canadian politics as evidenced by this Parliament.
In 1935 the Alberta Social Credit movement got under way.
William Aberhart played a critical role. The gentleman who
followed him in that movement was Ernest Manning, the father
of the present leader of the Reform Party.
In 1921 the Alberta wing of the Progressives was headed up
by Henry Wise Wood. There were two wings of the Progressives,
the Manitoba wing and the Alberta wing. The Alberta wing
believed very strongly that MPs had to be accountable to their
constituents. That was a novel idea at the time and I would
suggest in many quarters of this place it still is today. I hope it is
something that will continue to evolve. Hopefully at some point
in the not too distant future we will have truly accountable MPs
who will be required to do the bidding of their constituents.
Finally I wish to speak on the appropriateness of setting aside
yet another day to recognize history. There is Heritage Day, as
someone referred to and we can use that day to think back on our
history. However, Canada Day recognizes all the history in the
development of this country. That means many things. It
recognizes the social and historical developments and the
contribu-
5552
tions our troops made during the various wars. Of course there is
also Remembrance Day.
We can reflect on our history on Canada Day, which is a
national holiday. It is entirely appropriate. It is good that Canada
Day does not necessarily specify who we should be recognizing.
Canadians can make those judgments themselves.
In conclusion although I appreciate the intentions of the hon.
member, our party will not be supporting this motion.
(1145)
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Madam Speaker, right
away, before giving my speech, I would like to inform you that
we on this side of the House find it deplorable that Reformers
and Liberals are trying so hard and so sincerely to change the
nature of the debate. Rather than opposing the motion for the
sake of opposing it, taking exception and arguing against the
merits of the motion, they are trying not to talk about it, they are
talking about other issues, and are beating about the bush.
I would also like to point out that we are not trying to establish
a National Patriots' Day as we have in Quebec. Yes, we celebrate
that in Quebec, but this is not what we are after here. We are
asking the Canadian government to recognize the role of
Patriotes and Reformers in Canada.
An NDP member proposed that hockey be recognized as the
national sport of Canada, as well as lacrosse. What more does
that involve? What national day is hockey day? That is not the
issue. So we would appreciate it if people would oppose the
motion, not just the winds around the motion.
That being said, I will begin my speech. The motion tabled,
and I am talking about the motion that was tabled and not
something else, is of very great significance for us in the Bloc
Quebecois.
It is essential to recognize that Patriotes and Reformers
played an important part in the birth of a true democracy in
Canada. In fact, we must, this House must recognize the
significant role that these people played in the history of Quebec
and Canada and their undeniable contribution to our current
political structure.
The motion tabled in this House by my hon. colleague from
Verchères is, therefore, of prime importance. I repeat, we are not
trying to set up a National Patriots' Day. They did it in Quebec,
but there in Quebec they are ahead of their time, not you. The
name of the Patriotes must be cleared so that they can take their
rightful place in history.
It is also true, however, that the means they used to reach their
ends may seem to us, to some of us, drastic, but a closer look at
the situation shows that their demands were legitimate, not their
actions.
I think it would be a good idea, and I feel this even more
strongly now, having listened to the two previous debates, to
present an historical overview of the circumstances surrounding
the rebellions of 1837-38. It would be my pleasure to do so,
perhaps people will learn something. We should say, quickly,
that over a period of a little more than a hundred years, from
1760 to 1867, the constitutional status of British North America
changed five times. There was the Royal Proclamation in 1760,
the Quebec Act 14 years later, then there was the Constitutional
Act of 1791, the Act of Union in 1840 and finally the British
North America Act in 1867. Five changes in a little over 100
years. But for 125 years we have not dared to touch this
sacrosanct piece of paper on which the Constitution is written,
with the exception of the 1982 mistake.
We will deal specifically with three of these documents. The
Quebec Act of 1774, when England-we must also point out that
these rules are always imposed from outside, and it is always
from the outside that rules are imposed on francophones. This is
what is known as colonial status. This is what we want to leave
behind.
With the Quebec Act, England realized that the assimilation
of Francophones in Canada was, to all intents and purposes,
futile.
In order to ensure that the province ``of Quebec'', as it was
called then, did not move toward the hand held out by the future
United States south of its borders, the Crown offered what might
be called a gift to the province ``of Quebec'' that re-established
some of their rights, abolished the oath of allegiance, and
recognized a French lifestyle in this British territory in North
America.
After the United States gained its independence, a number of
people loyal to the crown, the Loyalists, came to find refuge in
this part of the British colony that is today called Canada. They
asked their motherland, England, to allow them to have rights
and exercise them in a land of their own.
Granting their request, England imposed the Constitutional
Act of 1791 that divided the area in two-Upper Canada for the
majority of Loyalists, and Lower Canada, Quebec, for the
French speaking majority.
(1150)
Therefore, in 1791, England recognized the distinct status of
the French fact in North America, which our neighbours today
cannot understand.
The Constitution Act introduced two new principles into the
Canadian political system: parliamentarism and the representa-
5553
tive system. For the first time, the inhabitants of the area were
able to elect their representatives who would meet in
Parliament.
The birth of democracy was, however, very quickly marred by
mistakes. The people suddenly realised that the legislative
assembly elected by the people had no authority over the two
councils appointed by London. The legislative council and the
executive council were composed of a majority of merchants
and professionals who lived in the territory and were appointed
by the British crown, which thereby maintained control over
decisions concerning the French-speaking population.
The Loyalists in Upper Canada, now known as Ontario,
experienced the same anti-democratic stalemate as the
francophones. And William Lyon Mackenzie and his party of
Reformers also rebelled against this state of affairs-they were
not, of course, the Reformers we have today, but the Reformers
of the time.
In Lower Canada, the Patriotes and Papineau opposed this
injustice. An important point to note here is that francophones
were in the majority at that time throughout all of Upper and
Lower Canada.
These two political movements attempted peacefully to
denounce the constitutional impasse. The Patriotes presented a
list of 92 resolutions-weaknesses to be corrected in the
Canadian political system. The answer soon arrived-Lord
Russell refused to agree to the demands made by Papineau and
his party.
There were then only two roads open to the leader of the
Patriotes: submission or revolt.
Since 1834, the economic, social and cultural context had
been seething. Economically, difficult access to land made it
more and more difficult to settle numerous families. Socially,
the English-speaking elite controlled almost everything, and
particularly jobs. In connection with culture, the Legislative
Council refused to respond to the need for an education system
as requested by Lower Canada, a little like the situation in
Ontario today, in Kingston, for those who are not aware of the
issue.
Political instability, economic instability, social and cultural
instability were all perfect ingredients for the pot to boil over in
Lower Canada and Upper Canada.
The Patriotes, then, wanted to exercise real power over the
decisions affecting the future of the people living in Lower
Canada. One of their principal demands was ministerial
responsibility, which involved having an executive council
comprised of members of the legislative assembly-elected
officials who made decisions and were responsible to the public
for their actions.
London's refusal had regrettable consequences-we must
point that out-and they were called the Rebellion of 1838-38. I
will willingly spare you the details of the Rebellion, as they
were described earlier, and go on immediately to the situation
analysis carried out by Lord Durham.
After studying the situation in Upper and Lower Canada, and
noting that francophones were in the minority at that point, Lord
Durham, no fool he, proposed the union of Upper and Lower
Canada, that would then be called ``United Canada'', with an
English-speaking majority. Remember that because of this
union Lower Canada's debt increased by a factor of 16 to pay for
Upper Canada's infrastructures.
After an eight-year adaptation period, in 1848, London
recognized the second recommendation in the Durham
report-ministerial responsibility. Remember that date:
1848-the birth of true democracy.
We can, without fear of contradiction, state that Mackenzie's
Reformers and the Patriotes were the initiators of what is known
today as responsible government.
These men, who were killed in combat, hanged or exiled,
made it possible for us today to work in one of the most
democratic political systems in the world, and they deserve
recognition from the Canadian government for their enormous
contribution to our political institutions.
(1155)
Quebec has done this already by proclaiming November 22 as
Patriot's Day. Pierre Elliott Trudeau himself did it. In 1970, on
the sly in Australia, he inaugurated a monument to the Patriotes.
It is now up to us to clear their name for the collective memory
of Canadians.
[English]
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs): Madam Speaker, it is with great
pleasure that I rise today to address the House on Motion No.
257 to establish a National Patriots' Day.
While I agree with my hon. colleague from Verchères that it is
important to celebrate the individuals who have helped to
establish our system of responsible government, I have several
difficulties with his proposal. The first is the lack of
inclusiveness of the proposal. Another is the duplication of what
already exists. The third is the peculiar interpretation of the
development of responsible government in Canada.
In the first place, as my colleague pointed out earlier, there is
the possibility of additional cost.
[Translation]
We do not need a new national holiday to highlight these
achievements. Canada Day provides us with an opportunity to
celebrate the contribution of many Canadians to the
establishment of our democratic system of government.
5554
[English]
Thousands of Canadians currently celebrate Heritage Day in
February and Canada Day in July. They organize events that
draw the attention of Canadians to the cultural diversity of this
great country and to the patriots of our past. They celebrate its
past, present and future.
I find the motion most peculiar in that it links responsible
government directly to the actions of the reformers and les
patriotes of 1837. It is a linkage that Papineau himself would not
have accepted. If we recall our history lessons it was the Durham
report, which followed responsible government, that was the
direct result of the 1837 rebellions. The Durham report called
for responsible government and the union of the Canadas.
Papineau opposed both.
The Durham report indicated:
I entertain no doubt of the national character which must be given to Lower
Canada. It must be that of the British Empire, that of the great race which must, in
the lapse of no long period of time be predominant over the whole North
American continent.
That was Durham's hope. His hope was assimilation but it was
fortunately not to be. That it did not occur was the result of the
moderate reformers. The Liberal Party was the original and true
reform party, and it was the work of Lafontaine and Baldwin.
Professor Careless has said:
The idea of responsible government was taken up in the 1830s in British
North America by loyal admirers of the British model, who sought both to
remedy discontent with unyielding local oligarchies and to keep the provinces
securely, though freely, within the Empire. Radicals such as William Lyon
Mackenzie and Louis-Joseph Papineau preferred American elective patterns,
but Joseph Howe in Nova Scotia and Robert Baldwin in Upper Canada showed
far better comprehension-better even than Lord Durham-since they realized
that an organized party system was vital. Howe in Nova Scotia, and Baldwin and
Louis Lafontaine in the Province of Canada, built up strong, moderate reform
parties to gain responsible government, and by 1848 saw it fully operating,
accepted by a Liberal, imperial Britain.
Indeed it was Howe of Nova Scotia who first achieved
responsible government. Let us never forget that responsible
government was not fully democratic. Should we not honour
those other great Canadians such as Nellie McClung and
Thérèse Casgrain who fought for the franchise for women in the
first four decades of this century?
I do not disagree with my hon. colleague that we have national
patriots. I accept that Papineau and Mackenzie were patriots.
Mackenzie was the grandfather of the founder of one of the great
prime ministers of this great party that I represent.
I agree that Baldwin and Lafontaine merit special recognition.
They worked together to achieve responsible government in a
remarkable demonstration of tolerance shown by Canadians of
that day.
In 1841 Lafontaine lost his seat in an election of that year and
Baldwin found one for him in the heart of Upper Canada,
Canada West, in Newmarket, Ontario. Two years later Baldwin
lost his seat and Lafontaine had him elected in the constituency
of Rimouski which was 99 per cent francophone. I suggest to my
hon. colleague we may switch some day in the same fashion.
That was the spirit of the times and the spirit of the toleration
and co-operation that created this great country.
(1200)
There have always been those who had doubts about this
country and its future. Joseph Howe, it must be admitted,
doubted that Confederation would work. He opposed it in 1867
and called it botheration not Confederation. Within a few years
he became caught up in the vision of a great nation from sea to
sea. So did Wilfrid Laurier, who had opposed Confederation in
1867, and so did W. S. Fielding of Nova Scotia who opposed
Confederation in the 1880s in a campaign for premier that he led
for the Liberal Party. Ten years later Fielding was in Ottawa as a
part of Laurier's cabinet.
Is it not possible that 10 years hence the hon. member for
Verchères and indeed the Leader of the Opposition himself, who
has shown such a willingness to change his political views in the
past, might together with all of us on this side celebrate Canada
Day and Heritage Day in Ottawa?
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The period set aside for
Private Members' Business has now ended. Under Standing
Order 96(3), the item is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5554
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-30, an act
to amend the Department of Labour Act, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. David Michael Collenette (for the Minister of Human
Resources Development) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): When shall the bill be
read a third time? By leave now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Collenette (for the Minister of Human Resources
Development) moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity address the House
about
5555
not only Bill C-30, but also about the broader context of this
vital amendment to the Department of Labour Act.
It is important that Canadians understand the long term goals
which frame the government's response to the challenges
presented by the breakdown of the traditional fishery. They need
to understand our efforts to meet these challenges with
meaningful, co-ordinated programs that acknowledge the
inevitability of change and recognize the urgent need to
establish a more diversified, relevant economic base for the
Atlantic region.
We also recognize that the human dynamics of this tragic
situation calls for a response that is fair and flexible,
particularly as it applies to those hardest hit and least able to
adjust to the change.
Certainly no group of individuals has been more affected by
the decline of the groundfish industry than older fishers and fish
plant workers. These are people who have spent their working
lives, who have made their living in the fishery and who in many
cases now find their chances for re-employment not very
encouraging.
That is why the Atlantic groundfish strategy includes a fish
plant older worker adjustment program. It is why an amendment
to the Department of Labour Act, Bill C-30, is needed to include
eligible workers who will reach 55 within their period of
eligibility under the strategy.
(1205 )
The Atlantic groundfish strategy was designed in consultation
with provinces, unions, businesses, industry and of course the
communities and individuals who have been affected by the
situation in Atlantic Canada, those individuals whose livelihood
has been affected by the dependence that they had on a
diminishing resource in that area of Canada.
In developing the comprehensive strategy, all aspects of
change were considered, which is why programs that target the
circumstances faced by specific groups such as older workers,
are included as part of this wide adjustment strategy.
We have introduced a very comprehensive avant garde way of
looking at the problem. We are using a modernized, restructured
approach toward addressing the issue of change in Atlantic
Canada. Fundamental in this discussion is the fact that we as a
government, as a people, must understand that the only constant
in today's society is change.
It requires new, more innovative ways to deal with the
challenges facing the people in Canada. The changing
dynamics, the changing configuration of the Canadian economy,
particularly in Atlantic Canada, necessitate a new approach, a
new way of enhancing our labour market strategy, of finding
new ways to deal with structural unemployment, new ways of
dealing with the lives, by providing opportunities, by providing
the tools, by giving Canadians a tool kit to deal with the type of
change that in many ways has devastated a resource, namely the
fishery.
How we deal with that as a government, how we respond to the
changing dynamics of Atlantic Canada's economy, is
fundamental to the success not only of our region but also of our
nation. It goes above and beyond that industry. It speaks to the
fact that we as Canadians must abandon old ways, must realize
and accept that change is here, that the economy simply does not
function the way it used to.
Therefore this crisis in Atlantic Canada has in many ways
challenged the traditional approach of dealing with changes in
our economy. As we looked and analysed and reviewed and in
some ways invented new ways of dealing with this issues,
foremost in our minds as always when we are dealing with
public policy, when we are dealing with the livelihood and lives
of young and old in a region like Atlantic Canada was that we as
a government have a responsibility to provide opportunities for
our people.
In turn, the responsibility of the people of Atlantic Canada
affected by this program is to make the most out of those
opportunities provided by the Government of Canada in
partnership with all the key stakeholders in the Atlantic Canada
community. It is not a question of just giving income support for
the sake of income support. We are dealing with changing the
dynamics in an economy that requires innovative ways of
dealing with the problem of diminishing resources, namely the
fishery.
(1210)
We need a variety of ways of dealing with the issue at hand
and to give the people affected by the diminishing resources a
variety of tools. The government, always in full partnership with
the communities, the businesses and the individuals, has created
a series of programs to help with the transition that is necessary
in the Atlantic region.
Among others, we have initiatives such as the career planning
and employment counselling. These services will help us to
assess individual employment possibilities, set goals, develop a
personal agenda for the individual Canadian who is looking to
improve his or her chances in an economy that is forever
changing.
We are also offering a self-employment assistance program.
It is a program that will basically kickstart new business outside
the fishery. In essence it will give hope and opportunity to
Canadians in Atlantic Canada to engage in entrepreneurship
training.
Through this process of extensive, wide-ranging
consultation, everyone involved was brought into the
consultation process. As a government we felt fundamentally
that any program which we initiated must have the full support
and co-operation of the people.
5556
We have to bring it back to the community level. We have to
engage people at the community level. It is for this reason that
one of the initiatives speaks to a communities opportunity pool,
allowing individuals to develop and contribute to community
based projects and initiatives where they live.
We are also cognizant of the fact that we live in a changing
world where the environment and sustainable economic growth
are extremely important to the lives of Canadians regardless of
which region they are from. It is for this reason that we
introduced, as part of the package, green projects that connect
the environment and the community with the view to improve
the skills and long term employment opportunities for those
people who choose to participate in this initiative.
Fundamental to this program is also mobility assistance, to
provide relocation support for those who wish to find work
outside their community and of course portable wage subsidies
to allow employers outside the fishery to hire people and
provide on the job training.
It is extremely important to note that where these initiatives
are concerned we have built safeguards that will ensure there is
no abuse of the programs and services offered.
(1215 )
We must remember that while TAGS is an active support
measure, the fish plant older worker adjustment program is
more in line with the traditional way of giving support to people.
It will provide income support to older workers who have
worked all their lives and, may I add, worked very hard. This
program is an investment in their dignity and in their
self-worth.
I believe it is essential to reiterate the Atlantic groundfish
strategy. One of the key features of this strategy is that it is built
on mutual responsibility. That is a very important principle. As
such, it represents a significant change from the traditional way
of giving income support provided by the previous groundfish
programs that ended on May 15, 1994. Of course I am referring
to NCARP and AGAP.
No one is obliged to participate in the strategy. Anyone can
opt out for an alternative. That is their personal choice.
In addition to active income support, the strategy is a
departure from the traditional, ineffective at times, ways of the
past. At no time under this strategy program will participants be
trained for jobs that do not exist. They will work at jobs that
need to be done or trained for employment that will give them a
chance at a future job.
In short, what is fundamental to note about this program is
that TAGS is the opposite of a cynical, short lived, make work
program. Those types of programs are part of the history books.
As a nation in financial, social and economic terms we simply
cannot afford to go on in the same manner in which we have for
decades. Conditions are simply not the same.
Other measures to encourage and assist workers include
continued employment counselling, literacy programs and
general education upgrading, all with the objective of
connecting people to the emerging reality of a diversified
economy, of giving people the skills and opportunities required
to meet the challenges of this century, to meet the challenges of
a nation in a global economy that is changing at a very fast pace.
When we say that people must continue to upgrade, when we
say that most jobs by the year 2010 will require over 16 years of
education, when we say that the future really belongs to the
learners, the people who are willing to upgrade their skills, the
people who are willing to take risks and challenges, the people
who are willing to take the time to acquire the new economy
skills that are required, those individuals are going to be the
winners of the new economic system, those people who are
willing to challenge future trends.
That is a message not only for the Atlantic fish workers and
plant workers we are talking about today, but that is the
challenge for all Canadians regardless of where they come from.
(1220 )
Atlantic Canadians are faced with diminishing resources on
one hand and a changing economy on the other. This program we
are speaking about today speaks to the challenges they are
facing, adding to the effectiveness of the strategy that will be
implemented in a context of wider commitments to eliminate
duplication, overlap and to support development efforts in a
co-ordinated manner. This means we must bring government
departments together and toward this end the initiatives of the
Atlantic groundfish strategy will complement the functions of
regional economic development agencies such as ACOA and
FORD-Q.
Even within government we have to accept change and even
within government we must adapt to the realities of the new
economy.
As members are aware, FORD-Q is focusing on economic
diversification for eastern Quebec and the north shore. This
initiative has as its clientele fishers and communities affected
by the crisis, small and medium sized businesses, entrepreneurs,
new business start-ups and non profit organizations such as
Alliance des pêcheurs du Québec. FORD-Q serves an umbrella
function, facilitating local and regional initiatives in concert
with the Quebec government.
ACOA will place a similar emphasis on community economic
development in finding innovative ways to enhance the
potential of the communities, of the people, of the labour force;
their potential within an Atlantic Canada context.
5557
While we acknowledge that hardship will be felt in each of the
hundreds of communities affected by the fishery adjustment it is
necessary to recognize the potential of communities to develop
new economic structures. Therefore ACOA is encouraging
communities to group together, to take a regional approach to
alternative industry development.
How well we are dealing with the crisis. Our approach as a
government, our approach as communities, as a nation, should
be not simply to view this as a crisis but it must also be to view
this as an opportunity to bring about positive change in this
particular area.
When we look at the way government is going to deliver the
programs we will make sure that in terms of delivering
effective, relevant economic development programs every
effort must be made to ensure the harmonization of all existing
and anticipated initiatives. That is fundamental to the success of
this program. We must remember that government in
co-operation with community, unions, business leaders, the
people, the various communities, must act in concert, together,
toward a common vision as we move forward.
(1225 )
It is critical then that the Atlantic groundfish strategy
reinforces the community development thrust of FORD-Q and
ACOA. Because we owe that to the people of the area, to the
taxpayers of Canada, nothing less than the most efficient,
effective and user friendly initiatives that can be designed
should be delivered; initiatives that are at once pragmatic,
compassionate, developed through consultation, initiatives such
as fish plant older worker adjustment program.
This program in a very practical way recognizes the long term
contribution of older workers with many years of attachment to
the groundfish industry. This change will help these men and
women maintain their dignity. It will reduce the impact of
communities when it comes to dealing with the damaging
consequences of significant job losses.
Bill C-30 as such represents an important component of
delivering a truly effective, relevant adjustment package for
older workers between the ages of 50 and 64. The programs of
the Atlantic groundfish strategy, including the fish plant older
worker adjustment program, are each designed to meet the
specific needs, to serve as a catalyst for community economic
growth and individual adjustment in the face of unprecedented
change and disruption.
Bill C-30 is just one response under the strategy to the
realities of change but it is an essential response to those
Atlantic Canadians who have given so much for so long and who
now during this crisis, yet opportunity, during this time when
they are challenged by unprecedented conditions in the fishery
industry really need our support.
It is for this reason that when we were drafting this legislation
we took into consideration the various components. We took
into consideration the fishery industry. We took into
consideration the attachment that these people have to that
industry, the economic conditions, the past economic practices
and structures of Atlantic Canada.
We feel that through this legislation we are not only
addressing a crisis but we are giving people the necessary tools
to upgrade their skills, to put their experience into action in
community opportunity pools, to provide them with tools like
self-employment assistance and portable wage subsidies. We
are doing all this because we understand fundamentally that
what is occurring in Atlantic Canada today requires an
intelligent, pragmatic, rational response.
It requires an innovative, flexible system that can give the
opportunity to people in Atlantic Canada to react to a new
situation, a new economic system and new challenges that
obviously they did not face before.
As I said earlier, the role of the Government of Canada in
partnership with all the rest of the stakeholders in the various
communities, individual fishermen and plant workers, unions
and business is to provide opportunity to the people of Atlantic
Canada. I am 150 per cent sure that in the same responsible
manner in which the Government of Canada provided those
opportunities the people of Atlantic Canada will respond to
those challenges, to those opportunities, by making the most out
of it.
(1230)
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to the measures
introduced by the government in this bill. I think more than
anything this bill demonstrates the difference between the
Liberal principles and Reform principles.
It clearly demonstrates an old way of thinking about
government and a new common sense way of thinking that
Reformers are hearing from Canadians across this country.
Maritimers and Newfoundlanders are just now beginning to hear
from Reformers. I hope they are listening today.
Bill C-30 is one small component of the government's
Atlantic groundfish strategy called TAGS in bureaucratic
language. TAGS was announced in April by the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Human Resources
Development as the Liberal government's $1.9 billion response
to the continuing human tragedy unfolding in Atlantic Canada.
It resulted from the virtual disappearance of Atlantic cod from
our eastern fisheries.
5558
TAGS took effect on May 16 and replaces two Conservative
government programs, the northern cod adjustment and
recovery program and the Atlantic goundfish adjustment
program.
The Atlantic groundfish strategy is a five year program which
will provide a range of options for an estimated 30,000
groundfish fishermen and plant workers. It has several
components which I would like to review at this time.
First, there is financial support here of between $200 and
$382 per week. Second, it provides for training programs
including literacy training, adult basic education, university
study programs, leadership training, career guidance training
and entrepreneurial training.
Another aspect of it is that participants will take part in
employment projects called green projects which will be
designed to preserve and enhance the environment and designed
to provide fishermen and plant workers with new skills and job
experience.
Another thing that TAGS will do is provide an employment
bonus to participants who find and accept work outside the
fishery. It will also provide an affordable wage subsidy which
will be paid to employers outside the fishery sector to hire
fishermen and plant workers in permanent, full time
employment and provide on the job training.
Another thing is that this program will provide employment
counselling, mobility and relocation assistance to those workers
who want to move to find work. Program participants will also
have access to self-employment assistance to help them create
their own jobs. All of these can be very positive measures.
Finally, we come to the Atlantic groundfish strategy which
will provide an older worker adjustment program or an early
retirement package for fish plant workers between the ages of 50
and 65 who do not want to participate in any of these other
programs. This is the reason for Bill C-30. That is why the
government introduced it and that is the reason we are here
today.
(1235 )
First, I commend the government for the Atlantic groundfish
strategy. Reformers believe that it is an improvement over the
programs that it replaces. It requires participants to participate
in training and upgrading programs, work on community
projects and a range of labour adjustment options and incentives
to get fishermen and plant workers back to work.
