CONTENTS
Thursday, November 28, 1996
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 115; Nays, 78 6829
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 114; Nays, 75 6831
Bill C-42. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading of and concurrence in Senate
amendments;and of the amendment 6832
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 6832
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6839
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6843
Bill C-42. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading of and concurrence in Senate
amendments;and of the amendment 6843
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 6852
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6853
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 6856
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 6857
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6857
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6857
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6858
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6858
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6859
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6859
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6860
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6860
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6862
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6864
Bill C-42. Consideration resumed of second reading ofand concurrence in Senate amendments;
and of theamendment 6864
Bill C-42. Consideration resumed for second reading ofand concurrence in Senate amendments;
and of theamendment 6869
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6869
(Amendment negatived.) 6879
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 102; Nays, 51. 6880
(Motion agreed to and amendments read the secondtime and passed.) 6880
Bill C-335. Motion for second reading 6881
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 6882
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais) 6883
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais) 6883
Bill C-335. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 6884
Bill C-270. Consideration of report stage 6889
Motion for concurrence 6889
Motion for third reading 6890
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 6890
6829
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 28, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
And, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 187)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Duhamel
Easter
English
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Harb
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Zed-115
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
6830
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Ménard
Mercier
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-78
PAIRED MEMBERS
Caron
Chan
Clancy
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Iftody
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacDonald
Pomerleau
Sauvageau
Speller
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Young
(1045)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the Chair, because you were
present yesterday.
I would like a clarification regarding what happened during
debate on the Reform Party's amendment to the amendment with
respect to Bill C-42. As you will recall, it was during the period for
questions and comments and I still had time remaining when the
government whip presented a motion to extend the sitting, pursuant
to Standing Order 26.
You entertained the motion, Mr. Speaker, and a number of things
then happened. One was that you deemed that a motion to adjourn
the House had been moved pursuant to Standing Order 38.
(1050)
You then asked if the House was ready for the question, on what
it was not clear. There were cries of ``question'' from both sides
and you set the vote in motion. You will recall that I hurried over to
the Table and, at the first opportunity available to me, raised a point
of order.
My point of order concerned the fact that the government whip's
motion to extend the sitting was out of order. I will read the last
paragraph only of the Speaker's ruling on this motion, in the hope
that this will enlighten the Chair.
In view of the fact that the matter was a procedural motion and that it was
proposed at a time contrary to the Standing Orders, the Chair is of the view that the
motion is indeed out of order and has not been adopted.
My question today is whether, if we step back and you have
immediately declared the government's motion out of order, I
would still be in the period for questions and comments. Or
whether, given my brilliant answers, for no one else had any
questions to ask me, you would have called for debate to resume
and not gone on to the vote.
I therefore think that everything that occurred between the time
the government whip's motion was ruled out of order and the time
that the Chair confirmed the motion out of order was illegal.
Accordingly, the vote on the Reform Party's amendment to the
amendment concerning Bill C-42 is illegal and should never have
been held.
I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to shed some light on this, for I
believe that the custom of the House would have dictated that,
following the government motion, you should have said very
clearly-and this should have been recorded in Hansard, which it
was not-``questions and comments'' or ``resuming debate''. You
did not do so, probably through omission, or because government
members were speaking very loudly and were in a hurry to vote in
order to gag us.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule on this question.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm. This is a very interesting point. I have reread
yesterday's Hansard. On page 6813, I said: ``Is the House ready for
the question?'', but the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, with
all of his legal background, did not take that opportunity to speak.
I find this a very interesting point, but since we are both lawyers,
the hon. member ought to be prepared to admit that that was when
he ought to have spoken up.
The Speaker cannot be changed in mid-stream, but in this case, I
believe there is nothing more to say.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am not a lawyer, but that does not prevent me from
understanding.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Duceppe: I even think these things are easier to understand
when one is not a lawyer. When you asked the House if it was ready
for the question, the great majority of people-and yourself, I am
6831
sure-understood that it was on the motion of the Government
Whip, which was later deemed out of order.
(1055)
Normally a debate ends with a motion. That was what the House
answered yea or nay on, not the amendment to the amendment. You
ought to have asked: ``Are there any questions or comments?'' If
no one rises, then you ask if the House is ready to vote on the
amendment to the amendment, and not on the motion of the
Government Whip.
The Deputy Speaker: On the good advice of my counsel, dear
colleagues, this is what I asked:
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment
to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Again, I suggest that that would have been the time for the hon.
member beside you to speak. Since he did not, I believe that,
unfortunately, the matter is closed.
_____________________________________________
6831
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That in relation to Bill C-42, an Act to amend the Judges Act and to make
consequential amendments to another Act, not more than one further sitting day shall
be allotted to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments to the bill and, fifteen
minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the
allotted day of the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings
before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in
turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put
forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
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 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.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 188)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Duhamel
Easter
English
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Harb
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Zed -114
6832
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Gouk
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Ménard
Mercier
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-75
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bethel
Caron
Chan
Clancy
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Iftody
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacDonald
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Sauvageau
Speller
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Young
(1140 )
[English]
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed from November 27 consideration of the
motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill
C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential
amendments to another act; and of the amendment.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-42, an act to
amend the Judges Act.
Fundamentally, the Canadian judiciary must remain independent
and free of bias or coercion from outside sources, in particular
those which stem from special interest groups or, in fact,
Parliament.
This bill concerns Madam Justice Louise Arbour. She was
appointed to be the chief prosecutor in The Hague for the UN war
crimes tribunal. At the outset I would like to say that is not only an
honour for her but it is an honour for all Canadians. She will take
the place of Chief Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa, a
highly distinguished individual. Her appointment to this position
demonstrates the confidence which the international community
has in Canada and its judiciary. We are looked on as being a nation
which, by and large, maintains a great deal of independence, for
which we are highly respected by the international community. It is
a degree of respect which is completely out of proportion to our
size and our economy. A lot of Canadians do not realize the respect
which the international community has for our nation. The
appointment of Judge Arbour certainly demonstrates that respect.
The amendment to Bill C-42 is a good one. I must commend the
Senate for bringing it to the attention of the House. Bill C-42
ensures that there will not be a cozy relationship between our
judges and outside influence. Without this amendment judges,
technically, could be open to influence, not only within Canada but
also outside our borders.
The appropriate middle ground would be for Canadian judges to
step down temporarily to take up very important appointments,
such as the one we are discussing today. Judge Arbour is perhaps
the most prominent of all the Canadian judges who have been
appointed to a position in the recent past.
The role which the Canadian judiciary plays in enabling
democratic and judicial institutions to build up in other countries is
important. It is particularly important in the democratic and
judicial restructuring of countries which have been wracked by
war. Many of these countries do not have a proper judicial process
in place. Many of them have had their judicial process destroyed.
(1145 )
Canada has a very good judicial system. It is something that
could be exported to other countries. In that way those countries
could be taught how to plan a judiciary that is free of bias, free of
influence and independent of the wiles and influences, powers and
purses of other groups in the community. It is a basic tenet of living
in a free and democratic institution, one with which everyone in the
House agrees.
6833
This bill contains a number of important considerations and
concerns that Canadians have made with respect to the judiciary.
One of those is the appointment process. The number one criterion
in becoming a judge ought to be merit and experience. At present,
though, judges are appointed on the basis of not necessarily what
they know but who they know.
We have many good judges in our system. They are superb,
intelligent, bright, meticulous and articulate individuals who do
great honour to our system. We in the Reform and the Canadian
public have a problem with the appointment of those rare
individuals who come into the system, not on the basis of their
skill, not on the basis of their merit but because they are a friend of
the government of the day. That has to be addressed. If the
government were to take that on, it would add increased credibility
to our judicial system.
Recently the courts moved from interpreting the law to making
laws. In fact they have shot down laws that this House has passed.
It stems from the 1982 charter of rights and freedoms. The charter
has given increasing powers to the judicial system, in particular the
supreme court, to actually make laws.
Members of the public, when talking to me about this, find it
quite perturbing, as many in the House do, that the supreme court, a
group of appointed, not elected, individuals actually have the
power to supplant laws that have been passed by the House. The
public does not understand that and find it extremely grievous.
A better idea would be to rein in the supreme court, to make sure
that its role is to interpret law, not to make law. I am not a lawyer
but it would be very good if the government studied ways to
revamp the judicial system to ensure that the supreme court goes
back to interpreting law and not making law.
Another aspect I will touch on briefly is that Bill C-42, to which
this amendment applies, deals with some extremely generous
pension benefits for judges. That needs to be dealt with further, I
am quite sure in the future.
Reform also finds quite grievous the way the bill is being
finessed through the House. It belies an increasingly perceived
cosy relationship between the Minister of Justice and the judiciary.
These kind of relationships have to be severed. The judicial system,
our courts and our judges have to be separate in their decision
making process from this House and the Minister of Justice.
As a former correctional officer I would like to say one thing
about Judge Arbour. She is most known for her scathing indictment
of what went on at Kingston in the women's penitentiary and the
riot that took place. I have never been on record in saying this but I
would like to take the opportunity to do so.
I found, as a former correctional officer, it to be completely,
grossly unfair and a scathing indictment of the correctional
services. During a riot-I have seen this happen-in a penitentiary
when dealing with inmates, who often do not deal in the ways we
deal with each other in public, can become a very dangerous
situation. Inmates can be carrying hidden weapons. It is very
reasonable to ensure that those individuals are stripped searched. In
a riot situation it is important to go in with overwhelming force. It
is important for the safety of the correctional officers. It is also
important for the inmates. Going in with less than overwhelming
force actually poses a greater threat to the inmates and to the
correctional officers.
(1150)
I was greatly disappointed by the unfair and negative treatment
our correctional services received. It became an issue of political
correctness and trial by media. It was not an issue of fact and what
is reasonable in those very difficult and trying circumstances. Most
members of the public would not understand this because
thankfully most people have not been in jail.
I would like to touch on an important aspect of Judge Arbour's
current responsibilities, one on which Canada can take a leadership
role. It has to do with the war crimes tribunals that are taking place
in the Hague.
I had an opportunity to meet briefly with Judge Richard
Goldstone a few months ago. He was visiting Canada to ensure that
the war crimes tribunal continued. As we speak, it is in a state of
flux and could potentially fall apart. This would do grievous harm
to the principles of international law to which most civilians and
politicians in the world adhere.
Most nations of the world follow certain rules and regulations in
an effort to ensure that those who are least powerful, mostly
civilians, are governed by some basic tenets of law that protect
them, their property and their families.
The war crimes tribunal unfortunately came into existence
because of the absolute disgusting turn of events most recently in
Bosnia, Rwanda and Burundi. It also stems from previous war
crimes tribunals such as the Nuremberg trials and from previous
international agreements on international law over the governance
of war.
If we are not going to support the war crimes tribunal and ensure
that it continues, all the international laws that exist from the
Nuremberg trials to what we have today will be for nothing. If we
allow this organization to fall apart, which it is in the processing of
doing, then it will send a message to those who would commit
heinous, atrocious, appalling crimes that they are free to do what
they want because no one in the world is going to bring them to
justice. They will be left to continue committing these terrible
crimes.
6834
Therefore, I implore the government to back Judge Arbour and
her colleagues and use its influence to get other countries to also
back the war crimes tribunal taking place in the Hague. The
government should also try to ensure that it becomes more
effective. They are finding it impossible to work under certain
circumstances. There is a lack of funding and manpower which
makes it almost impossible for them to bring war criminals to
trial. There are also other numerous bureaucratic entanglements
which prevent them from doing their jobs.
It is going to require an increasing amount of international
co-operation. We have an ideal opportunity, having a Canadian as
the chief prosecutor, to pursue a course that is going to streamline
and increase the effectiveness of the war crimes tribunals. Having a
Canadian there will carry forward our skills as a nation and a leader
in diplomatic endeavours to the Hague and to the war crimes
tribunals.
We also have an enormous role to play in the world. The
situation in Zaire and central Africa must be looked at for what it
is. This is an impartial, apolitical issue as a half a million to a
million people's lives are on the line. Some things have to be done
at the outset. We have to get the agreement of the Zairean
government to ensure that reconnaissance takes place in eastern
Zaire to determine exactly what is going on. Humanitarian groups
that are poised to go in and provide assistance to these people
cannot go in because it is an extraordinarily dangerous situation.
(1155)
I am not advocating for a moment sending in a huge mass of
troops armed to the teeth to stop a war. That simply is not going to
happen. We have to prioritize what we have to do. The first priority
must be to ensure the safety of those half million odd civilians who
are fleeing from the fighting. Many are being killed by Tutsi rebels
who want to kill off male Hutus.
A possible solution would be to send a multinational force.
Canada can provide the logistics, troops from the Organization of
African Unity and the EU, independent of Belgian and French
troops, could go into the area and ensure that safe corridors are
available for the civilians to go back to be repatriated into Rwanda.
Second, humanitarian groups that are already on the ground with
medicines and food must be allowed to safely go into eastern Zaire
to provide these basic necessities to these people. What is faced
now and in the coming days is an epidemic in these populations of
malnutrition and starvation and also an epidemic of diseases such
as typhoid fever and cholera that is going to kill thousands on
thousands of people.
This, though, cannot be the end of it. We have seen a cycle
develop in central African over years and years of killing and some
repatriation and further killings taking place. The cycle of killing
and death has to stop.
The international community cannot keep pouring money into
central Africa without an end point. As politically incorrect as this
is to say, perhaps we should take a very close look at working with
the three governments in the area to redraw some of the tribal lines
to ensure that Hutus and Tutsis live in their pre-colonial tribal
areas. Maybe this is a solution that would enable the warring
factions to stay away from each other.
There has to be a demilitarization of the extremists on both sides.
It is extremists in the Hutus and the Tutsis that are taking a
significant role in trying to continue the fighting in their areas.
They are not only killing members from the opposing tribe, they
are also killing moderates within their own tribes. What is left is a
very fearful group of civilians powerless to change the course of
events because they are ruled by extremist militias who are doing
things only for the benefit of themselves and a very narrow group
of political elites within their own separate countries.
We have also an opportunity in Zaire, a country that is one of the
poorest in the world, as Mobutu Sese Seko recovers from prostate
cancer in France, to try to convince him that now is the time for us
to work with the IMF and the World Bank to build up the
democratic and economic structures within Zaire which are
required for long term peace. Not only does this have to happen
within Zaire but it also has to occur in Rwanda and Burundi.
Without the restructuring that has to take place in these three
countries, peace will not occur. All we will be doing by pouring
money into the situation today is for the cycle of violence and
starvation repeat itself at some time in the future.
We persistently pursue short term goals. I implore the
government to work with the international community to convince
them that we should pursue not only a short term solution to save
the civilian populations within eastern Zaire and Rwanda but also
pursue a longer term solution for economic, judicial and
democratic restructuring that has to take place in these three areas.
It will require a stronger arm and more active influence. This is
where the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank can
come into play. Initiatives from them within the country in terms of
peace building between groups that were fighting each other, in
terms of blocking off arms, redressing the poverty situation
perhaps through microloans, systems along those of the Grameen
Bank, will all help to ensure long term peace within the area. These
initiatives are absolutely essential for peace to occur.
6835
(1200)
As a country we do not consider our power in the international
community to bring groups, nations and organizations together.
Louise Arbour's being the head of the war crimes tribunal is but
one example of our reputation as a nation. It is also an example of
how we can be involved in international organizations to revamp
them so they will truly address the problems that will affect us all
in the 21st century but which very few governments and people are
willing to address.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt-Juan de
Fuca observed in his reference to the Supreme Court of Canada that
our judicial system now has more powers, now makes laws. He
seemed to blame the charter of rights and freedoms and he claimed
the public does not know about this. I submit that those
observations are wrong.
The Supreme Court of Canada never makes laws. We know that
and we have a duty to tell the citizens of the country that the
supreme court does not make laws. The members of the Reform
Party are laughing at this. They seem not to appreciate that the
charter of rights and freedoms is a fundamental part of the
Canadian Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
When the Supreme Court of Canada interprets the laws passed
by parliaments or any other legislative body in the country, the
Supreme Court of Canada has a duty and obligation to have the
laws tested in light of the charter of rights and freedoms, the
supreme law of the land. In this respect the court does not make
new laws; it only interprets them to ensure that laws passed by
Parliament do not contravene the fundamental law of the land.
The Canadian judicial system has received international acclaim
and distinction for its independence, integrity, talent and creativity.
It is creativity we see when the Supreme Court of Canada makes
the ultimate interpretation when there is a potential conflict
between laws passed by Parliament and the charter of rights and
freedoms. When an interpretation is made and we happen to
disagree with it, let us not conclude that the court has made laws.
We have to re-examine ourselves as lawmakers to ensure the laws
we pass can withstand the test of the supreme law of the land.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad the hon. member agrees with me in saying that the supreme
court should only interpret laws rather than make them.
I have a lot of respect for my hon. friend. I strongly urge him to
speak to the police officers and representatives of the police forces
and to speak to the prosecution lawyers who find the charter of
rights and freedoms hamstrings them dramatically.
I also suggest to the hon. member that the charter is actually
discriminatory. In its tenets the charter specifically says that it is
acceptable to discriminate against a group of people who have
previously been deemed to have had some advantages. That is not
free. That is not equal. That is not ensuring equal rights for
everybody. That is damaging the rights of people and is
discriminatory by its very nature.
We had the bill of rights before this charter. The bill of rights
worked very well. The police were happy with it, the courts were
happy with it and the people were happy with it. Unfortunately in
1982 the Liberal government of the day decided to bring in the
charter of rights and freedoms which has turned our judicial
process on its head. It has hamstrung the courts and the police
officers in the trenches who try their very hardest under
extraordinary circumstances to keep our streets safe.
(1205 )
If the hon. member wanted to do the honourable thing, which I
am sure he does, he would suggest to his party that we pursue the
idea of going back to the bill of rights.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting that this debate is a result of amendments proposed by
the Senate, particularly in light of what happened in the Senate
yesterday when it turned back term 17 to do with the
Newfoundland school system.
This was a process undertaken by the people of Newfoundland in
a truly democratic way, probably the most fundamental democratic
process that could be arrived at, a referendum. As a person from
outside the province of Newfoundland I would not offer any
opinion as to the judgment of the people of Newfoundland. The
people of Newfoundland in a true, fair, clear democratic process
had an opportunity to speak and they did.
The result of the referendum then went to the Newfoundland
assembly, those who were elected by the people of Newfoundland
in a free, fair, democratic process. My understanding is that that
House voted unanimously in favour of the motion. Then it came to
this Parliament and this Parliament in a free vote substantiated the
results of the referendum.
On Bill C-42, the Senate is now deciding in the same way that it
did on term 17, to throw the bill back to this House. I think this
indicates that within Canada's parliamentary process we truly must
have absolute reform and come to a triple E Senate.
We know that the Senate is effective because it has managed to
turn back term 17. We know that the Senate is effective in that it
has managed to turn back Bill C-42, which is currently being
debated in the House. We know the Senate is effective but the fact
that it is not elected, is unaccountable and unrepresentative of
6836
anyone in this country other than the political masters who put the
senators there in the first place says reams about the Senate itself.
The Reform Party position always has been and will continue to
be that while we require a House of sober second thought such as
the Senate, it is absolutely essential that the House of sober second
thought gain some credibility by going through a process of being
elected and accountable.
Specifically on issue of Bill C-42, the main motion being
debated is an amendment to Bill C-42 introduced by the
government in the Senate. That is rather interesting in itself. Bill
C-42 went from this place to the Senate. Then in the place of
supposed sober second thought some flaws in Bill C-42 were
discovered. We have reason to believe that the government of the
day decided to use this method of making the renovations to Bill
C-42, rather than by directly taking them into account in this
House.
This House must be the place where legislation is made. It must
be the place where legislation is voted on because this is the place
where members are elected and are ultimately accountable to the
people of Canada.
The current Judges Act does not allow any judge to accept any
employment other than from the Government of Canada. The
Judges Act at the moment does not allow judges to receive
compensation from anyone other than the Government of Canada.
The Minister of Justice has passed orders in council approving
Madam Justice Louise Arbour to work in the UN commencing last
July 1. This is part of a pattern, and if I may suggest a rather
arrogant pattern, that seems to have infested both the Liberals and
the Conservatives. Because they have been the governing parties of
Canada since Confederation, they go ahead and do these things
without reference to this elected Chamber.
(1210 )
There is this order in council which permitted Madam Justice
Arbour to work at the UN commencing July 1. The interesting
thing, which shows the arrogance of the Liberals and of the justice
minister, is that these orders in council are in direct violation of
section 55 of the Judges Act. But the government said to itself:
``That is no problem. We will use the rubber stamp of the House of
Commons and simply get that turned around''.
Why closure yet again? Many members during the last
Parliament railed against the number of times closure was used by
the Conservatives. Members stood in their places and made all
sorts of noises about how unjust, unfair and immoral closure was.
Now we see how the government has changed. It now brings in
closure at will.
Why do we have closure today? Because if this bill is not passed
today the justice minister will have to issue a new order in council
because the present one will expire on November 30. The justice
minister maintains that the order in council is valid because
Madam Justice Arbour is still being paid by the Government of
Canada. He has ignored the prohibition on accepting other
employment which is laid out in the Judges Act.
Many lawyers make their money on fine print. It is a rather
interesting part of the whole justice process. Indeed, the niggling
details will end up shooting down a plaintiff or a defendant in a
civil suit. Lawyers make their money by worrying about the
niggling details.
As a matter of fact, I am given to believe that even in a criminal
case which is currently before the Supreme Court-the Latimer
case-they are talking about the details. There has been a
conviction in that case and now Mr. Latimer's lawyer is saying:
``But we did not take care of the details. Therefore, we are going to
take it to the supreme court''.
What did the justice minister say in the House on November 22
in answer to a question from my colleague from St. Albert who
raised the issue of Bill C-42? It is almost unbelievable. He said: ``I
invite the hon. member to rise above the niggling legalisms upon
which he now relies for partisan purposes and join with this
government to make sure'' and so on. What kind of a justice
minister does Canada have? He is the supreme lawyer in Canada
and he says: ``I invite the hon. member to rise above the niggling
legalisms''. Is that not what the law is all about? It is in the detail
that lawyers make their money. Here we have the justice minister
turning around and saying not to worry, not to sweat the small stuff.
In this case the small stuff happens to be section 55 of the Judges
Act. That section says that Madam Justice Arbour should not be
doing what she is doing and that the government should not have
put her in a compromised position which has occurred as a direct
result of the boldfaced arrogance of the Liberals.
Many Liberal members were very upset in the last Parliament
about the numerous times closure was used by the Conservatives.
They railed against it. It is really interesting that in rushing bills
through the House the Liberals have used closure on Bill C-33,
time allocation on third reading and report stage of Bill C-41 and
limited committee discussion and time allocation at third reading
and report stage of Bill C-68.
And what do we have with Bill C-68? We have a whole bunch of
question marks. This same justice minister came forward yesterday
with his proposed regulations. What he is not talking about is that
again he not only does not consult with this Chamber, he not only
does not consult with the members who have been elected by the
people of Canada, whether it is on Bills C-33, C-41, C-68 or C-42,
he does not consult with anybody. The Liberals are a power unto
themselves.
6837
(1215)
The three provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta
have said they will not administer Ottawa's proposed-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. I hesitate to
interrupt the hon. member with some niggling legal point, but there
is a rule of relevance in the Chamber. I urge the hon. member to
address his remarks to Bill C-42, the bill we are discussing.
