CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 4, 1997
Motion for concurrence in 50th report 7615
Bill C-23. Report stage 7616
Motion moved and agreed to 7616
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 7617
Division on Motion No. 3 deferred 7617
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred 7617
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred 7617
Division on Motion No. 6 deferred 7618
Motions Nos. 7 and 8 7618
Division on Motion No. 7 deferred 7618
Division on Motion No. 8 deferred 7618
Division on Motion No. 9 deferred 7618
Motions Nos. 10, 11 and 12 7618
Division on Motion No. 10 deferred 7619
Division on Motion No. 11 deferred 7619
Division on Motion No. 12 deferred 7619
Motions Nos. 13 and 14 7619
Division on Motion No. 13 deferred 7619
Division on Motion No. 14 deferred 7619
Division on Motion No. 15 deferred 7620
Division on Motion No. 16 deferred 7620
Division on Motion No. 17 deferred 7620
Motions Nos. 18 and 19 7620
Division on Motion No. 18 deferred 7621
Division on Motion No. 19 deferred 7621
Debate on Group No. 2 7622
Debate on Group No. 8 7630
Bill C-53. Report stage 7631
Motion for concurrence 7631
Motion for third reading 7631
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7640
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7643
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7646
Division on motion deferred 7649
Bill C-46. Motion for second reading 7649
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 7654
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7656
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7656
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7657
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7658
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7658
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7660
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7660
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 7661
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7663
Bill C-46. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 7663
Motion moved and agreed to 7674
Motion moved and agreed to 7674
Bill C-46. Consideration resumed of second reading 7674
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7677
Bill C-60. Consideration resumed of report stage 7681
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 69;Nays, 157 7681
Motion No. 7 defeated 7683
Motion No. 13 negatived on division: Yeas, 41;Nays, 185 7683
Motions Nos. 22, 23, 4, 6, 9 and 19 negatived: Yeas, 41;Nays 185 7684
Motion No. 5 negatived on division: Yeas, 46;Nays, 180. 7684
Motions Nos. 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 36, 20, 27, and 33negatived on division: Yeas, 46; Nays, 180 7686
Motion No. 3 negatived on division: Yeas, 75;Nays, 151 7687
Motions Nos. 11, 12, 21, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31 and32 negatived on division: Yeas, 75; Nays,
151 7687
Motion No. 34 agreed to on division: Yeas, 157;Nays, 69 7687
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 152; Nays, 74 7688
Bill C-23. Report stage 7689
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas 47;Nays; 179 7689
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 47; Nays, 179 7690
Motion No. 3 negatived on division: Yeas, 76;Nays, 150 7690
Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 14, 18 and 19 negatived 7691
Motion No. 4 negatived on division: Yeas, 7; Nays 219 7691
Motions Nos. 9 and 13 negatived 7692
Motion No. 10 negatived on division: Yeas, 41;Nays, 185 7692
Motion No. 11 negatived on division: Yeas, 69;Nays, 157 7693
Motions Nos. 12 and 16 negatived on division: Yeas, 69;Nays, 157 7693
Motion No. 15 agreed to on division: Yeas, 226;Nays, 0 7693
Motion No. 17 agreed to on division: Yeas, 226;Nays, 0 7694
Motion for concurrence agreed to 7694
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 226; Nays, 0 7694
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 7694
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 198; Nays, 28 7694
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 7695
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7698
7615
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 4, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
Translation]
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that I have
received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has
occurred in the representation, namely, André Caron, member for
the electoral district of Jonquière, in the province of Quebec, by
decease. It is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to
paragraph 28(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed
a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer on Monday, February 3,
1997, for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this
vacancy.
_____________________________________________
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 15 petitions.
* * *
(1010 )
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the pleasure to present the
report of the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary
Association concerning a trip to Australia which took place in
November 1996.
I want to thank all hon. members in this House for all their help
relating to this trip.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 50th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committees on Finance and
Transport, and the associate membership of the Standing
Committee on Finance. If the House gives its consent, I intend to
move concurrence in the 50th report later this day.
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 50th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of
submitting a petition signed by people in my riding and the
surrounding area.
The petitioners are calling for an indivisible Canada, in that the
boundaries of Canada, its provinces and territories, as well as its
territorial waters, must not be modified.
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I wish to present three petitions from people
in my riding. Two of the petitions deal with the upgrading of
highways and the national highway system in particular.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the third
petition deals with the GST on reading materials.
I am pleased to present these petitions on behalf of the
petitioners in my riding.
7616
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions today.
The first petition comes from Whitehorse, Yukon. The
petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that our
police and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily basis as
they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians. They also state
that in many cases the families of officers who lose their lives in
the line of duty are often left without sufficient financial means to
meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish
a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and
bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. The
petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that
managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families that choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition comes from Kanata, Ontario. The petitioners would
like to draw to the attention of the House that the consumption of
alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's
ability, and specifically, that fetal alcohol syndrome or other
alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by
avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7616
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, an act to
establish the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There are 19 motions in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-23.
[Translation]
Motion No. 2 is essentially identical to a motion tabled in
committee. Consequently, pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5), it
will not be selected.
(1015)
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
Group No. 1: Motion No. 1.
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 3 and 6.
Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 4 and 5.
Group No. 4: Motions Nos. 7 and 8.
Group No. 5: Motion No. 9.
Group No. 6: Motions Nos. 10 to 15.
Group No. 7: Motions Nos. 16 and 17.
Group No. 8: Motions Nos. 18 and 19.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. As indicated, the Chair will remind the House
of each pattern at the time of voting. I will now propose Motion No.
1 to the House.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I
believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That all motions at report stage of Bill C-23 be deemed to have been read and
seconded at this time and a recorded division requested and deferred for each
motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
7617
That Bill C-23, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 2 with the
following:
````Minister'' means the Minister of the Environment or such member of the
Queen's''
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: The recorded division on the proposed
motion stands deferred.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-23, in Clause 3, be amended by
(a) replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 4 with the following:
``substances, prescribed equipment and prescribed information;'';
(b) replacing line 22 on page 4 with the following:
``weapons and nuclear explosive devices; and'';
(c) adding after line 22 on page 4 the following:
``(c) the education of the public on the health, safety and environmental effects
associated with the development, production or use of nuclear energy in Canada.''
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: The recorded division on the proposed
motion stands deferred.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 4. 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: The recorded division on the proposed
motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-23, in Clause 9, be amended by
(a) replacing lines 23 to 28 on page 5 with the following:
``(ii) prevent unreasonable risk to national security associated with the
development, production, possession or use,
(iii) achieve conformity with measures of control and international obligations
to which Canada has agreed,'';
(b) adding after line 36 on page 5 the following:
``(c) to inform the public as to the health, safety and environmental effects associated
with nuclear activities in Canada; and''
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
7618
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: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-23, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 6 with the
following:
``more than seven permanent members, among whom there shall be at least one
representative of an organization generally recognized for at least five years for its
work in environmental protection and a representative of the nuclear industry, to
be''
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-23, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 6 with the
following:
``appointed by the Governor in Council following approval by resolution of the
Senate and the House of Commons.''
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 7. 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: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 8. 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: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP) moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-23, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 17, on page 19
with the following:
``33. While exercising any authority under the Act, an inspector shall make all
reasonable efforts to be accompanied by a member of a health and safety committee
or an environment committee whose sphere of activity is affected by the authority
exercised by the inspector, and the inspector may also be accompanied by any other
person chosen by the inspector.''
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: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-23, in Clause 44, be amended by
(a) replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 27 with the following:
``44. (1) The Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council and
subject to subsections (1.1) and (1.2), make regulations''; and
(b) adding after line 25 on page 30 the following:
``(1.1) In making a regulation under subsection (1), the Commission shall have
regard to the principle that persons subject to the regulation should not be required to
bear costs that are unreasonable in comparison with the anticipated benefits.
(1.2) The Commission shall make no regulation under subsection (1) that, in its
opinion, will require persons subject to the regulation to bear costs that are
unreasonable in comparison with the anticipated benefits.''
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-23, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 29
with the following:
``(i) prescribing the fees that may be charged for the provision, by the Commission,
of information, products and services, following consultation with any parties who
have notified the Commission in writing of their desire to be consulted in this
matter;''
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-23, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 29
with the following:
``(j) prescribing
(i) initial fees or the method of calculating the initial fees that may be charged for a
licence or class of licence, and
(ii) after consultation with the licensees, the fees or the method of calculating the
fees that may be charged for renewal of a licence or class of licence;''
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 10. 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.
7619
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: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 12. 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: Pursuant to order made earlier, the
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP) moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-23, in Clause 44, be amended by deleting lines 15 to 19 on page 30.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-23, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 17, on page 31
with the following:
``(5) The Governor in Council may, subject to affirmative resolution of the House
of Commons, make regulations generally as the Governor in Council considers
necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act.''
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 13. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. 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: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
7620
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-23, in Clause 44, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 32 the
following:
``(12) A copy of each regulation that the Commission proposes to make under
paragraphs (1)(i) or (1)(j) shall be published in the Canada Gazette and a reasonable
opportunity shall be given to persons to make representations to the Commission
with respect thereto.''
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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 36 the following new
Clause:
``51.1 No person shall be found guilty of an offence under this Act or a regulation
made thereunder if the person establishes that he or she exercised all due diligence to
prevent its commission.''
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: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 36 the following:
``51.1 A person shall not be found to have contravened any provision of this Act,
other than section 50, if it is established that the person exercised all due diligence to
prevent its commission.''
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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-23, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 37 on page 42
with the following:
``72. The Commission shall, within four months after the end of each fiscal year,
submit to the Minister a report of the activities of the Commission under this Act for
that fiscal year, incorporating any comments received from any interested party
regarding its internal management, operations and business practices and stating
how such comments have affected the way it carries out its mandate, and the
Minister shall cause the''
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-23, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 40 on page 42
with the following:
``72. The Commission shall, within four months after the end of each fiscal year,
(a) hold public hearings, in accordance with the prescribed rules of procedure,
regarding its internal management, operations and business partners during the
fiscal year; and
(b) submit to the Minister a report of the activities of the Commission under this Act,
including the public hearings held under paragraph (a), for that fiscal year, and
the Minister shall cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any
of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after receiving it.''
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 18. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
7621
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: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 19. 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: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
We now move on to debate on Group No. 1.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure today to speak at the report stage of Bill C-23.
First of all, to appreciate the amendments the Bloc Quebecois
wished to propose, we must understand the purpose of Bill C-23.
In fact, Bill C-23, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, was
introduced in this House to replace existing legislation that goes
back more than 50 years. As a member of the Standing Committee
on Natural Resources, I engaged in debate and listened to many
submissions on the changes that should be made in the existing
legislation, to adapt it for the next millennium.
Most of the testimony by witnesses appearing before the Natural
Resources Committee fell into one of two categories. Basically,
some said it was necessary to change the existing legislation, which
was really obsolete, and that the bill as introduced was not a bad
substitute.
There was another group which agreed the legislation was
obsolete and had to be changed, but since the old legislation had
been around for 50 years, we could have taken a few more months
to make changes in the present bill that would have made it even
better.
We should realize that the initial legislation was drafted after
World War II, when, people will recall, atomic energy was
associated with the nuclear bombs that fell on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. When the Parliament of Canada discussed the matter, it
was felt it would be useful to have legislation to control this energy
which was, of course, synonymous with destruction.
After 1950, and especially between 1960 and 1970, nuclear
energy was touted as a safe and cheap source of energy to which all
Canadians would have ready access. However, after 1970, after
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and the many problems, even
with the Candu systems in Europe, one may well wonder how safe
our nuclear facilities are.
That is why the new bill should reflect the public's concern for
greater transparency. They want a bill that would give them some
say, the right to oversee actions of the atomic commission such as
giving powers to a business or an agency or other actions that might
put the safety or health of Canadians and Quebecers at risk.
(1020)
The Bloc's first amendment to the bill in Motion No. 1 proposes
that the Department of the Environment and not the Department of
Natural Resources oversee the legislation.
Why? Canadians feel much safer under the umbrella of the
Department of the Environment than under that of the Department
of Natural Resources. Clearly, the Department of Natural
Resources wants natural resources to be developed to their fullest
for Canadians, whether it be uranium mines or energy. At the same
time, however, we are told that nuclear energy is hard to control,
that it takes a lot of research and monitoring. The Department of
the Environment would be much more capable of giving Canadians
transparency. To this end, amendment No. 1 would be a fine
addition to the bill.
Therefore, I recommend that all my colleagues vote for this
amendment, which would permit greater transparency and give
Canadians even more reasons to trust their institutions.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are several points
that need to be made here.
First, the existing wording specifies the Minister of Natural
Resources but also specifies ``or such member of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada as the governor in council may designate as the
minister''. This gives the Prime Minister full discretion when he or
she appoints a minister through whom the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission will report to Parliament. The existing wording
therefore contains the flexibility that the NSCA should have.
I would point out to members of this House that both the
Minister of Natural Resources and Dr. Bishop, president of the
Atomic Energy Control Board, took the opportunity when appear-
7622
ing before the committee to stress the independence of the AECB
in regulatory matters. There was no disagreement on this important
principle.
I would also note that while the commission will report to
Parliament through the minister and the minister will be
responsible for answering questions regarding the commission in
this House, the minister does not and will not get involved in
regulatory decision making.
The government must reconcile regulation with promotion at
some level. This is done currently by having the AECB and the
AECL report to the Minister of Natural Resources. This
amendment would merely transfer the level at which regulatory
and promotional interests are reconciled to the cabinet level and
hence to the Prime Minister. Why not let ministers exercise the
responsibilities that come with their portfolios?
As to whether the Minister of the Environment should be the
responsible minister, while environmental protection is an object of
this bill, it is not the only or even the primary object, which is the
health and safety of workers and the public.
This motion is not acceptable to the government.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, for clarification are we on Motion
No. 1 or Motion No. 2?
The Deputy Speaker: Motion No. 1.
Colleagues, in view of the earlier unanimous motion, pursuant to
the order made, the question on Group No. 1 is deemed put, a
recorded division demanded and deferred.
The House will now proceed to debate on motions in GroupNo. 2. I hope this is clear.
(1025 )
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-23 and the report stage
motions before us for consideration.
In addressing the motions put forward by my colleague, the
member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, I note the emphasis that has
been placed on providing the public with information. The motions
should be viewed with some enthusiasm as they attempt to
heighten the public awareness about what goes on in Canada's
nuclear industry.
All too often the activities at facilities such as those under the
administration of AECL are shrouded in secrecy. Granted, the
public's right to know must be tempered with the considerations of
national security. However all too often this has meant that the
government is given a ready made excuse which it can use to limit
Canadians' access to information where matters of atomic energy
are concerned.
The stated goal of my colleague's motion is specifically
designed to provide information to educate the Canadian public on
nuclear activity in Canada. Further, the motions expressly target
and entrust the Nuclear Safety Commission with the task of
providing that information to the Canadian public.
These measures alone will not guarantee that the nuclear
industry will function in a more open manner, but it should mark
the beginning of a much needed step in the right direction. In doing
so, the government could begin to redress some of the public
apprehension and misunderstanding which has plagued activity
within the nuclear industry for the past 50 years.
Again I submit to all members that there is a need to inform the
public on issues where nuclear safety and energy are concerned.
Given what has been going on at AECL facilities across Canada in
recent months, public openness by the government is sorely
needed.
For example, Canadians should be told about the closure of the
Chalk River facility. Canadians should know that their research
facility was closed down and effectively destroyed by this Liberal
government on January 31, 1997 at 11 a.m. It did not matter that
719 scientists, including three Nobel laureates, had pleaded with
the natural resources minister in October to keep this world class
research and development facility open.
The government had spent $70 million on building the facility
and now that it has been turned off, it is worth nothing. Many of the
scientists who worked at that facility are preparing to move to the
United States where evidently R and D in this field is taken
seriously.
In addition, staff inside TASCC have indicated that equipment
from Chalk River may find its way into the Brookhaven Institute
which is also south of the border. Think of the message that is being
sent out of here by the Canadian government.
Reformers and Canadians can speculate on the myopic vision of
the government's commitment to R and D initiatives in Canada.
However, the question still remains: Why was this facility closed?
The Liberals will tell us it was due to financial constraints, yet for
want of $3 million in operating costs the government has thrown
away $70 million. In fact, companies like SPAR Aerospace of
Canada had been financing much of the research effort at TASCC
with private funds. This trend could have eventually seen the
facility function independent of tax dollars.
Let us look at the government's priority and commitment to
spending in general. The TASCC facility needed $3 million in
operating grants which would allow it to continue its experiments.
The government claimed it did not have the money. Yet, this is the
same government that piddled away $20 million on a Canadian flag
giveaway, $100 million toward its unmandated propaganda office
in Montreal, $87 million in a loan to the financially sound and
profitable Bombardier of Montreal. The Liberals also had $2
7623
million, they found $2 million, to apologize to former Prime
Minister Mulroney and pay his lawyers.
Perhaps highlighting those expenses is not fair to my colleagues
across the way. After all, as my Liberal colleagues will quickly
point out, those expenses are extraneous and unrelated to the
workings of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and nuclear energy
in general. The members across the way will dutifully bleat that
their commitments to R and D is well in line with the red ink book
promises. Really?
(1030)
In much the same fashion Liberal spin doctors can refer to a $25
billion deficit as commendable. Liberals will no doubt see the loss
of hundreds of jobs in Chalk River as enhanced R and D. No
wonder many Canadians have changed the title of the red ink book
to ``Creative Opportunism''.
But does anyone know what the real blow to the Canadian
taxpayer is? It comes in the area of prioritized R and D spending at
AECL.
Just before Christmas the government announced the sale of
CANDU technology to the Chinese government. In order to get that
deal signed the government of Canada committed to lend the
Chinese government $1.5 billion, financed-
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is my
understanding that we are speaking to Motions Nos. 3 and 6, which
were grouped.
Just for clarification, I would like to know which motion the hon.
member is speaking to. Is it Motion No. 2 or is it the grouping of
Motions Nos. 3 and 6?
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 3 and 6. This is
absolutely not a problem. I can understand why the member would
be a little embarrassed that we gave the Chinese government $1.5
billion of Canadian taxpayer money, financed off their backs. They
do not like that. They do not like to be reminded of that. But the
people remember. Think what that means.
The government was willing to gamble over a $1.5 billion but
could not come up with a fraction, a tiny fraction of about $3
million in order that the valuable research work could continue at
Chalk River. Not even a fraction could it come up with.
The auditor general reported in November 1996 that the cost of
cleaning up contaminated sites at federal facilities was estimated at
$2 billion. But this does not show up in the government's official
accounting of its financial position. It is not there.
The auditor general's report stated that the $2 billion estimate for
the federal government's share of the clean-up excludes those costs
associated with the clean-up of the radioactive waste and that it
constitutes an unrecognized expenditure that could materially
affect the government's reported financial condition.
On its own, the example just given highlights the lack of proper
accounting procedure by the federal Liberals and represents one
more example of mismanagement and lack of accountability to the
taxpaying public.
However, when we place that alongside recent efforts by the
Minister of Natural Resources to delay and possibly renege on her
government's promise to dispose of low level radioactive waste
near the town of Deep River, we get the feeling that this
government is not serious about conducting such needed research
in the area of nuclear waste disposal. This is a schizophrenic
government. There is absolutely no doubt about it.
To recap, the government will not recognize the environmental
disaster in its own back yard or the potential costs associated with
its clean-up. It is scaling back on its promise to the people of Deep
River and closing R and D facilities all because it claims it does not
have funds needed to pay for services in these areas. However, it
has found $1.5 billion of Canadian taxpayers money to lend to the
Chinese government.
Sadly, I must conclude my remarks on this matter. In doing so, I
would like to remind members on both sides of the House that Bill
C-23 is the first such effort in 50 plus years at redefining the
relationship between the public and the nuclear industry within
Canada.
As such, there is the expectation among Canadians that the
government will put measures in place which will open up the
nuclear industry to greater public scrutiny. On the other side, it is
hoped that the Nuclear Safety Commission tasked with providing
information to the public would be more transparent in its dealings.
By supporting these amendments I believe the government
would be taking the first tentative steps in this direction and I
encourage members on both sides of the House to support the
motions before us now.
(1035 )
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to Motion
No. 3, the nuclear regulator must be and must be seen to be
unbiased and neutral in its dealings with or support for the nuclear
industry.
The nuclear regulator should be clearly seen by the public as
avoiding the role of an advocate for the industry. This amendment
has the potential to compromise the public's faith in the objectivity
and neutrality of the AECB because it does not limit the scope of
the regulatory information.
Motion No. 3 uses the word educate. Rightly or wrongly, the
word educate is perceived to have a more proactive connotation
than the word inform. It raises the possibility that this mandate
7624
could be interpreted to include the possibility of advocacy for or
against nuclear activities.
Providing the commission with a mandate to educate the public
on non-regulatory nuclear issues would be inconsistent with its
regulatory role.
With respect to Motion No. 6, it is the government's belief that
clause 9(b) is the appropriate mandate for the commission on this
matter. It specifies as one of the commission's objectives the
dissemination of objective scientific, technical and regulatory
information to the public on the effects of nuclear activities on
health, safety and the environment. In fact, the AECB does this
now through its office for public information. This is what is
needed, no more and no less.
If the proposed amendment is intended to restate the intent of
clause 9(b) in different words, it is redundant and unnecessary. If it
is intended to go beyond 9(b), it goes too far. The proposed
amendments are not acceptable to the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I said in
my opening remarks, the importance of this bill is in promoting
greater transparency in Canada's nuclear energy sector. Mon hon.
colleague from the Liberal Party suggested that providing
information and education to Canadians in that respect would
amount to propaganda or promotion of some sort. I completely
disagree with her because, in my opinion, it is extremely important
that Canadians make their own choice regarding nuclear energy.
If we want them to be able to make a choice, they need
information. How can one be expected to decide whether there
should be more or fewer nuclear plants in Canada without
appropriate information on their impact on the environment,
including the human environment?
The committee heard from stakeholders. People living in the
vicinity of the Pickering plant came before us saying that they are
excluded from the decision-making process. They said that surveys
and polls are conducted but that, when the time comes to make a
decision, the board ignores the views of the Pickering area citizens'
committee.
I support all the motions moved by our colleague from the
Reform Party and, therefore, think one of the purposes of this bill
should be to inform and educate, because there is a difference
between information and education.
Who do you think would be in a position to provide this
information and education, if not the atomic energy board? This is
not the kind of information you can get through the education
system. The board being the primary nuclear energy regulatory
authority in Canada, it is up to its members, who are familiar with
the various studies on the public impact of atomic energy, to
provide clear information to the public, depending on what their
objective is, so that Canadians can make an informed decision.
For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will support these two
motions, which, in my opinion, improve the bill.
(1040)
The Deputy Speaker: Since no one else seems interested in
talking to this group of motions, pursuant to the agreement reached
earlier today, all motions in Group No. 2 are deemed to have been
put and recorded divisions are deemed to have been requested and
deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to debate on the motions in group
No. 3.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus to rise
and give our position with respect to Bill C-23, an act to establish
the Canadian nuclear safety commission and to make consequential
amendments to other acts and, in particular, motion No. 4 and
motion No. 5.
Motion No. 4 basically calls for the deletion of clause 6, which
exempts nuclear submarines. We feel that any vessel, whether it is
fixed or moving in the water, should be very stringently subjected
to regulations under the Canadian nuclear safety commission and
that is what motion No. 4 calls for.
Motion No. 5 would in effect delete clause 7. Clause 7 gives the
commission the power to exempt certain nuclear substances. It is
our view that no nuclear substances should be exempt under the
provisions of this act, the Canadian nuclear safety and control act.
This bill is an update and replacement of the Atomic Energy
Control Act. It is supposed to modernize the statute to provide for
more explicit and effective regulation of nuclear energy. It deals
with regulatory and development aspects of nuclear safety. It
establishes a basis for implementing Canadian policy and for
fulfilling Canada's obligations with respect to the non-proliferation
of nuclear weapons. It increases the number of members of the
commission from five to seven. The commission is more powerful,
with the ability to hear witnesses, to gather evidence and to control
its proceedings as well as to call witnesses to hearings.
We are very concerned, since we have an obligation as a country
with respect to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, that
submarines are included, that they are not exempt under this bill,
and we are asking for support from other members with respect to
that.
We are concerned about the harmonizing of the federal and
provincial regulations in the private sector. The bill decentralizes
nuclear regulations and in some cases provides more powers to the
provinces, which in the case of the major uranium mining province
of Saskatchewan is probably good news. This bill provides
minimum levels of protection for workers and minimum
requirements
7625
with respect to how nuclear fuels and uranium are handled. In
Saskatchewan's view, we have always maintained that uranium
mining is a beneficial livelihood. It is beneficial to those who work
in the industry, but only if there are very stringent, high level health
and worker protection laws, which we have in Saskatchewan. Ours
are very stringent. We hope that a bill like this will raise the level of
health and worker safety. However, Saskatchewan has a higher
level than this bill calls for.
We are also very concerned about the impact on the environment
with respect to uranium mining. Saskatchewan has been able to
establish and prove over the long haul that its environmental
regulations with respect to uranium mining are the toughest
anywhere in the world. We are very proud of that.
This bill provides the province of Saskatchewan with the
flexibility to continue to lead with respect to worker and health
safety in this country and also in the world. It provides us with the
flexibility and the opportunity to continue to have the highest
environmental standards with respect to the mining of uranium.
I would ask all members of the House to consider these two very
important amendments, not exempting nuclear submarines from
the provisions of this bill and not providing any exemptions of any
nuclear substances which the bill, without amendment, is
suggesting.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, motions Nos. 4 and 5
are not acceptable to the government. Both motions deal with
deletions from the bill.
Motion No. 4 would delete clause 6. Clause 6 exempts nuclear
capable vessels of a foreign state invited into Canada by the
government from the application of the act.
(1045 )
Clause 6 has been included in Bill C-23 to make the bill
consistent with a court decision, that is, Vancouver Island Peace
Society v. the Queen, having to do with the royal prerogative of
foreign relations.
The power to approve visits by foreign naval vessels to Canadian
ports is a manifestation of the royal prerogative as related to the
power of the crown to act in regard to the strategic objectives of the
armed forces, foreign policy and military commitments, such as
NATO. This power has been confirmed by the courts. It is critical
that clause 6 remain in the bill.
With respect to motion No. 5 to delete clause 7, the bill creates
general broad prohibitions preventing the conduct of nuclear
activities or possessions of nuclear materials, unless licensed.
There must be a mechanism in the act to exempt activities, persons
or materials where the activity, person or the quantity poses no risk
to the public, or where the risk is accepted as a part of the job.
Deletion of this clause from the bill would require that every
activity using nuclear technology or nuclear material, every person
who might come into possession of nuclear materials as a part of
their normal duties and their quantity of nuclear material, no matter
how small, be licensed. This would impose a prohibitive and
unnecessary regulatory burden on Canadians.
Some of the exemptions contemplated include exempting peace
officers, including customs officers-and if the member from the
New Democratic Party would listen, he may well understand why
this is not acceptable to the government-and commission
inspectors appointed under this bill who may come into possession
of nuclear substances in the course of exercising their duties.
This provision would also allow for the exemptions for
possession of manufactured items that contains small amounts of a
nuclear substance to make them work, such as smoke detectors,
some time pieces and illuminated signs activated by tritium. Clause
7 must remain in this bill in order to make it workable.
Motions Nos. 4 and 5 are unacceptable to the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to say a few words on the two NDP motions. Motion No. 4
proposes that a specific policy apply to foreign vessels, in that they
should comply with Canadian laws as regards atomic energy.
It is very difficult to have such laws apply to foreign vessels,
particularly when these vessels are invited to Canada for purposes
of representations or for commercial operations.
Therefore, I have to disagree with the NDP member. His motion
seeks to have only one law apply in Canada but, unfortunately, we
cannot enforce our laws in other countries.
In fact, this is precisely what the Helms-Burton bill sought to do
regarding international trade. We must keep an open mind and hope
that foreign visitors will comply with basic legislation.
As for Motion No. 5, I am in partial disagreement with my
colleagues. It is in the public interest to have some flexibility when
dealing with specific situations, for example smoke detectors that
contain only minute amounts of radioactive material. While it may
seem ridiculous to try to regulate everything, there are
circumstances where regulations may be necessary.
7626
(1050)
It would be inappropriate to let the commission make these
decisions alone. As I said earlier, even in the new bill, the
commission does not have the transparency required to make all
Canadians believe that, regardless of the situation, the
commission's decision would be, if not impartial, at least as
informed as possible.
We will support the amendment proposed by the NDP, because it
should be up to the minister and the House of Commons to pass
general regulations. I am not talking about specific cases, such as
smoke detectors, but since atomic energy is a very important aspect
of public safety we should be responsible for this issue. Any
exemption should be subject to a vote in this House, so as to have a
framework in which all Canadian stakeholders can have a say.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the agreement made earlier,
all motions in Group No. 3 are deemed put, recorded divisions
deemed requested and deemed deferred.
[Translation]
The House will now deal with motions in Group No. 4.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I see that I
get to speak again rather quickly.
Group No. 4 contains two motions, Motions Nos. 7 and 8, which
are designed to respond to the witnesses that appeared before the
natural resources committee. They once again pointed to the lack
of transparency, which should no longer exist 50 years after the
creation of the Atomic Energy Control Board. To ensure
transparency, these people have suggested that the number of
members sitting on the commission should not increase from 3 to
5, as in the bill before us, but rather from 5 to 7.
Why? So that a representative of the environmental community
and a representative of the industry can sit on the commission to
express the views of those who are concerned by our environment
and of the industry, which is considered one of the economic
development tools of Canada.
Of course, these two new appointments could be voted upon
here, in the House of Commons. Basically, these two members
could among other things really tell the people or the industry
whether regulations are justified or not. Right now, the commission
is made of 3 to 5 members. These people, I am sure, would protect
the interests of the people or industry, but their main task would be
mostly to protect the interest of the commission itself.
We will see later on in another motion that the industry is
concerned about unilateral decisions by the commission forcing the
industry to bear the costs related to nuclear energy. I think the
industry as a whole must be responsible and pay for these costs.
However, if the industry had a representative on the commission
who were in a position to take part in the decision making process,
I believe it could accept these decisions or regulations even more
easily.
Having a representative from the environmental community on
the commission would also make it easier to explain to the public at
large that the commission's decision is justified and in the public
interest.
It is essential in the interest of all Canadians that the Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission established under this bill give this
image of transparency, which will be easier to develop if a member
of the public sits on the commission.
(1055)
The government knows that all the necessary tools are in place
for the very purpose of ensuring that transparency. But ask the
average Canadian, ask those who live near a nuclear facility, and I
am sure the vast majority of them will tell you they are worried
because they are not sure that everything is being done.
On this subject, during the sittings of the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources, I proposed an amendment to change the notion
of danger in the acceptable standards and in the minimal standards.
My amendment was negatived on division because the government
thought that it would be difficult to reach a minimal level from an
environmental point of view.
If the government is sure that the commission can respect the
desire of Canadians to live in safety, all the more reason to have
somebody who will act as a watchdog and who will even have the
opportunity to endorse certain decisions in order to prove that the
decisions made by the Atomic Energy Control Board are good for
Canadians.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in support of Motion No. 7 which the Bloc has put forward.
This amendment would include more people in making the
decisions that affect their lives.
We in this House often forget when governing this country that
we have to be more inclusive. We have to include people who are
affected by decisions taken by government. We have to include
more people whose environment is affected by decisions of either
the provincial or federal government, for example, to establish a
nuclear facility or to have a nuclear mine in their communities. We
have to include these people because they are the ones who live
nearby; they are the ones who have experience with the impact of
these facilities on their environment.
Therefore, Motion No. 7, put forward by the Bloc, will provide
some transparency in the commission's activities. It will also
protect those who are affected on the front lines. The NDP will
support this and I hope the government will consider this kind of
amendment favourably. I know it is always open to suggestions that
7627
are positive in nature, and this is one that is very positive. It has a
lot of support across the country.
Saskatchewan's environmental review system is very
transparent when it comes to reviewing the environmental
implications of mining. It works very well in Saskatchewan as it
includes those people who would otherwise be excluded. If the bill
is passed unamended, in respect of motion No. 7, it will continue to
exclude a lot of Canadians whose lives are very severely impacted
by nuclear development.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, neither motion No. 7
nor motion No. 8 is acceptable.
I have this statement on motion No. 7. Many years ago it was the
practice to include a representative from industry on the board. The
government, as a matter of policy, abandoned that practice years
ago. It is critical that members of the AECD or its successor, the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, be unbiased. It is equally
important that it be seen to be unbiased by both the public and the
industry being regulated. Furthermore, in order for good decisions
to be made by members of the commission, it is extremely
important that the commission be made up of members appointed
for their expertise.
This amendment, if accepted, would risk having poor regulatory
decisions made because of lack of expertise or bias toward one
agenda or another. It would also raise doubts about the objectivity
of the regulator.
There may also be significant problems with interpreting or
applying this amendment. It is not clear who the representative
should be. It could be a member of an environmental group or a
company employee, but it could also be a person simply appointed
to speak for the environmental group or the industry. Nor is it clear
how the terms, generally recognized, or work in environmental
protection, would be interpreted.
The order in council process envisioned for this bill provides
complete flexibility. Representatives of environmental groups or
industry could be appointed if that is what is desired.
(1100)
As for Motion No. 8, requiring approval of Parliament for
appointments to the commission, there have been times when a
new member had to be appointed to the board due to the death or
illness of a member. Order in council appointments allow the
government to fill vacancies speedily. Requiring candidates to be
approved by Parliament could lead to situations where the
decisions of the commission are delayed until new members are
appointed.
I would suggest that hon. members consider what would need to
be done if a vacancy had to be filled during the summer months in
order for the commission to carry out its normal regulatory
decision making. Should Parliament be reconvened during summer
recess in order to confirm appointments to the commission simply
so the commission could continue to operate over the summer?