I think many of the measures were designed to provide
participants with a number of choices to fit their particular
circumstances and needs. I also think the programs were
designed to save the government money in the long run by trying
to get these participants back to work. I commend the
government for the thought that went into these programs. There
seems to have been some real innovative thinking based on the
premise that what we have done in the past has not worked.
I believe the program design indicates a legitimate desire on
behalf of the government to try and use these programs to avoid
or break up the dependency cycle which often accompanies
government programs of this nature.
I look forward to finding out how they actually work, to see if
any of these measures have application in the rest of Canada
particularly as they relate to the larger task of reforming our
social programs currently under review in the Department of
Human Resources Development.
So much for the compliments. Let us get to Bill C-30, the
plant older worker adjustment program. The innovative thinking
seems to have stopped at this point. Bill C-30 will amend the
Department of Labour Act to allow the Minister of Human
Resources Development to enter into federal-provincial
agreements and provide for an early retirement package of up to
$1,000 per month for approximately 1,200 fish plant workers
between the ages of 50 and 65. This is estimated to cost between
$53 million and $67 million. The total cost of the program is to
be shared by the federal and provincial governments on a 70 per
cent 30 per cent basis respectively.
The government will purchase annuities for older fish plant
workers, the amount to be calculated on the basis of 70 per cent
of their UI benefits, up to a monthly maximum of $1,000.
While this guaranteed income is currently only available to
fish plant workers, government officials advise that a similar
package is now being designed for fishermen. As we can see the
measure is going to be expanded.
It seems every time we target a new program for a certain
group it creates inequities and others say ``Me too'', so we
create another program. It has a snowballing effect. We get into
the mess we are in now and it is costing us millions and billions
of dollars.
Government officials explained the rationale for this new
program. They said that some fish plant workers will not want to
participate in the other program options offered by the
government. They said that providing up to $1,000 per month to
these older workers would in fact save the government money.
Benefits under the Atlantic groundfish strategy will range from
a minimum of $867 per month to a maximum of $1,655 per
month.
Unfortunate, Reformers believe the government has not
thought this final measure out very well. Under TAGS the
30,000 unemployed fishermen and plant workers will be
required to participate in a wide range of measures designed to
get them back to work, that is if they are under 50 years of age.
However, the fish plant older worker adjustment program and
any subsequent early retirement package designed for fishermen
are designed with the view that these workers are no longer
employable. Age 50 and you are no longer employable, no
5559
longer capable of being a productive employee, a human
resource that is no longer needed to revitalize the economy of
Atlantic Canada.
Reformers believe that these early retirement packages
should not be an option that we consider for workers in the prime
of their life. Workers between the ages of 50 and 65 have
accumulated a lifetime of knowledge and experience that should
not be lost by putting them out to pasture. For half of their adult
life they will be on some kind of a pension. Can we in good
conscience make this kind of a move? All workers should be
asked to participate in the other innovative options provided in
the Atlantic groundfish strategy.
(1240)
Let us think about what we are doing here. If we are going to
put these valuable workers out to pasture, and I am not saying we
should, the federal government already pays for a program to do
just that. It is called social assistance.
If the government has given up on these workers and if the
workers want to give up on themselves and go on welfare, that is
the option that is available to them. Not only is it available it is
cheaper than the 70:30 cost sharing proposed in this bill.
The Canada assistance plan provides financial support
through the provinces on a 50:50 cost sharing arrangement, plus
the bureaucracy is already in place in each of the provinces.
There is no need to set up another bureaucracy to establish yet
another glorified welfare program administered by the feds.
This duplication of effort is reason enough for Reformers not
to support this bill. We came to Ottawa to eliminate duplication
of effort and to save money. That is why we cannot go along with
this.
Here is a program that is a complete duplication of effort
between the federal and provincial bureaucracies and it costs the
federal government even more money. Reformers say: ``How
about taking all the money spent in the administration of this
earlier retirement program and put it in the hands of fishermen
and fish plant workers to help them get back to work?''
All the other programs put forward in the Atlantic groundfish
strategy have been designed to get fishermen and fish plant
workers back to work, but the fish plant older worker adjustment
program is designed to do the exact opposite. This early
retirement package will act as a disincentive to re-enter the
workforce, a disincentive to retrain, a disincentive to start a
small business and a disincentive to move to find work. This is
another reason why Reformers do not support Bill C-30.
Reformers do not have such a defeatist attitude that they give
up on 1,200 workers before even trying to get them back in the
labour force.
Another reason not to support this bill is the discriminatory
aspects of it. This bill is discriminatory in three ways. First of all
it is discriminatory on the basis of age. It is discriminatory on
the basis of industry. It is discriminatory on the basis of region.
This bill discriminates on the basis of age by providing benefits
for older fish plant workers between the ages of 50 and 65. What
about worker who is 49 and in the same situation as the 50 year
older worker? Could he not challenge his ineligibility because it
discriminates on the basis of age?
This early retirement program also discriminates against
older workers facing similar hardship but not working in that
particular industry or some of those fish plants.
What about those older workers who work in other service
companies who are indirectly dependent on the fish plants and
the fisheries? They were thrown out of work. What about the
older workers who have been laid off in thousands of small
industries and businesses in hundreds of communities in
Atlantic Canada because of the fisheries crisis? Could these
older workers not challenge this program because it
discriminates against them on the basis of industry?
The fish plant older worker adjustment program also
discriminates because it is targeted only to the Atlantic
provinces. What about older workers in the rest of Canada who
read about the special treatment of older workers in the Atlantic
region? Could older workers in the rest of Canada who are also
in serious financial straits not challenge this program because it
is not available to them?
The Reform Party believes in true equality and is opposed to
the discriminatory aspects of this bill, the fish plant older
worker adjustment program. In fact Reformers are opposed to
all older worker adjustment programs implemented by the
government over the last number of years. The Reform Party
principles would have programs apply to all laid off workers
equally regardless of age, place of residence, industry and
targeted to those most in need. Let us not forget that key point:
target the programs to those most in need.
(1245)
Finally, the Reform Party is opposed to the bill because of its
defeatist approach to the east coast fishery. Neither Bill C-30
nor the Atlantic groundfish strategy describes how these
programs relate to the total restructuring of the Atlantic
fisheries so that it is sustainable once the recovery has taken
place.
Reformers believe that the east coast fishery can be
revitalized by fundamentally restructuring the industry so that it
is
5560
market driven and competitively structured with individual
harvesting rights which will lead to economically viable vessels
and processing units.
In closing I would like to say that we have here a classic case,
a clear demonstration of the calamity caused by government
intervention. For over 300 years the east coast fishery has
thrived. In the last 50 years the government got too involved in
managing the fishery and look at it today. What a mess.
Thirty thousand people who used to be gainfully employed
and paying taxes are now dependent on a $1.9 billion make work
project. I find it ironic that throughout the whole of the 50 years
of government intervention the only job security has been for
the tinkering, meddling bureaucrats and politicians. Those are
the ones who have been assured of a job. This program is another
make work project for them.
Every time the government introduces a new program it
seems to create more work for bureaucrats. If it is anything like
agriculture there is one bureaucrat now for every 5.7 farmers
who make a living off the land. That is unsustainable. That
cannot work. We have to look at how much government we have
and find ways to downsize.
This is where the Reform Party is strongly opposed to the
direction the government is taking. Even in this the east coast
fisheries darkest hour the bureaucrats and politicians are finding
ways to employ even more bureaucrats. I am sure most people in
Atlantic Canada appreciate the money, the support and the
programs. I cannot help but wonder what kind of fishery we
would have had if the bureaucrats and politicians had not stuck
their noses in where they were not needed and let the people of
Atlantic Canada run their industry, make the choices that needed
to be made and not have it run from Ottawa.
What kind of fishery would we have had if we had put our
faith in Atlantic Canadians, if we had depended on their
ingenuity, their hard work, their creativity, their productivity
and their competitive instincts? What kind of east coast fishery
would we have had if we had relied on free markets, free
enterprise and the entrepreneurial talent of Atlantic Canadians?
The free market and free enterprise system could not have
done worse than what the government has done in this case.
Reformers believe that the bureaucrats and politicians have had
their chance. They have messed things up big time. I believe it is
time to give easterners a chance to prove themselves. Let us use
this fisheries crisis to rethink the way we have been doing
business. Let us give Atlantic Canadians the freedom they need
to restructure the east coast fishery the way they think it needs to
be done, not the way some experts in Ottawa think it needs to be
done.
Instead of more government let us demand less government.
Instead of higher taxes let us demand lower taxes. Reformers
would rather see the future of the east coast fishery in the hands
of Atlantic Canadians than in the hands of government
bureaucrats. Reformers trust Atlantic Canadians to make
decisions that are in the best interests of the fishery, their
families, their communities, their provinces and Atlantic
Canada. We trust those people.
Finally, if Atlantic Canadians are given this freedom they will
revitalize the east coast fishery. It will be good for the entire
Canadian economy.
(1250)
Reformers look forward to working with Atlantic Canadians
in the years ahead to transform all four Atlantic provinces from
have not provinces to have provinces. The Reform's approach is
very different from that of the Liberals with regard to this
strategy.
I would like to make one more comment as I close.
Meaningful work enhances the quality of life. We are telling
these people through this older worker fish plant adjustment
program to go. They are 50 years old, in the prime of life, and
will be given a cheque every month. This is unacceptable. We
cannot go along with it.
The basic philosophy of the Reform Party is very different
from that of the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak at the end of this session on Bill C-30, the purpose of
which is to allow workers in the fishing industry to take early
retirement, at age 50. We want to say from the outset that the
Bloc québécois will support this government initiative, for the
following reasons.
When you come from a maritime region made up of very
small communities, you see that there is no economic diversity
at present. What is a 50-year old man or woman who is asked to
go back to school supposed to do? Many of us realize that going
back to school is very hard. The most painful thing for these
workers we are discussing today is that going back to school for
a period of two or three or five years, and then rejoining the
labour force, is still pretty dicey. The point is not that these
persons will be unable to work-I would be the first to hire
them-but we must be realistic and work with the present
economic conditions in the regions of Canada. The jobs are not
there.
If I take my constituency as an example, the unemployment
rate is 27 per cent. I have already said so, but at the end of this
session I may take the liberty of sending that message again to
the government side. An unemployment rate of 27 per cent, an
activity rate of 42 per cent, means that four persons out of 10
who are old enough to work are looking for a job or are working.
And that means there are six persons out of 10 who are not
working.
In my constituency, the unemployment rate is 27 per cent. If I
try to draw a parallel with the rate in Quebec, that province as a
whole has an activity rate of 62 per cent; there is a 20-point
spread. If, in order to compare the constituency of Gaspé with
5561
the province of Quebec, I add that 20 per cent to the
unemployment rate for Gaspé, I get 47 per cent, or nearly 50 per
cent.
These figures can be found in many maritime communities.
That is what has forced me to have discussions with my
colleagues and reach the following conclusion: I, too, would
like to be able to say, like the members of the Reform Party, that
it is against my principles to hand out money, but we must face
the facts: jobs are scarce.
For the enlightenment of the Reform Party, I will raise two
points. Mr. Félix Leclerc, speaking about the unemployed and
about paying people not to work, said, ``It would kill them''.
(1255)
Yes, in our Quebec culture, we, too, have self-righteous
people telling us that everyone old enough to work should pitch
in. But the situation, this year and for the next few years, is not
conducive to that philosophy.
The other small point I would like to make to my Reform
colleagues is that I was a little surprised-but pleasantly
surprised-to see that they would allow fisheries management
by Maritimers themselves. I think the heart of the problem lies
there.
I think that, if the people of the Maritime provinces had been
responsible for managing or allocating their resource, we would
not have the same problem we have today. I can say from having
worked on the standing committee on fisheries that the
witnesses we heard reflected that thinking. People want a part in
decisions. They are the ones who experience the day to day
problems, and very often there are local solutions to a local
problem. Ottawa is a long way from Gaspé. Ottawa is a very long
way from Newfoundland. How far? Six hours by plane from
Newfoundland, and four and a half hours from my constituency.
And it is even longer by car: remember that people in fishing
communities cannot afford airfare.
If management were given back to the regions, things would
be very different. But before people take sides on that idea, I
would just like to say that it will not lead to any big
constitutional squabbles about whether most fish stocks in the
Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic come under individual
quotas. The Government of Canada-since everyone is still
Canadian for the moment-has already given responsibility for
some of those quotas to the fishermen.
I know that there are members of this House who do not share
my opinion, but I want to pursue this idea to its conclusion
nonetheless.
I was saying, then, that in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 80 per cent
of stocks come under individual quotas. Based on that fact, the
remaining 20 per cent of fish stocks are allocated to inshore
fishermen. If we had listened to the inshore fishermen long ago,
we would not have had the problems we now have, because the
inshore fishermen were the first ones who could not catch their
share of Canada's quota. It may have been five years since they
were last able to catch their share.
Using these figures, it may be easy to divide up the remaining
quotas, on paper, for the time when the fishery reopens,
provided we do not get greedy try to take more than our share.
That is a suggestion I have for the government, that each fishing
quota be further divided into individual quotas. After that, if all
members here agree, we could whisper this suggestion loudly in
the ear of the Minister of Fisheries.
Later, and this is the most difficult thing to manage, the total
allowable catches will have to be determined jointly by the
provinces and Ottawa or, if Quebec becomes sovereign, by
Quebec and Ottawa within NAFO. These organizations need not
be reinvented since they already exist. We would simply use the
tools available.
We have not yet reached the sovereignty stage, however. I
therefore suggest that Ottawa work in co-operation with the
provinces to define the total allowable catch.
You would thus have Newfoundlanders stating theirs views
concerning their own coasts, views that might be different from
those along the gulf. Take, for example, the Gaspé area, which
lies at the very end of the Gulf and where most of the fish caught
are migratory. These fish will swim along the coast of
Newfoundland before coming to Gaspé. The same goes for the
southern part of the gulf. From Cape Breton, the fish will go up
the coast to Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick before
ending up off the Gaspé coast.
We have to act jointly so that everyone will understand the
migratory movements of these fish. I find it extremely
important that this point was raised by Reform members.
(1300)
I have already expressed this view on other occasions. I know
that the Premier of Newfoundland and I disagree sharply as well
on the future of Quebec and Canada. However, I believe the
Newfoundland premier's position is not that far off from the one
I took during the election campaign. It is a position my Reform
colleagues are now beginning to agree with. The Premier of
Newfoundland spoke of setting up a committee in the province
to set TACs and to divide up resources.
Where I disagree with him, however, is on the contention that
a province should be allowed to set its own quotas, because
5562
provinces share the same waters. When our TAC percentage is
set before we sit down at the table, all that is left for us to do is to
manage the resource properly. Provincial officials then go home
and issue the licences needed to meet their quota, because each
province has its own fleet. The provinces finance the fleets as
well as the processing plants. This connection is very important.
Why am I speaking about this today in relation to Bill C-30
which provides for early retirement at 50 years of age? I always
believed that wisdom would come with age. It galls me to have
to support this measure but I want history to remember this so
that these fishery workers will not have to pay twice for the
administrative mistakes of the federal government.
Other points could also be mentioned. My colleagues raised a
number of them at second reading. I would, however, like to
emphasize one thing again at this time, namely that
administrative rules should not prevent those taking early
retirement from benefiting from economic initiatives. In time,
some of the early retirees may decide they want to embark on a
second career and they should not be prevented from doing so.
Once they are back up to speed, they will be filing tax returns
and the state will come out even on the deal, as they say. At this
point in time, however, it is important that this bill be passed so
as to ensure that these individuals, whether they live in Quebec,
New Brunswick or Newfoundland, have food to put on the table.
Another concern of mine was-I asked questions to certain
senior officials last week and put the question to the minister;
perhaps we can get an official answer-will fishermen also be
eligible under the same act? I have here a document which says
that in the spirit of the existing legislation and the spirit of the
fisheries recovery legislation-I do not remember the exact
phraseology-fishermen would indeed become eligible for this
pre-retirement plan when they turn 50. But I have not received a
clear and firm answer on that. Yet, as one of our colleagues from
the Reform Party pointed out at second reading, the Auditor
General of Canada stated in his report that the government has to
put a specific motion to the House before it can introduce such
bills or authorize such public expenditures.
I have, on the one hand, the advice of the auditor general and,
on the other hand, that of senior officials. First, I would like to
comment on the bill as it now reads and second, I would like the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans to administer its own
pre-retirement program for fishermen.
(1305)
I wanted to look at the next problem from this perspective.
Much remains to be done. As far as the industry rationalization
boards are concerned, some steps were taken but they have not
been set up yet and we do not know what their membership will
be. Why bring this up? Because establishing pre-retirement
programs for fishermen will require extensive discussions with
the provinces. As I said earlier, fishing boats were subsidized by
the provinces.
How can we reconcile on the one hand, Ottawa giving
fishermen a pre-retirement allowance and on the other hand, the
province refusing to forgive the debt on boats? That would not
make any sense. Again, how much of the $1.9 billion the
minister has made available will be spent on pre-retirement
programs? I do not want to see one single dollar of this money go
to waste. I hope that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will
come to an agreement with his provincial counterparts on this
subject.
Failing which I would suggest that the resource envelope
allocated to this measure be handed over to the province so that
it can make appropriate arrangements. These are the general
points I wanted to raise. Much was said about the high costs
associated with this pre-retirement program and with the loss of
expertise, but we did not hear much at all from the government,
about ideas for the fisheries of the future.
Let us hear about it. This represents a $1.9 billion investment.
I want to be sure we do not end up no further ahead after
spending this kind of money. When he presented his program,
the minister gave us the impression that we would have a better
idea of the situation after six weeks of consultations. I do not
have the date handy, but these six weeks must be almost up. We
are coming to the end of the parliamentary session. Should I
conclude that there will not be any new developments on these
issues before the fall?
I think it would have been a good sign for the minister to issue
guidelines before the end of the parliamentary session, in order
to guide industry and continue discussions during the summer. If
we wait until the fall, we should decide quickly what to do with
fishermen. The minister's program deals with community and
environmental projects-the expression ``green projects'' is
used-but I want to remind you that it is difficult to work on the
environment in late October. We should make plans right away
to ensure that something will be put forward this summer.
Future involves other things as well. What industrial structure
do we want to set up? Quebec and Canada were discovered
because of our resources, namely fish or cod to be more precise.
We exploited this resource in a traditional fashion. The first
effective way to preserve fish was to salt and dry it. We still do
it, but it has become a special product. There are other species of
fish. When freezers arrived on the scene, as I mentioned, we
produced frozen cod blocks, but there are still other species we
have not exploited.
The current market trend is fresh fish. It is therefore necessary
to handle smaller volumes of fish but consumers are willing to
pay a little more in return.
5563
(1310)
My wish is that, during moratorium years, we could establish
a system to try to optimize catches for each species-we would,
of course, only keep mature fish to avoid depleting other stocks
and repeating the mistakes we may have made with cod-in
order to commercialize these species.
That is something we heard a lot of under the former
Conservative government. Why did it not work? Because tools
were missing and it was too marginal, we were told. But now,
regarding the few cod stocks still open in Canadian zones, I can
tell you that dogfish catches may be as large if not larger than
current cod catches in the other zones that remain open.
The missing tool is a hopper on the wharf, so that fishermen
can converge on a site. This hopper will allow us to concentrate
on certain species, so that there will be enough to make people
take notice. I call them ``unloading areas''. There are some in
Europe. Of course, in certain places, it also led to a
concentration of ships.
Nevertheless, the coastal villages around these landing sites
are not closed, except that the fish is landed somewhere and the
nearby plant, which wants to have the product, can process it.
For this, the fish must be kept cold. But we can do all that now,
since we have skilled workers who are especially eager to work
because working is also an honour.
People now collecting a cheque at home would really like to
do something constructive and know that the dry period they are
going through will end. There must be light at the end of the
tunnel. They do not have any now. Something important to have
would be landing areas.
In addition to that is what I proposed, a provincial hub for
marketing these resources. There is a way to do that as well.
These are things that must be done. Some supporting figures-I
see some hon. members from Nova Scotia watching us-a
manager of a Nova Scotia company told me once: ``Yvan, 20 per
cent of the fresh fish we land account for 40 per cent of our
profits.''
It is easy to extrapolate from that. I realize that it takes a
certain volume, but I would really like this idea to be used.
Maybe the government opposite can change it a little, because if
the suggestion comes from an opposition member, sometimes it
is not considered good, but I would remind them that I did not
hesitate to support Bill C-30, as I did not hesitate to support the
bill on overfishing. So, as a demonstration of good faith, I think
that the Bloc is here to promote sound management, but not to
hide its political orientation.
But when we look at disorders and problems such as we see
here today, I think that I can set aside my partisanship for the
sake of good fishery management. I wanted to add a few words
on how workers could benefit from this aid.
[English]
I want to be sure that every worker in the fishing industry is
well represented under this new agreement. I hope they will
have union representation and some provincial agreements
because I want to be sure that workers will not be less
themselves in front of the big machine of Ottawa. That is what I
want to add on that.
(1315)
[Translation]
In closing, I want to make a wish: I hope that these industry
workers will meet the challenge now. May they now be assured
of subsistence through a financial allowance for early
retirement and may they get down to work to earn a little extra
for making ends meet. I would ask them to work with their
communities and call on everyone to do his bit so that in five
years, there will be something else, always keeping in mind that
the fisheries might recover, but analyzing what can be done
about it now.
I would like to leave you with these remarks, Madam Speaker,
and remind you that the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-30
and hope that the government will consider past federal
mismanagement and what people in the provinces and the
maritime communities are saying so that we never have to relive
what we are going through.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate this morning in the
debate, at third reading, of Bill C-30, and I am also pleased to
see that the hon. member for Gaspé gave his party's support to
this very important legislation for the workers of the Atlantic
fishing industry.
I listened with great interest to the comments and suggestions
made by the hon. member to rebuild an industry which is so vital
to many communities on the East coast. I find the hon. member's
approach to be very interesting and fruitful in many respects.
Our government thinks that the time has come to rebuild this
industry and, in fact, this is the objective of the adjustment
program announced on May 15 by the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans and the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The purpose of that initiative is to help displaced workers and
those who have been left without jobs following the crisis in that
industry. The program is aimed at giving individuals and
communities a chance to rebuild their lives, and to rebuild that
industry on a more solid foundation than in the past.
[English]
Bill C-30 is part of the government's strategy for helping the
workers that have been laid off and unemployed by the crisis in
the Atlantic fishery to adjust to the situation. We have to
consider the horrendously difficult circumstance in which many
fish plant workers find themselves, particularly older fish plant
5564
workers. Through absolutely no fault of their own, many older
workers are out of a job and their prospects are slim to none for
getting another one. This is the problem that Bill C-30
addresses. Canadians want us to show compassion for these
individuals. We are showing compassion. We are bring in
positive measures to address this unprecedented crisis. The
government is approaching this problem through a component
of the Atlantic groundfish strategy which will involve income
support for older workers. It is a program that will be negotiated,
financed and implemented with the provinces.
(1320)
However there are some workers who cannot be helped under
the current legislation. I am referring to those workers who are
under the age of 55, who were at least 50 years of age on May 15
of this year and who are eligible to participate in the Atlantic
groundfish strategy. They do not qualify for older worker
adjustment assistance under current legislation. That is the
reason why Bill C-30 is so important, it addresses their plight.
Hon. members have given valuable input to this legislation.
Last week Bill C-30 was studied by the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development. The committee gave careful
consideration to the issues raised by hon. members opposite. For
the benefit of the House I would like to address some of those
concerns.
There is always justifiable apprehension that with a new
program, tax dollars earned through the sweat of Canadian
workers are going to end up in the pockets of people who do not
qualify for the program. I can assure my hon. colleagues that
will not happen with this program. To be eligible for benefits
first an individual must be determined eligible under TAGS; the
individual must be a fish plant worker or a trawler person; he or
she must have a long term attachment to the groundfish
industry; the person has to be out of a job because of a permanent
reduction of the workforce at the fish plant and that permanent
reduction has to be the result of a decline in fish stocks.
So that this is absolutely clear, the only people we are talking
about here are older fish plant workers, including trawler
persons. All told we estimate that involves about 1,200 men and
women. Of that number about 700 will have reached the age of
55 during their entitlement period under TAGS by May 16 of this
year when the Atlantic groundfish strategy came into effect.
We estimate there will be an additional 500 workers who
would reach the age of 55 during their entitlement under TAGS.
It is those 500 dedicated men and women that the passage of Bill
C-30 is designed to help.
Some members have said that if we are going to help older
workers who happen to be out of a job because of fish plants
closing, then should we not also help older workers who have
lost their jobs because of restructuring in other industries? That
analogy does not hold here. The groundfish industry is not just
one of many industries in Atlantic Canada, it is its lifeblood,
and in those communities which are dependent on the fishery
there really is no alternative source of employment for older
workers.
The demise of this industry will lead to the demise of entire
communities unless we help these hard working men and women
deal with the crisis. Simply put, there are few options available
to older workers in this situation.
Yet there is a legitimate question about the ramifications of
the decline in the groundfish industry for the rest of the Atlantic
economy. I am sure that hon. members realize that these
adjustments do not take place in a vacuum. There is a domino
effect that spreads throughout the entire Atlantic seaboard. In
Newfoundland alone there are some 1,300 communities affected
by the groundfish industry. Of that number, 800 depend solely
on economic activity from groundfish. The government would
be remiss not to take this into account. We are taking it into
account.
Hon. members will recall that the budget provided $800
million for the strategic initiatives program. Projects under this
program will be funded on a 50:50 basis with the provinces and
territories. They will explore innovative approaches to training
and getting people back to work. In Atlantic Canada the program
will complement TAGS by helping men and women who are not
directly employed by the fishery.