I recognize that in discussion of the use of closure he has a point,
but when he gets off into the details of other bills he seems to be
straying a bit far from the subject. As he knows, I am very reluctant
to interrupt him on such a point but I would urge him to address his
remarks to Bill C-42, the subject of discussion today, and the
amendment moved by one of his colleagues to that motion.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I understand what you are saying.
With the greatest respect, I would suggest, however, that we have
within the justice department and with the justice minister a pattern
relating to Bill C-42 that I would like to explore.
For example, section 745. We have today the clear, irrefutable
evidence that what the justice minister should have done was
completely abolish section 745 as the people of Canada asked for.
This justice minister simply does not listen.
I draw to the Speaker's attention the fact that when the justice
minister would turn around and in an answer to a specific question
directed to Bill C-42 and say ``don't sweat the small stuff, it is only
niggling little detail'', I suggest that the niggling detail is exactly
the issue that we have to be discussing in relation to Bill C-42.
Again I cite as an example section 745. During the process of
section 745 there was an obvious lack of consultation, a lack of
taking into account the perspective of the people of this House and
indeed the people of Canada. With regard to section 745 and the
problem with it, and what they did with Bill C-45, by turning
around and going forward with half measures they created a
situation where they could attempt to make it appear as though they
had actually done something.
Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention a rather interesting article
from the Calgary Sun dated September 16. This particular
columnist is talking about the Liberal failure to scrap section 745
of the Criminal Code that lets first degree murderers out on parole
after 15 years in jail. Because of section 745 butchers like Paul
Bernardo and Clifford Olson are entitled to apply for parole.
The Reform Party has been calling for the abolition of this
heinous loophole for years but it is still in effect and should be an
embarrassment to any Liberal, but not to the Liberal member he is
speaking about who comes from Edmonton. Her little newsletter
has a headline blaring: ``Murderers Denied Parole Rights Under
Section 745''. But it is simply not true. The only changes that the
Liberals have proposed is that murderers will not automatically get
reviewed for release and that any new mass murderers are
ineligible. Bernardo and Olson are still eligible for parole after 15
years. This columnist suggests in Liberal speak that is probably
success.
It is the loopholes, it is the niggling details, it is the fact that this
justice minister in coming to this House with Bill C-42 actually
came to this House with, as it were, a Trojan horse. It was unclear
at the time when he came to this House with the bill that in fact this
bill had any real implications. Certainly it was unclear that it
related to the issue that the Reform Party has been driving home for
the last two days with respect to Bill C-42.
(1220)
It is not only the process that the justice minister comes to this
House with a Trojan horse and gets Bill C-42 through in that way,
but then the government has the audacity to go to the other place to
make the amendments that it wants to make when it realizes that
even this Trojan horse was not put together properly.
There is a fundamental flaw with this House when the
government treats this House like a rubber stamp and treats the
elected representatives who are elected, after all, by the people of
Canada in this way.
Let us take a look at all the bills that have come before this
House. I must say that in my own committee, in taking a look at the
Copyright Act, what does that have to do with Bill C-42? I will tell
this House what it has to do with Bill C-42. Having had this Trojan
horse brought in, having had the details not at all clear, having had
the Liberals treat this House with the disrespect that they have
under Bill C-42, now when Bill C-32, the Copyright Act, is before
committee I, as a responsible parliamentarian, must assume that
there may be a Trojan horse even in that bill.
Therefore under Bill C-42 we have the difficulty that when we
have a government coming forward, treating the House with
disrespect, bringing in things in a surreptitious way, we have to
take a look at all the details of every bill.
With respect to the amendments that have been brought forward
by our party, we have proposed in our section (b) amendment that
we:
(b) strike out all the lines in section 56.1(2) and substitute the following:
``If Madam Justice Arbour elects to take leave pursuant to section 56.1(1) she may
receive moving or transportation expenses and reasonable travel and other
expenses, in connection with her services as Prosecutor, from the United Nations'';
6838
(c) add the following words to section 56.1(3):
``notwithstanding any prohibition against accepting any salary fee, remuneration or
other emolument described in section 57'';
(d) add the following words to section 56.1(5):
``and that benefits payable under these sections will be paid or will commence to
be paid at the expiration of the leave of absence without pay''.
It is the niggling detail and it is the Reform Party that is drawing
to the attention of this House and through this process drawing
attention to the people of Canada that currently we have a justice
minister, a justice department and the Liberal government that
continuously come to this House and rather than looking at the kind
of detail that I have just read to this House that the Reform Party
has brought, rather than dotting the
is and crossing the
ts and doing
the job correctly, rather than treating this House with the respect
that it and the people in this House deserve, the Liberals continue to
come to this House and treat it like a rubber stamp: ``Oh, by the
way, if we have a problem we will correct it after the fact''.
There was an example of that even in the passage of Bill C-63
the other day. With Bill C-63 there had been a number of things that
had been brought up at the last minute in this House as a result of
debate. The government should be commended in a small way for
the fact that it did end up taking a look at some of the provisions in
the bill that needed some fine tuning. I commend it for that, but I
ask why we had to get into that process. Why did we not have an
opportunity on Bill C-63 to actually get those issues onto the table?
I suggest the reason was that government once again was treating
Bill C-63 in the same way as it has Bill C-42 and all these other
bills. It has treated this Parliament as a rubber stamp.
(1225 )
The government very simply went through a committee process
on probably the cornerstone legislation of our government or the
governing of this country, democracy in this country. It simply
went ahead and had a situation where it had two weeks of hearings.
The interesting thing was that one of those weeks nobody was in
Ottawa. We were out in our constituencies working. So it had only
one week to actually consider the terms and the details of that bill.
I suggest there is an absolute irrefutable pattern here that the
Liberals continuously treat this House as a rubber stamp, treat the
members of Parliament with disrespect. I say that they treat us with
disrespect in that they expect us to just roll over and do what is
asked. They may be good enough for the Liberal backbenchers but
it is not good enough for this opposition.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I really did
appreciate the speech which I just listened to by the member for
Kootenay East. He talked about not sweating the details. I think he
was quoting the Minister of Justice in question period last week.
The point I would like the hon. member to give the House his
opinion on is while Madam Justice Arbour has been asked by the
United Nations to a do a tremendously worthy job on behalf of all
humanity, to go over there and uphold international law and to let
international law be a beacon of light for civilization around the
world, would it not be a sleight on the job that she is going to be
doing if we have to trample over the Canadian law to let her go over
there to uphold the law?
That seems to be the issue that the hon. member was arguing,
that while no one is disputing the great responsibility and the fact
that someone from Canada has been selected to do this particular
position, in our haste to accommodate the United Nations to allow
her to go over there and uphold the law we have trampled over our
own rules.
It seems to me rather strange that we would do that because
surely it would cast some kind of aspersion on her capacity over
there if we find that the laws of Canada have been broken to
accommodate the United Nations. That is one point I would ask
him to consider.
The second point I would ask him to consider which I would like
his opinion on too is this idea that Madam Justice Louise Arbour
has been granted a leave of absence from the bench for as long as
she is required because there is no return date in this particular
motion. We do not know how long she is going to be gone, but she
is on the bench. Although she has a leave of absence she is still a
member of the bench in this country with the superior court in the
province of Ontario.
She is what one might call a referee in the game of law. Yet now
she is going to be a player. On one side she is going to be the
prosecutor at the international court in The Hague. We get into this
situation of being both the player and the referee. We have people
in this House who are quite familiar with the game of hockey, for
example, who know full well that you cannot be a referee and a
player because the whole thing just tends to fall apart.
I would like to have the member's opinion on whether one
should, can be or whether it is advisable under these conditions to
be both a referee and a player and the fact that we have ignored our
own internal laws to allow her to take over this position at the
United Nations.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting that while my
colleague was speaking I heard from the other side of the House
that a person can be a player and a referee if it is a different game.
I would suggest that if the chief referee of the NHL were to suit
up for the Montreal Canadiens there probably would be something
of incredibility on the part of people in the stands. They would
simply not accept that. In fact, even in that, which is at a totally
different level to what we are talking about when we are talking
6839
about the supreme court of Ontario, there is just no way that we
could end up having it fit.
There is more to it than that.
(1230 )
The reality is that within our system we are at the mercy of the
judicial system as to how it in turn interprets the law. There was a
very interesting exchange earlier with the member for Winnipeg
and my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca about the whole
issue of whether the supreme court actually ends up making law on
the basis of the charter of rights and freedoms. As a result of Pierre
Trudeau and the whole thought process of the Liberals where we
now have a charter industry populated by very high priced lawyers,
we now have an even more of a requirement for there to be an
absolute, positive, total, utter chasm between prosecution and the
defence and the judiciary.
To my colleague, I would say that the ends do not justify the
means. Louise Arbour will be a prosecutor in The Hague while still
a member of the impartial bench of Canada. The justice minister is
on record as saying in a Senate standing committee that there are
no provisions in the judges act allowing her to accept this
appointment. That is an important issue. There are no provisions in
the judges act allowing her to accept this appointment. He said that.
Yes, I agree with my colleague, one cannot play the game and be a
referee at the same time no matter what the circumstances are.
An exemption for a particular person from public policy such as
Madam Justice Arbour is called a private bill. Again, this did not
come to the House as a private bill. Public policy goes through the
House as a public bill. There is no provision in the rules for a
hybrid, public-private bill.
Again we are referring to the justice minister of Canada, the
chief lawyer of Canada, who is saying do not sweat the small stuff,
do not worry about the niggling details. This is not good enough,
not nearly good enough. I would think that any lawyer in Canada
would realize that for the justice minister to say do not sweat the
small stuff, do not worry about the details, would have to question
the total confidence of a person in as high a position as the justice
minister of Canada.
The justice minister is contravening the rules of this House by
forcing this amendment through in a public bill. What has made it
even worse is that he and the government are in a process of not
only forcing it through the House but forcing it through the House
by closure. We know there has been closure on some bills in the
House which has been rather interesting. We have even seen
closure and situations of people taking different positions in the
House. It seems as though there is a question in the mind of this
government as to whether it can actually get down to governing in a
proper way. It has simply gone power hungry, power crazy on
closure rather than taking the time through a process of negotiation
with the Reform and with the Bloc, the official opposition, to get
bills through the House in an orderly manner. But it is not doing
that.
We have tabled a multi-point amendment. It makes the condition
of Madam Justice Arbour's leave of absence more stringent. We
insist that in this process details must be adhered to. And not
withstanding the laissez faire, do not worry about the detail attitude
of our justice minister, we are going to continue to act as the
guardians of the Canadian justice system, notwithstanding the fact
that the justice minister says do not worry about the details.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to be given the opportunity to speak to Bill C-42.
I want to be absolutely sure in what I say here that you
understand that I am dealing with Bill C-42. I am speaking
specifically on the consequences of the political interference to a
large extent in the judiciary today. In doing so I will cite a number
of examples which will show that what is happening in Bill C-42 is
indeed part of the problem with the judiciary today. The examples
come from my riding.
(1235)
I have recently been involved with the first example. Some
people will be shocked to hear it. They will wonder what exactly is
going on. They will wonder how the judiciary is accountable and
where we are going from here. My first example is the case of a
young lady who was victimized in Aldergrove, British Columbia in
my riding.
She met an Abbotsford resident, Darren Ursel, in a bar at the
Alder Inn where she had gone to meet a friend who did not turn up.
This young lady had a soda because she does not drink alcohol. She
and Ursel got talking. Ursel suggested they go for tea. They hopped
in his car, drove to Ocean Park Pizza, and stopped at a bank along
the way so he could use the ATM. They had tea and coffee and he
drove her back to the parking lot at the Alder Inn where her car was
parked. And there the horror started.
He did not let her out of the car. He tried to kiss her. She did not
want to. He became forceful and held her down. He then invaded
her privacy with things that are a lot more disgusting than I should
even mention in this House, and I will not. This fellow violated this
woman in the worst ways one can imagine.
He went to court in my riding. The judge said that what Ursel did
was aggressive, angry and sadistic to some degree and that at other
times Ursel was tender. The judge took into account that Ursel had
no criminal record, was remorseful and had done everything in his
power to deal with the situation.
6840
It sounds familiar. Bill C-41 was mentioned a little while ago
in relation to conditional sentencing. So let us see what good old
Judge Harry Boyle gave Mr. Ursel. He found him guilty, all right.
Ursel was sentenced to two years less a day conditional
sentencing; not one day of incarceration. This is conditional
sentencing: ``If you do it again you will be sorry''. He was put
on three years probation.
Today that young lady is in very bad shape. The community is
appalled at that decision, and understandably so. What it really
says to me is the judge really said the first rape is free, there are no
consequences. That kind of lack of accountability in this country is
absolutely appalling. Most people in my riding think that judge
should be removed from the bench and so do I.
Ursel is walking the streets today, but the young lady is not. We
have not taught him a darn thing about the horrendous acts he
undertook. If I told members what he did they would be that much
more ashamed of the decision that was made.
To some extent that leads me to another example in my
discussion of Bill C-42. Later I will explain why this is all
happening in Bill C-42. I want to talk about a young man named
Arron Stewart. I know his mom and dad are listening and so I will
present the facts as they gave them to me.
On March 26, 1995 their son, Arron Michael Stewart, was killed
by a single stab wound to the heart. He was 23 years old. The
individual responsible was an 18-year old, Scott Kent.
(1240 )
When a group of males from Delta were leaving a party an
altercation took place between a Langley male and one from Delta.
They were separated by another Langley male. Another young
fellow was accused of becoming involved in a fight and kicking
another fellow down.
Kent was hit in the face by one of these young men and, in
retaliation for kicking and mouthing off, Kent returned to his
residence, assessed the damage to his face, stole a knife and
returned to the scene. It was the crown's contention that Kent was
going after another young fellow.
Kent was stopped and was asked what he had in his hand. They
had seen a knife. It was mentioned that the knife was in this
fellow's hand. The knife was presented. Young Aaron approached,
pushed another fellow out of the way for his protection and within
seconds he was stabbed. He died 15 minutes later.
This is only a very short snapshot of the events. Suffice it to say
Aaron was no threat whatsoever to Kent. The evidence presented at
the trial suggested that Aaron 's role was that of peacemaker. He
tried to disarm or defuse the situation. According to Kent, Aaron
was going to assault him.
The defence's position was self-defence. Given all the evidence
it was, at best, difficult to believe and a very hard sell.
Kent was on probation for assault causing bodily harm at the
time. Aaron had no record whatsoever.
The judge instructed the jury, over 40 pages, not to take this
information as a propensity to violence. That is what the judge said,
that he has a previous record but do not consider it.
Bob and Audrey Stewart say they feel that Aaron's life was taken
in a violent manner, and it was. They felt that Kent was guilty of
second degree murder. On two occasions a plea bargain for
manslaughter was put to the crown and rejected. They were
confident that justice would prevail and Kent would be held
accountable.
On October 30, 1996 at 12.15, after 16 hours of deliberation,
Kent was acquitted. The last thing the parents remember the judge
saying, while he was smiling, was: ``You are free to go''.
This young fellow murdered an innocent young man. He had
already been charged with assault. He was free to go.
This is one of the few countries in the world where a person can
stab someone else and not be penalized. I often wonder how it is
possible for someone to be free to go when they attempted to plea
bargain for manslaughter, virtually admitting what had happened.
Where do these decisions come from and why? I have studied
many Canadian judicial decisions over the last several years. I want
to relay a few which pertain to Bill C-42. Some of them will
surprise people, but I have become hardened to the kind of
decisions which are made these days. I have talked to a lot of young
people about these decisions and they are appalled. They do not
know how to stop it. They do not know what to do.
How do judges get on a bench? Are they political appointments?
Basically. With Liberal governments being in power in Canada for
so many years how can we expect anything other than many Liberal
judicial decisions?
One of the Liberals, I believe, just said ``and a few more yet''. If
that is so, then we can expect more Liberal judicial decisions like
the ones I am going to read to the House.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sherman Hood, before acquitting a
man of sexually assaulting a North Vancouver waitress, said: ```No'
sometimes means `maybe' or `wait a while'''.
(1245 )
Has anyone in their life ever heard such disgusting rulings? That
is an easy one. In the Northwest Territories circuit court Judge
Michel Bourassa said that sexual assaults ``occur, when the woman
6841
is drunk and passed out, the man comes along, sees a pair of hips
and helps himself''. That is from this country's bench.
Many people listening may have heard B.C. county court Judge
Peter Vanderhoof describe a three-year old girl. She could be
anyone's child. After sentencing her attacker to 18 months
probation for sexual interference as they call it today, he called the
three-year old girl ``sexually aggressive''. Now I ask, is that
reasonable? Is that in any way typical of what Canadians expect
from this country's bench? Where do these decisions come from?
Mr. Kirkby: What does this have to do with the Judges Act?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): An individual over on the
Liberal side just asked me how this relates to the Judges Act. I
think I will leave that up to the listeners because he certainly does
not understand what I am talking about. He does not understand the
reality between this House politically appointing judges to
positions and how it affects world decisions like C-42 is doing with
Louise Arbour. He does not understand that but I think other people
will.
I recommend that members read the book Contempt of Court by
Carsten Stroud. They will see how relevant many of the things in
this book are to C-42. Some of us from British Columbia will
remember the case Stroud refers to: ``David Snow was charged in
Vancouver with kidnapping two women and trying to strangle a
third. I quote from the judge's decision: I cannot conclude that the
placing of the wire around the neck of the victim and the placing of
the plastic over her head are sufficient to establish intent to kill''.
If the Liberal member does not understand the relevance
between the political impact of Bill C-42 and appointing judges to
the bench, in many cases Liberal judges making Liberal decisions,
then that is exactly what I am trying to deliver in this message: You
do not understand and therefore you should pick up and get out of
here.
Let us talk about Port Hardy, B.C. provincial court judge Brian
Saunderson who gave 57-year old Vernon Logan an absolute
discharge. This was a decision from the bench. Even though Logan
pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, the judge said:
``The law banning child pornography violates the charter of rights
because it is an infringement of one's freedom of thought, belief or
opinion, as unfettered access to reading material is necessary to
exercise those freedoms''.
Members are getting rowdy over there because they do not like
the message but it is just too bad what they do not like because they
are going to have to listen to it. If the Liberals opposite listened a
little more they might understand what some of us are trying to tell
them. These judicial decisions are hurting people. They are setting
bad precedents.
(1250 )
My favourite judge, Howard Wetston, about whom I have
spoken several times, recently decided in yet another ridiculous
ruling that federal prisoners have the right to vote under the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I quote: ``Preventing
prisoners serving more than two years from voting is too sweeping
an infringement''. So first degree murderer Richard Sauvé won his
case and now they all vote.
I cannot say that the member is now gone, can I, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Morrison: Nobody knew when he was here.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Sometimes when we do not
understand what is going on it is better to vacate.
In Montreal last July two teens were sentenced to three years
each in enclosed custody and two years of supervision after
pleading guilty to reduced charges of second degree murder in the
brutal killing of an elderly couple. The judge described the killings
of the elderly couple as senseless and despicable. In delivering the
sentence he also forbade those two young fellows who killed the
elderly couple from possessing firearms and explosives for five
years. Now is that not a dandy? In another two years they will be
able to have explosives.
This country has seen it all. I am very concerned, as are my
colleagues, about the relevance of politics in the judiciary today,
the consequences of which are bad judicial decisions. Bill C-42 is
doing just that. It will create bad judicial decisions. What do we do
about it?
We heard about the judges who used cocaine and booze as an
excuse for murder. Psychotic killer Michael Kruger got a few
thousand dollars for being inconvenienced during a labour dispute
in a prison. The judge said he was ``inconvenienced for denial of
showers, therapy and a swimming pool''. That is kind of sick.
Now that I have told the House what some of the problems are,
what are the solutions?
The two most important qualifications of judicial appointments
in this country must be knowledge of the law and integrity. They
should not be who you know, whom you work for and what
political party is in power.
Lawyers must always be examined before their appointment to
the bench. They should be examined on their competency in the
areas of law where they will be making the decisions. If they fail,
they should not be appointed. We must end political appointments,
not begin them with Bill C-42. We must end them.
There has to be more predictability in sentencing in this country.
6842
There has to be a continuous testing, or time limited
appointments on the judiciary. The names of candidates for
judicial appointments should be made available to the public with
their background information. Who they know, who was in the
last corporate boardroom, and who raised money for the campaign
should not enter into it. The justice minister should not be making
legislation to make it convenient for an appointment.
There should be a national code of conduct and conflict of
interest rules for judges. I am not dreaming this up. This came from
a report commissioned by the Canadian Judicial Council. Was it
done? No. The judicial council said that disciplinary hearings
against judges should be open to the public. And why not? What is
wrong with that? Except it does not fit in with the mode of being
involved with a political appointment or the politics of the issue.
(1255 )
For absolutely certain the mandatory retirement age of judges
should be lowered from 75 years to 65 years as a minimum. I think
it should be lower.
Mr. McCormick: How low?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I am asked how low. Let us
limit the terms of chief justices in most courts to seven years. How
about that?
Do not think for one moment that is coming from a political bias.
That is coming from the judicial council. Maybe these members
should listen.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was very interested in my hon. colleague's presentation.
Certainly he reviewed not only the Judges Act as it relates to Bill
C-42, but the very effect of that act on the appointments that are
made and the results of those appointments. The hon. member gave
us an indication of what is happening in the courtrooms across this
land.
I was particularly interested in a situation he referred to with
regard to an Aaron Stewart. I know my colleague's interest and I
know that he works with people on the ground. Is my colleague
aware of how the victims in that situation have responded to what
has happened? How do they feel about this country's judicial
system?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, as it happens,
Bob and Audrey Stewart never had the opportunity to present a
victim's impact statement in that case. In fact today the prosecution
in British Columbia is deciding as to whether or not the case will be
appealed. If it is not, certainly we will be dealing with that
immediately.
I want to provide the House of Commons and the Canadian
people with a real victim impact statement from two parents who
did not get the opportunity to present it: ``Nothing prepared us for
the early morning events of March 26, 1995. Two Courtney
detachment RCMP officers came to our home to inform us that our
son Aaron Michael Stewart was a victim of a stabbing incident at a
house party in Langley. He had died within 15 minutes. Our
nightmare began.
``In a single moment our lives were changed forever. Our grief
was and is indescribable. Aaron was a wonderful son, brother,
grandson, nephew, cousin and friend. We had done our level best to
raise Aaron and we had nothing but pride in him. Life is very
precious. We thank God for the 23 wonderful loving years we had
with Aaron. We were truly blessed. Death is always very difficult
regardless of age or circumstance.
``The violence surrounding Aaron's passing just increased the
pain. Given his love of life and his youth, his death can only be
described as a senseless tragedy. A tragedy of this magnitude
happens to other people. Never do we imagine the possibility of it
happening to us.
``We find it difficult to even remember the last 19 months. We
were thrown into funeral preparations, courtroom appearances and
media coverage, to say nothing of trying to deal with our own grief
and that of our family and friends. Compounding this was the
shock and outrage we all felt.
``We put our faith in the legal system fully expecting justice to
prevail. The show cause hearing afforded the accused bail, a
$10,000 surety and an 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. We were appalled
and addressed our concerns in writing to the deputy regional
crown. A new prosecutor was named and we were afforded the
opportunity to be a part of the process.
``On two occasions defence counsel requested a plea bargain to
manslaughter. The crown advised us of these requests but we were
assured the violent nature of the crime warranted the charge of
second degree murder. The requests were rejected. The eight days
of preliminary inquiry in December 1995 only increased our
resolve. There were 30 or 40 statements taken on that morning and
over 20 witnesses called by the crown during the inquiry. We were
very grateful for the overwhelming support shown by family and
friends. We were never alone to face this ordeal.