However, if this amendment passes we would have to be
prepared to do that or to tell the industry that it will simply have to
wait for its regulatory decisions. This could lead to lapsed licences
through no fault of the licensees, requiring companies to suspend
operations in order to comply with this act.
As a final comment, members of the commission are appointed
for their expertise. It is not the practice of this House to review
such appointments. In only rare cases, such as where the person
acts as an ombudsman, is this necessary.
These amendments are unnecessary and could impede the
efficient operations of the commission. For these reasons they are
not acceptable to the government.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, pursuant to the agreement
reached earlier today, all motions in Group No. 4 are deemed to
have been put to the House, and any divisions are deemed to have
been requested and deferred.
The House will now proceed to consideration of Group No. 5.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in support of Motion No. 9, which will amend Bill C-23 in
clause 33 by replacing lines 15 to 17 on page 19 with the following:
While exercising any authority under the act, an inspector shall make all
reasonable efforts to be accompanied by a member of a health and safety committee
or an environment committee whose sphere of activity is affected by the authority
exercised by the inspector, and the inspector may also be accompanied by any other
person chosen by the inspector.
I guess this is very self-explanatory. What we are calling for is
that when the inspection of a facility or a site is underway by the
commission that somebody from the health and safety committee
or the environmental committee of the working people on site be
allowed whenever possible to accompany the inspector to provide
the inspector with perhaps insight which the inspector would not
have.
Obviously when someone is working full time in a workplace
they have a great deal of knowledge of who they are working with
and a great deal of knowledge about some of the problems they are
working under, some of the opportunities the company has and as
7628
well as some of the areas that may not be looked at by an inspector
who may have other commitments and may be rushing through it.
At least somebody will be there to accompany this person. I am not
saying he or she should be instructing or advising the inspector but
at least provide a balance which is what we need. We need a
balance to this kind of system in Canada.
We are very supportive of this amendment and are asking
members to consider that because it is very important to the safety
of workers on the sites. We have had support from the workers in
the nuclear industry on this issue. We have had the support of the
trade union movement across Canada with respect to this
amendment. Therefore we are asking the government to favourably
consider this amendment which would, in effect, make the
inspection system more efficient, safer and obviously more
productive and helpful to those concerned.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an unworkable
amendment. With regard to inspections, there are some points to
make. First, there are occasions when inspections are and must be
unannounced, as in many regulatory regimes, in order to permit an
accurate evaluation of compliance with regulations and licence
conditions.
(1105)
Second, in many cases, particularly in the case of nuclear power
plants, this amendment would be inefficient in that it would place
an unworkable burden on inspectors as well as on the industry. The
AECB has inspectors at each plant and on site inspection of a plant
is a part of their daily routine.
To require those inspectors to be accompanied on their daily
rounds would be unduly disruptive to the performance of their
duties in addition to creating an unnecessary demand on the
licensees.
This amendment may also compromise the regulator's ability to
meet Canada's international obligations regarding
non-proliferation of nuclear materials for non-peaceful purposes.
To satisfy new requirements currently being developed by the
International Atomic Energy Agency to strengthen nuclear
safeguards, the commission will need the capacity to inspect any
facility where it believes unregulated nuclear activities are carried
out. This amendment does not provide an exemption for this
situation.
While this amendment is intended to apply to inspections, the
wording of this amendment does not restrict the requirement to be
accompanied by a member of the health and safety committee to
that function. It would apply to all activities of inspectors.
The amendment is too broad in its scope for objectivity and
efficiency. This amendment is unworkable and not acceptable to
the government.
The Deputy Speaker: Under the agreement made earlier, all
motions in Group No. 5 are deemed put, the recorded division is
deemed requested and deemed deferred. The House can now
proceed with the motions in Group No. 6.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the group of
motions we are now considering includes Motions No. 10, 11, 12
and 13. These motions suggest that industry be consulted so as to
ensure that the costs it is required to bear are not prohibitive, so that
it has an opportunity to suggest solutions to problems, rather than
have solutions imposed by the commission.
Industries have, for many years, had to adjust to international
competition in order to stay competitive. They have had to find
simpler procedures, with less infrastructure, that allow them to
reach the same objectives, while cutting costs by one half or one
third.
If these amendments are included in the bill, it will give
Canada's nuclear industry greater flexibility and improve its
competitiveness on foreign markets, with which it will henceforth
be on an equal footing. I propose that Motions Nos. 10 and 11 be
approved.
This same group also includes Motion No. 13, which is based on
a different philosophy. We think that the public should have better
access to information. To this end, public information should
appear not just in the Canada Gazette but also in the newspapers.
We were told in committee that this method could be very
expensive. That may be so, if the intention is to use the mass media
to disseminate the commission's decisions. But today there are
some very economical means of dissemination, such as the
Internet. It is therefore possible to spend less to attain this objective
and thus serve Canadians.
(1110)
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to talk about Group No. 6 which includes Motions 10 to 15.
First I want to talk about Motions Nos. 13 and 14 which the New
Democratic Party has put forward. In my critic area I feel these are
very important.
Motion No. 13 refers to Motion No. 5, which we discussed
earlier, calling for exempting no nuclear substances, or at least
those which would be harmful to the environment or harmful to
Canadians in the current situation. This basically refers to some of
the exemptions and outlines some of the concerns that the govern-
7629
ment had about the almost untraceable amounts of nuclear product
in home smoke detectors or in wrist watches. Obviously these are
not things that we want to totally regulate. Certainly we have to
establish some minimum requirements regarding safe levels of
nuclear fuel or safe levels of nuclear product, uranium product, that
shall be provided to Canadians with respect to the products that
they consume, purchase or have around their homes or offices.
Motion No. 13 is supportive of Motion No. 5 which the
government opposed because it did not want to get into protecting
Canadians. It wants to make sure that Canadians are subjected to
very loose environmental and health regulations with respect to
various nuclear products.
Motion No. 14 basically provides for Parliament to be given the
final word with respect to the regulations. Regulations are usually
made by order in council but they have to have some reflection of
the changes in society in this country electorally and
governmentally reflected through elections.
Members of the House of Commons are elected from time to
time from different regions, from different occupations, from
different mindsets as well as different political parties. They should
have the final word with respect to what the regulations are when it
comes to nuclear safety in this country.
Nuclear safety is something that is paramount in people's minds
and in particular those workers who operate in the industry. It is
also a very important issue as technology improves and as more
information becomes available to Canadians with respect to the
impacts of this particular product in our society and in the lives of
the people who live Canada.
Basically we are saying give Parliament the authority to deem
which regulations shall be good, bad or indifferent. Give
Parliament, the representatives of the people of this country, the
democratically elected people of this country, some authority into
whether these regulations are satisfactory.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 10 to 14
all deal with clause 44, the regulation-making powers, and for
various different reasons each of these proposed amendments is not
acceptable in its present form. Furthermore, some of them could
create problems. However, for Motions Nos. 11 and 12 the
government wishes to propose an alternative amendment that
would achieve the proposed objective.
With respect to Motion No. 10, the inclusion of cost benefit
analysis in this legislation is something that the government has
discussed with industry representatives on several occasions. There
was a consensus that there is a role for cost benefit analysis in the
regulatory process, but that it is premature to include cost benefit
analysis in this legislation. Most important, there is no consensus
on the role that cost benefit analysis would or should play in the
regulatory decision making process.
For example, should economic considerations be given more,
less or equal weight as safety considerations? There are also
significant differences of opinion with respect to the application of
cost benefit analysis. For example, how do you value a human life
or place a value on environmental protection? What cost and what
benefits are to be included in the analysis? Until these issues are
addressed the government believes strongly that it would be unwise
to include a mandatory requirement for cost benefit analysis in this
legislation, as this amendment would do.
(1115 )
The government does recognize the importance of this issue and
is working with industry to draft a policy for the application of cost
benefit analysis to regulatory decision making. That policy will
attempt to address how and when cost benefit analysis is to be used
in the regulator's decision making process.
With respect to Motions Nos. 11 and 12, the government
recognizes the importance of consultation on regulations,
particularly on fees. Treasury Board policy requires that all
regulations under this act, including regulation regarding fees for
services and licences, be published in part I of the Canada Gazette
and interested parties be given an opportunity to comment. The
AECB often consults with industry before publication in the
Gazette. Therefore, the consultation process already exists.
The proposals from the opposition do not specify the manner of
consultation. There is no requirement that it be made public nor is
there any requirement for a reasonable opportunity to comment.
Any consultation process should address these issues.
Motion No. 13 is not acceptable and as I explained when
speaking to Motion No. 5, the power to create exemptions must
stay in the bill.
With regard to Motion No. 14, clause 44(5) assigns to the
governor in council the power to make regulations on matters not
otherwise assigned to the commission but which may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of the act.
The proposed amendment is counter to normal regulatory
practice. It would in essence defeat the intention of the provision,
which is to assign the residual regulation making power to the
governor in council. It would also be inefficient from a regulatory
point of view in that it may lead to unnecessary delays and
additional costs associated with having the regulations reviewed
and approved by Parliament. For these reasons the government
does not find this amendment acceptable.
7630
With regard to Motions Nos. 11 and 12 concerning consultations
on fee regulations, we would like to propose the following. I
move:
That Bill C-23 in clause 44 be amended by adding after line 20 on page 32 the
following:
(12) A copy of each regulation that the commission proposes to make under
paragraphs 1(i) or (j) shall be published in the Canada Gazette and a reasonable
opportunity shall be given to persons to make representations to the commission
with respect thereto.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is in order. Is there further
debate with respect to the amendment?
(1120)
Colleagues, the order that was made earlier did not cover this
particular amendment which has just been put to the House. It
leaves the Chair in a difficult position because members may not
wish to give unanimous consent to include this amendment.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would entertain
this motion being included with the other motions in Group No. 6. I
believe that would be a great idea.
The Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden is certainly in agreement to having this the
subject of the earlier order.
[Translation]
As agreed earlier today, all the motions in Group No. 6,
including the amendment just proposed, are deemed to have been
voted on, and recorded divisions are deemed to have been
requested and deferred.
The House will now consider the motions in Group No. 7.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will speak
briefly to Group No. 7, which comprises Motions Nos. 16 and 17.
In essence, the bill contained something of a technical defect, with
no provision for particular situations. I will read the clause in
question:
51.1 No person shall be found guilty of an offence under this Act or a regulation
made thereunder if the person establishes that he or she exercised all due diligence to
prevent its commission.
The notion of due diligence already exists in jurisprudence. It is
even found in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, from
which Bill C-23 is drawn. I believe all members of the House of
Commons should approve this amendment.
The government itself recognized this flaw and proposed Motion
No. 17, which is essentially identical, except that it takes into
account section 50, which excludes people who might voluntarily
go around with a miniature nuclear bomb, for example, so they
cannot go to court and be exonerated for this oversight.
So I imagine we will not have to debate this bill at length and we
will all agree that it should be corrected.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the due diligence
defence is available in law for regulatory offences under the charter
of rights and freedoms, even if not specified in an act. Therefore, it
is not necessary to explicitly provide for this defence in this bill.
However, there are instances where due diligence is explicitly
found as a defence in other acts. Therefore, the government is
agreeable to this amendment.
Having said that, we must exempt offences under section 50,
which deals with offences regarding nuclear weapons, from having
recourse to this defence. This is because the penalty for this
offence, which is up to 10 years imprisonment, indicates that this is
more in the nature of a crime than a regulatory offence, making a
due diligence defence inappropriate.
We agree with the intent of this motion so long as a due diligence
defence is not available for the offence associated with nuclear
weapons. We therefore propose an alternative amendment. I move:
That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 36 the following:
51(1). A person shall not be found to have contravened any provision of this act,
other than section 50, if it is established the person exercised all due diligence to
prevent its commission.
(1125)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: My colleague, I think the same
amendment has already been put forward. Would you please
withdraw the motion? I think this would be the easiest way to go.
[English]
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. That seems to be
the simplest solution.
Pursuant to the agreement made earlier, all motions in Group No.
7 are deemed put, recorded divisions are deemed requested and
deemed deferred.
The House will now proceed with the motions in Group No. 8.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Group No.
8 contains the last two motions, namely Motions Nos. 18 and 19.
Every board dealing with the government is normally required to
submit reports to the House. It would be appropriate for the bill
before us, Bill C-23, to provide for the commission to submit a
report to the minister at the end of each fiscal year and for this
report to be tabled in the House.
For an organization as important as the Atomic Energy Control
Board, the fact that reports will be tabled in the House would foster
transparency. Not only would its weaknesses and improvements
become apparent, but public confidence in our institutions would
be enhanced as a result.
7631
In that sense, Motions Nos. 18 and 19, which are identical except
for a few technical details, tend to foster the notion that the House
should exercise a tight control on the commission's activities and
the commission should be made accountable to the public.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, neither Motion No. 18
nor 19 is acceptable. The motions deal generally with the affairs
and management of the commission and how the commission is
kept accountable to Canadians.
Motion No. 18 appears to be intended to provide for some form
of oversight on the commission's activities in order to promote
efficiencies in the commission's internal operations. However the
way it is worded would require the commission to publish any
comment made to the commission at any time during the year and
the commission's response to those comments and to publish those
comments in its annual report regardless of whether those
comments are reasonable or not. This is an unreasonable burden
and would impede the efficient operations of the regulator.
(1130)
I would like to point out that both the auditor general and
Treasury Board provide oversight on the commission's activities:
the auditor general, in his intermittent review of the AECB's
operations, and Treasury Board when it reviews and approves the
AECB's annual estimates.
I would also like to point out that the minister, under clause
12(4), has the right to request the board to provide reports on its
general administration and management and to have the results
published in the annual report if the minister wishes. Therefore
mechanisms are already in place which provide for oversight over
the operations of the commission, as this amendment proposes to
do. It is unnecessary.
The requirement in Motion No. 19 to hold a public hearing on
the internal management, operations and business practices of the
commission would impose a significant administrative burden on
the commission and a significant cost as well.
Motions Nos. 18 and 19 would both establish a precedent
regarding the public scrutiny of the internal operations of the
regulatory bodies. There are broad policy implications involved
and it would be unwise to do this until the government assesses the
implications. For these reasons, the amendments are not acceptable
to the government.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the agreement reached earlier
today, the questions on all the motions in Group No. 8 are deemed
to have been put and recorded divisions deemed requested and
deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. deputy whip of the government
has asked that the votes be deferred until the end of Government
Orders today.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-53, an act to
amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act, as reported (without
amendment), from the committee.
Hon. Douglas Peters (for Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time?
With the consent of the House, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peters (for the Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada) moved that Bill
C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be now
read the third time and passed.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address
Bill C-53 which, as you pointed out, is now at third reading.
7632
This bill proposes amendments to the Prisons and Reformatories
Act that will strengthen and modernize the statutory framework
governing temporary absence programs for offenders in provincial
and territorial custody.
This bill is a global answer to the concerns expressed by the
provinces and territories, which feel that the current legislative
framework is not flexible enough to meet their specific needs.
The bill is also a very good example of
federal-provincial-territorial co-operation on an issue of mutual
interest. These provisions were developed in consultation with our
provincial and territorial partners, and they were approved by the
ministers responsible for justice in all the jurisdictions.
(1135)
As hon. members will know, the Prisons and Reformatories Act
is a federal statute which governs how sentences will be
administered by provincial institutions. This stems from the federal
responsibility for criminal law. However, it is our provincial and
territorial partners who must implement this legislation. It is
therefore incumbent upon us to ensure that there is adequate
flexibility for them to meet their own unique circumstances. This is
precisely what this bill does.
Here is how the bill will modernize and strengthen the statutory
framework that governs provincial and territorial temporary
absence programs. First, the bill adds a statement of purpose and
principles. This is a new element, modelled on the statement of
purpose and principles created in 1992 in the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, which applies to parole and temporary
absence programs for offenders under federal jurisdiction.
Federal correctional authorities see it as an extremely useful tool
for policy makers. It adds uniformity to temporary absence and
conditional release programs. This is very important, given the
close scrutiny to which our agencies are constantly subject. I would
hasten to add that these are not federal principles imposed on the
provinces and territories, but principles that all governments have
agreed to implement together.
Second, the amendments would allow the provinces and
territories to increase the maximum duration of temporary
absences from 15 to 60 days. This change will reflect the current
practice of granting consecutive temporary absences. Increasing
the duration of temporary absences will make it possible to
improve parole planning and to reduce the frequency of renewals of
temporary absence certificates. These amendments, however, will
require tighter monitoring of renewals, for an authority wishing to
renew a temporary absence will first have to reassess the whole
case.
Third, the bill will give governments the power to create
additional types of temporary absences, beyond those granted for
medical, humanitarian or rehabilitative reasons, so long as they are
consistent with the statement of purpose and principles for
temporary absence programs as stated in the bill.
There are two objectives to this amendment: first, to give
administrations the necessary flexibility to adapt the temporary
absence program to their own requirements; and second, to
establish parameters that must be complied with in order to ensure
a certain uniformity across the country.
Fourth, the reforms will give administrations the power to
restrict the concurrent eligibility of prisoners for some types of
temporary absences and parole. This will enable provincial and
territorial corrections authorities to limit the opportunities for
prisoners to make simultaneous use of the parole and the temporary
absence systems, and to play both ends against the middle.
Finally, the bill will add other important measures for public
protection. The importance of the principle of public protection
was the subject of lengthy debate during second reading of the bill
and during its study by the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs.
It is important to point out that, when these amendments were
being drafted, the administrations agreed there must be no
dissociation of the principles of protecting society and of
rehabilitating offenders, and that these principles were neither
contradictory nor in competition. In fact, all administrations agree
that these two principles are totally compatible, since rehabilitation
of an offender is the best means of protecting society, in the long
term.
May I, however, add that the fundamental importance of
protecting society is reflected throughout Bill C-53.
(1140)
This important concept informs the purpose and principles of the
bill, and I am referring to clause 7: ``The purpose of a temporary
absence program is to contribute to the maintenance of a just,
peaceful and safe society-'' and a number of other provisions.
Clause 7.5 provides specific grounds for suspending, cancelling
or revoking a temporary absence. Clause 7.6, paragraphs 1 and 2,
provides for issuing an arrest warrant and for its electronic
transmission and execution in any place in Canada.
Another clause authorizes a peace officer, who believes on
reasonable grounds that a warrant has been issued in respect of an
offender on temporary absence, to arrest the offender without a
7633
warrant and remand him int custody for up to 48 hours until the
warrant is transmitted and executed.
These measures are quite clear about the authority to
reincarcerate certain offenders when necessary.
I may point out that Bill C-53 is one of several initiatives
introduced by the present government. The safe home and safe
streets program described in the red book favours a balanced
approach to public safety, an approach that emphasizes the need to
take a tough line with violent, high risk offenders who represent an
immediate and ongoing threat to the public.
This program, however, recognizes the need to engage in crime
prevention and rehabilitation. This means intervening at an early
stage to turn minor offenders away from crime.
In the last throne speech it was announced that to support this
objective, ``the government will focus corrections resources on
high-risk offenders while increasing efforts to lower the number of
young people who come into contact with the justice system. The
government will develop innovative alternatives to incarceration
for low-risk offenders''.
Bill C-53 is in line with this commitment and will help the
provinces and territories to adjust temporary absence programs to
the needs of their own prison population.
The government is also pursuing other initiatives in close
co-operation with its many partners in the penal justice system. I
would, more particularly, like to talk to you about a document
presented at the May 1996 meeting of the justice ministers of the
federal, provincial and territorial governments.
The document, entitled Corrections Population Growth, was
drafted by the federal, provincial and territorial deputy ministers
and correctional services officials. It puts forward a number of
recommendations, which were accepted by all ministers, as well as
a series of principles, which will provide a basis for future policy.
This undertaking deserves mention because it reflects agreement
among administrations and points out the importance of having all
components of the criminal justice system united in their efforts so
as to ensure a fair, peaceful and safe society efficiently and
effectively.
One of the principles in this document, which is reflected in the
bill, is that the primary objective of the criminal justice system is to
contribute to maintaining a fair, peaceful and safe environment. To
this end, we must focus our efforts on the front line of the criminal
justice system and promote more crime prevention initiatives.
We all know that prevention of criminal behaviour is more
effective than its punishment. Habitually, sanctions are applied
much too late and are not aimed at the cause of the problem.
One of the greatest challenges facing us is to continue to develop
community based sanctions that are safe, effective and credible for
Canadians who are most likely to have run-ins with the law. This is
why the government created the national crime prevention council
and is inviting all departments in a position to do so to participate
by developing crime prevention strategies.
Many police departments, including the RCMP, are now
developing and implementing community police programs which
will help communities come up with their own crime prevention
strategies, suited to their particular needs.
(1145)
As the police are an integral part of community life, they can
help in problem resolution and social planning aimed at preventing
criminal behaviour, so that the community has less need of them to
enforce the law.
Another principle the federal, provincial and territorial justice
ministers agreed on is that incarceration should be limited to cases
where public safety may be threatened and that alternate solutions
should be applied when more effective community based sanctions
are available. While we recognize the usefulness of incarceration,
we also know that, when applied in the right circumstances,
community based sanctions protect society better over the long
term than incarceration. So, the government is going to intensify its
efforts to implement the recent reforms on sentencing, more
specifically, part XXIII of the Criminal Code, which offers the
courts other options besides incarceration.
For many years now, we have been advocating measures to
divert low-risk offenders out of the court system as much as
possible or to subject them to less monitoring, when this does not
interfere with the goals of the criminal justice system, mainly
public protection. Early intervention, that is to say, acting before
crime patterns are set, is considered by many an effective means of
preventing criminal behaviour. Residential programs as well as
drug rehabilitation, mental health, restitution, occupational
training and other similar programs provide offenders with the kind
of support and guidance they need in the community.
In order to support alternatives to incarceration and ensure their
success, the necessary programs and resources must be made
available to the community. The various elements of the criminal
justice system must come together to design, develop and
implement community corrections programs. While this is no
small task, it is encouraging to note that a strong consensus exists
among the various levels of government to work together at
developing efficient community corrections measures.
Clearly, the necessary reform of the criminal justice system is
too great a task for a single government or sector. To bring about
meaningful changes, criminal justice, police, sentencing,
corrections and parole officials must work closely together. The
fact that governments agree on a number of initiatives shows a will
to co-operate and contribute in a positive way to better public
7634
protection, as well as to adjust our resources to the level of risk
posed by offenders.
These past few years, we have worked hard at making our
society safe, fair and peaceful. The initiatives I described this
morning, combined with the bill before us today, will further this
objective.
Bill C-53 is an excellent example of federal, provincial and
territorial collaboration, which, I hope, all members of this House
will support.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government member really stressed that Bill C-53 was
an example of good co-operation and showed that the federal,
provincial and territorial jurisdictions work well together, but I
think this bill is a prime example of the complexity of Canada: a
federal act that is implemented by the provinces. In order to reach
agreements, the provincial, federal and territorial authorities must
negotiate. They must discuss the issue of costs. The federal
government is throwing the ball to the provinces and asking them
to implement the legislation.
(1150)
I did not want to talk about this because we basically agree with
Bill C-53. However, the hon. member just provided me with an
opportunity to point out that this is a striking example of how
cumbersome the administration of this country called Canada
really is. This is why Bloc Quebecois members are telling
Canadians that the current system just does not make any sense.
Bill C-53, a simple piece of legislation on which everyone in this
House agrees, is a striking example. Do not use Bill C-53 as an
example of how well things work in Canada. This bill is just the
opposite: it is a frightening example of how money is being wasted.
Everyone can agree on temporary absences to facilitate
reintegration into the community, to make the system more
humane, and so on. Everyone can agree on that. But it took years
before an agreement was reached, because the provincial, federal
and territorial jurisdictions had to negotiate.
The hon. member also had the nerve to claim that his
government deserves the credit for this agreement. In 1993, the
Conservatives were in office. It is the Conservatives who started
looking at this bill. This government takes credit for a lot of things,
but this time it is going too far. In May of 1993, the Liberals were
not in office. They were only elected in October of that year.
I did not want to get upset, because this is an ordinary bill.
However, I think that it is a good thing if the truth is told, to set the
record straight, but it hurts to hear it.
As for Bill C-53, yes, we are in agreement. One thing that we
agree with, in light of the remarks I have just made, is that it will be
up to the Quebec National Assembly to determine how the
legislation will be implemented. If there is anything good about
this bill, it is the flexibility Quebec and the other provinces will
have in implementing it.
I also have a very brief comment on the bill, because we are in
agreement with almost everything. The statement of principles
says that the purpose of the program is to contribute to the
maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by facilitating the
rehabilitation of prisoners and their reintegration into the
community. If there is one place where people have been working
on such matters for years, it is surely Quebec.
We have looked at various bills, and Quebec's programs are
often held up as models of successful rehabilitation and
reintegration. You will therefore understand that we are in
agreement with a statement of purpose and principles such as that
contained in Bill C-53. It is consistent with Quebec's way of
thinking.
Since protection is needed, this is mentioned in the bill. Quebec
has always said that, while offenders can be given certain rights,
they also have obligations. If there is to be good supervision, all
this must be carefully monitored, and the bill also covers this.
The bill says that, yes, we want to give flexibility to those who
will be applying it, and yes, details can be included, such as why
offenders can obtain passes for durations of up to 60 days. Certain
criteria are given, but the bill also says that a temporary absence
may be suspended, cancelled or revoked for humanitarian, family
or other reasons given in the bill.
This protection is found in clause 7.5.
It reads:
7.5 A designated authority may suspend, cancel or revoke a temporary absence,
before or after it begins, if
(a) it is considered necessary and justified to prevent a breach of a condition of the
absence or where a breach has occurred;
(b) the grounds for authorizing the absence have changed or no longer exist; or
(1155)
Because some things can change during the 60 day period, and
protection of the public could require revocation or cancellation of
the offender's right.
(c) the case has been reassessed, based on information that could not reasonably
have been provided when the absence was authorized.
Clause 7.5 contains the elements aimed at protecting the public
when this act is implemented. This is all very well and we have no
complaiants. Everything is done under the aegis of the provinces
and territories. In the present system, this is a matter under federal
jurisdiction, but provincial and territorial administration.
Therefore, the provinces and territories will apply this act. They
will be able to determine the eligibility criteria very precisely.
7635
There were reservations on the extension of temporary absences
from 15 to 60 days. After questioning certain witnesses who came
before the committee, we realized this was not a problem. It was
understood that there were often special requests requiring an
additional 15 days, and that this period could be extended. There
does not seem to be any problem with absences of 60 days. Our
concerns were allayed during examination by the committee.
In short, we agree with Bill C-53. What must not be lost sight of
is the important element, with which we are in agreement for as
long as we are part of the present system: the respect of areas of
jurisdiction.
The provinces and territories were given full responsibility for
this area. The bill gives them all the flexibility they need to put in
place their own rules for parole.
Since Quebec's approach to parole, re-entry into the community
and rehabilitation differs from that of Ontario or western Canada as
well as its experience in the matter, it will be able to adjust the rules
accordingly.
I only want to warn the government against doing what it did in
the case of the Young Offenders Act. When the Young Offenders
Act was passed, it allowed the provinces to implement the
legislation and establish certain services according to need. Quebec
is 25 years ahead of nearly all other provinces on the
implementation of this type of legislation. Everybody says so.
Once Quebec got its system up and running, put in place all its
institutions and established its philosophy of the Young Offenders
Act and its implementation, the federal government started to
tinker with the legislation.
The Liberal government makes a habit of changing the rules of
the game after the game has started. Why? Because it caved in to
pressure from the western Canadian right wing. They are distorting
the Young Offenders Act.
This morning, we agree on how Bill C-53 should be
implemented, and I would urge the government not to make the
same mistake. I hope that later on there will be no interference
from federalists who want to change the rules of the game in this
bill. It is high time the Liberal government showed respect for the
bills it introduces, never mind how Quebec implements them, with
its flexible approach or how Ontario or the other provinces will do
it.
The official opposition agrees with Bill C-53, and that is why we
did not propose any amendments. This bill was developed by a task
force that was appointed well before the Liberals came to power.
This task force managed to establish a consensus, although it was
far from easy, among the federal, provincial and territorial
governments regarding the administration of a federal act by the
provinces. That is why we agree with Bill C-53.
(1200)
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to debate what I consider to be a significant
bill. It is a matter which should be debated. However, I believe
there is a lot missing in the intent of the bill that should be
addressed.
This country has a rising cost of crime that the victims as well as
others have to share. They have to share in the cost of the release of
prisoners, the lack of rehabilitation and the repeat nature of
criminals. Most criminals repeat their crimes. That drives up the
costs of crime in society. It is now at the point where it is no longer
acceptable. Most people do not realize how much or what they are
paying for.
The government states that the bill would authorize the
provinces to create additional types of temporary absence
programs. In other words, offenders at the provincial level will be
put out on the street at a much higher rate than they are right now.
The rate is already high. The government says it is a cost effective
measure to cut down the costs of incarceration and so-called
rehabilitation.
The Reform Party does not support this bill. It falls far short of
what it should address. It is tinkering with the justice system. It is
downloading some of those costs not so much on the provinces, but
on the communities where the offenders are going to be dumped. I
say ``dumped'' because there is no indication that there will be
solid programs put in place to pick up the influx of offenders who
will be returned to the community.
The bill also deals with the extension of temporary absences
granted to inmates, up to a maximum period of 60 days.
The government argues that the bill is minor in scope, that it is
merely a reflection of what the provinces have requested of the
federal government. My question to the federal government is this.
Who in the Department of Justice has analysed the true cost of
crime in the country? What studies justify the action taken by the
provisions in this bill? What studies on repeat offenders have been
put forward so opposition members can evaluate them?
Seventy per cent of inmates in institutions have been previously
incarcerated. What studies show how these costs are going to be
reduced when we consider the impact on communities? The police
will have to shore up their already very meagre resources to detect
and arrest repeat offenders. The courts will have to hear and re-hear
the same offenders coming before them. The victims of property
crime will have to pay the deductible on their insurance policies,
while their insurance rates will continue to rise. People will have to
be hospitalized after being assaulted by repeat offenders.
7636
I have seen nothing from the government or the justice
department which addresses those issues. However, studies have
been attempted by other institutions in the country. I will name
one and reflect on it from time to time as I speak this morning.
The Fraser Institute sought information from the government. It
was looking for studies that the government could put forward to
justify its legislation. Nothing has come out of the justice
department.
(1205)
In fact, it has been always the opposite. The government looks at
the bottom line, what it is costing a particular department and it
says, that is our cost. We are reducing them. That is the message the
government is attempting to sell to the electorate but it is not
telling the truth.
The truth of the matter is that as more offenders are released the
cost to the community is increasing, because of shattered lives,
because of the pain and anguish from an assault, a sexual assault or
a robbery. Shattered lives are never factored into anything that the
government does when it comes to criminal justice legislation. The
government ignores it. It does not want to know about it. It wants
them to go away. It does not want to listen to the victims and the
taxpayers when they cry out for protection or a change in
legislation. The government just does not want to deal with that
matter.
The government also argues that the proposed legislation is part
of an overall program to make our streets safer by gradually
reintegrating offenders back into the community. How many more
times can we address this whole issue of parole and temporary
absences given the fact that most people desire the opposite?
The studies and information that the Reform Party has received
reflect the opposite. People want to see the offenders locked away.
They want to see them punished to some degree. Yet the
government does not want to address any of that. It knows better
and it says so. It tells the electorate: ``You elected us because we
know better than you on how to handle this whole affair''.
The government talks about reintegrating offenders back into the
community. If 70 per cent, give or take 5 or 10 per cent of the
prison population, have been imprisoned before, what does that tell
us about the so-called rehabilitation programming structure that the
federal or provincial government has established? Some of it has
been imposed on the provincial governments through legislation.
If this is not working, why are we passing more legislation to
deal with the same program and the same failed rate that already
exists? Why are we compounding the problem? That is what is
proposed in Bill C-53. When the Liberal government puts to
people, the electorate and the taxpayer, that it is trying to make our
streets safer, that is false information. It will be doing the opposite.
Already the temporary absence program and parole have been a
dismal failure.
Let us talk about the parole board for a moment. It deals almost
with the same form of release. I am speaking about the violent
offender more than any others when I talk about the parole board.
The violent offender still plays a significant role if the attitudes of
people are looked at when discussing criminal justice matters and
certainly release matters.
Let us face it. The parole board's decisions really are not all that
beneficial to the safety of the community. If those offenders have to
serve their full time we would not need a parole board at quite a
substantial cost to taxpayers. The matter could easily be handled by
those within the correctional system.
The probationary aspect or early release, I do not care if it is
provincial or federal, reflects the same thing. I see the
parliamentary secretary to the justice minister shaking his head.
Imagine, the most recent study to come forward with regard to
crime statistics shows that the Canadian rates for property crimes
are equal to or higher in some areas than those rates across the
border. These property crimes include motor vehicle thefts, break
and enters and vandalism.
(1210)
An hon. member: The crime rate has gone down in the last four
years.
Mr. Hanger: The American crime rate has also dropped. It has
dipped a little. The parliamentary secretary said our crime rate is
going down. I say big deal. Property crime rates between 1962 and
now have increased by 500 per cent. He ignores that statistic which
speaks very clearly for itself.
Violent crime to this day, 1997, has increased by 400 per cent.
The parliamentary secretary and the justice minister like to tell
people to feel safe because the crime rate is dropping. They say
they are doing a good job. The truth is it is a temporary blip. The
crime rate makes these little adjustments from time to time but
overall it has increased over the years.
The youth violent crime rate is rising which should be a concern
for everyone in the House. But the Liberals have made it a partisan
issue. They look at rehabilitation as the answer to all the crime
problems. There is no talk about punishment, no talk about keeping
people safe. Although the Liberals like to reiterate those words
often, in effect that is not really what is happening.
That is the early release portion which the government is telling
people it is going to grant to the provinces to make them feel safer.