Since the major downturn in the fishery has taken place in
Newfoundland, that province will be the first to receive
assistance under the strategic initiatives program.
(1325 )
Last Thursday the Minister of Human Resources
Development, along with the minister of fisheries of the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and ministers from
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced
funding of $20 million for projects in Newfoundland under the
strategic initiatives program.
I realize that this debate on Bill C-30 is not the place for
details of strategic initiatives but I can tell the House that these
projects will provide financial incentive to encourage students
to stay in school. They will help recent graduates to find jobs
and they will encourage entrepreneurship outside the fishery.
The funds will also provide employment and training
opportunities for unemployed and underemployed individuals
on social assistance or at risk of moving on to social assistance.
It is a partnership, co-operation among all levels of
government, the private sector and community organizations to
ensure that programs such as TAGS and the strategic initiatives
address the
5565
entire economic picture in a way that will help to revitalize the
Atlantic economy.
Some hon. members have expressed concern that this income
assistance program will duplicate the general social assistance
programs. Let me assure them that this is not so. This is a
program that addresses specific individuals who meet specific
criteria within a specific age group. General social assistance
programs apply to all citizens and have very different criteria.
As well, this program will not be a disincentive to seek work
because it is only one part of a broad range of options under
TAGS to help fish plant workers adjust to these drastic changes
taking place in their lives. Older workers will be able to
participate in the other components under TAGS such as green
projects, self-employment assistance, and community
opportunity pools and others.
At a federal level TAGS is a joint initiative of human resource
development and fisheries and oceans. The two departments are
working closely together to implement this program for the
benefit of the greatest number of workers affected by the demise
of the groundfish industry. Fisheries and oceans is currently
consulting with its partners to develop a similar income support
program for fishers who would qualify.
An hon. member inquired when the program will start and
how long it will last. TAGS came into effect May 16 and eligible
workers are entitled to labour adjustment measures and income
assistance for a period between two to five years, depending
upon their attachment to the groundfish industry.
The provisions made available under Bill C-30 to assist older
workers will provide a dignified exit to those unemployed fish
plant workers in my riding and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada
who, having reached the age of 50, know full well that there are
no reasonable opportunities for employment in their
communities for them and the only alternative course once their
unemployment insurance expires would have been social
assistance. This program gives those workers a form of early
retirement.
In the meantime it will allow the industry to be rebuilt with
the younger people who are coming behind them. At the same
time it will provide them with an opportunity to have a dignified
exit and to be able to deal with the consequences of this crisis
without the additional burden of loss of income and the need in
some cases to leave their communities where all of their assets
are located.
In closing I encourage hon. members to consider the
tremendous hardships being faced by these older fish plant
workers and to support Bill C-30 so that the government can
give them the assistance they very much deserve during this
severe crisis in their lives.
(1330 )
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Madam Speaker, at second
reading of this bill the member opposite who followed me said
that he was surprised that there was not unanimous consent for
the bill. At the time I was not surprised at his comment because
it seemed to me that the government solution for dealing with
this crisis has simply been to throw more money at the problem.
It has not dealt with the core of the problem which is fewer
opportunities or lack of opportunities and alternate employment
in eastern Canada. That really is the core of the problem.
The solution that the government has proposed simply creates
a dependency rather than independence among people in eastern
Canada. It destroys families rather than saving them. It does not
address the needs of Atlantic Canadians in so far as it is a
band-aid for a gaping wound. What is needed in Atlantic Canada
are jobs, jobs, jobs. Economic diversification is the only way to
answer that need.
The government solution it seems has been to create a need
for early retirement. That early retirement package has many
things wrong with it. It is destructive to the social fabric. We are
saying to unemployed workers in eastern Canada: ``Here is $750
or $1,000 a month. Take the money, go away and don't bother
us''. It is saying that you as the breadwinner for your family will
not be able to provide so the government will provide. The
children who are left at home view their father or their mother,
the wage earner, simply as someone who goes to the post office
once a month to pick up the cheque, not as someone who is
contributing. That is not helpful to the family and it is not
helpful to us as a nation to create that sort of dependency in one
region of the country.
Another problem that the government does not seem to be
able to face is the problem that it must in fact encourage
development in Atlantic Canada. I find very curious for example
the spending of millions of dollars to keep the port of Montreal
open year round in an attempt to make it a year-round port when
in fact we have year-round ports in eastern Canada in Halifax
and Saint John which could do very well with the business.
We have rail lines that are withering in eastern Canada
because there is a lack of use, yet those rail lines and the
employment that goes with them could be part of the resurgence
of the economy of eastern Canada. Somehow we got it mixed up
and think that we have to spend this money to keep one port open
while at least two others die. All that does is add to the cost, adds
to the tax burden and makes it much more difficult for
businessmen across this nation to stay in business.
At second reading I raised the issue of a need for clear
legislative authority for all parts of the TAGS program. I
appreciate that the auditor general and the public accounts
committee have already given some consideration to those parts
of TAGS coming under the authority of the Department of
5566
Human Resources Development. Bill C-30 responds to one of
the recommendations of the Auditor General in his last report to
Parliament when he considered the previous Atlantic groundfish
strategy:
``The government implemented a program for which in our
view no clear satisfactory authority had existed. At no time did
it go to Parliament to seek proper substantive authority for its
actions. Parliament was thereby denied the proper opportunity
to review and debate the government's proposed program as part
of the normal legislative process, to decide on its objectives and
to approve expenditures to achieve those objectives''.
The auditor general wisely went on to caution that if action
were not taken the same thing might happen with a successor
program: ``The government should present to Parliament
legislation that will provide the proper authority for this
program and any future program of a similar nature''.
The minister of human resources is to be congratulated for the
introduction of Bill C-30 as was recommended by the auditor
general, but where is the rest of the TAGS legislation? Bill C-30
is a minor bit of housekeeping legislation. It does not give the
opportunity to debate the program's objectives.
(1335 )
Again on third reading I ask the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans to lay before Parliament a bill to provide legislative
authority for those parts of TAGS that DFO is delivering. DFO
will be attempting to retire fishermen, their licences and to
create industrial renewal boards.
This part of the TAGS program or what some call Tobin's
Atlantic groundfish strategy is without legislative authority. I
call on the government to bring in the remainder of the required
legislative authority.
We are told that the minister intends to use the Atlantic
Fisheries Restructuring Act as his authority. The Auditor
General has already ruled that the Atlantic Groundfish
Restructuring Act is not adequate legislative authority. That act,
the Auditor General noted, was passed in the mid-1980s to
permit the then Liberal fisheries ministers to implement the
Kirby commission's recommendations.
It is worth remembering that the Kirby report and the Atlantic
Fisheries Restructuring Act were founded on the expectation of
a doubling of the groundfish harvest. The Kirby report saw the
problem of the fishery as one of finding ways to market the
growing supply of fish, the oversupply and not the lack of fish.
The Tobin strategy expects to reduce the capacity by 50 per
cent. The underlying assumptions of TAGS and the Atlantic
Fisheries Restructuring Act are incompatible. The Kirby report
said that one of the bright spots in the fishery was: ``The outlook
for the harvest is that by 1987 the cod catch should be more than
triple the 1976 harvest. The total groundfish catch will have
more than doubled''.
The act expanded the catch potential and the fish were caught.
Now there are none. Liberal governments and their bureaucratic
advisers somehow have changed very little in the intervening
years. Let us be done with any talk of using the Atlantic
Fisheries Restructuring Act to deliver any part of TAGS.
Again, I call on the government to bring into this House a
comprehensive bill that would outline its objectives and that
would give it the necessary authority to carry out the needed
changes to the Atlantic groundfish fishery.
Earlier this month when the public accounts committee was
again considering the auditor general's report on the previous
Atlantic groundfish strategy, the chair of the fisheries
committee, sitting as a member of the public accounts
committee, allowed that the previous Parliament and in
particular the Liberal opposition had acquiesced and never
demanded legislation.
He equated the failure of the opposition Liberals to speak up
as a kind of parliamentary approval by the opposition of what
the government of the day was doing. He said: ``I was a member
of the opposition when this program came in and I do not recall
anybody on my side saying that they have usurped the authority
of Parliament. We did not raise those alarms. The reality is that
by our lack of action, we agreed''.
It seems the Liberals, whether in government or in opposition,
have the same respect for the need of parliamentary legislative
authority for these Atlantic groundfish strategies, a need that the
Auditor General has already addressed. Let it not be said in
some future Parliament that no one in the opposition in this
Parliament failed to request legislation.
Dwindling stocks caused in part by a failure to manage the
fishery created the need for TAGS, turning a blind eye to and
even promoting overfishing by Canadians within the 200 mile
limit and by foreigners outside it. It is sadly appropriate that the
overfishing that followed the Kirby report and the Atlantic
Fisheries Restructuring Act must be addressed by another set of
Liberal ministers.
Today's Liberal ministers are better at shooting missiles over
the horizon at so-called pirate boats from third world nations
than maintaining effective surveillance and enforcement
programs within our 200-mile limit.
When the government is spending some $2 billion on TAGS
due to this failure to manage and protect the fish stock we have
the minister of fisheries and the chairman of the fisheries
committee rallying to protect recent government misadventures
with the fisheries observer program in the Scotia-Fundy region.
5567
In the letting of the observer contract earlier this year for the
Scotia-Fundy region, fisheries officials in Halifax did not even
follow the basic rules of tendering. The tender requirements
were manipulated to give the contract to a company that had no
experience with foreign vessels in the offshore.
The winning company has been allowed to use observers
without the necessary experience on certification, all that the
tender documents required. There has already been overfishing
as a result. There have been published reports in sector 3-O of
vessels without observers that were catching undersized fish and
dumping the unwanted fish at sea.
(1340 )
There have been problems with the Cuban vessels in the silver
hake fishery, vessels that by law must have certified observers.
The Cubans have fished in Canadian waters this year without
experienced observers on board as a result of the new contract.
This makes a mockery of what TAGS is all about. Again, I
pick up on the words of the chairman of the fisheries committee
recently when he was at public accounts: ``This opposition
member does not intend to acquiesce to the demands of
government on the observer contract''. A mistake was made and
I call on the government in the name of fisheries protection to
act. The fisheries committee has studied the letting of the
observer contract and has undertaken to prepare a report for the
minister outlining the inadequacies in the letting of that contract
and the problems caused as a result.
The report prepared by the fisheries committee and given to
me last Wednesday by the committee clerk speaks volumes in
the priority this government places on fisheries protection. The
report rather than censuring officials for the letting of the
contract called on the government to make the observers into
public servants.
The fundamental problem given in testimony before the
committee was a seriously flawed tendering process. Rather
than dealing with this flawed tendering process and the contract
brought into existence, the chairman's report unfortunately
states that members of Parliament were obliged to accept the
opposed view that everything was completely above board and
goes on to state: ``we appear to have little choice but to accept
this interpretation at least in the narrow legalistic sense''.
Nowhere were the flaws of the tendering processed outlined.
The committee never did receive the legal opinion it requested
from the minister even though the minister made an undertaking
to give it to committee.
Why would the chairman state that DFO's testimony was
plagued by confusing and contradictory statements and that they
were not convincing, yet find the committee had little choice but
to accept the contract as awarded?
Two of the bidders acted on the best information available on
past practice and on the tender documents. Unfortunately the
requirements for certified and experienced observers were not
followed in the award of the contract nor were the time line
requirements for the submission of lists of qualified observers.
If the winning bidder does not have to follow the basic
requirements of the request for proposal in bid set up dates from
DSS the award of the contract is fundamentally flawed. Not
surprisingly, we have inexperienced observers now at sea as a
result of this contract award.
The report does not address the real problems. The
requirements of the request for proposal and bid set up dates
were not followed. They were intentionally ignored so as to
break the observers union. The company most likely to continue
to engage in unionized observers was treated the most harshly in
the tender evaluation. The president and general manager of the
winning company has refused to meet with the president of the
observers union. In a published letter he states: ``We see no use
in meeting with you at this time. Simply put Mr. Siddall, I do not
trust you and you are too late. I will not stand idly by as the
Minister of Fisheries and his officials engage in thinly disguised
union busting actions against a small independent union''. I will
not as a member of the fisheries committee participate in the
whitewash of this action.
The chairman's recommendations reflect either an attempt to
cover up the problem or a failure to understand it. One bid set up
date placed in evidence before the committee indicated when the
list of 30 certified observers was to be submitted DFO chose a
later date. The department did not require the winning bidder to
submit the list of 30 names to beat the basic certification and
experience required in the tender documents.
Testimony before a committee of DFO officials
acknowledged that a substantial number from the list by Biorex
had to be retested before they could be certified in any region.
The reasoning behind the requirement to submit a list of 30
certified and experienced observers by April 5 was to have the
winning bidder use the bulk of existing Scotia-Fundy certified
observers, thereby guaranteeing continuity and experience in
the program. When these basic requirements were ignored the
process largely broke down. We ended up with the bulk of the
observers not having the requisite experience and certification.
The tender process, the Scotia-Fundy observer program and
the government's ability to protect our fish stocks were
compromised. The strength of the observer program is in the
knowledge and experience of its members. A recent fisheries
journal article on the American observer program makes the
same finding:
About half of the first time observers never repeat a trip- Much of the data collected
by first time observers is error ridden and takes weeks to correct on their return. Some
of it is unusable. But as observers gain experience they evolve into professional field
technicians who know fish and the way around a deck.
5568
(1345)
I would ask that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans take
swift action to ensure that experienced observers are at sea in the
Scotia-Fundy, observers who are employed by a contractor who
has received the contract by following the rules, the rules that
everyone else was required to play by.
I am concerned for not only the Scotia-Fundy observers, the
fundamental element in the observer program, experienced
observers who have been tossed aside because they happen to
belong to a small, independent union, but also for the observer
program itself, which is Canada's first line of defence against
foreign overfishing and probably the cheapest and most accurate
source of abundant, scientific data available.
I would recommend the minister strengthen enforcement and
enhance coverage levels to effectively conserve fish stocks so
we may never need another TAGS program. In speaking to
second reading of this bill, I noted that we on this side of the
House envision an east coast fishery that is viable,
self-sufficient and sustainable.
We believe that the fishery can and should be a cornerstone of
a more diversified economy in Atlantic Canada. We are
confident that Atlantic Canadians can compete in a world
economy. The government would have Atlantic Canadians
living dependent on government handouts in a constant state of
instability.
It is a desire of reform members to encourage the
implementation of a comprehensive program of change which
would see the people of Atlantic Canada not only working but
working in an environment that is both profitable and satisfying.
I wish that we had seen the last of this type of program, the
type of program we are debating today. Unfortunately I fear for
the worst. I think we all want to see a more prosperous Atlantic
Canada. If the government would introduce a comprehensive
bill which would deal with the restructuring of the economy of
Atlantic Canada rather than the band-aid solution it has
provided to date, we would all do better.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Madam
Speaker, I would like to talk about the government's response to
one of the most important challenges facing the Canadian
government at the present time. I am referring specifically to the
unemployment crisis in eastern Canada.
Bill C-30 is an attempt to deal with this crisis. In every
respect this piece of legislation falls terribly short of this goal.
At the present time there are 192,000 unemployed in the four
eastern provinces.
Provincial unemployment rates range from 13 per cent to 21
per cent. Obviously measures should be introduced to ensure the
long term viability of the most economically depressed regions
of Canada. The question remains why does the government
continue to pursue this course of action?
It was mismanagement of fishery resources by past
governments which resulted in the economic crisis that Atlantic
Canadians are paying for today. Many of the people affected by
this crisis have worked at plants for their entire careers. They
were capable enough to hold these jobs.
Now, thanks to government short sightedness and poor
management, they have seen their source of income all but
disappear. However, the solution proposed by Bill C-30 is in my
opinion just as short sighted and poorly managed. This program
proposes to reduce the technical level of unemployment in
Atlantic Canada, not by strengthening the economy or
promoting job creation but by encouraging people to drop out of
the workforce.
Is this the government's agenda for reducing unemployment?
The Reform Party would prefer to see a vigorous plan for the
revitalization of Atlantic Canada. Perhaps this is what we should
be debating here today. An interesting aspect of this program is
the way in which it will be administered.
The government plans to purchase annuities for each of the
affected individuals. As most members present will know, an
annuity is created when you invest in an asset which will provide
you with a future stream of earnings. In this case the government
asset will be in the form of a bond.
(1350)
Like most Canadians the Reform Party prefers to consider the
individual as the asset. An individual invests in himself through
training, whether it be formal schooling, on the job training or
years of experience. The return comes in the form of a stream of
pay cheques from a job, not government handouts. In addition,
when we invest in ourselves we gain a sense of achievement and
self-worth. We gain it from earning the money that we receive
and converting our effort into tangible goods and services for
ourselves and for our families.
This program provides neither a sense of achievement nor the
satisfaction of accomplishment for those it is supposed to help.
The long term impact of this decision is to create a cycle of
dependency for the very recipients it is supposed to help. The
workers being targeted by this program are in a period of their
lives when planning for their retirement is most crucial. The
recipients are to be between the ages of 50 and 65. At this age the
children of many of these parents are leaving home, relieving
5569
their parents of financial obligations. Individuals in this age
bracket are typically earning the highest income of their lives.
The obvious impact of higher earnings combined with reduced expenses is increased savings. People between the ages of 50 and 65 contribute to RRSPs and pay down their mortgages. In addition, higher income earners pay higher Canada pension plan rates whic
According to the most recent taxation statistics available,
Canadians between the ages of 50 and 64 contribute $23.49 more
than the average tax filer to CPP; $113.25 more to registered
pension plans and $571.06 more to RRSPs. What this means is
that Canadians between the ages of 50 and 65 contribute over
$700 more per year toward their retirement, or 54 per cent more
than the average taxpayer.
By removing these able bodied individuals from the
workforce the government is sentencing these Canadians to a
subsistence living made up of this annuity and welfare for the
next few years. This will offer these Canadians only a
subsistence living in their post-65 retirement years, comprised
of guaranteed income supplement and old age security program
payments. These people are going to be tomorrow's poor seniors
and the government is doing nothing which would prevent this.
We have to ask what can be done to bring about economic
prosperity for regionally depressed areas of Atlantic Canada.
There are numerous measures the government could take to
achieve this. One such measure is a plan for real deficit
reduction and tax relief for Canadians. Eliminate marginal or
useless government spending. Put money back into the hands of
Canadians by not taking it out of their hands in the first place.
In many of the poorer provinces we have seen how a
government downturn leads to more government spending and
then to increased taxation which saps income from the very
people it was intended to assist.
A second measure would be improving the access of Atlantic
Canada to the lucrative eastern U.S. market. Canada's economy
has always been dependent on trade, and the areas of Canada
which have flourished economically have done so as the result
of strong links to our trading partners.
A third measure would be a plan for proper management of
Atlantic Canada's resources. This would not only include better
management of Canada's fishery but better management of
human resources. This would ensure that 15 years from now we
are not telling another generation of Canadians that its skills are
obsolete.
I am not advocating increased government intervention. On
the contrary. It was government bureaucracy that was
responsible for much of this problem in the first place and
government money is not going to bring back fishery jobs.
(1355)
However, the government can encourage young Canadians to
choose their career paths wisely, assist people in identifying
emerging industries in Canada and can help to ensure that
Atlantic Canada is prepared to take advantage of future
opportunities.
In conclusion, I will not be opposing this bill because it
provides laid off fisheries workers with a subsistence living
when their unemployment insurance expires. Who could wish to
add to the hardship they are already experiencing? Certainly not
I and certainly not my Reform colleagues.
However, I will oppose this bill because it fails to provide a
path to the long term economic recovery of Atlantic Canada.
Bill C-30 fails to provide financial independence to the fish
plant workers who have devoted their careers to a traditional
industry and wish to continue to earn a living. What these
Canadians need is a tool to earn that living.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Madam
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I listened to the comments
of the hon. member from the Reform Party today. If he had spent
very much time along those fishing coasts of Newfoundland and
Labrador, along the shores of Cape Breton Island and throughout
Nova Scotia he would see and perhaps have a little more
empathy for the dire straits these people find themselves in.
I would ask the hon. member at this time if he so opposes this
bill what suggestions might he have to solve this immediate
crisis and to have some impact as we take direction for the long
term future of these people who have known nothing but the
history of the sea, fishing, for over 200 years.
Mr. Mayfield: Madam Speaker, the difficulty with this bill is
it comes in the midst of a lot of nothing. We have had years of the
government ignoring the difficulties that the fisheries on the
east coast have been experiencing. There is no insight into this
bill at all about the long term solution. This is another band-aid
being applied, a band-aid which will simply forestall the long
term planning that is required.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Madam Speaker, listening to
my hon. friend, it is a bit like saying that since we do not have a
cure for cancer we will not take any steps to bring you some
peace of mind and some effort to resolve your problems in the
short run.
While I will be the first to say that this legislation is not the
long term solution to the economic plight faced by those people
living in Atlantic Canada and on the short end of the stick
regarding the collapse of the cod fishery, to say that we should
do nothing, to say that we should simply turn our backs on these
people and let them fend for themselves at this point is not a
Canadian way to respond. Canadians by definition are people
with compassion who go out of their way to assist their citizens
in troubled times in other parts of the country.
5570
An hon. member: The Canadian way is not to drive people
into the poor house.
Mr. Riis: My friends in the Reform Party say that since this is
not a perfect solution and it does not have the long term
implications economically for Atlantic Canada we are going to
cut these tens of thousands of people adrift and simply turn our
backs on these people who have lost their livelihoods. That is
highly irresponsible.
An hon. member: Bring in a bill that brings long term as well
as short term.
Mr. Riis: My hon. friend from the Reform Party says bring in
a bill that brings long term. The point is what do you do to those
tens of thousands of men and women who today are facing a
hopeless situation economically because of the collapse of the
cod fishery? Through no fault of their own they find themselves
in this position. The Reform Party says cut them loose, turn your
backs on these people and ignore their plight. I say that is not the
right step to take. That is not the appropriate-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The hon. member will of course have the floor
resuming debate after the question period.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
5570
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the
need for an upgraded national highway network. I encourage the
government to consider a dedicated fuel tax as one way to cover
the federal share of upgrading critical parts of our national
highway system.
A safe and efficient highway is key to our national economic
health and international competitiveness. The absence of such a
system is deterring our economic growth, our competitiveness
and our recovery from the recession.
Starting construction now will create more jobs, enhancing
employment opportunities created by the launch of our
international infrastructure program. It would also provide a
very real and long term benefit to Canada's highway
infrastructure. Upgrading the national highway system would
also lead to considerable financial savings to various sectors of
our economy.
Finally a commitment by the government to upgrade Canada's
highway system would demonstrate a determination by both
national and provincial governments to work for the benefit of
Canadians from all regions and sectors.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, as you
will remember, during the last election campaign, the Prime
Minister often said that he wanted to put an end to Conservative
cronyism in the federal administration. In fact, this is one of the
promises made in the red book.
Yet, the daily Le Droit says that a review of 25 order in council
appointments for high level and top jobs within the federal
administration since last fall shows that only three francophones
were appointed. The majority of those positions are held by
Ontarians.
The Liberals have indeed fulfilled one of their promises: They
have replaced Conservative cronyism with a new Liberal
version.
I want to remind the Prime Minister that order in council
appointments should reflect the structure of the Canadian
population as a whole, and not just favour members and friends
of the Liberal Party.
In the Canada that he envisions, more and more room will be
made for one group and less and less for another.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker, the
1994 British Columbia Summer Games will be held right in the
heart of the beautiful Okanagan Valley in Kelowna from July 21
to July 24.
Over 4,200 of the best amateur athletes, more than double the
number at Lillehammer, Norway, for the Olympics, from all
over British Columbia will be competing in more than 30
different sporting events.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the many hundreds of
volunteers that have helped already and will continue to help
make this event the largest single community event ever held in
Kelowna.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite you and
all the members of the House, as well as all other Canadians, to
come to Kelowna and witness the athletes in action and enjoy a
holiday in the spectacularly beautiful Okanagan Valley.
Again my thanks to all those involved in getting Kelowna
ready to host the province. Let the games begin.
5571
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I am sure
all members of the House will join me today in thanking an
extraordinary group of young men and women, the
parliamentary pages.
Often we come into the Chamber in a rush, preoccupied with
our busy agendas, but we are always greeted with friendly
smiles and cheerful attitudes. It may at times seem we take them
for granted, but I wanted to let them know that we appreciate
very much the work and assistance they give us while we are in
the House. Without them our jobs would be much more difficult.
A couple of days ago I had the opportunity to speak with a few
of the pages outside the Chamber. They were charming,
intelligent and very much eager to learn about not only the
political system but about myself and the people and riding I
represent. Their dedication and enthusiasm needs to be greatly
commended.
I want to say that the parents and families of the pages can
truly be very proud of them and their achievements. I hope their
experience here, although somewhat shorter than hoped, was
enjoyable. I wish them well in their future lives and careers. I
hope the next time they are in Ottawa they will stop in to visit us.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, two
major holidays are coming soon in Canada. Saint-Jean-Baptiste
Day, on June 24, which was first celebrated in Montreal in the
1800s, is the national holiday for francophones across the
country, including of course Quebecers.
Then there is Canada Day, on July 1, which is celebrated by all
Canadians across the country.
[English]
Canada Day will be celebrated from coast to coast to coast.
[Translation]
These two major holidays are opportunities to celebrate with
friends what unites us and makes this country one of the best in
the world.
(1405)
[English]
It is a wonderful opportunity for all of us as Canadians to
celebrate these two great events within the next few days.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, as we
approach the summer recess I cannot help but comment on how
proud I am of the work we have accomplished in the eight
months that have passed since we were elected.