(1300)
The next step in our attempt to seek justice was the trial, October
of 1996. After three weeks of testimony our world ended, the jury
handing down an acquittal. Justice did not prevail. Where do we go
from here?''
I can only say to Robert and Audrey Stewart that we will not give
up the fight for justice. We will not give up the fight for legitimate
process through the judiciary. I think the Liberals should take note
of what I have said here today and go back and think about all those
victims out there and try to spend a little more time helping victims
and not criminals.
6843
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I
had the privilege of having a rather lengthy conversation with a
few security guards here on the Hill. Many of them, having been
here for a number of years, are a source of much more knowledge
and perhaps intellect than most of the members opposite and so
they give me reasonably good guidance.
One thing that came up from two or three of them was why do we
not have an elected judiciary in this country? I tried to explain to
them the pros and the cons of this as I saw it. I wonder if the hon.
member, since we are talking here in Bill C-42 about a band-aid bill
when the government should be revising the whole lousy system,
would give me his views on whether or not we should have an
elected judiciary.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, many people in
this country today think we should have an elected judiciary. There
are good points and consequences to that decision.
Overall, if we look at the American model, there is a tendency
for judges to respond to a lot of political pressure from individual
groups and so on. I am not sure how well that serves the process.
The difficulty here is that governments have really been
involved in appointing judges. Members say it is an independent
process, but it is really not. We can tell by Bill C-42 that a
government is directly getting involved with the judiciary.
I like the suggestion from the Canadian Judicial Council that the
terms of chief justices should be limited to seven years. That would
make a difference. With some of the judges who have made bad
decisions, as I have related here today, then we would only be stuck
with some of these guys for a maximum of seven years but usually
six, five, four or three.
If I had my way I would prefer to see a shorter term than an
election of judges.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to lay upon the
Table a Notice of Ways and Means motion with respect to the
amendment to the Excise Tax, the Income Tax Act and the Customs
Tariff.
I am tabling explanatory notes at the same time and I ask that
you designate an Order of the Day for consideration of the said
motion.
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the
Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act;
and of the amendment.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
those who are watching, we are debating amendments proposed to
Bill C-42. Bill C-42 attempts to legitimize the government's moves
to allow Madam Justice Arbour to take a position as a prosecutor in
the Hague.
(1305)
It has been said before that the issue here is neither Madam
Justice Arbour nor her credentials; nor is there any question of the
honour that has been accorded to her by the UN when it asked her
to take this position. The issue is the process that has been followed
in order to bring this about.
It is extremely and disturbingly clear that the process followed
by the government has demonstrated a disregard which amounts to
contempt of the due process of the law. There has been disrespect
for our legislation. There has been disrespect for the House. There
have been all kinds of games played in order for the government to
get its wishes through.
The most disturbing thing about this is that it has become a
pattern of the government. As a new member of the House, having
sat here for the last three years, I have become more and more
concerned and upset about this pattern of behaviour, this pattern of
dealing in the House. It is not too strong a statement to say that the
democratic process is being eroded little by little, day by day, in the
most overt way possible by the government.
I believe the government is doing so because it believes the
citizens of Canada will not know, will not realize, will not be able
to really see, as they carry on their daily lives, what is happening in
this institution so it feels it can away with this sort of thing.
There are some very glaring contraventions of what would be
right and proper. Mr. Speaker, I know you will be interested in
hearing some of my concerns because you voiced them in the last
Parliament, as did many of the opposition members. We have all
seen the erosion and the blatant disregard and contravention of
democratic process in the House.
The Judges Act does not presently allow any judge to accept any
employment except from the Government of Canada. In order to
get around that, an arrangement was made whereby this justice
would continue to be paid by the Government of Canada from
funds provided to it by the UN. Technically the cheque was being
cut by the Government of Canada although the funds originated
6844
somewhere else through another arrangement. With a little sleight
of hand, a little deception, a little under the table juggling, a clear
provision of the Judges Act was simply rejigged because it was
inconvenient.
The Judges Act does not allow judges to accept employment
from any employer other than the Government of Canada. Of
course, the employer in question is not the Government of Canada
but the UN which has asked Madam Justice Arbour to be a
prosecutor in the Hague.
The government found a certain provision in the Judges Act to
be rather inconvenient in terms of what it wanted to do. There
seems to have been plenty of evidence over the last three years as I
have watched the operation of the Liberal government, that one of
its guiding principles is the end justifies the means. Its guiding
principle is: ``If we think something should be done, if we intend to
do something, then whatever means it takes to accomplish that,
even if we have to sweep aside some rather inconvenient
democratic conventions, so be it''.
(1310 )
We see that in committee. Committee chairmen, instead of being
chosen freely and fairly by their peers, are chosen by the Prime
Minister and his advisers. Then a charade is played out in
committee and government members simply stand up like trained
seals and vote for whoever they are told is going to be the
committee chairman.
If there are procedures in the committee which are inconvenient
to the minister or the government, because committees are
supposed to be the masters of their own process, there is a vote by
the majority, the government members on the committee, which
sweeps aside long established democratic processes in order to get
on with the job. After all, as government members, they know what
is best in committee. Why should the rotten opposition members be
able to hold up the works?
It is extremely disturbing. Government members should be very
concerned about what is happening by this process. I do not think it
is a secret to anybody that the democratic process, democratic
conventions, democratic protections and checks and balances are
cavalierly being ignored, swept under the table and run roughshod
over in order for government to do what it is going to do anyway.
The government does not want to talk about how it deals with
issues and how legislation, due process and democratic convention
are being contravened. If we dare to stand up and talk about it,
suddenly there is a problem-
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are
dealing with the Judges Act. I assume we will get to that point, with
the member's consent?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know that the
member is paying close attention. It will certainly be a different
experience for some of us on this side of the House.
In order to get around the inconvenience of the prohibitions in
the Judges Act with respect to the appointment of Madam Justice
Arbour, as it gets around a number of other inconvenient standing
orders and conventions and laws that might impede the way the
government wants to do things, the Minister of Justice simply had
the cabinet pass an order in council approving the appointment of
the justice to work for the UN commencing July 1. We are only
now debating legislation that would actually legitimize the work of
this justice. Of course the Senate did not approve of the legislation
which it received from the government and amended it.
Again the pattern appears, where clear laws and conventions are
simply ignored at the wish of the government. Canadians need to
be extremely concerned about the way the government deals with
issues, legislation and conventions that are inconvenient to it.
The government is using closure almost on a daily basis. That is
a procedure which the government, when it was in opposition,
called morally wicked and railed against. We have closure on this
bill. Closure cuts off debate. The government is not allowing the
voice of duly elected representatives to be heard. We cannot voice
our concerns, voice our criticisms or voice our alternatives to the
way this issue is being handled. That is not something the
government wants to see. It is not something which my colleague
who keeps getting up and trying to interrupt the remarks and the
concerns that I am bringing forward wants to see.
I hope that Canadians watching this debate will wake up and
realize that we are seeing the erosion of the democratic process. It
is the erosion of the commitment to follow the rule of law. I find
that reprehensible.
An order in council is legitimizing what is clearly prohibited by
an act of Parliament. After the fact the government is trying to ram
something through in order to deal with the situation.
(1315 )
Also, there is an exemption for a particular person which is being
dealt with in this bill. Such an exemption has always been dealt
with by a private bill. Public policy goes through the House as a
public bill, but this sort of policy goes through the House as a
private bill. Again, the rules of the House are clearly being
contravened by forcing this bill, this amendment, through as a
public bill.
We see the disdain of the government for the democratic process
in the way this whole thing is being carried out. We see the disdain
6845
in so many ways, by bringing in closure, in the way committees are
simply run as kangaroo operations in many cases and ignoring
clear democratic conventions.
Last night we saw that the government does not even want to
allow Canadians to decide who to support in their own ridings for
their own candidates for the Liberal Party. I think it is very clear
that we are going to have to speak out more loudly and more
pointedly so that Canadians can begin to realize we simply must
insist that when issues are being dealt with and when legislation is
in place that it is respected and not simply ignored or dealt with in
the most expeditious way possible in order for the government to
get what it wants. This is dangerous.
Surely government members must be able to see how repugnant
their actions are by their support of closure, interruptions of
speeches that try to point out how the process needs to be tightened
up and even their support of this bill which clearly contravenes
legislation that has been passed by the House simply because the
government finds it inconvenient. It does not allow them to do what
they have decided they want to do. Therefore the legislation in this
instance has to be changed.
This is a very difficult situation which must be dealt with. We
must look at the larger issues which are being raised about the way
the bill through the government is dealing with the issue.
Canadians who are watching this debate should take the time to
phone the office of their representative and find out how the
process is being carried out. Where there is a prohibition for
something the government wants to do, the government does
anyway by an order in council. When the matter is finally dealt
with in the House, the government does all sorts of things to ignore
democratic convention by bringing in closure in order to ram
through what the government has decided on. This is very
dangerous and very unfortunate. I hope Canadians will speak out
against this sort of thing.
In Bill C-42 we have a situation where a whole legislative
scheme is being changed to allow one situation to be dealt with. No
matter how good the end result is which is being sought, the means
can do nothing but raise concern and disapproval in the minds of
Canadians and some members in the House who have a duty to
represent Canadians and make sure that the process dealing with
their interests is fair, open and balanced. We need to spend some
time considering not only some particulars of the bill but the way it
is being dealt with.
We have a Judges Act which protects the impartiality, the
structure of our judiciary. There are provisions in the act to deal
with the very important integrity and operation of our justice
system. Because of the anomaly, a different situation, that whole
act is being amended in this way in a very unconventional way for
one individual.
(1320)
We in the Reform Party have tabled a multi-point amendment
that puts conditions on this kind of leave by a member of our
judiciary. The judges of our country are here to serve Canadians in
an impartial, unbiased and unimpeded way. We have, as the House
knows, put forward some amendments in order to make this kind of
absence more stringent to make sure the conditions under which
our judges are able to mix some of their priorities are dealt with in a
way that makes it very clear that the interest of Canadians, the
interest of our judicial system and judicial duties are carried out as
clearly and unimpeded as possible.
I urge this House to consider those amendments carefully, to
look at the fact that these amendments are intending to serve the
process of this House and respect the legislation of this House and
also to make sure that our judicial system does not have mixed
priorities, a mixed focus, that the interest of the people of Canada
come first and foremost with those who serve us on the bench. I
would urge the members of this House to support the amendments
that we have put forward to Bill C-42.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the member to comment, if she would, with regard to
orders in council, what the definition of that is, what it really means
and what we have been led to believe what it means and how such a
prescribed way of doings things can apply in this particular bill
through orders in council.
I would like the hon. member to respond to Bill C-68 where
orders in council were used where it appears to say that the
Minister of Justice when he deems it necessary may use orders in
council to make certain decisions.
It is my understanding that this is for emergency situations, and
very extreme events would have to lead to its use. Here in this
particular bill it appears to me that it was used just because the
minister chose to do so. Who should deem an order in council to be
used and how should it be used?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
Even before I thought of running for election, before I thought of
getting involved in politics, I had heard concerns raised in a
number of quarters about the increasing use of orders in council
which is simply a way for the cabinet to put something into effect
without having recourse to the legislative process.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, and as some Canadians are
aware, the use of this rather high handed method of putting policy
in place has increased steadily over the years. As my colleague
pointed out, it is now being used in ways that originally it was
never intended to be used.
6846
It simply is another example of illustrating the concern which
I tried to raise respecting the way Bill C-42 has been dealt with
and brought forward. There is a disrespect for the checks and
balances in our democratic system for due process, for democratic
conventions.
I appeal to government members. Only the support of all
government members lets this kind of process go ahead. I know
sometimes it is very frustrating when government members feel
that opposition is simply putting forward roadblocks just to put
them forward.
(1325 )
However, the democratic process must be allowed to work. It
may be inconvenient and frustrating but it is used to protect
everyone in this country. As it is continually eroded, particularly in
this House which is supposed to be the bastion of the our
democratic ideals, I find it extremely worrisome. I would think it
would worry the members of the government as well. Only
members of the government can stop this sort of thing and simply
tell the cabinet and those who are telling them what to do that we
have to let this process work. That also applies to orders in council,
closures, work on committees and everything else that is done in
this House. We just have to put a stop to the direction we are
moving in and bring us back into a more balanced way of dealing
with things.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the hon. member for her intervention.
I was listening to my 17-year old twin boys a couple of weeks
ago, who were studying the Canadian government in their social
studies class. I caught the tail end of their conversation and this is
what one said to the other: ``What we really have in Canada is a
pretty much fairly elected dictator''. That was their assessment
when they talked about how parliament and how government work
in this country.
They were talking about things like the use of orders in council
and something which they probably know best, Bill C-68, the gun
control bill, where the Prime Minister publicly threatened any
government MPs that if they dared to vote against a government
bill again he would refuse to sign their nomination papers. This
would mean that their political career would be ended if their
papers were not signed by the Prime Minister. They cannot run as a
Liberal candidate. Many got elected only because they were on the
Liberal's slate last time.
Maybe my sons are not normal 17-year old kids to be talking
about this kind of thing, but I am proud that they were and came to
this conclusion.
I would just like to ask the hon. member to comment on the
conclusions that my sons had come to about how government
works or does not work in this country in terms of being a truly
democratic system.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I would answer my colleague by
saying that I should have mentioned that in my speech. I am glad
these things are brought up. I did touch on this when I talked about
having a governing party which does not even allow people in this
country to decide who is going to be their candidate. As my
colleague mentioned, we know this because it has been made
public. However, I am sure that is just the tip of the iceberg because
so many people are afraid to speak out about these things.
We know that backbench members especially are threatened that
they will not be allowed to run as candidates again. Conversely, we
know that there are some candidates who have been told that they
will not have to face any competition for the nomination if they do
the bidding of the Prime Minister. This again is another situation in
the democratic process that is extremely worrisome.
I think we saw this with the elections bill that was just passed in
this House where governments will now have all the
foreknowledge and power to call an election at their own whim and
whenever the circumstances are right for them. It now gives the
opposition even less time to present their case to the Canadian
people. Instead of 47 days, they now only have 36 days. By the
time all the government messages that have been carefully crafted
leading up to the election are de-spun who knows how easy it will
be for the electorate to sort through the choices that are before it.
There are so many things where this government is more and
more simply saying ``we are going to do what we want and if
anything gets in our way or impedes that, we are simply going to
sweep that kind of opposition aside''. Again I would appeal to
members of this House to put a stop to this kind of movement in
that direction.
(1330)
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to question the member who just spoke with regard to a question
that was given to her from a previous speaker who said the Prime
Minister, in particular, had threatened Liberal members of
Parliament note to vote against the gun bill.
If the hon. member wants Canadians to stop the cynicism toward
politicians, that is the worst rubbish I have heard. I would like that
hon. member to respond. Did she really believe what that member
said to her in his question?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the Liberal
caucus and never expect to be. The information I have to go on is
what Liberal caucus members themselves tell other members of the
House and members of the public and the press. Those allegations
have been widely reportedly. I do not think they have been
challenged to any substantial degree. I would suggest that those
kinds of messages do not get out unless there is some substance to
them.
6847
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Bill C-42.
My hon. colleague for Calgary North and other members have
done a very good job of pointing to the injustice of this particular
piece of legislation. They have pointed out that the minister when
he was before the Senate said that there was no means to bring
about the type of changes that he is now bringing about. I am not
going to belabour that aspect of it. My colleagues have done a
wonderful job of bringing all of that to light.
I would like to talk about how this government really does have
misplaced priorities. Bill C-42 is a perfect example of that. In a day
and an age where we have rising violent crime in this country,
should we not be bringing in legislation that deals with crime in
this country instead of worrying about ensuring we have a
prosecutor in The Hague?
Some people across the way are saying we do not have violent
crime in this country or that it is on the decline. Between 1960 and
1995 the incidence of violent crime per 100,000 people has gone
from about 200 to just about 1,000. I do not care how it is looked at,
that is a huge increase. During the last 35 years violent crime has
gone up over 350 per cent and it is still on an upward trend. That is
violent crime overall.
Youth crime is a very similar type of trend. In 1986 the incidence
of violent crime per 100,000 was 400 and now it is up over 900.
The hon. members can state opinions all they want but when they
look at the real facts it is pretty clear. It is pretty clear to most
Canadians, by the way, even if Liberal members do not believe it. I
am trying to make the point that the government's priorities are
very mixed up.
The justice minister seems to have a pretty funny idea of just
what his job is. Since he came into power about three years ago the
government has done virtually nothing to deal with the huge
problem that we have with crime in this country. The justice
minister brought down legislation that extends gay rights. He
brought down legislation that introduced gun control. It it going to
cost a lot of money.
As the hon. member for Wild Rose points out all the time, for the
amount of money they are going to spend on gun control getting
honest citizens to register their guns they could put another 20,000
cops on the beat out there and that would do a lot more to protect
this country against crime than getting honest folks to register their
guns. That is another example of how the government has its
priorities mixed up.
(1335 )
The third example, which we are talking about today, is a case of
breaking both legs to ensure we can send a prosecutor to The Hague
to prosecute war crimes. We do not have any problem with doing
that, but if the government would invest the same amount of energy
in dealing with crime in this country, if it would spend the same
amount of energy in giving prosecutors and police the necessary
tools to deal with crime in this country, we would have a lot safer
country.
The justice minister has had three years to bring in all kinds of
legislation to deal with some of the problems we have in this
country. He could have dealt with youth crime, with our extremely
leaky parole system. We just had the example the other day of
dangerous illegal refugees and sometimes immigrants in this
country the government will not deal with.
We finally pressured the immigration minister recently to deal
with the problem of a dangerous sex offender who was released
back into the population of Calgary. We continued to pressure her
until she finally got around to doing something.
There is no excuse for the government to focus on legislation
like Bill C-42 when we have all kinds of problems in our own
backyard. I am concerned about how this affects individual lives,
about how it really impinges on our freedom.
Not long ago I travelled with the finance committee to Toronto. I
went for a jog one morning through Etobicoke. I was struck by the
number of houses with bars on the windows, on all the bottom
windows. I remember running by a car and seeing a ``Club'' on the
steering wheel. I can imagine if I went up to the doors of houses I
would see signs saying this house is protected by such and such an
alarm, or beware of dog. There would probably be all kinds of
deadbolts and latches on doors.
Clearly Canadians have decided they cannot count on the
government to protect them against crime so they have had to
resort to various means to protect themselves. That is a very sorry
commentary on what this government has done with respect to
dealing with crime. It has gone to great lengths to introduce Bill
C-42 but what has it done for the ordinary Canadian? Zippo.
Nothing. It has done absolutely nothing.
Not long ago were speaking of Ontario. Not long ago the country
was gripped by the Bernardo trial. The whole country tuned in
because it could not believe what had happened in this country with
somebody like Paul Bernardo raping and murdering young women.
Perhaps the most offensive thing of all was that in light of that
horrible crime this justice minister would not even consider a
return to capital punishment.
This justice minister wants to get Bill C-42 through but he will
not even listen to the 70 per cent of Canadians who say they would
like to have a debate on capital punishment and would like to return
to the days when we had capital punishment in this country.
6848
That is standing justice on its head. The justice minister does
not have a clue what justice really means. I do not think he has
any idea. When people sit in their homes because they are afraid
to go out at night, that does not indicate that we have justice in
this country.
In my own little community when my wife sends our boys off to
school only a few hundred yards away she worries like crazy until
they get home after school, and why would she not? Why would
she not worry after we read what we read in the newspapers these
days?
Violent crime in Canada has increased by 350 per cent since the
sixties. Violent youth crime in Canada has more than doubled in the
last 10 years. So why would people not be worried about that? Can
we blame them?
(1340 )
We get petitions in this place all the time. We get petitions
calling for the government to do something with dangerous
offenders, to tighten up the parole system and to reintroduce capital
punishment. What happens with them? These are the voices of
ordinary Canadians who are concerned about their lives. What
happens? Nothing.
The government responds by introducing Bill C-42. It jams
through legislation that has nothing to do with the agenda of
ordinary Canadians.
It was not very long ago that Canadians were railing against the
justice minister's weak changes to section 745 of the Criminal
Code. I do not have to tell members in this place that ordinary
Canadians want to see section 745 removed. They do not want
weak amendments. They do not want to see Clifford Olson and
Paul Bernardo come back into their lives through television. These
people will be coming forward to apply for early release.
Canadians think those people should spend the rest of their lives in
jail or worse. Many people would like to see them face the death
penalty. Quite frankly, I am one of those people. It is unbelievable
how we protect people like Bernardo, Olson and others. It is crazy.
I cannot believe we are debating Bill C-42 when we should be
debating legislation which will protect the lives of ordinary
Canadians.
Our party has taken a different stance from that of the
government. While the government is setting up cozy little deals
for its friends in the judiciary, my colleague from Fraser Valley is
putting together a victims bill of rights. He is concerned about
ordinary Canadians who have suffered at the hands of animals who
are currently sitting in these Holiday Inns which we call prisons.
He has come up with all kinds of legislation which would give
victims rights in the courts, so that instead of having the justice
system stand up for the rights of criminals, we would have a justice
system, for once in this country, which would stand up for ordinary
citizens and people who have been victimized by crime.
Why not give victims some standing in the courts when their
lives have been turned upside down? Why not allow victims some
say when these cases come before the parole board? Why not force
some of these criminals to come up with compensation? That
should be a basic right for victims. They should have the right to go
after the criminals to get the money back which they lost due to a
crime which was committed against them or their family. That is
basic common sense. That reflects the common sense of the
common people.
We have two agendas in the country. We have the agenda of
regular, law-abiding, ordinary Canadians who think there should be
punishment for crime and that justice means that if someone
injures someone or harms their property that they should pay a
price for it. Then we have the government approach, which is quite
different. The government agenda is radically different. It is
completely disconnected from the agenda of regular people. Its
agenda indicates that somehow criminals are the victims and we
need to protect their rights. My goodness, they cannot vote in jail?
Let us ensure that they can vote. That is the government's
approach. We cannot have them eating macaroni and cheese for
dinner. We have to ensure that they get fillet mignon.
My colleague from Fraser Valley West spoke last spring about
the spring ball at a prison in Ontario where, believe it or not, the
prisoners were being served fillet mignon. I would argue that
ordinary Canadians, thanks to the high tax policies of the
government, very seldom have a chance to eat fillet mignon.
According to the Liberal government nothing is too good for the
criminals and the murderers of this country. Let us make sure they
have a golf course. As a matter of fact, ordinary Canadians would
be alarmed and amazed to know that we have golf courses for the
criminals in this country.
Instead of dealing with injustices, what does the government do?
It brings forward Bill C-42. While the criminals are out golfing,
while they are playing racquetball in Matsqui prison, Canadians are
just scraping to get by, putting bars on their windows to be
protected from the criminals out there.
(1345)
It was not very long ago when a couple of criminals walked
across the golf course in British Columbia to freedom only to go on
into the United States to allegedly kill somebody. This is absolutely
unbelievable.
What is the priority of the government? To bring down Bill C-42
which has nothing to do with protecting the lives of ordinary
citizens.
Not very long ago a prisoner who was playing racquetball at
Matsqui prison in British Columbia slipped on water that was on
the floor because there was a leak in the roof. He sued the
government, won and taxpayers chipped in $20,000 to this prisoner
who had obviously been convicted of a crime, had done something
wrong to society, but he was not being punished. He was being
6849
rewarded. He was playing racquetball. Then he took it to the
Canadian public again, and got $20,000.
Does this legislation do anything to prevent that from
happening? I do not see anything about that in here. The
government's agenda is completely disconnected from the
Canadian agenda. I do not care what party members come from.
When they go to the doors of Canadians, first of all a lot of them
are afraid to come to the door because there is so much crime out
there. They do not know who is at the door. But when members do
get a chance to talk to them they say the government has got to do
something.