The government also argues that the program for extended
temporary absence for certain inmates will actually save money by
lowering the prison population. That is the crux of the matter. That
7637
is what this bill is all about. It is not about keeping people safe. It is
not about dealing with the crime problem and repeat offenders. It is
not about cutting down on the actual cost of crime which is what
impacts on each person who may suffer from a break-in or an
assault.
The crux of this bill is to empty the prisons. Get them out earlier.
Bounce them out so government members will look good. They can
tell the taxpayers they are doing something. They are addressing
not only the problem of crime but they are cutting down on
spending. Wow. That is the problem here. The government is
cutting down on the cost of corrections and imposing it on the
provinces at the cost of the safety of the taxpayers and the victims.
That is what is happening. The government will never admit to
that. But I believe if we go through the streets and the rural areas of
this country, we will get a clear picture.
The parliamentary secretary likes to support all government
legislation. I do not think there is really any debate behind closed
doors on that side of the House. It is all an attitude of ``let's just
follow along here with those at the top. They say this is the best
way to go''. The best way to go is to develop all this legislation,
kick it down into the caucus and tell the caucus what will happen.
Then it goes off to committee. Again, this is a top down process.
There is no debate in the committee about these bills. It is a joke.
A whole flock of witnesses come forward, some of them with
their own agenda, others with a concern about what may be
happening in their communities. Nobody listens because the
decision has already been made. The decision has already been
made on Bills C-53, C-68 and C-55, the so-called high risk
offender legislation which is coming up for a vote too.
(1215)
The decisions have been made, the bills have been formulated,
drafted and are going to be discussed in committee. Where are they
going to go? They are going to the floor of the House and they are
going to be passed because of the greater numbers on the
government side of the House.
Here is another example with respect to the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Solicitor General who is looking after corrections
and our prisons. This is the message being delivered, and again the
same kind of an attitude: ``I know best. I know better than the
people in this country. I can make you feel safe even though you are
not''.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General is chiding
me because I took a recent trip to Bowden. I stepped inside that
prison to see what was going on and it is interesting. I encourage
every member of this House to go inside and really have a close
look at what is happening in our prisons. It is a joke.
Most of the prisoners have an attitude and it has been drawn,
drafted and supported by this government and one or two previous
governments that they can challenge authority at every turn. That is
the attitude of the prisoners, that they can challenge authority at
every turn. If there is some disciplinary action to be taken on the
inside and the prisoner does not like it, what do they do? They
appeal to the warden, the commissioner or the deputy
commissioner and it goes up the ladder as if it were some sort of a
union. They can say ``I do not like you doing that to the authority of
this country''. That is what is happening in our prisons.
When that attitude prevails and is supported by the Liberals and
those before them under Conservatives we have a problem on our
hands. The prisoner, the violator of the law, does not know his
place in society. He does not understand what is wrong. It is not
called corrections, it is called support services for those who break
the law. That is what we have in this nation. Now they are trying to
impose the same type of thing on the provinces by bringing in Bill
C-53 which allows them to kick offenders back out on to the street
early.
In reality this is just another bill in a long line of bills brought
before the committee. Everybody has debated them. I can think
back to some earlier bills, although I was not privy to the debate on
some of those, but it would not have made much difference because
they are already decided beforehand; a long list of bills that weaken
further this system that we call the justice system. Unfortunately
there is less and less justice in the system.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General says he has
been in the prisons before. He must condone everything that goes
on in those prisons. I do not know. It is strange that he would want
to support such a system and he will fight tooth and nail to maintain
such a system. Even the prisoners complain substantially about it.
I can remember one prison I walked into. There was a fellow by
the name of Austin. He was a very vicious murderer. He was a
weightlifter, he used steroids, he was a real tough individual to deal
with. He murdered one or two people in southern Alberta. This
inmate controlled the prison.
Corrections Canada, with the support of the solicitor general and
the government members, agree with that. They say let this man
exist. They do not come out and say that to the public but by their
inaction to do something about the interior problems within these
institutions they condone it. If you do not do something to stop it
then you condone it. That is the bottom line.
What benefit would a situation like that developing in our
prisons be to other offenders?
(1220)
There may be some who might not agree with the process within,
who have a desire to be self-rehabilitated. I have talked to many. I
have talked to some who have gone into prison who had no desire
7638
ever to go back again, who are extremely critical of the system
inside because it does not deal with self-rehabilitation at all.
Mr. Kirkby: That is what you want.
Mr. Hanger: I am talking about self-rehabilitation. The
parliamentary secretary to the justice minister cannot tell the
difference. That is the problem.
This government does not know the difference between
rehabilitation programs that are sponsored by the state and the
self-rehabilitative desire on the part of the individual to correct his
behaviour.
The individual who has a desire to correct his own behaviour is
not supported by the system in any way, shape or form. In fact, he
is probably hindered.
I have received numerous calls from inmates who have former
prisoners who have been in that category. The minute they were
arrested, they went through the process, stepped inside the prison at
that point in their life and said ``no more''.
The system does not deal with those who have set their hand
against authority as a matter of course. It does not deal with those
people. In fact, it manipulates them and allows them to be
manipulated by others within the system. That is what is happening
in our prisons. No one can tell me that is a positive aspect of
corrections Canada. It is not.
In effect, with all the money that is being spent on rehabilitative
programs all we are really doing and all the taxpayer is really doing
is warehousing. There is nothing substantive. There is no skills
training any more, or very little.
They are shutting down a lot of the shops within the prisons
which used to teach some skills that would give them a slight
advantage, if you will, by stepping out and doing something
constructive on the other side. It gives them something to work for
and desire. Not any more. Look at the shops being closed.
There is an organization called CORCAN. Mr. Speaker would
understand that organization since he has half a dozen prisons in his
riding. There are a number of votes there that might mean a lot to
you, I do not know.
Here is an organization within called CORCAN. CORCAN loses
money every year. Why does it lose money? It is supposed to help
the prisoners with their programs. It is supposed to teach them. It is
supposed to employ within. Why does it lose money? Have
members ever asked themselves that?
I speak directly in a way through you, Mr. Speaker, to the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. Why does
CORCAN, the agency that is supposed to employ people within the
prison system, lose money? Why, with its existence as long as it
has been there, does it only employ a fraction of the inmates in each
institution?
I was at one institution in Alberta. Since Calgary is my home
town, I have had a chance to visit those prisons more than many
others.
CORCAN has a farm on the property owned by corrections
Canada, 350 cow-calf operations. Some urban people might not
know what that really signifies, but it is 350 cows. They give calves
every year, they feed these animals and ship off the beef.
The beef goes all over the place. It goes to other prisons and
elsewhere. I have not been able to track down where. How many
people would that kind of operation employ? I know farmers and
ranchers who own and have operations of that size. They are family
run operations. In the setting at Bowden penitentiary, there are 80
prisoners looking after what many could operate as a family
operation in this country. Tell me where the justification is to that?
(1225)
Mr. Discepola: Do you want to give them experience or not?
Mr. Hanger: The parliamentary secretary asked me if I want to
give them experience in this kind of operation. That is all well and
good. I say yes, but let us look at the other side of the issue. Does it
take 80 people to feed 350 cows? What are the other 75 people
doing in the meantime?
I would have to say that if they are trying to teach somebody the
value of getting up at six o'clock in the morning and putting in a
full day's work then I think they have failed. Five of them might get
up but the other seventy-five might or might not get up because
they do not have to go to work. That is the attitude in the prison
system. If they do not want to go to work, they do not have to.
There might be some adjustment in their pay. They may get paid $1
or $2 less per day but that is about it. There is no obligation on the
part of the inmates in our prisons today to go to work.
Most of the inmates are undisciplined anyway which is why they
are in jail. They have had their hand against authority right from
the beginning and are not going to learn any discipline tactics there.
They are not going to learn what it means to get up and take a lunch
box to work. They are not going to know what it means to earn a
decent day's pay. They want it for nothing and if they cannot get it
for nothing then they will take it. Unfortunately, that is often their
attitude and is supported by the Liberal government on that side of
the House. I do not think that is a healthy attitude to develop in
anyone.
The former parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general
agrees with all of that. He also feels this is all acceptable and
rehabilitative, but that is where the breakdown in the programs
7639
comes. It is not acceptable. It is a failure. Unfortunately the Liberal
government on that side of the House cannot recognize that at all.
Let us look at another reality of the bill in reference to
deterrence. To extend temporary absence programs would actually
have the opposite impact on incarceration in the area of deterrence.
In other words, how is it going to deter anyone? We are talking
about this so-called rehabilitative viewpoint. How is this going to
deter anyone from committing a crime and being incarcerated and
not wanting to go back? Deterrence is not there to make it clear to
the inmate or the potential criminal.
I have dealt with enough criminals in my lifetime and put
enough individuals in jail to know what their mentality is like. For
the most part they get together and discuss a lot of things when it
comes to crime. They discuss a matter before they even do it,
especially if they are operating in conjunction with one another.
They will look at it and since they are already bent, for the most
part, to break the law and defy authority, they will look at the
system and ask ``what is going to stop me, what are the costs of my
going out and committing this act?''
If they say a person is going to be sentenced to two years less a
day but they will make sure the person gets out quicker now than
before, which is what this bill is actually stating, then by the time it
filters down into the communities they will be out quicker than
before.
The deterrent aspect of the bill diminishes the present law, the
present form of incarceration and the demands placed on provincial
governments to keep offenders in and cut down on the cost of
crime. That again is something this government will not address.
(1230 )
As I pointed out before, Bill C-53 places prisoner rehabilitation
and reintegration as equal to the consideration of the protection of
society. The bill says that rehabilitation and reintegration are equal
to the protection of society. The truth of the matter is that if the bill
says this, then the opposite is true. It is not going to do that because
under the present rehabilitation, parole and temporary absences
program, the cost of crime continues to soar in our communities.
One study states that the cost of crime is in the billions of
dollars. Before getting into the cost of crime as outlined by the
Fraser Institute, I am going to criticize the government and the
justice department substantially because they have never
conducted any studies on the real cost of crime. I pointed that out
briefly before. They have never availed themselves of the existing
stats or sought input from victims of crime or communities as to
the impact of crime on people. They have not done studies to
determine what the hospitalization costs are for victims who have
been assaulted or raped. The impact of criminal behaviour on our
society has not been examined with regard to hospitalization costs.
Let us look at what the report says. I am reading from page 24 on
hospitalization costs: ``There are hospitalization costs associated
with violent crimes which should also be included as part of the
direct costs of violent crime. The average number of days of
hospitalization, not including simple outpatient treatment, amount
to roughly one-quarter of the total number of violent incidents.
That is, for the 270,000 assaults known to police in 1993, about
68,000 hospital days costing about $68 million were required to
repair the physical harm done to the victims''. That is just a portion
of it.
The legislation coming from that side of the House does not deal
with the true costs, even if we just look at the simple category-and
I hate to categorize it as a category-of assault. There were 68,000
hospital days costing the taxpayer or government at one level or
another money to repair those victims.
The report says that since data on the number of hospital days
required to treat the victims of assault are from victim survey data,
using crime incidence counts derived from victimization surveys
instead of incidents reported to the police might prove to be more
appropriate.
What is being said is that a victimization survey was done to
prepare the report. The victimization survey quickly noted that the
incidents reported to police and the actual figures of people being
victimized are two different numbers. In other words the
victimization rate is a lot higher than what is reported to the police.
As a result the hospitalization costs skyrocketed to $550 million
just to deal with assaults in this country. That is outrageous. Why
would any government want to pass legislation that would further
harm the people of the country? It defies logic. There has to be
some explanation, but the explanation I am hearing from the
government side is not logical.
(1235)
I was on the CBC a short time ago and I tried to reason through
some of the legislation that had been passed in reference to the
criminal justice system. The victim is almost considered to be the
accused. I have to say that the government sides more with the
protection of the criminal than it does with the victim. It rushes in
there and supports the criminal. It supports the rights of the
criminal over the rights of the victim.
The facts are sitting there for all to see. They only have to take
the shades off their eyes and look.
There was another study done by Brandon Welsh and Irvin
Waller: ``Crime and Its Prevention: Costs and Benefits''. This
study was done by these gentlemen at the Department of
Criminology of the University of Ottawa. The study talked about
shattered lives. What is it costing in shattered lives?
7640
This bill would put the criminal back onto the street earlier so
that he can victimize more people. It would allow the provinces
to do the same thing. The attitude is to open the doors. The motto
of the government is: open the doors so they can all get back out
and do more damage. That is what is happening. That is the
attitude of the government. It is unfortunate and it has a significant
impact on our communities.
Welsh and Waller estimate the cost of shattered lives to be $12.1
billion each year. The study covered the period from 1991 to 1993.
The cost is outrageous.
What is a shattered life? It is a murder. How do the people in the
family feel? It could be a rape or an assault. It could be the cost of
social services. For the most part the victims pay for their own care
but those who commit the crime are supported by the state. The
state rushes in to help them at every turn. It is totally unacceptable,
but it is the Liberal philosophy of the day. The cost of shattered
lives is significant.
The government has never measured the lost productivity of a
person who has been assaulted. It has never measured whether that
person is as productive as they were before. It has never measured
the outrage, the fear associated with property crime or violent
attacks. People have to change their lives but the government
refuses to address the matter.
The bill should address the concerns of the community to its
fullest and not just the bottom line of what might be in the
correctional system both provincially and federally. I would
support the bill, but Reform will not support this bill in this
context.
(1240 )
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I extend congratulations to my colleague from Calgary
Northeast for an eloquent speech. It was full of a lot of good
suggestions that I sincerely hope the government will be able to
adopt in an effort to try to bring some sense to the increasingly
absurd situation which is taking place within our prisons and
reformatories.
Bill C-53, an act to amend the prisons and reformatories act, was
a great opportunity for the government to put forth some
constructive solutions to situations with which those who work
within the system and those who are observers from without are
increasingly dissatisfied. I particularly feel sorry for those working
within the system, the men and women who work in corrections.
They are finding it increasingly difficult to work within the system
and to find meaning in what they do. The outcome of what they are
faced with has been less than satisfactory, not from the good efforts
they have made but from the fact that the system within which they
operate is making it very difficult for them to put forth good
solutions.
The suggestion within this bill, as my colleague from Calgary
Northeast mentioned, is really to increase the number of temporary
absence programs. The reason the government is proposing this is
not for the safety of Canadians, it is not to improve the way in
which crime and punishment operate within Canada, but it is purely
to try to save money.
In the process of trying to save money, which we all approve of,
there is going to be a huge cost. The cost is in releasing individuals
who have committed crimes, sometimes very serious crimes, and
compromising the innocent men, women and children who live in
our great nation. That is the cost people are going to have to pay in
the efforts the government is pursuing in this bill in trying to
increase the number of temporary absence programs which exist
within our country.
Of all the problems that are affecting our prisons and
reformatories, the government is messing around with a very minor
issue. This country's prisons and reformatories need a radical
overhaul. My colleague from Calgary Northeast, my colleague
from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley and my colleague from
Fraser Valley West have all put forward some very eloquent
solutions in which we can revamp our justice system to try to
ensure that Canadians are safer and try to ensure that crime and
punishment and sensible cost effective rehabilitation will be
integral parts of the system.
Instead of pursuing these courses, instead of trying to make these
solutions better, the government has chosen once again to nibble
around the edges into an area that is relatively meaningless in the
grand scheme of reforming our prison system. This not only
happens within this bill but in fact happens to the majority of bills
in this House. In fact it happens to the majority of work that is done
in this House and in the committees of the House of Commons.
Why is this so? Because we do not have a democracy here. We have
a fiefdom.
Every member in this House, if they are honest and look into
their hearts, will recognize very clearly that a small cadre of
elected and unelected, invisible, unaccountable individuals are
making the major decisions within this country. Because of the
whip structure that we labour under in this country, the good men
and women who work in this House as members of Parliament
across party lines are forced to engage in behaviour and are forced
to do the bidding of these unelected and unaccountable individuals.
This is not a democracy. This is a fiefdom. It does a huge
disservice not only to the people in this House, but most important
it does a huge disservice to the Canadian public, the people we are
supposed to serve.
This bill provides the Canadian people with just one more
example of why our system simply does not work. What goes on in
this House 80 per cent of the time is a sham. It is a complete and
utter sham.
7641
It is offensive to me that we are dealing with nibbling around
this issue. Unlike what the government believes, the situation is
that our streets are becoming less safe all the time. It is true that
the stated statistics demonstrate that there has been a decrease in
crime in adults. It is true that the stated statistics show that there
has been an increase in violent crime, in particular with youth.
There has been an increase in crime in general with youth.
(1245)
However, our stated facts and statistics on crime and punishment
do not reflect the fact that the actual rates of crime in this country
are much greater than the stated levels are. When we look behind
these statistics the reason is the Canadian public is becoming
increasingly dissatisfied, more fearful and has less and less faith in
the justice system as it exists.
If we speak to RCMP officers and the good men and women who
put their lives on the line to keep our streets safe we will find they
are becoming increasingly dissatisfied. The system ties their hands
behind their backs and prevents them from doing their jobs. They
are overworked, understaffed and labour under a series of rules and
restrictions that prevents them from doing their jobs.
If you are playing hardball with criminals you have to play
hardball back. One need not look any further than the Asian gang
crime situation in my province of British Columbia and see the
terrible difficulties that our police forces are having in trying to
bring these individuals to justice. They feel aggrieved that there has
been no leadership at the federal or provincial level on this issue.
This is why we in the Reform Party have become increasingly
dissatisfied by the inaction, whitewashing and smoke and mirrors
that have come forward from the justice minister.
Rather than taking the initiative and using his power to work
with members across party lines to develop good, concrete,
effective solutions to the problems, he has chosen once again to
play games. He is not playing games only in this House for political
reasons, he is playing games with the health and welfare and the
lives and the safety of men, women and children in this country.
That is nothing to be proud of.
Crime is increasing in this country and we have asked the
minister to do something about it. Apart from the good solutions
that have already been put forward by my colleagues let me offer a
few more. First, as has been said before, we have to change the
mindset of the way we think about justice. Back in the early 1980s
the Liberal solicitor general of the day said from now on the
primary goal of the justice system is not going to be the protection
of innocent civilians; the primary goal is going to be the
rehabilitation of criminals.
While we think that rehabilitation is essential to developing a
stronger, safer community in the future, there can be no doubt the
primary role of our justice system has to be the protection of
innocent civilians. Period. End of story. That is what we aim to do.
It is wise to divide up those who are violent criminals and
non-violent criminals. Those who are violent criminals have to pay
the price. They have demonstrated that they have shown a wilful
neglect to innocent people in the worst possible way. If they are
sentenced to a term in prison they must pay that price. People who
are contemplating committing offences must know they are going
to pay a hefty sentence if they commit them.
Second is to ensure that individuals before they are released are
not going to pose a threat to innocent people. When I worked in
prisons one of the most appalling things imaginable that I saw were
individuals with rap sheets as long as your arm who committed
many violent offences and who were going to be released even
though everybody who worked with these individuals knew they
would commit violent offences when they were out, physical,
sexual or otherwise. It was known.
The system prevents us from protecting innocent civilians and
that is a terrible situation and everybody pays. It is a crime to
society.
(1250 )
The Canadian public should say loudly and clearly that it is not
going to put up with it anymore. Canadians demand to be protected
and this House must stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of
Canada to ensure that people will not commit violent crimes again.
To the best of our ability we must safeguard the Canadian public
from this. If we have to, we should deem those people violent
offenders and keep them in for such a time that they will not pose a
threat anymore.
Non-violent offenders should be able to work as part of
restitution not only to the victims but also to society at large and for
their own incarceration.
There are two things which are not spoken of often but which my
colleague from Calgary Northeast mentioned very well. The first is
skills training. Many of these individuals do not have appropriate
skills so when they are released out of the system they have nothing
to fall back on other than a life of crime, which is what they do. As
part of the system we must ensure skills training is an integral part
of the rehabilitation of criminals.
The second is the extraordinarily high incidence of drug and
alcohol abuse by incarcerated individuals. Obligatory counselling
and treatment for drug and alcohol abuse must be a mandatory and
essential part of rehabilitation. Drug and alcohol abuse, as we know
in this House, is a very fundamental part of violence and criminal
behaviour.
My third point concerns dealings with psychiatric patients. One
of the worst things we have done in recent years is to
deinstitutionalize psychiatric patients. In my view, many
psychiatric patients should not have been deinstitutionalized,
although some certainly should have been and the integration of
individuals from that
7642
population in society is something that they and those of us who do
not have psychiatric problems have benefited from.
However, there is a large population composed of individuals
who cannot take care of themselves on the street. They stop
medicating themselves and they go into a worsening spiral of their
psychoses. They run afoul of the law and wind up in an institution,
in a criminal institution, in a correctional facility. These people
should not be there. They should be receiving the appropriate
psychiatric treatments. They should be medicated properly. That
would save the system money. It would save a lot of hidden costs
for our society and, most important, these poor individuals who
suffer from psychiatric diseases would be treated appropriately in
an environment of safety with the assurance and care they need.
I strongly advise the Minister of Justice to urge his counterparts
in the provinces to stop the deinstitutionalizing process and look at
effective means of determining which patients should or should not
be deinstitutionalized.
My next point is also related to rehabilitation. There is an
interesting program that has taken place around San Francisco,
California which touches on what I said before. They have brought
individuals who are near the end of their sentences into the real,
non-custodial world to work in the real world with real people.
They are introduced to working in the real world with
non-incarcerated individuals.
In the process, these individuals learned a great deal about how
to function appropriately with others. They learned conflict
resolution strategies. They learned appropriate social mores, how
to control violent behaviour and how to work effectively in a work
situation. They were required to act responsibly in the working
world.
Many of these individuals had never had that opportunity before
and had led lives of crime. When they became a part of this type of
rehabilitation system-I encourage the Minister of Justice to look
at this-the outcome was to save millions of taxpayer dollars and
to help integrate them back into society as useful, productive,
employable members of society. I would encourage the Minister of
Justice once again to look at this other solution.
(1255)
Another thing I would like to address is the issue of prevention.
In my experience in dealing with youth in juvenile detention
centres, many of the children do not have the pillars of a normal
psyche. It is true that many of them have endured atrocious and
appalling conditions of violence and sexual abuse. Throughout that
period the pillars of a normal psyche were not allowed to develop.
As a result many of them have run afoul of the law and go on to
develop into dysfunctional adults later on.
There is a way out but it does not involve trying to change the
mindset of these individuals when they are 15. We cannot do it at
that time and we certainly cannot do it with a three month, six
month or one year incarceration with optional counselling in a
juvenile detention centre. Nothing changes. These people are let
out and they go right back to the criminal behaviour they had
before. Many of these kids go back into the same family situations
and endure the same appalling family situation. This does not
work.
There are solutions. First, we need to identify children at risk
very early on and we need to identify families at risk. It is not too
early to identify these families right at the prenatal stage. Families
at risk do not just materialize. It is something that one can observe
clinically. When these families are identified it is worthwhile to
have quick response teams go in and deal with these families.
Furthermore, the school system can be a useful tool. They did
this down in the United States, I believe at Columbia University.
What they did at inner city schools, which had terrible rates of
violence, drug abuse, teen pregnancies and dropouts, is they took
these kids early on to teach them at four and five years old not only
their A, B, C's, but also appropriate conflict resolution, drugs,
alcohol, self-respect and respect for others.
When doing this intervention beginning at the age of four, they
had an enormous impact on the future psychological development
of these kids. Furthermore, they also brought the parents into the
system, many of whom were single parents, and taught the parents
the same issues.
The outcome of this was a radical decrease in dropout rates,
violence and teen pregnancies in these children. The savings to the
system were absolutely enormous. The parents who were also
involved were able to develop appropriate parenting skills that they
never had before. It was a win-win situation for all concerned. It
will not cost us more money. In fact, it will save us money.
I presented this to the Minister of Justice last May or June. I
asked him to take a leadership role to bring together his
counterparts in the provinces, the ministers of health, human
resources and development and the solicitors general, to develop
some kind of formalized plan that can be employed in the
educational system very early on beginning with kindergarten in
order to teach the kids and to also bring the parents who are at risk
into the system.
The benefits to our society will be massive. I am confident we
will see a decrease in the youth crime rate and a decrease in adults.
7643
This is not pie in the sky. It is cost effective economically and it
has been proven in the United States to work.
Dr. Fraser Mustard, part of our centres of excellence in Toronto,
has done some work touching on these issues. I would again
encourage our Minister of Justice to take a look at this, not study it
for 10 years but to start acting and using some of these ideas if for
no other reason but to use it as a pilot project.
I know members of this party would be very happy to provide the
considerable amount of expertise that exists within our party to the
minister for effective, cost effective and socially effective solutions
that are going to make our streets and society safer and stronger.
In closing, we do not support Bill C-53. It does not address the
central issue we have in this country which is the issue of an
increasing crime rate and decreasing safety and putting greater
emphasis on the protection of innocent civilians rather than on the
rehabilitation of the criminal.
I would ask once again for all of us to work together on this issue
for all Canadians.
(1300 )
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the presentation of my hon.
colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca about Bill C-53.
I know from travelling throughout my riding of Peace
George-Peace River and across the country that Canadians are
concerned about some measures which have been taken by the
government to keep criminals out of the prison system. I speak
specifically about the measures known as the alternative measures
and conditional sentencing.
In meetings that I had during the Christmas break in my riding, a
number of people came to me with concerns about the justice
system and specifically about the lack of deterrence in the justice
system.
One of the arguments made by the Liberal government is that
more criminals have to be kept out of the system and alternative
measures must be provided because of the overcrowding of the
prisons, the correctional facilities. It seems to me that part of the
reason why the jails are overcrowded is that we have made them
such a comfortable place in which to reside. Perhaps-
An hon. member: A tea party.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Boy, that certainly got
some heckling going from the opposite side, did it not? They
certainly dislike to hear that type of reasoning.
Mr. Discepola: Name me one Canadian who wants to go to jail.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): The parliamentary
secretary for the minister of justice is spouting off saying, name me
one Canadian who wants to go to jail. I am sure we could come up
with a long list of repeat offenders. Is he perhaps indicating that
there are no repeat offenders in the country? There is a growing list
of repeat offenders. Why are there so many repeat offenders if jail
provides a real deterrence?
Would my hon. colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca like to
comment on the reality that as long as we continue to send people
to jail to shoot pool, play golf, eat steak on Saturday, there is not
much deterrence? That is the viewpoint of a growing number of
Canadians. Whether or not the Liberals want to recognize that, it is
the reality in the real world.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank my hon. colleague from Prince George-Peace River
who, with his colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley, has
shown a longstanding, intense interest in the justice system. He has
put forward some very good solutions. He has worked very hard on
the issue and knows of what he speaks. He spends a lot of time in
his riding and in other ridings speaking about the justice system.
He has done a commendable job in this House in lending expertise
to this issue.
A new jail was built in his area. Each cell in that jail cost
$175,000. He is quite correct that, contrary to what some of the
government members say, there are some individuals who do not
mind being in jail. Quite frankly, there is very little deterrence to
being in jail for these individuals.
There are four nice meals a day, better than they would be
getting were they out. There are a number of options that they
would never have outside the jail. That is one of the reasons why
the Canadian public feel aggrieved.
They say: ``Why are people who are incarcerated getting better
treatment than we are outside? I am part of the working poor. I am
slogging away. I have to put my kids through school and be taxed to
death. I have to pay my medical, yet somebody who commits an
atrocious crime goes into jail and gets all this free''. There is no
penalty, no responsibility and no deterrence.
(1305 )
We are not saying that individuals should not have proper
medical care, treatment and counselling in jail. However, they
should put their backs into paying for it. One solution that has come
from this party is the sensible solution of restitution. There should
be restitution to society and also to the institution so that in turn
these people can contribute to paying for the cost of their
incarceration which for a juvenile can be approximately $90,000 a
year and for an adult approximately $60,000 a year.
7644
This bill is dumping, pure and simple. It is an economic bill
that dumps people out of jail and on to the streets. The cost will
be the safety of the Canadian people. It is not a sensible bill.
As my colleague for Prince George-Peace River stated, the
government has not brought forward any sensible solutions for
deterrence and no sensible solutions for alternative measures.
These people must know that committing a crime is not a
pleasurable thing and that they will pay a penalty. There must be a
significant element of deterrence put into the system for those who
commit crimes.
Since we are a sensible, balanced party, we are putting forward
constructive, sensible, economically feasible solutions for
restitution and rehabilitation.
We are not in any way, ever going to compromise the health,
welfare or safety of Canadians. The bill does just that by dumping
these people out on the streets.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed listing to my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. He
has a pretty good handle on some of the problems regarding the fact
that there are a lot of repeat offenders in the system.
I had the opportuntiy of visiting a maximum security prison
about two years ago in Edmonton. It is the top level of the prison
service, maximum security. There are a lot of social workers,
psychiatrists and psychologists working with inmates to try to
bring about some rehabilitation.
As a bit of background, about 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the
people in the prison at the time of my visit were repeat offenders,
returned after having served sentences in the past. However, the
prison officials were trying to rehabilitate these people and that is
very commendable.
However, at the same time we understood there was a drug
problem in the prison. They were trying to rehabilitate prisoners
from drug abuse at the same time that drugs were coming into the
prison. That simply does not work. The warden of the prison
admitted that there was a big problem. He said the drugs came in
through conjugal visits, but I suspect it is more than that. Maybe
some of the prison staff may be involved. However, it is ironic that
we are trying to rehabilitate prisoners for drug abuse at the same
time drugs are getting into the maximum security prisons.
My colleague said that he has worked a little in the prisons in his
capacity as a doctor. I wonder what his ideas would be on how to
correct the problem so that we could get back to rehabilitation,
which is really what the prisoners deserve.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague for Peace River has hit the nail on the head about a very
important problem that is affecting prisons across the country, one
which the men and women who work in our prison systems are
finding increasingly difficult to deal with, and that is the huge
problem of active drug use within the prison system and also the
fact that individuals who have drug and alcohol problems are not
receiving treatment.
As part of their incarceration, as part of the condition for release,
individuals must take counselling for drug and alcohol problems.
Also, there should be significant penalties for individuals who
smuggle and use drugs and alcohol in the prisons. All they receive
right now is a slap on the wrist and that is not adequate.
Contrary to the belief of some social thinkers, deterrence does
work to some extent. If people know they are going to be faced
with something a little more severe than a slap on the wrist, then
they would think twice about doing this.
(1310 )
The solution is for these individuals to have their sentences
extended as summary justice for committing these criminal acts
while in jail.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-53. It gives me no pleasure
to address bills like this when I think about what the government's
first priority is supposed to be. Government was formed on one
principle: to look after the safety and well-being of its citizens at all
times and at all costs.
We have had only two basic governments in this country: Liberal
and Conservative. Through time both of these governments,
working hand in hand, because there really is no difference in them,
have come up with programs such as this piece of garbage. They
put these programs forward for the safety and well-being of
Canadian taxpaying citizens. That totally goes against the reason
for government: the safety and well-being of its citizens. I wish
those governments could understand that. They cannot. They have
not for years.
Reformers talk to the people. Like our Prime Minister we do not
talk to imaginary friends. We talk to the people out there who pay
the bills. They own this chair. I do not own this chair.
The reason we are standing here today to discuss this is basically
the safety and well-being of Canadian citizens. Because of bills
such as this, which have been put forward by both Liberal and
Conservative governments, people out there are starting to live by
the law of the jungle, not by the law of the land. They live in fear.
Government members may joke about it, but it is a fact. Elderly
people are afraid to go out at night to get a loaf of bread.
Government members think that is a joke. They think that because
people are now starting to live in walled communities in order to be
safe is a joke. It is a joke to this great sharing, caring Liberal
7645
government. Government members do not pay attention to what is
going on in the real world.
Government members have three basic functions in the House:
keep your mouth closed; do what you are told to do; and do not step
out of line. For the little bit of gratitude you get, you will be able to
sit in the front seat or be able to get your nomination papers signed.
Let us take a look at this. We could go through the whole system
of sentencing; truth in sentencing.
At one time when you were given 10 years, 12 years, 15 years,
you got 10, 12 or 15 years. That was it. Then along came the
bleeding hearts. They say: ``This is not good enough. Somebody
who murders should not have to do 20 or 25 years. Gosh, they only
took a life. They only left a number of orphans. They only left some
widows. That is nothing. We do not know them. We will change the
system. We will put in a faint hope clause. We will allow them the
opportunity to get out, maybe, in eight years. We will give them
something to look forward to, you bet, to go out and reoffend''.
This is what we run into in this country. We run into a system where
we see the bills from this great government. What for? For cleaning
needles so that prisoners can have drugs without being infected in a
prison. They cannot control the drugs in their own prison. What the
heck is going on here? Where has reality gone? With the red book
down the toilet. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
(1315)
They say that nobody wants to go back to prison. There are
people who make that their first home and have made it their first
home for a number of years. They forget what it is like to be on the
outside.
I really do not want to talk about prisoners so much here. I want
to talk about the honest, law-abiding, hard working taxpaying
citizen of this country who absolutely gets no protection from this
government. How many people do we hear about who are working
at the 7-Elevens or the gas stations where an armed robber walks
in, holds them up, shoots them, paralizes them and puts them in a
wheelchair for the rest of their lives? What do you do with them?
You stick them in a corner and forget all about them. There is no
system in place for these people, but there certainly is for the
person who pulled that trigger or stuck them with a knife. You have
all the sympathy in the world for that, do you not?
What about the young children who have to grow up without a
mother or a father? There is nothing in place for them, is there? No,
but there sure is for the person who made them that way. There is
every kind of sympathy you can think of, like re-education. We
have our own children out there who cannot afford to go to
university, but we will supply university programs. We will do that
for the prisoners. You bet we will, but not for the honest
law-abiding child who wants to get a better education. No.
We will give them free medical, the best that can be. We have
people out there who would love to be able to have medical
attention, but no. What do we do? We shut down the hospitals. We
create the line-ups, but not for the prisoners. No sir. That would
sure be a crime if we ever did that.