We are keeping the promise of creating opportunity and hope
for Canadians by addressing their needs first and bringing
integrity back to public service. Indeed we have all faced many
challenges in the Chamber since the House of Commons
convened on January 17. However the challenges faced by my
colleagues and I in the Chamber pale in comparison to the
challenges you have faced in your inaugural session as Speaker
of this place.
On occasion the emotion and anxiety displayed in the
Chamber have threatened to disrupt the good work of the House
of Commons, but you have managed to quench the flames of
fiery debate without diminishing its substance. Mr. Speaker, to
you and to all my colleagues in the House, have a safe and happy
summer with family, friends and constituents.
The Speaker: I was going to cut him off, but I thought I would
let him go on.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, it was a
relief and very satisfying to hear the encouraging news brought
back by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter from his trip to the
Korean peninsula.
It seems that his efforts to defuse the situation created by the
nuclear crisis involving North Korea were successful, since
Pyongyang has agreed to freeze its nuclear program and will
allow international inspectors to enter the country. A third round
of discussions on the nuclear controversy between Washington
and Pyongyang may very well be resumed through diplomatic
channels.
We can only applaud this breakthrough created by the former
U.S. president, who felt that the crisis seemed to be over. It will
no longer be necessary for the UN Security Council to adopt
strict sanctions against North Korea, if Pyongyang abides by the
agreement obtained by Mr. Carter.
The Official Opposition would like to congratulate the former
president on this valuable contribution to the cause of peace, in a
tense situation that was deteriorating rapidly.
5572
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor
General have indicated that they believe the criminal justice
system is working well and requires only minor changes.
Members of the government and the media have referred to a
recent Statistics Canada poll that indicated the level of crime
had not increased over the past five years. However nobody in
the government or in the media seems horrified that the poll also
showed that one out of every four Canadians is a victim of crime
every year.
It is because of this fact that so many Canadians are afraid to
walk the streets. It is because of this fact that so many Canadians
have their homes and cars wired with alarms. It is because of this
fact that our insurance rates and deductibles are going up every
year.
If the criminal justice system is indeed working, why are there
so many examples of it having gone wrong? Unfortunately flaws
in the criminal justice system are all too often fatal flaws.
Canadians do not agree with the ministers. They believe the
justice system is crumbling and they are demanding change.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to Russell Snudden and Jason David
Srigley, two constituents from my riding of
Victoria-Haliburton who received the medal of bravery at a
ceremony at Rideau Hall with the Governor General on Friday,
June 17.
Both men received the medal for risking their lives attempting
to save three people from a burning house in Pontypool, Ontario,
on April 27, 1993.
They are volunteer firemen and during that cool spring
evening they searched a living room that was completely
engulfed in flames. The heat was so intense that their equipment
started to melt. These gentlemen are true Canadian heroes who
have risked their lives to save others. I ask all members to
applaud their heroic act.
* * *
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to acknowledge that this week is Canadian Occupational
Health and Safety Week.
Having worked with injured workers in Ontario for many
years, I know of the hardship and suffering caused by workplace
injuries. The sad reality is that every 12 working hours of the
year one Canadian worker is killed on the job.
In 1992, 714 workers died in the course of their duties; over
864,000 workers were injured; and more than 19 million
working days were lost. This is not only a terrible human waste;
it is also an economic waste. When we add up the direct and
indirect costs of workplace accidents over $10 billion are
wasted annually.
During Occupational Health and Safety Week one message to
Canadians will be that increased training, education and
information are needed to combat this problem. Another
message is that occupational health and safety are directly
related to the economic health of Canadian business.
(1410)
I urge all members of the House to join with business and with
labour in ending this tragic and unnecessary waste of human and
economic resources.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, last
month St. Catharines celebrated its 26th Annual Folk Arts
Festival.
Some 35 local ethnic organizations participated in the
festivities held in the last two weeks of May. The folk arts
festival welcomes visitors to see the world from its doorstep.
Indeed the organizations that participated in the festival's
activities brought the food, the culture and the multitude of
ethnic festivities and activities from around the world to the city
of St. Catharines.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
organizers of the folk arts festival, the president, Ann Stavina,
and all those who participated. Their tireless efforts ensured the
success of the festival this year.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, for a number
of days the Liberal government has tried in every possible way
to divert attention from the real causes that are helping to
maintain interest rates at high levels. Government voices keep
blaming the uncertainty caused by the question of Quebec's
sovereignty. Why was Canada's and not Quebec's credit rating
for Canadian debt in foreign currency downgraded by Moody's?
The facts are all there. Canada's finances are in poor shape
mainly because of the incompetence of the present government,
which did not have the nerve to bring down a budget that
generates confidence among foreign investors. Let the federal
5573
government act responsibly, for a change, when handling the
financial and economic affairs of this country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, in
the 1993 forest industry in B.C. report Price Waterhouse advised
that after several years of losses the British Columbia forest
industry earned a profit of $520 million on sales of $14.3 billion
and 215 million trees were planted in addition to the 275,000
hectares of land reclassified to satisfactorily restocked.
The forest industry in British Columbia directly and
indirectly employs over a quarter of a million people, some 18
per cent of B.C.'s workforce. Across Canada the industry is the
mainstay of 346 communities including 116 in British
Columbia. Of the 116 several are in my own riding of
Cariboo-Chilcotin.
As we enter the 21st century we need Canada to remain a
world leader in forestry. This will not happen unless
governments and the public take pride in what Canada does best
by offering support to forestry workers as well as taking the
benefits of what they provide.
Forestry is the main industry in the country. Let us salute all
who work in the forest industry providing jobs and financial
stability to small-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's
Crossing.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, prior to the last election the Liberals promised
repeatedly that they would scrap the GST. We know this tax has
hurt lower and middle income Canadians, small and medium
sized businesses, and has cost hundreds of thousands of
Canadians their jobs. We need a tax system which is more unfair,
not more unfair, and we deserve a government which keeps its
promises.
What does this new Liberalspeak mean? It means applying
GST to food and prescription drugs. It wants to tax families on
the bread they eat and on the prescription drugs they buy for
their children. Yet it leaves the sales of stocks and bonds free of
GST.
How perverse can this be? Once again the rich get a break and
the middle and lower income Canadians get hit. That is Liberal
tax reform.
The government should earnestly search for a more
progressive system of taxation which closes loopholes for the
wealthy and large profitable corporations and gives middle and
lower income Canadians a break. Most of all the government
should stop breaking its election promises.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Constable Todd Baylis, the
Toronto police officer tragically killed in the line of duty last
Thursday night.
Todd was a resident of my riding. The 25-year old policeman
was liked by co-workers and neighbours. He was intelligent,
popular and faced a bright future with his fiancee, Janice
Graham. Todd was a true life hero and role model.
Constable Todd Baylis was a young man who had his life
taken by the senseless, brutal action of a criminal who should
never have been on the streets. He was the second officer killed
in the line of duty since 1984.
On behalf of all Canadians I offer my deepest sympathy to
Todd's family, fiancee and co-workers.
* * *
(1415 )
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
as this House nears the summer recess may I extend to you our
gratitude for your generosity and understanding toward all
members of this House. Your quick wit and fair attitude has been
appreciated.
During this session we have heard comments on Atlantic
Canada, Quebec, central Canada, western Canada, B.C. and the
north. I should tell you and this House that each of these
components is important to my Canada and will continue to be.
My Canada has no greater province or people nor does it have
any lesser province or people. It is but one Canada and one
people, equal in every way.
According to a recent poll 61 per cent of Canadians approve
the Chrétien government actions.
Mr. Speaker, to you and to all members of this House, have a
great summer. May God bless Canada and all Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, it has been
stated a number of times in the House that the justice system in
Canada is working fine. These statements made by the Minister
of Justice and the Solicitor General are not, I repeat are not, the
same feelings of the rank and file Canadians throughout the
country.
This government's efforts to being in change and make
Canada safer are mediocre at the very best. This government
5574
claims the answer to a lot of our problems is to bring in gun
control because that is what Canadians want.
If this government is truly listening to what Canadians want
then surely it is hearing the majority cry out for such things as
consecutive sentencing, non-release of violent offenders, and
the return of capital punishment. Or, is it only hearing the
bleeding heart segment of our society? With the tinkering of
legislation which is presently going on I would suggest the
bleeding hearts are the only ones who are being heard.
As more policemen die, violent crime continues to rise and
young offenders get bolder and bolder, very soon the voice of the
majority will be heard. What will the minister do then?
_____________________________________________
5574
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, Saturday's
Globe and Mail reported that the Minister
of Finance asked his colleagues to accept new spending cuts in
order to counteract the effect of rising interest rates. It seems
that at a meeting on the weekend, the cabinet was split on the
minister's proposal, with a number of ministers preferring to
wait and see before making additional spending cuts.
Does the Minister of Finance intend to table a supplementary
budget in the fall to reduce government spending by at least $3
billion, in order to counteract rising interest rates and keep the
deficit down to $37.2 billion as announced in his budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the cabinet is not split.
We had a very useful meeting on the weekend. I have regular
meetings with my colleagues to discuss ways to make
government more effective, and I think we are seeing the results
of those meetings.
As I said in this House last week and the week before, we do
not intend to bring down a minibudget in the fall. As we said in
the budget, we intend to present our economic forecasts in order
to have a basis for consultation on the budget to be tabled next
February.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I am inclined to conclude from what I read in the Globe
and Mail and from the minister's reply that his proposal for
additional spending cuts was defeated by his Cabinet.
I would like to ask the minister more specifically whether he
would admit that he is primarily responsible for rising interest
rates and whether he realizes that these increases are a direct
result of the severe judgment passed by a financial community
that is dissatisfied with the spending cuts in his last budget.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there are several
reasons for the increase in interest rates. First of all, this is an
international phenomenon. We are seeing this not only in
Canada but elsewhere as well. Of course, Canada's level of debt
does not help either.
However, if we look at the past two or three weeks, clearly the
rise in interest rates is due mainly to the irresponsible
statements made by Jacques Parizeau and the Leader of the
Opposition.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Instead
of taking political cheap shots, I would urge the Minister of
Finance, through you, Mr. Speaker, to behave more responsibly,
and more specifically, I would ask him to answer the following
question: If, as the minister claims, political uncertainty has
caused the rise in interest rates we are experiencing today, then
why does this increase not affect securities issued by the
Government of Quebec and Hydro Quebec, and why does it
affect securities issued by the federal government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, probably because
Quebec has been spoiled by a Liberal government for nine years,
and not Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Anyone who has any doubt as to the irresponsibility and effect
of the statements by the Leader of the Official Opposition and
the leader of the opposition in Quebec, only has to look to the
statements of people from Nomura Securities from Japan, from
the United States and from Germany. They indicate those
statements are putting not only the political but the economic
structure of this country in doubt.
We are going into a very difficult time. I ask the Leader of the
Official Opposition and through him his colleague in Quebec to
understand that hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs are put
at stake every time they make an irresponsible statement.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal Party was elected on a promise to abolish the GST. In
fact, this was one of the main commitments in the red book.
Moreover, on May 2, the Prime Minister told this House, in
5575
reference to the GST, and I quote: ``We hate it and we will kill
it''. According to today's media reports, however, not only is the
GST here to stay but it will be hidden in order to better extend it
to basic goods and services.
After making a formal commitment to abolish the GST, how
can the Minister of Finance justify the fact that his government
is considering maintaining this tax in a hidden form while
extending it to food, medicine and health care?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I am told that the
committee report will be presented to the House this afternoon. I
am eager to read it. The member is on the finance committee and
should know better than to quote newspapers before the report is
even tabled in the House.
When the report is presented, we shall see-and I am very
confident because the members worked very hard-whether the
committee managed to replace the GST, as we promised.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
since low-income earners, the sick and the elderly will be the
first victims if the GST is extended to basic foodstuffs, health
care and medicine, can the finance minister explain to us, in the
light of the recent unemployment insurance cutbacks for which
he is primarily responsible, why his government persists in
hounding the most disadvantaged members of society?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the member keeps making reference to
a finance committee report which is going to be submitted to the
House.
I hope at the same time the committee report is submitted that
Bloc Quebecois members will be giving us their views. I hope
that unlike the previous question those views will be
constructive and not simply destructive.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
During the election campaign Reformers said we would cut
spending, balance the budget and then get rid of the GST. The
Prime Minister said he would scrap the GST. He said: ``We hate
it and we will kill it''.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister and her government still
adhere to this policy?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
(1425 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, we are going
to adhere to our time schedule today with answers like that.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit it was irresponsible for
her party to campaign on a promise of scrapping the GST when it
has no plans to make the spending cuts necessary to really get rid
of the GST?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the only party that has done
a 360 degree turn on its position on the GST is the party to which
the hon. member opposite belongs. His leader campaigned in
favour of the GST. However when he read the public opinion
polls, he turned around and campaigned against it.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, 360 degrees
puts us back where we started.
It is obvious the Liberal government plans to introduce the
son of GST, an allegedly new tax with a new name that will be
called the value added tax. I predict that if this becomes
government policy, very soon Canadians will be calling it the
very awful tax, just as they do in Great Britain. If the biggest
change to the GST is just its name, this is a betrayal of Liberal
campaign promises.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister admit that she has created a
political hot potato because she has not been clear with the
Canadian taxpayers and is now trying to double talk her way out
of an election promise?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the only party that has been
double talking the Canadian taxpayers is the party opposite.
The Liberal Party campaigned on a promise of getting rid of
the GST. From the very moment the Prime Minister made that
promise, he told the Canadian people very honestly that when
the GST was abolished it would have to be replaced by
something. The report we are going to read this afternoon will
underline the contents of various options which will be
examined by cabinet and by the Prime Minister.
I can say one thing. There is one person in this House who
fully intends to live up to every promise he made. He is the
Prime Minister of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, according
to Statistics Canada figures published in the daily
La Presse,
Ottawa makes overpays native band councils by over $1.2
billion every year. This money is paid to over 70,000 apparently
non-existent natives and represents nearly one quarter of the
overall $5.5 billion budget allocated annually by Ottawa to
native communities.
My question is for the Minister of Indian and Northern
Affairs. Can the minister confirm this report?
5576
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I read the article in La Presse. It is
a very respected paper, but a very speculative article. It was
based on a 1991 Statistics Canada examination. Even in that
article it will be noted that Statistics Canada was unable to get
reports from 78 First Nations.
In 1993 a corporate management group was put together with
the bottom line of better fiscal regimes, a better basis for this
type of interplay between ministries. There have been
difficulties.
As my friend knows, in the last eight or nine years there has
been a tremendous population explosion. The birth rate on
reserves is twice that of the non-aboriginal birth rate. With
respect to the C-31 returnees, when we passed the legislation
the speculation was that perhaps there would be a 10 per cent
increase on reserve. In fact, it is almost 40 per cent.
Not all these things are done strictly on numbers. It is more an
art form than a science. When we build a road, put in a health
service or look at a school, we are looking to the future. If a band
has 250 when it should have 300, or 350 when it should have
300, we are still going to go with the project. We look at the
project more than the numbers.
I want to assure the hon. member this government is not in the
business of giving money to non-existent, non-aboriginal
people.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister not agree that the only way to determine the native
population on reserves is by ensuring that Statistics Canada
census takers have access to these lands?
(1430 )
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the member.
He probably knows me well enough now that when I put out
money I want to see a product and I am looking for stricter fiscal
regimes.
As part of self-government negotiations we are looking at
those things. There may be more freedom as far as jurisdiction is
concerned but there has to be more strict fiscal regimes,
improved fiscal responsibility and a better database
synchronizing the collection of the data so that it comes in at one
time. This will ensure there are stricter regimes, not only for
aboriginal people but for the employees at DIAND who are
doing the analysis. I agree with him. It is there. It is being
studied. There will be work plans out that my friend can examine
because the First Nations will be examining them over the next
two or three years.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of immigration has on several occasions said that
immigrants who commit crimes are few and far between.
This is no comfort to the family of Constable Todd Baylis of
the Toronto police department who was gunned down last week
by an immigrant who had been ordered deported in March 1991.
Can the minister tell the House how it is that after having been
ordered out of the country and after having an appeal denied,
this 10-time repeat criminal could still be in Canada to commit
the terrible crime for which he is now charged?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister of
immigration and all members of the House, I want to express our
real sympathy for the very tragic circumstances and give all our
condolences to the family of Constable Baylis who was
tragically killed on the weekend.
As the House knows, the minister of immigration has just
introduced new immigration legislation which is designed
specifically to provide for more effective tools of enforcement. I
am told by him that his department was successful in both
getting a deportation order and also having any recourse to
appeal dismissed.
However, the hon. member should recognize that in many
cases and in particular this case the Canadian government has
difficulty in obtaining travel documents from other countries to
which the deportee has been assigned. As a result the minister of
immigration is now seriously investigating this case to ensure
that these kinds of practices do not continue.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, we do
appreciate the concern on the government side but this just
continues to happen week after week after week. We bring in
examples of this.
I believe these particular reforms would have had no effect in
this case. Clinton Gayle was ordered deported but that order,
like thousands more, was not carried out.
Under this minister, staff on the front lines have been cut and
as a result only 40 per cent of deportation orders are being
carried out. There are now only 30 officers responsible for the
deportation of 40,000 illegal immigrants in Toronto.
Will the minister admit that his alleged deportation reforms
are virtually useless because of his cuts to enforcement and will
he accept accountability for this latest, needless tragedy.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I would if I might be allowed to
repeat one important fact in this case. The government did
obtain a deportation order. However, in order to have
deportation orders
5577
carried out we must rely on the co-operation of both the country
of origin and also air lines.
Apparently in this case the co-operation was not forthcoming.
That is why we are carrying out an investigation. The new
enforcement rules built into the new legislation can be of some
substantial assistance.
In the specific question of the hon. member, it is not true that
the effect of this case was as a result of any cutbacks in
enforcement. The restructuring has been going on to reduce the
amount of money assigned to administration. It has no impact
whatsoever on field staff who are the key players in this kind of
operation.
We are trying to cut back on the administrative bureaucratic
side so resources can be freed up for more effective
enforcement.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
(1435)
Last Thursday, as part of a concerted effort, nearly 1,000
groups, civic and community organizations as well as national
coalitions in Quebec signed a letter to the Minister of Human
Resources Development urging him to: ``maintain the regular
component of the job development program as long as no other
alternative has been put in place''.
Does the minister intend to follow up this pressing demand
from the signatory organizations, given the essential role these
front-line organizations play in their relations with the less
fortunate, and in particular people who have no jobs and no
income?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to take
representations from these organizations because certainly I
agree with the hon. member that they play a very important role
in helping to combat unemployment.
However I would like to point out to the hon. member, as I
have in the past, that we have been looking at alternatives. One
of the most important reallocations, redirections, we have been
making is to target specifically the problem of youth
unemployment.
We all recognize the great tragedy that takes place when
young people are unable to get the resources they need to be
properly trained, to have access to the workplace, to make that
transition between school and work.
Yes, we are making some reallocations but because of the very
deep and serious plight of young people, it is a very worthy
objective. We will certainly meet with these groups to discuss
how they can assist in helping us to meet that objective.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister not realize on the one hand that these groups have
developed an extremely valuable expertise in employability,
and in particular in the employability of young people, and on
the other hand, as they say, that cuts in programs to develop job
skills readiness jeopardize the very existence of essential
services to those who have been hit hard, often the hardest, by
the last recession?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, just to make the record clear, in
fiscal 1994-95, the year we are in now, we have allocated over
$800 million of funds specifically for the province of Quebec.
That is an increase over last year. There have been no cutbacks.
We have increased the funds and we are devoting a substantial
proportion of federal expenditures.
I must say that I am very pleased to have the member, the very
outstanding and very competent critic for employment matters
from the Bloc Quebecois, once again requesting federal
involvement and federal resources for employment in Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Justice is using public opinion polls to justify the imposition of
harsher gun controls against law-abiding Canadians in his effort
to reduce the criminal use of firearms. These same opinion polls
support the return of capital punishment.
Is the minister consistent in his adherence to public demand or
does he heed it only when it fits his own personal philosophy and
that of the Liberal cabinet?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, no part of the government's
justice agenda is determined or established by public opinion
polls.
Our focus during the six months that Parliament has been in
session has been in fulfilling the undertakings we made during
the campaign by introducing legislation to strengthen the Young
Offenders Act, by strengthening the sentencing laws and by
5578
introducing last week a bill that included literally 100
amendments to the Criminal Code to improve and modernize it.
The hon. member raises the question of capital punishment.
We ran for election last year on a very specific platform in
justice matters. This government, instead of looking at polls as
suggested by the hon. member, is concentrating on fulfilling
those commitments.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, the former
government that refused to listen to the people is now sitting
with two people in behind us. I suggest that he should be
listening to the people.
My supplementary question is this. In light of the shooting
death of Toronto police constable, Todd Baylis, and in view of
the consistent public demand for the return of capital
punishment, would the minister be willing to support a binding
referendum on capital punishment, tying it in with the next
federal election to eliminate the cost?
(1440 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, let me say two things. First
of all we were elected last year on a platform which did not
include the restoration of capital punishment.
As recently as seven years ago the House debated capital
punishment at length and on a free vote decided it should not be
restored. That is the first observation.
Second, the hon. member speaks of consistency. I would ask
him to be consistent. He has referred to the tragic case of last
Thursday in which a police officer was shot to death.
Preliminary indications are that the weapon used in that murder
was a hand gun that was stolen from someone who owned it
lawfully and had it registered. Now if that is not further
indication of the need for gun control, I would like to hear what
is.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. On June
3, the House was presented with a private member's bill to
modify the program for older worker adjustment. This bill was
intended to make companies that lay off more than 20 workers
eligible, thus ending the discrimination against Montreal
textile, clothing and retail workers in particular.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us
why his department refuses to modify POWA to benefit
Montreal workers, when he presented a bill extending eligibility
for fishery workers? What justifies this double standard?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, one thing of which the hon.
member should be aware is that the specific program for older
workers is a joint federal-provincial program run by both levels
of government.
Any changes we would want to contemplate would have to be
done in close consultation and co-operation with the provinces.
It certainly would be one of the major agenda items we would
pursue during our discussion of social security reform.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister tell us if he agrees with his colleague, the member for
Saint-Léonard and government whip, that POWA should be
universal and have no eligibility criteria for laid off workers?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member points out,
the private member's comments came from our chief whip. I
have learned over my 22 years of parliamentary experience
never to disagree with the chief whip.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The fishing industry on the Great Lakes is used by four
million anglers, generates $2 billion to $4 billion annually and
supports some 75,000 full time jobs.
Now there is evidence to suggest that the sea lamprey eel is
making a strong comeback in the Great Lakes. What is being
done by the government to address this problem before it gets
totally out of hand?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is right. The Great Lakes sport fishery
is a multibillion dollar industry and it ought to be acknowledged
by the Government of Canada when it makes policies in
fisheries and oceans.
For that reason I am pleased to announce on behalf of the
government today a 33 per cent increase in our financial
commitment to preserving this multibillion dollar industry.
The control program comes under a joint U.S.-Canada
commission. Recently I had discussions with the U.S.
ambassador to discuss this matter, among others, and I an
confident that the United States will announce a similar increase
on their side as well.
5579
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In the wake of the tragic murder of Constable Todd Baylis, the
Solicitor General stated that the killing pointed out the need for
tighter gun control. Yet information released in the wake of the
shooting indicates that the man who apparently shot Constable
Baylis was already in illegal possession of the gun.
Could the minister advise the House how tighter gun control
would have prevented the shooting?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I rely on press reports in
pointing out that the weapon used in the crime was a handgun.
(1445 )
The indications as I said earlier at least preliminary are that
the handgun was initially purchased by a person with lawful
intent who registered it according to the law, had it in a
residence from which it was stolen.
I invite the hon. member to observe with me the logical
connection between the presence of that handgun in a
community from which it was taken by someone with criminal
intent and the fact that it wound up allegedly being used in the
commission of a murderous crime. The connection is quite
obvious.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my supplemental is also for the Minister of Justice.
In a recent joint sting operation by a number of Ontario police
departments, 17 handguns were purchased illegally. Sixteen of
these guns were illegally smuggled into Canada from the United
States.
How would a total ban on handguns prevent criminals from
getting their hands on guns?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, it is implicit in the hon.
member's question that the government intends to look at just
one and not all aspects of this issue.
Indeed we have already started to examine specific aspects of
the smuggling issue. We do intend to address it effectively and
with concrete action but that is only one aspect. It is not only
smuggling guns. It is also people with criminal intent stealing
weapons from those who lawfully own them in Canada that is a
threat to the safety of our communities.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. The status of French at
airports has not improved much since Quebec aviation workers
waged their famous fight and managed 20 years ago to obtain the
right to communicate in French in Quebec airspace. Let us take,
for example, a Transport Canada order on air navigation which
barely tolerates the use of French at Canadian airports.
Since the ability to speak in both official languages is at the
heart of the Canadian duality, how can the minister justify
banning the use of French in air traffic operations in Canada,
except in Quebec, while closing Quebec City's terminal control
unit, one of only two French-language air control centres in
Canada?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
if my hon. colleague wanted to be frank with the House of
Commons, he would know that 99 per cent of all flights in
Quebec airspace are served in the pilot's language of choice.
However, when airplanes are flying at an altitude of more than
29,000 feet, there may be, at a certain point, a lack of
communications in French.