In three years the justice minister has done absolutely nothing to
deal with the serious issues. It has all been window dressing.
The justice minister comes across as very sincere. That is a
wonderful skill for a politician. However, it takes more than words
to convince Canadians that the government cares about the havoc
that is being wreaked on Canadian lives. It takes more than words.
What we want is action.
I do not want to just talk about some of the things the
government has done wrong. I want to introduce some ideas.
Perhaps this would be an idea for the government when it brings
down its next legislation so that it starts to take more seriously the
concerns that Canadian have. Bill C-42 certainly does not address
anything that Canadians are truly concerned about.
This place would be greatly impoverished if I did not take a
chance right now to quote from Reform's fresh start for Canadians
so that I can point out some of the things that the government
should be doing.
A Reform government would enact a victims' bill of rights
which puts the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of criminals.
What a radical idea, putting the rights of victims and citizens ahead
of criminals. Too bad Bill C-42 does not do that.
The Reform Party would reform criminal justice to provide safer
communities, safer streets and safer homes. We would have bars on
prison windows instead of bars on the homes of ordinary citizens.
What a crazy idea. Too bad the government has not thought of it
yet.
We would hold a binding national referendum on the return of
capital punishment. As I pointed out a minute ago, right after the
Bernardo trial, a poll was taken and something like 70 per cent of
Canadians said: ``We want to see a return to capital punishment''. I
think the people deserve to have their voices heard. We are trying
to allow that to happen right now. It should happen in the form of a
national referendum.
We would repeal the Liberals' costly firearms registry, Bill
C-68, and replace it with meaningful laws to fight the criminal
misuse of firearms. I mentioned it a minute ago but it is such a
good statistic I think it bears repeating. The hon. member for Wild
Rose said in a speech here in Ottawa the other night that if we could
replace the registry and use that money for something else it would
allow us to put 20,000 police back on the beat in Canada. Can you
imagine how much safer our communities would be having 20,000
more police out there?
(1350)
One thing we want to do and which is mentioned in our fresh
start program is reform the parole system and abolish early release
for first degree murderers. What a revelation. I am sure my Liberal
colleagues across the way would be amazed to hear such talk.
Imagine abolishing the chance of parole for first degree murders.
What a wonderful idea.
We would replace the Young Offenders Act with measures that
hold young criminals accountable for their actions. There has been
a dramatic increase in youth crime. The Liberals have tried it their
way and it does not work. Reform's fresh start would make it
happen.
Finally, we would pursue crime prevention through social
policies that strengthen families and communities. That is a debate
for another day, but I could speak for a long time on that issue
alone.
Suffice to say that Bill C-42 has nothing to do with the agenda of
ordinary Canadians. Despite the fact that the government has been
in power for three years, it has failed completely to deal with issues
that Canadians are truly concerned about. I would encourage
people in the House and across the country who are listening to
consider the Reform Party fresh start because I believe it deals with
the concerns of ordinary Canadians in a way that the Liberal
government policies do not and would truly make them feel safer in
their homes and communities.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to pick up on some comments that were made
in the debate with respect to what I think is an untruth. I would use
a much stronger word, but I cannot according to rules of the
Chamber.
It is simply untrue that the Prime Minister has threatened not to
sign nomination papers simply because people-
Mr. Thompson: Tell it to the press. Tell it to the press.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): How do you know?
Mr. Bryden: Patience, gentlemen. It is simply untrue that he
said that. I really resent the fact that the party that claims to speak
for Canadians and which believes in truth, should actually purvey
something which is absolutely untrue.
Let us compare for a second the party discipline of the Reform
Party and the Liberals. It is true that in the Liberal Party and the
6850
Liberal caucus there has been dissent. It is true that this dissent has
occurred during bills like the gun control bill.
I would remind members of the Reform Party that the nine
people who voted against the bill got very minimum discipline.
Mr. Ramsay: Minimum? Minimum?
Mr. Benoit: He does not even understand the problem. He does
not have a clue. I do not believe it.
Mr. Thompson: Why should there be any discipline?
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, you see, this is the party that cannot
allow another member to speak.
There are many members in the Liberal caucus like myself who
have voted against bills, motions and amendments in the House. I
have voted against a bill at second and third readings.
I was not banished from my party and I received no threats about
my nomination. In fact, I continue to believe that I am highly
regarded by the Prime Minister and by my colleagues. I simply
voted against a motion that I believed was wrong. I voted my
conscience. I voted for my constituents. I voted what Reformers
claim they do, but do not do.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): You will be disciplined.
Mr. Bryden: Many of my colleagues have done the same thing
because the Liberal caucus and party accepts what we are MPs who
sometimes must act on our conscience. There has been no
discipline, no banishing to the back of the bus, as has been the case
with the Reform Party.
If we make a comparison, we find that the member for
Athabasca, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan have been
thrown out of the caucus.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): What about the member for
York South-Weston? Where is he today?
Mr. Bryden: The member for York South-Weston did leave the
Liberal caucus. But I would point out that he voted against a
confidence motion and he personally attacked a minister of the
government. He also played to the press. We are a party and a
caucus where if a member has reason for dissent, if a member acts
according to his or her conscience and does not go directly to the
press, then they remain a member in good standing.
(1355 )
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I accept that
the member can make comments, but I am looking for a question.
As we get close to the end of the 10-minute period, I see no
question coming.
The Speaker: There are comments and questions. Both are
legitimate. However, I know in my heart that the hon. member is
coming to his question.
Mr. Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If my colleagues in the
Reform Party would just give me the opportunity to pose the
question I shall.
I remind the Reform Party that it banished two members from its
caucus for speaking out and later lost a member entirely. It
banished the member for Calgary Southeast entirely. Seven MPs
will be resigning, all because of the form of party discipline that the
leader of the Reform Party imposes.
My question for the hon. member for Medicine Hat-
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. The hon. member is stating something that is not true. The
last individual he was talking about, who he said was banished, that
is not true.
The Speaker: We are going to take that question right now.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the question is simple. Is the Reform
Party not the party of the iron fist? Is this not the party of
punishment? Is this not the party of intolerance when it comes to
dissent among members of its caucus?
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, that is complete nonsense. I point
out, as the member acknowledges, members in his party have been
disciplined and kicked off committees. They have been warned that
if they do not go along with legislation they will be kicked out of
the party and will not have their nomination papers signed.
I also want to point out that it has been the Reform Party that has
led the way in introducing parliamentary reform by allowing our
members to speak up for their constituents. Our members stand up
and vote for their constituents and have done so on numerous
pieces of legislation. No one sees our leader saying that our
members are not allowed to do that. Absolutely not. In fact I would
argue that the Reform Party, of all parties, has introduced the whole
notion of parliamentary democracy and democratic change.
Hopefully some day the iron fist in the Liberal Party-
The Speaker: I wish I had been here earlier. It sounds like it's a
good one.
Not that I want to cut this off but it is almost two o'clock. I am
going to stick around after question period because I want to hear
the rest of it. We will go to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
6850
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the dedication of one
special volunteer from my riding, Mrs. Doreen Janes of Corner
Brook, Newfoundland.
6851
Recently Mrs. Janes was selected to receive a Canada Volunteer
Award Certificate of Merit. This award recognizes her
involvement with the Huntington's Society of Canada since 1980.
Mrs. Janes lost her loving husband to this terrible neurological
disease. Since that time she has been involved in numerous
community events, leading the fight against Huntington's disease.
Her unselfish work and dedication have helped rebuild the local
chapter of the Huntington's Society. Doreen has enlisted family,
friends and anyone who shared her genuine interest to donate their
time to this deserving cause.
The local chapter is now able to provide a network of
educational resources to persons affected by the disease and to their
families. She continues to make herself available to sit down and
talk to all those affected. Doreen shows us why Canada is one of the
greatest countries in the world.
I would like to congratulate Doreen Janes.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I want to speak briefly to the issue of child poverty.
Recently the Liberals have awakened to the human consequence
of their misguided social and fiscal policies of the last quarter
century: hungry children, fractured homes and hopeless youth.
(1400 )
A federal debt of over $600 billion is not just a number. It is $26
billion in increased annual tax grabs since the last election. It is an
average family with $3,000 less than in 1993 to meet their needs. It
is skyrocketing divorce, unchecked poverty, teen suicides and
violence. It is the working poor working poorer.
More money and more Liberal programs with more bureaucracy
will only perpetuate the failure.
Reform policies will leave hard earned money where it belongs,
in the hands of families. Reform policies will remove over one
million Canadians from the tax rolls altogether. Reform policies
will allow parents to direct their attention to their children instead
of the tax man.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Amnesty International has just released its report on the human
rights situation in Turkey.
According to the report, since the early 1990s the number of
violations of fundamental rights in that country has multiplied, the
excuse being national security. Extrajudicial executions,
disappearances, torture and the repression of freedom of expression
have become widespread in Turkey. This is an intolerable situation.
I therefore wish to ask the Canadian government to act as a
responsible member of the international community and put
pressure on the Turkish government to respect international law on
fundamental rights, legislation which it freely ratified as indicated
in its own Turkish legislation. Canada has, in any case, a duty to
promote respect for human rights.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, at a national child welfare conference in Ottawa
yesterday, Premier Roy Romanow and the province of
Saskatchewan were acknowledged as leaders in caring for our
nation's children.
In the words of the award presented to the premier,
Saskatchewan was acknowledged for its commitment to investing
in children as a key priority and a co-ordinated approach to policy
development and delivery.
We are very proud of our province, our provincial party and our
provincial premier.
Members may remember that in 1989 a resolution brought
forward by then NDP federal leader Ed Broadbent to eliminate
poverty by the year 2000 was passed unanimously in this House.
Since then 46 per cent more children are living below the poverty
line, a shameful illustration of the failure of this government to act
on one of this country's most critical issues.
In congratulating Premier Romanow and the province of
Saskatchewan, I also encourage the federal government to follow
Saskatchewan's lead and make the elimination of child poverty a
priority and begin that effort today.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
year marks the 25th season for the Canadian forces parachute team,
the Sky Hawks. This team gave an outstanding performance at the
198th Permanent Joint Board on Defence meeting in Trenton.
Indeed everyone was impressed with the show, including the
audience from the United States. I was particularly pleased to see
the Canadian flag on the team's parachutes which symbolizes our
Canadian pride.
The Sky Hawks are an excellent role model for Canada's youth
by demonstrating fitness, teamwork and professionalism. Together
with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the team works to
6852
promote a drug awareness program which encourages a healthy
lifestyle to Canadian youth.
I applaud the Sky Hawks for the excellent 25 years of service
they have provided. They are a great source of pride for Canada.
* * *
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I
rise in this honourable House to recognize Miss Ruth Redmond, a
constituent of Niagara Falls. On December 1, 1996 she will
officially receive the Gabrielle Léger award for her work in
preserving a significant part of the historical Lundy's Lane
Battlefield site.
Miss Redmond was educated at Queen's University and has had
a long and honourable career as a teacher, serving at Stamford
Collegiate in Niagara Falls from 1926 until her retirement in 1967.
Among the many students who considered Miss Redmond a mentor
was Judy LaMarsh, former Liberal member of Parliament for
Niagara Falls and a former federal cabinet minister.
The Gabrielle Léger award, given under the patronage of Madam
Gabrielle Léger, wife of the late Governor General Jules Léger, is
the highest award given by the Heritage Canada Foundation.
I am sure that all in this House will join me today in
congratulating the efforts and the admirable commitment that Miss
Redmond made to future generations by helping to preserve our
past.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in recent weeks we have all heard about the valiant efforts
of search and rescue teams on the Labrador Sea.
I am proud to say that the crew members of the Hercules 311
which rescued a crew member aboard a Danish fishing vessel on
November 12 were dispatched from CFB Greenwood 14th Wing in
my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants. Members of this crew
braved frigid temperatures and blizzard conditions in order to
perform their duties.
I also want to recognize the work of the crew members aboard
the Canadian forces Griffon helicopter that crashed, and their
rescuers who are also from CFB Greenwood 14th Wing, for their
bravery in the face of tremendous adversity.
I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing the
outstanding efforts of all those Canadians involved in search and
rescue operations. They provide a service for which we should all
be thankful.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to say we are profoundly
disturbed by the intransigence of the Israeli Prime Minister. This
week he again defied the Palestinians and the international
community by going to the Jewish settlements on the West Bank to
support their plans for expansion. Such plans are a real time bomb.
Instead of taking serious risks by pursuing a policy of
confrontation, Prime Minister Netanyahu ought to speed up
negotiations relating to the peace process and wind up the talks on
the Israeli withdrawal from Hebron.
We hope that this new episode, which comes after the tunnel in
Jerusalem, will not trigger a new wave of violence. The Canadian
government should openly condemn this behaviour by the Israeli
authorities.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, why
is it that Canadians are forced to put up with the elites of this
country deciding what is good for us? We saw it when the Tories
brought in the GST; people we elected to represent us said: ``We
don't care about your objections. This is good for you and we are
voting for it''.
This Prime Minister has followed that elitist tradition. For
example, he intends to grant one of our provinces distinct society
status even though that would go against the wishes of the majority
of Canadians.
Now in the case of Canadian Airlines we have some of the union
elites taking hefty dues from workers, then arrogantly telling them
that workers are not capable of deciding what is in their own best
interest. The CAW and CUPE members of Canadian Airlines
should be allowed to decide for themselves whether the
restructuring plan is good for them and their families.
The old way of thinking is to have elites tell us what is good for
us. The new way of thinking, the Reform way of thinking, is to give
Canadians more say, be it in the union halls or in the Parliament of
Canada.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
co-op housing in Canada has a long and successful history. This
type of housing has given hundreds of thousands of Canadian
families their only realistic opportunity to buy and own their own
home. In the city of London and in my riding of London-Middle-
6853
sex, co-op housing is the best solution to the housing needs of
many of my constituents.
For many years the federal Government of Canada has played a
vital leadership role in ensuring this important housing option is
available to Canadians. As the provinces of Canada seek to assume
the lead role in the field of housing, it is absolutely necessary that
the federal government retain some involvement. My constituents
feel that consistent and acceptable national standards in co-op
housing will only be assured if the federal government maintains a
presence in this vital field.
The irresponsible attacks on the health care system by the
governments of Alberta and Ontario have caused serious concerns
that the next victim of the right wing slashers will be co-op
housing. This government must never let that happen.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to remind the House that Sunday, December 1 is World
AIDS Day.
It is my hope and also that of all my colleagues in this House that
World AIDS Day will further our awareness of AIDS. I hope in
particular that it will spur our empathy and support for those
suffering from this terrible disease.
I applaud the government's efforts in promoting groundbreaking
research through its national AIDS strategy. With the assistance of
this government initiative, drugs such as lamivudine, or 3TC, have
benefited those who suffer from HIV.
I ask that our government continue its support for this cause and
that it continue to engage in a search for therapy, treatment and
indeed a cure for HIV.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to speak about the great things that are happening in Elliot Lake in
my northern Ontario riding of Algoma. Known as the jewel in the
wilderness, Elliot Lake has undergone an amazing transformation
in the past few years, moving from a city dependent on uranium
mining to one with a diverse economy, a growing population and a
renewed sense of optimism.
Innovative efforts like the ongoing mine decommissioning
research and Elliot Lake's retirement living program, which has
attracted thousands of new residents to the area, have heralded the
dawn of a new day for Elliot Lake.
Due to focused and concerted efforts on the part of Mayor
George Farkouh, Elliot Lake city council and other community
leaders, a number of promising economic diversification initiatives
have been launched which should attract new and promising
enterprises to the area.
We must build upon the successes to date to ensure this positive
trend continues. I call upon both levels of government and the
mining companies which benefited for so many years from
operations in Elliot Lake to continue their commitment to work
with the community to reach its goal of long term economic
stability.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, teachers,
parents and a number of stakeholders met in Ottawa this week to
attend a conference on the children of Canada as the future of this
country. In doing so, these people want to reiterate their
commitment to the children and young people of Quebec and
Canada and promote ways to create a better environment for their
development.
At the same time, an entirely different event is taking place in
Toronto, which also affects children. I am referring to the Canadian
conference on young people as consumers. A major objective of
this conference is to help companies sell their products to young
people.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the position taken by teachers
and parents who object to the philosophy behind this conference.
We condemn this marketing strategy which is targeted to
vulnerable children. We cannot let all the values of our society be
subordinated to the sole concept of profit.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
young girl in my riding was repeatedly sexually assaulted for 90
minutes in a car by Darren Adam Ursel. The terrible things this
animal did to her will not be spoken of by me.
I do want to spend some time telling Canadians the disgraceful
way Judge Harry Boyle handled the case. Judge Boyle sentenced
Ursel to two years less a day conditional sentence, no jail time, and
three years probation.
Judge Boyle sent some clear messages to criminals: in rape cases
the first one is free; in sexual attacks female victims are no better
than the criminals and we should feel sorry for the criminals, not
the victims.
6854
Judge Boyle said that Ursel had no criminal record, was
remorseful and was trying to deal with the situation.
Darren Adam Ursel is on the streets in our community today.
Women should be aware that Judge Harry Boyle put him there.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am always loath to interfere in
statements by members, but we should be very careful not to
directly attack the character of any of our judges and we were
coming very close in that statement.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc member for Rosemont used his parliamentary privileges for
partisan and unauthorized purposes, that is to support separatist
candidates in an election.
He sent 500 letters, at the expense of the House of Commons, to
separatist sympathizers in his riding, and even to a few constituents
in my riding of Saint-Denis. In these letters, the member for
Rosemont invited people to support the candidacy of two
well-known separatist militants for the board of directors of a local
community service centre, the CLSC La Petite Patrie.
[English]
He is not the first Bloc member to do this. His colleague from
Laurier-Sainte-Marie also used public funds to promote his
wife's candidacy during school elections.
[Translation]
Bloc members can attempt to circumvent all the laws and
regulations they want, they will not convince Quebecers of the
soundness of their separatist project by stacking boards of
directors.
* * *
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Japanese federation of economic
organizations, which made a fact-finding trip to Canada this past
September, submitted its report to our Prime Minister.
Let me quote some excerpts from this document. ``Following our
visit, we now wish to inform our business people of the favourable
economic conditions they may find if they invest in Canada.
Canada never provided a more conducive environment for
Japanese investments''.
(1415)
Then, in reference to Quebec's political context, the federation
said: ``The Quebec issue is only a slight concern to us. That being
said, we may be hesitant to invest in that province''.
Generally speaking, we are very pleased with the report. We only
hope that the Government of Quebec will put an end to the
uncertainty generated by its separatist project, so that Quebec can
also benefit from the investments that the Japanese are about to
make in Canada.
_____________________________________________
6854
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Transport made a last minute offer
yesterday evening to save Canadian Airlines from financial
disaster. He is apparently prepared to provide a rebate on fuel taxes.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Could the Minister of
Finance tell us whether the jet fuel tax rebate the Minister of
Transport refers to is just for companies in financial difficulty, as
we first learned?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to
announce that the government has remained consistent with its
message that there will be no bailout of Canadian Airlines. The
government has come forward with a tax rebate program on fuel for
the aviation industry. It will allow carriers which have significant
losses over a number of years to claim rebates against aviation fuel
taxes.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the process is a rather odd one. Usually, the Minister of
Finance announces reductions or increases in taxes. Things seem,
shall I say, a bit in disarray in the government. It was much the
same thing in the case of cigarettes and the Minister of Health, until
the Minister of Finance set him straight. Perhaps he will have to set
his colleague in transport straight. I nevertheless have a question
for the Minister of Finance.
Given how easy it is for a company to post a deficit using certain
accounting practices, would the Minister of Finance not agree that
a program like this, intended solely for companies that show an
operating deficit, might encourage all Canadian airlines to show a
deficit through the use of certain accounting tricks in order to
benefit from a substantial reduction in fuel tax too? Does this
measure make any sense?
6855
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will first address the subject of
procedure that the hon. member raised. When the Minister of
Transport is busy doing his job across the country, and in this case
in British Columbia facilitating discussions on all sides in the
Canadian Airlines dilemma, then it falls to the duty of the
parliamentary secretary to answer the questions in the House of
Commons and I have the privilege to do that.
On the issue of substance in the hon. member's question, it is
important to understand that there are still some details to be
worked out on the aviation fuel tax rebate. Quite frankly that rebate
will only apply if certain conditions are met.
As we have stressed day after day for the last month, there will
be no bailout from the federal government for Canadian Airlines.
The conditions are that the British Columbia government and the
Alberta government come on board. Just yesterday the Minister of
Transport congratulated Premier Ralph Klein for coming on board
on that restructuring plan. Of course the Canadian Airlines family,
that is the company and the union membership have to come on
board. That entails all six unions. Finally, American Airlines and
the creditors to the airline also have to be part of the restructuring
package.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is absolutely incredible that companies showing a
deficit will enjoy a partial reduction in taxes. Is this not
encouraging companies to show a year end deficit, to show they are
in the red, so they can enjoy the government's generosity?
(1420)
Would the Minister of Finance not agree that this makes no sense
and that the solution for the airlines has to be much more thought
out, much more credible-one that could resolve the problem and
not create perhaps another ten more?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government believes that our
two national airlines are of major national significance and
importance. Quite frankly, they are equal.
Maybe I could put it into a better perspective for the leader of the
Bloc. Most of us in the House have children. I have two daughters
and I consider both of them to be equal, but they have individual
and different needs.
In this situation, I find the questions from the opposition
member rather hypocritical because quite frankly they have distinct
needs.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would ask you to please stay away
from terms like hypocritical. They sort of stir up our emotions in
here, and we do not need that.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, we learned that the premier of British Columbia was
in Dallas for a meeting with American Airlines officials to explore
the possibility of American buying a larger share of Canadian
Airlines International.
Did the BC premier receive the assurance of the federal
government that increasing the foreign ownership of Canadian
would not be a problem?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge we are
unaware of the discussion that took place between the Premier
Clark and the president of American Airlines. No foreign
investment discussion has been initiated or requested by Canadian
Airlines to the Minister of Transport.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how can the Minister of Industry regard a merger between
Air Canada and Canadian Airlines as an insult to western Canada
when his own government does not see any problem with American
Airlines taking over Canadian Airlines?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to get into
a dialogue that the hon. member wants to draw us into because we
believe that Canadian is going to become a viable, strong airline in
this country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are pleased to see that the federal government has
indirectly lowered the aviation fuel tax for Canadian Airlines. We
disagree with the way that it has been done, but we do think it is a
step in the right direction. And if it is done, it should save Canadian
about $20 million a year in the short term.
The other stumbling block, as members know, to the
restructuring of Canadian Airlines is that the leadership of the
CAW and CUPE will not let their members vote on the company's
restructuring proposal.
Every Canadian employee should have the basic democratic
right to vote on their own future and the futures of their families.
My question is to the parliamentary secretary. Does the
government agree that Canadian's employees, in particular the
members
6856
of the CAW and CUPE, should be permitted to vote directly on the
company's restructuring proposal?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes we do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are glad to hear that. Flight attendants and ticketing
agents at Canadian are demanding a vote on the company's
restructuring proposals but their own union bosses are refusing to
let them exercise their democratic right.
Buzz Hargrove does not work at Canadian. He does not have a
personal stake in whether the airline succeeds or fails and he does
not appear to care. Canadian employees must have the final say on
their own jobs and the future of their airline.
Since the parliamentary secretary said he agrees the employees
have this right, what specific action is the government taking to
ensure that Canadian's employees will be able to vote directly on
the company's restructuring proposals?