We can look at the dental service. There are lots of people out
there, I included, who have no dental plan. We work for ourselves.
We pay our taxes and we pay to go to the dentist. But not our
prisoners. No. We will keep our own people broke paying for it but,
by golly, do not let one little prisoner suffer not one iota in this
country. Do not let them suffer. Do not make them work. Don't you
dare make them work to help supply the costs for incarceration.
No, do not do that. That is against their rights. Yes sir, never mind
the right of the taxpayer who pays your bills. No, do not worry
about them, not one little bit.
I do not understand it. I just do not understand it. We have a
system set up. I was asked this question. I have been branded a cold
hearted redneck over this question.
An hon. member: Extremist.
Mr. Stinson: Oh yes, I hear ``extremist'' from over there. Sure,
it is extremist to worry about the taxpayer in this country. It is
extremist to worry about the livelihood and the safety of my
mother. It is extremist. That is right, you keep it up. That is what
you call extremist. Shame on you. I hope your parents give you a
talking to when you get home. That is all I can say. You have no
more thought for them.
Mr. Cannis: Racist.
Mr. Stinson: I hear the word ``racist'' from that side. Do you
have the fortitude or the gonads to stand up and come across here
and say that to me, you son of a bitch? Come on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hopkins): Order.
Mr. Stinson: I will not have some s.o.b. sit here and call me a
racist.
(1320)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order please. Hon.
members know that sometimes tempers flare in debate but I think if
the hon. member would continue to engage in verbal sparring
rather than the other sort we would all be better off. I think that is
true throughout the House.
I invite the hon. member if he wishes to resume his remarks to do
so. If he feels it is not a good time for that obviously he can allow
another member to speak. If he has a problem that he wishes to
raise he can do it through the Chair. I invite him to address his
remarks through the Chair, indeed all hon. members to address
their remarks through the Chair rather than directly.
7646
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, you are right, I should address the
Chair. I do not mind being called a lot of things but there are a
few things I will not stand for.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): But you can call
anybody what you want.
Mr. Stinson: I have never said that to any man yet. Never.
Mr. Discepola: You should read the blues tomorrow.
Mr. Stinson: Yes, I am afraid I have read your blues before. I
have heard all this before from you people.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. I invite the hon.
member-and I thought he had agreed to take my advice-to
address his remarks through the Chair. The intemperate language
that we are hearing in the House is perhaps unnecessary and it is
not helped when members address each other instead of addressing
the Chair.
I respectfully again urge the member in his remarks to address
them through the Chair and not to other members in the House. I
am sure if that happens other members will try to do the same. I
appreciate that co-operation.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, you are right.
Bill C-53 does absolutely nothing to address the safety and
well-being of citizens of this country. I have said that before and I
will say it again because I do not think people fully understand
what goes on here. We hear from the government time and time
again that violent crime is down in this country.
Yes, in some aspects it is but they forget to tell the people that
one of the reasons is because it is called plea bargaining. We have a
plea bargaining system set up that when a person is charged with a
number of offences, through our good graces we are a forgiving
people, I guess, and we will wipe that all underneath the table if
they will plead guilty to one portion of their crime. When the
government says that violent crime is down in some areas, sure it
is. We have allowed them to get away with it. We have allowed
them not to be sentenced on that issue.
Let us look at truth in sentencing and what it really is. It is a joke.
It is a joke on the taxpaying people of this country but the members
on the other side do not seem to think so. They use this as a basis
for their argument. They do not tell the people the proper stats of
what the crime is, what the plea bargaining system does or what
was plea bargained away. No, not this sharing, caring government.
It would never think of doing that.
I am proud to stand here today and oppose this bill and I look
forward to any of the questions.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Through
you, Mr. Speaker, to the member I want to begin by reading a short
sentence from the bill because I think it is important that Canadians
understand exactly what this bill does. If they listened to the
member for the last few minutes his speech in no way, shape or
form reflected anything that was in this bill. He was talking about
something that had nothing to do with this bill. This enactment
amends the Prisons and Reformatories Act by adding a statement
of purpose and principles for temporary absence programs similar
to the statement in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
The enactment also authorizes the provinces to create additional
types of temporary absences consistent with purposes and
principles.
(1325)
The enactment extends the period of temporary absences granted
for non-medical reasons to a maximum of 60 days and adds the
power to renew temporary absences following a reassessment of
the case. The amendments authorize the provinces to establish
eligibility criteria for temporary absences in order to restrict the
concurrent eligibility of prisoners for some types of temporary
absences and parole.
Part of this whole program is about rehabilitation. Is the member
from the Reform Party saying that he does not believe in
rehabilitation? Is the member saying that once you are assigned or
put in prison that is the end of you for life? Is this some kind of new
treatment the member is trying to design? I am just not clear where
the member is coming from.
I wonder if the member could make it quite clear to those of us in
the House and state categorically that he does not believe in
rehabilitation in any way, shape or form. That was the message I
got from his speech.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member got that
from my speech because that is not what I meant at all. I believe in
self-rehabilitation. I believe in the rehabilitation of certain
criminals for certain crimes. There is nothing wrong with that.
What I have trouble with is when we have the state passing out
little goodies, allowing them out on temporary absences. How
many have re-offended during temporary absences?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): That's not what the bill
says.
Mr. Stinson: Yes.
Mr. Discepola: You guys are just mixing apples and oranges.
Mr. Stinson: No, we are not mixing apples and oranges. We
want truth in sentencing, especially for violent, repeat and serious
criminals. We want that.
We hear the rhetoric all the time from this government that this
is not what this or that means, then all of a sudden down the road
the light goes on for them. Maybe two or three years too late they
say ``by gosh, that was used for that, wasn't it?'' We get this all the
time. We read about it all the time. We did not understand that is
what it meant.
7647
I say and have always said two violence strikes and you are out,
period, bang. Every criminal who is convicted the second time of
a violent crime should be sentenced to imprisonment without
eligibility for early release or parole. That is totally opposite to
early release and temporary absence. That is all that means.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I allowed
two or three minutes for cooler heads to prevail, as you saw, Mr.
Speaker, a few minutes ago.
However, I would like to rise on a point of order on
Beauchesne's 485 regarding unparliamentary language which
caused the outburst of rage from my colleague who was insulted by
the member for Scarborough Centre who shouted words across the
floor and accused my colleague of being a racist and an extremist.
This type of language from members of the Liberal Party, the
governing party, demonstrates their contempt for people who wish
to express a point of view that is different from their own. This type
of language does not belong in the House. It does not belong in a
civilized society. It does not belong in any part of politics.
(1330)
I would hope that the member for Scarborough Centre would rise
and apologize profusely and without reservation to my colleague. I
would hope that these remarks would be withdrawn and that the
incident be recorded as having come from the Liberal Party
members as their attitude when challenged by someone who has an
opinion different from their own.
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We will
have to look at the blues. The actual unparliamentary language that
was used came from the member opposite who was speaking at the
time.
I was sitting two benches away from the member for
Scarborough Centre. If someone would look at the blues and put
the debate into context, the speaker at the time was referring to
generalities with respect to certain terms that he was using in his
speech.
All the member from Scarborough Centre did was to suggest
other forms of words that he would be able to use. Extremist was a
word that was used, yes. The member for Scarborough Centre also
used the word racists in the plural tense. He did not put his
criticism directly at the member. He directed it at the terms
members are using.
I would encourage the Chair to review the blues to see that the
blues speak for themselves. The actual apology should come from
that member for the words we know he used.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It would be helpful to the
House if the Chair had an opportunity to review the blues to see
what was said as suggested by the parliamentary secretary.
As members know, I was not in the Chair at the time even though
I was in a position where I could hear what was being said in the
House. I was immediately adjacent to the Chamber. I did not hear
all the words that were alleged. However, I understand that there
was a contretemps. I heard some language that was
unparliamentary used. In the circumstances, since the matter has
now been raised, it would be appropriate to defer the matter until
the Chair has an opportunity to review the transcript of the
proceedings. We will get back to the House.
If members have further submissions to make on the point, it
might be appropriate that they make them in chambers after rather
than now in the circumstances because I think we have heard both
sides of the argument.
If the member for St. Albert insists, I will hear more, but given
what I have decided to do, I hope his remarks will be extremely
pertinent to the position of the Chair, given what I have already
said.
Mr. Williams: Most pertinent, Mr. Speaker. I would like to draw
your attention to the remarks by the parliamentary secretary who
was talking about the heated debate being in context. The Speaker
has ruled on many occasions that unparliamentary language is
unparliamentary language in context or out of context.
The second point I would like to make is that the member who
uttered the words is sitting in the Chamber. He should stand up and
acknowledge that he said that in this House before his peers. If he
can shout it out in anonymity, he should be prepared to stand up and
acknowledge his words. He has the opportunity to stand up right
before us as we speak to withdraw the comment he made.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport on the same point. Again, I
hope he bears in mind what I said to the hon. member for St. Albert
before he started his second comments.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to
speak on this issue. It is pertinent and I respect your wise counsel.
It should be noted by all members of the House that when there
is the rhetoric that may fly back and forth during debate between
members in the House, there is opportunity for any member who
disagrees with a member opposite to follow protocol, to stand in
their place and ask the Speaker whether he or she has heard the
remark and then ask the Speaker to rule that that remark be
withdrawn.
However, for a member to leave his chair, call someone an s.o.b.,
run across the aisle and physically challenge him I hope will be a
consideration in your ruling.
7648
(1335 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Debating the matter in this
way is perhaps unnecessary. I know members have strong views
perhaps as to what transpired, but I have indicated the Chair will
look at all the facts and will review the blues. As I indicated, the
Chair did not hear some of the comments that have been alleged
and so is not in a position to make a comment without that review.
In the circumstances we will leave the matter until the Chair has
had that opportunity. Then further discussions can take place.
Mr. Cannis: Mr. Speaker, given what happened and what
transpired, as my colleague described earlier, with the verbal abuse
coming this way and the physical reaction, I will respect the
Chair's decision to review the blues. At that time I will be prepared
to stand up and withdraw the word racists in plural, if I have to after
your review, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I thank the hon. member.
The Chair will proceed with the review as indicated.
We have five minutes remaining in questions and comments.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of
Canada on a question or comment.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague from Broadview-Greenwood who has attempted to put
this debate in its true context. We have in front of us a simple bill,
Bill C-53, a bill that has been discussed and negotiated after several
years of discussions not only with the provinces and the territories
but with each official judicial power and each provincial justice
ministry. They have unanimously endorsed our position.
Members opposite seem to have difficulty understanding that
this bill deals with provincial legislation which affects offenders
serving two years less a day. I sat hear patiently this morning and
listened to the rhetoric and the challenges of the members of the
Reform Party. They challenged the government as to what it has
done. I will remind them of our initiatives.
I remind them of the provisions in Bill C-45 to establish
someone as a long term offender. I remind them of the indefinite
sentences that have been imposed on those long term and
dangerous offenders. They are indefinite sentences in the sense that
they will no longer only get 10 years but a judge has to condemn
them to indefinite sentences. This means they are not eligible for
parole before seven years. It also means that after those seven years
their sentences could be prolonged by a subsequent two years and
cannot come up for review before two years.
Why did Reformers vote against those initiatives? Why did they
vote against the initiative to allow for 10-year supervision after a
complete sentence has been served by an offender? Instead they
have chosen to hide behind the rhetoric.
I will ask the member specifically since it was he who brought it
up. Last spring when it came time to review section 745, the
infamous faint hope clause, we could have put serial killers behind
bars for good without eligibility for parole. We could have
specifically addressed the case of Clifford Olson to prevent him
from even applying. Why did the member's party vote against all
these initiatives? Why, why, why?
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, why should Clifford Olson even be
allowed to apply for release, period? Why, why, why? Because the
government has allowed that type of system to ferment here.
Government members can try to dress this up with all the pretty
flowers and all the pretty words but the fact is that they are still
kicking people out through the system. They are giving that over to
the provinces; there is no doubt about that. But why? Why would
they even be thinking about that? Why would they not be thinking
of something else instead? We have tried for years with the Liberal
way and the Conservative way to address crime, to address
reoffenders. Actually, many of the good programs have been taken
out of the penal system. It is pretty tough in some areas to learn a
trade in prison because of all the other programs that are in place
like weight lifting, swimming, tennis and golf.
(1340)
When people get out of prison they might like to be able to say
they can do welding, mechanics or iron work, something where
they may stand a chance of a job placement and contribute to the
system instead of abusing it. This has absolutely nothing to do with
that. I could readily support bills that did that sort of thing. No one
in the Reform Party would have trouble supporting bills like that.
Instead we get this feel good, fuzzy-wuzzy thing: ``We will
release you early. We will kick you out. We will make sure you do
not do your sentence. We will give you a temporary release for
anything you like''. To me that is not what prison is for. People are
normally put in prison because they broke the law, not because they
obeyed the law. In the odd case that may happen, but it is very, very
seldom. In fact, I have not heard of one.
I was always led to believe that if you do the crime, you do the
time. That does not seem to be the case any more. We do not have
that. Now it is: You do the crime and we will look after you for life.
You do not have to worry about anything. Step out of jail and we
will just keep right on looking after you. We will make sure that
your wants and needs are met, but if there is something we cannot
supply, you just go right back out and commit a crime. That seems
to have been the attitude over the last 25 years.
7649
When we were young I guess we all thought we were tough and
nothing would ever happen to us and we would get along just fine.
But as tough as guys thought they were in my day, they always
stood aside for the elderly and helped the elderly and had respect
for the disabled and helped in any way they could. Today we do
not see any of that. Why? Because there is nothing in place. Penal
systems are looked upon as a joke.
I understand that many prisoners are trying to get extradited back
to Canada from the United States and other countries to serve their
time.
An hon. member: There is no deterrent here.
Mr. Stinson: That is right. There is cable colour TV, all kinds of
food, exercise, medical and dental programs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): At the request of the chief
government whip, the division is deferred until later today at the
conclusion of the time allotted for Government Orders.
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-46, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (production of records in sexual offence
proceedings) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
(1345 )
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to submit to the House for second reading Bill C-46,
an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the production of
personal records of complainants and witnesses in sexual offence
proceedings.
This legislation, which the minister introduced last June, has
been the focus of much media attention. The problem which the
legislation addresses has also been thoroughly debated in the media
and in Canadian courtrooms.
The amendments to the Criminal Code for which I am seeking
support respond to a troubling and complex issue which is having
an adverse effect on sexual offence victims, the majority of whom
are women or children.
I know that members of the House are familiar with this issue.
Their constituents have brought it to their attention and it has been
subjected to questions in the House. I know all members share my
concern. I am confident they will support these very essential
measures.
Over the last several years defence counsel has increasingly
sought access to the wide range of personal records of sexual
offence complainants, the type of records one would expect to be
private, including school records, medical, psychiatric counselling
and other therapeutic records, employment records, Children's Aid
Society records, journals and diaries. The list goes on.
In sexual offence prosecutions, more so than any other offence,
the defence focuses on the credibility of the complainant. Sexual
offences are unique. Usually there are no witnesses to the offence
and often there are no observable signs of an offence having been
committed. For many sexual offences the only element which
distinguishes normal and acceptable sexual activity from a sexual
offence is the absence of consent of one party.
Sexual offences are also unique in another way. They are
surrounded by myths and stereotypes about the type of person who
becomes a victim and why. Moreover, the consequences of a sexual
offence are devastating and long lasting.
While the prosecution must prove every element of a sexual
offence, including the absence of consent of the complainant, often
the complainant's word pitted against the accused is the only
evidence to establish this one essential element of the offence.
Hence the defence of the accused will focus on the credibility of the
complainant in most cases. The search for personal records has
become the strategy to assist the defence in the impeachment of the
complainant's credibility and reputation.
Consider the following scenario. A person is sexually assaulted
and following the assault receives counselling from a sexual
assault centre. The counsellor may take notes of the sessions where
the complainant is distraught and full of self-doubt about why this
7650
has happened. The notes are the perceptions or recollections of the
counsellor. They are not verbatim transcripts of the conversation.
They are not statements. Yet defence counsel may attempt to gain
access to and explore those records, looking for perhaps what is in
the view of the defence an inconsistent statement. Or perhaps the
complainant has undergone therapy for depression or child sexual
abuse long before the assault which is now subject to criminal
charges.
These records may also be sought to suggest that the
complainant's perceptions or recollections of the incident are
confused. In other words, the suggestion is that the complainant
who has received such counselling or therapy is less credible.
In the extensive consultations which led to this legislation the
Minister of Justice was overwhelmed by the accounts from sexual
assault service providers, sexual offence survivors and lawyers at
the range of records sought, the reasons advanced for the records
and the relative ease with which they have been produced to
defence counsel. The most troubling aspect of the consultations has
been the devastating consequences of the production of irrelevant
personal records for the victim.
(1350 )
The minister was also troubled by the perception of victims and
service providers about the insensitivity of the criminal justice
system. They recounted several examples which caused them to
believe that there is little point in participating as a witness in a
sexual offence prosecution. For example, they referred the minister
to an event in 1988 where defence counsel in the Ottawa area,
attending a workshop on tips and strategies for sexual assault
proceedings, were being advised to seek records, including
Children's Aid Society records, medical, psychiatric, hospital and
immigration records as part of a strategy ``to whack the
complainant hard at the preliminary inquiry''.
This attack on the complainants was recommended so that either
she would give up and ask the crown to withdraw the charges or in
the event that she withstands this gruelling and embarrassing
treatment to cause the lawyer to rethink the accused's defence.
This approach ignores the fact that the complainant is not
supposed to be on trial and moreover trial by ordeal has never been
part of the criminal justice system in Canada. Yet these ordeals
continue to occur and may result in sexual offence victims deciding
not to report offences or not to participate as witnesses.
The willy-nilly production of personal records to the accused is
having a serious and devastating impact on sexual offence
complainants and on record holders themselves. Some claimants
will decide not to participate as witnesses in the prosecution. Some
may decide not to report an offence to the police. Others may report
to the police but forgo the counselling or treatment essential to
their recovery and well-being due to fears that these personal
records, whether generated before or after the offence, will not be
kept private during the court process.
The impact is also experienced by record holders, including
hospitals, sexual assault centres, social service agencies and
doctors who are incurring substantial legal costs to appear in court
to respond to subpoenas. In addition to the legal costs, such
appearances take the record holder away from their day to day
work of helping people, that is, doing what they ought to be doing.
The very act of issuing a subpoena to a record holder cannot be
ignored. Whether the records are even remotely relevant to the
proceedings or not, the record holder must respond.
The consultation process also reveals situations where
subpoenas for records were issued to the service providers who had
never met, treated, or counselled the complainant at all. In other
words, these subpoenas were simply fishing expeditions.
I am not suggesting that a person should not have an opportunity
to pursue the best defence available and defence counsels do
acknowledge that relevance is a factor in accessing information and
records. However, relevance appears to take on different
interpretations in sexual offence proceedings and does not appear
to be a very significant hurdle to access to those records.
In describing the current situation that Bill C-46 will address, the
minister has consistently referred to the impact on sexual offence
victims in a generic way. However, let there be no mistake. We are
talking about women and children. Our sexual offence laws and,
indeed, all our laws apply equally to men and women in the sense
that they are gender neutral. A man or woman can sexually assault
another man, woman or child, but the overwhelming majority, that
is 99 per cent, of sexual offence victims are women and children.
While the law is on its face gender neutral, when it comes to
sexual offences the impact of the law is disproportionately felt by
women and children. The production of personal records raises
more than simply rights of privacy and the rights of full answer in
defence. It raises equality issues and thus the solutions to this
problem must squarely address these equality issues.
(1355 )
One of the most troubling aspects of the impact of the production
of records is that it runs counter to the spirit of reform of our sexual
assault laws which the federal government has been attempting for
the past 20 years.
In the past, our laws have not adequately served victims of
sexual offences. Before the substantive reforms to the sexual
assault provisions of the code, in 1976 and later in 1983, the
successful prosecution of the offence of rape was extremely
difficult. The evidentiary provisions required the victim's evidence
to be corroborated and left the victim's personal life, including
sexual history and reputation, virtually an open book.
7651
The reforms of 1983 attempted to eradicate long, outdated
myths about sexual offence victims and their behaviour. However,
despite the reforms of 1983, which repealed the old offences,
including rape, and put in place the current sexual assault offences
and which repealed the restrictive evidentiary provisions, attitudes
about sexual offence victims have been slow to change.
Thus, it was necessary for further amendments in 1992 to restore
the rape shield protections in the Criminal Code to safeguard the
complainant's sexual history to as great an extent as possible
without adversely affecting the rights of the accused to a fair trial.
Today we are faced with dealing with yet another issue which
threatens sexual offence victims and indeed every woman's
confidence in the criminal justice system. We must take this
opportunity to put the progressive reforms of our sexual offence
laws back on track. We must take the-
The Speaker: The hon. member still has approximately 28
minutes in his discourse. I see he is coming into another section. As
it is almost 2 p.m. we will proceed to statements by members and
he will have the floor when debate is resumed.
_____________________________________________
7651
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during 1997 Canadians from coast to coast to coast will be
celebrating a special milestone in the history of this country.
January 1, 1997 marked the 50th anniversary of the Canadian
Citizenship Act. Prior to the passage of this important legislation,
legally there was no such thing as a Canadian.
The inspiration behind the drafting of the Citizenship Act is a
story worth telling. In February 1945 cabinet minister Paul Martin
Senior visited a military cemetery in Dieppe, France. Struck by the
varied ethnic origins of the soldiers' names on the gravestones, Mr.
Martin concluded that the one thing that united them all was that
they were Canadians.
With the blessing of Prime Minister King, Mr. Martin drafted a
Canadian Citizenship Act and presented it to the House of
Commons in 1946 where it was passed with overwhelming support.
This 50th anniversary is an opportunity to think about how
precious our Canadian citizenship is and a chance for all Canadians
to reflect with pride on how much we-
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, February is
black history month. The black community's significant
contribution in Quebec and Canada warrants recognition. I draw
particular attention to the major contribution made by the Haitians,
who are well represented in my riding of Bourassa in Montreal
North.
It was in 1606 that the first blacks arrived in New France, but it
is more their endless struggle to throw off the yoke of slavery that
we should be remembering this month.
In our more pluralistic society, racism and discrimination remain
a fact of life. Only sincere political will can put an end to such
injustice. On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I offer the black
community in Quebec and Canada our respect, our pride, our
support and our gratitude.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the GST
continues to be a thorn in the side of all Canadians. The Liberals
have double-crossed, danced around and window dressed the GST
to no avail.
During this Parliament, government revenues have increased by
$26 billion a year. The GST only brings in $16 billion a year. This
proves that the government could have lived up to its promise to
axe, scrap and abolish the GST. It proves that it could have lived up
to its commitment without introducing another tax. It demonstrates
that the Liberal government will take a tax dollar wherever it can
find it, squeeze it or collect it. The concept of tax relief has never
crossed its mind.
(1400)
We know that the government has misled Canadians. The Prime
Minister has already acknowledged that he has done so. Let me
remind the Prime Minister and his Liberal caucus that they can
mislead some of the people all of the time and all of the people
some of the time, but they cannot mislead all of the people all of
the time and they will find that out at the next election.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Lib. Dem.): Mr. Speaker, last week Selva Subbiah, one of the most
hideous serial rapists in Canada, was convicted of raping more than
20 Canadian women. These innocent victims were drugged,
threatened and sexually assaulted by this evil man. He was
sentenced to 20 years in jail and according to published accounts,
the presiding
7652
judge has ordered the investigating officers to escort Subbiah to the
airport for deportation when he is released. In essence, after
serving the sentence, he will be deported back to his native
Malaysia.
Canadian tax dollars should not be spent to keep this evil person
in our prisons. Even if his lawyer files an appeal, it should be heard
in his absence.
The justice minister should immediately make arrangements to
deport this convicted criminal and send him back to his country of
origin. It is time for the federal government to get tough on
individuals like Subbiah.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Peterborough riding was honoured this past Saturday by the
presence of two of our most honourable colleagues: the members
for Brant and Northumberland. They joined me and the people of
Peterborough in celebrating the opening of a fine new arena, the
Evinrude Centre. To have these ministers attend this event is
testimony to this government's continuing support of and interest
in the infrastructure program in the city and county of
Peterborough.
Many athletes, including hockey players and figure skaters, will
use the Evinrude Centre. Among others, it will be home to the
Peterborough Pirates of the Central Ontario Women's Hockey
League and other women's teams.
My congratulations to all those who have worked to bring the
Evinrude Centre into being, including city council, Ken Armstrong
and the fundraising committee, city staff and all those groups and
individuals who have donated time and money to this fine arena.
My thanks also to all municipalities who have helped make the
national infrastructure program such a success in Peterborough
riding.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to report that a woman's team from Buckingham, a city
in the riding of Gatineau-La Lièvre, won the Canadian curling
championship in Thornhill, Ontario, last weekend.
Agnès Charette, the skip of the winning team of Mary Ann
Robertson, Lois Baines and Martha Don, represented Quebec at the
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Canadian women's senior
curling championship. The team from Buckingham beat the
Greenwood team from Ontario in the finals.
This is the first time a Quebec team has won since the women's
championship was founded in 1973. Congratulations to Ms.
Charette, who is well known in the world of curling, and to her
teammates.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently in my riding of Leeds-Grenville we had an excellent
example of the generosity that some Canadians have for other
Canadians in difficulty.
The mayor of Brockville, accompanied by a group of local
residents, travelled to the flood stricken Saguenay region of
Quebec to deliver a cheque for $40,000 to the residents of
Chicoutimi. The purpose of this donation was to assist the
community's recovery from the July flood.
The money was collected from citizens and companies in the
Brockville area, most of whom have never visited the Saguenay
region. The drive for funds originated with a local businessman,
Mr. Joe Hudson, who saw it as a great opportunity to show concern
for fellow Canadians, regardless of where they live or the language
they speak.
I want to congratulate the Hudson family and all the citizens of
the Brockville area who gave generously to the plight of other
Canadians in their time of need.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, torture,
kidnapping and political assassinations by security forces are
prohibited under Turkish law and international treaties on human
rights.
Yet, in Turkey, these are everyday occurrences. In 1995 alone,
more than 35 people disappeared after being arrested by the
security forces, 15 died from torture while in custody and another
100 or so were killed for political reasons.
The figures for 1996 paint an equally dramatic picture. During
the first 10 days of January, four prisoners were beaten to death in
an Istanbul prison, and a reporter covering their funeral suffered
the same fate.
We condemn the complacency of the Canadian government,
which did nothing to promote respect for human rights in countries
where these rights are systematically violated, and in Turkey in
particular.
7653
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during our winter recess I met with a number of
constituents who told me about how this Liberal government has
ruined their lives.
Like the boat store owner who has had to lay off 70 per cent of
his staff because of high taxes. Or the builder who was in dispute
with GST over the amount owing. Revenue Canada garnisheed 70
per cent of his net income, forcing him into bankruptcy which has
led to the loss of his home and the breakup of his marriage. Or the
young trucker who decided to buy his own truck. However he failed
to incorporate his business and when he fell behind in his GST
payments his personal accounts were garnisheed and he and his
wife, who was six months pregnant, lost their home.
If only this government would attack its own wasteful spending
with the same zeal it has gone after the average Canadian taxpayer,
then maybe we would not have such high unemployment, a record
number of bankruptcies, or the personal tragedies that were
brought to my attention over the past six weeks.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, during the
last election this government ran on a promise of jobs, jobs, jobs.
However, under this government's new EI regulations it is to the
recipient's benefit to say no to part time work and stay on welfare.
Instead of living up to its jobs promise, this government's
legislation is actually penalizing people who want to work.
In the wake of vocal opposition from the people of Atlantic
Canada, a newly formed committee of Liberal MPs is now trying to
make changes to the legislation they initially supported.
During the debate in the House, I warned members of the
government of the problems with this legislation. Nevertheless,
every single Liberal MP present during the vote supported the bill.
For the sake of Atlantic Canadians, I hope this committee will
make changes to the legislation. However, for those MPs trying to
appease their constituents because an election is coming up, this is
a case of too little too late. Their homework should have been done
before this flawed legislation was passed.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the national memorial to slain police officers is only a few
feet away from this Chamber. Every year hundreds of Canadians
gather in the nation's capital to honour these men and women who
gave their lives in the line of duty.
The murder of a peace officer is tragic and unacceptable. It is for
this reason that I recently introduced Private Members' Bill C-344
which would end any chance of early parole for those convicted of
the first degree murder of a peace officer in Canada. This measure
is supported by the Canadian Police Association and over 1,200
Canadians from every part of Canada who have signed a petition.
Police deserve our support. Bill C-344 acknowledges that those
who died and are honoured on this Hill shall never, ever be
forgotten.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Microcredit
has been one of the most successful development strategies of this
century.
Twenty years ago Dr. Yunus founded the Grameen Bank in
Bangladesh and began to lend small amounts of money to those
who had never been considered acceptable credit risks before,
mainly impoverished rural women. These women invested the
loans with spectacular returns, thus benefiting all members of their
families and the economic health of their country.
Microcredit is now included in development projects worldwide,
in developed countries as well as poor ones.
The Calmeadow Foundation in Toronto is a pioneer in
Microcredit in this country, making small loans available to the
inner city poor and to aboriginal groups throughout Canada.
(1410 )
Today in Washington two of our colleagues joined delegates
from 36 countries to promote the use of Microcredit worldwide.
[Translation]
We should join together in wishing them the best of luck in this
endeavour, which is so crucial to the future of so many people
around the world.
7654
[English]
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from
February 1 to 8 Canada will host the sixth Special Olympics World
Winter Games in Toronto and Collingwood.
During this week over 80 countries, including 2,000 athletes
with mental disabilities will be giving it their all for the joy of
sport, and will come together to build friendships and support in an
atmosphere of acceptance and dignity.
Since 1968, Canadian athletes have been representing Canada at
the Special Olympics and all have come home as winners. The
mission of this World Games is to foster awareness and
understanding both for the Special Olympics movement and for
people with mental disabilities everywhere.
I would like to invite all Canadians to encourage and support our
Special Olympians and their families by attending and cheering on
our athletes at the 1997 Special Olympics World Winter Games.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the New
Brunswick coalitions in opposition to the Chrétien government's
cuts to the UI program have not given up. They are carrying on.
Angela Vautour, the coalitions' spokesperson, sent me a
statement condemning the Liberal government and the members
from New Brunswick, which reads: ``Following your cutbacks in
1994, thousands of workers go without any income from January
through August. This year, things are even worse. Even more
families and children will suffer the disastrous effects your
decisions will have on both the economy and people''.
It reads further: ``Seasonal jobs greatly contribute to the wealth
of our province and the country; we are proud to do this sort of
work and feel we should not be seen as second class citizens''.
It goes on to say: ``Gentlemen, we would like to know what you
plan to do now to remedy the situation. Unemployment is not the
problem, the lack of jobs is''.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
family is the most overtaxed institution in Canada.
When Canadians voted the Liberals into power four years ago,
they were putting their trust in the Liberal government to live up to
promises about job creation, tax relief and personal security.
The Liberals have shattered that trust. They are keeping the
jobless rate hovering around 10 per cent by refusing to provide tax
relief and eliminate the barriers to job creation. They have
hammered Canadian families with an average $3,000 pay cut
through hidden tax hikes. They are implementing a knee-jerk
alternative to their GST promise which has business interests
screaming about lost jobs and opportunities in the already strained
Atlantic provinces.
Canadians need a party they can trust, one that follows through
on its promises like opting out of the pension system that provides
excessive rewards to MPs on the backs of taxpayers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everyone in Quebec remembers the last team Canada
mission, which included over one hundred Quebecers among its
400 participants.
Spar Aerospace, in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, is among the
Quebec companies that greatly benefited from the team Canada
initiative.
Through the Canadian Commercial Corporation, Spar signed an
agreement with Thailand's national research council to rebuild a
remote sensing satellite. A contract estimated at $155 million was
finally signed after lengthy negotiations, thanks to the Prime
Minister's intervention.
Team Canada is a good example of the benefits that result from
being part of Canada. Team Canada promotes the development of
export markets and helps create jobs, which is precisely what our
government pledged to do.
* * *
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the economic slump which
we inherited from the previous Conservative government is slowly
lifting, just like a fog.
7655
(1415)
This morning, La Presse released the results of a poll conducted
by the Institut du Grand Prix de l'Entrepreneur, which indicate that
Canadian entrepreneurs have regained confidence in Canada's
economic prospects.
Among the major findings of this poll, we note that 54 per cent
of respondents feel the economy will improve in the coming
months; 58 per cent believe that Canada's position on world
markets will be strengthened over the next five years; 77 per cent
of entrepreneurs expect an increase in their business activities;
while 68 per cent of them anticipate that their profits will go up.
This poll confirms what we have known for a long time:
Canadian consumers and entrepreneurs have faith in our
government's economic policies and they know that economic
conditions are better than ever to do good business in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in this House we had some debate about whether the
Somalia inquiry should report before the election.
One thing Canadians are unanimous about is to see some action
on health care before the election and not to be subjected to a bunch
more Liberal promises without action.
Today the Prime Minister was given the opportunity to act
through the report of the national health care forum that he set up.
Let us see some action on drug prices. Let us see some action on
establishing a stable core for federal funding. Let us see some
action on home care. And let us see some action on unemployment,
which is the major cause of bad health in this country.
All these things the Liberals can do before the election. Let us
see some action.
_____________________________________________
7655
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The inquiry into the events that took place in Somalia has taught
us a lot about the behaviour of senior officers in the Canadian
military. But since the minister has decided to have the commission
wind up its work soon, we will unfortunately not learn the whole
truth. It must be admitted that the armed forces wasted at least six
months of the commission's time with the business of documents
that were falsified, hidden, hunted for, and not found, and now that
everything needed is available, the minister decides to put a stop to
the inquiry.