In general, these airplanes are flying to destinations outside
Quebec where they will have to operate in English on arrival. It
is the Department of Transport's fiduciary and primary
responsibility to ensure the safety of the people using Canada's
transportation system, and if the hon. member wants to fight for
bilingualism, I would ask him not to do so on the backs of the
people who use Canada's transportation system.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister admit that only Montreal and Quebec City are certified
by his department as bilingual and that, as a result, Moncton's
radar control unit, although located in a bilingual province, is
not in a position to offer services in French in some regions of
New Brunswick and Quebec, namely the North Shore and the
Magdalen Islands?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I will repeat for my hon. colleague's information that 99 per cent
of flights in Quebec airspace can be guided in the pilot's
language of choice. I know how much the hon. member and his
opposition colleagues are interested in Moncton and in the
French fact outside Quebec. I know how much they are really
interested in ensuring that services are provided in both
languages outside Quebec. We know what kind of support they
have given us on this issue historically.
5580
(1450 )
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The operation of the juvenile justice system's results as seen
by average Canadians seems overly protective of young
offenders. The Young Offenders Act has extensive rules of
non-disclosure, secrecy and the destruction of records.
Will the minister explain to Canadians why there is a need for
this inequity between the juvenile system and the adult system,
for surely justice must be seen to be done as well as done?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know
that the juvenile justice system in Canada was developed
through many years and was provided for in a statute in 1984
which had the support of all parties in this House when the
Young Offenders Act was enacted.
The underlying principle is that the distinctions to which the
hon. member has referred are appropriate when we are dealing
with youth who have their lives in front of them, who are
particularly appropriate for rehabilitation efforts.
At the same time, as we undertook to do last year when we
campaigned for office, we have now introduced in Bill C-37
proposals for specific amendments to strengthen that statute, to
deal with 16 and 17 year olds who commit the crimes of most
serious violence in a particular way that will presume they are to
be tried in adult court, to share the information with school
boards, principals of schools and members of the community
when there are young offenders who are accused or suspected of
crimes that might endanger the public safety, and make a variety
of other changes including increasing the maximum sentence
for murder.
This government with those proposed changes in my
respectful view has proposed to strengthen the Young Offenders
Act while preserving the main elements of juvenile justice.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, could this minister cite any cases in which there has
been harm which has given rise to the necessity of the secrecy
provisions of the Young Offenders Act, for in contrast on
occasions I have mentioned in this House where there has been
death as a direct result of the misguided Liberal idealism?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that a relative
handful of crimes each year for which there are convictions in
youth courts involve serious crimes of violence or homicides.
The vast majority of crime among young people is non-violent,
either property related or crimes of theft.
The provisions to which the hon. member refers are intended
to ensure that when young people make a mistake of that
character, yes they are punished and yes they have learned a
lesson, but they are not through the publication of their names in
the media stigmatized for life, prevented from completing their
education or from gaining employment. Surely that is in the
public interest in this country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The federal government is about to announce the creation of
local training boards in Ontario. Will the minister assure this
House that the membership of these local boards will reflect the
spirit of Bill 8 in Ontario regarding the provision of services in
French, and will he ensure a fair and proportional representation
of Ontario francophones on these boards?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon.
member for Ottawa-Vanier for his question and also
congratulate him for his many years of efforts to protect the
rights of francophones everywhere in Canada.
Indeed, we are currently discussing the establishment of local
training boards with the Ontario government, and with all the
other provincial governments.
These boards will include representatives from the business
sector, unions, social groups and educational institutions. I can
tell you that I will make sure that there is a fair and proportional
representation of francophones on these boards in Ontario.
* * *
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development,
and he surely does not have a prepared response because I did
not give him the question in advance.
The industrial base of the Sorel-Tracy region has been
collapsing for the past ten years, and dramatic plant closures
have become everyday occurrences. After MIL Tracy, Tioxide
and Beloit came the news recently that Soreltex was closing.
The pressing needs resulting from these many shutdowns drove
the Sorel Employment Centre in April to ask the department for
an additional $2.2 million to offset the demand generated by
these mass layoffs.
5581
(1455)
Given the urgency of this situation, can the minister pledge to
allocate these funds immediately from the $400 million which
he has earmarked for launching new programs?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, if I recall properly, the hon.
member was a member of the previous government at the time
when the downsizing of that particular industrial operation took
place. It would seem to me if there was any urgency with dealing
with the problem it should have been dealt with at that time.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, such a pat
answer-I was a member of the Conservative Party until 1990. I
refer to a situation in the Sorel-Tracy region in 1994, and the
only answer I get is an arrogant, typically Liberal response.
I am asking you, Mr. Minister, if you are prepared to
re-establish-
The Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. member to always
address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Plamondon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared
to re-establish the specific program for mass layoffs, given that
the funds required to meet these needs have been drawn from the
general account for some time? Can the minister re-establish
this mass layoff fund to meet the needs of the Sorel-Tracy
region, for example?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the hon.
member for the workers affected. The point I was trying to make
is that good industrial labour policy is to establish proper
programs at a time when companies begin to downsize, not when
it reaches a crisis proportion.
I think the hon. member as a full and active member of this
House during the time of the previous government of which he
was member should have ensured at that time that those
measures were put in place.
At present we will certainly look at the issue. I would
suggest-
[Translation]
I would suggest to the member that he is concerned about
workers in his riding, so he has asked me a specific question and
made specific proposals. It is not by asking questions in the
House. Give me reasons, not a discussion between two people.
This is not something you can get through a question.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime
Minister announced the appointment of an ethics counsellor.
The ethics counsellor is merely a slight expansion of the
assistant deputy registrar general's previous role; the same job,
the same person, a new name.
The lobby reforms changed tier one and tier two lobbyists into
consultant and organization lobbyists; the same role, a new
name.
Does the Prime Minister or the deputy really believe that
these cosmetic changes will solve the problems of influence
peddling in government decision making?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, the
level of understanding that was demonstrated by the member in
his speech the other day perhaps is explained by the fact that he
did not attend the briefing session that we offered Reform
members on the bill.
He should know that influence peddling is covered under the
Criminal Code where it belongs and where it will stay with other
criminal offences.
With respect to both the role of the ethics counsellor and the
introduction of the amendments to the Lobbyists Registration
Act, we have met the promises that we made in the red book
almost item by item. We did retain the distinction between tiers
of lobbyists. We put this proposal to a House of Commons
committee before second reading hopefully so that somebody on
the other side as well as our own members will take the time to
study it and make useful proposals. If he has something to offer
let him offer it.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to
offer that. I would like to know right now whether this
government is ready to put some teeth into its actions at the level
that it is proposing.
(1500 )
Many believe that the ongoing Pearson negotiations are at
least as unethical as the original deal and that the negotiations
now deserve to be investigated.
Can we have the assurance that the Prime Minister will direct
the ethics counsellor to launch an immediate and total
investigation into all of the Pearson negotiations with all of the
findings to be made public?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the Pearson deal and the cancellation of the
agreement, the investigation and the judgment that was brought
to that deal by the people of Canada speaks for itself. There are
5582
33 members of Parliament who understand very well as the
people of the greater Toronto area understand very well whatPearson was all about. We did not need an ethics counsellor to
tell us that.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of International
Trade.
Over the past 25 years more than 1.5 billion disposable plastic
lighters have been imported into Canada from the Orient. If laid
end to end that is enough to circle the world three times. These
cannot be recycled and Canadian taxpayers have to pay the cost
of putting them into landfill sites.
The Eddy Match subsidiary, Canadian Splint, is closing and
56 people in the Pembroke area will be losing their jobs. No
more wooden matches are made in Canada as a result of this
unfair competition.
What action is the government going to take to stop this
flooding of the Canadian market and the destruction of Canadian
jobs and the environment?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It reflects
his ongoing concern about environmental issues in our country,
particularly the question of how best to dispose of unrecyclable
materials, those materials which do not lend themselves readily
to recycling.
I want to salute the member for drawing to our attention this
question which has been of concern to the government as it
addresses in the environmental arena such concerns as he has
raised today. I only add that it is not a matter primarily of trade
policy but rather a matter of environmental policy as we address
these questions.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would like to draw the
attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His
Excellency Dr. Carlos Saul Menem, President of the Argentine
Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order
raised by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley
on Friday, June 17, 1994. It concerns the appointment of the hon.
member for Yukon as an associate member of the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
during the committee's consideration of Bill C-33, the Yukon
First Nation's land claim settlement act, and Bill C-34, an act
respecting self-government for First Nations in the Yukon
Territory.
At this time I would also like to thank the hon. members for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Kamloops, Mississauga South,
Roberval, and The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for their
valuable contributions to this discussion.
[Translation]
As was pointed out, Speakers have always been hesitant to
interfere in the proceedings of committees of the House.
(1505)
However, as Speaker Fraser explained in a ruling on March
26, 1990 at page 9756 of the Debates:
The Speaker has often informed the House that matters and procedural issues
that arise in committee ought to be settled in committee unless the committee
reports them first to the House. I have, however, said to the House that this
practice was not an absolute one and that in very serious and special
circumstances the Speaker may have to pronounce on a committee matter without
the committee having reported to the House.
[
English]
In the matter now before us I must also conclude that this is
serious enough to require the intervention of the Chair because it
concerns a fundamental right which belongs to the House and
not to a committee, namely the right to establish the
membership of a committee. Furthermore, the committee has
reported to the House on the said bills and the proceedings of the
committee are now before the House.
Let me now address the concerns raised by the hon. member
for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
First, the hon. member, citing Standing Order 114(2)(c),
argued that since the hon. member for Yukon was not an
associate member of the committee she could not be appointed a
substitute member. Second, the hon. member noted that he had
raised objection to the acceptance of the member for Yukon as
an associate member but that this objection had been dismissed
by the chair of the committee. Third, the member argued that a
breach of the standing orders had occurred and that the remedy
to deal with this breach of the rules was not to be found inside
the committee.
Finally the hon. member requested that the Speaker take
certain actions specifically. He asked that the reports of the
committee concerning the legislation presented on Friday, June
17, 1994 be ruled out of order and that the committee therefore
be required to reconduct the clause by clause examination of the
bills in question. Arguing that the chair of the committee had
knowingly allowed the rules of the House to be broken, he also
demanded that the current chair of the committee resign and that
5583
another be chosen to preside over the re-examination of the
bills.
Having reviewed the interventions of all members on Friday
as well as the minutes and transcripts of the committee
proceedings, and also having consulted with the table, I am
satisfied that the difficulties which arose in the committee were
the product of an erroneous interpretation of Standing Order
114. The advice given to the chair of the committee concerning
the procedure for substitution of members was incorrect and
unfortunately the actions taken by the chair were based on this
advice. May I also add that in no way was the hon. member for
Yukon at fault in this matter.
[Translation]
While it is a tradition of this House that committees are
masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish
procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by
the House. For example, a committee must seek the permission
of the House to travel as they themselves are not so empowered.
Likewise, committees do not have the power to establish or
change their membership. This power is retained by the House
and, in the present situation, is spelled out explicitly in Standing
Order 104(4) which states:
(4) The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs shall also prepare lists
of associate members for each Standing Committee and Standing Joint Committee
referred to in this Standing Order, who shall be deemed to be members of that
committee for the purposes of Standing Orders 108(1)(b) and 114(2)(a) and who
shall be eligible to act as substitutes on that committee pursuant to the provisions of
Standing Order 114(2)(b).
[
English]
Any report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs made pursuant to this standing order must be
concurred in by the House for such an associate membership
change to be effective. As no report appointing the hon. member
for Yukon an associate member had been presented by the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and thus
no such report had been concurred in by the House, the hon.
member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley was absolutely
correct when he stated that the hon. member for Yukon did not
meet the requirements as an associate member of the committee
under the standing orders in order to function as a member of the
committee.
(1510)
[Translation]
Under the rules of the House, all members are free to
participate in the proceedings of committees, within clearly
stated parameters. As Standing Order 119 reads:
119. Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or
legislative committee may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise
orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or
move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.
[English]
As well, citation 766(1) of Beauchesne's sixth edition notes
that members of the House who are not members of a committee
may participate during the committee's examination of
witnesses, but they do so usually at the discretion of the
chairman and the committee.
Several members noted in their remarks that it was not the
presence or the participation of the hon. member for Yukon in
the work of the committee that was in question. In fact several
even noted that since she is the only representative in this House
for Yukon her contribution was valuable. Rather, what was in
question, as the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley
Valley noted was that in allowing the hon. member for Yukon to
vote in the committee the standing orders of the House had been
breached.
[Translation]
The problems presented by the proceedings in this committee
have served to illuminate for us possible difficulties with the
understanding of the new rules regarding associate
memberships of committees and the methods for choosing
substitutes, particularly, as in this instance, where the active
participation of a certain member could be extremely beneficial
to the work of both the committee and the House.
[English]
The members of the committee are to be commended for
wishing to include the hon. member for Yukon in their
deliberations on matters which directly affect her constituents.
However, it is incumbent upon the members of all committees to
ensure that proper procedures are followed. This said, I must
concur with the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley
Valley that by allowing a member to vote who, under the rules of
this House, did not legitimately have status as a committee
member, the standing orders were indeed breached.
I must therefore rule that any vote cast by the hon. member for
Yukon in the committee proceedings on Bills C-33 and C-34 is
void as she did not have the right to participate in any of the
votes.
The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley has also
argued that because the proceedings in the committee had been
irregular, the report should be irreceivable. However, as the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell pointed out, none of
the votes taken in the committee would have been altered by the
vote of any single member. Having reviewed the minutes of the
committee I must agree with this conclusion. Therefore, I do not
find grounds on which to declare the reports out of order. Hence,
the House can proceed with the report stage of these bills.
5584
I hope and I expect that all those involved with committees of the House will take note of my comments today and will make every effort to ensure that such an incident will not reoccur.
_____________________________________________
5584
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour to
table, in both official languages, the annual report entitled
``Export of Military Goods from Canada: Annual Report 1993''
put out by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade.
* * *
(1515 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and an undertaking
made in this House by the minister on May 30, 1994, I would
like to table on behalf of the Minister of National Defence and
Veterans Affairs, in both official languages, a series of
documents entitled measures taken by the Department of
National Defence to address the issue of harassment in the
Canadian forces.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure of tabling on behalf of the President of the Treasury
Board a document requested in this House, a review of service
provision options for the administrative flight service.
[Translation]
The report is an exhaustive review of options for the
administrative flight service, in both official languages.
* * *
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present to this House, in both official languages, the
ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
[English]
This report is about replacing the GST, options for Canada.
This work could not have been accomplished without the
tremendous hard work and non-partisan co-operation of all
members from all parties of the finance committee.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-261, an act to facilitate
participation in the reserve force.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member
for Saanich-Gulf Islands for seconding this bill.
Canada is relying more on reservists to meet its military
commitments and with the recent downsizing of the regular
force the demand on reservists will undoubtedly increase.
The auditor general in his 1992 report to this House found that
reservists had a serious training deficit when compared with
trades and ranks in the regular force. He put much of this down
to the reservists being unavailable for training, often due to the
demands of their jobs or difficulty in scheduling time off to
coincide with the training exercises and courses offered. Many
reservists use their annual vacations to attend exercises
essential to developing their military skills. This is a great price
for them to pay and for their families to have to forfeit a well
deserved vacation to serve Canada.
If we are to have an effective volunteer reserve force and if
Canada is to be able to meet its international commitments we
must take steps to ensure that reservists are able to get the
training they need and the time required to get that training.
This bill will enable reservists employed by the federal
government to be given up to a two month leave of absence to
attend reserve training and exercises. This bill in a small way
seeks to ensure that the Government of Canada lead the way to
demonstrate leadership by ensuring that the federal government
provides leadership of all Canadian employers in facilitating the
development and professionalism of the Canadian reserve force.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
5585
(1520)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
table two petitions signed by residents of eastern Quebec,
mainly constituents from the ridings of
Rimouski-Témiscouata and
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
The date of December 5, 1990 is imprinted on the memory of
the people of eastern Quebec as the sad day when the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation announced it was closing its three
television stations located in Rimouski, Matane and Sept-Îles.
This decision has had a very negative impact on the economy of
the region. It has also limited considerably access to
information.
These petitioners ask that CBC service be restored to Eastern
Quebec so that the region will no longer be isolated and will be
able, through this essential communication tool, to make a
valuable contribution to the effective development of the
francophone and Acadian communities of Canada.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present three petitions on
behalf of my constituents.
The first is dealing with the suspected cancellation of the VIA
Rail service from Sarnia to Toronto which is the second most
patronized route in Canada. This is about the 10th petition I have
presented on this.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition states that the majority of
Canadians pray that physicians in Canada should be working to
save lives as most physicians agree and they petition we must
not sanction suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, the third petition deals with the extension of
societal privileges to same sex relationships and the
amendments to the Human Rights Act to include the undefined
phrase sexual orientation as a grounds for discrimination.
These petitioners have asked that Parliament not amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or Charter
of Rights and Freedoms in a way which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex marriages and/or allow adoptions.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure of tabling, a petition regarding the 1990 closure of
CBC's television stations in Sept-Îles, Matane and Rimouski.
According to these petitioners, this decision has had
disastrous effects on the people both in terms of the economy
and in terms of the right to information. It has resulted in many
jobs being lost, has not produced the expected benefits as far as
restoring the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's financial
health is concerned, and all the while the people of Eastern
Quebec have been deprived of a communication tool essential to
the effective development of the community.
The petitioners ask that CBC stations in Eastern Quebec be
reopened immediately.
[English]
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition from the residents of Brampton
calling upon parliamentarians to encourage the flying of the UN
flag throughout Canada in recognition of the fine work being
done by our UN peacekeeping troops throughout the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition signed by
people from the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé Peninsula
concerning the closure of Radio-Canada's regional stations in
Matane, Rimouski and Sept-Îles.
The people who took the time to sign this petition denounce
the cuts made in the regions by Radio-Canada, the French
network of the CBC. I want to point out that Radio-Canada cut
almost 2,000 hours of regional programming, so that
regionally-produced programs have all but disappeared.
When Radio-Canada acts as it did, communities such as ours
that are located far from major centres lose not only jobs but
mostly a communication tool allowing us in the east to
communicate with one another and tell major centres and
governments about ourselves.
I therefore table this petition.
(1525 )
[English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, in the
first instance the petitioners point out that seniors have
contributed and continue to contribute significantly to the
quality of life that we enjoy in Canada today. They point out that
as the population ages there will be a need for more housing,
more
5586
affordable and accessible health care and more appropriate and
adequate pensions.
They ask government that whenever it undertakes any legislative or program changes, it reflect upon its seniors, their contributions and the changing demographics in Canada.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, in the
second instance we have petitioners who condemn abuse in the
media, whether it be physical abuse, abusive language or other
forms of abuse. They point out that abuse often counteracts the
efforts of parents to raise their children. They also point out that
abuse is not necessary in order to entertain or to inform.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
duly signed by 95 constituents from my riding of Calgary
Southeast.
These 95 constituents are petitioning Parliament to use trade
sanctions to urge the communist government in Hanoi, Vietnam
to eliminate human rights abuses, establish a multi-party
democracy by the means of free elections, respect human rights,
release all political prisoners and respect religious freedom.
Finally, the petitioners urge that Parliament make
representation to the United Nations High Commissioner to
ensure that all Vietnamese refugees are treated with fairness and
dignity.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to table a petition from a group of constituents who
wish for the government to toughen the Young Offenders Act. It
is my duty to table over 150 signatures from my riding.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following
petition which reads in part: ``Your petitioners pray and 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 of homosexuality, including amending the
Human Rights Code to include in the prohibitive grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have the duty to present two petitions
today.
The first petition is from 534 constituents of the riding of
Oxford. These petitioners request that Parliament not amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): The second petition, Mr. Speaker,
I present on behalf of my colleague from Kent. This petition is
signed by hundreds of the constituents of Kent who call upon the
government support a domestic ethanol industry in light of the
fact that a $170 million plant for Chatham is in jeopardy without
federal involvement. Since legislative support of ethanol is
Liberal policy, the petitioners want it to become government
policy.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting six petitions on
three subjects on behalf of the constituents from Cecil Lake,
Tumbler Ridge, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek and other
communities in the Prince George-Peace River riding.
The first two petitions call upon the House of Commons to act
to extend protection to unborn children by amending the
Criminal Code.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
the next two petitions request that Parliament not amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which
would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or to include sexual orientation explicitly in the
prohibited grounds for discrimination.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
the last two petitions are petitioning Parliament to make no
changes to the law which would allow or sanction assisted
suicide or passive or active euthanasia.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table today in this House a petition that circulated in
my riding and in other eastern Quebec ridings. The stations in
Matane, Sept-Îles and Rimouski closed down in 1990, which led
to job losses and deprived the population of important
communication and development vehicles.
This petition asks the federal government to reopen
Radio-Canada television stations in eastern Quebec so that the
population can be served well by state television. I hope that this
House will take the petitioners' request into consideration.
5587
(1530)
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present a petition of Ayub Hamid, Kalid Igbal, Golam Kibra and
236 others who are calling upon the Government of Canada to
take the lead and use its influence in the UN to take any and all
actions required to restore the territorial integrity of Bosnia.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure
that I present a petition today signed by some 1,100 constituents
of Red Deer.
By signing the petition these citizens are expressing to the
government their sentiments that it is time to take harsh action
against young offenders. Currently our Young Offenders Act has
many deficiencies. Our penalties must be designed to fit the
crimes. It is my pleasure to present the petition today.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present two petitions on behalf of residents of the
communities of Millgrove, Carlyle, Waterdown and Branchton
in the Hamilton area of Ontario.
The first one prays that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition calls upon Parliament to ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is primarily from constituents of my riding of
Scarborough West.
It calls upon Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way
that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights act to include in the prohibited ground of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to
present two petitions.
The first one is on behalf of my constituents in the Burns Lake
area, over 900 of whom have signed petitions indicating their
concern that the Canadian judicial system is not adequately
maintaining law and order in the country and calling on the
Government of Canada to reform the justice system in order to
ensure greater protection of life and property within Canada.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition I am pleased to submit under
Standing Order 36 is from several petitioners in an area known
as Houston in the Prince George-Bulkley Valley constituency.
Fundamentally the petitioners humbly pray that Parliament
not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way
and uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision on September
30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present three
petitions today.
The first was delivered to me by Cathie Raddatz, a constituent
in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton, Ontario. Cathie was able
to gather over 400 names on a petition which calls on Parliament
to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture
of killer cards in Canada among other things.
The second petition was signed by numerous constituents at
my riding office. It also calls on Parliament to prohibit the
importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards in
Ontario.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition was sent to me by another constituent, Anne
Bridgewater, of Harcourt, Ontario.
This petition, duly recognized by the clerk of petitions,
humbly calls on Parliament to review and revise our laws
concerning young offenders by empowering the courts to
prosecute and punish young law breakers who are terrorizing
our society, by releasing their names and lowering their age
limit to allow prosecution to meet the severity of the crime.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, like
my colleagues from Rimouski-Témiscouata,
Matapédia-Matane, Gaspé and Charlevoix, I am presenting a
petition for restoring Radio-Canada as it was before 1990. A
great many losses have been caused by these closures, financial
losses, of course, job losses and maybe most important,
information losses. As politicians, we have a duty to promote
our regions, but when the flow of information keeps getting cut
off, how do you expect us to sell a region when we do not have
the means to
5588
talk about it? It is important and this situation must be
corrected.
On behalf of more than 1,000 people who signed the petition
that I am tabling today, we ask that it be restored, as it should be
anyway.
(1535)
[English]
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition which
has been duly executed by constituents residing in the
municipality of Victoria, British Columbia.
The petition opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide and
prays that Parliament will not repeal or amend section 241 of the
Criminal Code.
I support the petition and now table it with the honourable
House.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to present a petition from residents of Fraser Valley West
with which I wholeheartedly concur.
The petition asks that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, Transport
Canada changed the route for seaplanes using the Lac
Saint-Augustin base. This new route is very inconvenient for
residents of the Jouvence area in my riding. Accordingly, the
petitioners ask Transport Canada to review its decision of April
28.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
The first is from 154 constituents in my riding who humbly
submit that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the
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 of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by 50 constituents who humbly
submit that section 24 of the Criminal Code of Canada not be
repealed or amended in any way and that the section disallowing
assisted suicide be upheld as it recently was in the Rodriguez
Supreme Court decision.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to table this petition, which is a heartfelt
appeal from more than 500 citizens, mostly from the riding of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, who call for the necessary
action to be taken so that the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation reopens the television stations in eastern Quebec
that were closed in 1990. All in all, we have tabled more than
4,000 signatures in the House this afternoon to overturn this
iniquitous decision of the former government.
* * *
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
Questions Nos. 48 and 53 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 48-Mr. Simmons:
With respect to the Auditor General's finding in his 1992 report that, for 1989
and 1990, the Canadian Coast Guard's ``search and rescue vessels and aircraft
were instrumental in incident resolution less than 20 per cent of the time'', (a)
what specific action has the Department of Transport taken to redress this, (b)
will the use of other federal and non-federal resources, such as the Canadian
Marine Rescue Auxiliary, be expanded, and (c) will a set of search and rescue
service standards, and a national search and rescue program, be developed in
full, as recommended by the Auditor General?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): (
a) and (
c)
The Canadian Coast Guard has established levels of service, as
well as comprehensive operating and performance standards. In
1992, the national search and rescue program concept was
approved by the lead minister for search and rescue, the
Minister of National Defence. The Coast Guard continues to
look for ways to improve the effectiveness of the national search
and rescue program in order to save as many lives as possible.
Figures for 1992 indicate that primary Coast Guard search and
rescue vessels responded to over 41 per cent of all marine search
and rescue taskings in Canada and saved the lives of 1,200
persons in distress.
5589
(b) The Canadian Marine Rescue Auxiliary provides
invaluable assistance to mariners in distress. Expansion of the
membership and capability of the auxiliary is a goal of both the
Coast Guard and the auxiliary.