(1425 )
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. leader of the third
party was listening to the same interview as I was listening to this
morning on ``Newsworld''. We probably heard the same thing, that
some of the employees were talking about how they have been
trying to contact their leadership at the Canadian auto workers.
First, the CUPE employees have been told apparently that they
will be able to have their vote on December 7. They believe that is
too late and they would like to get on with the opportunity of voting
tomorrow if possible.
Mr. Hargrove's job is not on the line, according to the employee
on ``Newsworld'' this morning, that he is ignoring the facts, he has
not done the due diligence search on the books of Canadian that the
pilots union and the largest union, the machinists union, have done.
They say that the threat is real. Mr. Hargrove is doing what he is
doing despite the fact that quite apparently his membership wants
the opportunity to have that vote on this restructuring package.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the question is not whether this position is the position of
the employees. My question was what is the government going to
do about it to ensure that their rights are exercised.
There is a section in the Canadian Labour Code, section 108.1,
that authorizes the Minister of Labour to direct that a vote of the
employees be held on a collective bargaining agreement offer by an
employer if it is deemed to be in the public interest.
Surely it is in the public interest that Canadian Airlines
employees be permitted to vote directly on a restructuring
proposal, but that it does not appear to be covered by the code.
We and the employees of Canadian would appreciate a direct
answer to this question. Would the government be willing to
introduce forthwith an amendment authorizing the Minister of
Labour to direct an employee vote on restructuring offers such as
that being put forward by Canadian Airlines to its own employees?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is not regular collective bargaining. Therefore the
section the member refers to in the Labour Code does not apply in
this case.
This is a negotiation between the two parties. Therefore the
Minister of Labour has no authority to intervene. It is up to
management and the unions to decide and find the necessary
procedure to have a vote on this matter.
However, if both parties would like me to intervene, on their
request I would be glad to and I am ready to appoint a mediator so
they can facilitate their negotiations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
We have just learned that the space agency chairman, Mr. Evans,
is claiming monthly rental fees of $1,300 for a luxurious apartment
in Montreal. In addition, Mr. Evans has the use of an official car to
travel between Saint-Hubert and Montreal on a regular basis.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that, while all
employees of the space agency are required to live in Montreal, the
agency chairman does not, although he is provided with a $1,300 a
month apartment at taxpayers' expense?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
true that relocated employees usually have the option of changing
their place of residence. But the Treasury Board manual does
provide for some exceptions on the basis of a number of objective
factors that I would like to outline.
Under section 5.9.1 of the personnel management manual, there
are cases in which employees are required to live outside their
metropolitan or headquarters area for a number of months or years.
The Deputy Minister must consider all aspects of the employee's
situation, including the length of stay, family considerations,
whether the employee rents or owns, to determine if it is practical,
6857
more economical and less disruptive for the family to help the
employee maintain a second residence or to authorize relocation.
In this case, relocation costs would have been much higher than
the rental subsidy.
(1430)
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, why is it then
that all other employees are required to live in Montreal, save one,
a former advisor to the Minister of Industry, namely Mr. Evans,
who receives special compensation? This is outrageous, especially
since Mr. Evans earns between $117,000 and $142,000 a year.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
just said, this is not a special situation. There is a Treasury Board
regulation authorizing the Deputy Minister to make a choice and
determine the employee's conditions of employment.
In this case, not only must the employee work in Ottawa two
days a week, but his spouse works in Ottawa and they have young
children. There is no doubt in my mind that the Treasury Board
policy was properly interpreted and applied.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to follow up on the question from the leader of the
Reform Party to the Minister of Labour which the Minister of
Labour did not answer.
The Reform Party has offered to facilitate the government's
passing amendments immediately and as quickly as possible to
extend the provisions of the Canada Labour Code that allow a
democratic vote of the workers of Canadian on the offer of the
management on the basis of public interest.
There are provisions in the code right now that are too narrow for
that but we would certainly be willing to extend them to these
circumstances. Would the Minister of Labour be prepared to do that
forthwith?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, right now there is a labour code that has been in the county
for over 20 years. I would like to remind the member that we are in
the process of amending the existing legislation which is before the
committee. Therefore we are following the regular process.
Let me remind this House that what we are arguing about is not a
collective bargaining system that we know and that we are trying to
improve. Restructuring a company is a business transaction and
both parties should find a way to reach an agreement without the
government's having to intervene all of the time.
I am surprised that the Reform Party would ask such a question
when not long ago the critic of labour for the Reform Party said that
we should get rid of the Minister of Labour and any labour
department. Now it is asking the Minister of Labour to intervene
right away. Those members should make up their minds.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
we are asking for is for the employees of Canadian Airlines
themselves to be able to intervene in their own future rather than
take the 100 per cent pay cut that some of their union leaders seem
to want them to take.
Does the minister not realize that we have a public and pressing
interest here? We do not have time for the games. The future of the
company and jobs are at stake. We do not have time for a lengthy
mediation. Will he introduce in this House legislation that will
allow the workers to speak on their own economic future?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in case the Reform members did not understand, I will
repeat this is not a collective agreement negotiation. This is a
restructuring business plan. I do not think it is the business of the
government to interfere in the relationship between the
membership of the unions and its leadership. Let the membership
take care of its own leadership problems.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Monday, in the House, I asked the Minister to tell us when the
new employment insurance regulations would be ready and
available. He replied, and I quote: ``I looked, among other things,
at some interpretation documents concerning the act that will
ensure everyone can properly inform beneficiaries in the coming
weeks''.
(1435)
In light of the serious consequences that the new employment
insurance provisions taking effect January 5 can have for
unemployed workers, can the Minister of Human Resources
Development tell us when the regulations will be ready, and
whether they will include transitional measures?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will shortly be making some
very minor administrative changes to the regulations. Now, I would
like to reassure the opposition that these changes will in no way
affect service to our clients and that the regulations will be
6858
communicated to our offices promptly. But the changes are
extremely minor and will not affect service to clients.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
interpretation document the minister has referred to, the following
appears, and I quote: ``For claims effective January 5, 1997 or later,
a minimum of 910 hours of work is required'' to qualify, in other
words, an increase from 26 15-hour weeks to 26 35-hour weeks.
For the average person, this is a huge difference.
On January 5, will the minister enforce the legislation as it
stands, or will there be transitional measures softening the blow for
the average person?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already explained on a
number of occasions in the House that the system was of course
going to come into effect at the beginning of January, as scheduled.
Certain workers will, of course, receive less coverage, but those
working under 15 hours will now be covered.
There are people who, until now, were caught in a cycle-
Mrs. Lalonde: That is not what we are talking about.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Be serious for once.
Mr. Pettigrew: But I am perfectly serious. I do not understand
why the opposition does not want to hear the answer. They are
asking me questions-
Mr. Bellehumeur: That is not what we are asking.
Mr. Pettigrew: The system will take effect at the beginning of
January. Interpretation measures have already been communicated
to our main offices, and I can assure you that things will go very
well.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the finance
minister, who has been the biggest obstacle to anti-tobacco
legislation, has announced a hike in the tobacco taxes. I guess the
finance minister and the health minister have kissed and made up.
Since the finance minister is now on side, where is the health
minister's anti-smoking bill?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am tempted to say very soon. Later this day I will be able to
provide details in terms of the tobacco strategy of the Government
of Canada.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are making
progress. Last week we had a promised announcement; today we
will hear about the strategy.
However, Reform is really interested in legislation. When will
the government bring this legislation in? Is the minister ready to
fast track this legislation so we can get it into law as fast as
possible?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank the hon. member and Reform members for giving
their support to the government to fast track legislation as it relates
to tobacco.
As I said in my first answer, later today I will be able to provide
details of the contents of our strategy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Although the government promised in its red book to attack
poverty, never in the entire history of Canada have we had so many
children living below the poverty level. The government's action in
this area is a miserable failure.
How can the government answer to the citizens of Canada today
for its inaction toward child poverty, when even the Minister of
Health stated the day before yesterday that this government's
actions had not kept pace with its fine words?
(1440)
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would most certainly like to
thank the opposition for its question, since it will give me the
chance to reassure Canadians and to tell them that the first meeting
of federal and provincial social affairs ministers, which was touted
this morning as the most harmonious federal-provincial meeting in
years, specifically addressed the priority we wished to give to
children.
That is what we discussed all day yesterday, and we reached a
certain consensus on solutions. In fact, yesterday the council of
ministers asked some of our officials to prepare options on a
system which would specifically benefit children over the next few
years.
More than ever before, this federation will be making a very
great effort for children in a spirit of co-operation between the
provinces and the Government of Canada.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Yet, Mr. Speaker, the
premier of Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, said yesterday that the
problem would be far less crucial if the federal government had
made fewer cuts in transfer payments to the provinces.
Will the minister admit that the cuts in social transfers have only
increased child poverty, despite what he says?
6859
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate this
somewhat offensive rhetoric, considering the great importance of
child poverty, but this is no laughing matter.
What took place yesterday was a remarkable consensus between
the provinces and the federal government. What we have done
today is serious work, not petty rhetoric. The Government of
Canada has doubled the income supplement for low income
families. We have introduced an employment insurance program
which includes measures to put Canadians back to work faster and
to protect low income recipients with children.
Our government spends $5 billion a year on Canada's children.
That is what we are doing.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Last year the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Tobacco
Products Control Act. With 40,000 Canadians dying prematurely
every year and $3.5 billion in direct health care costs to Canadians,
the toll of tobacco on society is clear.
Can the Minister of Health tell the House when he will bring
forward new legislation to deal with this issue, the health of
Canadians and the tobacco industry?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his question. He has long been an
advocate of new tobacco legislation.
As I said earlier in question period, later this day we will be
providing the details of our tobacco strategy with the provision of
notice for the purpose of tabling the bill. We hope to be able to
table the bill early next week.
* * *
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
We were told when Canada signed the softwood lumber deal
with the United States that it was because the industry wanted it.
However, there is growing evidence that lumber companies are
unhappy with this deal. Many companies are facing bankruptcy
because of inadequate or no quota. Others are facing shutdown and
job losses, all at the same time that the government is realizing
increased taxes through penalties charged on softwood lumber
companies.
When will the government admit it was wrong to accept the
export caps and scrap the softwood lumber deal?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should know that a better rendering of
the history of the agreement on softwood lumber would
demonstrate that it was arrived at through a full, deep and engaging
consultation with all the softwood lumber firms that closed. The
proposals that were put on the table were really a product of the
companies themselves.
(1445 )
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure who the trade minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs
were consulting, but it certainly was not the hundreds of companies
that are feeding information to us that they are in serious trouble
because of this deal.
A recent survey we conducted shows the industry is ready to
fight this case instead of living with the quota system. They want
the government to scrap this deal and if the United States
countervails us, to fight this at the World Trade Organization. Will
the minister commit to that?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no question that the establishment of a quota
system put limits on the amount that could be exported to the
United States; limits that were at historically high levels.
Many of the companies went ahead and used up their full quota
before the year was out. The minister has already put in place a
reserve bank which companies can draw on to increase their
production.
The reality is that the provincial governments that were involved
representing the lumber interests, the companies and the industry
affiliations were all deeply involved in coming up with a plan.
They cannot change their mind half way through the course. They
have to live with the consequences because it was their decision to
make.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we know that the Minister of Human Resources
Development has no compassion for children. I hope he does for
older workers.
The Program for Older Worker Adjustment, funded jointly by
the provinces and the federal government, helps older workers who
are victims of mass layoffs. The federal government has informed
the provinces that POWA will end on March 31, 1977. Ottawa will
accept no new applications, but has agreed to honour its financial
obligations in cases currently being processed.
Knowing that the workers of the Peerless company, considered
eligible for the POWA program by the Canada-Quebec joint
analysis committee, are still awaiting their benefits because Ottawa
is refusing to release the funds, would the minister confirm that
applications made by older workers between the announcement of
6860
the government's withdrawal from this program and March 31,
1997 will be honoured?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow me to first reject the
totally inappropriate introduction by the opposition member on my
lack of compassion for children. I can tell you that yesterday was a
great day for children in Canada and I am delighted to have been
part of it, despite the rhetoric the other side takes such pleasure in.
The federal-provincial program you mention was so successful
that its budget was used up much more quickly than planned. It is
also a fact that not all provinces participated and that certain
provinces do not want us to continue.
I too am concerned about the future of POWA. It is however a
program that will have to be terminated. In the coming years, the
less populous provinces-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister realize that although the Société
québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, the SQDM, has
already set money aside, more than 500 workers currently eligible
for the program will be deprived of benefits because he is not
honouring his financial commitment to POWA? That is the reality.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would the Government of
Quebec like to continue the program? It would be interesting to
find out. What I can say is that up to now only the more populous
provinces have agreed to take part and that the less populous
regions have been put at a disadvantage by the system.
The Government of Canada is trying to find another way to help
older workers, which will be fairer to all regions, because too many
of them are not participating in the system at the moment.
* * *
(1450 )
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
because of the softwood lumber deal negotiated with the United
States, U.S. lumber companies are reaping huge profits from
increased lumber prices. Meanwhile, Canadians are losing sawmill
jobs.
American consumers want this bad deal cancelled because
according to the American National Association of Home Builders,
the deal is costing Americans $3,000 more to build a house.
Canadians want the deal cancelled because mills are forced to shut
down, costing Canadian jobs.
The only group benefiting from this softwood lumber deal is the
American lumber lobby, the same group the government caved in
to during negotiations.
Will the minister take steps to immediately cancel the softwood
lumber deal with the United States?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the prescription offered by the hon. member would create
total chaos and disruption in one of the most important dollar
earning export markets in Canada. It is simply a recommendation
of lunacy.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should listen to my colleagues on this side: 600 jobs in one
riding, 400 jobs in another riding. If chaos is being introduced, he
has introduced it. Cancel the lumber deal. Cancel it now.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I fail to see any germ of a question in the hon. member's
outburst.
However, I remind him that this is a multi-billion dollar industry
which provides hundreds of thousands of jobs. To provide an
orderly arrangement with our largest customer requires us to play
by the rules. We know that the Reform Party is not used to playing
by the rules. They do not even know there are rules.
If we are going to protect the industry and protect the jobs, we
must make sure that the rules are honoured. Those rules were
arrived at in full consultation with the provinces and the industry
involved. That is why we intend to keep the rules in place.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
In his discussions with the provinces regarding the transfer of
labour market training to the provinces, has the minister taken
steps to ensure that the principles of the Official Languages Act
will continue to apply? Does he have an assurance that
francophones outside of Quebec will continue to be able to get their
training in French and anglophones in Quebec to get their training
in English?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the concerns
about official languages generated by the Government of Canada's
proposal for an expanded role for the provinces in the design and
delivery of labour market programs.
I am very confident that the necessary safeguards have been put
in place to ensure the linguistic needs of Canadians will be met
6861
under the new arrangement. Actually, the Employment Insurance
Act provides for: ``the availability of assistance under the benefit
and measures in either official language, where there is significant
demand for that assistance in that language, no matter who delivers
the program''.
[Translation]
So I am fully confident that the current round of negotiations
with the provinces will be a unique opportunity to improve
employment services for Canadians and to deliver labour market
development programs targeted to the needs of Canadians in this
new economy.
* * *
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Last Wednesday, in response to a question about the Singer
company, the minister claimed that lawyers from the department
were engaged in talks and would be reporting to him by the end of
the week. The minister also promised to report to this House.
Clearly the minister spends too much time talking and not enough
time on his files.
Considering that so far, counsel for the retired employees has not
been approached, could the minister now tell us what the
government's position will be in the dispute between the
government and the retired Singer employees?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was given a report
on the Singer company which I have not had time to read yet. In
fact, what I spent too much time doing was discussing child
poverty with the provinces all day yesterday in the council of
federal and provincial ministers, all of which took place in a great
spirit of co-operation.
(1455)
I can assure you that was the situation I talked about all day. Our
department is very active, since the recommendation is on my
desk, and I will look at it within the next few hours.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister confirmed what I just said. He spends his time talking and
does not spend enough time on his files. That is what he does.
This case has been dragging on for years. Three ministers have
succeeded each other in this position in three years, and none of
them bothered to pay any real attention to this case, and the present
minister is no better than his predecessors.
The minister wastes his time moralizing and showing how
compassionate he is, but what explanation does he have for his lack
of consideration towards a group of retired employees who were
given a raw deal and whose average age is 80?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, precisely because I wanted to
spend some time on this case, on the substance of the case.
It has now been seven weeks since I became Minister of Human
Resources Development. We are busy with negotiations on the
transfer of manpower programs, as well as with the social union
and the ministerial council. So when people say I waste my time
talking, they are wrong. When I do say something, it has to be to
the point. That is probably what bothers them. They do not like it
when I talk, because we are working on co-operation.
We have a lot of compassion for the Singer employees, and
because these workers deserve more than pretty speeches, we will
examine the substance of the case.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there was kind of a sordid little deal at work this last week. A
memo was circulated by a private company in Ottawa, MDS Aero
Support Corp., that asks its employees to give over $1,000 each to
the Liberal Party. In return the company would give a bonus to
cover the donation, the employees get their money back, plus a tax
credit from Elections Canada. The company gets to write off the
bonuses as a business expense and the taxpayer gets the shaft.
This has broken in the news. The company has since withdrawn
the offer and returned the cheques.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this type of activity is
unethical and what steps will she take to make sure that this type of
activity is not only unethical but will be illegal in the future?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government in no way supports or condones this type of
scheme. The government was not aware of it before it came into the
press. Revenue Canada has already said it considers this scheme
improper and the company has called it off.
I am advised that amendments to the law are not required
because the law currently says very clearly that this should not be
done.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): The company is
certainly fortunate that it broke in the news if that is the case.
6862
I have spoken to officials in Elections Canada and the elections
act apparently does not prohibit this type of activity. I would like
the minister to consider that.
This type of behaviour is also coercive toward employees. It
forces employees to make a choice. The boss says give donations to
the Liberal Party and it is written between the lines-you can read
it-your future depends on it.
This company received over $1 million in federal contracts. The
president of the corporation paid tens of thousands of dollars to the
Liberal Party. This thing stinks to high heaven and the minister
knows it.
How can the minister make sure that this sort of thing does not
happen and what steps will he take to make sure it will not happen
in the future?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the election expenses provision of the law is administered by
Revenue Canada, as I understand it, when it comes to the matter of
income tax receipts and deductions. I am advised that Revenue
Canada considers the practice in question improper. They intend to
monitor these situations very carefully to help ensure they are not
repeated.
As I have said, I am advised that amendments to the law are not
necessary. It is very clear that this type of scheme is not supported
by the government and Revenue Canada will be following this very
closely.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian children living in poverty need more than the
minister's commitment to have his officials look into possible
solutions to their crises.
Yesterday Saskatchewan's premier, Roy Romanow, called for
immediate federal-provincial action to restore and enrich support
for children that have been eroded by deficit cutting measures.
(1500 )
The premier called for a national plan for children modelled on
Saskatchewan's, which includes reviewing all legislation for its
impact on children, appointing a children's advocate and setting up
local children's centres to provide services in health, nutrition,
child care, abuse prevention and recreation that are now pieced out
to various ministries.
Is the minister, on behalf of the government, prepared to heed the
premier's call?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, the government is presently
answering the needs of children.
Yesterday Mr. Ned Shillington of the Government of
Saskatchewan was part of the ministerial council that identified
children as the priority of our ministerial council's work. I was
extremely pleased with that.
There seems to be a consensus on a national benefit for children.
The government will consider it and I will certainly inform my
colleagues of the ministerial council's evolution in that favour.
We are extremely pleased at the great mood of co-operation
which was a very good start for the ministerial council and I am
proud of its priority on children.
* * *
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
All Canadians are pleased to see some positive developments in
the great lakes region of Africa, notably the presence of General
Baril in Zaire. We are also aware that the minister has participated
in intensive consultations on this subject. Could he please tell the
House the results of those consultations and what Canada can do to
resolve this tragic situation in Africa?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that as of about noon
today we have received indications from over 20 countries that
they are prepared to work with us and support our proposal to
establish a multinational headquarters in Uganda, that we will
undertake a capacity for drops for humanitarian purposes and that
we will continue to work on reconnaissance missions.
That means we have succeeded in establishing a multilateral
mechanism to help in the basic humanitarian needs in that area.
With the kind of commitment we have received, plus the work our
NGOs are doing in the area, the work of our military, the work of
Ambassador Chrétien, Canadians can be very proud that we are in a
position to really help the people of central Africa.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of privilege first.
The Speaker: Did this take place today during question period?
Mr. Duceppe: Yes, I sent a page to inform you.
The Speaker: Well, if it is something that took place during
question period, I recognize the official opposition House leader.
6863
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, during the period for members'
statements, the member for Saint-Denis made some remarks about
me that were inaccurate, accusing me of having used my
householder, and therefore government money, my position and
my budget as an MP to support my wife in a school board election
in Montreal. This is not true.
For one thing, my wife's name has never been mentioned in any
of my householders, and for another, the electoral territory of my
wife, who is a school trustee in Montreal, is completely separate
from my electoral territory. As a result, my householder could not
reach my wife's potential voters. I therefore ask the member to
withdraw her remarks, which are inaccurate.
The Speaker: Was this in a statement?
An hon. member: Yes.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, in a member's statement such as
that, it is sometimes one member's opinion against another's.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
(1505)
The Speaker: I do not wish to start a debate. The hon. member
for Saint-Denis is here. I do not wish to see a debate, so if she
wishes to-
Mr. Bellehumeur: She should apologize.
The Speaker: No? So that is the way it is.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, it will be a free-for-all in here.
The Speaker: I see that, when there are statements, your speaker
cannot always know what is going on everywhere in the country.
We have had a statement by an hon. member and another who says
that this was not correct.
In my opinion, this is something-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: The hon. member has had the chance to correct it,
and I gave him the chance to speak. In my opinion, this is not a
question of privilege.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: In our debates here in the House, there are always
two points of view on almost everything. If the hon. member has
something to add, he may do so very briefly, but this is not a
question of privilege. I am, however, giving him a few seconds.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member maintains what
she has said, let her do it from her seat, for she lied.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Denis made a
statement in the period allotted for Statements by Members. What I
heard of the statement I found to be legitimate. She did not use any
unparliamentary language.
(1510 )
Statements by members are opinions of one member speaking in
the House according to the fact as she knows them. I heard the hon.
member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie saying that the facts were
inexact and of course when one hon. member stands in this place
we take his or her word on the facts.
However, perhaps in my leniency because I want to clear this up,
I made the decision and I have given my decision that it is not a
point of privilege. At that point, the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie rose to his feet and he did use language
which was unparliamentary.
This Speaker does not judge the content of any statements that
are made here, but you have given the responsibility to your
Speaker to decide what language is acceptable and therefore
parliamentary or unparliamentary.
I find that the words ``elle a menti'', ``she lied'', are not
acceptable in this House. I implore the House leader of the Bloc
Quebecois to please withdraw those words ``elle a menti''. The
point was made as to what he wanted to do. I would ask the hon.
member to please withdraw those words.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I will never put up with hypocrisy.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: I address myself directly to you, my colleague,
the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. This is no longer a
question of what one member said or what another member said.
(1515 )
My colleague, we surely do not want to precipitate the crisis
which would prohibit the House from continuing with its work for
the day.
The hon. member suggests it was a personal attack. I will
undertake later on in the day to review the blues to see if it was a
personal attack. In the meantime, my colleague, it is no longer a
question of whether it was a personal attack, what was said and
what was not said, it is a request from your Speaker to withdraw the
words ``elle a menti''.
I would once again ask the hon. member if he would withdraw
those words so that we can get on with the business of the House.