Will the Minister of National Defence agree that he could very
well require the commission to produce an interim report on June
30, allowing him to go ahead with the changes he wants to make,
and then authorize the commission to continue its work and try to
find out what really happened in this affair?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
doubt that the commission is examining a rather complex matter,
that being the events that took place in Somalia, what happened
before the troops were sent on the mission and, obviously, what
happened after the incidents that took place were discovered, which
Canadians categorically reject.
The only question in my mind, and I hope my hon. colleague will
understand this, is whether at some point Canadians interested in
knowing what went on in Somalia would like to have a historical
document. The commission has been sitting for almost two years.
We have never commented on the list of witnesses; we have not
commented on the schedule; the commission of inquiry on Somalia
was granted three extensions, it was originally supposed to hand in
its report by the end of December 1995.
In my opinion, Canadians are interested in how we are going to
react in the future, should such incidents happen again. They want
to be sure that there is not a repetition of all the problems we have
heard about and discovered during this inquiry.
If the Leader of the Opposition is interested in a historical
document, we in the government are prepared to take action and
think that the time has come to take steps to learn what the
commission has done, to evaluate its recommendations and to try
to do whatever we can to avoid a recurrence of such events.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has several times
mentioned a historical document, he just did so again. What the
opposition wants is not a historical document, but the truth about
what went on. We share his concern-the one he has expressed in
any event-for seeing that light is shed on this whole affair. We
want to see changes in the Canadian armed forces; that is what
everyone wants. Changes are necessary.
(1420)
My question is the following: If he wants to take appropriate
action and take it in the right place, does he not have to have all the
information? If so, why he is rejecting the extraordinarily
construc-
7656
tive suggestion we are making of requiring an interim report on
June 30, which would allow him to begin taking the action he
wishes to take? All the information will be included in the final
report, as he sees it, allowing the commission of inquiry to deal
with all the new material that came up during this inquiry, which no
one had any inkling of at the outset.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this inquiry has
gone on for almost two years. There is no doubt that those who
have been following the whole inquiry have no trouble
understanding that, if we were to go along with the hon. member's
suggestion that the three commissioners must be satisfied they
have seen and heard all the witnesses that were to appear, and gone
into all the details of what went on before, during and after, and that
all the lawyers representing all the intervenors, that everyone must
agree that everything was completed, my hon. friend, the Leader of
the Bloc Quebecois, and I would not live long enough to see the end
of the affair.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has just made an extraordinary revelation: we
did not know there was so much involved. Imagine what we will
miss if he wraps up the inquiry on March 31.
Seriously though, I am sure that the Minister of National
Defence will want to reply to this question. A very serious thing
has occurred: senior officers of the Canadian military blackmailed
the former defence minister, Mrs. Campbell, who was running for
the office of Prime Minister at the time. Such a revelation is very
worrisome, fraught with consequences for institutions like the
armed forces and Parliament, and for democracy.
I put the following question to the minister. Should we not get
right to the bottom of this affair, so that it does not happen again?
Listening to the minister's answers, seeing him shift from one idea
to another, I wonder whether he himself has been the subject of
threats or pressure from the armed forces.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I very much
appreciate the Leader of the Opposition's concern as to whether I
have been threatened by someone. Not lately.
I can assure you that I have such respect for my predecessor, who
went on to become Prime Minister of Canada, that I would not want
to lend credence to the idea that when a minister arrives in a
department such as National Defence, everyone can blackmail him
as simply as the hon. member seems to want us to believe.
I think it is relatively easy for those who feel that something is
not right, that the former Prime Minister is certainly entitled to
speak out, and as former defence minister as well. I hope that
everyone understands that, in order to find out what happened and
whether it was as serious as some people are claiming, all that the
individual in question has to do is to give their version of events.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence.
The minister claims not to have been pressured, at least not
recently, by senior officers in the Armed Forces. We are aware that,
during her leadership race, former Minister of Defence Kim
Campbell experienced very heavy pressure, even blackmail, from
senior ranks to convince her not to go too far with her
investigations in the Somalia affair.
(1425)
How can the minister expect us to believe that he has not been
pressured as former minister Kim Campbell was, when he suddenly
changes his tune and quickly puts an end to the work of the
Commission?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all I can do is
assure my hon. colleague that I have not been threatened at any
time. No one has tried to scare me, or encourage me to make a
decision.
I would like to remind my friend that, when I assumed my
position as Minister of National Defence-and this is quite easy to
verify-I said right from the start, and repeated it numerous times,
that I hoped the Somalia Inquiry would table its report on March
31, 1997. I have never changed my mind. From the time I assumed
my position I have repeated, and repeated frequently, that I hoped
they would make their report public March 31.
Obviously, because an extension was requested, the government
agreed for the third time to extend the mandate of the Commission
until the end of June. We thought, however, that this was sufficient
to get the work done.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when he
appeared before the Commission as a witness last week, the Chief
of the Defence Staff literally insulted the commissioners and
prosecutors by attacking their work. This was an obvious attempt to
discredit the Commission and, according to Justice Létourneau, the
Chief of the Defense Staff came very close to being cited for
contempt of court.
Is the Minister of National Defence's rush to prevent the
Commission from hearing more witnesses not the result of pressure
from the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff, who has had enough of
watching Armed Forces personnel answer the commissioner's
questions?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have always
been careful not to comment on the evidence submitted to the
Commission. I do not believe it would be right.
7657
I wish to assure my hon. colleague that, given my experience
as a lawyer, I understand that it is not unheard of for lawyers
involved in legal proceedings to be a bit difficult when questions
are being asked. Some are more polite than others. I hope
everyone understands that. I believe that most Canadians who saw
Admiral Murray in action understood that this is a man who
wanted to defend his situation as best he could. All Canadians
have a right to do so under any circumstances.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this government has adopted a double standard with
respect to public inquiries. It was keen to investigate the murder
and cover-up in Somalia when it thought it was a Tory scandal, but
as soon as the inquiry started to get close to former deputy minister
Bob Fowler, the Prime Minister's friend and golfing buddy, all of a
sudden it lost its enthusiasm.
It was okay when Justice Krever's investigation was examining
Tory complicity with the tainted blood scandal, but when Krever
wanted to examine why the Liberal government in 1984 ignored
the early warning signs about tainted blood, the government started
throwing legal obstacles in his way.
How can Canadians trust this government when it has two sets of
ethical standards, one for Liberals and their friends and the other
for everybody else?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member referred to my golf buddy. I never played
golf with him. Perhaps in the middle of the night in January in
Yellowknife I did, but I do not remember.
The Minister of National Defence took this matter seriously. We
had this inquiry for two years and the leader of the third party, as
the Minister of National Defence yesterday so rightly said, was the
one pleading with us to terminate that as quickly as possible so that
we will not have anything to hide by the time of the election.
So we are responding. The Minister of National Defence is doing
his best to fulfil the request by the leader of the third party but the
leader of the third party has again done a flip-flop.
(1430)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the issue here is not parties or statements. The issue here
is public trust. The thousands of tainted blood victims in the
country and their families trusted the blood system and it failed
them. They trusted the government to find out why and now the
government is failing them. Their trust has been abused.
Instead of acting in the best interests of the victims of the blood
system, the government tried to block Justice Krever in the courts
and attempted to circumvent his findings with a parallel
investigation. What is worse, the Prime Minister has now put the
blood system in the hands of a minister who has already abused the
public trust over highway funding.
Why should tainted blood victims trust this government to fix
the blood system? Why should they trust a minister who has
violated the public trust before?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened to the preamble of the hon. member's question with
regard to the blood system in this country. Notwithstanding his
desire to give the impression to Canadians from coast to coast that
the blood system somehow lacks the confidence of Canadians, I
wish to assure the House and Canadians that our blood system does
have the confidence of Canadians from coast to coast.
Finally, I say to the hon. member opposite that if the hon.
member wishes to put words to action, why does he not have the
guts to run against me in an election campaign?
The Speaker: It seems today we have taken a few terms in
anatomy that we are trying to use time and again. I would go to the
hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister gives an arrogant and an unfeeling answer to
a question about tainted blood. It is the type of answer that got the
Prime Minister into all that trouble on the TV town hall meeting. It
is the type of response that is considered so clever in this House and
applauded by members opposite but which if repeated outside this
House to the suffering families of the victims of tainted blood
would be denounced by every compassionate Canadian as callous,
unfeeling and-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Manning: When will this minister and this government
start to respond to the tainted blood tragedy in a way that restores
public trust rather than destroys it?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member opposite forgets that it was this minister and this
member in opposition who requested and pushed the previous
government to have an inquiry into the Canadian blood system.
Furthermore, we have been trying to work co-operatively with
provincial governments, consumers and stakeholders across this
country to put in place a new system which would ensure that the
past would never happen again.
(1435 )
I have said privately and I have said publicly, in this House and
outside this House, that I accept and have acted on all the
recommendations that the eminent Justice Krever has made. We
7658
look forward to having his report so that we can do follow-up in
terms of the various measures he wishes to recommend.
The Speaker: I wonder, my colleagues, if I could ask you to
tighten up a bit on the questions and on the answers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National
Defence.
By gagging the commission of inquiry on Somalia on very
questionable grounds, the government is actually challenging the
independence of the commission and discrediting, in a way that is
unprecedented, the whole system of commissions of inquiry in this
country. And in doing so, it prevents the public from ever knowing
the whole truth about the matter.
Could the minister tell us whom the government is protecting in
this case? Its acting chief of staff, vice-admiral Murray; its
ambassador to the UN, Mr. Fowler; its ambassador to NATO and
former chief of staff, John Anderson; its senior officials or senior
ranks within the Department of National Defence or the minister
himself?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
important to realize that the process which has been going on for
nearly two years will in fact go on until the end of June.
I am convinced that the report that will be produced by the
commissioners will be of the utmost importance to the government
and to Canadians in general.
We have no intention and, in fact, no reason to protect anyone at
all. We have to make a decision, on behalf of the government, that
allows us to proceed with changes in the Canadian Forces and the
Department of National Defence, to ensure that in future they will
work far more effectively, in a far more acceptable fashion.
We are fully aware of the problem that arose in Somalia and of
what has happened since Somalia. What interests the vast majority
of Canadians is that we find solutions instead of continuing-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government is muzzling the commissioners. It refuses
to even consider a possible extension. In so doing, it puts witnesses
in a situation where they can afford to be arrogant, since they know
that after June 30, everything will be over with.
Does the minister realize that by acting this way, he is making a
gesture without precedent in Canadian history, one that will have
consequences, because so far, no Canadian government ever denied
a commission of inquiry an extension of its mandate? How can the
public be expected to have any confidence in the inquiry system
from now on?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member asked a very good question. Every member of this House
will at some time have to consider the following: when we appoint
a commission, are we supposed to let the commission go on
working in perpetuity?
The government has already agreed to three requests for an
extension of the committee's mandate. In this case, the commission
was supposed to finish its work by March 30, but it was given an
extension for the study component until June 30.
Even if the hon. member does not understand, Canadians who
are following the situation understand perfectly well why the
government made this decision.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of National Defence says that he does not need a full
report now from the Somalia inquiry because he already knows the
facts. Since he knows so much about what really happened, will he
answer this quiz question about these two Liberal patronage
appointees: former deputy minister Robert Fowler and former chief
of defence staff John Anderson were involved in a high level
cover-up in the Somalia affair, true or false?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member yesterday took issue apparently with how I answered some
of her questions. I just want to make sure that I understand, as we
continue with this inquiry that she is conducting, whether the hon.
member wishes to step outside the House and make any allegations
she may wish to make out there with respect to any alleged
wrongdoing she may be aware of.
I would point out to the hon. member that the deputy minister to
whom she refers was appointed to that position by the previous
government. The incidents that occurred in Somalia occurred under
the previous administration. The appointment to which she refers,
that of the deputy minister, is certainly not one that was made by
this government. It was the responsibility eventually, of the person
who became the Prime Minister of this country in the previous
administration.
7659
(1440)
Maybe the hon. member might want to consider carefully any
allegations she may wish to make and to make sure that whatever
she says in here that she has the intestinal fortitude to say outside.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
Fowler had not been shipped off to the United States we probably
would not even have needed the Somalia inquiry in the first place.
Since the minister obviously cannot say, in that long answer
when I just asked him for one word, that these two Liberal
appointees were not involved in a cover-up, and since the minister
has shut down the inquiry that would have gotten to the bottom of
this and told us the truth, does the minister not realize that he is
directly responsible for hiding the truth? How can we trust his
bravado which is his own real cover-up for bungling?
The Speaker: In posing questions hon. members should not in
any way impute motive. I would hope that this slant might better
better worded, the questions might be better worded in future. If the
hon. minister wants to answer it, I will let him.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us see if we
can give this a fresh start.
Part of the problem we are all grappling with-and I know that
Eaton's always play an important role in this-they like guarantees
and it is satisfaction guaranteed or money back at Eaton's. So let us
see if we can get it straight now.
Again referring to Hansard, I want to know if the hon. member
who just posed this question agrees or not, because she likes yes or
no answers. Does the hon. member agree with her leader, yes or no,
that he wanted the Prime Minister of Canada to ensure that there
was no ultimate cover-up in the Somalia inquiry and that the results
of the inquiry would be made fully public before the next federal
election? Or does the hon. member not expect the next federal
election in this century?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister
promised that the Somalia inquiry would get to the bottom of all
this. They have once more broken their promise by imposing a
deadline on the commissioners. The minister tells us there have
already been three extensions. If the army had not tried to conceal
the documents, there would have been no need for an extension.
By muzzling the commissioners, is the government not
interfering politically in a judicial process? In other words, is the
government not acting both as judge and jury in this case?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the
hon. member that, as I see it, when a commission asks for an
extension the first time, it is okay for the government to say yes. At
least I hope that was the case.
They ask for a second extension, and the government says yes.
That is entirely above board. It is not interference, and everything
is okay. They ask for a third extension, and the government says
yes. But when the government adds: ``However, we want you to
finish your work by a certain date'', in that case, it is interference.
Is it interference when we say no but not when we say yes? If
that is the case, why ask for an extension in the first place, if it
should be automatic, according to the hon. member?
We must have some logic here. If people ask for an extension,
they should realize that the answer may be yes or no, or yes with an
extension but with a deadline set by the government.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister says he granted an extension because he saw
a number of requests. The commissioners asked for extensions
because there were a lot of things they did not see. They were
concealed by the army. Obviously, if there had been no concealing,
there would have been no request for an extension.
The Minister of National Defence said a few months ago that he
wanted to know about everything that happened in Somalia. He
may have heard some very important news, so important he no
longer wants to know everything.
(1445)
I want to ask the minister whether, when he made his decision,
he was perhaps thinking about the next election campaign, and
whether the true intentions of the Minister of National Defence
were to ensure that what comes out of this report will be only what
happened under the Conservative government and then to conceal
from the public what happened under this Liberal administration?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no, this is not
about trying to conceal or bury anything whatsoever.
What is important in my mind, and I hope it is in the minds of
Canadians, is that we must proceed so as to ensure that the
Government of Canada takes steps to prevent such situations from
recurring in future.
Regarding what happened in Somalia, the two incidents that
occurred within a rather short time frame, everyone is aware that
these elements were very carefully examined by the commission.
We never required the commission to follow a schedule set by the
7660
government. We refrained from suggesting who should be heard as
witnesses.
When the commission has finished its work, it will be able to
make recommendations and reach any conclusions it feels
appropriate, and the government is committed to take these into
consideration.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have direct
allegations that Robert Fowler and General Anderson shredded
important documents relating to the murder investigation of
Shidane Arone, and that Mr. Fowler did not keep Kim Campbell
informed during this entire thing. But the Prime Minister protected
his friends, appointed them to positions outside of the country and
now he is trying to bury the inquiry before we find the smoking
gun.
Will the Prime Minister explain this abuse of trust?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
difficulties is in dealing with this whole area of the inquiry that the
hon. gentleman is pursuing. I want to make sure that I understand
because I do not know quite what type of response the hon.
gentleman wants.
In the ethics bible of the Reform Party it says: ``Questions
should not be used to get straight information''.
What I am trying to find out here is: Are you asking straight
questions or do you want straight answers?
The Speaker: Colleagues, you will please address all of your
remarks directly to the Chair.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
remind the Prime Minister that we asked these questions about Mr.
Fowler two years ago and then he was hustled off to New York.
My business experience says that if you want to rebuild
something that is not working you start from the top, not from the
bottom. The problem is the Prime Minister has been protecting the
people at the top. When things went wrong for the Prime Minister's
friends in positions of responsibility he shut down the inquiry and
let the people at the bottom take the blame.
When will the Prime Minister stop shielding his buddies at the
top and show some integrity by holding them accountable?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my hon.
friend's business experience is going to do his party any good he
has some mighty tough work to do at the top.
We are dealing now with whether or not the hon. member
understands that there have been three extensions given to the
commission. The commission is free to ask any witnesses it wishes
to appear before it. It can determine who it wants to hear. It has
until the end of March to do that and it can determine in its own
good time as it always has.
Far be it for us to suggest to the commission or to the hon.
gentleman who should be called. If the hon. member wants to make
recommendations to the commission on who should be heard as
witnesses then he is free to do so.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister refused to question the
integrity of his ministers, who obviously goofed in the Airbus
affair. Perhaps he might be less forgiving of the obvious
incompetence of the RCMP Commissioner, Philip Murray, who
took two years to realize that his men were investigating a former
Prime Minister.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Everyone agrees that it
makes no sense for the top man at the RCMP not to be aware of the
famous letter to Switzerland. Under the circumstances, does the
Prime Minister continue to have faith in the RCMP Commissioner?
(1450 )
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the commissioner under the act passed by Parliament is responsible
for the management and control of the RCMP. He is carrying out
this work. He is assuming his responsibilities and I think that is the
answer to my hon. friend's question.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what is left of the Liberals' wishful thinking, of this
government's accountability, when a senior bureaucrat supposedly
in charge of the RCMP can make mistakes costing taxpayers
millions of dollars and yet continue to hold the respect and trust of
this government and this Prime Minister?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I reject the premise of my hon. friend's question because the
investigation in question is active. It is ongoing. Brian Mulroney in
agreeing to the settlement of the case against him said: ``The
parties have always acknowledged that the RCMP must continue
investigating any allegations of illegality or wrongdoing brought to
its attention''. That is exactly what it is doing.
7661
I do not know why my hon. friend questions this proper work
of the national police force.
* * *
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister of Indian affairs. Last November, the royal
commission on aboriginal peoples issued its final report. The
commission urges us to end decades of jurisdictional uncertainty
and deal with aboriginal peoples on a nation to nation basis within
the Canadian federation.
The minister has had two months to study this report. Will he tell
the House what actions the government has taken toward
considering the recommendations in the royal commission's final
report?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member has an
easier question. The royal commission has spent five years with
many ups and downs. In the end it has created a very scholarly
report. The commission should be commended. It is a living
document, a touchstone as has been evidenced by 600 people who
met in Montreal last week to discuss the pros and cons.
We could not wait for the report to be finished during our tenure.
So many of the things that it recommended in the end we were
already doing as they were being discussed: inherent right, general
policy, specific policy, the Inuit Grise Fiord package, the
contemporary treaty in B.C.
I know the Reform Party has no interest in aboriginal affairs. The
150 tables we had going across the country were interested in what
happened to royal commissions. This is what happens. There are
150 tables. This will be a touchstone for our negotiators. It will be a
light.
There are 440 recommendations of which 89 touch us. I hope all
provinces and territories where they are affected will use that same
report as a touchstone, as a light to get to do the job better.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, by November
8, 1995 the justice minister knew about the inflammatory contents
of Kimberly Prost's letter to the Swiss authorities regarding the
Airbus scandal.
At that time the justice minister had the opportunity to withdraw
the letter and forward a second one, minus the libellous language.
This would have stopped the $50 million lawsuit and saved the
taxpayers a $1 million out of court settlement and would not have
interfered with the RCMP investigation.
Why did the justice minister not withdraw the letter immediately
on learning of its libellous content?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that
a second letter was sent days after November 8, 1995.
A second letter was sent at the request of Mr. Mulroney and his
solicitors. That letter made clear that the contents of the first letter
were allegations only, unproven and part of an investigation. I hope
the hon. member takes that into account when he assesses this
situation.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, anyone who
is familiar with the file realizes the contents of the second letter,
and it did not do one single solitary thing about appeasing the
complainant in this whole matter.
(1455 )
The justice minister continues to absolve himself of any
responsibility when clearly it was his irresponsible decision that
cost the Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars. As soon as the
justice minister heard of the libellous letter, it was his duty to act
responsibly.
Why did the minister not withdraw the original letter and issue
his apology immediately? Why did he take over a year and millions
of taxpayers' dollars to settle this affair? How can the people of
Canada trust this minister's judgment?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is entitled to his
own opinion but he is not entitled to his own facts.
The facts of this letter are clear. Within days of Mr. Mulroney's
lawyers coming to the department and complaining about the
language in that letter, a second letter was sent. The first letter had
already been acted on and was sent, but the second letter made it
clear that what was said were mere allegations, that no conclusions
had been reached.
The hon. member asks about my responsibility. I made clear
from the outset that I take responsibility for the Department of
Justice. The record shows that acting responsibly, I have changed
the system inside the department.
The parties to the settlement of this case acknowledge-may I
read briefly: ``The parties acknowledge the procedure used in
sending a request for assistance-''.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
7662
This morning, the national forum on health presented its report
to the federal government. The report contains no criticism of the
federal government and contributes nothing to improving health
care.
Does the minister understand that the national forum is just so
much verbiage and that the real problems in health care are the cuts
this government has made to transfer payments to the province?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for raising the subject matter on the floor
of the House.
The conclusions of the forum report were obvious to all. The
problems in our health care system today are not as a result of lack
of funding. It has to do with the management of the system.
In point of fact, the recommendations that are contained in the
forum report suggesting that we, as Canadians, ought to move to a
more inclusive system such as including home care and
pharmacare are directions that all member ought to support for the
benefit of high quality health care for every Canadian.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, back to Krever.
The Krever commission on tainted blood was designed to clear up a
Canadian tragedy designed to explain to a 15-year old youth from
Ottawa, David, why his life was shattered when he found on his lab
report HIV positive.
Since the Prime Minister talks so much about accountability,
since this Liberal government says its whole issue is
accountability, can the health minister explain to Canadians why he
tried to shut down Krever when he tried to find out who was
accountable?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
to repeat what the very eminent Minister of Justice has just said,
the hon. member is entitled to his own opinion but certainly not
entitled to his own facts on this issue. Quite the contrary.
Since we have assumed our responsibilities in the field of health
care in dealing with the blood issue, we have attempted to provide
all available information to the Krever inquiry. We have acted on
many of the interim recommendations that he has made.
As I have said many times inside and outside this House, we
await the final conclusions of Justice Krever so that we can
incorporate those that will improve, restore and add confidence to
the blood system in this country.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
For 27 per cent of Edmonton's children who live with their
families below the poverty line, the child benefit offered hope.
How will the national child benefit help these Alberta families?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for her question. Indeed the government is very concerned about
the situation of children living in low income families in this
country. This is one of our top priorities.
(1500)
We have already been investing a great deal. We have invested
over $500 billion in the child tax benefit at this time and in the
budget last year we increased the working income supplement by
$250 million.
We need to do more and we can achieve better results if we work
collaboratively with the provinces. I was extremely pleased when
last week we actually achieved a consensus that the provinces and
the Government of Canada will develop together a national child
benefit, a very good policy for children.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and it is also on
the National Forum on Health.
As the minister knows, the national forum urged this government
to bring medicare into the 21st century by including primary care,
by including home care and of course by including prescription
drugs.
Will the minister not only accept these recommendations but
will he put an end to the destructive cuts in federal funding for
health care to the provinces, restore that funding and tackle the
runaway cost of prescription drugs?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again I think we have to be careful of the facts.
The report says very clearly that Canada has the second most
expensive health care system in the OECD countries. Furthermore
the forum has said very clearly that it is not an issue of funding; it is
an issue of managing and substantially changing the direction in
which health care is heading.
That is why I am very happy that the hon. member will support
the directions in terms of further improvements as they relate to
home care, pharma care and primary care. I appreciate his support
7663
and the support of the NDP as we move forward on these important
issues.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The federal government has very recently discovered a growing
problem of poverty in Canada, including among children.
Since his government has just discovered this problem, I would
ask the Prime Minister if he will not take immediate action to help
overtaxed low income families on the labour market. Will he not
recognize that, by overtaxing unemployment insurance
contributions by $10 billion over two years, he is placing an unfair
burden on them and would he not be prepared to reduce
employment insurance contributions, especially for low income
families, right now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has just
provided a good description of the current situation. The program
we are working on at the moment requires provincial co-operation.
The meeting held last week in Toronto and the one held last
month bear witness to a new approach and new co-operation
between the federal government and the provinces in helping
children in difficulty in our society.
I hope negotiations will continue quickly and that, together with
the provinces, we will be able to set up a national program to
protect poor children.
_____________________________________________
7663
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1505)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (production of records in sexual
offence proceedings), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today in 1997 we are faced with yet another issue which threatens
sexual offence victims and indeed every woman's confidence in the
criminal justice system. We must take this opportunity to put the
progressive reforms of our sexual offence laws back on track. We
must take the opportunity to craft a law which articulates that both
the complainant and the accused are worthy of the law's protection.
Equality before the law and under the law must be more than
rhetoric. Doing nothing will only reinforce the status quo which in
many cases is inequality.
I should also point out that other jurisdictions are grappling with
the same issues. This is not a uniquely Canadian problem. I am
aware that the production of a variety of personal records of sexual
offence victims has discouraged reporting and participation of
victims in virtually all American states, in the United Kingdom, in
Australia and in New Zealand. The approaches developed or
proposed in other states to address the issue vary. Some have opted
for statutory privileges which apply to specific communications
and records. Others have opted for an application for the hearing
procedure. What all have in common is the recognition that rights
to privacy must be accommodated along with the right to full
answer and defence, and that where records are at stake the accused
must demonstrate the likely relevance of such records.
I believe that our legislative proposals address this complex
issue in a fair and comprehensive manner. While we have learned
from the experience of other jurisdictions, the proposals that are
put forward are very uniquely Canadian.
Bill C-46 amendments will significantly improve the situation
for complainants and witnesses of sexual offences. I emphasize
that these amendments are indeed a package. There is no quick or
simple solution.
In a nutshell, we are proposing a two stage test for the production
of records which places the onus on the accused to establish the
threshold of likely relevance of the records requested.
In addition, we are providing guidance to the courts in their
consideration of the likely relevance by the articulation of several
insufficient grounds for production. The legislation emphasizes
that the trial judge must consider the charter rights of both the
accused and the complainant or witness when determining whether
to produce the records.
Strict procedures must be adhered to when seeking personal
records. In the event that records are ultimately produced to the
accused, appropriate safeguards for privacy are available.
(1510 )
A new form of subpoena for personal records will provide better
information to the recipient of the subpoena. Important, we have
included a preamble which explains why these reforms are
essential and what our intention is as legislators.
While the legislation is comprehensive, I emphasize that it does
not prohibit the production of records. It recognizes that both
complainants of sexual offences and persons accused of sexual
offences have rights guaranteed by the charter and that these rights,
7664
while they may conflict, must be accommodated and reconciled to
the greatest extent possible.
I would like to briefly highlight the key features of Bill C-46,
worked on and brought forward by the Minister of Justice. I know
that the legislative committee will carefully review the bill and I
will be available to respond to any questions it may have in
addition to questions in this House.
As mentioned, Bill C-46 includes a preamble. Until recently a
preamble was considered quite a unique feature in criminal
legislation. However, a preamble has proven to be a very effective
way of Parliament's intention of reforming the law, in identifying
the mischief that the law seeks to address and in guiding the
interpretation of the legislation. The preamble in Bill C-46 does all
this. It reiterates our concern about sexual violence and its impact
and specifically acknowledges that the compelled production of
records may deter complainants from reporting to police and/or
from seeking treatments.
It also highlights that the rights guaranteed by our charter are
guaranteed to all people, be they accused of criminal offences or
complainants or witnesses in criminal proceedings.
Bill C-46 will amend the Criminal Code to provide that in sexual
offence proceedings all applications by the accused for the
production of records of a complainant or witness shall be
determined by the trial judge in accordance with the new law and
procedure.
A justice presiding at the preliminary inquiry will not have
jurisdiction to determine an application for the production of
records.
The Criminal Code will also set out a definition of records. The
definition is general: any form of records that contain personal
information for which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In addition, to avoid any disputes about whether a certain type of
record is included, several specific records are referred to as
examples. The definition is capable of embracing other types of
personal records heretofore not sought.
Note that the definition specifically excludes records or notes
made by the police in the course of their investigation or made by
the crown in preparation of its case. Where personal records are
sought in sexual offence proceedings, the accused must make an
application to the trial judge with notice to the crown, the person in
possession of the records, the record holder, and the complainant.
This written application must set out the grounds or reasons relied
upon to establish that the record sought is slightly relevant to an
issue at trial or to the competence of a witness to testify.
The code will further provide that certain assertions made by the
accused, unsupported by other information, will not meet the
threshold of likely relevance which is necessary for a judge to
review the records. The amendment will also guide the trial judge
in determining likely relevance by directing the judge to consider,
at the initial stage and again at the second stage, the salutary and
deleterious effects of production on the accused's right to make a
full answer and defence and on the right to privacy and equality of
the complainant.
Several specific factors must be considered, including the
probative value of the record, the nature and extent of the
reasonable expectation of privacy in the record, whether
production is based on a discriminatory belief or bias and society's
interest in encouraging the reporting of sexual offences.
It is after this careful consideration that the judge determines
whether he or she should review the records to determine whether
they should be produced to the accused. The judge will conduct
such a review in private. I fully appreciate that even production to
the judge for the judge's eyes only has a devastating impact on
complainants. That is why we have drafted a fairly high threshold
which the accused must meet even before the judge will review the
records.
(1515)
At the second stage the trial judge will conduct the same
exercise, i.e., determine if the record is likely relevant to an issue at
trial or the competence of a witnesses to testify, and will consider
the same factors including the charter rights of both the accused
and the complainant.
This determination is based on the judge's own review of the
records. It may be clear after such a review that the records are
absolutely irrelevant. On the other hand the records or some part of
them in the judge's view may likely be relevant. If so, the records
will be produced to the accused.
Bill C-46 also comprehensively addresses the procedural aspects
and it provides additional safeguards to protect privacy and the
equality rights of the complainants.
For example, the application must be in writing and must set out
the specific grounds relied on by the accused for production. Also,
adequate notice, usually seven days, of the application must be
provided to the record holder, crown, complainant, or witnesses
and any person to whom the record relates.
A subpoena duces tecum in new form 16.1 must be served on the
record holder along with the notice of motion. The hearing to
determine whether the record should be produced to the judge for
review will be in camera.
The complainant or witness, the record holder or any person to
whom the record relates may appear at the application hearing and
be heard, but they are not compellable witnesses by the crown or
defence.
7665
The judge must conduct any review of the records in private.
The judge must provide reasons for the determination. Where the
judge orders production to the accused, appropriate conditions on
production must be considered. A ban on publication applies to
the contents of the application and all other information at the voir
dire and the judge's reasons.
Specific amendments are also proposed with respect to the
issuance and form of the subpoena previously mentioned. For
example, in sexual offence proceedings a subpoena which requests
a witness to bring anything to court must be in a new form, form
16.1, which will provide detailed information to the recipients
regarding their rights and obligations.
These changes to the issuance and form of the subpoena are an
essential part of this package of amendments. Subpoenas are not
statutory to be pulled from the shelf and served without any
consideration of whether they should in fact be issued. The code
already provides a test for determining whether the subpoena
should be issued. The test is whether a person is likely to give
material evidence. This is an adequate test and it will remain the
test.
However a subpoena which directs the recipient to bring
documents or material with them, referred to as a subpoena duces
tecum, will be in a new form. That form will provide full
information to the recipient regarding their obligations. They are
required only to bring the material to court.
In sexual offence proceedings where the material requested by
the subpoena is a record as defined in the Criminal Code, the
recipient of the subpoena will be informed that the determination
whether to produce these records must be made by the trial judge at
the special hearing.
These amendments are designed to ensure that record holders
who receive a subpoena do not assume that because the subpoena
has been issued by a court official that they must automatically
hand over the records requested. The records may not be relevant.
It is up to the trial judge to decide whether anything should be
produced. The subpoena is simply the mechanism to ensure the
attendance of a person in court. These records cannot speak for
themselves and it is the record holder's attendance that is requested
by the subpoena. The code still requires however that in order to
issue the subpoena the issuer must be satisfied that the person is
likely to give material evidence.
Some critics of Bill C-46 contend that this legislation is simply a
knee-jerk reaction to the supreme court's decision last December in
O'Connor. This is not the case. The trend to seek out personal
records emerged several years ago and was brought to the attention
of the Minister of Justice in June 1994 when he met with national
women's groups.
(1520)
The minister launched an extensive consultation two years ago
to fully explore the extent of the problem, its impact on sexual
offence victims and possible solutions. The consultation process
has included equality seeking women's groups, victim advocates,
service providers, the defence bar, crown attorneys and the
provincial attorneys general. The consultation process began
before and continued after the supreme court's hearing and
decision in O'Connor. So these reforms can hardly be said to be a
simple knee-jerk reaction to that decision.
It may be recalled that in response to questions in this House
over a year ago, the Minister of Justice indicated that he would
legislate in this area and that he would not necessarily wait for a
decision in the O'Connor case. In his capacity as the Attorney
General of Canada, the minister intervened in the O'Connor case
urging the courts to adopt a higher threshold for the production of
records to the judge for review and urging other procedural
protections. But even if the supreme court had completely adopted
the argument of the federal government, in my view the legislation
would still have been necessary.
The supreme court dealt with the case before it and the issues
that arose in that particular case. In the consultation process it
became clear to the Minister of Justice that there were several
issues and concerns which the O'Connor decision would not
comprehensively address.