Question No. 53-Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville):
What are the names of the Indian Bands, (a) which have their financial affairs
fully managed by the Department of Indian Affairs, (b) that are under the
alternative funding arrangement?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): (
a) No first Nations have their funds fully
managed by the department.
(b) A current list of the 156 AFA recipients is shown below.
Each year an updated list is published in Part III of the main
estimates. It appears on pages 2-112 to 2-115 of the 1994-1995
estimates.
![](/web/20061117202229im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0892001_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117202229im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0892001_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117202229im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0892001_r2.gif)
![](/web/20061117202229im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0892001_r3.gif)
![](/web/20061117202229im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0892001_r4.gif)
![](/web/20061117202229im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0892001_r5.gif)
![](/web/20061117202229im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0892001_r6.gif)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The questions enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): I rise on a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. I wonder if I could ask a question of the parliamentary
secretary. When might we expect an answer from the
government to Question No. 47 which I have had on the Order
Paper for 47 days now?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was Question No. 41
and I anticipated having an answer to that one tomorrow. With
respect to Question No. 47, I will investigate to find out what
particular problems have resulted in the delay in answering the
question.
The government has been fairly diligent in its work in
preparing answers to these questions, some of which involve a
great deal of information. I will see what I can do to provide a
response to the hon. member later this week.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
5589
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1540)
[Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-32, an
Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the Income
Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There are three motions in amendment
on the Notice Paper at report stage of Bill C-32, an act to amend
the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the Income Tax Act.
[English]
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate and a vote
on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the House.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-32 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-32 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-32 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have decided to table amendments to
Bill C-32 and I will briefly explain why. Then my colleagues
will make additional comments.
First, we must put Bill C-32, which is entitled an act to amend
the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the Income Tax Act, in its
proper context. Originally, the purpose of this legislation was to
implement the federal action plan on tobacco smuggling, as well
as changes proposed to the tax structure by the government, this
past January or February.
However, clauses 2, 3 and 4 of that bill include measures
which affect air transportation and result from the last federal
budget. These clauses provide that, on flights with a ticket price
of more than $500, the total tax amount, which is currently $40,
will progressively increase to $50. However, for tickets costing
$700 and more, the tax payable will now be $50.
We feel that this is totally unacceptable, given that most
remote areas were very affected by the deregulation in the air
transportation sector. Considering the current cost of airline
tickets to these regions, it seems totally unacceptable to
5591
increase the burden for consumers living in these regions as
well as for taxpayers who are already making a very big
contribution.
This is why, through our amendments, we propose to bring
that tax back to at least the previous levels. At the same time, we
urge members of the transport and finance committees to review
the situation and bring airfare to a more reasonable level as
regards remote destinations.
Here I do not mean the Quebec, Atlantic or western regions. I
am referring to regions such as mine, Abitibi-Témiscamingue,
Quebec's north shore and Gaspé regions and, in fact, most
regions of Quebec and northern Ontario. Several Atlantic
regions will also be adversely affected by the new tax. This
measure went unnoticed in the last budget and is now hidden in
Bill C-32.
We propose these amendments so that the Department of
Finance does not get $24 million more this year and $44 million
more next year at the expense of taxpayers living in remote
areas. Indeed, we think this is totally unacceptable. I do hope
that the government will realize the impact of this bill and
withdraw clauses 2, 3 and 4.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to present the government's arguments,
which I find quite rational in that they will reduce the tax burden
on short-haul domestic and transborder flights.
The present uniform tax of $10 will be reduced to $6. To
increase the recovery of the cost of air transportation facilities
and services, the maximum air transportation tax on domestic
and transborder flights will be increased from $40 to $50.
I think most people would agree that there is a substantial
saving nonetheless for short flights.
(1545)
The drop from $10 to $6, however, is not enough. In order to
recover as much as possible to pay for these facilities and
services, it seems essential to look for money elsewhere. So we,
the government, decided to focus our efforts there.
[English]
Those are really the only two comments I want to make. I want
to point out for those who take shorter distance flights that the
tax will be reduced from $10 to $6, which is an important
reduction. At the same time for those who will be taking longer
flights it will indeed be increased to try and recuperate as much
as possible to pay for public installations and services that these
people are using.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Abitibi,
and the residents of all remote ridings, concerning Bill C-32.
This bill to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the
Income Tax Act essentially contains amendments to taxes on
tobacco products and, in sections 2, 3 and 4, amendments to the
air transportation tax.
It is particularly in reference to these airline ticket taxes that I
would like to address the House for a few minutes, in order to
show that the government has not achieved its objectives and
that, in addition, regions outside the network of major
population centres will be penalized.
In order to judge this new rate structure, I will take a few
minutes to compare the present and proposed tax rates. The
present rate consists of a basic tax of $10-as the parliamentary
secretary mentioned-on each ticket, plus 7 per cent of the price
of the ticket, to a maximum of $40. The new structure would
feature a basic tax of $6, plus 7 per cent on the price of the ticket,
to a maximum of $50 for expensive tickets.
To justify this new structure, the government cites the
following objectives: first, to increase the amount of money
recovered-which seems fair and legitimate-for air
transportation facilities and services provided by Transport
Canada; and second, to reduce the tax burden on short-haul
flights to small localities. We, in remote areas of the country, are
those small localities. We are directly affected, and we do not
understand why the second objective could not be achieved.
This new rate structure does not achieve the targeted
objectives, in particular reducing the tax burden on flights to
small localities-mostly to remote areas of the country.
Obviously, the new rate structure will make it possible to collect
much more money to cover Transport Canada's costs. As the
member for Témiscamingue put it, $24 million more will be
collected in the first year and $44 million more in subsequent
years.
This money will come primarily from the increase in the
maximum tax from $40 to $50, notwithstanding the loss of
revenue from having lowered the basic tax to $6 from $10. This
meets the government's first objective to increase the recovery
of the cost of facilities. Of course the government has another
reason for introducing this new rate, and that is why we will
focus mainly on the second objective, which is to reduce the tax
burden on short-haul flights.
However, this objective has not been met. In fact, air
transportation to remote areas has been adversely affected since
deregulation, since the full cost is now being borne by these
areas. The price of a ticket to some destinations has gone up
considerably in recent years. For instance, Montreal-Rimouski
costs $552 plus tax. Ottawa-Montreal-Val-d'Or, a flight I take
every week, costs me more than $550 plus tax.
5592
The reason is, of course, that there is less demand for these
flights, and to make a profit, carriers have to raise their rates, as
opposed to busier routes like Montreal-Toronto, where a regular
ticket will cost around $400 for about the same distance. The
new tax rate is based on the price and does not take traffic or
distance into account. The government assumes there is a
perfect correlation between price and distance, which is not the
case. The price is based on two factors: distance and traffic.
(1550)
This means that the government is wrong if it thinks that
charging less tax on cheap tickets will benefit air transportation
to remote areas. This policy will tend to benefit short-haul,
high-volume flights like Montreal-Toronto, used constantly by
business people, and charter flights.
Remote areas are already facing service cuts due to the
present policy of privatizing air services. For the sake of
fairness, people in the regions should be offered the same
service as people in large urban centres. Regional air traffic
control, firefighting services and weather forecasting will be
mostly phased out or administered from the large urban centres.
Air services are vital to people in the north, and here I am
referring to the Cree and the Inuit for whom air transportation
often provide their sole access to basic services such as food,
health care and postal services. In many regions, especially in
the North, tourism is the only way they can develop their
economy and become independent in the future.
With this new tax rate, travel will become even more
expensive for foreign tourists, for the French and all the
Europeans who come to see the vast expanses of our country,
because of the already high cost of a regular ticket, which I
mentioned earlier. This cost factor will prevent people in the
North from developing their economy.
Here are a few examples of fares for these regions. If you want
to go from Montreal to Iqaluit, in the Inuit territory, you may
have to pay between $800 and $1,100, even more if you want to
go to La Grande 2 or Saluit, and this is only one way. The return
fare would be $1,100 to $1,600. Certainly, all these flights
would be subject to the maximum tax of $50.
You could tell me that given the small number of flights it
would not affect very many people. As I said, for Iqaluit there
were 4,700 passengers in 1992, the last year for which data are
available. By comparison, there were 86,900 passengers for
Val-d'Or in 1992. For an area like Waskaganish, where air
transport is the only thing available, 11,400 passengers. These
people will have to pay increased fares.
I would like to tell the parliamentary secretary that it might
have been possible-he said that they favour short distances-to
add $4 or $5 to the Montreal to Toronto fare, and the Department
of Transport would have collected as much money without
penalizing people who depend on air transportation.
I would like to conclude that for people in my riding or any
remote riding in Canada, clauses 2, 3 and 4, which may look
innocuous, will mean an extra $10 per trip on the average. If you
add this to all the other difficulties in remote areas, it becomes
very difficult to control the tools of development. The
government is siphoning more and more.
The motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois would delete
clauses 2, 3 and 4 of Bill C-32, and maintain the status quo
instead of hitting remote areas.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-32 contains a deliberate glitch involving clauses 2, 3, and 4,
dealing with the increase in the air transportation fee schedule
for remote areas. Once again, the Liberal government has
decided to pick on people who can ill afford to pay, having had
the guts to be true pioneers in remote and less populated areas.
(1555)
This comes after Bill C-17 and the attack on regions with a
very high unemployment rate, such as my riding of
Manicouagan, after the fishery adjustment program which,
although it is very generous, does not take into account regional
characteristics, especially regarding sports fishing which
attracts a lot of tourists and is vitally important to us. And now,
the Liberal government picks on these same people, striking at
the key component of this region's economic development,
namely air transportation.
However, the objective, which is to lessen the tax burden on
short-haul flights to small communities, has not been met. As a
matter of fact, deregulation has had a negative impact on air
transportation to remote areas. These areas have had to assume
the entire cost of transportation, and fares to these destinations
have significantly increased over the past few years. As an
example, let me give you a few statistics which might help us
draw some comparisons. These examples will help us better
understand what the problem is with the transportation system
on the North Shore.
First, before getting to the statistics, let us review some basic
geographical information. Let us talk about the east side of
Manicouagan, a riding so huge it seems to me like a whole
continent. To give you an idea, it is 46 per cent of the size of
Ontario. The coast is 1,200 kilometres long. For comparison's
sake, travelling 1,200 kilometres from Ottawa in a north-west
direction will get you near Thunder Bay, and in a north-east
direction to Sept-Îles. That is awesome. Out of these 1,200
kilometres between Franklin and Blanc-Sablon, which is only a
part of my riding, 500 kilometres are connected to the national
highway system, hence to the Quebec system, but the other 700
kilometres along the coast are not linked to the Quebec highway
5593
system. You might see some sections of roadway linking
together a few villages along the coast, but nothing connecting
these villages to the Quebec system.
I will divide my speech in two. I will start with the
communities accessible by road and then deal with the
communities which are not accessible by road. In a riding like
Manicouagan, where regional economic development is
concerned, air transportation is very important, because it
usually facilitates the first contacts between an investor and the
territory he or she wishes to develop. Once they have flown to
the targeted area, investors look at the various facilities they and
their employees could benefit from. Of course, air services are a
big consideration when advantages and disadvantages are
reviewed.
That is why this issue cannot be treated lightly. For the people
in my riding of Manicouagan, flying is not a luxury, it is a
crucial service not only to ensure regional and economic
development, but to maintain the quality of life they are entitled
to as taxpayers. More that 85 per cent of small and medium sized
communities are located within 150 kilometres of a major urban
area.
A major urban centre is a built-up area where you can find all
the important health and government services. In Quebec, we
are talking about Montreal, Quebec City, Chicoutimi,
Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke. So, in those areas where there is
significant population density, they are not usually lacking for
much of anything to meet the basic needs to achieve a decent
standard of living in 1994.
(1600)
But what is the decent standard of living that the
Manicouagan taxpayers have a right to expect in 1994? The bill
talks about equity in relation to cost distribution. So, for
analysis purposes, I did some brief calculations where equity
must represent the same rate, must means that we should pay the
same price for an air kilometre, no matter where.
That gives us some really interesting data. For example,
between Quebec City and Montreal, which is undoubtedly the
busiest corridor, some percentage of variation could be
acceptable. We could agree with that, but to go from simple to
double, as I will show you, is an aberration. It is not only an
exaggeration, but an aberration. For Quebec City-Montreal,
we arrive at more or less $1.10 per air kilometre; for
Sept-Îles-Natashquan-as people cannot get to that area by
road, they must take a plane for emergencies or
whatever-$1.34 per kilometre; for Sept-Îles-Blanc-Sablon,
$1.82. We should not forget that the rate for Montreal-Quebec
City is still $1.10. The equity must be somewhere. We will talk
about Natasquan-Montreal, which is $2.29 per kilometre; that
is more than double the rate. Another one which is more than
double: Saint-Augustin-Montreal, $2.32; for
Blanc-Sablon-Montreal, $2.40. This is an aberration. But,
according to the minister, there is equity somewhere in there. It
does not make any sense.
Those people who are not linked to a road system, those living in communities that are not located within the road network of Quebec, have the same basic needs as those I mentioned earlier, but of course they also have particularities.
Let us take for instance health clinics. Suppose we have an
emergency where a child is involved, or any other person, and
needs special care. Since these clinics cannot provide the
treatments, a sanitary plane of the Government of Quebec will
be used to take the patient to a centre, Quebec or Montreal, as
required. However, people who accompany the patients have to
disburse considerable amounts of money to go with them.
Let us take Blanc-Sablon, for instance. A mother who is
morally obligated to accompany her child to a Quebec hospital
will have to pay almost $1,500 in transport, whereas if she
resided in Baie-Saint-Paul, she would not have to bear such
costs since that community is linked to the road system.
Air transport is not a luxury in the riding of Manicouagan.
That fact is mentioned in a resolution of the city council of
Natashquan which I have here. The city council naturally sent a
letter to the provincial minister and I would like to quote a few
lines of that resolution which refer to the various preambles
dealing with the specificity of those regions.
``Given the geographic difficulties'', and this is not trivial,
because the North Shore is not flat and you do not play golf
every day in that area. ``Given the health and education
problems linked to transportation'', teachers, doctors, people
travelling to every corner of the North Shore go by plane
because they have no other choice. Air travel is so outrageously
expensive that the city council mentions it in its resolution.
Although every city council could say the same thing but I
mentioned only that of Natashquan.
They also explain how this affects supplies. I would like to
tell you a short story dealing with food commodities. Here, a
T-bone steak is expensive, and a tomato is certainly a lot
cheaper, but if you go to Natashquan or Chevery, like I did in
February, a tomato costs almost more than a T-bone because to
buy a tomato in February, it has to be shipped there practically
by November, so imagine what it will cost in February if it is
still good to eat. This is of course an extreme example, but we
have to consider these regional differences. Air transportation is
a major factor here. And that is part of the reason why we are
rising in the House today.
5594
(1605)
When the government thinks that its policy to charge less tax
on cheap tickets will benefit air transportation to remote areas, it
is wrong. Its policy will benefit the short haul, high volume
flights between Montreal and Toronto, for instance. These
destinations will benefit, but at what price? The price will be
paid by people in remote areas, as if they were not paying
enough already.
Montreal-Toronto flights have a high volume of business
people, and business charter operations will benefit as well.
Bill C-32 will merely increase the burden on the regions and
further isolate remote areas. And this is a measure that has
absolutely no connection with the other measures in this bill. It
should not even be in Bill C-32. The government put this
measure in to make things difficult for everyone. Summer is
coming, and they want to sneak this through the House.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that regional transportation
services should benefit. The government had a chance to set up a
rate system that would have benefited regional transportation. It
was a wonderful opportunity for the Liberal government to
prove, just for once, that it has the regions' best interests in
mind. But of course, they failed to rise to the occasion.
The regions have suffered enough as a result of deregulation.
It is time to turn the situation around and let the burden of
regional transportation costs be shared by remote regions and
urban regions. That would be fair.
In conclusion, today the regions are at a tremendous
disadvantage as far as transportation costs are concerned, a fact
that is adversely affecting their development and has made them
second class citizens.
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to rise and speak on this bill.
I represent an area that has a large number of tobacco
producers in it. They look quite favourably on this bill and what
it will do to rationalize and give the industry which has been
attacked over the years in a number of different areas more
certainty on where it will go in the future.
I want to talk about a particular part of the bill. I follow this
issue quite a bit. One of the areas this bill deals with is how
tobacco is processed and gives a definition of a processor and
manufacturer.
In section 182 on page 61 of the bill is a definition of tobacco
manufacturing which states ``means any activity (other than
farming) relating to the manufacture or processing in Canada of
tobacco and tobacco products''. That could pertain to almost
anything. It could pertain to people who make cartons or people
who make the paint that goes on the cartons that we put the
tobacco in.
In fact there is one company in my area of
Haldimand-Norfolk that is hit by this. It does not manufacture
cigarettes. It had nothing to do with the smuggling situation. It is
an independent group, not tied in with any of the big three. The
intent of the legislation, other than to reduce taxes to deal with
smuggling, was to hit back at the big three, those the
government felt might have had, remotely, something to do with
the smuggling that was going on cross border.
This small independent company processes tobacco, meaning
it buys from the tobacco board, threshes the tobacco, bundles it
up and ships a good majority of it overseas to export markets. It
had nothing to do with the problem but because of the way the
legislation is written it is caught up in it.
(1610 )
I ask the Minister of Finance if he could look into the situation
of these small companies and see what he can do to help
alleviate the taxes. They have to compete internationally with
other companies and I do not see why they should be caught up
in this legislation.
I believe the intent of the legislation is not to catch them, but
unfortunately it will. Therefore I call on the government today
to do something about it.
Finally, I will conclude by saying that I support Bill C-32. It
will do what it is intended to do; stop the smuggling.
The 200 some odd smoke huts that were throughout
Haldimand-Norfolk and on the Six Nations reserve are no
longer there. Only a few of them are left. This bill has already
done what it was intended to do. It has sent a strong message that
we will not support this type of activity. It has done a lot for the
communities, especially the Six Nations. A number of the elders
have come to me to say thanks for bringing forward legislation
like this. They feel that sort of activity should not happen on the
Six Nations. They feel anything they can do to help us out in this
regard they would gladly do.
There are other parts of the the bill which I obviously do not
support, such as the export tax, but I can say quite heartily that I
and the producers in my area support this bill as a whole.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
have a few remarks to make in addition to what I said at the
previous readings. These remarks are with regard to the
amendments presented by the Bloc, the Official Opposition, on
the air transportation tax.
We will be opposing the bill because of the reduction in taxes
on tobacco and so on. Basically we support the government in
the other aspects of this omnibus bill. We support the
government's changes to the air transportation tax. It is moving
toward privatization, moving toward user pay, moving toward
cost recovery so that this part of the industry does not have to be
5595
supported by government. That is why we oppose the
amendments the Bloc is making because it will take away from
the direction in which the government is moving.
There is currently a flat fee of $10 plus 7 per cent to a
maximum of $40 on all airline tickets purchased in Canada.
These fees are part of the Excise Tax Act even though they
appear to be closer in function to a user fee than actual taxes. All
the revenue is directed toward the Department of Transport
which routes the funds to the aviation component of their
expenditures. This tax makes up most of the funding for aviation
services provided to all Canadian airports whether they are
public or private. These services include air traffic controllers,
aviation control for take off and landing and air navigation
costs.
Current revenues from this tax of nearly $600 million do not
fully cover the government cost of aviation which runs at about
$870 million. Because of the implementations the government
wants to make, this airport tax would come closer to meeting the
actual costs of this by the airlines, then we would support that
and therefore oppose the amendment.
To reduce the tax burden on short haul, domestic and
trans-border flights by decreasing the flat charge per ticket and
increasing the maximum fee is one change that was to be made,
along with a flat fee decreasing to $6 and the maximum
increasing to $50. This is good.
Last, the change would bring an additional $24 million in
1994 and an additional $41 million in 1995. That is a positive
move. The burden on the taxpayer would be reduced.
(1615 )
In analysing this, this levy should not be part of a complicated
tax system. The funds do not go into general revenue but are
spent specifically on aviation. Therefore we should change this
into a user fee on a full recovery basis.
We support these changes toward this move to more fully
recover the costs that are experienced in this area. However we
also acknowledge the difficulties with giving any department
both a monopoly on revenues and a monopoly on service
delivery. Mechanisms must be in place to ensure cost effective
delivery.
Perhaps we should look closer at what the possibilities for
privatization of these services are. We could probably even save
the government more money if we looked at this whole area of
privatization.
We support this change. It makes the air transportation tax
move toward a full cost recovery basis. Further moves in this
direction should include changing the tax to a user fee
administered by the Department of Transport. This would
necessitate adequate competition in place to ensure cost
effective delivery service.
In summary, we are opposed to the amendments that the Bloc
is making. We support the direction in which the government is
going. It is not far enough but it is heading in the right direction.
We would like to see it consider more privatization of this and
more of a user fee cost recovery basis.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy 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 Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I
have been requested by the deputy government whip to defer the
division until a later time.
[English]
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) a division
on the question now before the House stands deferred until later
this day at 6.30 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-30, an act to amend the Department of Labour Act, be read the
third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
5596
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1620)
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) I
have been requested by the deputy whip of the government to
defer the division until a later time.
[Translation]
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), a recorded
division on the question now before the House stands deferred
until 6.30 tonight, at which time the bells to call in the members
will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (for the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada) moved that Bill C-40, an act to
correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors in the
Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of a
non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in those statutes
and to repeal certain provisions of those statutes that have
expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-40 is to allow minor amendments
of a non-controversial nature to be made to a number of federal
statutes without having to wait for particular statutes to be
opened up for amendments of a more substantial nature.
The amendments contained in this bill were tabled in
Parliament on April 15 of this year as proposals and were
studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
and in the Senate by the Standing Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs.
Both these committees, after studying the proposals, have
come to the conclusion that they were not controversial and did
not involve the spending of public funds. Also, they would not
prejudicially affect the rights of persons and they would not
create a new offence or subject a new class of persons to an
existing offence.
Both committees approved all proposals without any change
or deletions for inclusion in this bill. The content of Bill C-40 is
identical to those proposals.
Because the content of the bill has already been studied by a committee of the House, I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that unanimous consent will be given for referring the bill to committee of the whole this day and for dealing with all remaining st
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the
House to proceed in this manner?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm with the hon. member across the
floor that the committee did look at it clause by clause and that
the Reform Party is very comfortable in supporting the
recommendation to take this through all stages today.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member has already
indicated that the Bloc Quebecois agrees with this proposal.
[English]
(Motion deemed agreed to, bill deemed read the second time
and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilgour in the
chair.)
(1625 )
The Chairman: Order. House in committee of the whole on
Bill C-40, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies
and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of
a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in those statutes
and to repeal certain provisions of those statutes that have
expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
Mr. Boudria: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if
there would be consent for the Chair to put the questions from
clauses 2 to 79 inclusive in the same motion.
The Chairman: Is there consent to move all of the clauses in
one motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 2 to 79 inclusive carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clauses 2 to 79 inclusive agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
Mr. Boudria: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Moments
ago when the Chair asked for second reading of the bill I believe
the bill was moved by the Minister of Health and seconded by a
parliamentary secretary. Perhaps I could ask the House that the
5597
seconder be changed to the government House leader to ensure
that ministers have moved and seconded the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to do that?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gray (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved that the bill be read the third time
and passed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank all
members of the House for their co-operation in the passage of
this bill. It has been done expeditiously and in the best interests
has been debated fully.
Mr. Boudria: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given
the progress to date I think you might find unanimous consent to
suspend the sitting until 6.30 p.m. at which time we will proceed
with the various divisions on bills as agreed to on Friday and
earlier this day.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the
House to suspend the sitting until 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.28 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 6.30 p.m.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Winnipeg Transcona-Transportation Subsidies.
[English]
The House resumed from June 16, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the
Criminal Code, be now read a second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 62)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Riis
Rocheleau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-49
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
5598
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood-179
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Anderson
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Dubé
Dupuy
Eggleton
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Guay
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lincoln
Loubier
Marchi
McTeague
Ménard
Young
(1900)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment negatived.
[English]
Mr. Gagliano: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
believe you will find unanimous consent to apply this vote in
reverse to the vote on third reading of Bill C-28.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to do so?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Ouellet: I could not make the first vote, Mr. Speaker, but
I would appreciate that my vote be recorded with that of my
government colleagues in the ones to come.
(1905 )
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, if somebody is not here for the first
vote why would they be allowed in for the second vote? I thought
when somebody walks by you are not allowed to come in.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre
asks a good question. I am told by somebody much wiser than I
am that is the proper thing to do. I appreciate that may not satisfy
the member for Calgary Centre.
* * *
The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-28, an act respecting the making of loans and the
provision of other forms of financial assistance to students, to
amend and provide for the repeal of the Canada Student Loans
Act, and to amend one other act in consequence thereof, be read
the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on Bill C-28. We will vote on the
deferred motion as listed on the Order Paper.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 63)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
5599
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood-180
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Riis
Rocheleau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-49
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Anderson
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Dubé
Dupuy
Eggleton
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Guay
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lincoln
Loubier
Marchi
McTeague
Ménard
Young
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, an act to
amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the Income Tax
Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a)
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division
on Motion No. 1 at report stage of Bill C-32, an Act to amend the
Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the Income Tax Act.
[English]
The question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find
unanimous consent that the vote taken on Bill C-37 can be
applied to the amendments at report stage of Bill C-32.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
5600
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 64)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Riis
Rocheleau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-49
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Anderson
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Dubé
Dupuy
Eggleton
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Guay
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lincoln
Loubier
Marchi
McTeague
Ménard
Young
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec) moved that the bill be concurred in.