6864
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, in light of your decision to
reconsider the matter, to study the statements made, I withdraw my
words and we shall reconsider our attitude, subsequent to your
decision, in the period for Statements by Members. We shall act as
we feel we should, otherwise we will act like her.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for withdrawing his
words. We are now ready to get down to work.
* * *
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am asking the government what is on its legislative
agenda for the coming days.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
will continue this afternoon with the business already listed.
Tomorrow will be the day allotted for final consideration of the
third reading stage of Bill C-29.
Next week it will be December which means that there are only
two weeks until the date on which this House is scheduled to begin
its year end adjournment. In order to be helpful to the House, I wish
to indicate our priorities for this period.
On Monday at noon the government shall propose concurrence
in a number of notices of way and means. It appears that it will be
necessary for the House to consider again in accordance with
section 47 of the Constitution Act 1982 the resolution regarding the
terms of union with Newfoundland. This will be the subject of
debate on Monday.
Among the bills to be introduced on Monday on the basis of the
notice of ways and means will be the bill regarding sales tax
harmonization. It is our intention to commence debate on second
reading of this bill on Tuesday.
Early next week we expect the report of the finance committee
on its prebudget consultations. As usual we intend to set aside two
days for a prebudget debate.
Those are our three priorities for December. As hon. members
know, there is a long list of 32 bills awaiting consideration,
including 14 bills in committee and nine bills at report stage or at
third reading. Whenever we have the time during the next two
weeks, we will also attempt to make progress on these measures
and we will encourage the committees to attempt to do the same.
I am saying this not as a form of pressure but in order to permit
members to make their plans. As matters now stand, it does not
appear it will be in the public interest for the House and especially
its committees to expect to go from December 13 to February 3
without sitting for legislative work.
(1520 )
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to facilitate
our planning in the Reform Party and to assist the government as
much as we can, my understanding is that the Minister of Health
will be introducing a major piece of legislation on Tuesday, the
tobacco legislation.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to the government
House leader to indicate whether there is any other legislation like
that or major bills yet to be introduced that we are not aware of so
that we can work them into the plans of the House and facilitate
things the best we can.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
intervention. I have nothing further to add other than what I said in
the business statement.
_____________________________________________
6864
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the
Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act;
and of the amendment.
The Speaker: My colleagues, when we broke just before
question period, the hon. member for Medicine Hat had the floor.
There were still a few minutes remaining, but I presume that he has
chosen not to take up those minutes. I am going to go to the next
speaker.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today on Bill C-42.
Before getting to the core of the bill, I would like to say a few
words in response to some of the things that were said earlier today
by members of the Reform Party with respect to the justice agenda
of the government.
It is amazing to me that it does not matter what we are talking
about in the House, but the Reform Party always ends up going
back to the issue of guns. Bill C-68 is one of our stronger law and
order measures. I want to point out that 12 per cent of Canadians
oppose that legislation, which is the exact percentage that support
the Reform Party nationally, according to the latest polls.
The member for Medicine Hat spoke at length about his
perception, or perhaps it was his exaggeration of the way people in
Canada feel about law and order. He suggested that the present
Minister of Justice has not done enough. Let us talk about his
6865
record and about the Liberal record on law and order issues, on safe
homes and safe streets.
Let us talk about the establishment of the National Crime
Prevention Council which was announced in July 1994 by the
Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General. It will work to unify
crime prevention efforts across the country and to provide advice to
both the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General on issues of
law and order, in particular on crime prevention. Crime prevention
is something which in the words of the member for Burlington who
is well versed on these issues will help us prevent there being
further victims in our country.
Bill C-68 on gun control, Reform's favourite, strengthens our
gun control legislation. It provides for stiff four-year mandatory
minimum sentences for the use of a firearm during the commission
of a violent crime.
Really, that is what this is all about. It is about guns. With these
boys, it is always about guns.
Bill C-37, the Young Offenders Act. Reform opposed this one
too. It establishes tougher sentencing for violent young offenders
while encouraging the rehabilitation of young offenders and
discouraging the use of prison sentences for non-violent crimes,
something Reformers talk about a lot but voted against.
Bill C-41, sentencing reform, is something that really gets them.
This one includes principles and approaches to sentencing that
consider public safety, the needs of the victims-where have we
heard that before-for restitution, principles that serious offenders
should be treated differently than minor first time offenders.
Because it seeks to protect people that the Reform Party does not
want to protect, because of the inclusion of those two little words
``sexual orientation'', Reformers voted against the whole thing.
(1525)
Bill C-104 concerns forensic DNA analysis. This improves the
investigative tools available to police by clarifying circumstances
for which a judge may issue a warrant allowing police and peace
officers to obtain bodily samples for forensic DNA analysis. This
bill has already done good in terms of criminal investigations in
our country.
Bill C-72 amends the Criminal Code so that people remain
accountable for violent acts committed while they are intoxicated.
There is the self-defence review. On October 4, 1995 the
Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice announced the
appointment of Madam Justice Lynn Ratushny to lead a review of
cases involving women convicted of killing their abusive partners,
spouses or guardians.
Bill C-9 re-establishes the Law Reform Commission.
Bill C-16, the contraventions act, increases efficiency in the
justice system.
Bill C-33 is the Canadian Human Rights Act amendment. Of
course Reformers are opposed to that one too. One might ask this
question of them: By giving rights to others, how could that
possibly diminish any rights that they have? But they do not care
because there are those words ``sexual orientation'' again and off
they go.
Bill C-17 contains Criminal Code improvements and they are
opposed to that. Every attorney general in this country wants Bill
C-17. It modernizes the Criminal Code. They need it to help them
in law enforcement, but the Reform Party thinks it is important for
us not to take advice from attorneys general and instead to cram
unworkable and ridiculous procedures down their throats.
Bill C-25, the regulations act, will be reported in the House
tomorrow. It reforms and updates the regulatory process to make it
more efficient.
Bill C-27 concerns child prostitution, child sex tourism, criminal
harassment and female genital mutilation. It amends the code to
make sure that those who commit certain violent acts against
women and children face tougher penalties.
There are also Bill C-41, child support; Bill C-45, the judicial
review of parole ineligibility; Bill C-46, production of records in
sexual offence proceedings; and Bill C-55, the high risk offenders
legislation.
If that is not enough, there were a few things that we did which
were not even in the red book or that were not promised. We
launched a national flagging system as part of the Canadian Police
Information Centre to help crown attorneys deal more effectively
with high risk offenders at the time of prosecution. We established
an anti-smuggling strategy to combat illegal trade in tobacco,
firearms and alcohol. We continue to implement the war crimes
strategy announced in January 1995. We expanded efforts to fight
organized crime by seizure and forfeiture of assets and provisions
against money laundering, and on and on and on.
Never, I would venture to guess in the history of our country, has
there been a more prolific Minister of Justice. Never has there been
a government so closely aligned with concern for Canadians and
for their safety.
This morning the member for Medicine Hat went out of his way
to reinforce what Reform hammers home and that is the scare
tactics, the irresponsible creation out of the air of statistics that are
not valid. Crime has not increased. Youth crime has not gone up.
Mr. Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask about the Reform scare tactics and what part of Bill C-42 does
that fit into.
6866
The Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. member
for Windsor-St. Clair.
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, the boys are restless today. In any
event, let us get down to the nub of this. The nub of this is that we
have responded to Canadian concerns. The 12 per cent solution is
unable to respond to those concerns. What do they do? They stir it
up and they let it go.
(1530)
They do that in debate on a bill which is of very great
importance. They say it is not important to ordinary Canadians.
However, in my riding there are many ordinary Canadians who talk
to me on the weekend when I am home and who call my office.
They were concerned about what was going on in the former
Yugoslavia. They were concerned about what is happening in
Africa. They want Canada to participate. They want Canada to do
something to make things better. One of the things we can do is
contribute the time and the resources of a wonderful Canadian
jurist to prosecute for the international war crimes tribunal.
There is a tradition and I am often able to find it linked directly
to my home community of Windsor, Ontario. In the fifties,
following the second world war, a gentleman by the name of Bruce
J.F. Macdonald, who was then a crown attorney and who
subsequently became a judge of the court of the County of Essex,
as it was then, became one of Canada's prosecutors at Nuremberg.
As a result, many Canadians who live in Windsor have a great
interest in this. We hear about it from time to time.
One of my constituents has just completed scholarly work, a
book, on the history of Canadian involvement in war crimes
prosecutions.
The Hon. Madam Justice Louise Arbour of the Ontario Court of
Appeal is not someone we have foisted upon the international
court. She was chosen by the secretary general of the United
Nations, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as a result of a
recommendation from the outgoing prosecutor, Mr. Justice Richard
Goldstone of South Africa. She was the first choice of the UN for
the position of chief prosecutor.
This does not in any way take away from her ability to continue
as a judge in our court of appeal in Ontario when she returns. In
fact, I would dare say that the legal community of Ontario and the
citizens of Ontario would be well served by having a woman on the
bench who will be a heroic figure as a result of her work with the
United Nations. She will be a heroic figure who will return to sit on
the bench of the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The position that the Reform Party is taking on this bill
diminishes her. It is a terrible shame. This woman is honourable.
She is distinguished. She is learned in the law. We in Ontario
should be and are very proud of her. The fact that she has been
asked to assist the world community in a very difficult, high profile
task with the international war crimes tribunal is a great honour to
us.
For the Reform Party to take the position which is has is
shortsighted and obstructionist.
This bill is a small part of the justice agenda of the government.
However, it reaches beyond our borders. It is important for the
Canadian people to understand and recognize our stature in the
international community. It is particularly important that we be
allowed to serve, as a country, our friends around the world.
World peace is a very important and precious commodity. This is
one small way in which Canada can yet again contribute to a
desirable end.
I would like to suggest that the comments of the hon. member for
Medicine Hat, in view of the so-called fresh start that the Reform
Party is proposing, were unfair to the Minister of Justice, in
particular, but in general they were unfair to the government.
Making and keeping our streets safe is a very important goal. It
takes more than rhetoric to do that.
(1535)
At a recent address in Toronto, the Minister of Justice said that it
takes more than just statutes written in a book on a shelf
somewhere in Ottawa. That is insightful. It takes a lot more than
that. So while the Reform Party is busy criticizing the government
for what it considers to be our inaction in matters of justice,
perhaps its members should take a look at their own proposals.
Community safety has to do with the health of those
communities and the health of those communities has to do with
their levels of economic development and with the type of social
safety net those communities have.
We are struggling hard in this government to deal with the deficit
which we almost have licked. We are struggling hard to put the
country's finances back in order. We are struggling hard to do all
these things so that Canada will remain strong, so we will have
economic development and jobs, so we will have a good social
safety net and so we will have a safe place for our children to grow
up in.
I do not believe that giving people a tax rebate that they do not
want and that they are not asking for is the way to do that. Our
government's approach is a much healthier, much better organized
and much more insightful approach to the problems of Canadian
society.
But we do not do anybody any good when we get up in the House
of Commons and rant and rave about bars on windows, locks on
doors and people cowering in their houses. That is not the normal
state of being in our country. The Reform Party knows that and
Canadians know that. We do not serve them well by suggesting that
crime is out of control or beyond the control of our law
enforcement agencies. We do not do our citizens any good by
simply pandering to the basest fears of citizens who are being
misinformed
6867
by politicians who are simply exploiting their fears. We do not do
any good when we do that.
As a government we have to do what the justice committee is
doing with respect to youth justice, for example. We have to go out
there and we have to find out what is going on. When we define the
problem and we see what is going on and we see the state of things,
then we have to look to those who are involved in the area, to
parents, to children who are at risk and who are in trouble with the
law, to teachers, to educators, to social workers, to crown attorneys,
to police officers and others. We have to go to them and ask them
what we have done that is not working. We have to ask them what
we can do that will work and what we need to do more of.
I look at the six point plan of the Reform Party. Point number
four has to do with making our streets safe again. How do
Reformers want to do that? They want to eliminate the Young
Offenders Act. There are certain linkages in society. It is very
shortsighted to think there is a quick fix. In the Reform lexicon,
first they tell people there is more crime and then they tell people
that they will have capital punishment to deal with it.
There is a lot that goes between the commission of the crime and
the final result. There is an awful lot that goes before the
commission of the crime. That is what we have to deal with, crime
prevention.
Instead of going on and on about Bill C-42, instead of trying to
take up the House's time and the government's time with a bill that
simply allows Canada to be honoured on the international stage by
having one of our leading jurists go to Europe to prosecute war
criminals, instead of worrying about that, why do we not talk a
little about what we can do for our children who are at risk to
offend, about what misery they are living in, what problems they
are having that are putting them in harm's way? Why do we not
work on trying to fix that? Why do we not work on trying to find
more jobs for Canadians?
(1540 )
Why do we not stop worrying about tax cuts and worry about
how we are going to get jobs for those parents so that their children
can grow up in safe, economically healthy and emotionally healthy
surroundings? These are the important issues that are troubling
Canadians.
On the issue of ordinary Canadians, I would like to point out that
the House of Commons, quite frankly, is full of wonderful and
devoted people on all sides of the House who are ordinary
Canadians who have been called to an extraordinary calling and
most of whom do a very good job at it. We do represent the views
of ordinary Canadians and we represent them very well. Ordinary
Canadians put us and our policies here and asked us to follow our
agenda.
When it comes to the justice agenda, we have done what we
promised. We have delivered on our promises and in a reasonable
and productive way which finds a balance between the rights of
Canadians who are before the courts and the rights of Canadians
who have suffered. We try to take care of our people because that is
what we were elected to do. As good Liberals, I would suggest we
are meeting those obligations and our promises to the people of
Canada.
If along the way a wonderful circumstance arises for our country,
a circumstance which allows us to take one of the most prominent
jurists in our country and place her in a position of international
importance and responsibility, who are we to stand in the way of
that? Who are we to fuss over that wonderful prospect for our
country?
Madam Justice Arbour is serving Canadians and the citizens of
the world. We should be proud of her and help her do that.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
couple of quick questions.
I assume the member is a lawyer, which is not too important, but
if she is maybe should would understand the definition better than I
would. It is my understanding that orders in council were brought
into this House for the purpose of emergency decisions, things that
come up that are really of emergent nature, like during wartime
giving ministers the authority to do certain things that were
required because of a very emergent type situation. It has been my
understanding and it has been confirmed by other politicians from
the past that orders in council were not to be used as they were in
Bill C-42.
I think what is in question is that the orders in council were in
direct violation of the Judges Act. Since it is in violation of the
Judges Act should it not be debated and questioned? We certainly
would not want orders in council to start being abused. We know
that possibility exists and that is what we do not want to happen.
Second, could the member explain to me why the numbers in the
victims' groups such as CAVEAT, CRY, MADD, FACT, et cetera
are growing by the hundreds? They are demanding more and more
each day that we do something about the problems. If things are so
rosy, could the member explain to me why the membership in these
victims' groups is growing steady and why we have millions of
signatures on petitions that have been tabled in this House
demanding that we do something about the crime in this country?
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest that things were rosy
or that the numbers were rosy. What I suggested was that the
Reform Party speakers who have gone before me on this debate,
one in particular, the member for Medicine Hat, have exaggerated
the state of the Canadian psyche in terms of their fears. Quite
frankly, politicians, journalists, commentators and others who do
6868
that are pandering to fear and attempting to create in the minds of
Canadians a false impression.
(1545 )
Victims groups have come to the government on many occasions
and on many bills. In fact I have met with a great many victims
organizations and not part of organizations, in my riding and in my
capacity as a member of Parliament and a member of the justice
committee.
What is important in dealing with these groups is that we have a
full and frank discussion and that we then work toward helping
them. What is equally important is to work to prevent crime so that
there are fewer victims. On the issue of victims, the government
has a good and a steady record of listening, of consulting and of
dealing with their concerns.
On the issue of orders in council I am afraid I am not clear on
what the hon. member was alluding to, but I would like to suggest it
is important for us to get on with Bill C-42. It is important for us to
let Madam Justice Arbour know that she has the support of
Canadians in the very important work that she is doing.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
ask the hon. member a couple of questions.
In her speech she said it was important to get on with this and to
pass Bill C-42 because it is important to get on with fighting crime.
There are all kinds of crime: white collar crime; violent crime;
embezzlement; forgery, you name it. The Criminal Code is inches
thick.
What concerns Reform is that on October 7, when the Minister
of Justice was before a Senate committee he said, and I am
paraphrasing: ``There is no provision in the Judges Act for Madam
Justice Louise Arbour to accept this appointment with the United
Nations''. Madam Justice Louise Arbour is already over in the
Hague working in this new position. It conflicts with the Judges
Act and it conflicts with the minister's actual words. Yet at the
same time he puts through an order in council which states that the
whole thing is legitimate. Hence, the Reform Party is asking these
questions, I believe quite legitimately. I would like to hear the
member's comments on that.
Second, she says the justice committee is working hard and
doing its job well. We know full well that the hon. member for Wild
Rose had to come into the House to get the chairman of the justice
committee-the member in question-to do the job that she is
supposed to do as chairman of the committee, which is to listen to
the Reform members who want to make motions.
Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that the Reform Party's position was
perfectly correct. We had the opportunity to make these motions
which were ruled out of order by this particular member, who is the
chairman of the justice committee. I do not feel that is doing the
work in the justice committee.
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, on the first question let me quote
precisely what the Minister of Justice said. He did not say what the
hon. member for St. Albert has suggested. In fact, he said: ``There
is no provision in the Judges Act for a federally appointed judge
such as Madam Justice Arbour to be granted a leave of absence
without pay to work for an international organization such as the
United Nations. Nor does the act permit the salary and expenses of
a judge during a period of leave to be paid by any organization or
entity other than the Government of Canada, or in the case of
expenses by the government of a province''.
His point was this. The amendments contained in Bill C-42
which have the full support of the chief justice of Canada and the
judicial council would permit this type of arrangement to be
entered into by Madam Justice Arbour.
(1550 )
The issue is not whether she can work, the issue is whether she
can legally be paid by the United Nations to do so. It is a
technicality to allow Canada once again, I repeat, to be honoured in
the international forum by having one of our leading jurists conduct
a very important function.
With respect to the other matter, unlike the Reform Party, as
chair of the justice committee I am prepared to make a ruling, to
stand by that ruling and to await the word of the Speaker. The
Speaker has spoken on the motion, not exactly the way the hon.
member has suggested. I was pleased to have his advice and I am
pleased to abide by that ruling.
_____________________________________________
6868
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that a
communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
November 28, 1996
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable John Major, Puisne Judge of
the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will
proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 28th day of November, 1996, at 6 p.m., for
the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth,
Deputy Secretary,
Policy Program and Protocol
6869
6869
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the
Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act;
and of the amendment.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-42.
The member for Windsor-St. Clair tried desperately in her
speech to twist Reform's position with respect to this bill by
implying that we were criticizing Madam Justice Louise Arbour.
We are not. We are criticizing the process that is being used by the
government to deal with this matter.
She also tried to take credit for a number of bills for which she
read out the numbers, bills that achieved certain things in the
justice area. Most of these bills would never have been presented if
there had not been a Reform presence in this place. Most of those
bills did not go even a fraction as far as the people of Canada would
have liked them to go.
The one that was really outstanding and which she tried to take
complete credit for from the Liberal perspective was Bill C-102,
the DNA bill. The fact is it was the member for Wild Rose who
initiated that bill. Everyone will remember that right here in the
House during question period he manoeuvred the Minister of
Justice into giving a commitment to deal with the bill within a
48-hour period. It is the member for Wild Rose who deserves
congratulations for that. It was a fantastic bill.
The very first case which was solved using that bill was in my
riding of North Vancouver. I am certainly one person, and my
constituents are a whole group of people who are very grateful to
the member for Wild Rose for having initiated that bill.
Another thing the member for Windsor-St. Clair said that
really needs correction is that Reform would introduce capital
punishment. How many times do we have to say this to get it
through to these Liberal members who obviously have some
hearing impairment? It is Reform's position that we would put the
question of capital punishment to the people of Canada directly in
the form of a binding referendum.
I suspect that the member for Windsor-St. Clair knows what
the outcome would be. The fact is there is no Reform policy on
capital punishment per se, but there is a Reform policy on giving
the people of Canada the right to decide. If the outcome was that
the people of Canada wanted the return of capital punishment, I am
sure it would be terribly distressing to the member for
Windsor-St. Clair who seems to think that she knows better than
the people of Canada how to handle justice issues. I can understand
why she would be upset at Reform policy, but I would not want
anybody out there to get the wrong impression about what Reform
policy is on capital punishment.
(1555)
As the member for Wild Rose mentioned, the membership in
victims groups is growing by leaps and bounds. It is just exploding
because of the lack of action on things like the Young Offenders
Act. The member could not possibly tell me with a straight face
that she does not still receive lots of letters and phone calls
complaining about the Young Offenders Act.
The fact is that the twiddling with the edges of it that occurred in
this House, compliments of the justice minister, were ineffective.
They just made it worse. They have not done anything to deal with
the real problems in that act.
Finally, in dealing with items that were raised by the member in
her speech, when she talked about prevention of crime, I gave a
speech in this House a couple of months ago where I gave detailed
statistics from the Institute of Justice, statistics which indicated
quite clearly from the United States that states which had higher
incarceration rates had lower rates of crime. The estimate was that
over a 20-year period there were tens of thousands of rapes
prevented by having repeat rapists locked in jail. Hundreds of
thousands of burglaries and robberies were prevented by having
known robbers and burglars kept in jail.
A component of crime prevention is recognizing the people you
are not going to rehabilitate and protecting society from those
people. If we could get it through the heads on the other side of this
House to start looking at that, we would not have these ridiculous,
idiotic decisions coming out of immigration and refugee boards,
coming from judges across this country that are just letting all sorts
of criminals run free in our environment. Most Canadians are fed
up to the hilt with it and they just wish we could get on with
protecting society.
The motion which is being debated is an amendment to Bill C-42
introduced by the government through the other place. It removed
the section dealing with a new public policy allowing judges to
accept international assignments. The government replaced it with
a specific exemption to the Judges Act to allow Madam Justice
Louise Arbour to accept a position at the UN as a prosecutor for
international war crimes at the Hague.
It is interesting that the Senate made this amendment and sent it
back. I have been quite surprised at the amount of involvement of
the other place in the activities of this House over the last couple of
6870
years. They have modified and sent back items to this place a
number of times.
It has been Reform policy for a long time that the other place
needs an overhaul. It needs to be made elected, equal and effective.
It is actually quite impressive that there has been some sober
second thought. Some material has been sent back here. I am
actually quite impressed in some ways.
There is an interesting little twist which has to do with that place
which comes out of something that took place in this House on
December 7 last year when the justice minister announced that
B.C. would henceforth be considered as a fifth region in the
country on a par with the prairies, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic
Canada. A journalist in the Vancouver area, Barbara Yaffe, wrote a
piece about this and it was quite interesting.
A problem has been created as a result of that and it really has
not had much exposure in the House. The B.C. Liberal members
have been fretting about it. I guess they were hoping that it would
never come to public notice but it has. If B.C. is a fifth region, why
does it not have an appropriate share of the Senators?
Historically each of Canada's four regions were accorded 24
Senators. As a result of being lumped in with the prairies in the
previous four regions model, B.C. has only six Senators. As a fifth
and separate region, surely its Senate numbers should be adjusted
up to 24 or at the very least have the rest of the other place adjusted
downward in numbers so that proportionately it is back in balance.
That is a very interesting idea. It could really have an effect on
the type of actions that are taken by that other place in returning
bills like this Bill C-42 with amendments and degrees of sober
second thought for us to reconsider in this place. That would be a
major improvement for the other place. I hope it has not been too
embarrassing to have brought that up in the House today for
consideration.