While the minister could have pursued legislation before the
supreme court rendered its decision in O'Connor, the minister
thought it wise to consider the views of the supreme court.
Following the release of the decision in O'Connor, the Minister of
Justice very carefully analysed the judgments in relation to the
legislative options then under consideration. Again the minister
consulted with members of the Canadian Bar Association, the
Criminal Lawyers Association, the Canadian Council of Criminal
Defence Lawyers, women's groups, sexual assault service
providers, academics and crown lawyers.
The Minister of Justice considered a wide range of views and
advice. I would note that no single point of view has prevailed to
the exclusion of any others. The Minister of Justice concluded that
the legislation was still essential to restore the confidence of the
people of Canada in the criminal justice system, to ensure that the
equality guarantees in our charter were reflected in law and in
practice, and to bring certainty to the law and procedure governing
the production of records in sexual offence proceedings.
We have the mandate as legislators to craft a law which
comprehensibly addresses an issue which is having a serious
impact on victims, particularly women and children. Moreover we
have a duty to do so rather than to rely on the common law to make
incremental changes.
7666
Some critics of Bill C-46 argue that the legislation steamrolls
over the supreme court's decision in O'Connor. I do not agree.
There are many similarities between this bill and the supreme
court's decision. There are also significant differences. We have
not set out to codify O'Connor but it has been carefully considered
along with all of the other factors considered in crafting
amendments.
I do not intend to respond to every anticipated criticism of this
legislation. The legislative committee process will provide another
opportunity for careful consideration of these amendments.
However I would like to address one other concern.
Some critics contend that the proposed amendments which
require the accused to establish the likely relevance of the records
and which set out several assertions which on their own, in other
words without any supporting information, are not sufficient to
justify the likely relevance of criteria, place the accused in a catch
22 bind. They argue that the accused may not be able to establish
how the records are likely relevant because he does not know what
information is in the records. I do not accept this supposed catch 22
situation.
(1525 )
First of all, if the law does not impose a threshold of likely
relevance on the production of records, then it would be open
season on records. They would be simply available for the asking
or requesting.
If an accused does in fact have a defence to the charges, for
example if he did not have any contact with the complainant, if he
believes the complainant consented and if the incident did not
happen, then he may pursue that in a defence in the appropriate
manner. But the accused should not have carte blanche to peruse
records in search of a defence in the form of impeaching the
complainant's character or credibility or by intimidating the
complainant to such an extent that charges are withdrawn. I would
also point out that we are talking about personal records which
have been made by third parties, counsellors, teachers, doctors;
third parties that have no obligation to provide these records to the
accused.
This legislation only deals with the production of records. An
accused cannot plunder through irrelevant personal records for
titbits of information which can either be exploited or unhelpful,
safely ignored. But nothing prevents the accused from calling as a
witness a person who has material evidence and asking relevant
questions.
As I indicated, the legislation sets out several assertions which
the accused cannot rely on to establish the likely relevance of the
records. The need for articulating these insufficient assertions was
highlighted in the consultation process and goes right to the heart
of why these amendments are necessary. The accused will not
satisfy the likely relevance threshold for production to the trial
judge for review by setting out any unsupported assertions of why
the records are or may be relevant. The accused must establish how
or why the records are likely relevant to an issue at trial. In some
cases this may require the defence to reveal information pertaining
to the proposed conduct of the defence.
In addition to the general requirement of likely relevance, the
code will clarify that any one or combination of unsupported
assertions will not meet the test. For example the accused cannot
simply state that the records should be produced because records
about the complainant exist, or that they may disclose a prior
inconsistent statement, or they may relate to the credibility of the
complainant or witness, or may reveal allegations of sexual abuse
by others.
The articulation of insufficient grounds or assertions is intended
to ensure that speculation will not found an application for records.
Fishing expeditions will not be condoned by our law and neither
should they be. If the legislation permitted an accused to guess why
records may be relevant, then in every case records would be
produced and this legislation would have accomplished nothing.
But note that these assertions are not impermissible per se where
the accused can offer some support for the assertion. For example if
the accused can establish to the satisfaction of the trial judge that
the records are likely relevant because they do in fact disclose a
prior inconsistent statement, the trial judge may determine that the
records should be reviewed.
This legislation responds to a situation which threatens the
confidence of the people of Canada, particularly women and
children, in our criminal justice system and it responds in a fair and
focused way. The legislation applies only in sexual offence
proceedings. The legislation does not sacrifice the rights of the
accused to benefit the victim, nor is it my intention nor the
intention of the minister, nor is it the desire or the intention of
victims to do this. Our intention is to ensure that the law protects
equally all those who rely upon it.
The essence of the amendments I have described is that
applications for personal records of complainants and witnesses in
sexual offence proceedings must be carefully scrutinized by the
trial judge. I am not suggesting that this will be a simple or speedy
task for trial judges but it is a necessary task.
The amendments will not prohibit the production of records.
Rather the amendments set out the test to determine whether and to
what extent production should be ordered and to guide the courts in
applying that test, requiring the courts to consider and balance the
competing charter interests at both stages.
7667
(1530 )
An accused person who can establish the need for relevant
information in the records in accordance with the law and
procedure will not be denied the records. The right to a full answer
and defence has not been sacrificed.
The personal commitment of the Minister of Justice is to
continue to examine the laws of Canada to ensure that they
effectively protect the people of Canada and that they reflect
fairness and balance in responding to the needs and concerns of all
Canadians. This commitment is shared by all members of the
government. Bill C-46 is yet another example of this commitment.
Bill C-46 is indeed another example of the tremendous
achievement of the Minister of Justice to put forth real solutions to
real problems. In the history of this Parliament it can be said with
safety that no more significant amendments have been made to the
criminal justice system to make our streets and homes safer than
those which have been introduced by this Minister of Justice. In
this regard I am very proud to offer my support to this legislation
and I encourage others to do the same.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on behalf of the official opposition and to address
Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code, particularly as
regards the production of records in sexual offence proceedings.
Incidentally, the 35th Parliament will probably go down in
history as the one during which the largest number of criminal
issues were dealt with. A large number of bills have been on the
House agenda, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs has been particularly busy throughout this Parliament, and
it seems that it will continue to be until the end. I do not think there
was a need to speed up things in every case. In some cases yes, but
not all the time.
The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River just made
a speech in which he was already referring to Bill C-46 as an
achievement for the government. Let us not rush things. We are
currently building the foundations of a bill, and I take the hon.
member's word to the effect that this bill will be thoroughly
reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I do hope this exercise will not be conducted hastily, as has been
the case with certain bills in recent months.
That having been said, Bill C-46 includes some interesting and
valuable provisions, as well as others that may be more
questionable or that raise concerns. The witnesses who will appear
before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will
shed light on these, so that we can deal with them accordingly.
Restricting the disclosure of some files to the defence and,
consequently, to the person accused of a criminal offence of a
sexual nature that often involves a woman or a child, is a laudable
principle.
The hon. member said earlier that this bill does not in any way
violate the constitutional rights of the person accused. At first
glance, I have doubts about this, because the act includes a
preamble with seven whereases before we get to the following:
``Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and
House of Commons of Canada-''.
When the government includes such whereases in a bill, it is
because it thinks the legislation does not meet the Oakes test. The
restrictions contained in this bill have no justification in a free and
democratic society. It seems, at first glance, that they will have to
be justified before the courts, since there are probably grounds for a
charter challenge.
(1535)
However, the possibility of a charter challenge is not grounds
enough to prevent our legislating. I would say that the likely
success of a charter challenge should be a much more serious
caution. In my opinion, however, the mere possibility must not
preclude the examination of legislation.
In order to better understand Bill C-46, let us draw a parallel
with the situation when rape was a criminal offence. The term we
use now is ``sexual assault''.
For a long time in Canada, when rape was defined as a criminal
offence and an offence related to the commission of a sexual act,
the victim's past was open to all and sundry. At a rape trial, it was
not clear whether the accused or the victim in the witness box
should be responding to the accusations from the way they were
going after the victim's past. Quite simply, in an effort to cast doubt
in the minds of the jury, to colour the victim's testimony, the
victim's sexual history was scrutinized in an effort to discredit her
testimony and to show that she had had numerous or bizarre
experiences, according to the customs of the time. Regardless, they
hit into the victim, regardless of the ultimate intent. In many cases,
the ultimate intent for the defence was to cast doubt in the mind of
the jury or of the judge, if the trial was before the judge alone.
The legislator changed the situation in somewhat the same way
Bill C-46 is attempting to do. If, during a trial for sexual assault,
the victim is to be questioned on her earlier sex life to find out
whether, for example, as we used to put it, she was previously of
chaste character, the course of the questioning must be presented to
the judge in a voir dire.
Before the jury is allowed to hear the evidence on the victim's
past, the judge is entitled to know exactly what link the defence
7668
thinks it can establish, not to simply imply that the victim who
may have behaved in a certain way had no credibility.
Through Bill C-46, a norm is set. Before an accused can seek
production of personal records that may be in the hands of a
psychiatrist, a member of the medical establishment, teachers or
guidance counsellors, and even the production of personal diaries
that may be in the hands of a complainant, he or she will first have
to convince the judge that this evidence is likely to be relevant to
the trial.
The accused will have to demonstrate to the judge, who will be
sitting without a jury and conducting a hearing very similar to a
voir dire, that this evidence will convincingly raise a reasonable
doubt. The first time around, the accused will be required to back
up the grounds for making an application, and the judge will hear
this application in camera. The complainant could be heard. I read
the bill to mean that the accused could be heard as well.
We have reached here a breaking point, a cut-off point between
the rights of the victim and those of the accused, who is entitled to a
full defence.
One can wonder how, without having reviewed records such as
those being requested, the accused can be expected to prepare an
application and make sufficiently detailed allegations to convince a
judge of the relevancy of presenting the evidence.
(1540)
This is an issue that will be very difficult to resolve. Perhaps we
will manage to find both a positive and a clever solution that
respects the rights of both parties, because, in law as in every other
area, matter is neither lost nor created. What you gain on one side
you lose on the other. The balance on which the economics of our
entire criminal law rests must be maintained.
Regarding the evidence that may be disclosed at trial, for the
jury's information or for the presiding judge to review, Bill C-46
seeks to ensure and give us the assurance that they will be relevant
and pertain to the issue at trial.
I noted in passing that this is the only case where the accused is
required to use this procedure, i.e. make a voir dire type of
application for the production of such records. This is specified in
clause 278.3(2), which reads, and I quote:
For greater certainty, an application under subsection (1) may not be made to a
judge or justice presiding at any other proceedings, including a preliminary inquiry.
What about the accused who wishes, at the preliminary hearing
stage, to submit to voluntary examination and plead on voluntary
examination to have charges against him dropped for total want of
evidence, I wonder? Is he precluded from serving subpoenas on
those who have possession of these documents? This is a matter for
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to look into.
At the preliminary investigation and voluntary examination
stage, assuming the person charged agrees to such a voluntary
examination, given its explicit conditions, will the person be
deprived of certain means of defence? If we seek to deprive that
person of certain means of defence, again we are possibly violating
the guarantees provided during a full defence.
And what happens if the documents are in the hands of the
Crown, a third party, a member of the medical profession, or a
psychiatrist? Is the Crown, given the Supreme Court decision in the
Stinchcombe case, not required to make these documents available
to the defence? This is another issue which the committee will have
to look at.
These are measures which may sound appealing, but which have
to be taken carefully, in small doses, because they have an impact
on the fundamental rule of justice in our legal system, a system that
includes the Criminal Code of Canada, the civil code of the
Province of Quebec and the municipal codes in the various
provinces, which are the cornerstones of our whole legal system.
When these cornerstones are altered, our whole legal system is
affected.
The civil code reform took place over a number of decades in
Quebec, beginning in the fifties. In fact, the process had started
long before with the Pérodeau act, in 1915, the Dorion report, in
1931, and then the change regarding the rights of married women
in civil matters, in 1954. All this took several decades. The changes
were not imposed overnight.
The people of Canada-and the people of Quebec in the case of
that province's civil law, know what their legal system is based on.
A civil code and a criminal code are basic documents in our
society, just as the Holy Scriptures are fundamental to religion.
(1545)
We should not rewrite the Scriptures every two or three years. It
is a genuine document. We do have various translations and, from
time to time, exegetes who provide a new interpretation, but we
always come back to the same text. The Scriptures are made more
meaningful because they have never been rewritten. Apocrypha are
dismissed because they do not meet the same authenticity
standards as the Scriptures, as we know them.
This little digression was meant to show you that the basic
instruments in our legal system should not change too much or too
often. Let me loop the loop I started at the beginning of my speech,
when I said that we have passed too many pieces of criminal
7669
legislation during this Parliament: the people subject to trial, the
solicitors, the lawyers and probably many judges no longer know
what the law is any more. Yet, one basic requirement for a society
like ours based on the rule of law, under the 1982 Constitutional
Act, is that those who are subject to the law of the land must know
what the law says, which is why our basic laws like the Criminal
Code should not change too often or according to the whims of
those in power who, for some reason, maybe because of some
pressure from a lobby group, may decide to make changes.
So this bill will have to be examined thoroughly in order to
weigh the ins and outs of the proposed reform. At first blush, its
intentions appear laudable, there is no doubt. But if we were to ask
Canadians, whom the justice system is there to serve, to name one
of the important rules of criminal law, they would probably
immediately mention the presumption of innocence, without any
prodding whatsoever. An accused cannot be presumed guilty; he is
even entitled to remain silent, to remain seated during his trial and
say nothing.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court and even the Privy Council
have had to make this point again on several occasions, overturning
juries' verdicts when crown prosecutors went too far with their
arguments from time to time, or when judges overstepped the
bounds, because it is not even permitted to comment on an
accused's silence, if he decides not to present a defence. When the
crown has finished presenting its evidence, and the accused does
not rise, the next step is arguments, and neither the crown
prosecutor nor the judge may comment on the accused's silence; he
is entitled to remain silent. This is one of the key principles of our
criminal justice system and, for once I agree with many colleagues
in this House, a system which compares very favourably with
criminal law systems in other countries.
We now realize that, with Bill C-46, we are going to oblige the
accused to present evidence, obviously not before a jury, just
before a judge, showing that certain elements of evidence are
relevant to his defence in order to be able to produce them later on.
In certain cases, the accused will be forced to speak and to reveal
part of his strategy because, in a trial, there is the element of
strategy. This may lead the crown to say: ``If that is the defence
they are preparing, I will adjust my evidence accordingly''.
The accused's right to silence is, of course, affected by this bill.
Although not in itself grounds to oppose this bill, this is a reason to
ask whether we are affecting basic rights which have taken
hundreds of years to become established in our British system of
criminal law.
We must not, in the space of a single legislative session,
demolish piece by piece, without truly really realizing what we are
taking away, what we are changing, values which have been
unanimously acknowledged by our forefathers and are the
fundamental guarantee of our democratic freedoms, deemed so
important that they were entrenched in the 1982 Constitution,
particularly, but not exclusively, in sections 7 through 15.
The official opposition will, with an open mind, give its
agreement in principle to the adoption of this bill on second
reading.
(1550)
In doing so, however, we wish to make it known that we will be
keeping a watchful eye in committee in order to ensure that, in its
guidelines and in its practical application, our system of criminal
law, the envy of a number of nations, remains a system that
continues to be the envy of many countries.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to speak for a few minutes to Bill C-46. Bill C-46 will
amend the Criminal Code. It deals with the specific issue of the
production of records in sexual offence proceedings.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that counsel for the accused
and the accused would only be permitted access to a complainant's
or a witness' personal records under very specific and very
restricted conditions, thereby better protecting the privacy rights of
complainants and witnesses.
As my colleague from the Bloc has just pointed out, there has
been a longstanding tradition in the British legal system that
accused persons should have the opportunity to make a full and fair
defence to any charges that are brought against them. This element
of our legal system is something that has been abused, sometimes
both ways. Sometimes, especially in sexual offence proceedings,
there have been some real accusations and concerns about accused
persons and their counsel poking into the private affairs, papers,
writings, diaries and journals of sexual assault victims to see
whether something can be dredged up whereby the accused or their
counsel might impugn the credibility of the alleged victim. That
has been seen as a real abuse. On the other hand, there have
certainly been instances where complaints that sexual offences
have taken place have been brought fallaciously, frivolously, with
malice, for reasons of revenge, personal advantage or, in some
instances, due to something called false memory syndrome.
We have two very competing interests. We have genuine victims
of sexual offences needing to be protected from being further
invaded, further outraged and further violated by having their
personal lives, records, writings and intimate thoughts dredged up
and chewed over in public simply for the purpose of putting
forward some defence on the part of an accused person who has
genuinely been an offender and who has violated the rights and the
safety of that individual. On the other hand, there are some persons
in our society who have been accused of sexual offences wrongful-
7670
ly and maliciously, without any justification, who genuinely must
be entitled to all the resources available to clear his or her name.
When we deal with those competing interests and when
legislation seeks to make some adjustments in the balance between
those competing interests, the question we must ask as legislators
is whether the balance that is being changed or rebalanced in the
legislation is appropriate and fair, and does it genuinely address in
an appropriate way these two competing interests.
(1555 )
Government members opposite will I am sure be pleased to
know that I and my colleagues do approve of the balance that has
been reached in Bill C-46 to some extent. We make that approval
contingent on further examination of these provisions. We feel that
there will be a further and more detailed examination of this
legislation in committee, that there will be witnesses and those
interested particularly and expert in these areas who will be
bringing forth further considerations on this. I think at that point all
members of the House can make a better judgment as to the
adequacy of this legislation.
I think there has been some abuse of the protections and the
rights of accused people to further go on fishing expeditions and
dredging the personal lives of genuine victims. That has been a real
concern. On balance we feel that this is legitimately an issue that
should be addressed by government and at this point I think the
government is moving in the right direction.
However, there will be other considerations coming forward as
the bill is debated, as the bill is examined in committee and as we
look a bit more closely at some of the ramifications of this bill.
The bill will change the situation with respect to the production
of a complainant's private records. I should say that these records
include medical records, therapeutic records, where a complainant
has undergone therapy in the past. This is particularly relevant to a
complainant who may have come out of therapy claiming some
renewed or suddenly discovered memory of abuse or assault, which
of course has led to some real concerns in what is now called false
memory syndrome. Those records of therapy could be extremely
pertinent.
They also would refer to counselling records, to psychiatric
records, to children's aid society records, to school records,
employment records and, as I have said, personal diaries and
journals.
In order for any of these records to be produced the accused will
now have to satisfy a two stage process in order to obtain the
production of these records. First, the accused will have to satisfy a
judge in an in camera session, a private session in the judge's
chambers. The judge will have to be satisfied that the records being
sought will likely be relevant to an issue at the trial or to the
competence of a witness to testify. Therefore all things considered,
a judge must say yes, the accused needs, is entitled to and it is
appropriate that the accused has access to this information in order
to make a full and fair defence.
In this hearing, although both parties will have an opportunity to
oppose or promote the application, this will be done in a private
hearing so that the privacy and the personal life of complainants
will be protected.
Again, it is important to point out that not all complainants are
true victims. We do have to be careful that just because a man,
woman or child comes forward complaining of having been
sexually offended or assaulted that does not necessarily mean, and
that is the whole reason we have trials and the court system, that the
person is a victim. In fact, they may be making a victim of the
person they are accusing and so we need to be very careful about
that.
There is opportunity for that kind of application for records
relating to an alleged victim to be held in privacy. There is a
protection there in the act because section 278 requires a judge to
provide reasons for any order that he or she might make coming out
of that hearing.
(1600)
This provides some degree of accountability for the judge's
action because that would allow further feedback by the victim or
other third parties and, of course, an appeal of the decision of the
judge, although this drags out the proceedings even more. I must
say that a lot of Canadians are pretty frustrated that court
proceedings are so lengthy. That is the first stage of the process.
If the judge decides that the accused has met this requirement, in
other words if the accused shows that this information is relevant to
a defence of the accused person, the judge will order the production
of those records.
The judge will review those records. The judge will then
determine whether, in his or her view, the documents are
appropriate and are necessary for the accused to make a full answer
in defence of the complaints against him or her.
The judge's discretion must balance the witness' or
complainant's right to privacy against the accused person's right to
make a full defence.
One of the concerns I suspect will come forward in committee
and from witnesses is a certain and increasing lack of confidence, it
is fair to say, by the public in the discretion of the judiciary.
Some of my colleagues who intend to speak to this bill will bring
out some of the incredible decisions, the incredibly unreasonable
and unjust, at least to a lay person observing, decisions by judges,
by the bench, when it comes to handling this whole difficult matter
of victims, victim rights and the rights of accused persons.
There will be concern about the kind of discretion that is placed
with judges. Yet that has been the way our judicial system has
worked for centuries in the British common law system. If we feel
that the discretion of judges is not being exercised appropriately,
7671
perhaps there are better ways to address that than simply to remove
that discretion from the bench.
In any event, it will be for the judge to review the material to
make a finding, a determination of whether that material is relevant
to the defence and then say whether it should be brought forward
and used in the trial of the case.
To sum it up, any opposition to this legislation will come
because of its potential effect on the right of the accused to a full
and fair defence. Those are legitimate concerns. They have to be
taken very carefully.
The way this is intended to work, if judges are open, if their
discretion is fair and reasonable, the balance should be kept quite
well. Judges must actually give reasons for their decision in these
matters, even though the hearings are in private, and provide some
measure of openness and public scrutiny of this discretion.
There is a very important principle of our legal system that
justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done.
Therefore the less we have these decisions made behind closed
doors and in a hidden and unchallengeable way, the better. We
would want to make sure that does not happen.
We want to ensure that we protect the right and privacy of
complainants, many of whom have already suffered incredible
violation and abrogation of their rights to safety and to privacy.
Many victims of sexual assault, male and female, simply refuse
to come forward because the last thing they need is to suffer more
personal trauma, more publicity, more invasion of their emotional
well-being. They choose simply to try to put the pieces back
together in private rather than come forward. We know that this is a
real problem but we also must ensure that justice is not
compromised.
(1605)
The Reform Party supports a judicial system which places the
punishment of crime, the protection of law-abiding citizens and
their property ahead of all other objectives. We promote a greater
emphasis on assisting true victims of crime.
It is important we recognize that not everyone who makes an
accusation is really a victim, but we also need to recognize that a
great number of people have suffered incredible amounts of harm,
hurt, terror, pain and suffering and an invasion of their personal
safety in these sorts of cases. Extra protection for these persons
who have been genuinely sexually offended or who may have to
testify in these cases is something that we need to move toward if
we can do that in a fair and balanced way.
The accused, through their counsel, will have to satisfy some
additional process in order to obtain private and sensitive
information relating to a victim or a witness. If on further study and
examination it is found that there are sufficient checks and balances
to achieve that objective, then Reform would be supporting this in
the final reading.
It is fair to say that we do need to take seriously as legislators, as
the government of this country, the need to genuinely protect the
vulnerable and the people who do not feel safe in our society. We
have just had a case brought forward of young men in sports who
have been victims of sexual assault and sexual activity which was
very destructive to them. Yet there seemed to be very little redress,
very little protection, for these individuals.
As we know, there have been some very difficult cases as
legislators, as members of Parliament and as elected
representatives. I am sure most of us, as have I, have had citizens in
their offices frightened and terrified of a potential threat of harm to
themselves or to members of their family and simply saying where
is the protection, what can be done to make us feel safe. Even in the
court system there are victims who do not feel safe.
We have an application being made by Clifford Olson under
section 745. He will have the right to examine and to gain evidence
from the families of his victims. These are the kinds of very serious
measures that lead legislators to try to rebalance the situation as
much as possible. Citizens who have already been victims of crime
and of personal assault should not have to look forward to every
nook and cranny of their personal and private lives being pawed
over and dredged up by people who have already caused them
untold pain and untold grief and untold terror. That I think is the
evil that is sought to be addressed in this legislation.
We want to make sure it does not create a greater evil where
everyone accused is simply assumed to be guilty and does not have
the tools or the fair legal system to defend themselves. It is really
heartbreaking for me and for others I am sure to have to deal with
families that say they knew that their loved one was in danger. ``I
am afraid to go out on the street. I have to hide my phone number
and keep changing it because I know that this individual who has
already sexually offended against me is out there, but I do not want
to have to go through the court system''.
(1610)
These are difficult issues. I tried to get statistics about how many
citizens this involves in my own city of Calgary. There were over
700 sexual offences, sex related assaults, in the city of Calgary last
year alone. Unfortunately the statistics range from unwanted
touching, what we consider a less serious assault, although not
something to take lightly, to serious sexual assaults against women,
children and men.
7672
As one of my colleagues said earlier when talking on another
bill, the reason we have government, the reason we ban together
as a society and put up with the invasion of organized government
in our lives and certainly in our pocketbooks is in return we expect
to have our lives and property protected and, to some extent, some
measures of corporate well-being centrally administered.
In many instances our justice system has not preserved the lives
and well-being of our citizens. These are serious matters. There is a
serious lapse in the responsibility of government which we need to
address with reasonable measures, well balanced measures and fair
measures, measures that continue to assure the citizens of this
country that they will have justice, that there will be fairness when
they are accused and also that there will be fairness and protection
when they have been violated and harmed by lawless people.
At this point the Reform members believe that, on balance, this
is a good piece of legislation. It is something which we would
consider supporting. We will be very interested to hear the debates
in the House because we want to make a good decision on this bill.
We will very closely follow it in committee and listen to the
witnesses. We hope that at the end of the day this will achieve the
goal of better protection for genuine victims of sexual offences
while at the same time not crossing the line of being unfair or
unjust to persons who are wrongfully and inappropriately accused.
It is a tough balance to achieve. However, as legislators that is
what we are called on to do, to balance competing interests in a fair,
intelligent and workable manner. It is not easy, but that is what we
get the big bucks for. I hope that we do a good job for all the
citizens of our country.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not normally track justice legislation or comment on
justice bills. However, I am going to comment on Bill C-46 for a
very specific reason which I hope members opposite will listen to.
About five weeks ago a man and his wife came to my
constituency office. He is in his seventies and she would be about
the same age. They are well known in the town that I live in as
upstanding people, members of the church and so on and so forth.
They told an incredible story. Apparently their daughter, who was
then in her fifties, had been subject for very many years to
depression every now and then. In fact, it probably cost her her
marriage. About three years ago she started going to a therapist for
her depression.
(1615 )
It turns out that the therapist discovered that she had been
seriously sexually abused as a child, complete with satanic rights
and the whole thing. She had no recollection of these incidents until
she went to the therapist. They involved the father. The elderly
couple sat in my office and the wife was in tears because this
woman, in her fifties, had taken the results of her memories, which
were vivid, to the police. She could tell chapter and book how her
father abused her.
The reason why the old couple were upset and why they came to
my office is that they heard that Bill C-46 had been introduced into
the House of Commons. They asked me to look at it carefully so I
have.
I first looked at this phenomenon that was mentioned by my
colleague from Calgary North called repressed memory syndrome.
This is apparently what was the case with respect to this daughter.
She went to a therapist. According to psychological theory, when a
child has a very traumatic experience he or she can suppress that
experience and bury it in memory. The therapist, many years later
during the therapeutic sessions and in probing the past of the client,
suddenly encounters these memories and brings them to the
surface. That is called repressed memory syndrome.
In the past 10 years or so approximately 800 people have been
convicted in North America on the basis of repressed memories
that have been brought back to the surface by therapists. They have
been convicted of very serious crimes usually involving sexual
abuse. They have gone to jail solely on the evidence of these people
who had no recollection of these crimes against them as children
but suddenly found vivid memories when they were treated by
therapists.
In the past few years the medical authorities in Canada and the
United States have come to recognize that there seems to be a very
strong probability that many of these repressed memories are not
memories at all but are induced by the therapist. Indeed, just a year
ago the Canadian Psychiatric Association came out with a position
paper in which it stated that developmental psychology casts doubt
on the reliability of recovered memories from early childhood.
Reports of recovered memories of sexual abuse may be true but
great caution should be exercised before accepting them in the
absence of solid corroboration.
Naturally I began to do some research. I had another case just in
the past year and a half about a B.C. lawyer in Victoria. I will not
give his name because I am sure he suffered quite enough. He is a
man in his late forties. Suddenly out of the blue he was accused by
a cousin of abusing her when she was only eight years old. It was a
case of her being subject to bulimia and having emotional
problems. As the information came out in the courts, she went to a
therapist and found that she remembered all kinds of things
involving sexual abuse, satanic rituals and all those kinds of things.
This man was convicted in B.C. court of doing this. The court of
appeal, however, just a year ago overturned the conviction on the
grounds that the original trial judge chose to accept some of the
information that she reported from the therapist and not other
information. In other words, her memories were so elaborate that
the original trial judge felt that he could only accept some of them.
7673
The court of appeal said that the original judge could not be
selective like that, overturned the case and called for a new trial.
Added to that, in this particular case there were other witnesses
who came forward who also recalled this lawyer having engaged in
sexual abuse, satanic rituals, burying a cat in the garden and those
kinds of things. They had also undergone this therapy.
(1620 )
When the authorities actually tried to establish the facts of the
case, to actually dig in the garden where the ritually executed cats
had been buried, they found nothing. The court of appeal found that
the case against this man relied solely on the very elaborate and
exaggerated testimony of this woman based on memories that had
been brought forward by her visits to the therapist.
I come to Bill C-46. I hope that all my colleagues will listen very
carefully to what I have to say. If Bill C-46 goes forward as
currently written, the two examples I cite, the couple who came to
see me just in the last five weeks and this lawyer in B.C. would not
have the opportunity to bring forward evidence of the therapy that
the accuser underwent.
Section 278.3(4) says that if the accused wants records he must
apply to the trial judge. Even before the trial judge can demand
those records, according to the legislation the trial judge is not
allowed to consider that the record being asked for by the accused
relates to the medical or psychiatric treatment, therapy or
counselling that the complainant has received or is receiving.
This legislation makes it impossible for the accused to get the
relevant records or even discover the relevant records in a case of
false memory syndrome.
The member for Calgary North put a lot of reliance in her
remarks on the discretion of judges. I was very interested in her
remarks. However, the problem is that the legislation does not give
judges discretion. The legislation shuts the judge out of actually
requesting the records that are relevant to the accused.
Let me just elaborate on that point a bit. I am going to repeat just
a little bit. One must understand that the accused when he seeks the
records has to apply to the judge, but the judge cannot agree to
order the records on certain grounds. Listen to this. It is not
grounds for the judge to ask for the record for the simple reason
that the record exists. Just as an example, if one is accused as a
result of false memory syndrome and one knows that the records
exist, that is not good enough reason to ask for the records.
Second, it is not grounds to ask the judge to demand the records
if the records relate to medical therapy. We have already dealt with
that. If the complainant has undergone that therapy the accused is
not allowed to obtain those records in defence.
Furthermore if the record relates to the reliability of the
testimony of the complainant, that is also not reason to ask for the
records. In other words, the judge cannot use that as grounds to
demand the records.
Where someone is falsely accused by someone who has suffered
from depression, the very essence of the defence is to question the
reliability. But if the records cannot be obtained that demonstrate
the person's reliability or lack of reliability, one cannot defend
adequately. It is a major problem.
The judge is not allowed to seek records on the request of the
accused if the record may reveal allegations of sexual abuse of the
complainant by a person other than the accused. It is certainly not
beyond the realm of possibility that a person who is basically sick
has probably made accusations of sexual abuse against many
people.
If there was a situation where as a result of therapy or
counselling that a person disclosed they had been abused, not just
by the father but by the cousin, the uncle and the brother, it would
be very relevant information to appear at trial.
(1625 )
I stress that the accused is not allowed to know about this
information because the judge cannot tell whether the information
exists or does not exist. The judge cannot seek the information,
cannot seek the records. We have to be very concerned about that
clause in the legislation. We need to be very worried about it.
The problem is this. The situation with false memory syndrome
is that the testimony of recovered memory through therapy has
become widely discredited in the United States. All kinds of people
who have been convicted on these charges are now being released
from prison. It is recognized that it is not a very reliable source of
testimony. Moreover, some states in the United States will not
allow a prosecution based on recovered memories. However, the
situation we will have in Canada in this legislation is that we are
going in the opposite direction.
If this legislation goes through as presently drafted we will make
it so easy, so possible, so absolute for people to make these charges
based on what we think is false memory. In many instances, it is
false memory. In fact, there was a study done in the United States
which found that the majority of the instances were fabricated
recollections.
This legislation, if it goes through as it stands, will send innocent
people to jail, including my elderly couple. The reason they came
before me was because he is afraid of being charged after this bill
passes. He will not be able to defend himself.
7674
I laud the intention of this legislation. I appreciate that we must
do whatever we can do to protect the rights of the victim and to
not require people to appear before the courts to disclose intimate
details of their lives for frivolous or trivial reasons.
When it is a question of the accused being free or going to jail,
when it becomes a question of the accused defending himself with
all the freedom and power that a democratic society invests in the
presumption of innocence, then it is not trivial at all to make sure
that the records of the complainants are at least available to the
judge.
This legislation could be fixed up enormously if this clause
which puts all these barriers to what the judge can ask for was
eliminated and it was simply a case where the accused could go to
the judge and ask for records and the judge could vet those records.
We must not attach strings to them.
I would like to comment on one other thing with respect to this
legislation. It shows that it may be conceived, however well
intended, in a way that does not truly reflect the high values we, as
legislators, must hold toward the principles of the presumption of
innocence and the right of the accused to a fair trial.
In clause 278.5(2) it says that in determining whether the judge
should produce a record or not as a result of the request of the
accused, the judge has to ask himself how deeply he will invade the
privacy of the complainant and that kind of thing.
Here are three unusual things. According to the legislation, the
judge has to also consider whether the production of the record
would potentially prejudice the personal dignity and the right of
privacy of any person to whom the record relates.
In other words, we have on one hand the accused fighting for his
or her freedom and we have the judge having to consider, not the
rights of the accused or the presumption of innocence or whether it
is a fair trial or not, but the right to privacy or the dignity of the
person making the accusation is going to be compromised in any
way.