5601
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time, by consent later this day?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-30, an act to amend the Department of Labour Act, be read the
third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a)
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division
on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-30, an act to
amend the Department of Labour Act.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 65)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood-188
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)-41
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Anderson
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Dubé
Dupuy
Eggleton
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Guay
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lincoln
Loubier
Marchi
McTeague
Ménard
Young
5602
(1915 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
I might put on the record that the House leader for the Reform
Party indicated-I did not hear it-that the Reform Party would
not give consent to Bill C-32 to be read a third time today.
Therefore that matter will count as if it were noted earlier.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal
Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to speak on Bill C-37 to amend the Young
Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, and the amendment put
forward by the Bloc. This bill has been introduced at this time
only in response to the pressure exerted by certain radicals and a
certain press thirsty for sensationalism which revels in fuelling
the common perception that crime is on the increase among
young people.
Passed in 1984, the legislation has been amended twice, in
1986 and 1992. Really, can the situation have already
deteriorated to such a point that it now warrants introducing this
bill?
(1920)
[English]
In his final report called ``Beyond the Red Book'', a workshop
on recommendations for amendments to the Young Offenders
Act, Mr. Doob of the University of Toronto said: ``We do not
have a youth just crisis that requires immediate fundamental
change in the Young Offenders Act. Members of the public,
especially those in the media who purport to represent public
opinion about crime, have for centuries expressed the view that
youth crime is out of control. Youths commit a disproportionate
amount of crime in society. They always have and always will.
But changes in the Young Offenders act are not likely to have
any measurable impact on crime''.
[Translation]
In Quebec, a compromise has been struck between the
principles of youth protection and societal protection.
I would like to remind hon. members that a motion on this
subject was adopted on May 5 last by the Quebec National
Assembly. It read as follows: ``That this Assembly demand that
any amendment to the federal Young Offenders Act respect
Quebec's laws and policies with regard to youth protection''.
The motion was unanimously endorsed by Quebec's two main
political parties.
In Quebec, youth protection workers help the young offender
and his family discover the best options for reintegrating into
society and the community. Of course, the system in place is by
no means perfect, but at least it places equal emphasis on
prevention programs and on rehabilitation and reintegration
programs.
The bill now before us does not provide this kind of balanced
approach. On the contrary, the emphasis here is on repression in
that the preferred option appears all too often to be referral to the
courts, while no provision seems to be made for rehabilitation.
With the passage of this bill, 16 and 17 year olds would have
their cases proceed in adult court. For the purposes of the Young
Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, the term ``young person''
now includes 10 to 16 year olds. Furthermore, depending on
their age group, young persons will be treated differently by the
courts.
Although the legislation does not distinguish between 12 to
15 year olds and 16 to 17 year olds, it is clear that as a result of
these amendments, these two groups will be treated differently
in the case of offences involving serious bodily harm. Some
lawyers will argue that this flies in the face of section 15 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees
equal treatment to all under the law.
While public safety demands that young offenders be
sometimes kept in secure custody, rehabilitation should always
be our overriding concern. Young persons who are in contact
with other offenders are exposed to influences which fuel their
delinquent behaviour.
In an article published in La Presse on June 8, Mr. Trépanier, a
criminologist and researcher at the Université de Montréal,
reminded readers that: ``Quebec compares favourably with the
rest of Canada. Quebec is the province where the number of
5603
young people in drop-in and rehabilitation centres is the lowest,
about half the Canadian average''.
According to research done on crime rates in American states relying on punishment as a deterrent against crime, there is no significant difference as opposed to states having a different approach based on the fight against crime. In this regard, the Ame
[English]
Getting back to the report ``Beyond the Red Book'': ``Few
saw any serious problems with the act that could not have been
remedied by proper and creative administration of the act.
Repeatedly the view was expressed that the most serious
problem in the Young Offenders Act was the way in which it was
administrated in some provinces. Most cases involving violence
that come under the control of the Young Offenders Act can be
dealt with under the present legislation''.
So much for the necessity of new legislation. What about
increasing the severity of sentences?
(1925 )
In the same report Mr. Doob noted:
With adolescents, increasing the severity of dispositions has no real impact
on offending behaviour; either for the youth before the court or other youths.
That is, despite its apparent logic and appeal, increasing the severity of
dispositions has neither specific nor general deterrent value-The data supports
the conclusion that rehabilitation is more likely to be accomplished in
non-custodial settings-It was suggested that if the federal and the provincial
governments were serious about protecting the public, then the governments
should invest money in prevention and in educating the public about youth
crime. It is cheaper and more effective to prevent crime than to put kids in
custody when they commit offences.
[
Translation]
Therefore, this bill is premature. We do not have a long
enough experience, here in Canada, to assess the effects of the
amendments introduced in 1992. I should remind members that,
in 1992, the sentence for murder what extended to five years.
However, such a sentence should also be imposed. At the present
time, considering the lag time in the availability of statistics, we
cannot determine the impact of this amendment. How can we
justify what we are doing now? Why not wait for the results of
the previous amendments before taking more repressive
measures?
Crime, lest we forget, is an extremely complex issue.
Generally speaking, criminologists recognize that the causes of
crime are many. Violence and crime are interconnected and it is
therefore important to address the root cause of crime by
impressing on young offenders at the earliest opportunity that
they are responsible for their actions. Sanctions or penalties
directly tied to the offence must be enforced. Automatic
incarceration or isolation in secure custody have no
rehabilitative value. The deterrent effect of these measures can
even be called into question.
Getting back to the question of public perception, last
February, Jean Trépanier of the University of Montreal spoke at
a symposium on crime and shared some statistics on the subject.
According to Mr. Trépanier, only one in every six persons who
commit an offence is a minor whereas the public's perception is
vastly different. It is commonly believed that nearly 50 per cent
of crimes are committed by young persons.
The February 3, 1994 issue of La Presse reported that youth
crime had even declined by 7.6 per cent in Quebec over the past
15 years. The same is true for Montreal. The number of juvenile
delinquents was reported at 10,145 in 1979, compared to 6,679
in 1992. This represents a decrease of 34 per cent in 13 years.
More recently in the June 8 edition of La Presse, Mr.
Trépanier stated the following: ``According to Statistics
Canada, the delinquency rate in Quebec per 100,000 residents is
the second lowest in Canada after peace loving Prince Edward
Island''.
Over the past decade, the number of serious crimes such as
murder, manslaughter and aggravated assault has either
remained stable or declined.
``The increase noted in the number of violent crimes is due to
a large extent to a 127 per cent increase in minor assaults from
1986 to 1991. According to national statistics on crime, a
minority of young offenders are involved in crimes of a violent
nature. In fact, only 13 percent of charges laid in 1991 were in
connection with crimes of violence. However, nearly half of the
charges laid against young offenders in 1991 involved first level
assaults, which means that the offense was committed without
the use of a weapon and that no bodily injury was inflicted upon
the victim''.
Tim Weiner from the Ottawa Citizen reported in March 1991
that ``one Canadian out of three is under the false impression
that violence is as widespread in Canada, if not more, than in the
United States.'' The fact of the matter is that a far greater
number of violent crimes are committed in the United States
than in Canada.
The Americans have doubled their police forces and the size
of private police forces has increased fourfold over the past 30
years. Their inmate population has doubled over the past 10
years to a record high of four per 1,000 residents, which is at
least four times higher than anywhere else in the Western world.
Yet, violent crime rates in the U.S. are three times higher than in
other industrialized countries.
(1930)
As for the transfer to adult court, the amendments to the 1992
act clarified the applicable criteria to determine if a young
offender must be transferred to adult court. Youth court must
now take into account society's interest, in particular the
public's protection and the teenager's reintegration into society,
and determine if it is possible to reconcile these two objectives
by keeping the teenager under its jurisdiction. If the court thinks
5604
that it is impossible, society's protection prevails. The required
mechanisms seem to be in place but the stakeholders refuse to
use them.
I now come back to the June 8 article in La Presse, which
quotes Normand Bastien from the youth division of Montreal's
community legal centre. He said: ``The real problems come
from the fact that the average waiting periods before sentencing
are too long-266 days on average in Valleyfield, 180 days in
Montreal, 163 days in Joliette-and that only 29 per cent of
problems are resolved''. So why this bill, since the current act
already has adequate provisions to deal with young offenders?
I repeat, a repressive law without rehabilitation measures and
left to the discretion of various stakeholders will not bring the
violence phenomenon under control. Current documentation
does not support the argument that longer sentences act as a
deterrent. As I said before, the American experience
demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these coercive measures.
To conclude on the transfer to adult court issue, it seems that
the burden of proof will now rest with the young people
themselves. Too bad for the presumption of innocence. All this
is intended to silence some people who will never be satisfied. It
makes light of the balance between deterrence and rehabilitation
which has proven itself in Quebec. Above all, it encourages
laxity in certain provinces.
In the reading I have done on this bill, how does one explain
some particularly troubling statistics concerning cases in youth
court that resulted in a guilty verdict? In Quebec and the
Maritime provinces, guilty verdicts were rendered in over 80 per
cent of cases; in the Western provinces, barely 70 per cent; and
in Ontario and Manitoba, 55 and 59 per cent. How come in
Alberta, 34,372 people are accused and convicted out of a
population of 1.2 million, compared to 16,000 in British
Columbia? One province convicts half as many people as its
neighbour. Are we not justified in thinking that we should pay
more attention to the administration of justice instead of
drafting new laws?
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
when the government introduced the Young Offenders Act and
said that it intended to make some changes to the act it was very
pleasing for me because if ever there was an act that needed
modified it is the Young Offenders Act. However, that pleasure
quickly faded when I found out that all the changes it really had
in mind was just a little bit of tokenism.
One of the major things we are concerned about of course is
16 and 17 year olds and whether they are going to be treated as
kids or whether they are going to be treated as adults when they
commit crimes.
The government has taken a little portion of this. It has said
for 16 and 17 year olds it intends, most of the time at least, to
raise them to adult court. The onus will be on them to show cause
why they should not be tried in adult court and why in fact they
should be tried as young offenders.
This raises two problems. One of the basic problems is if they
are tried as adults while still being young offenders they are still
treated differently than people who are regular adults being tried
in that adult court.
The second problem, and this is the larger one, is that we have
a tremendous bureaucracy now. This bureaucracy is part of what
drives the deficit and debt as high as it is and climbing
continually.
(1935 )
What is going to happen is every time one of these young
offenders is proposed to be raised to adult court we are going to
have them appealing this and trying to fight it. What we are
going to be faced with are trials to determine where the trial is
going to be held, whether it is going to be in juvenile court or
adult court. That is not doing anything to the legal system. That
is not doing anything to resolve the problem of bureaucracy and
it is certainly not doing anything to bring justice to this act.
One of the things we think should happen is that the age
should be dropped. Sixteen and seventeen-year olds should be
tried as adults and should be classed as adults. We think the
overall age should be dropped. If you have 10 and 11 year olds
committing crimes there has to be some facility to deal with that
other than saying that was not very nice and sending them home
to their parents, especially when the government is also talking
about changing the act so that even once they send them home to
their parents the parents are powerless to do anything.
Another thing the government is touching on, but again it is
only tokenism, is identifying the criminal activities of young
offenders. What we had proposed is that all crimes of 14 and 15
year olds should be readily available through the media and for
those 10 to 13 they should be made public if, in the judge's
opinion, the need for the public to know and protect itself is
greater than the need for confidentiality on the part of the
offender.
If you would consider a situation in which one of these young
offenders may be exhibiting some form of violent behaviour and
is released back to a classroom full of other children, should not
the school authorities for one and the parents of the other
children there know that there was a potential problem and take
the necessary steps to ensure the safety of their own children?
Another area that did not get touched on at all is the need to
change the face of the way our correctional facilities work. What
we need is a facility that bases its primary actions on education,
skills training, community service and one other thing that the
government seems loath to introduce, discipline. We do not have
a structured type of system that is going to provide some type of
education, some kind of knowledge so that they can become
useful people instead of sitting in what often are considered
country club resorts compared with what many law-abiding
5605
young people have on the outside. We are doing absolutely
nothing but making a mockery of our entire system.
The final area where we believe there has to be some major
change and something where the government did not even
involve itself in tokenism on is the concept of parental
responsibility. We believe that whenever there is a young
offender and it can be shown that lack of parental control is a
factor in the crime being committed then those parents must be
responsible for identifying the victim for their losses.
We will have some people arguing as to whether that is fair to
the parents. Maybe the parents could not stop the problem.
Maybe it is not really being fair to the parents of this young
offender. We have to look at the two sides of it. On one side we
have a parent, in the situation we are suggesting, and it has been
demonstrated that their lack of exercising parental control was a
contributing factor to the offence being committed.
On the other side we have the victim. The victim is wholly
innocent. There is no question of the innocence of a victim in
these types of situations. Who really should have the financial
burden placed upon them by the actions of this offender? Should
it be a wholly innocent victim or should it be a parent who
perhaps should have exercised more control in preventing that
offence in the first place? If there is any injustice in this at all it
certainly should be on the side of the one where there could be
presumed certain responsibility for this. There is no question
that it should not fall on the victim who is wholly innocent.
We believe that these are basic changes to the act that must
take place. The Liberal government has not addressed this
concept whatsoever.
One of the things that involves the Young Offenders Act and
in fact the entire criminal justice system is what is this act in
place for. Who are we trying to protect? Who are we trying to
reward or make life easier for? Is it the victim or is it the person
who perpetrates the crime? I suggest that we have to provide
protection for the innocent people.
(1940)
There may well be cause for people to say the poor youth, they
have had a bad upbringing, they come from a broken home, they
come from poverty. These things may all be true and may have
in fact contributed to the person committing the crime.
We have to deal with those issues separately. Our first premise
is that we must protect law-abiding citizens and their property.
The Young Offenders Act needs to be changed and the reason it
needs to be changed is for protection of society at large and also
for young people themselves who are the most frequent victims
of juvenile crime.
I had high hopes when they talked of introducing this change
to the Young Offenders Act and I am very disappointed that they
have gone half measure. On one side, we might say that
something is better than nothing but on review it seems that
what they are offering us is nothing at all.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand tonight to say a few
words on this bill because it is one that we have been waiting for
for a long time.
Having brought it forward now, it is one that has improved the
initial act. I am sure that all of us know of cases in which the
previous act was applied and was not certainly considered
sufficient for the crime and certainly not a corrective measure to
any extent either.
Some will say that there is a crisis with youth offenders today.
Some will say there is not. We have hear that on the floor of this
House. People who witness youth or adult crime know there is a
problem. Communities that have witnessed a problem out there
in youth crime know there is a problem.
It is easy to judge from afar and from a save perch but when it
comes home to people, that is the time that they get serious
about these issues. Of course the media wants something
spectacular or there is nothing newsworthy about it. Some will
say that the media is responsible for the hype about issues and
others will say that it is only reporting the news.
Be that as it may, there is always room for improvement in
legislation of this nature. Young people usually get their first
sense of authority, their first feeling that there is authority
around them, in the home. If they get the feeling at home, that
there is an authority there, when they get out to face society they
are able to handle it because they are accustomed to it.
When youth are not accustomed to discipline, a sense of
authority and sound practices in the home they rebel when
suddenly confronted with it in society because they have always
had their own way. When they cannot get their own way they
become angry.
I want to quote from paper written by Dr. Victor Szyrynski
who is a well known medical doctor and doctor of psychiatry. He
has a PhD as well. In his very learned way he says: ``Parents are
the first people who gratify the child's basic needs and in this
way provide him with evidence of their love and stimulate
similar reactions in return''.
At another stage in his paper: ``Generally speaking, security
is provided by parental love. Here, however, in accordance with
David Levy, we might consider the harmful aspects of ``too
much love'' and ``too little love''. Children overfed with love in
their early days by overprotective and overaffectionate parents
find it too difficult to face the real frustrations present in the
outside world''.
5606
(1945)
Today we know that in the outside world people in a
community have a fear of law breakers. There are home
robberies reported that have been witnessed and there have been
many business break-ins. Older people want security. When
something happens in their community they have a great sense
of fear.
Medical attention becomes very important as a corrective
measure while a young offender is incarcerated. It is all right to
talk about long sentences and so on, but while that person is in
prison they must receive the proper medical attention. If they
are not ready to be back on the streets when their time is up then
a very definite assessment should be made of the case at that
time.
I was interested in the words of the minister in his statement,
his news release, on the day he tabled the bill when he said
poverty, alcoholism, family violence, racism, illiteracy and
many other factors may lead to criminal acts by young people
and adults alike. Of course we have witnessed that from adults
and young people alike. The conditions of our times certainly
contribute to the moulding of the character of individuals today.
The increased sentences for teenagers convicted on first
degree murder would be ten years, seven years in and three years
out in the community under supervision, and seven years for
second degree murder, four years in and three years under
supervision in the community.
The personal injury offences would be in adult court unless
they can show a judge that public protection and rehabilitation
can both be achieved through youth court. They have to prove
that they should be heard in youth court if they are 16 or 17 years
of age. Otherwise they go to adult court.
Those who have been convicted of murder in an adult court
must serve before they can be considered for parole. It is
important that a person who is not ready to be out on the streets
should not be out there. I mentioned that a moment ago but I
think this is one of the largest fears people had about the
previous legislation, that a person would be out on the street.
There were a number of cases that have been very well
documented and very well publicized and of course it helped to
really drive that point home.
We know that in the present legislation the maximum
sentence for young people convicted of murder in youth court is
five years. It used to be three years. There is no parole in the
youth system at the present time. However, the proposals that
the minister brought in recently would increase sentences in
youth court to ten years. There is a reason for it, and that is why I
am repeating that particular part. With the previous three year
sentence there was no timeframe for the medical attention that
person should have been receiving and there was no medical
attention for the proper assessment before they went back out on
the street.
The minister will be meeting with ministers of health from the
various provinces and territories later this year on this very
important provision. The provinces are in charge of health care
and we must have the proper number of people involved in the
system who are well qualified to make assessments on young
offenders and to make recommendations for their treatment
while they are in prison. If that does not happen the additional
years are not going to mean very much. The person will only
come out with the same attitude with which they went in.
(1950)
In my view, and having gone through a couple of very
traumatic situations with families who were involved with youth
murders, it is a very difficult situation for them. It is very
serious for the parents but it is also very serious for other people
in the family. Certainly it is serious for the people in those
communities, particularly if the communities are small and
people know one another. I want to emphasize the importance of
proper medical care for these young people once they are in
prison.
I commend the minister for increasing the sentences and
lowering the age limit for people being brought into adult court.
If measures of this nature are not taken, then crime will continue
to grow among those people who are today laughing at the law.
When people start smiling and laughing at the law it is not only
they who are in trouble, our whole society is in trouble.
This is very important legislation for this Parliament. It is
very important to put it in place. The follow through is going to
be very important because it is going to spell the success or the
failure of this new initiative.
I want to say to the ministers and to the members of the House
that as this bill unfolds and as the legislation, the regulations and
the provisions for medical care are brought forward there will be
a number of us in the House watching the procedure very
carefully to make sure that the proper provisions are being
carried and that it is going to be useful to society and useful for
the young offenders who get into trouble.
A lot of improvements can be made if we have the proper
discipline in the home and some direction in the home to begin
with. We should encourage that while we are discussing this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, on June 6, when I rose to support the amendment tabled
by the Bloc Quebecois regarding the Young Offenders Act, I
asked the Minister of Justice to say who, in Quebec, had hoped
for such amendments.
I am still waiting for an answer, but I know that it will never
come, because nobody in Quebec was in favour of such
repressive changes as those proposed by the Minister of Justice.
If there are people in favour of such changes, it has to really be a
small minority. In fact, when I see the minister remain silent, I
5607
think that it must be an extremely small minority, otherwise I
would have heard from him.
As for me, I did not waste my time. I checked with those who
are really concerned by this issue to find out what they thought
of those amendments. I am referring to those who will have to
implement the legislation. I consulted these people and no one,
absolutely no one agreed with the bill. On the contrary, they all
rejected it.
On May 5, 1994, before Bill C-37 was tabled, Quebec's
National Assembly voted almost unanimously in favour of
asking the federal government to ensure that any amendment to
the Young Offenders Act is in compliance with Quebec's laws
and policies regarding youth protection.
(1955)
After reading the report released by the Minister of Justice,
the Quebec Liberal minister disapproved of the decisions made
by its big brother and stated that he was concerned and
disappointed by the position taken by the federal government on
this issue. He is not the only one. Whether it is the official
justice critic for Quebec, the Association des centres jeunesse
du Québec, the Maison Bosco, the CUM Director, some Quebec
police associations, renowned criminologists like Jean
Trépanier and Marc Leblanc, and many more, all agree that the
bill introduced by the minister is counterproductive and goes
against the educational direction Quebec has been trying to
follow for at least 15 years.
We must realize that reactionary measures will not help us to
overcome these problems. Things are far from perfect, but the
direction taken by the province of Quebec is far more worthy
than that chosen by the Minister of Justice. Despite some
horrendous crimes that have been committed, this is not the time
to blindly opt for repression and intolerance, which will only
add to the problems instead of solving them. We should not use
this issue to play petty politics, which the government seems to
be doing by trying to pull a fast one on Reform members on the
one hand and silencing the minority advocacy groups on the
other hand.
Yes, we must realize that the praiseworthy efforts made by the
province of Quebec on this issue reaffirm once again its special
status. Yes, from the debate on this issue and many others
addressed here in this House, we can see that there are two
countries within this country. The federal government is
responsible for creating a greater gulf between our two people.
It is slowly but surely helping us on our way to separation.
It will all be explained in due course to Quebecers. Till then,
however, I remind my constituents and Quebecers who almost
unanimously opposed this bill that Ottawa just gave in to the
mass hysteria that mainly took over western Canada and those
hooked on televised information and isolated but sensational
cases.
The minister gave in this time and it is legitimate to ask
ourselves if and when he will give in again. Will he do it when
some members from western Canada ask to legalize corporal
punishment against the young or to lower the age at which one
can be indicted pursuant to the law or to return to capital
punishment? What will the Minister do then? His actual stand
worries me. Will he give in again? Unfortunately, if it can bring
some temporary and irrealist glory, this heir apparent of the
Liberal Party of Canada will undoubtedly do it.
This issue is too important to put the interest of a politician or
a party before that of society and especially that of the young.
Should I remind the Minister that today's young are tomorrow's
society? Even if they are given a prison sentence, they will come
out some day. That is why education, social reintegration and
rehabilitation are so important.
More prisoners become real bandits than rehabilitated
citizens. We must not fall into this trap. As I said, this bill does
not solve anything and reflects a purely repressive philosophy.
The government should understand this and withdraw the bill.
Those national standards forced on Quebec, which does not want
them, give its courts less flexibility in sentencing.
As a Quebecer, I understand that the federal government
imposes standards that are divorced from reality. In the end,
these standards will fill up prisons, increase court costs and add
to the legal red tape-all areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. That
gives us another good reason to free ourselves from this
constitutional straitjacket, where the federal government always
did what it pleased while ignoring Quebec's demands and
imposing national standards without any consideration for our
legitimate wishes. But the time for that is almost past.
I confess, I believed that the federal Minister of Justice was a
progressive man who listens to those responsible for
administering justice. Unfortunately, I was wrong; that is what I
confess. I made a mistake, because had he been such a man, he
would not have proposed such amendments. He could have tried
to correct some problems in the enforcement of the law, within
his own jurisdiction.
(2000)
We heard many members say in this House that the problem is
not the act itself, but its application. Everybody knows that.
Neither Quebec nor Ontario now for the last few years seems to
have understood the intent of the Young Offenders Act. The rest
of English Canada uses this act to put away problem teenagers.
That is not the intent of the YOA.
5608
Do people really think that increasing sentences from 5 to 10
years or even from 7 to 10 years will help us achieve the aims of
the act? Do people really think that reversing the onus to force
the young offenders to demonstrate that they should be
proceeded against in youth court instead of adult court will solve
the problem and help us achieve the aims of the act? Do
members opposite think that? Are Reform Party members of this
opinion? Does the government think that increasing the period
of time that a young offender who has received a life sentence
must serve before being eligible for parole will help us achieve
the aims of the act?
I have to believe that the minister did not ask himself these
questions. The Liberal federal government, through its Minister
of Justice, made a point of stating in clause 1 of the bill that
crime prevention is essential to the protection of society and that
a multi-disciplinary approach is needed to deal with this
problem.
It is even stated in clause 15 that an order of custody is not the
solution. However, the bill provides absolutely nothing to
strengthen what is stated. Finally, they try to put on a smoke
screen, to put everybody to sleep, saying that it will pass without
a hitch. Well, no, it will not pass without a hitch. In Quebec, we
do not want this bill. We feel unanimously that this bill is
harmful to youth and that is not the solution. The solution lies in
the implementation of the act as it now stands. The solution lies
in social rehabilitation.
What I ask the Minister of Justice to do is simply to postpone
this piece of legislation, not to have it given second reading in
order that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
can properly analyze the issue and report to this House. We will
then see whether or not the act should be changed.
For the moment, the minister is saying: I am bringing changes
to it and you go and study it. This is not the way things are
supposed to work. That is not the way to improve legislation.
I would simply ask the minister to backtrack as common sense
would require.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure tonight to address Bill C-37
respecting the Young Offenders Act. Although I believe the
government is perhaps considering changing the Young
Offenders Act, I do not feel Bill C-37 really addresses the
issues.
I have two main concerns with the bill. One of them is the
reverse onus that everybody seems to think is a real change,
something that is going to make a real difference, sort of the
meat and potatoes of the bill. I would argue that the reverse
onus, which means that the youth courts will put the onus on the
16 and 17 year olds to prove that they should be heard and dealt
with in youth court, is really going to solve the problem.