(1600)
Returning to Bill C-42 specifically, we have been very
distressed, as a number of members have mentioned, that time
allocation has been moved on the bill. The number of times that
time allocation has been moved over the past few months is very
distressing. If memory serves me right, time allocation has been
used by this government more often than by the Mulroney Tories.
After all the hoopla in the red book about how democratic this
place was going to be, it has actually turned out to be a complete
disgrace.
Mr. Benoit: Worse.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Worse, as my colleague says.
Much, much worse.
One of their own members has spoken out publicly about how
bad it has become. On August 9, 1996 at a meeting of the Rotary
Club of Toronto, the York South-Weston Liberal MP gave a
speech which he titled: ``Honesty, Ethics and Accountability: Does
it exist in Canada's political system?'' He spoke about all sorts of
things, including closure. He talked about how MPs, in order to
advance in the power structure of this place, usually have to
sacrifice the public interest to their own ambitions.
We have a situation where members of the government will vote
for closure or time allocation because they are afraid that if they do
not, there will be some sort of punishment coming down the pipe.
Yet they know in their hearts there should be more discussion on
issues such as this one which has come back from the Senate.
The member for York South-Weston said in his speech: ``The
real power, the ability to influence, is concentrated in the office of
the leader of each of the parties. It is most pronounced in the case
of the government, where the power is in the Prime Minister's
office, or the PMO as it is known. Surprising as this may sound, in
fact, this country is run by half a dozen people, half of whom are
unelected. This may not be something that Canadians realize, but it
is something they should be extremely concerned about. These
unelected officials have a tremendous influence over public policy
and the careers of individual MPs. They determine who is rewarded
and who is punished, and with that control they have the real
influence, and with that influence they have the real power''.
That says a lot about the types of processes that take place in the
House which lead to closure on a very important issue like this one.
We are not criticizing the individual justice who has been
honoured with a request that she go to the United Nations to work
on a special tribunal. That really is not the point. The point is the
way the government has handled this issue which could potentially
place a judge in a conflict of interest position upon her return to
Canada.
Time allocation and closure are not the only problems we have in
this place. There are other problems which impinge upon the
ability to properly function democratically and to discuss these
issues in a fair and honest manner. One of those issues was brought
up by my colleague, who mentioned that he had to go to you, Mr.
Speaker, for a ruling as to whether he was free to speak in a
committee of this House.
There are serious problems with the committee structure. In fact,
the member for York South-Weston in his speech to the Rotary
Club of Toronto, in talking about chairs of committees said:
``Committee chairs should be elected by their peers as opposed to
the present soviet style system. Elections for chairmen are
currently a farce. The PMO selects a person and government MPs
go through a phoney ritual to vote for the PMO choice''.
6871
That was certainly borne out by my observation of the system.
For example, in September not only did the Vancouver area
Liberal MPs vote for the PMO choices for chairs, but they also
voted for members of the Bloc to be the vice-chairs. They voted
for separatists. We know they are controlled by the PMO. That
is very clear.
(1605 )
As the member for York South-Weston said as he closed his
speech that day: ``Restoring real power to individual MPs will ease
cynicism and restore confidence in our system of government
because it will make every single voter more powerful. By
reforming the parliamentary system, the current concentration of
power will naturally break down and that will, in my opinion, be a
large step in the right direction''.
That is very telling. It is a shame to hear today that the Liberal
government has intervened to disband the riding association of the
member for York South-Weston, to impose its Liberal bagmen
appointed riding association to remove from nomination a member
who chose to represent his constituents. It is a disgrace that we
have to bring that sort of thing to the notice of the public. It should
not be happening. Individual MPs in this place should have a great
deal more power.
It extends so far into everything we do. I had a complaint from
the Canadian Plywood Association in my riding. A market access
subsidy in plywood is provided to eastern based manufacturers but
has been discontinued for western manufacturers. Where is the
fairness in that? These things are mostly done for political reasons.
It makes people very upset in the west that they are constantly left
out of decisions or are treated very shoddily. Certainly the
Canadian Plywood Association is very upset by that decision. I was
asked to mention that in the House so I am pleased I was able to
bring it into my speech today.
Bill C-42 in allowing the appointment of a judge to the UN to
work on a tribunal on war crimes really relates to the whole area of
justice. We have heard several Reform MPs talk about how the
justice system has deteriorated here in Canada and what a disgrace
it is. I certainly have had my share of problems with illegal refugee
claimants in my riding who continually commit crimes so they can
use the system to stay in Canada.
There is quite a dramatic case in my riding. I will quote from
another local columnist who states:
If you are caught doing something naughty, like forging and selling passports,
make sure you come up before B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Patrick
Dohm, who is full of the milk of human kindness.
The judge sentenced an Iranian passport expert to all of three months, to be served
at home with an electronic beeper.
The maximum sentence for forging passports is 14 years. What
does Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm do? He gives him three
months at home with an electronic beeper. What an excellent
opportunity for a home based business. The man was working from
home in the first place, no taxes to pay, no business licence and no
GST returns. It is a wonderful home based business facilitated by a
decision of an associate chief justice. Is it any wonder that people
are disturbed with the way our justice system has gone when they
hear that sort of thing.
The considerate court went on to say that the offender, Mr.
Ashrafinia, was just a spoke in the wheel of a larger passport
forgery operation. Now I ask, does being a spoke in the wheel mean
that there is no responsibility and he should only get three months
for forging passports? This man was charging $1,200 and $1,500
per passport. It sounds like a pretty profitable enterprise, especially
since there is no GST or taxes to pay. Anyway, we should probably
bring out the violins because the lawyer complained. He said that
jail time for his client would be a hardship because he does not hear
very well. There it is.
I am also quoted in this article as saying that I hope that we never
start electing our judges because elected judges would probably
begin reflecting community values and that associate chief justice
would then have to start handing out the sorts of prison terms we
would expect for that sort of disgraceful conduct.
In fact, if this House would pass my private member's bill
dealing with the Immigration Act, we could deport these people in
lieu of a sentence. We could get rid of them right out of the country
without having to worry about years and years of Immigration and
Refugee Board appeals, all sorts of nonsense that just drags the
system on and on and on.
(1610 )
The member who spoke before me said that the Reform Party
uses scare tactics to get people upset. The fact is the newspapers are
full of this stuff. I have here a folder which is full of pages and
pages about the disgrace of our justice system. It goes on day after
day after day.
In the Vancouver Sun of Friday, October 25: ``Deportation of
Ontario drug dealer overturned as unfair''. It is unfair to deport a
drug dealer. The article states:
A federal judge has overturned the deportation of a convicted drug dealer, dealing
a blow to a controversial law allowing some people to be deported without a hearing.
Justice Barbara Reed, of Federal Court of Canada, ruled it was unfair to deport
Jeffrey Hugh Williams because the law did not require he be told why he was
considered a danger to the Canadian public.
Tell me, does a convicted drug dealer need to be told why he is a
danger to the public? My goodness, to the Liberals opposite,
obviously he does. So we are stuck with him and he is released out
into the public again to do it all over again. Mr. Williams is a
6872
34-year old who came to Canada from Jamaica when he was nine.
He was sentenced to a four-year prison term in 1992 for possession
of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.
I had another case in my riding. It took me five years working
prior to my being an MP and as an MP to get rid of a convicted
home invader and heroin trafficker in my riding. The Immigration
and Refugee Board after he had been convicted of home invasion
and imprisoned-home invasion is something that Canadians never
even thought about 10 years ago and here we have home invasions
going on.
Anybody who lives in the Vancouver area knows that home
invasions have become something that we read about fairly
regularly in the newspapers. If the member who spoke before me
thinks there is not a problem, she should live in Vancouver for a
little while.
This man was locked up for home invasion. The Immigration
and Refugee Board listened to his appeal hearing on the deportation
order and said: ``He feels so remorseful about it, he is really not a
bad person. We will give him another chance''. Within three
months he was on the streets again dealing drugs.
The IRB is so naive it should be disbanded right away. All of this
relates right back to the whole way that this government
approaches things. It brings closure on very important justice bills
and forces us into having to deal with all these issues in just a
matter of hours.
Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the member for Windsor-St. Clair, who I can say is
probably the worst chairperson of a justice committee that I have
ever seen, was really self-serving and over the top in the defence of
the Liberal justice agenda. She went on to talk about the Reform
Party opposing merely for the sake of opposing.
We say three things about our role in this House. First we have a
duty as an opposition party to hold the government to account and
test the veracity and merit of what it brings forward in legislation
and how it delivers its governance. Second, we desire to
compliment the government when it goes in the right direction.
Third, if we heavily criticize, we must be prepared to present
thorough and realistic alternatives on the table for all to examine.
We are doing this specifically with Bill C-42. I have in my hand
the Order Paper which contains the specific amendments we have
brought in which would make this bill acceptable to our party. I
would like the member to talk about the unacceptable approach the
government has taken and also to highlight the solutions we have
brought to this House to be voted on that would find Bill C-42
acceptable to us.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, that was a
great comment about the committee process that was raised by the
member and also questions on what we would do in bills like this
one. I would like to treat that in a general sense because I have
experienced similar sorts of problems. He talks about the justice
committee and how bad that chairperson was.
(1615)
I was on a subcommittee dealing with Bill C-25. We had a whole
day of hearings supposedly set aside and what happens? The
Liberal majority passed a whole bunch of clauses in that bill. I
think it was clauses 26 to 109 or 119 in one batch. Just one lump
sum. The whole thing.
How can you deal with a very complicated technical bill or very
complex justice bills by passing 70, 80, 90 clauses in one batch?
The only reason it happens is because in that committee we were
told absolutely, distinctly they would not tolerate any substantive
amendments.
That is the sort of abusive process that goes on behind the scenes
in this place. It is this kind of abusive process that raises the sort of
comment that was just mentioned by my colleague for New
Westminster-Burnaby, the whole issue of chairmanship of
committees, what happens there and our inability to introduce
meaningful amendments.
For example, we had a number of amendments to Bill C-42. The
hon. member for Crowfoot, seconded by the hon. member for St.
Albert, put forward an amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that'' and
substituting the following: ``a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their
Honours that this House disagrees with the amendment 1 made by the Senate to Bill
C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to
another act, and that this House agrees with the principle set out in amendment 2, but
would propose the following amendments:
(a) insert the words ``for a period not to exceed three years'' after the words ``judicial
duties'' in section 56.1(1);
(b) strike out all the lines in section 56.1(2) and substitute the following:
``If Madam Justice Arbour elects to take leave pursuant to section 56.1(1) she may
receive moving or transportation expenses and reasonable travel and other
expenses, in connection with her services as Prosecutor, from the United Nations''.
(c) add the following words to section 56.1(3):
``notwithstanding any prohibition against accepting any salary fee, remuneration or
other emolument described in section 57'';
(d) add the following words to section 56.1(5):
``and that benefits payable under these sections will be paid or will commence to be
paid at the expiration of the leave of absence without pay''.''
Even if people were not able to follow that closely because they
did not have the bill before them, I think that everyone would be
able to tell that a lot of thought went into the wording of that
amendment. It is substantive. There is a lot of meat to discuss and
we really should have extensive discussion of that in the House.
Instead of that we get these things rammed through. We get
6873
closure, we get committees shutting us down and it really is
unacceptable.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to have the hon. member comment on something that I
talked about in the House earlier today. It is a conversation I
overheard between my 17-year-old sons. They were talking one
night while doing their social studies homework. They study
Canadian government. They were discussing some things about the
Canadian government which clearly are not democratic.
One of my sons in commenting to the other said: ``Really, what it
seems to me we have in this country is a Prime Minister who is
pretty much fairly elected''. I could not have put it better myself. I
was so proud of them, their teacher and their fellow students for
having come to that conclusion. I believe that really reflects the
system that we have in this country.
We have seen closure used so many times routinely. Orders in
council are used instead of bringing issues before the House. We
have heard of the Prime Minister threatening Liberal MPs that if
they do not toe the party line they will not be running as Liberals
again. This was done publicly as I am sure it is done privately.
(1620)
Could this member comment on my son's evaluation of
government in Canada?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, I can best
handle my total agreement by reading a short quote from the
speech given by the Liberal member for York South-Weston to
the Rotary Club of Toronto on August 9: ``The whip's role is to tell
people when and how to vote.'' It is a sad reflection on our system
of government when people, presumably intelligent people, have to
be whipped into voting a certain way. It is also contrary to the
public interest and it feeds the cynicism and almost contempt that
Canadians have for their elected representatives. ``The notion of
disciplining reasonably intelligent adults who were given the trust
of their constituents is a practice that Canadians reject. If the leader
cannot count on the majority of members of his own team to
support a particular policy based on its merits, obviously there is
something wrong with it.
``Allowing free votes on every issue would show true leadership
in this country, whether it is the leader of the government or of any
of the opposition parties''.
That answers perfectly the comments that were made by the
member's sons when they recognized, without even having to be
here, that it is basically a five-year dictatorship.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to the Reform Party talk
about everything under the sun: the meetings in York
South-Weston, the colour of grain, the Prime Minister, the red
book. Reformers have been talking about things that happened
years ago. One wonders what the opposition parties are up to.
A very simple piece of legislation is before the Chamber today.
It is a wonderful piece of legislation. The bill has only seven
clauses. A moment ago the hon. member talked about 80 and 90
clauses in a bill. I do not know what bill he was talking about. This
bill has seven or eight clauses.
He just talked about amendments to the bill that had to do with
remuneration of judges while the judges were away. The bill
clearly spells out that the judges will not receive remuneration
from the Government of Canada while they are in those capacities
in the international arena.
So it is again that there is something wrong, especially with the
Reform Party members. We could say they are frustrated. They are
frustrated with the lack of support they have from the Canadian
people and they are frustrated with the amount of support the
government has from the Canadian people. Therefore they direct
their attacks in very selective areas.
As the opposition points out, this debate is on amendments from
the Senate, which the Reform Party does not like. They say they do
not like anything from the Senate. What was the last bill with
amendments from the Senate that the Reformers absolutely loved?
Which bill was it? There were amendments from the Senate which
indicated the direction of the Senate.
The Reform Party members and the Bloc members stood up and
they loved it. They fell over one another. They were so happy,
overjoyed. They fell over one another they were so happy. They
were overjoyed. They were just heating up. They loved it. The
Senate could not have done better. The Senate should have gone
even further. ``We love the Senate. Come on Senate, bring us
more''.
(1625)
What was that? Does the House recall? It was not very long ago.
Yes, I can see that you remember, Madam Speaker. It was the
gigantic tax breaks that the Senate wanted to give to the rich.
Remember that?
That was an international bill as well. This bill deals with
international activities of our judges. That bill dealt with
international activities of money that was made in Canada and
invested in foreign nations. They loved that international bill.
What did they particularly love about the bill? They loved the
portion of the bill that said the huge foreign companies operating in
Canada would get a 50 per cent tax cut. They loved it. Of course,
the Government of Canada would not allow the Senate to go as far
as these political parties wanted it to go. Those dividends, those
profits from the subsidiaries, would have gone back to the parent
6874
companies in another international setting in that other
international bill. They loved it.
As well, they loved the reduction in the taxes on royalties and
trademarks. That is the money that goes to international firms that
have their head offices in other parts of the world. The Reform
Party just loved it. Reformers loved it so much that they did not
even want to speak on it. The Senate brought in the amendments
and they were tripping over one another telling each other: ``Do not
speak on this''. They selected only one member to speak on it.
The other section that these Reform Party people loved was the
interest that was made on investments in Canada by international
banking institutions. That is the 30 per cent tax cut that they wanted
to see.
There were other things which are too numerous to mention.
However, we can tell that Reformers are very selective in what they
like about the Senate. When the Senate follows their party
philosophy of giving more to the rich, of supporting the banks, of
supporting the international profits made in Canada and cutting
taxes, they love it.
It did not stop there, as we will recall. The Bloc loved the last bill
which the Senate sent to us. That bill said that people who have
property in the United States and other nations worth over
$600,000 should receive a tax credit in Canada for it. They just
loved that provision which was sent from the Senate.
The opposition is very selective in whether it likes or dislikes
from the Senate.
They do not particularly like Canada's reputation on the
international scene. Our reputation in the rest of the world has
dramatically changed in the past three years. The Government of
Canada, under the administration of the hon. member for
Saint-Maurice, has been in power for three years. The Reform
Party and the Bloc should be standing up every day and praising the
Government of Canada for its international reputation.
(1630 )
I suppose the reason the opposition parties are so frustrated is
because their policies, the things they said in their policy materials
before the last federal election, were about the international scene.
Reformers talked about Canada's reputation. Their policies were
about Canada's deficit in relation to the GDP, but compared to
whom? It has to be compared with somebody. The leader of the
Reform Party kept comparing Canada to the United States, Japan,
Germany, France, the United Kingdom and even Italy in some of
his speeches. What has happened?
In the last three years-
An hon. member: It's best you don't talk about the G-7.
Mr. Baker: The hon. member talks about the G-7. Today there is
the OECD in Paris with economists from 28 nations. When they
looked at Canada, what did they say about the G-7? Who did they
name as being the most progressive, the nation with the lowest
deficit/GDP of the G-7, the one with the most economic growth
this year and next year and the year after, the one that was placed on
the best financial footing of all?
Mr. Kirkby: Who was that?
Mr. Baker: Which country was it? Was it Italy?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Was it France?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Was it the U.K.?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Was it Germany?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Was it Japan?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Was it the United States?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: There is only one left. It was Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Baker: When Reform Party members look at these
international reputations, when they look at the international
setting of Canada, when they look at our reputation in other
countries, they do not particularly like what they see on the basis of
economics, the very basis on which they ran their last election
campaign.
There is a simple solution to the problem of the Reform Party. It
should tear up its policy papers. It should tear up its budgets. How
do Reformers expect the people of Canada to follow their party
when they are suggesting that we cannot afford medicare any
more? Imagine a political party in Canada today that says we
cannot afford medicare any more. Notice they are not denying it.
An hon. member: Tell the truth, George.
Mr. Baker: The hon. member says that I am stretching the truth.
I keep their budget in my desk just for the occasion when they
say that I am not telling the truth about their platform.
Mr. O'Reilly: What page is it on?
Mr. Baker: It is on page 24. The document is called ``The
Taxpayer's Budget: The Reform Party's plan to balance the federal
budget, provide social and economic security for the 21st century''.
Mr. Hanger: Lost your place, eh?
6875
Mr. Benoit: You can't find it, George?
Mr. Baker: I was not going to read all of it but I will now. This is
according to the Reform Party of Canada. This is why its members
are so frustrated with their lack of support: ``The public may in
time agree that although access to a broad range of basic health
care should be guaranteed to everyone, the original medicare
model in which everyone received everything health care
professionals wished to deliver is not only intolerably expensive, it
is undesirable''. Imagine. What a position for the Reform Party of
Canada to take.
(1635 )
Reform members not only say to the Canadian people that we
cannot afford our medical services and medicare, they also say that
if they are elected they are going to see the medicare system go
down the tubes. They make other ridiculous claims. They want, for
example, the banks to own our roads.
Some hon. members: Oh no.
Mr. Baker: Oh yes. They want the banks to own our bridges.
They want the banks to own our airports. I notice nobody across the
way is saying no to this because I was going to read it out. It is on
page 14. It states: ``Typically, physical infrastructure refers to
traditional features like highways, ports, railways and airports.
Given our current fiscal climate, however, governments are
ill-equipped to spend money on massive improvements. In Canada,
privatize airports and allow private sector companies to build and
maintain roads and bridges''. Tollgates. Imagine the tollgates in
Canada if the Reform Party ever got elected.
If one notices, there is a likeness. There is another political party
in Canada that now has practically identical policies to the Reform
Party. That party passed at its most recent conference a resolution
stating that we no longer can afford the Canada pension plan.
Imagine passing a resolution at a national conference stating that
we can no longer afford the Canada pension plan. While the
Government of Canada and the provinces are struggling to try to fix
it, along come the Tories, that great Tory party that was wiped out,
having a policy meeting and stating: ``Let's allow people to invest
their money in a bank account and take the interest''.
It made the same statement as the Reform Party of Canada when
it talked about medicare. It stated: ``Canada can no longer afford
our present medicare system and for other reasons'', they claim, ``it
is undesirable''.
What we have is a situation where we are asked today to pass a
bill that will allow judges to take part in international activities on
invitation from other nations, international tribunals and
organizations. We have the obstructionist tactics of the official
opposition and the third party in the House, namely the Reform
Party, to pass a simple bill of seven clauses.
The reason is that the Reform members are frustrated. The bill
came from the Senate. They only want to see things from the
Senate that match their policy, that is, give more to the rich, give it
to the billionaires, give it to the big corporations. That is what they
supported in the last amendments from the Senate and that is what
they love to see. That is what they put through the House with only
one speaker for a period of seven or eight minutes.
The other reason why the Reform members are so frustrated is
because Canada is seen today on the international scene as
progressing more than any other industrialized democracy in this
world. We are now placed on the top by every international
standard, from the IMF to the OECD whose job it is to examine the
economies of industrialized democracies around the world. That is
why Reformers are so frustrated. They do not know what they are
going to do because they know they are going to end up in defeat
again after the next federal election.
(1640 )
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
that was certainly a very eloquent, very refreshing, very exciting
speech of the hon. member and certainly one that Canadians would
appreciate.
Perhaps the hon. member could talk a bit about what could be the
reason for this hesitancy on behalf of the Reform Party to
participate in international tribunals, to take part in very just and
worthy enterprises within the international community. Canada has
a tremendous reputation in the international community for
participating, for helping, for working hard to make sure that the
rule of law is obeyed and enforced at all levels.
I wonder if the hon. member could tell us why the Reform Party
is so reluctant to participate in these very noble endeavours.
Mr. Baker: Madam Speaker, first of all let me congratulate the
hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River for the
magnificent job he has done in this Chamber since his election and
his great contribution to the passage of legislation and also the
great speech made by the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair a
few moments ago.
In response to the hon. member's question, the answer probably
is this. Since the Reform Party has been a member of this Chamber
it has seen Canada internationally become somewhat of a hero not
just in the economic field, not just in the field of peacekeeping, but
also in the field of making international law, of standing up for the
environment, of passing legislation that says that nations around
this world can no longer plunder the resources of the sea and get a
way with it; that Canada has led the way in the United Nations, at
the United Nations conferences of the sea and the environment and
6876
has consistently led the way in practically every issue that has dealt
with the environment in the past three years; and also our economy.
I think that is why mainly the opposition party really does not
want to become involved in any of these international activities of
the Government of Canada. But of course the one exception is if
these international agreements that we pass in the House help
along, I suppose we could say their policies, that will assist in some
way in their philosophical direction; that is, in giving tax breaks to
the very wealthy or in having tax treaties, for example, that is fine.
The House will notice that whenever a tax treaty is introduced
they always have been, if we examine the committee proceedings,
very interested in giving huge tax breaks to the international
corporations of the world who do business today. They are not too
anxious to talk about transfer pricing or anything like that, but they
are certainly interested in those across the board tax cuts to those
very large U.S. corporations who do business in Canada and
elsewhere in the world.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to begin by commending the hon. member opposite for
being a very eloquent speaker. That is a rare gift and it is very
entertaining indeed to listen to the hon. member. I do congratulate
him for that. The substance clearly is another issue entirely. There
was a noticeable lack of substance to the member's speech.
I am here to talk about Bill C-42 which is a bill which was
presented to the House from the Senate. I want to make it clear that
what we are objecting to today is process. We are not objecting to
Madam Justice Louise Arbour being appointed to do this
international service that the member opposite talked about. Just to
make it very clear, it is process which we are concerned with.