I submit that there is something wrong there because the
fundamental job of the courts is the determination of guilt or
innocence, not to worry about the sensibilities of any witness, for
that matter, much less the person who is laying the complaint.
(1630 )
In this same clause the judge is also told he has to ask himself
when he considers producing the records or not, whether society's
interests in encouraging the reporting of sexual offences will be
compromised. He is also told he has to consider society's interest in
encouraging the obtaining of a treatment by complainants of sexual
offences. In other words, he is asked to consider that which is not
relevant to the trial at hand, that which is not relevant to the
innocence or guilt of the person who is accused.
I do support in principle, but only in the broadest general sense,
the idea that we must do what we can to protect the reputations of
those people who find themselves the victims of sexual abuse.
However, as legislators we must never forget that our primary
obligation is to protect the fundamental rights, the fundamental
liberties and the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians, especially
those who are accused and before the courts.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order, there have been discussions among the parties and I
believe that if you seek it, you will find there is unanimous consent
for the following two motions. I move:
That the following standing committees be designated for the purposes of the
statutes cited:
1. Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs: section 36 of an act to amend
the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to amend the National Defence Act and the
Young Offenders Act in consequence thereof (Chapter 43, Statutes of Canada,
1991);
2. Standing Committee on Industry: section 14 of the Patent Act Amendment Act
1992 (Chapter 2, Statutes of Canada, 1993).
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have unanimous consent to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House would be so obliged, I have a second motion. I move:
That the order of the House adopted December 12, 1996 concerning travel by the
Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons be
amended by replacing the word ``February'' with the word ``March''.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have unanimous consent to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (production of records in sexual
offence proceedings) be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
7675
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to express my appreciation to my colleague for
Hamilton-Wentworth for his intervention in this debate.
I did ask about the import of section 278(3) and was told that the
intent of that section was to remove the notion of fishing trips by
the accused or their counsel. Relevant records could still be
brought forward but just any old thing could not be brought up and
the judge had to go through it.
I am very interested in the member's construction of this section
which says that in fact this would bar the judge from bringing
forward these records. I would agree with him if that is the import
of the section that it would cause some real concern for people who
are accused under this so-called repressed or false memory
syndrome.
I think too that some of the construction which could be put on
the mandate given to the court of certain public policy
considerations could interfere with the pure notion of justice.
(1635 )
The member has made some extremely troubling and serious
points in the debate about section 278.3(4). I would like to ask the
member if he studied this, what evidence or authority can he bring
to bear to suggest that there really is no discretion at all on the part
of the court, that it would simply close the door on these records
being brought forward? I have been given to understand that
although it prevents fishing expeditions, it did not absolutely close
the door. Perhaps the member could discuss a bit more why he has
taken that position.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, when I approached the legislation, as
I do in all instances, I looked very carefully at the text. I like to
think that as a result of my background I am fairly practised at
analysing language and words. I will read into the record the
relevant words that put restrictions on what the judge can call
forward and the member can judge for herself.
Subsection 4 says: ``Any one or more of the following assertions
by the accused are not sufficient on their own to establish that the
record is likely relevant to an issue at trial''. Then it goes from (a),
(b), to (c) that it is not sufficient ``that the record relates to the
incident that is the subject matter'', or ``that the record may relate
to the reliability of the testimony of the complainant or witness''.
To my mind the text of the legislation is very, very clear.
Sometimes we perhaps get our attention diverted, and I do not
offer this as a criticism; I should be so lucky that I should be right 5
per cent of the time myself. Sometimes we are a little deceived
inadvertently by the words and descriptions and intent of
legislation which we as members see as part of the publications for
many departments. As members we very rarely have the
opportunity to study legislation at length. Indeed, I point out to the
member that I would never have noticed this legislation had it not
been for this elderly couple who came full of fear about it.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to thank the hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth for his interventions, which I know from
experience are interventions that will add to the value of the
legislation we are addressing. I hope the member opposite will
raise this as the bill progresses to committee. If there is substance
to the concern particularly as it surrounds false memory syndrome,
it is something we had better inoculate this bill against.
I would bring to the attention of members that what Bill C-46
does, at least in the interpretation of what I bring to the debate, is it
clarifies the circumstances when such records may be subpoenaed.
It was not considered advisable that the term ``likely to have
relevance'' be left to a case by case judicial interpretation.
Specifically, the records cannot be subpoenaed at a preliminary
hearing, only at trial. This is a very important distinction. They
cannot be brought forward at a preliminary hearing, only at trial. At
that time there is a two-step process, first to establish the relevance
of the documents and second, an examination of the documents by
a judge in private.
Does the member think that the legislation would be improved if
part of the legislation was that the judge who reviews the evidence
may not be the trial judge?
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to answer that. I
see what the member is getting at.
One problem of the trial judge being the sole arbitrator is that the
judge himself can make a mistake. The problem is these records are
being examined in camera. I would prefer if it was not just the trial
judge, that there was another person in authority who could
examine the records at the same time.
(1640)
My difficulty is that the accused is fighting for his freedom. I
even think it is appropriate for the accused to go on a fishing
expedition if that is a way of trying to find evidence he believes
exists that will either prove his innocence or discredit the
complainant. On the other hand I am sensitive to the problem of the
victims as well.
Where I think the line should be drawn is that the accused should
have the option in this legislation of asking for whatever records he
or she likes, so long as the records are reviewed in camera by the
trial judge, and I accept the member's point, and one other person,
one other official of the court or somebody else. We can then make
sure that the records are being handled in a non-prejudicial fashion
because it is possible for a trial judge to be prejudiced.
I think the bill can be corrected and still achieve its basic target,
but only if we always allow the accused the opportunity to defend
7676
himself absolutely by the production of records. It does not matter
even if those records are held in camera, just so long as the accused
and his counsel can see those records.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I
would like to thank the hon. member for Québec, the status of
women critic, for giving me this opportunity to speak to Bill C-46.
In fact, the purpose of Bill C-46 is to regulate the production of
records of victims of sexual assault. This bill became necessary as
a result of a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in December
1995, in the O'Connor case. This was a case of sexual assault in
which a man accused of sexual assault against four young girls
demanded access to the school, medical and psychological records
of the complainants. In a decision that was by no means
unanimous, the Supreme Court declared that in certain cases, the
accused should have access to the records of complainants.
We should put this debate into the context that existed at the
time. For several years, victims of sexual assault had been
protected by new provisions of the Criminal Code which provided
that an accused person may not attack the reputation of his victim,
especially the victim's sexual reputation.
You will recall that these provisions were adopted following
decades of abuse of victims by the accused. The latter could, and
certainly took every opportunity, to try to tarnish the credibility of
their victims by publicising the sexual past of the latter. Thus the
myth was maintained that a woman who was no longer a virgin
deserved to be raped. Fortunately, this is now a thing of the past,
thanks to a change in attitude that was long overdue.
Women gradually won their right to equality, including the right
to sexual freedom. The battle has been long and hard, but we
cannot take the results for granted, especially when certain judges
start to air their real feelings towards women.
Women had won a certain measure of legal protection. This
protection is important because it encourages women who are
victims of sexual assault to lay charges. It also encourages them to
persevere, once the initial charges have been laid. Legal protection
also gives victims a chance to minimize, as far as possible, the
impact the assault has had on them by encouraging them to seek
assistance that is available in the community and from
professionals.
The framework of legal protection is essential in the battle
against violence towards women. That is why it is so important to
have legislation that ensures the accused is entitled to a full and
complete defence but also protects the victim's access to the courts.
(1645)
Such access confirms men's and women's entitlement to
equality. How could we talk about equality between the sexes when
men could sexually assault women almost without impunity,
because the women would not report the assaults for fear of having
their private life made public?
If we want a society where men and women are equal we must
use every means at our disposal to ensure that men and women are
equally entitled to integrity and security. The best guarantee of
these rights remains, despite its failings, the legal system.
On the subject of the protection of rights, I will look at the first
issue of concern, that of the balance between the rights of the
accused and the rights of the victim.
In its preamble, the bill talks of the accused's right to a full
defence and the victim's right to privacy and equality. The
preamble also talks of striking a balance between these rights as far
as possible.
The arguments of the parties opposing this bill rest on these
words, the concept of balance. On the one hand, counsel for the
defence want greater access to the victims' file, basing their
request on the absolute right of the accused to a full defence. The
idea behind that is that it is better to free 1,000 guilty individuals
than to unfairly sentence one single innocent one.
On the other hand, according to those speaking on behalf of the
traditional victims of sexual assault, i.e. women, hardly any
lawsuits are instigated on the basis of false accusations of sexual
assault and the right of women to privacy and to not be assaulted
demands that access to records be strictly forbidden.
Where is the middle ground between these two extreme
positions? How can a balance be struck between the rights of the
accused and the rights of the victims? At present, it would appear
that the rights of the accused are better protected. Let me explain.
As we all know, the right of the accused to a full defence has been
entrenched in the Constitution since 1982.
But this right was already afforded enough protection by the
courts before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was
passed. As I said earlier, it is already part of our judicial standard to
protect the innocent against wrongful conviction at any cost.
Indeed, especially since passage of the charter, the courts have
developed a whole slew of rules and criteria to protect even better
this right to a full defence.
A whole series of rulings have been made on this provision of
the charter and there will likely be more still. But much less known
is the right to privacy and the right to personal safety, which have
not yet made it into our judicial and folk culture. Because fewer
judicial decisions having a strong impact have been made on the
7677
subject, it is wrongly viewed as less important, when in fact, both
are mentioned in the charter and nowhere does it say that this right
is less important.
Why is this? I think this is, unfortunately, a reflection of the
lesser prominence traditionally given to women's rights. As
Toronto Star journalist Michelle Landsberg has pointed out, have
we ever heard of a police officer testifying at a trial and being
required to disclose his medical records or sexual life in order to
establish his credibility as a witness?
Why have women traditionally been subjected to such
humiliation, if not because they were not given the same
credibility? Yet, as this journalist noted, there is no such invasion
of the victims' privacy in other criminal cases. Whenever women
and sexuality are involved, our society always feels the need to
impose constraints on women. Yet, their right to privacy is
protected under the charter.
(1650)
Now that I have raised this issue, I want to deal specifically with
the justice minister's bill. The minister wants to strike a balance,
but he does not provide any guidelines, any specifics as to how to
achieve such a balance.
Again, at this point I am merely raising concerns. However, I
wonder if, in light of the current tendency to give priority to the
right to a full and complete defence, judges who will have to deal
with an application for the production of records might not be
involuntarily influenced, thus denying the right of the victim to
privacy. We will have to take a careful look at this issue if we want
to make sure that, some day, women and men are treated equally.
Another issue which raises concerns, in my opinion, is the scope
of disclosure. The bill provides that the records of the plaintiff or of
a witness can be the object of an application. What does this mean?
If, for example, the victim's child must testify, will the accused
have access to the child's medical and therapeutic records, or to his
diary? Similarly, if, as provided under the definition of ``record'',
the content of a diary or personal journal can be produced, will the
fact that a third party is mentioned as having been a sexual partner
result in that person having to be involved in the process in order to
protect his right to privacy?
I believe the current wording might lead to abuse and we will
have to take an in-depth look at the possible impact of this
legislation on third parties who are absolutely not involved in the
proceedings.
Finally, I want to mention a very real concern of women's
groups, namely the issue of costs. It is now clear that the O'Connor
decision had a real impact on the practices of certain stakeholders.
This impact varies from one organization to another, depending on
their philosophy and financial resources.
In speaking with support groups for victims of sexual assault, I
learned that some have simply decided not to keep files. These
groups still provide assistance to victims, but no longer keep files,
so that they will not have to divulge them to an accused.
The consequences of this decision are fairly major, since it is
through keeping files that continuity in the assistance provided can
usually be ensured, in addition to allowing the versatility that leads
to better results. The consequence of this is that victims are
penalized.
Other organizations, however, have decided to continue keeping
files, and must therefore incur legal expenses to intervene when
they receive requests to turn these files over.
We are all very aware of the cuts in funding to aid groups. I have
talked about it on several occasions, as have many of my
colleagues. In this era of cutbacks, how can victim assistance
organizations allow themselves to spend their meagre resources on
lawyers' fees? These are heartbreaking decisions to have to make.
Should more women be helped, or should those already in the
system be protected?
There is something wrong with a system that forces
organizations that request and receive funding for victim assistance
to use part of this funding, which is still inadequate, to defend
victims' right to privacy.
It seems to me that the government should recognize its
responsibility in this situation and include measures in the bill that
will ensure that the costs of those holding files and of witnesses
will be paid when they are defending the right to privacy.
In conclusion, I repeat my support in principle of Bill C-46, but
on condition that the House be allowed to conduct an in-depth
study of the elements that raise questions so that victims are finally
granted equal rights.
I would also like to take this opportunity, at second reading, to
urge the government to act in good faith and to agree to the
proposals the Bloc Quebecois will be making to improve this bill.
It seems to me that, one day, we will have to stop playing petty
politics when considering bills that have an impact on the most
vital aspect of human beings, their integrity.
(1655)
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon and speak to
Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it pertains to the
production of records in sexual offence proceedings.
I must say at the outset that I have been very vigilant in listening
to the various interventions which have been made by my hon.
colleagues on both sides of the House. In particular, I wish to
commend the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth who just
spoke. He brought out some very real concerns about how this
7678
particular piece of legislation will affect the rights of the accused
and perhaps impact dramatically on those rights. He was concerned
about how it would affect a fair trial under our judicial system
because of allowed testimony, particularly as it pertains to what has
been known as the repressed memory syndrome and to cases of
false memory syndrome. That is a very real concern.
My hon. colleague from Calgary North in addressing the bill
stated that the support of the Reform Party for this legislation is
very tentative at this particular time because we want to see and
hear all the relevant witnesses who will come before the justice
committee to speak on it.
We have some very grave concerns. We want to ensure that the
rights of the accused are protected. However, at the same time, as
the member for Calgary North so eloquently put it, we have felt for
a long time that the victims of crime have been overlooked by the
justice system in Canada. It is high time that governments began to
act in the best interests of the victims rather than always
concentrating on the rights of the accused and, in many cases, the
rights of convicted criminals. That is why the Reform Party
supports this legislation in principle. It is why we are interested in
hearing various members making their interventions and bringing
up relevant points.
The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth spoke about
specific cases in his riding. Constituents went to his office to voice
their concerns about this legislation. That is very important. Too
often members in this place and governments become unresponsive
to people out in the real world who ultimately have to deal with
legislation that is passed in this place.
It is important that we cast the net as widely as possible in
looking at this piece of legislation and in asking witnesses to come
forward. We must ask for input from Canadians from coast to coast
who will undoubtedly be affected if the legislation becomes law.
A couple of hours ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice spoke about the absence of witnesses in these
cases. He said quite eloquently that we are primarily talking about
women and children in this legislation.
As I travel throughout my riding of Prince George-Peace River,
meeting with constituents, justice is a big issue. I have taken to
referring to it as the lack of justice in our legal system in Canada
today.
(1700 )
I feel so strongly that this government is missing the boat in
many areas of trying to protect the most vulnerable citizens of our
country. I will bring something to the attention of the House. It is
something that I had endeavoured to bring to the House quite some
time ago. It was my observation at that time that my concerns fell
on deaf ears. The concerns I have been bringing to the House in this
area are concerns of the people back home which I consider with a
great deal of respect.
This government would have the Canadian people believe that it
is especially concerned about the most vulnerable, the women and
children. As I have noted in the past, we have to be very careful. In
our discussion of Bill C-46 today we have heard that we have to be
very concerned and very careful to achieve a balance with judicial
legislation, a balance between the rights of the accused and the
rights of the victims of crime. I have already heard a great many
colleagues speak today about trying to achieve that balance.
The case I will refer to is related to a piece of legislation that was
passed previously. Because Bill C-46 deals with sexual assault I
want to zero in on a case that I was made aware of last fall. We pass
legislation from time to time in the House of Commons while many
times we may not really understand the possible ramifications.
That is why it is so critical, as I said earlier, that hon. members
bring forward the concerns of their constituents and bring them to
the House of Commons for debate.
The case I want to point out flows from a bill that was passed
over a year ago in this place. At that time it was known as Bill
C-41, which brought about a system of conditional sentencing in
our judicial system. At that time Reformers raised a number of
concerns about that piece of legislation and the government in its
infinite wisdom said that those concerns were unfounded, that it
would make sure conditional sentencing was not used in cases of
violent crime and that it was only there for the discretionary use of
judges in minor crimes.
Some time ago there was a case in my home province of British
Columbia that involved a woman who was a victim of sexual
assault. The alleged perpetrator, the accused aggressor was a past
common law spouse of this woman. At the time she reported the
assault to the police she did not even report it as being a sexual
assault but as just a common assault because she did not think the
system would respond, that the system would respect the fact that
she was sexually assaulted by a former spouse.
For reasons of anonymity I have to be careful not to reveal the
location and the identities of the people. This woman lives in fear
for her life and in fear of ongoing reprisal by the aggressor. When
the case eventually went to court, the judge found the aggressor
guilty of sexual assault.
(1705)
In the judge's ruling he said: ``In this case I do not believe the
evidence of the accused, nor am I left in doubt by it''. So he found
the accused guilty.
He went on to say in making his judgment: ``I think that while
society might have an interest in sending [Mr. X] to jail, it seems
to me that the victim and her children might be better served by
[Mr. X] serving his sentence in the community and continuing to
pay support''. Is that not something? What we have here is an
individual convicted of sexually assaulting a woman and the
sentence is one year to be served in the community.
7679
I would like to read the conditional sentence order that was
imposed upon this convicted rapist. Let us call the fellow what he
was, a convicted rapist. This is the conditional sentence order:
``The court adjudged that the offender be sentenced to a term of one
year and that the serving of the sentence in the community would
not endanger the safety of the community. It is ordered that the
offender shall from the date of this order, or where applicable the
date of expiration of any other sentence of imprisonment, serve the
sentence in the community subject to the offender's compliance
with the following conditions''.
What are the conditions that the judge imposed upon this
convicted rapist? They are: ``Namely, the said offender shall: (1)
keep the peace and be of good behaviour, (2) appear before the
court when required to do so by the court, (3) report to a supervisor
on October 3, 1996'', and it gives the location that he is ordered to
report to, ``and thereafter when required by the supervisor in a
manner directed by the supervisor, (4) remain within the province
of British Columbia unless written permission to go outside of the
province is obtained from the supervisor, and (5) notify the
supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and
promptly notify the supervisor of any change of employment or
occupation and in addition, shall have no contact directly or
indirectly with the [name of the victim], nor attend at or near any
premises occupied by her. Shall abstain absolutely from the
consumption of alcohol and shall submit to a breathalizer upon the
demand of a peace officer. Shall attend, participate and
successfully complete any counselling as directed by your
probation officer. You shall continue to provide for your
dependants'', signed by the judge.
I find this absolutely preposterous. It clearly shows why we have
to be so very careful in this place in the legislation that we pass.
Here is a judge using the old Bill C-41, the amendments to the
Criminal Code, to allow a convicted rapist, to what? To serve his
time in the community, to continue to pay support for his children
and his estranged spouse, to take some counselling if it is directed
by the probation officer. It is absolutely incredible.
Following that decision a letter was received by Reformers from
the victim. I would like to read it into the record. From time to time
we have to bring what happens in this place down to how it affects
average Canadians, Canadian men, women and children out there
in the real world.
This particular victim wrote:
I am writing to inform you of a recent court decision and the subsequent sentence
imposed under guidelines of the new Bill C-41, sentence reform.
I was the victim of a sexual assault at the hands of my former common law
spouse, [Mr. X].
Initially I did not disclose the sexual assault to the RCMP for fear that they would
not believe me. I only disclosed the common assault. Finally, three days before the
trial, I told the crown counsel the whole story. [Mr. X] was charged and subsequently
convicted.
What concerned me was that after finding the accused guilty [the] judge said
something about this being a good case for ``community sentencing''. The
sentencing was conducted in [another town], therefore I was unable to see justice be
done and could not have any other input other than my written victim impact
statement.
Watching [Mr. X] be sentenced would have helped me put some closure to this
crime. I had to find out from word of mouth about the sentence.
At the close of the trial His Honour said something about [Mr. X] and I getting
along in family court the week before and he seemed to think that because of this
[Mr. X] would be a good candidate for this new type of sentencing.
I have no choice but to get along with [Mr. X] in family court because I do not
want the court to think that I am using my children to get back at him. I have tried
very hard to keep the family and criminal matters separate. Is the court telling me
that they needed to see a serious reaction from me in family court and then they
would understand the extent of my fear toward this man, and then perhaps send him
to jail? I would rather see him go to jail than get his child support.
As far as I am concerned, [Mr. X] got the usual slap on the wrist. How is it that he
is the convicted sexual offender and I am the one who is a prisoner? I am terrified of
this man. It is no consolation to know that he'll have a criminal record, or that he has
a lot of conditions. He is still free and I suspect he does not feel punished. I, on the
other hand, will be trying to heal for many years to come.
This type of sentence tells the public that sexual assault within a marital
relationship is not that serious. Don't you think?
I think the crown counsel should appeal this sentence. I also think that our
government should clarify what types of criminals will be dealt with under this new
legislation. Perhaps community sentencing should be for less serious crimes.
In closing, as much as I would have liked to go to the media with this I cannot do
so for fear of [Mr. X].
(1710)
I submit this is a very sad case indeed. Shame on this
government for not listening to those types of cases.
On November 4, 1996 in this very Chamber I raised this
particular case in a question to our justice minister. Quoting from
Hansard from that date, the question I asked reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, at one time in Canada someone convicted of rape was subject to very
severe penalties. Now with conditional sentencing their life does not seem to change
much.
A man in B.C. was just convicted of sexual assault. What was his punishment? He
is on conditional release, scot free.
These lenient decisions in three different provinces-
-because I had referred to a number of cases-
-have set dangerous precedents. Section 742 states that a conditional sentence is
not an option when there is a danger to the community. Are women not part of the
community?
Will the minister responsible for the legislation clarify this for women and, more
important, for judges? He talks about a tool for the courts. He talks about
appropriate cases. Will he clarify whether a conditional sentence is appropriate for
rape?
Here is the response on November 4 from the Minister of
Justice:
Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago Professor Anthony Doob of the University of Toronto
did a study. He showed newspaper reports of sentences, in particular of criminal
cases, to members of the public and asked them if they felt the sentences were strong
enough. The vast majority felt they were not.
He took the same people, the same cases, and provided all the information about
the cases, all the facts involving the offender and the offences. After they had read all
the facts a clear majority thought the sentences were too harsh.
The reality is that when the court looks at the offender and the offence and takes
all the circumstances into account, the court does a pretty fair job of determining
appropriate punishment.
This is the part I like, how the minister summed up:
Obviously, the business of this member is not to worry about the facts or the
reality but to use fearmongering to make his squalid point. That is very regrettable
and it is bad public policy.
7680
That is what the justice minister said in reply to a question that I
felt was very valid about a piece of legislation that he brought
forward and which this Liberal government passed and how it
affected one particular case, one particular woman who is out there
and has failed to see justice done even though the aggressor in this
case was convicted of sexual assault.
In summary, what needs to be done? What can we do in this
place? I have a long list of how we can shift the balance toward
supporting the victims of crime. From your indication, Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately I do not have the time to go through the
whole list here today.
(1715 )
I challenge the government to do as Reformers are doing and
start listening to the Canadian people on the issue of justice reform.
Canadians from coast to coast are crying out for the justice
minister to bring about meaningful legislation to protect them and
to protect the most vulnerable members of society.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. In Beauchesne, with respect to decorum,
citation 329 states:
In general, Speakers have enforced conservative, contemporary standards.
Everyone knows that male members must wear a jacket and tie,
but the Standing Orders do not mention jeans.
My point of order is to find out whether members of this House
may attend, and rise to speak, wearing jeans or whether
contemporary standards require clean and suitable clothing, a suit,
with jacket and tie.
[English]
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to speak to the point of order.
As the member correctly points out, there is no reference in
Beauchesne's of which I am aware, of what type of pants we are
allowed to wear in this place. I wear jeans from time to time. I have
noted that members on both sides of the House do from time to
time. I do not do it out of any disrespect for this place.
Quite frankly, I am amazed that the member would bring up such
a trivial point and consume the time of the House with such a point
of order. Since he has, I would point out that jeans are the accepted
apparel for a lot of working people in the real world. Certainly they
do not find anything out of order with the wearing of jeans.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. Early
in the first session of the 35th Parliament, I can recall very
distinctly the occasion when a member opposite came into this
Chamber wearing a turban.
People were all waiting for the explosive fireworks to happen. I
can recall being asked about that and saying that it did not matter
what was on a person's head but what mattered was what was in the
person's head.
I would say today, it does not matter what kind of pants a person
is wearing. What matters is what is in the pants.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Does anyone else want to have a go? It is
hard to know how seriously to take this. Members will recall that
the Chair ruled that members had to wear a tie and a female
member got up and asked: ``Do I have to wear a tie?''
[Translation]
I thank the hon. member for Terrebonne, who raised the point by
quoting Beauchesne. I would like to return to this point of order. It
is true that in French Beauchesne refers to ``tenues classiques
conformes aux usages contemporains''.
[English]
The English version is that in general Speakers have enforced
conservative contemporary standards. I take seriously the member
for Terrebonne who is concerned that a member from a western
province would be wearing blue jeans.
There are many members here who probably think all British
Columbians and Albertans wear blue jeans to their weddings. I
have no idea.
In light of the fact that the member has made the objection, the
Chair will try to come back with some kind of refinement of what
has been said in the House today. I thank the hon. member and in
due course, if it seems necessary the Chair will come back with
some kind of ruling on that, as possible as it might be.
(1720 )
The Chair has received notice from the hon. member for North
Vancouver that he is unable to move his motion during private
members' hour tomorrow, February 5. Regrettably, it has not been
possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of
precedence. Accordingly the Chair would direct the table officers
to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of
precedence.
[Translation]
The hour provided for consideration of Private Members'
Business will, therefore, be suspended and the House will continue
to examine the matters before it at that time.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate. It was made much
more interesting by the intervention of the hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth who brought another dimension to the
debate. That dimension is that it is far better that 1,000 guilty
people go free than one innocent person be convicted. That is the
cornerstone of our jurisprudence and that is the way it should be.
If we go back to zero, back to the start of parliamentary
democracy, I believe we will find that as parliamentarians our
fiduciary responsibility is to the individual citizen and to protect
those citizens from the power of the state. That is what this bill is
about.
7681
The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth dealt specifically
with people who came to see him and brought to his attention that
someone with false memory syndrome could totally destroy the
lives of people with false accusations. The counsellor protecting
the accused would not then have the ability to investigate, to prove
that it was false memory syndrome that caused the problem. This is
a particularly cogent criticism of the bill and it is something we
should investigate very carefully in committee.
This bill has the effect of making it far more difficult, but not
impossible, for defence lawyers to break down the credibility of a
complainant. We must ask ourselves, why is this? I believe it is
basically to protect innocent persons from being victimized by the
trial process.
This was very aptly put when, in a 1988 presentation of how to
go about undermining the position of a complainant, a criminal
lawyer said: ``Whack complainants hard at the preliminary inquiry.
Attack with all you have got so that he or she will say, `I am not
coming back'''. We ask if this is justice for someone who has been
assaulted or sexually assaulted. It is usually only a small minority
of women who are sexually assaulted that actually come forward.
Why? It is because they have been invaded as it is. Then they come
forward and find their whole lives being bared to everybody. They
find themselves being whacked by the lawyer for the accused. We
must balance the rights of the victim with the rights of the accused.
As I read it, that is what this legislation is all about.
(1725)
It is important to look at the mindset of a society which allows
the law to put the rights of the accused far ahead of the rights of the
victim. I would like to use as an example a particularly egregious
incident which took place and was recently brought to light in a
trial in Yukon. I am talking about the circumstances of the murder
of Susan Klassen.
Let me tell the House something about Susan Klassen. She died
in November 1995. She was 36. She was murdered by her husband
Ralph. Her husband pleaded guilty to manslaughter,
notwithstanding the fact that he killed her with his bare hands,
bruising his thumbs doing it, and then knotted a pillow case around
her neck.
How is that manslaughter? Manslaughter is when a person hits
someone and they fall over dead. The person did not mean to kill,
however, the individual hit his head and ended up dead. How is it
manslaughter when you choke someone so hard that you bruise
your thumbs and then you strangle them with a pillow case? How in
God's name can that be manslaughter?
We wonder what it would take to get 300 people from the Yukon,
on one day's notice, at minus 38 degrees, to march in honour of
Susan Klassen. They were not marching just for Susan Klassen;
they were marching out of frustration and rage at a judicial system
that would allow provocation to be used as the excuse for killing.
Provocation. My God. How on earth could anybody use
provocation as why they killed somebody by strangulation so hard
that they bruise their thumbs and then smother them with a pillow
case? Provocation is when somebody says something, you get a
little bit upset, like what happened here in this House today, you go
over and you nail them, and the person winds up dead. You did not
mean to kill. That is what manslaughter is all about.
Susan Klassen attended St. Angela Catholic elementary school
and Sir John Thompson junior high school in Edmonton. She won
the top award for excellence at Archbishop MacDonald high
school, graduated from university in 1981 as an occupational
therapist with distinction, and worked in the community. She
probably was not an angel. None of us is. Was whatever happened
in the relationship between Susan and her husband sufficient
provocation for this person to kill her and then plead manslaughter
because of provocation?
How does that come back to Bill C-46? It is an entirely different
circumstance but it has a common root. When women-and we all
know that 99 per cent of the time it is women-suffer from assault,
whether it is sexual or any other kind, and when that assault is
permissible because of provocation for whatever reason, then we
are in a situation where a person who brutally kills someone is able
to say: ``I did not mean to, therefore, it was manslaughter. I did not
mean to rape this girl. I did not break into her house and rape her. I
was provoked into raping her because she was there''.
It is time that we put an end to that. We need to balance the rights
of the accused and the victim through amendments and at
committee we may satisfactorily answer the question of false
memory syndrome. However, the rights of the victim must at least
be on par with the rights of the criminal. I would ask the House to
consider this when the bill goes to committee and before it goes to
third reading.
* * *
(1730)
[Translation]
The House resumed from February 3, 1997 consideration at
report stage of Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other acts as a
consequence, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, it being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at
the report stage of Bill C-60.
Call in the members.
Before the taking of the vote:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on Motion
No. 1, standing in the name of Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac).
(1800)
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
7682
(Division No. 205)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Williams-69
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-157
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Brien
Calder
Deshaies
Dingwall
Fillion
Godfrey
Hickey
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Mifflin
Murphy
St-Laurent
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 1
lost.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the House
would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent to
apply the results of the vote just taken to report stage Motion No. 7.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent that the vote just taken apply to report stage Motion No. 7?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): So ordered. I declare
Motion No. 7 defeated.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 205.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The next question is on
Motion No. 13.
7683
(1805)
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find that there is unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting no.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The members of the opposition will
vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the NDP members in the House
today will vote no on this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Nay, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bhaduria: Nay, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 206)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-41
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-185
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Brien
Calder
Deshaies
Dingwall
Fillion
Godfrey
Hickey
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Mifflin
Murphy
St-Laurent
7684
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 13
lost.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent to apply the results of the
vote just taken to the following: report stage Motion No. 22, report
stage Motion No. 23, report stage Motion No. 4, report stage
Motion No. 6, report stage Motion No. 9 and report stage Motion
No. 19.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent that the vote taken on Motion No. 13 apply to the motions
enumerated by the chief government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under division No. 206.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motions Nos. 22,
23, 4, 6, 9 and 19 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members in
the House today will vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that I am
supporting the government on this matter and no, I am not
interested in going back into the caucus. It is too right wing for me.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 207)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-46
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
7685
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed -180
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Brien
Calder
Deshaies
Dingwall
Fillion
Godfrey
Hickey
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Mifflin
Murphy
St-Laurent
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare motion No. 5
lost.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent to apply the results of the
vote just taken to the following: report stage Motion No. 8, report
stage Motion No. 10, report stage Motions Nos. 14, 15 and 16,
report stage Motion No. 36, Motion No. 20, Motion No. 27 and
Motion No. 33.
(1810)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Do we have the
unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 207.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): therefore I declare
motions Nos. 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 36, 20, 27 and 33 lost.
Consequently, Motion No. 17 is also lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it you would find
there is unanimous consent that the members who voted on the
preceding motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting no.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members will be
voting yes on this motion.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrat members in the
House tonight will vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will support the NDP on this one.
They need some help.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 208)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
7686
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Nunziata
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Williams-75
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-151
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Brien
Calder
Deshaies
Dingwall
Fillion
Godfrey
Hickey
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Mifflin
Murphy
St-Laurent
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 3
lost.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent to apply the results of the
vote just taken to the following: report stage Motions Nos. 11, 12,
21, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent for the proposal of the chief government whip to apply the
vote just taken to the votes enumerated?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
[Editor's note: See list under Division No. 208.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare motions Nos. 11,
12, 21, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 lost.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The next question is on
Motion No. 34.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no.
7687
(1815 )
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members in
the House of Commons tonight will vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes on this matter.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes on this motion.
(The House divided on the Motion No. 34, which was agreed to
on the following division:)
(Division No. 209)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-157
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Williams-69
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Brien
Calder
Deshaies
Dingwall
Fillion
Godfrey
Hickey
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Mifflin
Murphy
St-Laurent
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 34
carried.
7688
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it you will find there is
unanimous consent that the members who voted on the preceding
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting yes.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party MPs in the
House will vote no on this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes on this matter.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I am voting yea on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 210)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-152
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Williams-74
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Brien
Calder
Deshaies
Dingwall
Fillion
Godfrey
Hickey
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Mifflin
Murphy
St-Laurent
7689
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill concurred in and read the second time.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): When shall the bill be read
the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to verify with the Chair
that in fact there was consent to go to third reading on Bill C-60.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I did not hear anyone say
no when I asked the question, so I proceeded. I did ask twice.