My concern is that the people presently in the youth court
system are the ones who make a decision on whether or not
youths 14 years old and up will be tried in adult court. These
same people are the ones who will hear the cases of 16 and 17
year olds and make the decision on whether they will stay in
youth court.
The past will show us that judges in the youth court division
are very reluctant to place 16 and 17 year olds into an adult court
to face the serious charges of murder, second degree murder and
manslaughter. They seem to be very reluctant to have the
younger people move up to adult court.
I do not see that the bill will make any change. I do not see
where these same people will force young people to be tried in
adult court. What we will see is that the people who make these
decisions will continue to allow 16 and 17 year olds to be tried in
youth court.
(2005 )
One of the cases that comes to my mind is the young person
who was convicted of killing Jessie Cadman. He was a young
offender at the time of the murder. The youth court judge
determined that he would be tried in youth court. It was only
because of the pressure put on by the community that that youth
judge was forced to consider adult court. Isaac Deas was
eventually tried in adult court and was convicted of murdering
Jessie Cadman.
I suggest to this House that the same thing is going to happen
where the youth court judges are going to act in favour of the
young people and keep them in youth court as opposed to
moving them into adult court. I do not feel that this change in the
bill is going to make any bit of difference to the way that 16 and
17 year old serious offenders are going to be treated. I have great
concerns about that. I think it would have been a much stronger
message for the government to automatically lower the ages so
16 and 17 year olds are tried in adult court without any kind of
dilly-dallying around in the youth court system.
The other concern that I have is in lowering the ages. It
concerns me when I hear some colleague from the Bloc
suggesting that the only reason this government introduced Bill
C-37 was because of complaining and hysterical comments
from the west, that people in the west want to throw their young
people in jail and throw away the key. I think they are
misrepresenting what the people in the west are saying.
Westerners are very concerned about the direction in which
young people are headed and the way our justice system is not
treating them. We suggest that young people and adults have to
be responsible for their actions. For every action there is a
reaction. If the action is serious, the reaction should be duly
serious. If we have young people out there creating physical
harm to other young people, young people who are murdering
5609
with intent or without intent other young people or adults, they
should take the responsibility for their actions.
We are suggesting that 16 and 17-years olds are old enough to
take that responsibility in an adult court situation. We are also
suggesting that we cannot just forget about young people, 10 and
11 year olds, who have made a decision to commit crime, things
that they know are wrong. We have to bring them into the system
so that we can deal with the problem at that early age. If the
problem is showing itself at 10 and 11 years it is very important
that the system deal with that problem.
I suggest that when my colleagues from the Bloc say that
people out west just want to lock away their kids and not deal
with the problem, to ignore the problem, that perhaps they are
ignoring the problem. Not too many weeks ago there was a
15-year old boy who was stabbed to death in Hull. Last week or
perhaps the week before a 10-year old boy took two loaded
handguns to school and threatened his classmates.
I suggest by not dealing with those problems, my colleagues
are ignoring the problem in their province. If they really think
that people in their province are not concerned about safety in
their homes and on the streets and that young people bear the
responsibility for their actions, they are fooling themselves. I do
not think this problem only concerns western Canadians. I think
it is a problem all Canadians are concerned about.
The results of various polls show that people in my
constituency, representing all different classes of people and
economic situations, feel that we have to lower the ages to 10
and 15 years old, and to let 16 and 17 year olds be dealt with in
adult court. I received 3,500 replies to the poll included in my
householder. Of those 3,500 replies over 90 per cent of the
respondents were in favour of lowering the age.
This is not an insignificant number. Over 90 per cent of the
respondents of 3,500 replies feel that the age limit should be
lowered.
(2010)
In a poll separate to mine taken by the community newspaper
only 12.7 per cent of the readers who responded felt that the age
limit should be kept the same. Over 80 per cent wanted either to
eliminate the age restrictions with the Young Offenders Act or to
lower them. I would suggest that I am in a position of
representing my constituency. It may be in western Canada, but
it is telling me loud and clear that my constituency feels one of
the major changes the government should have considered in its
amendment to the Young Offenders Act was to lower the ages.
I mentioned earlier that another concern of mine was reverse
onus. It will not make any difference at all. I do not think we will
see any changes in the numbers of young people who are raised
to adult court. It certainly will not deal with offenders who are
under 16. The present act as it stands right now allows 14-year-
olds and older to be raised to adult court. I do not see the same
kind of conditions in this piece of legislation.
In summation, the only feeling of hope is that this is the first
of two stages. The bill is only the first stage in amending the
Young Offenders Act. The second stage, which is a 10-year
review of the act, will allow the kinds of changes I feel
Canadians are demanding, Canadians all across the country and
not just in western Canada.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words on second
reading of the bill. I have been listening carefully to comments
by both the Official Opposition and the Reform Party in respect
of the bill. I want to make a few preliminary remarks in that
regard.
First, quite frankly the position of the Bloc Quebecois startles
me. I was here in the last Parliament when the Conservative
government introduced certain amendments to the Young
Offenders Act. At that time the vast majority of members of
Parliament from the province of Quebec were from the
Conservative Party. They supported the bill. They supported the
so-called strengthening of the Young Offenders Act at that time.
They spoke as Quebecers, specifically stating that the people of
Quebec wanted the Young Offenders Act strengthened, that
there were problems with young offenders not only in Quebec
but throughout Canada, and that it was necessary in order to
make certain amendments.
Unless I am not hearing things clearly, it would seem as if
there has been a startling transformation in the opinions of the
people of the province of Quebec as represented by the Bloc
Quebecois. I find that a bit hard to believe. I am very interested
in knowing where they are coming from. I find they are literally
coming out of left field. They are not representing the people of
the province of Quebec as I understood the concerns of the
people of the province of Quebec for five years prior to the last
election. Maybe things have changed but I honestly do not
believe so. I have to discount much of what the Bloc Quebecois
is saying with respect to the bill.
Until I start hearing some realistic comment and I start
hearing some acknowledgement that the Young Offenders Act
applies exactly the same way throughout the country or does not
apply exactly the same way throughout the country rather than
hearing that those in Quebec do this and that as if there were a
different Young Offenders Act in the province of Quebec, that is
absolutely untrue because the Young Offenders Act applies from
coast to coast to coast.
With that said let me turn then to the bill and to the approach
we in the Liberal Party have decided to take with respect to
young offenders. We do not pretend that the act is perfect. We
never have. It was clearly stated in the red book and in our
campaign that we acknowledged the people of Canada were not
happy, if nothing else, with the perception of how the Young
Offenders Act was working. It may have been working
extremely well. I am not one who believes it was but it may have
been.
5610
However that is not the important point. The important point is
that it was perceived and still is perceived by the people of
Canada not to be working to the best effect that it could. We
decided as part of our campaign strategy that we would agree to
do something about the Young Offenders Act.
As soon as the Minister of Justice took office he began
holding meetings with his colleagues in the Liberal Party to
develop a strategy. The strategy that was developed was
mentioned by my hon. friend, the last speaker. It was very
clearly a two-stage process.
(2015 )
Stage one is to deal with the immediate concerns that we feel
were brought to us by the people of Canada, namely, violent
offenders, young offenders. Stage two is to conduct a complete,
extensive section by section review of the act, taking as much
time as is necessary, examining it in parliamentary committee,
listening to the views and concerns of the Bloc Quebecois, of the
Reform Party, of the Liberal government and anybody else who
feels like coming in. For example, the the NDP might want to
come in and make a contribution.
When we take that second step process, we will then be able to
examine and consider with the benefit of expert testimony and
opinion the various points that have been made throughout this
debate including, for example, lowering the age to whatever age
it might be. Should it be 10? Should it be eight? Should it be
seven as it was under the juvenile delinquents act? Why was it
raised from seven to twelve? I do not know. Should it be moved
down to 10? Should it be moved down to seven? These are the
kinds of questions that are going to take some time to discuss.
In the meantime we have something in front of us, Bill C-37. I
really only want to spend the few minutes that I have on three
sections. I would ask colleagues on the other side whether they
agree or disagree with the preambles found in section 1 of this
act which I am going to read in their entirety as they would
amend paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Young Offenders Act.
(a) crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of society-
Who would argue that?
-and requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by young persons and
developing multi-disciplinary approaches to identifying and effectively
responding to children and young persons at risk of committing offending
behaviour in the future;
All that says is that we have a problem. Let us see if we can
figure out how to deal with it before the young offender offends.
(a.1) while young persons should not in all instances be held accountable in the same
manner or suffer the same consequences for their behaviour as adults, young
persons who commit offences should nonetheless bear responsibility for their
contraventions.
With great respect, I doubt very much if there are too many
Canadians who would disagree first, that people should bear
responsibility for their contraventions and second, that children
are not adults. In my view children should not be treated in
exactly the same way as adults.
Therefore the debate then becomes this. What is a child?
Under what circumstances is the behaviour so egregious that it
is necessary to take that child and say: ``Okay, you are not a
child. For the purposes of what you have done, you will be
treated as an adult''. Those circumstances are few and far
between.
They are delineated in section 8 of the bill dealing with
section 16 of the Young Offenders Act. Those are very clearly
set out. If a young person is alleged to have committed first
degree murder or second degree murder, the taking of a life, it is
something that is sufficient to take them out of the realm of
being dealt with as a child.
Second, attempting to commit murder, a very serious offence;
manslaughter, technically one step below murder; aggravated
sexual assault or aggravated assault, these are all violent crimes.
They are the kinds of crimes which make people say that enough
is enough, young people are not going to be allowed to do that
and then be given the opportunity to be treated as if they had
walked into a local Beckers store and stolen a chocolate bar
because the two offences are entirely different.
While society might tolerate a 13-year old who goes in and
steals a chocolate bar, a pen, some books or a girlie magazine or
whatever it may be, they are not prepared to tolerate that kind of
behaviour if someone takes a life. The bill says in those
circumstances, if you are 16 or 17, you are going to be tried in
adult court unless you can demonstrate why you should not be.
Anytime a line is drawn, any line, some will say the age is too
high and others will say the age is too low, but the fact is that
lines have to be drawn. In this case it seems to me that 16 and 17
years of age is reasonable. You can drive a car at that age so if
you are charged with committing a murder at that age,
presumably you have the wherewithal to be able to be tried in
adult court.
(2020)
Now what about the perceptions of Canadians? I happen to
have a petition signed by hundreds of people from the
metropolitan Toronto area. I want to tell my friends in the Bloc
that I absolutely refuse to believe that the people of
metropolitan Toronto are any different from the people of
Quebec, Montreal, Chicoutimi, or any other place when
personal safety is at risk.
The petitioners believe what this petition states. Whether the
stats are exact is irrelevant. That is what they believe and this is
what they have signed: ``Violent crime in Canada has increased
by over 40 per cent since 1984. Youths age 12 to 17 although
representing only 8 per cent of the population account for 23 per
cent of all persons charged with criminal code offences''. As I
said, it is not relevant whether or not the figures are accurate to
5611
the exact percentage. What is more relevant is that people
believe them to be true.
The petition goes on: ``Canadians from coast to coast are calling for changes to the Young Offenders Act and for heavier penalties for all those convicted of''-and I underscore this-``violent crime''. That is the key. We do not want to lock these poor ki
So the petitioners have asked that the Criminal Code of
Canada and the Young Offenders Act be amended to provide for
heavier penalties. Indeed what they see is the Liberal Party
doing just that.
We know the act is abused. In my riding there is a particular
street where every night on any night of the week drug
transactions are taking place. Most times children under the age
of 12 are used to run the drugs or to carry the bags from the
customer to the vendor. In exchange they get a nice gold bracelet
or gold chain or some sort of bauble. The perpetrators, the scum
of the earth who deal with drugs, use and abuse these children
because they know there is no way the law can reach them.
Believe me, many of these kids know exactly what they are
doing regardless of their age.
In preparing for the debate on the Young Offenders Act I
spoke with my 11-year old daughter. I asked her a few questions
about right and wrong in general, what she thought was right and
what she thought was wrong and what her views were of the
news. There is no doubt in my mind that she is a person who at
age 11 knows precisely that if you kill somebody you are doing
something wrong. She knows that if you take something that
belongs to someone else you are doing something wrong. I have
no doubt that is the case.
I am very sympathetic to lowering the age, but I am prepared
to wait to hear the evidence in committee. I am prepared to hear
the departmental officials tell me why it was that in 1917 people
were deemed capable of answering for their actions at the age of
seven, whereas in 1984 it was felt that people could only be
responsible enough to deal with their actions at the age of 12 and
over.
There may be reasons. There may be psychological studies,
tests or any number of pieces of evidence to demonstrate a
reason for the age of 12. Frankly, I rather suspect it is what I was
talking about earlier. It was simply a question of drawing a line.
If the line was drawn at 10 years there would be those who would
say seven. If the line was drawn at 14 years, there would be those
who would say 10 or 12. I guess for whatever reason, in 1984 our
counterparts in Parliament chose the age of 12. I assume we will
hear the reason in committee.
(2025 )
I underscore that we have a two-step process. Step one deals
with the immediate violent criminals in the young offenders
system. Step two will be a section by section examination of the
act with recommendations to the justice minister and the
cabinet. I have no doubt that everybody will have an opportunity
for their input.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, whenever I
have the honour and pleasure of rising to speak in this House, I
always think of my constituents in the riding of Shefford, to
whom I owe this privilege.
This evening, I would like to present my views on Bill C-37 to
amend the Young Offenders Act.
Because of my own training and education, I tend to favour
the rehabilitation of young offenders over repressive measures.
I believe that the present Act contains all of the provisions
required by courts and prosecutors to adequately protect society.
The real problem lies in enforcing of the provisions of the
Young Offenders Act, not in subjecting it to an in-depth review.
I understand that certain painful events in recent years have
generated public anger and misunderstanding, and have fuelled
the debate on how minors found guilty of very serious crimes are
treated by the courts.
I can see that the public is deeply concerned about the need to
control youth crime, but I cannot tolerate people like the
Minister of Justice, my colleagues across the floor-the
Liberals-and my colleagues in the Reform Party believing that
harsher sentencing is the best way to curb criminal activity
among young people.
Basically, the provinces which complain about the present
Act do not enforce it rigorously; Quebec and Ontario, on the
other hand, have the right attitude and see no problem with the
Act. It seems to me, quite obviously, that the justice minister has
yielded to the demands of the western provinces and the
right-wing faction of the Liberal Party.
I must question the relevance of this bill, since studies
indicate that the average number of homicides committed by
young people has declined sharply since the 1970s.
Would it not be more accurate to say that the minister is
simply trying to keep an election promise from the last
campaign, armed with the knowledge that the Canadian
Sentencing Commission, in its 1987 report, found that three
quarters of the Canadian population believed that 30 per cent of
crimes were violent? In reality, according to 1992 statistics,
only one of every ten Criminal Code offences reported to police
were
5612
violent crimes. From 1982 to 1992, even the number of murders
committed in Canada increased only marginally.
This public perception is contrary to the reality as shown by those facts. Is this a sufficient political reason to change the Young Offenders Act? In my humble opinion, the Minister of Justice, by tabling this bill in the House, is only trying to look g
(2030)
Is this what we want? Is this the effect that the Liberals, who
are in power, and the Reform Party want? The Minister of
Justice should try to prevent young people from committing
criminal acts and should react effectively instead of taking
harsher measures like longer sentences, lower age limits for
young offenders and stiffer penalties.
As a teacher, I worked for a long time with young people, and I
can tell you that the solution is not to punish more harshly, but to
help young people through better supervision and better efforts
at reintegrating them into the community. I am deeply
convinced of that. The deterrent effect of longer and harsher
sentences is not supported by the literature and experiments to
date.
Crime prevention requires that we examine the economic,
educational, social, moral and legal conditions that foster crime,
and that we make an effort to correct those conditions. The
co-operation of many departments, the private sector, and the
community are needed. Developing effective crime prevention
programs is a big challenge we have a duty to meet. The result of
such programs, namely crime reduction, is much more
advantageous to young people and to Quebecers and Canadians,
who could otherwise become victims of crime.
However, even the greatest efforts to prevent crime cannot
eliminate crime altogether. Social rehabilitation of young
offenders must therefore be one of the main objectives of the
legislation. It is really a form of long term crime prevention
aimed at making young offenders stop their reprehensible
behaviour.
The proposed amendments to the bill fly in the face of the
objective sought, namely the protection of juveniles and of
society.
To conclude, I would like to remind this House that Quebec is
a distinct society, not only because of its language and culture,
but also because of our beliefs, philosophy and social concerns.
In Quebec, we know what are the main principles behind the
protection of juveniles and of society. The objective is to avoid,
as much as possible, criminalizing cases involving young
offenders. First of all we seek the rehabilitation and
reintegration into society of young offenders because, in
Quebec, we believe that is the way to go. You would be surprised
at the results we are getting.
I would like to remind my colleagues that, under certain
conditions, these young people can be helped to become
productive and responsible adults for the good of society as a
whole. Moreover, a cost benefit analysis shows that the money
invested by society to rehabilitate a young murderer is paid back
in less than five years when he becomes a productive adult.
In conclusion, I would like to remind all my colleagues that it
is essential for Quebec to maintain its own approach regarding
the reintegration of young offenders. Therefore, I am asking
them to take into consideration the fact that any amendments to
the federal Young Offenders Act must respect Quebec
legislation and policies regarding the protection of juveniles and
of society.
(2035)
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, on May 12 of
this year members on this side of the House presented an
opposition day motion. The purpose of that motion was to call
upon the government for positive and immediate action with
regard to the Young Offenders Act. I commend the government
for bringing forward so quickly some amendments which are a
step in the right direction.
I rise today however to demonstrate my lack of enthusiasm for
this bill. I believe that although measures were taken they
certainly are far from enough.
In an attempt to help calm the fears of Canadians we proposed
three basic amendments to the Young Offenders Act. The first
was to have the age limits changed from 12 to 17 to 10 to 15.
This was in recognition of the fact that there are offenders under
12 years of age who currently slip through the system and go on
to be full-fledged youth criminals because police are unable to
charge them or to deal with them in any way. As for older
offenders, we believe that youths aged 16 and 17 are old enough
to assume full responsibility for their crimes and should
therefore in serious cases be tried as adults.
Under Bill C-37 the justice minister has proposed that 16 and
17-year old youths who are charged with murder, attempted
murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and aggravated
assault be tried in adult court unless an application is granted for
the youth cases to be heard in youth court. The onus is now on
the young offender to demonstrate why he or she should not be
5613
tried in adult court and the court will have the discretion to
accept or reject the application.
Although this amendment will be somewhat positive in nature it misses the point that we tried to raise some weeks ago. Sixteen and 17-year olds, given today's society and the rate at which our youth are maturing, according them the same degree of respons
The Reform Party had proposed increasing sentencing. I am
therefore pleased to see that the minister has recommended
increased sentences for first degree murder from five to ten
years. We also recommended that amendments to the Young
Offenders Act include a permit to publish the names of young
offenders who have been convicted of any offence involving the
use of violence, who have contravened any Narcotic Control Act
or Food and Drug Act or who have been convicted previously of
two offences.
Unfortunately Bill C-37 has failed to provide this amendment
and it is this topic I wish to elaborate on today. I firmly believe
that the publication of the names of young offenders is essential
for the protection of Canada's innocent children. For example, a
school principal may not know that one of his students had been
convicted numerous times for drug trafficking. A parent may not
know that his child is associating with an offender convicted of a
series of rapes. The young man next door whom you have
entrusted to babysit your children could be another Jason
Gaumache.
Who should we be protecting, the vast majority of Canadians
who are law abiding, hard working and caring people who will
continue to be the building blocks for a productive society or the
local high school's drug dealer or an unknown rapist in the
neighbourhood? I do not think that is a hard question to answer.
Undoubtedly it is these offenders who must be made known to
our society.
We are not talking about the youth who makes a small mistake
and comes in contact with the justice system on a single
occasion wherein the best interest of the public may not be
served by publishing the details. However, we do propose and
firmly believe that in order to make community protection the
number one priority, the publishing of violent youth offenders'
names must not be prevented by law as it is today and is
continued in Bill C-37.
The first penalty paid for committing a criminal offence
against society ought to be full disclosure of who you are, where
you come from and what you have done. This is completely
exempted from this act and from the amendment.
The names of victims and the horrific details of the crimes
perpetrated on them are open to public scrutiny but the names of
the offenders remain a state secret. The young faces in Canada's
courts and jails are like masks. They hide society's ugliest scars,
scars that will fester if they are not exposed.
(2040 )
The Reform Party on behalf of our many constituents had
asked the government to establish a registry of child sex
abusers. The government has provided its typical response to a
request of this nature. It knows there is a problem. It knows
Canadians want something done about it. Therefore it has
promised to study the issue and consult the proper authorities. In
other words, the government is dragging its feet and in the
meantime children will continue to be sexually abused and
violently attacked by repeat offenders that the government is
guilty of protecting by refusing the public the information they
need to protect their children and society in general.
In their effort to understand the need for a child registry,
Health Canada, Justice Canada and the Ministry of the Solicitor
General commissioned a study. The federal ad hoc
interdepartmental working group on information systems on
child sex offenders prepared a discussion paper. Do you know
what the conclusion of that study was, Mr. Speaker? We need
another study and we need further consultation. However,
contained in that paper is information which clearly indicates
both the need for the child registry and for the publishing of
young offenders' names.
I really have to wonder what purpose all these studies,
reviews, consultations and more consultations serve. Are they to
find viable solutions to problems we already know exist or are
they a means to keep full the hands the taxpayers are feeding at
the present time?
The ad hoc group reports that current research indicates that
the development of sexually intrusive behaviour may begin as
early as childhood and adolescence. The report goes on to say
that statistics compiled on all violent crime committed against
children in Canada indicate that young offenders, those aged 12
to 17, account for approximately 23 per cent of all accused
offenders.
It is important to note that the same age group only represents
7.9 per cent of the Canadian population. Studies have repeatedly
indicated, states the report, that sex offenders have one of the
highest recidivism rates of any criminal group with an estimated
40 per cent reoffending within five years of release.
Furthermore research examining the effectiveness of offender
treatment programs has shown limited results.
I ask, does the right hand of the government know what the
left hand is doing. Did the Minister of Justice not read the report
of the federal ad hoc group? If he did, he would know that sex
offenders reoffend. If he could do simple calculations he would
know from the statistics that 23 per cent of sex offences in
Canada are committed by young offenders. If 40 per cent of that
23 per cent reoffends, violent, sadistic acts will continue to be
committed against the most innocent and vulnerable members
of our society and the government could have prevented it. If it
had read its own report and acted immediately on the findings of
5614
that report, unspeakable acts and attacks upon our children
could have been thwarted.
However I believe the government is in direct contravention
of article 34 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which
states: ``States, parties undertake to protect the child from all
forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse''.
Bill C-37 does not undertake to protect our children from the
Jason Gamaches of this world. It does not protect us from the
faceless, nameless monsters who pose behind the masks of
adolescence.
The government is in direct violation of the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore the weight is still
balanced in favour of the young offender. The protection of
society, the protection of our children, is still outweighed by the
so-called rights of violent and delinquent young Canadians.
All we are asking is that the scales be evened out, that the
rights of the victims, and the rights of the potential victims, that
is the rights of our children, be given priority and that the
protection of society outweigh the protection of violent young
offenders who have no respect for the lives and the rights of
others.
I reiterate my opening remarks. Bill C-37 is a step in the right
direction but the stride is not long enough for the people walking
on my side of the street.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(2045)
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I
have been requested by the chief opposition whip to defer the
division until a later time.
[Translation]
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), a recorded
division on the question before the House stands deferred until
tomorrow at 3 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the
members will ring for not more than 15 minutes.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps
Your Honour could find unanimous consent in the House to
delay the adjournment for a maximum of 15 minutes.
I understand that the member representing the New
Democratic Party participating in the adjournment debate has
not yet had time to physically reach the Chamber. We could
adjourn to the call of the Chair for a maximum of 15 minutes. If
the member has not arrived by then at least the House would
have done the respectful thing, that is given a reasonable
opportunity for the member to attend.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I rise on a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. I say to the hon. member across the way that I too
was running to the House to try to speak on the last debate so I
think if we are not here in our seats we are not here in our seats.
If such is not the case then I would like to rise to speak to the
motion.
The Deputy Speaker: We took the vote. The Chair should
indicate to the hon. member that I made note of the fact he was
not in the Chamber. I knew he wanted to speak, but because he
was not in the Chamber we had to go on to the vote, at least the
voice vote.
Whether the House wants to give unanimous consent to let the
member speak is entirely a question for members.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, do I understand there is
unanimous consent to suspend the commencement of the
adjournment debate to the call of the Chair or a maximum of 15
minutes in order to permit the New Democratic Party member to
attend in the House?
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair takes it that there is not
unanimous consent to suspend for 15 minutes to give the
member for Kamloops a chance to participate in the
adjournment debate.
[Translation]
Perhaps I could rephrase.
[English]
There is unanimous consent to wait 15 minutes. Is that
agreed?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the House theoretically would
now be suspended until ten o'clock unless we give that
unanimous consent because that is the adjournment time. The
adjournment debate would take place at that point.
5615
Perhaps I could ask the question again, whether we could
agree to wait a maximum of 15 minutes or until the appearance
of the member in order to proceed with the adjournment debate.
If not, I would remind hon. members that they will be waiting
one hour and 10 minutes instead of 10 minutes. Perhaps that
would help the House a little.
The Deputy Speaker: Somebody will be waiting an hour and
10 minutes. I am not sure it will be members of the House.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, may we call it ten o'clock and
adjourn?
The Deputy Speaker: The member is asking for unanimous
consent to call it ten o'clock. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: There is unanimous consent to call it
ten o'clock.
Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5) the motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. The House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 8.48 p.m.)