(1645)
We have seen a complete lack of regard for democracy and a
complete lack of democratic process in this House over the past
three years. Actually, sometimes it sickens me. Closure is invoked
almost daily. Legislation is rammed through by order in council
day after day after day.
The Prime Minister tells government members of Parliament
that they had better not vote against a government bill because if
they do, they will not be running again as members of the Liberal
Party. The Prime Minister did that when Bill C-68 was being
debated in the House. That is a threat which clearly throws out the
whole concept of democracy. The Prime Minister says to his own
members of Parliament: ``I am going to end your political career if
you do not toe the party line''.
The former Liberal MP in his speech in Toronto to the Rotary
Club stated it very well. He said that the Liberal government is run
by the Prime Minister and two or three key people.
We are arguing against the process. Reform does not believe that
this bill should be passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order
26(1), I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for
the purpose of considering amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to
amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.
(1650 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I would like to
inform the hon. member for Vegreville that I cannot accept this
motion since a time allocation motion dealing with this particular
bill has already been accepted in this House.
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The time
allocation order that you refer to states: ``and, 15 minutes before
the expiry of the time provided for government business on the
allotted day of the consideration of the said stage of the said bill,
any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted''.
We now have a motion, which is in accordance with our Standing
Orders, which extends the time provided for government business.
The time allocation motion is still in effect except that if the House
approves the motion by the member for Vegreville, the House
would now make another decision with respect to the time provided
for Government Orders. Therefore I believe, Madam Speaker, you
will find the motion in order because it is within the time allocation
motion made earlier today by the government.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): On your point
or order, the hon. member for St. Albert, I remain and I stand on the
decision I have made on the motion for the member for Vegreville.
We are now continuing debate. Does the hon. member for
Vegreville want to continue on debate?
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, as I was saying before I presented
the motion, Reform will not support Bill C-42 because of process. I
was talking about what has been wrong with the process in this
House for the three years we have been here and before. This is not
new.
This government has had three years to at least make it look like
it is honouring some of the commitments which it made in the red
book with regard to making this place more democratic, making
government more accountable. In fact we have seen that it has
moved farther and farther away. The government is now farther
away from having a democratic government than anything we have
ever had before. That is why we had better talk about process here.
6877
I would like to comment on what should take place in this
House and some changes that Reform has put forth. They are in
our fresh start platform. They are part of our guarantee to
Canadians that what we promised during an election campaign
will be honoured. In this fresh start guarantee as we call it we give
the power to the people in this country. We give the power to the
people.
Some Liberals across the way are pretty uncomfortable with this
and so they should be. They have heard the threats from the Prime
Minister. He has told them they had better support government bills
or they will not be running as Liberals next time. They know what
happened this morning. A former Liberal member had his whole
executive thrown out by the Liberal Party. How democratic is that?
His whole party executive in his constituency was thrown out by
this government. That is the most recent demonstration of the lack
of democratic process in this place.
Reform wants to change this and we have put forth several
specific proposals for doing that. They have actually been
presented in the House before.
One example is the right to recall a member of Parliament. We
want to give people the direct power to fire their members of
Parliament between elections if they are not representing the
constituents' views in this House. Clearly members of Parliament
are not representing the views of their constituents in this House if
they live under this threat by the Prime Minister. They will not be
allowed to run again under the Liberal Party banner because the
Prime Minister will not sign their nomination papers.
(1655)
We know there are not many members of Parliament who win as
independents. Some of these Liberals sitting across the way should
be thinking about that because quite possibly some of them will not
be allowed to run again under the Liberal banner. Their chances of
getting elected as independents are very slim. There are very few
who could in fact do that.
The member of Parliament for Beaver River has twice sponsored
a bill in this House which would have given to the people the power
to fire their member of Parliament between elections if the member
was not representing the wishes of the constituents. Twice it was
shot down by the Liberals and the Bloc who voted against the bill
on both occasions. They teamed up and shot down this bill which
would have given that kind of power to the people.
There was a second piece of legislation which was sponsored by
the member for Mission-Coquitlam, a Reform member of
Parliament. It would have put in place freer votes in the House of
Commons. It was a very simple change which would have made it
so a government bill could be defeated without defeating the
government. It would require a separate non-confidence motion to
pass the House to bring the government down. The bill was shot
down by the Liberals and the Bloc.
And they are laughing about denying Canadians the right to be
represented in this House by members of Parliament who are
responsible to the people rather than to the government and the
Prime Minister. They are laughing about that kind of thing. Quite
honestly I find that sad. It is sad. I would not laugh about that.
The member for Mission-Coquitlam sponsored the bill, a
change that was made in the House in Britain probably 20 years
ago. It was shot down by the Liberals and the Bloc, a second major
change.
Let us talk about what would have happened had the recall bill
and the bill which would have put in place freer votes in the House
of Commons passed. Imagine what that would give to Canadians. It
would give Canadians a power that they have never had before.
When the Prime Minister and the whip of the party tell the
members that they will toe the party line whether or not their
constituents back the bill, at that time the people back home would
say: ``You listen to us because we will recall you. We are going to
fire you before the next election''. The choice for the member
would be either not to have the nomination papers signed or to be
fired by the people back home. It would give more power to the
people back home.
The freer votes would give members of the governing party,
these same people who are heckling and laughing at these changes
which really would give the power to the people, the right to
represent the majority of their constituents in this House without
the fear of defeating the government. They could defeat a bill. We
as an opposition party might bring forth a non-confidence motion.
Only if the motion passed would the government be defeated. The
bill would not pass but the government would not be defeated.
These two changes would completely change the relative power
of the people and of the Prime Minister and the little select group
that runs the country now. They would change the system from a
system that my two 17-year old sons recognize pretty much as an
elected dictatorship. That is their own evaluation of our system
which I think is very accurate. They would change the system to
one in which Canadians really did have the power over their
members of Parliament and where their views really would be
represented in this House. That will be a change that Canadians
will welcome and a change that is long overdue.
(1700)
Those two changes alone completely retilt the balance of power
toward the people. We are also proposing a triple E Senate, a
Senate that is elected by the people, not appointed by the Prime
Minister and that small group of people who run the country,
according to my sons' evaluation, with an equal number from each
province, not the imbalance that we have now, and a Senate which
6878
is effective enough to stop legislation that is unfair to any region of
this country.
I know and people from Alberta and western Canada certainly
know that we should have had that when the national energy
program was put in place. It would have never been put in place.
The triple E Senate would stop this kind of nonsense.
Another change that we put in our fresh start guarantee is the use
of national referendums to settle issues like capital punishment,
abortion and physician assisted suicide. These are important social
issues and important to a wide range of Canadians. This change
would put power directly in the hands of the people. They would
not have to go through their member of Parliament any more. This
would give people an equal say on settling these important issues,
abortion, capital punishment, physician assisted suicide and so on.
That is a change which Canadians certainly would welcome.
These members scoff and laugh at that change because they just
do not understand that we could have a system that is that
democratic. That is the kind of system Reform wants, the kind of
system supporters of Reform want and the kind of system that we
are going to do our best to put in place.
At this time I would like say that these changes are changes that
Canadians do support right across the country. These are changes
that this Liberal government has had three years to put in place and
which Liberal governments of the past have had 20 years out of the
past 30 to put in place. They have not been put in place.
It is a sad commentary on the lack of a belief in true democracy
on the part of this government, and Canadians, I believe, will not
tolerate it. This next election will be as much about making the
system democratic as it is about anything else. Reform is the only
party that will offer a true democratic government in this country.
We know that because the Liberals have shot down all these
motions and bills that we have brought forth which would have
made the changes needed to make this country democratic. They
should be ashamed.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
thank you for this opportunity to make a few comments and ask
some questions of the hon. member for Vegreville with respect to
Bill C-42.
This is certainly a great opportunity for Canada to participate in
the international stage and once again show the leadership that
Canada is known for. It is probably enforcing and assisting to
enhance the role of the rule of law in the international forum. We
know that it is out of respect for Canada's integrity, its peaceful
nature and its reputation for fairness that it has been asked to
participate at such a high level in prosecuting war crimes, war
crimes that involve some of the most heinous and violent activity,
activity which can only be viewed as an abomination. Certainly,
right thinking people who view nations as having a responsibility
to participate in enhancing this role and in bringing those to justice
who have perpetrated these crimes would support participation.
(1705)
The Reform Party is suggesting that there is a technical breach.
There is not. It is quite clear that proper authorization was given to
Madam Justice Arbour to participate in this forum. The purpose of
this bill is to allow the United Nations to pay Madam Justice
Arbour directly in order to allow compliance with United Nations
rules. Clearly the steps which have been taken have been entirely
appropriate in complying with the law and in changing it in order to
facilitate the applicability of UN rules.
I put a question to hon. members of the Reform Party. When it
comes to international activity, to helping other nations, to standing
up for the rule of law, international fairness and morality, and to
ensuring that we take a tough stance against violence in the
international forum, why is it that every time we seek to engage in
such noble purposes the Reform Party tries to undermine us by
bringing forth erroneous objections? I would like to know why the
Reform Party is stalling and filibustering when this activity is so
important to Canada and its reputation.
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, I am saddened that the member of
the governing party has completely distorted what Reform has
done on international issues. Our member of Parliament for Red
Deer has done an admirable job in giving advice to the foreign
affairs minister, in particular, with respect to serious situations.
That advice has been heeded in some cases, although not enough.
We made it very clear that we do not object to this judge's doing
that work. We object to the process that is being used. We object to
the government's breaking the law. We do not think it should be
violating the Judges Act. That is what we believe.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have some questions for the Reform Party.
I have listened to the debate throughout today and yesterday and
I have heard some very disturbing comments. The member for St.
Albert said yesterday: ``Surely they could have found someone
else. Surely there is somebody else who could do this important
job. Surely there is somebody else who is equally qualified''.
I do not know why Reform members have such problems being
proud that a Canadian was chosen by the United Nations as the best
person to do this job and why they have such a problem facilitating
6879
a competent Canadian who has been internationally recognized as
being capable of doing this job.
Perhaps Reformers are suggesting that Madam Justice Louise
Arbour should do this job and not receive any salary while she is
doing it. I am totally confused about what their purpose is. I do
know they have chosen to waste a full day to debate a bill and to
complain at the same time about wasting the time of the House of
Commons in dealing with this.
(1710)
They have complained that we are not obeying the law. We
recognize there is a section of law that has to be changed to
accommodate this very unusual situation. Canada and Madam
Justice Arbour have been honoured by this appointment.
Why, if they are so concerned about this, have they spent the
entire day debating everything except the subject matter of the bill
before us at a cost to the Canadian taxpayers of $80,000 an hour for
every hour the House of Commons sits? Why do they have so much
trouble accepting that the international community wants to honour
one of our own? Why have they chosen to spend more than a full
day debating issues unrelated to this bill, issues that they can
choose to debate on any opposition day? I wish they could answer
those questions.
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, once again, we are not objecting to
Madam Justice Louise Arbour. We are not reflecting on her
character or her capabilities in any way. We have made that very
clear throughout this debate.
We are objecting to process. We clearly do not believe the
government should break the law even if it is only breaking it by a
little bit. We do not believe it should be violating the Judges Act.
Let us make the appropriate changes in a democratic way.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Questions and
comments.
We will resume debate with four minutes left.
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I move
that the member for Wild Rose now be heard.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I will
recognize the hon. member for Wild Rose, but I would like to
advise him there is only one minute left in the debate.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, one
minute of debate. That is not much. If you are going to talk about
what is wrong with this government you need about four days.
Just a quick note. Among all the things we heard today was that
the Prime Minister was not going to sign the nomination papers of
those who would not vote the right way like on the gun bill and a
few other things.
The members on that side of the House kept saying that is not so.
I wonder if they could explain this article:
Toronto-Rebel MP [for York South-Weston's] riding association was
disbanded by Liberal Party brass yesterday in an effort to prevent the GST martyr
from seeking re-election.
That is Liberal democracy. That is the one thing they deny all the
way. Even this member who would like to run for the-
(1715)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report
stage of the amendments made by the Senate to the bill now before
the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion,
the nays have it.
I declare the amendment lost.
(Amendment negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next
question is on the main motion.
Mr. Laurin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question
is on the amendment to the amendment, right?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Yesterday's
amendment to the amendment? We are now discussing the main
motion.
Mr. Laurin: Madam Speaker, I understood that the question was
on the amendment to the amendment. So I apologize. The
amendment having been dealt with, it is normal for us to return to
the main motion. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the amendment will please say yea.
6880
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion,
the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 189)
YEAS
Members
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Cohen
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Easter
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Harb
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rock
Serré
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Zed-102
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Crête
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier
Godin
Gouk
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Ringma
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Williams-51
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Bethel
Caron
Chan
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godfrey
Guimond
Iftody
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacDonald
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Sauvageau
Speller
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Young
(1740)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
(Motion agreed to and amendments read the second time and
passed.)
(1745)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House
will now proceed to consideration of Private Members Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
6881
6881
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-335, an act to amend the Bank Act (foreign banks), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise to debate
at second reading my private member's bill, Bill C-335, an act to
amend the Bank Act, with particular focus on foreign banks. I am
sorry that the committee did not see fit to make this bill a votable
item. However, we are here to discuss the issue and to make a
point.
The purpose of the bill is to open the Bank Act to foreign
competition so that they can provide more money to small business
people in Canada and create more jobs.
This bill amends the Bank Act to require the minister to consider
a commitment to serving small and medium size business in
Canada as a factor in deciding whether to grant letters patent to
foreign banks to operate in Canada.
It is interesting to point out at the outset the interest which the
banking industry has taken in this bill. I have received
correspondence from the Canadian Bankers Association which
states that over 80 per cent of small businesses have their loans
approved and that Canadian banks are giving strong support to
Canada's small businesses.
I have statistics which were prepared by the hon. member for
Trinity-Spadina which indicate that the Bank of Montreal
increased its loans to small business by $110 million in the period
September 30, 1995 to December 31, 1995. The CIBC decreased its
loans to small business by $152 million. The National Bank
decreased its loans to small business by $600,000 during the same
period. The Royal Bank decreased its loans to small business by
$111 million. The Scotiabank increased its loans to small business
by $171 million. The TD Bank decreased its loans to small
business by $116 million. The net loss to business people in Canada
was $104 million in that period as compared with the previous
period.
I mention these statistics because, as we all know, banks have
announced profits of over $6 billion this week. That is a 20 per cent
increase in their profits, but they have decreased their loans to
small business.
Recently Toronto-Dominion's incoming chief executive told an
audience in Ottawa that a strong and healthy country requires
strong and healthy banks. It is also true that strong and healthy
banks require a strong and healthy country.
(1750)
Small businesses create over 80 per cent of the new jobs in
Canada. Greater competition in the banking system will accelerate
the funding of small and medium size businesses and create more
jobs for Canadians. Economic growth will allow Canadians to
work. It is better than depending on social work programs.
I believe the increased competition will generate better service
and lower the costs that Canadians now pay for their banking
services.
This week I picked up three brochures from the Bank of Nova
Scotia, Bank of Montreal and CIBC. When I checked their service
charges some of them were identical. Just like the gas stations, they
charge the same price. For example, it costs the same amount for an
NSF cheque, for each cheque you write, for monthly service
charges. It does not matter which bank you go to, all charge the
same price. Maybe my colleague can tell me that in western
Canada they do not do the same but here in Ottawa, the nation's
capital, that is how they charge.
My bill mirrors the opinion of two recent parliamentary
committees, the Senate banking committee and the House of
Commons finance committee. In separate reports they both
recommended that we open the system to foreign banks in order to
have more competition so consumers and business people alike
will have flexibility in dealing with their bank.
In announcing the House of Commons standing committee on
finance recommendations, the chairman and my colleague, the
member of Parliament for Willowdale said: ``This will allow
greater flexibility for and more financial assistance for more
financial institutions to come into Canada and provide more
competition and services to Canadians''. The recommendations of
the committee are in response to the federal government's white
paper on financial reports released earlier this year.
Foreign banks have been restricted by current restrictions and
have warned that their numbers will decline unless the rules are
eased. There used to be 62 foreign banks operating in Canada and
now we have only 46. The less foreign banks we have the less
competition there is and more freedom for the banks to charge as
they wish.
The foreign banks have indicated that easing the rules will
prompt them to expand their lending activities and look for new
markets in the area of small and medium size businesses. Other
foreign banks that have not yet entered Canada will take a second
look and come in to operate in this market.
I should point out that the Canadian Bankers Association is in
agreement with the committee's proposals. A spokesman for the
CBA said that the proposed changes will bring economic benefits.
The CBA's position is: ``This is very positive for the foreign
banking community. If the proposals are adopted, it would make
Canada attractive to foreign lenders. I would expect you would see
6882
the Americans looking at entering the market again, and the British
banks''.
The changes proposed by Bill C-335 will ensure that any foreign
bank wishing to operate in Canada will intend to make and will be
capable of making a contribution to the financial system in Canada
by promoting the financial stability of and providing support for
small and medium size businesses.
The Young Liberals at their convention also pushed through a
resolution critical of chartered banks' record in financing small and
medium size businesses. These young Canadians recognize the
importance of this sector and their resolution shows that greater
attention should be paid to how the big six banks meet this
important need. After all, the future belongs to them. They are
concerned with their future. We have to support them in their
resolution so we can see competition in the banks.
In conclusion, I ask for the consideration of my fellow members
in debating the merits of Bill C-355. My bill is consistent with the
policy of the Government of Canada and with the findings of the
parliamentary committees. It should be viewed as an extension of
the job creation strategy of the government.
The central point of government policy is that the ownership of
financial institutions is a privilege, not a right. With privileges
come responsibilities and this bill merely requires new foreign
banks to satisfy the minister as to how they will meet those
responsibilities.
(1755)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on Bill
C-335 introduced by the member for Don Valley North.
The aim of this bill is to amend the Bank Act in order to require,
as it says in the summary of the bill, the minister to consider
commitment to serving small and medium size enterprises in
Canada as a factor in a decision whether to grant letters patent to a
foreign bank to operate in Canada.
In other words, so the ordinary folks may understand, the intent
of this bill is to add another condition to those already governing
foreign banks wanting to do business in Canada, a sort of
requirement to provide more help to small and medium businesses.
I would first like to point out that there are already, as I have just
mentioned, conditions governing the entry of new banks into the
Canadian market. They should be identified, before we discuss the
relevance of the condition added by the member for Don Valley
North.
Section 27 of the Bank Act provides a number of conditions
foreign banks must satisfy in order to receive their letters patent,
and they are as follows: the nature and sufficiency of the financial
resources of the applicant or applicants as a source of continuing
financial support for the bank. They want to know whether the bank
will be viable once it is operating in Canada.
The second condition is the soundness and feasibility of plans of
the applicant or applicants for the future conduct and development
of the business of the bank.
The third is the business record and experience of the applicant
or applicants.
The fourth condition is whether the association will be operated
responsibly by persons who are fit as to the character, competence
and experience suitable for involvement in the operation of a
financial institution.
Finally, the fifth and last condition, the best interests of the
financial system in Canada.
The purpose of Bill C-335 is to add one of these conditions, and,
again, this is to require, or to encourage, the banks-this is not
made clear in the various clauses in the bill-to assist small and
medium sized businesses. It would be hard not to be in favour of
this. Of course we recognize the good intentions of this bill and, as
far as its principle is concerned, we have no objection to such a
condition being added.
It would, however, be a good idea to clarify a number of points.
Perhaps it is a printing error, or merely an error in the French
version, but since I am a former French teacher, these are matters
of interest to me.
In clause 2 of the bill, where small and medium enterprises are
defined, a medium size enterprise is defined as follows in
paragraph (a), and I quote:
``moyenne entreprise'' Entreprise qui, avec les entreprises qu'elle contrôle et celles
qui la contrôlent:
(a) soit compte au plus cent, mais moins de cinq cents, employés-
(1800)
There seems to a problem with the wording. My understanding
of this section is that a medium size enterprise is an enterprise that
has more than 100 employees and fewer than 500. That is what is
meant.
In paragraph (b), there is also a reference to a medium size
enterprise that has an activity other than manufacturing, an
enterprise that has more than 50 employees but no more than 500
employees. We should say fewer than 500 employees. I therefore
suggest that the hon. member check the wording of clause 2 and
perhaps make appropriate corrections that would improve the
clarity of his bill.
A few moments ago I said we had no objections to the purpose of
this bill which is to ensure that the banks serve small and medium
size businesses, especially at this time of the year when most banks
6883
file their financial statements and we see fantastic, even excessive
profits being made by Canada's chartered banks.
This week, the Bank of Nova Scotia announced profits of over $1
billion. Last week, it was the Bank of Montreal announcing profits
of more than $1 billion. We can expect that next week, at the latest,
the Royal Bank will confirm a substantial increase in its profits.
When we look at the profits banks make on the backs of the little
people, it stands to reason they should care about small and
medium size businesses. We should not have to tell them so.
I also want to take this opportunity to point out the work done by
the hon. member for Portneuf. Last week, together with colleagues
from the other parties in this House, he presented a request to
Canada's chartered banks, asking them to reduce the interest rates
charged on credit card balances. We all know these rates are
extortionate, and this is not an overstatement. In some cases, we
would call it outright robbery. I think the banks will have to
examine their consciences. If this debate does no more than recall
these facts, it will have achieved something.
As for the bill itself, I would like to add a few comments. I said
earlier that the wording of the sections defining small and medium
size enterprises was not entirely satisfactory. And I think defining a
small or medium size business on the basis of number of
employees alone also creates problem. There should be other
criteria such as turnover.
The bill gives the impression that it is up to the minister to grant
or not to grant letters patent to a foreign bank to operate on the
Canadian market. I think there may be a conflict of interest if the
minister alone is responsible for the decision. There should be
more details in the section that deals with the decision to be made
by the minister.
In concluding, I wish to point out that this bill is not a votable
item. We in the official opposition support the purpose of the bill,
but we want to take this opportunity to point out to the members of
this House, and especially to the government, the need for a
broader debate on the activities of banks in Canada and especially
on how their enormous profits are used.
(1805)
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I agree with one of the premises underlying the hon.
member's bill. Canada's financial system would benefit from more
competition generally and foreign competition in particular. This
view is reflected in the Reform Party's minority amendment to the
government's report on the hearings on the review of the financial
sector held by the finance committee this fall. In this amendment
we opposed the government's proposed legislation which would
have made it more difficult and expensive for foreign banks to
operate in Canada.
However, I cannot agree with the second part of the hon.
member's legislative initiative which would require foreign banks
to commit themselves to increased lending to small business as part
of obtaining a licence to operate in Canada. I oppose this provision
on two grounds.
First, it is out of touch with a modern relationship between
business and government. It is sometimes efficient and equitable
for government to set general rules of operation to assure public
safety, as for example the rule which requires banks to maintain
equity at a certain per cent of its deposit base. This rule assures the
systemic stability of the banking system in case of a serious
economic slowdown and many bankruptcies.
However, it is not wise for the government to set out specific
rules about the composition of the banks' loan portfolios. Such
regulation represents an indirect tax on the banks which they pass
on to other clients. It also represents an indirect subsidy-
* * *
[
Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I have the
honour to inform the House that a message has been received from
the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill
C-68, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for
the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March
31, 1997.
_____________________________________________
6883
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
Translation]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black
Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy to His Excellency
the Governor General that this honourable House attend him immediately in the
chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
(1815)
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I have the
honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the
Senate Chamber the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor
General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal
Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-6, an act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer
Mining Act-Chapter 27.
6884
Bill C-54, an act to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act-Chapter 28.
Bill C-68, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public
service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1997-Chapter 29.
Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments
to another act-Chapter 30.
_____________________________________________