We will order this for third reading at the next sitting of the
House.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, an act to
establish the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House will now
proceed to the taking of several deferred divisions at the report
stage of Bill C-23.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The members of the official opposition
will be voting yes, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party MPs in the
House tonight will vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes on this motion.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 211)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Nunziata
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-47
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
7690
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed -179
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Brien
Calder
Deshaies
Dingwall
Fillion
Godfrey
Hickey
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Mifflin
Murphy
St-Laurent
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 1
lost.
Mr. Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. If the House
would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent to
apply the results of the vote just taken to report stage Motion No. 5.
(1820)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent that the vote just taken apply to report stage Motion No. 5?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 211.]
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 5
lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find the House will give its
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members being recorded as voting nay.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will be voting yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party MPs in
the House tonight will vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting with the NDP on
this matter.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes on this motion.
(The House divided on the Motion No. 3, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 212)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Nunziata
7691
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Williams-76
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-150
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Brien
Calder
Deshaies
Dingwall
Fillion
Godfrey
Hickey
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Mifflin
Murphy
St-Laurent
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken):: I declare Motion No. 3
negatived.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. If the House would
agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent to apply
the results of the vote just taken on the following: report stage
Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 14, 18 and 19.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent for the proposal put forward by the chief government
whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 212.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motions Nos. 6,
7, 8, 14, 18 and 19 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 4.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote nay.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members in
the House will vote yes on this very important Motion No. 4, Bill
C-23.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, again I will be supporting the NDP
on this very important motion.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 213)
YEAS
Members
Bhaduria
Blaikie
McLaughlin
Nunziata
Robinson
Solomon
Taylor-7
NAYS
Members
7692
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-219
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Brien
Calder
Deshaies
Dingwall
Fillion
Godfrey
Hickey
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Mifflin
Murphy
St-Laurent
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 4
lost.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent to apply the results of the
vote just taken to report stage Motions Nos. 9 and 13.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent for the proposal of the chief government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 213.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motions Nos. 9
and 13 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 10.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find the House will give its
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members being recorded as voting nay.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote yes.
(1825)
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party MPs in the
House tonight will vote no on this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no on this matter.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this motion.
[Translation]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 206.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 10
lost.
7693
The next question is on Motion No. 11.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find the House will give its
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members being recorded as voting nay.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members
will vote no on this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I support the government on this
matter.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this motion.
[Translation]
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 205.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 11
lost.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent to apply the results of the
vote just taken to report stage Motions Nos. 12 and 16.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Does the House give its
consent to the proposal put forward by the chief government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 205.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motions Nos. 12
and 16 lost.
[English]
A negative vote on Motion No. 16 requires a vote on MotionNo. 17. Accordingly, the question before the House is on Motion
No. 17.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the table's
attention to Motion No. 15.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): We will deal with Motion
No. 15 first to keep things in order. I thank the whip for the advice.
The question is on Motion No. 15.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberals voting yea.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, we may be in danger of unanimity on
this one. We vote yes as well.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members in
the House will make it unanimous. We will vote yes on MotionNo. 15.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of non-partisanship I
will agree with my colleagues.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will support this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 214)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
7694
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-226
NAYS
Members
-0
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Brien
Calder
Deshaies
Dingwall
Fillion
Godfrey
Hickey
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Mifflin
Murphy
St-Laurent
(1830 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 15
carried.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, in this spirit of unanimity and great
co-operation, I propose that the House apply the results of the
previous vote to report stage Motion No. 17 and to the concurrence
motion of the bill at report stage.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House in agreement
that the vote just taken be applied to report stage Motion No. 17
and to the motion for concurrence which is about to be moved in
respect of this bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 214.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 17
carried.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.)
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 214.]
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-53,
an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the
third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the
motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-53.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find that there is unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberals voting yea.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no, unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party MPs in
the House tonight will vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: I will vote yes on this matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 215)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
B
7695
haduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed -198
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Manning
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Ramsay
Schmidt
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-28
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anawak
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Brien
Calder
Deshaies
Dingwall
Fillion
Godfrey
Hickey
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Mifflin
Murphy
St-Laurent
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 6.34 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7695
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Canadian Heritage should
proceed immediately to exempt CBC North from layoffs and funding reductions to
the operating budget resulting from the $127 million reduction in federal funding to
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation announced in 1996, as well as future cuts
should they occur.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the issue of-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. Hon. members who
are carrying on discussions in the Chamber could perhaps go
behind the curtains. The hon. member for Yukon has the floor and
members who are interested in participating in the debate this
afternoon will want to hear her.
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this
motion today. It is an important motion, not just for CBC and Radio
Canada in the north but of course for all of Canada.
7696
I have specifically chosen to address the portion of CBC North
because obviously, I have heard most about that from my
constituents. I would add that throughout many years, the New
Democratic Party members in this House have supported our
public national broadcasting system. We continue to do that and
feel it is essential to the unity of our country and to bringing
Canadians together.
With respect to CBC North, this motion has received a lot of
interest in the north. MLAs in the Northwest Territories legislature
very much support the motion and support the intent of the motion.
In November 1996 Charles Dent, Minister of Education, Culture
and Employment, wrote and spoke to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. He conveyed to her that the Government of the Northwest
Territories strongly urges the minister to recognize the unique and
vital role of CBC in northern Canada.
The member for Nunatsiaq has lent his support to the campaign
to save CBC North and I thank him for that. I have not heard
anything from the member for the Western Arctic on this issue, but
I do hope she will have the opportunity to respond to the motion
today and to support CBC in the north.
The Yukon government very strongly supports the motion as
well and CBC in general. Both the government leader, Piers
McDonald, and minister Dave Keenan have shown a strong interest
in the issue.
I want to quote briefly from a letter written to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage by the hon. Dave Keenan, a minister of the
Yukon government. It succinctly outlines why this issue is so
important to Yukoners and to people in the north:
As a national institution the CBC is mandated to strengthen Canada by reflecting
and sharing the diversity of its regions and cultures. In the Yukon the requirement to
build national unity is tied also with the requirement to strengthen the unity of our
peoples as major changes in economic and political institutions take place. The cuts
proposed to the CBC northern service threaten to remove the ability of the CBC to
speak with Canadians who live and work in the north as local news and current
events programming is reduced, and will direct the service toward a service that
speaks to these people, often with more prepackaged programs from the south.
That succinctly says what much of the concern is by northerners.
I should add that the NDP Yukon government has also passed an
all-party resolution calling for an end to the cuts to the CBC. The
resolution was supported by members of the Liberal Party in that
legislature.
I had the opportunity today to look through Hansard and to
realize once again that New Democrat MPs have been the only
ones, along with perhaps one or two interveners from the Bloc
Quebecois, who have stood in this place and defended the vital role
of the CBC. New Democrats are the only ones who are speaking for
the majority of Canadians when we say that the Liberals should
keep their election promises and restore funding to the CBC.
Since Mr. Beatty announced in September the CBC board of
directors plan to deal with the most recent cut to the corporation's
budget, my office has been absolutely inundated with letters and
telephone calls. I might say that in the almost 10 years I have been
a member of Parliament, as surprising as it may seem, I have never
received more calls, conversations, letters, petitions than on this
issue. That is why it is so important that people across the country
and in this House hear how vitally important this national
broadcasting system is to the people of the north.
(1840 )
In December I sent the Prime Minister some 140 letters which
until that time had been received by me in a two to three week
period. Since that time I continue to receive calls about the future
of CBC and Radio Canada. I would also like to mention the strong
movement within the community again through petitions to urge
the government to have adequate and stable funding for CBC and
especially for CBC North in our view.
I would like to also mention the editor of the Yukon News, Peter
Lesniak, who has undertaken on his own and in his own name a
save the CBC campaign. Again this illustrates the real intent, the
emotional attachment and intellectual attachment people have to
the service of the CBC.
This is an important motion to northerners and I believe to all
Canadians. It is our way to be heard by other Canadians. I have to
note that without a strong CBC and Radio Canada in the south, we
do not have a strong CBC North either.
We would have liked to have seen much more debate on this
motion and have had it brought to a vote, however we do not have
this. This has been denied but I would like to point out a few facts
to the House today.
In the past 28 months CBC North has dealt with budget cuts of
$1.9 million and has already laid off 30 staff. The latest cuts will
mean a further reduction to CBC North radio of 28 per cent and to
CBC North TV of almost 40 per cent. This is not death by a
thousand cuts; this is being hung, drawn and quartered. This is not
what the public want to see, nor what they expected from this
government.
Aboriginal language programming in the north could be one of
the first victims. I have been told that cuts could also affect
programs now being broadcast in Inuktitut. Inuktitut will be one of
the two official languages of the new Nunavut territory. In fact it
might be argued that cuts may violate the Nunavut Settlement Act
since the federal government has an obligation to provide basic
services in both languages.
French language services in northern Quebec could also be
affected. CBC North provides a weekly news magazine called
``Boreal Hebdo''. There is a good chance that this program which is
widely listened to may also be seriously affected and see its last
7697
days. So we have aboriginal languages, French language, obviously
English language programs all being affected by these cuts.
There is the red book promise, which I am sure we could debate
at length. I think many other Canadians believe that during the last
election the Liberal government and the current Prime Minister
made a commitment to maintain funding for the CBC. But like
many other promises during the last election, the Liberals promised
they would stabilize funding for the CBC and they did not do it.
During the last election the Liberals said they would scrap the GST
and they did not do that.
Pierre Berton best summed it up when he said: ``The Prime
Minister promised us that he would trash the GST and save the
CBC and then he saved the GST and trashed the CBC''. That is
Pierre Berton's comment. As we know he is a national hero and has
supported national unity. He and many other national figures are
now speaking out on this.
In the last election the Liberals said they would make jobs the
number one priority but they did not do that either. In the last
election they said they would renegotiate NAFTA and they did not
do that. In the last election the Liberals made 21 promises to
aboriginal people. So far they have kept only three and have
shelved the royal commission report on aboriginal peoples. In the
last election the Liberals said they would fund the national day care
system to create 150,000 new child care spaces for children and
they did not do that either. In the last election the Liberals said they
would protect medicare and education from Tory cutbacks but by
1997-98 they will have cut $7 billion from those programs.
There are many challenges facing the country today, including
the child poverty issue which we are all aware of and the 1.5
million people who are unemployed. What do changes to the
unemployment insurance mean to the Liberal Party? It means a
change of name to employment insurance. Who buys that? Less
than half of the unemployed now even qualify for the benefits and
social program spending has been slashed.
(1845)
Now at the 11th hour we are going to hear some new promises
from the Liberals. They are going to say: ``You know those children
who have been put into poverty? We are going to do something
about that. We will start to do something about it after you have
voted for us in the next election''. It is shameful. It is a betrayal of
Canada. Canadians will not forget these broken promises, just like
the CBC cuts that were not supposed to happen.
I know all members of the House do not all agree on what should
be done with the CBC, but at the same time it would have been
important to ensure that everyone here could have debated this
issue. We should have had a debate about something as
fundamental as our 60 year old national broadcasting system. It is a
system which in French and in English has served Canadians well.
It serves our country well. Canadians need to have the opportunity
to express their views.
Throughout the north CBC North is one vehicle. We have very
good radio stations which operate in the Yukon, however, it is the
CBC which provides that connection with national and
international events. It makes the linkages to all parts of the
country possible. It allows us as Yukoners and as northerners to
speak with the rest of Canada and it allows the rest of Canada to
speak with us. Surely that is what this country should be about.
We have seen the destruction of many of our national symbols.
Just flying the flag does not hold the country together, as important
as it may be. We need a vehicle which will allow us to express our
identity and to express our soul.
I want to say that the emotional reaction to the potential loss of
the CBC and Radio-Canada really underscores that the government
got it wrong. There are certain values, there are certain principles,
there are certain things that we need to maintain to preserve the
Canada that we know.
Some people have argued that people should take their
complaints to Mr. Perrin Beatty, the chair of the CBC board of
directors. However, I would point out that the CBC board of
directors does not have anyone on it from the north speaking for
northern communities. That is why this issue needs to be revisited
in the House of Commons. Every other region of the country has
someone in that boardroom who can say, ``No, we should do this.
Yes, we should do this. Here is an alternative. Here is our regional
concern'', but there is no one from the north.
The cuts to the CBC, as I mentioned earlier, are more than just
figures in a book. We all realize that there are stringent necessities
in terms of budget. However, we also realize, and it has been
brought home to us very well, that it is important that we not only
have symbols of our country but that we have a way to talk with
each other. CBC Radio-Canada has provided that. In the north it is
a vital link for us in many areas.
I would like to close with the words of the New Democratic
Party leader, Alexa McDonough, who does not yet have the
opportunity to speak in the House of Commons, but in the new
Parliament we will be happy to see her here. We know she is a
representative who will keep her word, who will speak for the
people of Atlantic Canada and for all Canadians. In November, Ms.
McDonough said that the CBC is one of the most important
institutions in this country and that it is capable of holding Canada
together. I believe that from the bottom of my heart.
7698
A national and international public broadcasting system is
important to this country. To the north and to rural areas it is the
vital link that makes us the country that we are.
(1850 )
I would like to end by asking for unanimous consent to refer this
motion to the heritage committee for further study.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. The House has
heard the proposal of the member for Yukon, asking for the consent
of the House to refer the motion to the heritage committee for
further study. Is there unanimous consent?
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is no unanimous
consent.
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I see that
members of the Liberal Party do not want to put this to the heritage
committee. I would then ask for unanimous consent to make this
motion votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent that the motion be made votable?
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is no consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member
for Yukon. The purpose of this motion is to exempt the CBC
Northern Service from the CBC cuts.
These cuts became necessary when the government decided to
reduce the CBC's overall parliamentary vote by $127 million in
1996-97.
Members will recall that these cuts came on top of the $227
million in reductions imposed on the CBC by the Liberal
government since it took office. These reductions of $350 million
in the CBC budget, imposed by the Liberal government, will mean
the loss of 4,000 jobs, jobs that will disappear because of these
huge cuts.
The official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, has always been
very strongly opposed to large cuts in the CBC's funding. Since our
arrival in Ottawa, we have reminded the government time and
again of the promises it made in its own red book regarding vitality
and funding. They promised not only to recognize our major
institutions, such as the CBC, the National Film Board and
Telefilm Canada, but to ensure their funding. The Bloc Quebecois
has always urged the government to keep its promises.
As for the proposal made by the member for Yukon, the principle
is a fundamental one. If it were to be voted on, I would expand on it
and say that the whole network should be exempted from the cuts,
not just the CBC Northern Service. Let us not forget that $350
million in cuts and 4,000 in lost jobs are at stake.
We are in agreement with the principle of the motion put forward
by the member for Yukon, but the government must realize that it is
hurting not just communities in the Yukon, but francophone
communities throughout Canada.
Remember that, in northern Canada, the CBC and its 145
employees provide 220 hours of television and radio programming
in eight native languages to an audience of 100,000. Under the
latest cuts imposed on the CBC Northern Service, the present
television budget of $14 million will be reduced by 30 to 40 per
cent and radio service will be reduced by 30 per cent.
With respect to French services, remember that this government
has made cuts of $70 million, including $20 million to radio. The
cuts imposed on CBC radio are tragic for Canada's francophone
communities, since what they are experiencing is not a reduction in
service, but the outright closing of their stations, and in other cases
considerably reduced services.
(1855)
I would like to refer to the press release sent by the Fédération
des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada when the
cuts at CBC Radio were announced. The federation said that the
federal government and the CBC were abandoning Francophone
and Acadian communities. That is how they reacted.
In responding to the cuts announced by Perrin Beatty and
Ghyslaine Saucier, chairperson of the CBC's board of directors, the
federation said in its press release that this decision was tantamount
to destroying a tool that was central to the development of our
communities. Ms. Copps should have invested the money in the
CBC instead of a flag campaign.
For many Francophone and Acadian communities, CBC regional
programming is the only medium that reflects their community and
culture in their own language. With these budget cuts, the federal
government is sending a devastating message. In spite of its
high-sounding commitments, it is abandoning the development of a
thriving Francophone and Acadian community in this country.
When will Mr. Chrétien and Ms. Copps understand the
importance-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. The hon. member
knows perfectly well he must not mention members of this House
by name. He must refer to them by the name of their riding, even
when is quoting what they said. He should use only the name of
their riding or their title. I hope the hon. member, who is well
acquainted with the Standing Orders, will take this into account in
his comments.
7699
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I have here a
quote I would like to read to you. As you know, when a text is
quoted, it should be quoted word for word.
So the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister were
asked when they would understand the importance of their
commitment to serve the community. The Liberal government
should intervene and reverse the decisions and dangerous
guidelines imposed by the CBC.
This government has itself admitted that it did not meet the
commitments made in its red book. In fact, there are some quotes I
would like to make to show how far this government has drifted
away from its commitments in a number of areas, which is a
complete reversal from the emotional message they sent in their
red book.
I would like to quote to you what they said initially about the
Conservatives' approach to cultural matters: ``Culture is the very
essence of national identity, the bedrock of national sovereignty
and national pride. At a time when globalization and the
information and communications revolution are erasing national
borders, Canada needs more than ever to commit itself to cultural
development''.
Referring to the Conservatives, it said: ``Funding cuts to the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canada Council, the
National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, and other institutions
illustrate the Tories' failure to appreciate the importance of cultural
development. The recent attempt to consolidate the Canada
Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
is but one more example of this disregard for the promotion of
artistic endeavours''.
In the same breath, they said: ``A Liberal government will be
committed to stable multiyear financing for national cultural
institutions such as the Canada Council and the CBC. This will
allow national cultural institutions to plan effectively''.
(1900)
What did they do as soon as they got into power? Since 1993,
three years ago now, they imposed a total of $350 million in cuts on
the CBC. They also imposed cuts on the National Film Board and
abolished 4,000 Radio-Canada/CBC radio and television positions.
Here is what they did based on a statement they call their
own-let us recall it to mind now: ``Culture is the very essence of
national identity, the bedrock of national sovereignty and national
pride''. We know that, we share that opinion in Quebec. That is
what we say, our Quebec culture is the very essence of the pride in
our country.
They said, and I repeat it here: ``Funding cuts to the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation, the Canada Council, the National Film
Board, Telefilm Canada, and other institutions illustrate the Tories'
failure to appreciate the importance of cultural and industrial
development''. ``When we are in power'' they say ``we will
provide these institutions with stable financing''. What a disgrace.
Not only do they make promises, but they win people's votes for
this party on the strength of statements and convictions about
culture and then, as soon as they get into power, they do the total
opposite and bludgeon culture.
In conclusion, we must say that this government has no vision of
culture-the opposite is true. The major cultural institutions still
have a sword hanging over their heads, for they do not know what
the next budget will bring. Will new cuts be imposed?
Let us keep in mind that this government has said that the CBC
was not doing its job of promoting national unity. The Minister of
Defence has even suggested doing away with it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member, but his time is up.
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is of absolutely no
surprise to the members opposite that CBC is a rather unique
institution. It is an arm's length institution. It has institutional
bodies that guide it, that set its priorities.
I am really pleased that there is a debate on CBC North. It is the
public broadcaster for Canada's north. CBC North has the mandate
to serve all Canadians living in the north regardless of language,
culture or locality. It was created in 1958. CBC North brings public
broadcasting services to remote and isolated communities which
are not economically viable for commercial broadcasters.
Indeed we do have a very unique relationship with CBC. In fact
it would be safe for me to say that northerners have a visceral
attachment to that public broadcaster. It has made their reality more
real to the rest of the world, to the rest of Canada for sure. It has
brought in a sense to some of the remotest regions the world news,
world events and those in the rest of Canada. It has been a unifying
force in this country politically, culturally, economically. I would
say that northerners have a unique relationship and a very deep
attachment to that public broadcaster.
I do not believe for one moment that I have remained silent or
mum on this issue. I may not be broadcasting my views as such for
political purposes because I feel that there has been real pain.
Really difficulty decisions have been made. Those are difficult
things. I think in a sense to go out there and parade around
politically on this issue would not be wise.
I am trying to be very careful in picking my words because I do
not want to offend my colleagues. I know that they have an equal
7700
attachment and respect for the people who work in the north in that
public broadcasting institution.
(1905 )
CBC's northern service is part of the corporation's public
mandate as reflected in the Broadcasting Act to reflect Canada and
its regions to national and regional audiences and to contribute to
shared national consciousness and identity. All that to say CBC
North currently produces 220 hours of radio programming per
week in 10 different languages. It serves a total audience of over
100,000 Canadians from across the north in radio production
centres in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, Inuvik, Whitehorse, Yellowknife
and Montreal.
CBC North gathers and exchanges the news of daily life in
northern Canada. Regional, national and international news is
presented every day. It is drawn from CBC's extensive news
gathering sources.
Radio truly is a lifeline service for northern Canadians. Mr.
Speaker, if you have ever had a Delta experience in the north, for
example in my riding where I come from, you will know about
sitting in a fish camp and being able to get very important messages
about the changing weather, about transportation, about medical
services or about any such necessities that are there for the people
who live on the land. You will know that CBC is a very real and big
part of northern people's lives.
Having said that, on television CBC North produces four weekly
current affairs programs in seven languages. Television production
centres in Yellowknife, Iqaluit and Montreal present multilingual
coverage of major events.
The CBC recently announced decisions to address budget
reduction measures. We must get our fiscal house in order, and that
means reductions in government expenditures. No federal
department or agency has been immune. Everyone has had to
tighten their belts. Ministries have cut, departments have cut,
crown agencies have also had to cut. The CBC recognizes that it
must do its part in this exercise.
In reference to the comments of my colleague from Yukon, this
does not make it easy for me to say that it has been easy, that it has
been draconian or Machiavellian, that it was easy to do. It was not
easy to do. I am not here as a government apologist. I am here to
say that there are circumstances beyond the individual, beyond this
government.
Yes, we could make our forays to the Minister of Finance, to the
minister of heritage, to any minister in this government, but we
must remember that the CBC is an independent agency. Its board of
directors and senior management are responsible for making
decisions on how best to manage its operations within its resource
allocation.
On the resource allocation, yes the government has cut programs
all across the board. Agencies and departments have cut. That is
true. Yes, we wear that. Yes, we assume the responsibility. But the
CBC is an independent agency that sets its own priorities.
Government also sets fiscal targets and it is the CBC's
responsibility to determine how best to meet those goals. The CBC
is guaranteed journalistic, creative and programming independence
under the Broadcasting Act, and Parliament must respect and
uphold that relationship. The CBC will decide the appropriate
budget for the northern service in the context of its public mandate,
overall operations and resource allocation.
The hon. member opposite would be the first to complain if we
were to interfere with the journalistic integrity of the CBC. The
member would be the very first, I am sure. I would understand that.
To be quite honest, the CBC would not tolerate having the
government's fingerprints all over its priorities and planning. It
would not appreciate that. It would not accept that and the member
opposite knows that it would protest vehemently. I would also
understand that.
The president of the CBC announced decisions in September
with the details of implementation and what it means in terms of
layoffs still to be determined in some places. No CBC service is
exempt. There will be reductions in both staff and programming in
English and French radio and English and French television.
However, CBC is not abandoning its public mandate to serve
Canadians. In fact, it is returning to its roots as being as Canadian
as possible and offering a truly public broadcasting service. It will
continue to tell the story to Canada and to present a world seen
through Canadian eyes.
(1910)
New avenues have also opened up. Let me say that I am
saddened and unabashed about the sadness and the feeling that I
have. I do not perhaps share the priorities that put CBC North in its
present position. I would have liked it to be different. I feel there
has been a disproportionate cut.
I know the north and I understand the remoteness and the people
who work there. The north is a small place. Both my colleague and
I know intimately people who work there. So it is not a matter of
not caring, it is the reality of the fact that the CBC is an
independent agency. It has to set its own priorities.
Yes, we as government officials are responsible for the overall
fiscal restraint we operate under and the goals that we set as a
government. However, we do not interfere at the departmental or
agency level or with the crown corporations that set their own
specific priorities.
I feel the north is a priority. I believe it provides a unique
service. I would like to continue to work with the people who have
the authority, but that would be protested. It would be interfering. I
am not allowed to do that.
7701
We have heard the issues raised in the House when ministers
of the cabinet have interfered with quasi-judiciary bodies. It is not
tolerated. In that sense my hands are tied.
I can only tell northerners how important we feel the work that
the broadcasting corporation has offered to us over the years. We
cannot thank it enough for that work. We must recognize that the
CBC has made a valuable contribution to the north and for the unity
of the country and for Arctic sovereignty. Over a whole range of
issues it has been a unifying force, a cultural promoter. It is a
wonderful institution that should be supported.
I support the CBC but there are realities which are beyond my
capacity. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the member on her
initiative, because I think we both believe in the value and
importance of CBC northern services and we are both concerned
that Canadians in remote and isolated communities in the north
continue to receive the CBC television and radio services that link
them to each other and to their neighbours to the south.
CBC North has a mandate to serve all Canadians living in the
north, regardless of their language, their culture and their location.
The northern cultural landscape is one of great wealth. The national
and regional programs of CBC North bring the various peoples of
northern Canada together.
The CBC northern service shares the Corporation's public
mandate, which is to reflect Canada and its regions to national and
regional audiences. CBC North's mission statement, drafted by its
employees, provides for serving the peoples of the north by helping
them understand each other and by enabling them to communicate
with each other and the rest of the country.
At the moment, CBC North produces 220 hours of radio
programming a week in English, French and 8 native languages.
This programming is a combination of local programs and the
national programs of CBC radio. CBC North's radio service had an
operating budget of $9.7 million in 1995-96.
(1915)
[English]
The CBC delivers its northern television service with two and a
half hours of northern produced programming that is combined
with CBC's national service programming. It produces four and a
half hour programs over 26 weeks in Cree, Inuktitut, three Dene
languages and English. It reaches 96 communities in the north with
over 100 hours of television programming per week. That is, by
any measure, a very impressive operation.
The budget for CBC's northern television service was $3.3
million in 1995-96. We have heard many members speak today
with regard to CBC North. We have to recognize the reality of this.
We must get our fiscal house in order and that means reductions in
government expenditures throughout. The budget that was
announced in February 1996 gave the CBC the time necessary to
plan responsibly and make the appropriate decisions to manage its
operations, including CBC North, in light of the new fiscal targets.
The CBC is an independent crown agency and Parliament must
respect that relationship. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for
the government to intervene in CBC's internal decision making
process concerning budget allocations, including the budget for
CBC North. These are tough decisions but the government has
every confidence that CBC's board of directors and senior
management will manage its resources efficiently and will treat its
people and the regions fairly.
We do not yet know all the details of the announced measures to
meet the budget reductions and what it means specifically for CBC
North. However, I would like to assure the hon. member that CBC's
obligations under the Broadcasting Act ``to reflect Canada and its
regions to national and regional audiences'' will be fulfilled. As
part of the service of our national public broadcaster, CBC North
ensures that the interests of Canadians living in the farthest regions
of Canada are served. This is CBC's mandate and it will not
change.
Fundamental and unprecedented changes face the people of the
north. In 1999, two new territories will be created through the
division of the Northwest Territories. Land claim settlements are
creating aboriginal governments equal in scale and resources to
public governments. Economic development is poised to unfold in
many areas of the north which will expand communities and build
new ones. Meeting this change is a small population with a history
of survival under harsh conditions.
Now, more than ever, northern Canadians need to be joined
together through their public broadcasting system to share their
stories and to see and to hear themselves and other Canadians.
Cable and in the near future direct to home satellite and other
wireless services are breaking down the north's media isolation but
these new communication bridges to the north are delivering
signals from the south, many of which are American.
On the other hand, the small population base in most centres
make it difficult for Canadian private television services to operate
economically. There are only two private radio stations serving
northern centres.
7702
[Translation]
There are great opportunities for broadcasting in the North, and
CBC North is well placed to take advantage of them, but the CBC
needs to use new technologies if it is to really take advantage of
those opportunities.
Digital conversion in the North is inevitable, given the
anticipated conversion of the radio and television broadcasting
industry as a whole. Digitization involves a rather high initial cost
for broadcasters, but it offers them the unique opportunity to
consolidate their operations and to realize greater economies of
scale. Conversion to digital will also make it possible to provide
superior signal quality.
[English]
The broadcasting distribution infrastructure is undergoing
fundamental change throughout North America and, indeed,
throughout the world. Once we have gone digital, there will be
opportunities for all broadcasters in the north, public and private, to
share infrastructure costs and achieve greater efficiencies in
distribution.
(1920 )
Digitization provides a common technical platform that will
encourage a network of networks between CBC North, TVNC,
private radio and television broadcasters in the north. Growing
from the humblest of beginnings as radio stations transferred from
the military, CBC North has built a pan-northern service across
four million square kilometres of Canada. In the future CBC North
would be a vital link in Canada's northern information highway.
As mentioned earlier by the hon. secretary of state, partnerships
will be increasingly important in this complex world where we
must do more with less. In particular, partnerships will be critical
for building the bridges that will construct our information
highway for the millennium and beyond. As a service of our
national public broadcaster, CBC North will be an important
partner in helping to build the north's information highway.
I thank the hon. member for bringing to our attention this very
important subject today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I should advise the House
that if the hon. member for Yukon speaks now she will close the
debate.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate my colleagues from the Liberal Party and the Bloc
Quebecois for addressing this issue seriously. I might not agree
with all of the responses, but I do feel that it has been an important
debate.
I am saddened that the Reform Party has not seen fit either to
participate or to be present for this debate because I think that they
too-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. I hesitate to
interrupt the hon. member, but she knows that she is not allowed to
refer to the absence of members from the House. Perhaps their lack
of participation in the debate is fair comment, but not their absence
from the House. I would draw that rule to her attention. I know she
is aware of it.
Ms. McLaughlin: Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the
comment about the House. However, participating in the debate I
think is important because it affects all parts of the country.
I listened very carefully to all members who spoke on this
matter. I listened to their arguments. I am a bit puzzled by some of
the arguments.
The hon. member for Western Arctic said that CBC North is a
lifeline that deserves support. I would agree. In terms of the many
services that are provided by the CBC it is a lifeline that deserves
support. At the same time, the member for Western Arctic said that
there are fiscal constraints. We recognize that. I believe the
member for Western Arctic said that we must get our fiscal house
in order. Again, I agree.
However, there is another debate which we also need to have,
which is: What is the house that we are getting in order? It is the
country. How do we preserve, maintain and develop the culture and
the unity of that house that we are trying to get in order?
My point, by this motion and by my comments today, is that the
debate around the CBC is not just a funding debate, it is about the
house that we are attempting to get in order. We may do so well at
getting it in order that people may not feel the same allegiance to
the house as we lose social programs, health programs and national
institutions such as our rail system and the CBC.
That is why I proposed that we have a vote on this motion and
that we refer it to committee, although my proposal was defeated.
I understand the argument made by the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the hon. member for
Western Arctic that the CBC is an independent agency in which
there should not be government interference. I do not object to that.
However, it is impossible to maintain an appropriate service and a
stable service without appropriate funding. It is the Government of
Canada which provides that funding.
I assume that my two colleagues who spoke before me are not
suggesting that providing funding constitutes interference.
(1925 )
I would like to draw their attention to the fact that during the
1993 election there was a very clear promise from the Liberal
Party, its members and its leader, that there would be adequate
support and maintenance of the CBC.
7703
I draw my colleague's attention to the definition of the word
promise from The Concise Oxford Dictionary. It states:
an assurance that one will or will not undertake a certain action
assure, confirm
That is a promise.
This Liberal Party promised to support the CBC. Support,
according to the same dictionary, means ``keep from falling,
sinking or failing; give strength to or encourage''.
I do not think all the people who are speaking out in support of
CBC can define what the Liberals had meant by supporting the
CBC because it is certainly falling, certainly sinking and certainly
failing.
That also is at the heart of this argument. There was a clear
understanding by the Canadian people that the Liberal Party, were
it to become the government, would support our national
broadcasting system.
The two members from the government side who spoke said that
they liked the CBC and realized that there are constraints, as we all
do, but they did not know what they could do as it is an independent
agency. What they could do is advocate within their caucus, within
their government and within their cabinet that there be sufficient
funding for the CBC to continue.
Why is it that so many Canadians are speaking out about what is
happening to the CBC? Are my colleagues on the government side
suggesting that people like Margaret Atwood, Karen Kain, Atom
Egoyan and Norman Jewison who have come together with other
celebrities, Pierre Berton for example, to support the CBC are
wrong, that they do not know anything and that they do not
understand the fiscal house? Are we to assume that the group called
Safe Our CBC does not understand what is happening? Are we to
understand that Friends of Canadian Broadcasting does not really
understand the situation in Canada, that the many constituents I
have heard from and I am sure the member for Western Arctic and
the Member for Nunatsiaq have heard from do not understand
Canada?
I think they understand Canada very well. I think what they and
many of us fear is that it will no longer be a vehicle to help
Canadians understand each other, to define our country to each
other, to define our culture to each other and to maintain it in a way
that it will be able to do these things.
It is fine to say that we like the CBC. We love the CBC but we
are not going to advocate for enough stable funding for it to run
appropriately.
I think what all of these groups are trying to say, what I am trying
to say today and what my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois
were saying is that not only do we have to get our fiscal house in
order, as we and all of the groups and individuals I mentioned
understand that, but we also understand that this country is
important. Some of the institutions will of course be adapting to
change but some of the institutions like our national broadcasting
system is what will help to preserve the house.
I understand the arguments that are being put forward about
inference but I think it is a hollow argument, I am sorry to say. It is
a hollow argument because no one is asking the members across
the way and the government to interfere with the CBC board. What
we are asking for is stable funding for Canada's national
broadcasting system for the preservation of a very important
Canadian institution which contributes to not only national unity
but to the development of our culture and understanding of each
other as Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
[English]
It being 7.30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.)